Pamela was up early, and I do mean early.  She has been watching the kayak we purchased make its way to us on UPS tracker.  She watched intently as it spent its weekend in Lexington, KY.   This morning it was on the move and said it was heading toward delivery!!  Yahoo!!  She was fired up.  Her reaction to this final anticipation was to start putting the last minute items in Mr Spock.  I’m sure, if she had her way, we would be sitting in the driveway with the engine running when the truck arrives.  I’m not quite so energetic in the mornings and to deal with that antsy feeling of anticipation, I elected to roll over and try to go back to sleep. I was only partially successful.

This is the 159th day since Kentucky started locking down and our self-imposed isolation.  I had arrived about nine or ten days before, so I’ve been sequestered east of the Mississippi for a good 169 days.  Other than when we are working for the park service, we’re never anywhere 169 day!  I have a hard time getting Pamela to sit still for 16 days.  This time last year we had traveled almost 30,000 miles.  So far this year we under 10,000 miles.   Mr Spock has only had three oil changes and two tire rotations.  You can imagine how anxious we are to get back on the road where we belong.

Like the rest of 2020, we had an immediate crisis.  Since we obviously are not working in Glacier we decided to check out southwest Colorado. We’d heard so many wonderful things about it, but we had always been working.  Two or three days ago we learned that I-70, one of the main passes through the mountains, had been closed for three days because of fires.  Before we could figure out a new route we found that the perimeter of Colorado is lined with fires.  There is no way for us to get to western Colorado without dipping south into the 100+ degree areas or running the gauntlet of Sturgeous Covid infection by trying to get there from the north.  We had to change our plans.  We’re going to explore northern Minnesota. There’s a good chance that we’ll head home to Montana later, but that’s another story which could turn into a dream.  Nothing is fixed in Covid-America.

This type of anticipation is so superior to anything which we’ve experiences for 159 day.  To be back on the road at all was beginning to look like a dream. That makes the anticipation even better.  We’ve had time to see all our family and visit a few places in Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina.  We’ll be back by October for our usual fall family visits before heading back to Arizona and Mexico.  But for right now the excitement is just putting our tooth brushes back in Mr Spock, where they belong, and heading “out there … that way”  as Captain Kirk would say pointing into deep space.

     The rain was light; so light that I didn’t realize that it was even raining until I stepped outside.  The heavy canopy of oak, hickory and ash above my head let little rain through.  If I wanted to keep perfectly dry, I could just step up near a tree. I didn’t.  I stood sensing what warm gentle rain penetrated the canopy and fell on my bare bald head.  I felt small and insignificant standing in the dark among these giants, yet I felt safe.  It’s been too many years since I was a child to actually remember, but I can imagine that this is how a child feels standing with a parent among a group of adults all towering above you. There is a safety; an awe of the giant figures around you.  I could almost imagine a great oak reaching down with a great branch to hold my hand or pat my head.  I could just make out the trail ahead of me. A light cream ribbon on a black background.  The air was heavy with heat and humidity.  It had been insufferably hot and humid throughout the day with 100% humidity without raining. That’s normal for this part of the country.  For some reason I felt compelled to move forward, deeper among the trees along the narrow path that was both my escape to the bosom of the hollow and my return to the chaotic world I find so repulsive.  For a fleeting moment I could pretend that the path would lead me to freedom but I knew that it looped through the hollow and bring me back to where I started. There really was no escape.  Oh, if only there was some escape.  To walk into the wilderness and forever leave the oppressive capitalism, the religious bigotry, the racism, and all of the evils of homo sapiens behind.  As I said in an essay, “Nature will not lie to you to gain a convert, get a vote or make a buck. Nature will generously and without prejudice provide for your every need.  Nature will sooth your soul and make your heart sing.”(i)  Lost in the sounds and smells of the woods at night, I stand fast, not wanting to return to that altered reality we call civilization.  I look over my shoulder and see the light coming from the open door.  I have no choice. I must return. As I steel myself for the return nature whispers in my ear “nolite prohibere viventem prius moriatur“.  (Don’t stop living before you die.)

CONSCIOUSNESS – Search for a Definition

Russell E. Vance, III, PhD. (2017)

I do think that I put the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse when I wrote about whether consciousness creates reality. As I became more serious about my investigation, I realized that such a question is several steps advanced of those questions which have yet to be answered. One such question is ‘what is consciousness?’ Here I am not talking about a simple definition of a word which we casually apply to being aware of oneself and the phenomena around us. I am talking about the definition of a process or a condition. You see, I’m already in trouble. Perhaps I should state the question “what is consciousness? … really!”

Facing this question I have, at this writing, identified seven (7) assumptions, six (6) questions, and concluded that none of it can be tested because the tested and the tester would be the same. Further there is no physical and objective way to test anything because whatever we “observe” is a matter of how our brain interprets the sensory input. We don’t really see, hear, feel, taste or smell. Our brain interprets electro-chemical signals. The label or definition which we apply to whatever we think we see, hear, feel, taste or smell is something we have learned from some source. Well, you see the problem. I won’t belabor this problem further, at least at this point.

After reviewing a number of different definitions of consciousness I realized that I didn’t like any of them. They are all based upon an assumption(s) which I do not believe can be made. Since this paper is merely a preliminary report of progress, which is actually being written more for myself than for a reader, I’m not going to take the extensive amount of time required for a review of literature. Since I’m not writing for a faculty committee, you, my willing reader, must be my committee and judge whether skipping the review of literature at this point is acceptable.

I must share my list of assumptions to date.

Firstly, only a living organism can be conscious. Based upon current definitions of consciousness, which I have already confessed I do not like, only a living organism can be aware of itself and/or its surroundings. This obviously requires a lot more investigation. This can never be more than assumption because there is no way to test or prove that only a living organism can be conscious. In fact, I can only assume that you are alive and/or conscious because you tell me which is dependent upon my brain’s interpretation of sensory input. There is no objective test because there is no test that is not dependent upon this interpretation.

Second assumption – consciousness is real. This is a true, unsubstantiated assumption. What I am calling the “matrix theory” would challenge this assumption. Laugh if you like, but the “matrix theory” is based upon the movie “The Matrix” where people only thought they were conscious. Please forgive me if I don’t take the time, at this point, to explain further. I will clarify this soon. I think you get the basic idea and the basic challenge to our assumptions about consciousness. It seems obvious that I am thinking but how do I know that I am actually conscious? But I’m getting ahead of myself.

