Mid-Life Ramblings

The Evidence of Things Not Seen

2008-04-22T14:44:00.003-06:00

You will have noticed by now that I tend to quote from Harper's Magazine a fair amount - well, at least when I am blogging - which has been some time now. However, Harper's is known as a fairly left-leaning journal. As such it is often extremely critical of stereo-typical religion and its perceived closed-minded attitude. It would appear that the editors and contributors to the magazine would suggest that to belong to any particular religion, particularly evangelical Christianity requires the individual to commit intellectual suicide. However, a recent edition of Harper's included an editorial criticizing the narrow minded view of science - in particular the branch(es) of science and 'scientists' (Dawkins for one) that would argue logic proves the non-existence of God or mystery which transcends humanity. The article also offered visions of the possibility of the openness offered by genuine spirituality (not religion). Some quotes are below:

"The (scientific) theories that we possess are magnificent...difficult, sometimes phenomenally accurate. But, they also make up a tantalizingly inconsistent scheme of things. This has made the world more mysterious than it ever was. We now know better than we did what we do not know and have not grasped. Beyond the trivial we have not other doctrines. We (Science) can say nothing of interest of the human soul. We do not know what impels us to right conduct of where the form of the good is found. On these and many other points as well, the great scientific theories have lapsed. The more sophisticated the theories, the more inadequate they are. This is a reason to cherish them. They have enlarged and not diminished our sense of the sublime."

"If science stands opposed to religion, it is not because of anything contained in either the premises or the conclusion of the great scientific theories. The do not mention a word about God. They do not treat of any faith beyond the one that they themselves demand. They compel no ritual beyond the usual rituals of academic life, and these involve nothing more than the worship of what is widely worshipped. Confident assertions by scientists that in the privacy of their chambers they have demonstrated that God does not exist have nothing to do with science, and even less to do with God's existence."

And, my favourite:

"While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love, and meaning, the religious traditions of mankind have a good deal to say, and what they do say forms a coherent body of thought. The yearnings of the human soul are not in vain. There is a system of belief adequate to the complexity of experience. There is recompense for suffering. A principle beyond selfishness is at work in the cosmos. All will be well. I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false."

Twelve Step Spirituality

2008-02-13T12:06:00.004-06:00

At the January session of the Spiritual Director's Formation Program, of which I am a part, we heard from Archbiship Sylvain Lavoie about his work with Twelve Step programs to assist struggling addicts. And, it was more than simply talking about the value of the program for those dealing with drug and alcohol issues. Fr. Sylvain spoke clearly about the value of a twelve step approach for all who are spiritually seeking. One of his many points (and I'm sure I am doing a grave injustice to his fantastic presentation) was that each of us deals with an addiction of some kind or another. Basically, his definition of addiction was a pattern of behaviour which attempts to address a physiological or emotional need in ways which are unhealthy.

Of the twelve steps, many who begin find the first three (relatively) easy - at least compared to the following 9. The first three steps, in very simplified presentation are basically: 1) I can do nothing about my problem, 2) God can, 3) I will let him. The next 8 steps, which become quite difficult for many, all revolve, in some way, around the issue of forgiveness (says Lavoie). The steps involve recognizing deficiencies in self, understanding them, accepting them. They involve recognizing hurts from others, speaking these hurts out loud and letting them go. They involve recognizing actions with have hurt others and deliberately seeking forgiveness for them. As such, Lavoie sees this approach as being inherently Christian and spiritual in its most basic form. His suggestion is that spirtual life lived in this stance is a very rich and fulfilling life - regardless if one is an alcoholic or not.

However, he spoke quite clearly about the addictive tendencies of all humans - that we all find some way to cover up that which is deficient in our own lives in ways that exacerbate the problem and don't heal it. At this point, he made a quite provocative statement. He claimed that in the modern world, one of the most significant expressions of addiction is that of "being right". Hopefully without putting words in his mouth, I believe he was suggesting that many of us approach situations in life from a perspective that, if we can prove we are right at all times, we will be sufficient, not lacking, whole persons. To be wrong calls up pain that we can not face - so we spend significant amounts of energy in proving our "rightness" whenever we can.

