Letters to the Editor
Monty Johnston
Published Letters: 118 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Dear 36 year old wild child -
[Read the article: My boyfriend is nice, but I fantasize about wilder times]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Capiche, however it's spelled.
I've read several pages of these letters, so I haven't seen a majority yet. But so far I'm wondering if my pattern-seeing is just seeing patterns in my own head, or has the game not yet been named? The game needs to be named. Yes, I know - it's a pain in the ass when humanity keeps going round and round playing these same old games, but it's my experience that...I don't mean to insult or shame anyone, but we do no one any favors when for any reason we ignore the elephant in the living room, no matter how bored or pissed off it makes us.
I met my wife when I was 36 and she was 29. I've been a certified wild child risk-taker. I'm probably not a sex addict but I've sowed wild oats, and I'm an alcoholic. My wife is a certified solid citizen. She's a codependent. She picks wild men. I pick codependents. I parlayed my risk-taking into cheap beer, which paid off, a deputy or two later. My wife's drug of choice is workaholism. We're fond of mood-alteration. Given the choice between relating and a buzz, guess what we tend to choose?; though our hearts and working our self-improvement programs at times bring us together for moments of genuine contact.
With you and your guy I don't mean to suggest out-right addiction. Attachment will do, and mood-alteration, and a likely family history involving some of the above; living those patterns we live, more than living the vivid few moments of our one-and-only lives.
We do something about these things when we're ready. Some say, When we hit bottom. Willingness is central.
Good luck. Best,
Monty
(More, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")
-
Dear Joan Walsh and the Salon crowd -
[Read the article: Bashing Elizabeth Edwards]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ann Coulter's part in her row with Elizabeth Edwards reminded me of the 2/27/07 NewYorker piece on torture, particularly its quote by Alberto J. Mora, outgoing general counsel of the U.S. Navy and a Republican: "If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America - even those designated as 'unlawful enemy combatants.' If you make this exception, the whole Constitution crumbles. It's a transformative issue."
Not, of course, that Coulter's verbal cruelty should be illegal. But she misses the fundamental point of American humanity, much as ultra fundamentalist Christians miss the spirit of their savior's love. We're up against very unhappy people here, these pro-torture Republicans. They can deal with their self-hate only by hurling it our way, trying to smear us with it. And as we know, they're against the Constitution, word and spirit..
Don't hold your breath, but I think maybe America is catching on. Be civil. Keep your sense of humor. Avoid shrillness. Take no shit.
Best,
Monty
(More, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")
-
Dear Salonies -
[Read the article: We are meant to be here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Last first: Davies saying we will probably never come up with an accurate explanation of the universe reminded me of the eons - a long long long time - that we stood on a flat earth, staring at night up at a round moon and round planets, spending our days under a round sun, and we couldn't put it together that, Oh, yeah, the flatness under us is round. In 2007 we are likely to think that the discovery of a round earth was low-hanging fruit. But given that our not-dumb ancestors didn't for such a long time find it to be all that low, maybe what we're trying to figure out now is more or less right before our eyes. Maybe we're staring straight at it.
I'm neither a theist nor an atheist, but one thing right in front of our noses that Davies isn't here dwelling on, but that I think is his point, is the amazing bald fact of life. (I'm pro-choice. Letting Libby off the hook points straight at Pro-Life's pro-deathness.) Even science in it's magnificence can't create life; even given all the conditions for life on earth that Davies lists. I do not mean to suscribe to any god or any creator or to say that it's necessarily beyond particles and evolution, but when it comes to the existence of life, biological life, SOMETHING IS GOING ON. Maybe it's right in front of us, like looking at balls in the sky. But this life thing is a remarkable condition.
Davies, as a matter of fact, even sounds a little anti-life, saying that "...the universe is following a script... call[ed]...the laws of physics." A pattern, plan, mechanism, he calls it; information processing. But that misses the very point of life, that it's not mechanical. It's organic. It's alive. What's with this aliveness shit? No, really, all you Salonies: What's with this aliveness shit? The theists fail to come up with anything useful and the atheists fail as well. Some at least appreciate it as a special state that we participate in for our short while. That, I think, is the best start to understanding it we have yet. Davies agrees in saying the understanding comes from within the universe itself. I think we do no harm, and perhaps go in the right direction, in following out our livingness.
Davies dwelling on consciousness gets too many of us up in our heads and out of our aliveness (which includes our consciousness.) Following out our livingness perhaps gets the job done.
Best,
Monty
(More, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")