The third assumption is that if only a living organism can be conscious and an inanimate or dead organism cannot be conscious, then consciousness must be related to being alive. If consciousness has anything to do with awareness, a rock, for example, has very little change of being conscious. While most have little objection to this assumption, there are those who believe that objects such as rocks have, for the lack of a better term, metaphysical or magical properties which could imply or require consciousness.

My fourth assumption is that the only evidence we have that we are alive is that we think. You will quickly learn that I don’t think anyone has improved upon Descarte’s “cogito ergo sum”. By the end of this monograph I will find my way back to Descarte. I will end up agreeing that because I think therefore I am, but what am I? Again, I don’t want to get ahead of myself.

Fifth. Something somewhere must be real otherwise there would be no foundation for my thinking. Whether there is universal consciousness or, as humans currently believe, we are individually conscious, I cannot help but feel that there is something real behind it.

Assumption six might appear a bit self-centered but because you are merely the interpretation of my brain as a result of a variety of stimuli, I can only consider whether I am real and/or conscious. I cannot speak for you. While I do believe in the interdependence of all things in the universe and the basic oneness of all things, which is a totally other discussion, I cannot deny that my only evidence of your existence is the electro-chemical stimuli which my brain must interpret. This is, of course, assuming that my brain is physically real. If I can come to some concrete conclusion about my own reality and consciousness, then I can apply that to you, if you want.

You are going to laugh at assumption seven. It comes from the movie Star Trek IV. Spock is being tested by a computer that asked for Kiri-Kin-Tha’s first law of metaphysics. The answer was “nothing unreal exists.” This is my seventh assumption – nothing unreal exists. If nothing unreal exists, then all things real can, do or did exist. If we are real then we exist. As silly as this may seem, and whether or not Leonard Nimoy, who wrote Star Trek IV, meant to be truly philosophical I believe that this could be an important premise.

This brings us to six questions : (1) how do we know that what we think, experience, etc., is real? (2) Am I conscious or do I just think I’m conscious? (3) Which came first consciousness or awareness? (4) How do I know that I’m aware? (5) Are sentient beings the only ones who can be conscious? (6) can any of this be tested?

I have no delusions of this being the final list of questions, but it is where I am beginning.

The first question goes back to the Matrix Theory. How do we know that what we think, experience, etc., is real? Reality is in my mind. Some people believe that gods and devils are real. It is in their minds. There is absolutely no way they can prove their reality and there is absolutely no way I can disprove it. They can say “but look at this miracle” or “so-and-so saw him”, but that is still all in their minds, the result of electro-chemical stimuli interpreted by their brain. I can say “there is no physical or scientific evidence for a god or demons” but the same limitations apply to me. Bottom line . . . this is all a mind game. Sorry! Someone can say “but I saw …” to which I must gently and as diplomatically as possible respond “your brain interpreted the electro-chemical stimuli as …”

This, of course, leads us to the second question . . . am I conscious or do I just think I’m conscious? This seems like an absurd question if you are unwilling to consider the matrix theory. Again, we must realize that everything is in the mind. What we see, hear, etc., is totally dependent upon sensory stimulation. What about what we call a dream? The dream is the mind at work. How do we test the difference between a dream and what we call reality? There is no test because it’s all in the mind. I dare say that every person who reads this has, at some point in their life, dreamed that they were awake and it seemed real enough to believe while their bodies lay blissfully asleep.

I’m not going to spend any time here on the third question of which came first consciousness or awareness since this question is directly related to one of the definitions of consciousness. Since I haven’t been able to define consciousness it is impossible to determine whether something I can’t define came before awareness. Likewise, I’m going to skip question four – how do I know that I’m aware? – because I haven’t had time to consider the definition of awareness and my knee jerk reaction is that this can’t be tested.

Question five – are sentient beings the only ones who can be conscious? This question led me into an area which I have at times considered but didn’t expect to arise here. The basic accepted definition of sentient is “able to perceive or feel things”. Okay, let’s push this. Plants perceive their surroundings and changes in their environment as evidenced by adjustments they make. Plants can be said to feel as evidenced by their reaction to various stimuli. Therefore plants, it could be argued, are sentient. Are they therefore conscious? With the little argument I’ve provided it is hard to say they are not sentient. Botanist can make a convincing argument. I would love to follow this train of thought further but there isn’t time here and I haven’t had the opportunity to investigate. You can bet that I will.

The last question is the most important . . . can any of this be tested? Try as I might I must admit that the answer is “no”. To test requires that we be both tester and the subject. It is totally dependent upon our own interpretation of the electro-chemical signals which constitute the answers. That’s unacceptable. I can’t test my own consciousness for this reason. If my brain’s interpretation of electro-chemical stimuli is all that convinces me of your existence, how can I adequately test your consciousness?

This leaves me in a very bad position. Here I am searching for an explanation of the process of consciousness and I can’t come up with a hypothesis that suits me. And even if I could come up with a hypothesis, I’ve concluded that there is no way to test said hypothesis. Time to call in the big guns. The Nobel Laureate in physics, Richard Feynman, said of scientific enquiry “First you guess. Don’t laugh, this is the most important step.”

I’m sure that Dr. Feynman is much more qualified to guess than am I, but people have been guessing about gods and all sorts of things since the beginning of recorded time and then selling it as ‘truth’, so I figure that if I’m honest about guessing, it’s at least a start.

As I stated earlier I would find my way back to Decartes and here we are. “I think therefore I am”, to which I added ‘but what am I?’ Whether individual or part of a universal consciousness. Whether independent, according to traditional physics and Abrahamic religions, or interdependent and impermanent as per quantum physics and Buddhist philosophy, Descartes’ premise holds its own which is more than I can say for other hypotheses and definitions of consciousness.

I don’t actually view Descartes’ premise as a definition of consciousness but as a foundation or starting point for a definition. The other modern definitions all talk about awareness of self. There is a plethora of objections to and problems with this. The greatest stumbling block is that any definition of awareness must address or include consciousness. If you read these definitions you soon realize that to be aware you must be conscious, therefore how can you argue that to be conscious you must be aware? You have a circular argument. Then they add awareness of external phenomena. That runs head first into the problem of human sense and dependence upon the interpretation of electro-chemical stimuli by our brains. We could make the argument that whether or not the interpretation is accurate or verifiable it does indicate awareness which, in turn, indicates consciousness. However, it does not account for dreams and what psychology calls hallucinations. In medical school I was taught that the reason for an hallucination is a chemical breech across a hypothetical barrier between two portions of the brain. We still have no idea why that chemical imbalance causes one to see, hear, feel, taste and smell things which the external sensory organs of an observer do not see, hear, feel, taste or smell. In short, one can only assume the presence of external objects based upon the belief that our brain’s interpretation of the electro-chemical stimuli is accurate. Although we do not really understand the process of a dream or hallucination we do have evidence that they exist which challenges all of our assumptions and raises the question of reality.