I'm intrigued by his statement and wonder a couple of things. First, might this relate to Jesus' clear statements that righteousness (rightness) is to be found only in a faithful relationship to the only one who can be entirely right in the first place (i.e. God)? Second, might this be one of the reasons behind why we are such poor listeners? It seems that, while listening we tend to occupy our minds by thoughts of "How will I respond to what I am hearing?" - as opposed to simply listening for the sake of understanding. How much of our world conflict could be solved by addressing this need in a new way? How much of our church conflict? How much of our own inner turmoil? It seems to me that Fr. Lavoie offers an approach allowing for peaceful existence with those around us - as well as with our own selves.

Calling All Teachers (and Learners)

2008-02-10T13:09:00.000-06:00

A thought provoking video by an anthropology class in Kansas. I have nothing to add - but will let these students speak for themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o

Environmentalism, Science and Spirituality

2008-02-03T13:07:00.000-06:00

In a recent issue of Harper's Journal, there was a fascinating editorial called "The Idols of Environmentalism". The author's (Curtis White) main point is that the reliance of those who care for this world on science to solve our problems is misguided at best and stupid at worst. We have foolishly believed that the way out of our current environmental crisis is through scientific methods. He rests his argument that science (which in the West is inherently tied to Capitalism) has a completely different value set than is positive for any forward direction in care of the earth. He calls us forward to a worldview centered on spiritual values (not religious values mind you). Some quotes:

"In accepting science as our primary weapon against environmental destruction, we have also had to accept science's contempt for religion and the spiritual. This is the unfortunate legacy of science...but this attitude is myopic; it is science at its most stupid."

"Environmentalism should stop depending on its alliance with science for its sense of itself. It should look to create a common language of care (a reverence for and a commitment to the astonshing fact of Being) through which it could begin to create alternative principles by which we might live."

"The establishment of those principles by which we might live would begin with three questions. First, what does it mean to be a human being? Second, what is my relation to other human beings? And third, what is my relation to Being as such, the ongoing miracle that there is something rather than nothing? If the answer to these questions is that the purpose of being human is "the pursuit of happiness" (understood as success, which is understood as the accumulation of money), and if our relation to others is a relation to mere things (with nothing to offer but their labor), and if our relation to the world is only to "resources" (which we should exploit for profit), then we should be very comfortable with the world we have. It if goes to perdition, at least we can say that we acted in good faith. But if, on the other hand, we answer that there should be a greater sense of self-worth in being a human, more justice in our relation to others, and more reverence for Being, then we must either live in bad faith with capitalism or begin describing a future whose fundamental values and whose daily activities are radically different from what we currently endure. The risk I propse is simply a return to our nobility."

"We should refuse to be mere functions of a system that we cannot in good conscience defend. And we should insist on a recognition of the mystery, the miracle, and the dignity of things, from frogs to forests, simply because they are."

"There is a problem more fundamental than a perverse power standing opposed to us. That deeper problem is our own integration into an order of work that makes us inhuman and thus tolerant of what is nothing less than demonic, the destruction of our world. A return to the valuable human things of the beautiful and the useful will only be accomplished, if it is ever to be accomplished, by the humans among us."

Some very deep, refreshing, and sometimes disturbing points that come awfully close to home. I am certainly challenged to think of my own responsibility in building humanity rather than power. It also strikes me that these questions posed may be valuable not only for the work world, the democratic world, the capitalist world, but also for the church to wrestle with. Are we a people who first and foremost treat the world with the reverence of Being? In what programs, methods and structures do we use the world and those around us for pursuit of power or personal "gain".

Worst Beat I Have Seen to Date

2007-10-18T22:11:00.000-06:00

One night after the previous post I was at the table while I watched one of the worst beats I have ever seen. Fortunately, I was NOT in the hand. It went something like this:

($1/$2 no-limit table. Three big stacks ($500 or more) at the table and I'm fortunate to be one of them)

Pre-Flop: Kyle (who is under the gun), raises to $6. Everyone folds to the SB who calls for $5 more. BB folds. Heads up to the flop (which was VERY rare at this table - it was loose all night). The two guys are nearly even in chips - only about $10 difference. With the rake the pot is $11.