While I do believe that consciousness is a process unique to living organisms I do not believe that we can have a definition of consciousness that is dependent upon self-awareness. As I have briefly demonstrated, awareness is fraught with problems and I maintain that we have no viable definition for “self”. The only reason that I believe that other homo sapiens have a sense of self is because my audio sensory receptors have sent electro-chemical stimuli to my brain which I have interpreted as telling me this. Since my belief that all homo sapiens have an awareness of self is an assumption which is not testable, one can see how impossible it is to speak of the self-awareness of other animal species who do not send signals that are collected by my auditory sensory organ and interpreted as telling me yea or nay.

Even though I do believe that other species of animals do have self-awareness I believe that I would be wise to not have self-awareness as a requirement for consciousness. Apart from all the problems already indicated I believe that, to arrive at a general definition of consciousness, we must consider plant consciousness. Even though the process must obviously be quite different, I do not see how I can consider one without the other. At some later point it would be appropriate to differentiate between animal and plant consciousness.

Many, if not most or all, scientist, philosophers, psychologists, researchers, et al., would contend that one is unconscious during sleep. They would also likely talk about the person who is rendered unconscious from a blow to the head. The state which they are calling unconsciousness is similar to sleep in that the unconscious individual does not interact with the world around them in a manner expected which is commonly called “conscious” or “awake”. In this way common English vernacular uses ‘conscious’ and ‘awake’ interchangeably. Since we cannot differentiate the process of thinking between when one is “awake/conscious” and “asleep/unconscious” I feel that I must assume that the process of thinking is the process of thinking whether awake or asleep.

We know that people dream and that dreaming appears to be some sort of thought process that can challenge our traditional definitions of consciousness and reality. Likewise, I have known multiple patients who have been “rendered unconscious” yet report dreams and thought. Some have actually reported listening to the conversation of those who thought them unable to hear because of being “unconscious.” For several decades first responders have been taught not to talk in front of an “unconscious” victim because they are known to hear and remember.

I had a situation many years ago where a patient appeared to be at death’s door. They were not “conscious” and the family was called. The family sat at the death bed for an entire day. Obviously, they talked about the dying person. Fortunately, everything they had to say was loving and complimentary because the person did not die. When they “regained consciousness” they were able to give a running account of everything that had been said about them.

Unless we can identify different types of thinking – e.g. a difference between conscious-thought and unconscious-thought – we are confronted with a significant challenge to the very idea of unconsciousness while one is alive. Since we have no real idea of the actual physiological process of thinking we have no way to make such a differentiation, which would mean that we would be wise to discontinue the use of “unconscious”. Further, from what we know about the brain as an organ, it will continue its transfer of electro-chemical signals, chemical exchange between cell transmitors and receptors, interpretation of signals, etc., until death. In short, death is the only point at which the thought process ceases.

As far as consciousness is concerned, it seems that we are forced to admit that we are only unconscious when we are dead. Otherwise we might be in an interactive state, a dream state, or a neutral state. The interactive state is that state where we are interacting with external phenomena and stimuli . . . kissing your lover, eating ice cream, looking at a beautiful landscape, listening to birds as you smell the freshness after a rain. I picked the word “neutral” to identify that state in which our brains are neither interacting with the external world nor actively dreaming. This is the state during which the brain is actively monitoring the various signals coming from sensors and organs and making decisions about how the body is to react to changes. For example, the brain might sense a drop in temperature and cause your body to curl up to conserve heat. It might sense a drop in oxygen level and cause you to take deep breaths. It might sense danger and cause you to awaken and taken protective action.

The dream state is that state in which the mind deals with internal constructs which we generally hold to be unreal. This forces me to spend at least a few moments considering reality. Even the famous philosopher, Martin Heidegger, in his equally famous work Being and Time, had to face the relationship between reality and consciousness. “In so far as Reality has the character of something independent and ‘in itself’, the question of the meaning of ‘Reality’ becomes linked with that of whether the Real can be independent ‘of consciousness’ or whether there can be a transcendence of consciousness into the ‘sphere’ of the Real.” (1) Of course, Heidegger was working at a disadvantage because he was still trying to make an ontological argument. Reality and consciousness, among many things, defy ontological definition or argument.

In their book Quantum and the Lotus, co-author Trinh Xuan Thuan noted the ancient Buddhist notion that ” ‘reality’ is never totally distinct from consciousness.” (2) His co-author, Matthieu Ricard quoted renowned physicist, David Bohm, who concluded

Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends on what we think. What we think depends on what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality. (3)

Ricard concludes that “no matter how complex our instruments may be, no matter how sophisticated and subtle our theories and calculations, it’s still our consciousness that finally interprets our observations.” (4) That does sound a lot like what I’ve been saying.

All of this leads to my definition of consciousness.

animal consciousness =df the brain function/activity that (i) interprets and reacts to electro-chemical stimuli from sensory organs, initiates response to that stimuli, (ii) initiates and manages the thought process whether in interactive or dream state, (iii) ultimately determines what, for the individual, is real; and (iv) exists, functions or is active until the animal dies.

The next step is to subject this to extreme scrutiny to see if it can pass muster.

FOOT NOTES:

(1) Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. (An electronic edition without eISBN number. Location only – 6795)

(2) Ricard, Matthieu and Trinh Xuan Thuan (2001).Quantum and the Lotus. Three Rivers Press, NYC. p. 119 eISBN: 978-0-307-56612-6 (Originally published in French as L’Infini dans la Paume de la Main)

(3) David Bohn, lecture given at UC Berkeley in 1977.

(4) Matthieu and Thuan, p. 120

Picture credit: pbs.org

      I read Edward Abbey’s book “Desert Solitaire: a season in the wilderness” quite some time before Pamela and I visited Arches National Park a few years ago. Abbey has always been one of my environmental heroes whom I have quoted frequently.  On that trip to Arches we had just spent several day camped on the Colorado River at a beautiful spot south of the Hite Crossing Bridge and about sixty miles from the nearest crossroads that passed for a “town”. We drove from there to Moab.  Moab was bustling with young people and cyclist of all ages.  We followed the highway on north through town and past what is known locally as the “new” front gate to Arches.  When Edward Abbey worked for Arches it was still a memorial and this entrance didn’t exist.  We drove on about twelve miles or so and turned into the desert.  It was a popular area, but the desert is big and we were able to find a place.  It wasn’t until the next day, when we visited the park, that we realized that we were staying on the road that Edward Abbey used to get to his trailer when he worked for Arches in 1956 and 1957.  Suddenly the road became like a monument causing me to think of Abbey every time we returned home, and, if not the first thing out of my mouth when someone mentions Arches, the fact that we stayed on “Abbey’s Road” is like a badge of honor that I will, at some point, share.  Of course, the road isn’t actually called “Abbey’s Road”.  In fact, if you look at Google Maps on my computer you will only find a yellow starred drop-pin in the middle of the desert. The road doesn’t even appear.

This memory was refreshed when Pamela was visiting her youngest son and his family recently.  Her son said that he had recently discovered Edward Abbey and evidently made the comment that “that’s Russ”.  Now isn’t that a compliment to beat all compliments!  She didn’t tell me at first, but later it came out that he also said that I have some of Abbey’s anger.  Well, if the proverbial shoe fits . . .   That didn’t upset me.  It would have sounded nicer if he had said I have Abbey’s fire, but I’ll accept ‘anger’.  I remember noticing how you can sense Abbey’s anger grow throughout his book, Desert Solitaire, until you know he wants to scream and yell and throw a tantrum. I can relate.  Looking at my own work I can see the same pattern as I force myself to reign in the anger and frustration to conclude with a positive recommendation or hopeful words.

There are ten Abbey quotes that are favorites and ones which I have used from time to time.  In 2018 I wrote an essay based upon his statement “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”   I don’t know which of his quotes is my favorite.  The Sierra Club likes “wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread.”   Two of his quotes seem to be particularly appropriate to our current social/political crisis.

“The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders,”  expresses the frustration many of us feel. A 2012 student article on the University of Utah’s news writing class blogsite, written by R. Ammon Ayres, tells of a special presentation to showcase the university’s collection of Abbey memorabilia. Part of the presentation was by Ken Sanders, known to most as an appraiser for the popular television program “Antiques Roadshow”.   Sanders made the statement “Ed Abbey still lives … Abbey is selling books better than ever now that he’s dead.”  No disrespect was meant. That is a sad reality for authors. The young news writer, Ayres, went on to say “Sanders said Abbey’s books are an important part of history, the radical words in his novels drive his ongoing growing fandom towards going green and advocating the environment to preserve the earth and its beauty.” (i)  Though these words are over eight years old, their importance remains.  The United States has regressed as far as protecting our precious treasures. The ‘man who shall not be named’  has made a forty-three month long attack on our parks, our public lands and our wilderness. He has given Cabinet positions and government jobs intended to protect our natural treasures to the very people who own corporations intent upon destroying them for profit.  This, in a time of global climate crisis, is appalling to say the least.

This reality; viz. that ‘he who shall not be named’ is purposely raping our country for personal wealth; brings up the second Abbey quote which I believe is apropos today; viz. “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”  Before we go any further we need to remember that there are two ways in which we use the word ‘government’.  One way is when we talk about the type of government a country has. The United States is a Republic with a representative democracy. That isn’t what Abbey is talking about defending against.  The second way we use ‘government’ is when we talk about the people who carry on the day-to-day activities of the United States; bureaucrats and politicians. (ii)  When speaking about the behavior or actions of bureaucrats and politicians people will say “the government did …”  This, I am certain, is that to which Abbey was referring.  Right now we do need to defend our country, our way of life, our Constitutional rights, and our environment against bureaucrats and politicians in Washington who are doing their level best to destroy it.  It is neither illegal, immoral, unethical or unpatriotic to oppose the government. Our Constitution clearly states that it is our right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances”  in other words oppose the behavior and/or decisions of our elected officials.

Abbey was an anarchist. I don’t agree with that, but what I do realize is that we both walked the same path to our conclusions about government, religion and capitalism. Most of you know that government, religion and capitalism are Social Systems I identify in many of my essays.  For me the criteria for a Social System is that it exploits and oppresses those whom it encounters, is run by an elite few who do so for their own wealth and/or benefit, and is the basis for conflict, as well as real and psychological suffering. (iii)  I’m absolutely certain that Abbey would agree with me. He just wouldn’t have put it so politely. Even in college, when he was the editor of the college newspaper, he published Voltaire’s famous quote “man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” (iv) The university seized all the copies and fired Abbey.  In regard to government, my position is that, because of the extreme over-population of the world, governments are a necessary evil.  While Abbey and I don’t come to the same conclusions, I know exactly the rage and pain which determined his position.  We also are total opposites concerning the use of force. I’m a total pacifist. Abbey was not.

I’m not sure that Edward Abbey and I would even be friends, had we met, but we do have a lot in common. If we had been friends I’m sure it would have been a very fiery relationship. What would have kept us friends is our passion for the wilderness; for the environment. I look at pictures of him in the desert and I even know some of the places.  I too love the desert, especially the area near his final home, Tucson, AZ., and Pamela and I have boondocked in the desert very near his grave where he was buried in a sleeping bag because he wanted his body to feed the plants.

Like us all, Edward Abbey came with his own personal set of flaws.  In an apologetic of his life I believe that his assets, his gift to people and to the planet, far outweigh his flaws.  I identify with his love of nature and I know his anger and rage at a society, a system, a government that would turn its back on our only hope and source of life.  And I would have to say, thank you, Will, for reading Edward Abbey and saying “that’s Russ.”

FOOTNOTES:

(i)   https://unewswriting.org/tag/edward-abbey/   R. Ammon Ayres.

(ii)  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government

(iii)  https://www.old-conservationist.com/post/what-constitutes-a-social-system

(iv)   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Abbey

Photo credits: Outside Magazine. www.outsideonline.com

 

      Those of you who know me personally and/or know me well can easily understand how I immediately connected with this meme.  Upon seeing it two things made me cry “Yes. Yes! YES!!”  Firstly, like perhaps the majority of the masses, I am so tired of the chaos of our world and the degradation perpetrated upon us by our social systems (i) that I would be the first in line to find a new dimension.  Secondly, and actually what precipitated this essay, was not seeing the door as symbolic of entry into another dimension but as symbolic of the forest, the wilderness, as being the portal to reality; a wonderful and true reality.  