Flop: QdJs9h. A flop which hit both players and scared them both at the same time (as we will find out later) SB bets out for $10. Kyle raises to $40. SB calls. Pot is now $87.

Turn: Qh. Now, this is a scare card for both players - and, at the same time - hit both players (again, as we will find out later). SB bets $20. Kyle raises to $60. SB tanks for about 2 minutes. He then pushes all in for about a total of $575. Kyle now tanks. And, while thinking starts talking to me (we had been chatting all night). He says, "He can't have K 10. He wouldn't have bet the flop that way. He can't have a boat, he wouldn't have bet the turn that way - nor re-raised me all in." So, I'm thinking Kyle must have a Q. Perhaps a big Queen. Maybe AQ. But, with AQ, it's really, really hard to call that all-in bet. SB could have K 10 or even worse he could have something like Q9 (which would be the case Q so unlikely), or JJ, or 99. So, the all-in move was a really, really good raise. What happened next was even better. Kyle figured that raise wouldn't happen with the straight nor the boat, so, he called! Sure enough, Kyle flips over AsQs. And, SB turns over Q6c. What a phenomenal call. The pot is now about $1200. The all in may have been a great raise, but that call was amazing.

River: Yes, since you know the title of this post, you can probably guess what card hit the river. After Kyle's great call, the river came 6s - and SB filled up, sucked out, and took down the pot for $1200. Kyle, needless to say, took a short break away from the table to cool off before coming back to buy in again.

Best Night Yet

2007-10-16T23:41:00.000-06:00

Two hours at the Regina Casino tonight ($1/$2 no-limit), saw maybe a total of 10 flops in those two hours - walked away with huge profits - thanks to some good cards and some very fishy calls by opponents. Three hands:

1. Mid position; pocket 9's. Three callers before me, I raise it to $8. One caller after me and BB (who had just sat down with a $200 stack, so this was his first hand) raises to $18. Two of the previous limpers call. I watched the BB when he raised and had a very funny feeling he was on KK or AA. But, with me being already at half price and three people already in (and one more to act behind me), I thought I needed to call at that point and hope to hit my set. Guy behind me calls - 5 in for $18 Sure enough, flop comes 942 - two clubs. I'm a bit worried about the clubs and want to push the flush draws away. First two players check, and I bet $75 - almost the size of the pot. Guy behind me folds. BB tanks (he's trying to think if I've got AA; I'm sure he doesn't see my set)...and was ready to fold his hand but then came over the top for the remainder of his stack - all-in. The other two callers fold - and I instantly call (duh!). Sure enough, he flips over KK and as he did he said, "Nice rockets" - when I flipped over my set. Pot of around $460.

2. Same guy in the BB from the hand before bought in for another $200. He's talking it up big now, saying how it was a bad beat on the previous hand where I got him. This is now about 20 hands later - and he's chirping. I'm in the SB now, he's mid position. I hold KQ offsuit He raises to $6, three other callers before me, BB calls after. Flop of K7K rainbow. I check, guy behind me bets $21, chirping guy calls, three others fold, and I raise to $50. BB folds quickly and chirping dude tanks again. I figured him to be on tilt so thought the check-raise would tick him off enough that he'd come over the top. Sure enough, he blurts out, "Quit bullying me! My 7 is good! I'm all-in!" So, again, instant call - and take down another $450 pot.

3. I'm in the SB, Q6 diamonds. The entire table calls so of course I call for $1. Flop - Kd, 8d, 9c. I check. Chirpy dude bets out $5. Now, remember, the pot is already at $18. His bet makes it $23 and there are 4 more callers. I am so priced into this flush draw that I can't fold even if I wanted to. Turn is 4 spades. I check. Chirpy bet's $7 and I'm thrilled. I'm am totally priced in - especially when all 4 other guys call too. River - you guessed it - 2d. Board is Kd 8d 9c 4s 2d I flushed. So, I check. Chirpy bets $75, two guys call and I decide that since I'm not holding the absolute nuts to just flat call. Chirpy turns over A8 - with no diamond. The other callers didn't flush either. Another $375 pot my way.