     Yes, nature is not an escape from reality but, in modern times, an escape to reality.  Nature is always real.  It doesn’t run ad campaigns or urge you to consume more than you need.   The mountains don’t compete with the ocean for your favor or your vote.  Nature doesn’t woe you with its beauty or threaten you with doom so that you will worship it.  Nature is.  Reality is that we are a part of nature and a part of the oneness of the universe. As quantum physics has proven, everything in the universe is connected and potential is unlimited.  

     I really feel very sorry for those people who  never have the opportunity to experience this reality.  I know we don’t dare spread out the human population. Our over-population is already doing damage enough.  There are 7.8 trillion people as of March 2020 and only 24,642,757 square miles of habitable land.  That’s 316.52 people for every square mile of habitable land on the entire globe!  Right now, according to the US Census Bureau, New York City has almost 28,000 people per square mile. (ii) Nevertheless I do feel sorry for those confined to cities and heavily populated areas who don’t have the opportunity to experience the reality of nature even in a well designed city park.  What is as sad, if not sadder, is that there are so very many people who get the opportunity to experience the reality of nature and the wilderness and return home totally clueless.  It makes me think of a line from the 1978 movie Superman. The villain, Lex Luthor, says “some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it’s a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.” (iii)  I’ve thought about that quote frequently since 1978 and knew there would eventually be some place where I would use it. It is so true.  Because of the brainwashing and indoctrination of social systems like religion, government and capitalism, we can look at the wilderness – mountains, forests, deserts, prairies, oceans – and see either inconvenience, the lack of WIFI or wonder whether it could be mined or otherwise turned into profit.  That is pathetically sad. We look at the source of all life and that which sustains our life and either see it as a problem or wonder how to destroy it for our pleasure or financial wealth. All of what we call the secrets of the universe, which aren’t really secrets, are found in nature, from Stromatolites, the cyanobacteria that gave us the first oxygen, to the Newcomb-Benford Law of anomalous numbers that is consistent throughout the universe. Even your most super-hightech device is totally dependent upon nature. The materials from which it is constructed all come from nature.  It relies on power that originates in nature, and the natural laws of physics.  Without nature you would have no computer. 

     This must be the day for movie analogies.  Our communal behavior toward nature makes me think of the 1999 movie Matrix.  In that movie a race of self-aware machines; artificial intelligence (AI); over-powers and imprisons mankind in a virtual reality system to be farmed as a power source.  People believed that they were going about normal lives. They believed that they were experiencing reality when, in fact, they were unconscious and hanging in a cocoon in giant warehouses providing energy to the AI.  The similarity that I see is that both the people in the movie and much of humanity today live in a world of illusion thinking it is reality. We used to joke about children discovering the reality of meat – “Mommy, did you know that the chicken we eat has the same name as the animal chicken?”  Now it seems that the lack of reality has moved up in age.  I was talking to a farmer recently who was shaking his head with disbelief. He said that he had offered beef from his farm to a city friend or relative. They had turned down his offer saying they would rather buy store meat.  “Where,” he wondered, shaking his head, “do they think store meat comes from?”  Modern humans in this country have created their own illusory world. Power does not come out of an outlet, nor from the power company. Power comes from nature.  Water doesn’t come from a spigot, nor from the water company. Water comes from nature.  All food comes from nature even if we lace it with man-made poisons. Actually, even those man-made poisons require natural materials.  

     Our social systems, consciously or unconsciously, have already emotionally and psychologically separate us from reality and are systematically destroying nature.  They have their own agendas which consist of power, control and wealth.  Judaism and Christianity spend a fair portion of the early parts of their sacred books portraying anything outside of their social/communal setting as wasteland.  There is no doubt, in their theology, that nature is “other”, to be “subdued”. (iv)  Capitalism chides the environmentalist for being concerned about nature because their view of nature is that it only has value if it can be exploited for wealth. Government must have power over the people so they not only use both religion and capitalism to maintain power but will abuse nature if it provides power or control.  This is a very abbreviated explanation, but I think you get the idea.  It isn’t nature that is the alternative reality, it is our modern lives and our social systems.

     For the person who created this meme, the forest is an escape from.  I hope that once they get there they soon learn that the forest, the wilderness, is an escape to reality.  Nature will not lie to you to gain a convert, get a vote or make a buck. Nature will generously and without prejudice provide for your every need.  Nature will sooth your soul and make your heart sing.  For 92.7% of our existence, homo sapiens lived in and with nature. We knew that we are a part of nature.  The earth and nature got names like Unci Maka – grandmother earth – because we knew the reality of our relationship to and dependence upon nature.  Most modern people think that for those hundreds of thousands of years we suffered and scraped to survive. The reality is that we had plenty to eat and adequate shelter. Our “work week” was generally less than twelve hours a week, so we had plenty of time to enjoy life, socialize, and explore the marvelous world around us. There is a reason that many anthropologist call those who lived during that time “the original affluent society.”  

     Hopefully you will have the opportunity to go into the wilderness and experience its reality.  Hopefully you will have the chance to know the peace, the tranquility and the priceless value of the treasure of nature.  When you do, I hope you will share that experience with others so that they too might discover reality. And don’t forget to tell your government representatives to work to protect our nature, our remaining wilderness, from ruthless and wanton destruction by greedy capitalist so that future generations might enjoy it and our species survive. 

 

FOOTNOTES. 

(i)   https://www.old-conservationist.com/post/what-constitutes-a-social-system

(ii)  https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2015/03/understanding-population-density.html

(iii)  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078346/characters/nm0000432

(iv)  “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” Gen 1:28.  

     In earlier notes and essays I have mentioned the early twentieth century philosopher Juddi Krishnamurti and his environments, which he identifies as the source of our psycho-spiritual suffering and describes them as “wealth, poverty, exploitation, oppression, nationalities, religions, and all the inanities of social life in modern existence,….” (i)  I guess I don’t really like his use of the word ‘environment’.  Even though I understood that he was talking about our social environment, I prefer to apply the concept of social systems.  This, of course, means that I must define, or at least describe, a social system. 

     I identify four dominant social systems: family-community; religion; politics-nationalism; and economics.  The criteria for a social system is that it exploits and oppresses those whom it encounters.  It is also the basis for conflict, as well as real and psychological suffering.  

     We are drawn to these systems because all systems present themselves as the means to our happiness.  Likewise each of the systems is self-portrayed as a positive and necessary manifestation of human life. Who would dare say anything negative about their family?  Nevertheless a family system can, and often does, exploit and oppress its members. Girls, for example, are told to act like “ladies”; i.e. do what the system considers girls things; and be submissive to the male population of the family and community. The family often determines the education and career path of the members.  For much of European history the first born male was to be a priest and the second born male a soldier. Girls were to be married to a “good” husband; that usually being defined as one with money and/or position; and be a good and submissive wife. 

     Recognizing the reality of the family-community social system does not mean that one does not love their family members and may love their community.  I love my family very much.  In fact, I love Pamela’s family (ii)  and claim them as my own. Nevertheless I am aware of and accept the role of family/community as a social system. 

    When I started running long distance cross-country trails of forty to fifty miles or more at the age of sixty-seven, there was one member of my family who asked the others “are we going to allow him to do this?”  It was a well-meant attempt to be protective, but it was still the foundation of an oppressive act. 

     I have a grandson who loves sciences and is looking for a good college. He probably has the IQ of a Mensa and all of the finest science and engineering schools in the country are recruiting him. For some reason he thinks he wants to go to the Air Force Academy. I have strong feelings against him becoming a part of the military, but if I were to use my role as his grandfather to pressure him to go a different direction, I would be manifesting the oppression of the family-community social system.  How many of you readers were either the target of this type of exploitation and oppression or have seen it in your own family?  You may even recognize it in your own behavior as a family member.  

     Most people are afraid to criticize religion. I am assuming that they are afraid not only of the power of religions but that they might suffer for eternity if the religion is right.  I was not only a member of a religion when I was younger, but I was a priest.  It was only after years of personal struggle and study that I recognized the truth about religion, especially my own. At this point in my life I hold that religions played, and continues to play, a major role in the decline of homo sapiens. But that is another issue and is addressed elsewhere. 

     Suffice it to say religion exploits and oppresses.  It gets the follower to give it whatever it asks, whether that be their first-born son or their money.  It tells people what they will believe and what they will think. It has historically supported and continues today to support ruthless capitalists and violent authoritarian politicians and governments. It uses threats and fear to control its members and often condones bigotry and violence toward those who would disagree.  

     Politics-nationalism has always been a ruthless and violent system.  There is a saying “when anarchy comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a Bible.”  Well, anarchy has come to the United States and guess what … it justifies itself by waving a flag; playing on people’s patriotism and love of country; and holding up a Bible; claiming that it is God’s chosen ruler. It maintains its power through violent oppression of any who would disagree and exploiting the desire people have to be proud of their homeland by making them believe that ‘the enemy’ – anyone who is opposed to the anarchist, even a good citizen – will take away their homeland. 

     Economics has always been a powerful and generally evil social system.  Today most of the world has become capitalistic through colonization, exploitation and oppression. Capitalism, which many Americans think was an American idea, actually goes back to Europe a couple of hundred years before the colonization of America. It is really nothing more than a continuance of feudalism; viz. the rich lord; now known as a CEO, etc.;  grows richer by the labor and consumption of the serfs; today’s workers.  Capitalism is protected by politicians who gain great wealth from the capitalists and is blessed by religion; most specifically Chistianity; so that people are afraid to oppose it. 

     Whether we like it or not, there is no denying that social systems are the building blocks of arrogance, greed, nationalism, war, bigotry and other forms of violence.  

FOOTNOTES:

(ii)  In a lecture in Ojai, California, June 16, 1934.  From book  Krishnamurti, Juddi.  Total Freedom: the essential Krishnamurti.  Harper Collins Ebooks.  p. 20.

(i)  Pamela and I are two widowers who found each other late in life. We have seven children and eleven grandchildren between us. 

Considering the current US social/political crisis, I couldn’t help but wonder whether humans are really rational, or perhaps we’ve somehow lost our rationality.  We do have a pandemic going on which is particularly bad in the US, and we’ve been polluting the air, water and the soil in which we grow our food for so long, perhaps it has done something to our brains.  Two logical, rational, intelligent people can have diametrically opposed positions on a subject and still have a rational and civil discussion. At least that used to be possible.  If the subject is one which is totally opinion; e.g. the existence of a god; then there is no conclusion to their debate and they agree to disagree.  But how can you have an argument over whether, in base-10, 2+2=4.  I’m sorry. There is no opinion there. As long as you both agree that you are talking about base-10, 2+2 will always equal 4.  There is no such thing as an “alternative fact”.  When I was younger, we called such things “bullshit”.  I think that is still the best term. But, sadly, I have to admit that rationality isn’t simply a matter of fact versus fiction.  

     What rather tickles me is that rationality theorist, Jesús Mosterin (i), came to the conclusion that humans are not rational by definition. I’m not really certain what he means by “by definition” but I’m certainly glad he said it first so I don’t have people on my case for being somehow anti-human. (Well, perhaps I am a wee bit, but I try to be fair and keep an open mind.)  According to Mosterin we are capable of thinking and behaving rationally. Whether or not we do depends upon whether we apply “the strategy of theoretical and practical rationality to the thoughts they accept and to the actions they perform.” (ii)  To be totally sarcastic and a bit mean spirited, this explains a lot about the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

     That statement, actually, has its basis in science.  Philip Johnson-Laird and Ruth M.J. Byrne believe that humans are rational in principal; i.e. we have the competence to be rational; but we are limited by a number of factors. (iii)  Everyone from Plato to Max Weber has a theory. If you will permit me to summarize from my perspective, these theories come down to whether we are selfish or not.  Granted, that is an oversimplification, but it is actually quite theoretically accurate. A rational decision requires assumptions and a logical formulation. (Right from the git-go we observe that ‘the person who shall go unnamed’ has neither the required assumptions or logical formulation. For some people the inability to organize assumptions and/or make a logical formulation is a matter of insufficient cognitive skills or mental illness.) Once these assumptions and formulation are in place, there are two models. I call these models self-centered and altruistic. If one accepts, applies or adheres to the self-centered model, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested. If one accepts, applies, or adheres to the altruistic model, then the behavior is altruistic and purely selfish behavior is considered irrational. 