I decided that enough was enough, stacked my chips and walked away. One always should play the other players and not one's cards, but boy, does it ever help to get the cards too.

2007-10-02T12:58:00.000-06:00

I had the privilege yesterday of attending some afternoon meetings where a preeminent educator from Bath, England (who shall remain nameless) was presenting. I had the even better fortune of sitting down for a pint of Guinness with him after the events and we talked about life, education, and spiritual matters. A fascinating discussion.

At one point in the discussion, he mentioned that he went to school with one, now famous, Richard Dawkins. So, I asked, "And what is your perspective on his work?" And, without skipping a beat, he quickly snapped back, "Ah, yes, the 'Dawkins Delusion'." The discussion turned at that point, but not before he mentioned that Dawkins has always been quite proficient at running himself into deep traps from which there is no escape - and quickly called him one of the most fundamentalist thinkers he's met in quite some time (while judging everyone else's fundamentalism).

Thot you'd appreciate that insight, Gil - not that it is surprising or different from anything you've posted or commented on before.

Best Read of the Summer

2007-09-28T13:31:00.000-06:00

Yes, I'm aware it is no longer officially summer, but it was warm enough this afternoon to sit on my deck and read - so I'm still counting it that way. In that light, let me share with you a quote from the best read I've had in a while - from "A Brief History of Everything" by Ken Wilber. I'd encourage anyone to pick up this book. A fascinating philosophical approach to a unified theory of the Kosmos (spelling correct). Anyway, here is a very provocative quote from p38:

(Speaking of the fact that self transcendence and creativity is woven into the very fabric of the universe), Religious creationists have seized upon the increasingly obvious truth that the traditional scientific explanation does not work very well. Creativity, not chance builds a Kosmos. But it does not follow that you can then equate creativity with your favorite and particular God. It does not follow that into this void you can postulate a God with all the specific characteristics that make you happy - God is a the God of only the Jews, or only the Hindus, or only the indigenous peoples, and God is watching over me, and is kind, and just, and merciful, and so on. We have to be very careful about these types of limited and anthropomorphic characteristics, which is one of the reasons I prefer "Emptiness" as a term for Spirit, because it means unbounded or unqualifiable.

But the fundamentalists, the "creationists", seize upon these vacancies in the scientific hotel to pack the conference with their delegates. The see the opening - creativity is an absolute - and they equate that absolute with their mythic god, and they stuff this god with all the characteristics that promote their own egoic inclinations, starting with the fact that if you don't believe in this particular god, you fry in hell forever, which is not exactly a generous view of Spirit. So it is a good idea to start simply, I think, and be very careful. There is a spiritual opening in the Kosmos. Let us be careful how we fill it.

A tale of two hands

2007-09-28T13:06:00.000-06:00

Yes, Paul, I am alive - yet my lack of posting in recent months may have led to suspicions otherwise. In order to prove that it really is me posting and not some alien who has invaded my body, let me relate the following tale:

Last night, after a couple weeks of really tough losses at the tables (and a waning confidence in my ability to even understand Texas Hold'Em), I gathered my courage and headed for Dakota Dunes Casino. I sat at the 5/10 limit table - and decided to play just simple, solid style - no fancy plays. Well, the return to the fundamentals was indeed helpful for me. That, and the table was very loose and passive, allowing me to chase cards when I needed to and get callers for value when I hit. Two hands are salient:

1. I'm in position 4, and catch QQ. I hadn't played a pot in nearly an hour so, when I raised, everyone folded, except the two blinds. Pot = $27 ($3 rake). Flop comes 952 rainbow. Check, check and I bet $5. I get two callers. Pot = $41. I'm pretty sure I'm good here. The only thing that would worry me (I believe) is an overcard. Perhaps someone was sitting on A9 suited or something silly like that. Both opponents were quite conservative last night. The fellow in the big blind (I have played him before) however, is known to make some creative plays from time to time. And, he was having a really tough night, down nearly $300 by this time. So, I'm beginning to think that he might be tilting just slightly. So, it's possible he's playing 92 offsuit and blowing some steam. The turn card? J - and now all four suits show on the board - no flush possible - and straights are unlikely. I think I'm still good. Check, Check and I bet $10. Small blind folds and the tilting big blind raises! Now I'm a tad worried. I tank for a while and think. Was he playing J9? Not a bad hand to play from the BB for one bet. I call. Pot = $81. River comes 3. BB leads out with a $10 bet. I tank again. It's either two pair - or else he's bluffing and his strategy from the start of the hand was, no matter what comes, represent two pair on the turn. I raise $10. BB re-raises me! I'm nervous, but I trust my read - and simply call. Pot = $141. We open our cards and he shows 85 - a measly pair of 5's. When I flop over my QQ, I'm surprised to see his reaction of anger - he knew he was bluffing. What did he think I was betting, calling and raising with? I hadn't played a hand in an hour! Oh well, a nice profit on that hand - shows the value of patience in a cash game.

2. I have A9 suited in mid position. About half the table, myself included, call. Flop comes JJ6 rainbow. Everyone checks around. I'm pretty sure that no one has a J. Any 9 or A and I'm good. In fact, I may already be leading. The turn comes 9. Now I'm feeling pretty good. SB bets $10, BB calls, I call, everyone else folds. The river comes 6 and, as I watch the BB see that 6 fall, I get this funny intuitive sense that something bad is about to happen. I still can't tell you what I saw or sensed, just that something was wrong. I was prepared to bet, raise and re-raise that pot, until I noticed his reaction. SB checks, BB bets $10 and I consider my options for a while. A board of JJ696. No one has a J and I am 99.9% sure of that. I have the 9 with top kicker. There is no flush available. No straight. Why did BB bet the turn? Only makes sense if either a) he also has a 9, like Q9 or K9 or 89 or b) he has a 6 and seeing everyone else's weakness on the flop thot maybe his 6 was good. Well, if he has the 6, he's really good now. And, it was an un-raised BB pre-flop. I fold. SB folds. And, BB decides to open his hand and shows off 96. A hand that only cost me $15, instead of $45. A good confirmation about the value of folding when your read tells you to.

I hope these tales quell the rumours of my abduction and disappearance.

Pardon Me?

2007-06-04T19:46:00.000-06:00

Heard on the radio regarding Roger Clemens' pending return to the Yankees rotation: "Clemens was scheduled to start the game tonight but due to scar tissue in his right groin he scratched himself."

Freedom and Discipline

2007-05-05T09:30:00.000-06:00

Having emerged from perhaps the most stressful 2 month period I can ever remember, I have been challenged anew regarding the value of discipline. Those who know me well, realize that I have been moving more towards the value of freedom in my life - not being tied down by feelings of guilt, fear, or expectations of others. This has been a very good direction for me in life - yet I am finding a down side to it - namely, when I have time and space to allow my mind and heart the freedom to reflect and meditate, I feel centered and at peace. However, when life becomes stressful, when there are demands on my time and mental/emotional space, my mind is not free to wander in those areas which bring freedom and a sense of grounding in god.

I was telling a very good friend of mine the other day that I was really looking forward to July where I would have that time, space, and freedom from demands so that I could return to focusing on my inner life. As the conversation ensued, this confidante of mine challenged me to learn what it is about July that I value so much and take steps to include those values on a moment by moment basis. And, I realized that the only way to do that is by making deliberate choices through self-discipline. Oh, how I hate that.

So, I feel like I am coming full circle. We may all remember hearing in our younger years the value of spending 30 minutes in "devotions" every day. I certainly remember trying that for some time as a magic bullet - a panacea for all of life's troubles. It didn't work - and became a life of legalism. I suspect that many churchgoers struggle with this too. So, I abandoned that approach. Now, I have come to realize what intentions lie behind that daily approach. For myself, I know that I need time regularly to focus on nothing but my breath - the spirit of life in me. I need and desire to find that small voice that whispers in the midst of a cacophony of external demands. And, the challenge remains twofold for me: 1) to actually discipline myself, and 2) to do so while retaining a life of freedom.