     And so back to my question. I spent my entire career applying the Laird-Byrne model; viz. that humans are rational but have limiting factors. Those with the most and serious limiting factors were my patients. I have to admit being strongly attracted to Mosterin’s model which holds that humans are not rational by definition but are capable of being rational. What we are observing in our country, though, appears to be best explained by the former.      

Up to this point altruism was held in highest regard. Therefore altruistic behavior was considered rational and selfish behavior was considered irrational. That is no longer true. As pointed out, much of what ‘he who shall not be named’ does is irrational because he does not have the required assumptions and logical formulation, whether this lack is due to limited cognition or mental illness. At the same time we can apply the two models: selfish and altruistic.  Using the attack on the Post Office as an example. It seems irrational if you want a fair election.  It is totally logical if you are selfish and want to keep people from voting. Consider cutting the payroll taxes. We know that is going to damage Social Security and hurt millions of Americans. That isn’t rational by the altruistic model, but it is by the selfish model. It makes the rich richer, and ‘he who shall not be named’ is among the rich who will benefit. 

     In other words, what many of us see as irrational behavior is actually rational. That doesn’t make it good, just rational.  For most of modern history altruism was held in the highest regard. That is obviously not true in twenty-first century United States. ‘He who shall not be named’ has made self-centeredness the ideal criteria on which to base decisions and behavior, and a significant percentage of our population love that. What they don’t realize is that ultimately they will fall to the selfishness of people like ‘he who shall not be named.’ 

     To answer my question.  I subscribe to the altruistic model therefore it appears that a high percentage of our population is acting irrationally. To me people like ‘he who shall not be named’ and the man from Kentucky are acting totally dangerously, selfishly and irrationally.  

FOOTNOTES:

(i) Mosterín, Jesús (2008). Lo mejor posible: Racionalidad y acción humana. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2008. 318 pp. ISBN 978-84-206-8206-8.

(ii) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

(iii)  Johnson-Laird, Philip N.; Byrne, Ruth M. J. (1 September 2009). “Corrigendum: ‘If’ and the problems of conditional reasoning”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 13 (9): 282–287. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.003

Picture credit: belloflostsouls.com

     The clear, fresh water of the brook was tripping and falling through the deep ravine filled with Hell Thickets of Rosebay Rhododendron. That’s what the mountain people call a dense thicket of “laurel”, their name for the Rhododendron.  Large oak and hickory form the upper canopy which  helps to cool the ravine.  Even then it is extremely hot and humid.  I sit on a sandstone bounder in the creek and cool myself with the water.  Looking around I am filled with awe at the 250 to 300 million year old giant outcroppings, walls, spires and natural arches made of sandstone that form the ravine.  The forest is pristine. Except for the simple trail there are no signs of the human infestation of these beautiful mountains. Bear, deer, elk, red fox and bobcats make their homes here as well as Turkey Vultures, Red Tail Hawks, Osprey and a tremendous variety of Warblers.  I could amble down the stream and lose myself in a world which didn’t know the evils of humanity.  Despite the perspiration soaking my shirt, I sat enraptured by my surroundings. 

     Another half mile or so up the narrow trail along the sandstone wall was an overlook about two hundred or so feet above the creek. At an elevation just shy of two-thousand feet, this view point overlooked the river far below and the surrounding mountains looked like a magnificent green feather tick.  

     It was here that I saw them. The scars.  I don’t know which emotion was strongest – sadness or anger.  The scars caused by that most insidious, heinous, destructive of invasive species; viz. homo sapiens; were horrendous.  Sides of mountains missing, rail roads and highways defacing the valley floor and polluting the beautiful river. Thankfully I could not see the coal mines that had dominated this area for two centuries.  Almost due south of us in the hills of North Carolina and Tennessee this same scenario played out, but there it was cooper with thousands of acres of beautiful forest laid barren and dead from tailings, dump, heap leach wastes and sulfuric acid. It killed the environment and it killed the miners. What we will do for wealth, to me is gut-wrenching. 

     The open-minded, realist, who carefully studies the economic phenomenon called capitalism soon arrives at the conclusion that to consciously and actively participate in this phenomena is tantamount to selling your soul to the Devil. This open-minded, realist also realizes that the vast majority of people do not consciously and actively participate.  Most people participate because they feel they have no other choice or they have been convinced that it is their only hope for the future.  Capitalism has been around, selling its deadly, enslaving false promises for over five hundred years.  People see how the wealthy capitalist live and want that for their family. What most people don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge is that the only ones who get rich from capitalism are the capitalist who exploit common people to gain their wealth.  

     The people in these mountains, the successors of the Hatfields and McCoys, are just learning that there are many other ways of making a living even in a capitalistic country. Sadly the coal miners in Western Kentucky still feel they must fight for coal. They are not dumb people. They may be uneducated or under-educated. They may be ignorant of their many options, but they are not dumb. They know that coal is bad for the environment and is a dead industry, but they are still under the capitalists’ indoctrination, while the capitalist, who have made tremendous wealth at the expense of the common people, abandon the miners and their families. There are many other things that the people can do which are so much healthier and rewarding, but that reality is hard to see when you’ve been raised believing that the deadly mine is your only hope for life. What they get is hard, dangerous work. If a cave-in doesn’t get you, black-lung will.  “The heaviest coal mining areas of Appalachia had the poorest socioeconomic conditions. Before adjusting for covariates, the number of excess annual age-adjusted deaths in coal mining areas ranged from 3,975 to 10,923, depending on years studied and comparison group.  …   The human cost of the Appalachian coal mining economy outweighs its economic benefit.” (i) This from a US government study, and government is capitalism’s greatest ally.  And for what?  The median household income in Hopkins County, Kentucky, one of the commonwealth’s biggest coal producers, is 23% below the national average. (ii)

     There is no one who can act superior to these miners. Time and again through history capitalist have convinced people that keeping them, the rich capitalist, in business is their only hope of life.  Each major industry in the United States has done this dastardly deed to local people on whose backs they built their industry and their wealth. 

     In the Midwestern state of Indiana there were two cities; Fort Wayne in the northeast and Evansville in the southwest; that were heavy industry towns. During World War II Evansville had an airplane plant that produced the fighter planes and a river port where they built the LST tank landing craft that landed on Omaha Beach. Both of them began to lose their heavy industry at the same time. Fort Wayne, sadly, played the fool and gave away land and taxes trying to get industry to return. Evansville accepted the change and became the commercial and financial center for a large portion of three states.  Another small town gave away natural resources, taxes and land to get a large industry to built in their county.  The industry was to provide many hundreds of jobs and start paying taxes after a set number of years. The best paying jobs went to people the corporation brought in from other facilities it owned. Just before the corporation was to begin paying taxes the capitalists who owned the plant closed the plant and moved the operation elsewhere. Their move financially devastated the county and left hundreds of people out of work.  Capitalism at its finest. The coal miners of western Kentucky are just another verse of the same ole song. 