Final Thoughts and First Thoughts

2007-04-07T18:40:00.000-06:00

I completed reading "Iron John" by Robert Bly this morning and began a new book on male spirituality entitled "From Wild Man to Wise Man" by Richard Rohr. Here are some final quotes from the first book and an opening thot from my new read:

"The Wild Man encourages and amounts to a trust in what is below...a trust in the lower half of our bodies, our genitals, our legs and ankles, our inadequacies...the earth itself...the stubborn richness to which we descend. This attention encourages us to follow our own desires, which we know are not restricted to sexual desire, but include desires for the infinite, for the Woman at the Edge of the World, for the Firebird, for the treasure at the bottom of the sea, desires entirely superfluous. (A man's) wants are to be trusted, that even when their gratification seems furthest off, the uneasiness they occasion is still the best guide of his life, and will lead him to issues entirely beyond his present powers of reckoning. Prune down his extravagances, sober him, and you undo him." (Bly, 225)

There is something in this passage that strikes a chord so deep and low that it seems to resonate in my chest. I can hear the objections, however...objections of hedonism and anarchy that this would create. Yet there is a richness here that may address what has certainly been a downfall of Western spirituality - i.e. attempting to control one's spirituality through morality and proper behavior and by denying one's will and desires. I'll leave it at that for now...

I began the second book by Rohr very shortly after finishing Bly and it began with these gems:

"In my experience there is an almost complete correlation between the degree of emphasis one puts on obligations, moralities, ritual performance and one's lack of any real inner experience." (Rohr, 1)

"Now, believe it or not, we are threatened by such a free God because it takes away all of our ability to control or engineer the process. It leaves us powerless, and changes the language from any language of performance or achievement to that of surrender, trust and vulnerability. This is not the preferred language of men! It makes God free and us not. That is the so-called 'wildness' of God. We cannot control God by any means whatsoever, not even by our good behavior, which tends to be our first and natural instinct...To us it feels like wildness - precisely because we cannot control it, manipulate it, direct it, earn it or even lose it." (Rohr, 2, emphasis his)

"The full male journey is a risky journey where you can only trust God and not your own worthiness or rightness. It is a journey into the outer world, into the world of risk, uncertainty and almost certain failure." (Rohr, 3)

Interesting language which also resonates within me and brings out feelings of being at home - this makes sense out of much of my experience. Perhaps what Bly speaks of in terms of trusting the lower half of our bodies (which are wild and lead us in many and various ways) is similar to what Rohr describes as the "wildness" of God.

This probably isn't the proper thing to say, but men have been accused of thinking with the wrong part of their body for so long that I wonder if we now bear a tremendous amount of guilt for what are incredibly natural (and I would suggest inherently spiritual) impulses and desires. Perhaps it is time to celebrate the "wildness" of God, trust the leading of the spirit, and obligatory "proper" behavior be damned.

A big night at the Casino!

2007-03-26T23:14:00.000-06:00

So, after that huge laydown of QQ blogged about two posts down, I guess it was time for my comeuppance. And, sure enough, I found it this very evening. A big Canadian Poker Tour event was held in Regina this weekend and a few pros had shown up, I guess. One of them, Mark Karam, decided to sit at our tiny little $1/$2 no limit table for a while - I'm not sure why - maybe just to amuse the rest of us fish that were there.

Well, after a couple hours at the table, I ended up with 84 in the big blind and was unraised. I checked. Flop came 4 4 10 and I'm ecstatic. Mark bets $20, I call and he looks at me really funny. I got a weird feeling that he was playing a 4 also - but was hoping he had a 1o. Turn came A - exactly what I wanted. He checked, I bet $50 and he called in a blink of an eye. Now I'm a bit worried. I began seeing visions of A4 in Mark's hand. River came 5. He checked, I thot for a long time, pushed all in (for about another $120) and Mark quickly called and flipped over 6 4. My eight was live and I stole about $200 from Mark. I have got to learn to stop shaking at the table, however, because I could hardly stack my chips after that. That was a pretty cool moment - and thot I have to blog about that big win after whining about that tough loss earlier.

The Latest Addition

2007-03-22T20:42:00.000-06:00

Congratulations to Jeffrey Peters on being the first winner on the fine poker table pictured here. After a month of waiting for the final materials to arrive, I assembled the last pieces this week and must say I am quite proud of the results. All you poker aficionados out there are most welcome to stop in whenever there is a game and enjoy the new atmosphere. Stop in here to sign up for the next tourney on April 14th!

How Would You Have Played This Hand?

2007-03-07T23:14:00.000-06:00

I sat down in Casino Regina this evening and put some money on the $1/$2 no-limit cash table. I was in seat 9. The play was really loose, money flying everywhere - and I noticed that a player in seat 3 would play any Ace from any position. He was young and obviously very new to live poker - he was doing the Phil Laak thing - hoodie and sunglasses. He constantly put money in out of turn and was playing like he believed that any A was destined to win. The table was so loose, that I just hung onto my chips and didn't try to make any plays at all, knowing that if I just hit one hand - I'd make a huge profit.

About an hour into the game, I caught QQ in my pocket. I'm on the button. Several players limp, telling me there is nothing of real strength there. So, of course, I raise, hoping to scare off all those silly little hands. I made it $20 to go - 10X the big blind and about 1.5X the size of the pot (which wasn't a terribly over-sized raise at that table but big enough to tell everyone that I'm good - and drawing hands are getting a terrible price). Seats 10, 1 and 2 all fold. Seat 3 calls. I'm assuming some kind of A in his pocket - but no pairs, at least not big ones. Seat 4 folds. Seat 5 calls - a player I don't have much of a read on yet. Everyone else folds. Flop comes 10 A 2 rainbow.

Player 3 is first to act and he bets $25. He is quickly called by Seat 5. I am now assuming that my Q's are dead - especially considering 3's penchant for playing ANY ace. And seat 5 wouldn't call $25 on that scary of a flop with nothing, would he? So, it hurts, but I fold.

Turn comes K. 3 bets hard, 5 calls. I'm really glad I folded now. River comes 5 - a blank (except for the off chance that someone stayed in with 34 - but with the $20 raise, I doubt it). Again, heavy betting after the river. (That's Betting with a B, Gil) It goes to showdown. Seat 5 showed his cards first and turned over 66. Seat 3 mucked. And I'm stunned. Should I have folded that hand? How could I have possibly played it?

Eisenhans

2007-03-07T11:27:00.000-06:00

Some of you may be aware that I am involved in a spiritual director's formation program - held at Queen's House of Retreats one weekend a month for the next two years. Well, 1/2 a year has already passed. It has been a marvelous experience thus far. We are learning much about how to connect with the journeys of others as they find their way. And I am learning even more about myself and my own journey. My eyes have been opened to so many things that have up until now, remained dormant, unseen, lying in shadow.

This last month, we explored the issue of sexuality and spirituality - and it was refreshing to hear and affirm that sexual energy and spiritual energy come from the same place - from the very depths and core of our identity as humans. Part of the discussion about sexuality and spirituality was centered around the topic of gender, and how our journeys in life reflect our sexual identity (that seems obvious, eh?). Much of the discussion hit very close to home and I saw many things I had never seen before. One small area that I heard that relates to the male spiritual journey is the old fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm called "Iron John" or "Eisenhans" in the original German. An American poet by the name of Robert Bly has picked up on that fairy tale as a deep metaphor for the journey of a man through this world and has written a very intriguing and engaging book.

Bly argues that men have lost much of what makes them men in the current age. There has been a push (the author states) to make men more "new agey". As such, he claims that men have learned to become passive, numb and naive. Passive because they ask their wife or girlfriend or children to do their loving for them. He believes that men must learn to keep the thread of intimacy unbroken by learning that "Talking is not everything, but it is a part of loving, as are buying gifts, getting to 'completion' in a conversation, praising the other person..." (p62). Men have become numb because (and this may be controversial) they have been pushed to adopt the emotions of females - most specifically their mothers. Fathers have remained emotionally distant so boys have looked to their mothers for emotional protection. But, boys are men, not women and so have found themselves in a women's emotional world which, as good as it is, is foreign to men. So, many men have therefore, chosen to feel nothing.

The third criticism Bly has of the modern man is that they have become naive. Men have learned to accept the attacks of others as sick way of loving the other. Men will be proud to pick up the pain of others, particularly women's pain. To this, Bly writes, "I think each gender drops its own pain when it tries to carry the pain of the other gender. I don't mean men shouldn't listen. But hearing a woman's pain and carrying it are two different things. Women have tried for centuries to carry men's pain, and it hasn't worked well" (p64).

Bly continues by stating that, because of naivete, men have not learned to state what it is that hurts them, to set boundaries, and use their strength as men should. "The naive man often...lets things go on too long. At the start of a relationship, a few harsh words of truth would have been helpful. Instead he waits and waits, and then a major wounding happens farther down the line. His timing is off. We notice that there will often be a missing beat a second or so after he takes a blow, verbal or physical. He will go directly from the pain of receiving the blow to an empathetic grasp of the reason why it came, skipping over the anger entirely. Misusing Jesus' remark, he turns the missing cheek" (p66-7).

Bly refreshingly states that there is a gender difference - a very politically incorrect comment in the modern day. He calls for men to accept their maleness - to learn to be active, alive and aware as opposed to passive, numb and naive. There most certainly is something that is different between the genders (thank God!). Openness to discussion about this topic would be very welcome. As would a growing respect from each gender to the other. How often have we heard, when men get together, the common language of running down the female gender? I believe that it would be incredibly wonderful to hear language expressing ourselves for who we are rather than for who we are not - and all the while celebrate what makes us human, male and female, in the image of God.

The Holy Longing

2007-02-25T18:37:00.000-06:00

I have picked up a book entitiled "The Holy Longing" by Ronald Rolheiser and have been deeply intrigued by his opening chapter. It is a book dedicated to the search for spirituality.

His opening chapter is basically a look at the definition of spirituality. He takes the view that humans, by their very nature are restless and at a fundamental dis-ease in this world. There is a fire that burns in each one - a fire that drives us; an unquenchable desire. This desire, he states can show itself as an aching pain or a delicious hope. Spirituality is ultimately what we do with that desire.

Spirituality is not something on the fringes, an option for those with a particular bent. None of us has a choice. Everyone has to have a spirituality and everyone does have one, either a life giving one or a destructive one. No one has the luxury of choosing here because all of us are precisely fired into life with a certain madness that comes from the gods and we have to do something with that. What we do with that madness is our spirituality. Hence, spirituality is not about serenely picking or choosing certain spiritual activities like going to church, praying or meditating, reading spiritual books, or setting off on some explicit spiritual quest. It is far more basic than that. Long before we do anything explicitly religious at all, we have to do something about the fire that burns within us. What we do with that fire, how we channel it, is our spirituality. It is more about whether we can sleep at night than whether or not we go to church. It is about being integrated or falling apart, about being within community or being lonely, about being in harmony with Mother Earth or being alienated from her. Irrespective of whether or not we let ourselves be consciously shaped by any explicit religious idea, we act in ways that leave us either healthy or unhealthy, loving or bitter. What shapes our actions is our spirituality. (p6-7)

This is but a short taste of his offerings but it has been a very helpful piece for my own reflection. In my quest for addressing the spiritual in life, I have often been left feeling guilty for not doing the right things in the right way at the right time - or feeling the right way when I was doing them. Rolheiser offers a helpful view for me. I wonder what it would look like if, as we engage others in conversation around spirituality, we were to begin by discussing desires and passions and the fire that burns in us as opposed to our religious activity.

Either way, I look forward to the remainder of this read and I welcome your comments or reactions.

Hell Froze Over

2007-02-19T20:50:00.000-06:00

After blogging became all the rage among my friends and acquaintances, several people said, "Andrew, why don't you start a blog?" And I believe my response was, "When Hell freezes over!" Alas, for one who doesn't necessarily believe in hell, I have been caught by my own metaphor - perhaps this has become my own private hell. Sigh.

Welcome all who decide to have the patience to listen to the ramblings of a man fighting mid-life crisis and beginning a descent into old age. Your comments are invited - I desire to create a safe place for all opinions and viewpoints. Feel free to share, challenge and disagree.

I have no idea how frequently I will leave thoughts here and make no promises to update any more frequently than time and free thought permit.