     Just from driving through the area in western North Carolina it is evident that the people of Appalachia are beginning to get creative, look at the wonderful resources they have around them and find alternative ways; ways less fraught with danger and death; to make a living.  They are discovering that they don’t have to “owe my soul to the company store.” (iii)  They have discovered tourism and even solar energy.  In a very remote rural area of North Carolina we drove by three extremely large solar “farms” on the south side of the mountains.  Pamela and I literally cheered.  We traveled for quite some distance along a marvelous white-water river that had so many rafters that they had large traffic jams of rafts awaiting their turn through the rapids. Everyone of those rafts meant money for the local economy. Those visitors also had to buy food from local store, and gas from local stations.  The people were out from under the heel of the giant corporate capitalist.  

     Yes, it was devastating to stand on that promontory and see the scars left by humans. I retreated down the mountain side to the quiet, heavily wooded seclusion of the hollow to find solace.  I have no doubts that nature will take back this beautiful land when we’re gone, but the scars will endure for a long time to come.  However, what we witnessed in the Appalachia could give reason for hope.  Oh, I’m not so naive to believe that capitalism will ever totally give up its hold on people until it finally collapses because we cannot consume any more. At the same time we witnessed people staying on the business peripheries of capitalism, for the time being out of the clutches of the giant capitalists, building an economy that does not destroy the environment. To that we can add the hope that visitors, floating through that magnificent country, might appreciate the marvels of nature and determine to be better citizens of Earth. 

     I sat for a long time in that stream enjoying my connection with nature.  Since before Pamela and I became nomads my awareness of my place in nature and my love of my oneness with the wilderness has been my strength. After being refreshed I ambled up the hollow, through the marvelous Rhododendron, to our nomadic home on wheels. Maybe, from what we saw and witnessed, there might be room for some hope. Yes. Soon we will be heading home to the west leaving the over-crowded east behind. This time I think that departure might be different. This time I don’t think it will be an escape from the hopeless, but leaving with a sense of hope that perhaps, just perhaps, it will be even better when we return to visit again. 

FOOTNOTES:

(i)  http://appvoices.org/images/uploads/2010/08/mortality-appcoalregions.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693168/

(ii) https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/coal-miners-slaughter

(iii)   https://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/tag/sixteen-tons-song-history/

In 1946, Merle Travis did an album. Three of the songs were about coal mining. 

“They were about life in the mines of Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, where his father had worked.  One of the songs was “Dark As A Dungeon” and another, “Sixteen Tons.”  For the latter song, Travis had pieced together fragments of phrases he had heard while growing up and in later life.  A letter his brother sent during WWII made a comparison to working in the coal mines, saying:  “You load sixteen tons and what do you get?  Another day older and deeper in debt.”  Travis had also heard an expression his father used with neighbors, which Travis adopted for “Sixteen Tons,” as he later recounted:  “…The chorus is from a saying my Dad often used.  He never saw real money. He was constantly in debt to the coal company. When shopping was needed, Dad would go to a [coal company] window and draw little brass tokens against his account.  They could only be spent at the company store. His humorous expression was, ‘I can’t afford to die.  I owe my soul to the company store.’ “

     I think I might be a nonconformist or maybe I conform to nonconformity. I don’t purposefully refuse to conform, nor do I do those things which are considered nonconformist for the purpose of being a nonconformist.  Therefore, I would conclude that I am a real nonconformist. 
     What is a nonconformist?  According to Merriam-Webster a nonconformist is “a person who does not conform to a generally accepted pattern of thought or action.”  That sounds fine, but I was taught in school never to use the word I’m defining in the definition. The definition uses ‘conform’ which means that we need to know the definition of the word ‘conform’.  I know, most people know what it is to conform, but humor me in my anal attempt to be accurate.  Again using Merriam-Webster, ‘conform’ is an intransitive verb which means “to be similar to identical … to be obedient or compliant to … to act in accordance with prevailing standards or customs” (i)   Wow, to not do that does sound like me. I just don’t refuse to conform on purpose.  Well, most of the time I’m not purposefully a nonconformist.  When I do refuse to conform, I generally have a good reason. 
     I truly believe that my nonconformity does not come from purposely, or even unconsciously, being contrary to the prevailing standards or customs, even though I must confess to a true dislike for our current society and culture.  I just don’t agree with much of the current standards and customs. As an independent thinker who comes to his own conclusions and acts accordingly, I find that my attitude toward or resulting behavior is my norm and therefore is only nonconformist in the eyes of one who approves of and find pleasure or fulfillment in the current standards and customs. My suspicions are that most people see the nonconformist as ones who purposely act contrary.  In the 1960s nonconformity was almost a cult. The “nonconformist” had recognizable dress, speech patterns and world views.  It was really a conformity to a set of behaviors and standards labelled as “nonconformist”. To me, that really isn’t being nonconformist and that isn’t me. So, let’s stick to a strict interpretation and agree that true nonconformity isn’t a purposeful act but the natural result of a rational decision that the current standard or custom to which we refuse to conform somehow violates our personal moral code or belief system.  
     It is always easier to conform. Of course that’s what the social systems (ii) – religion, government and capitalism – want us to do. To conform may, in some cases, actually be physically safer.  It is definitely emotionally, socially and financially safer.  However, the biggest problem with and danger of conformity is that it is actually defined and/or applied by social systems as obedience and total compliance.  This ultimately means that those who conform do not think for themselves and abide by the direction and wishes of the elite who control the social systems.  This, in turn, means that the conformist will ultimately do those things which they may actually recognize as illegal, immoral or contrary to their own well-being.  Modern day Republicans in the US are a good example of this self-destructive conformity.
     Conformity gives the social systems power and control.  For example, the government wants everyone to have a sticks-n-bricks (nomad speak for “house”) address.  They call it a permanent address and it seem quite innocuous. Don’t let that kid you. If you are tied to a single location the government has more control. They can include or exclude you by gerrymandering and other techniques. Nomads, who also violate conformity to capitalism by our minimalist life-style which means reduced consumption and opting out of the normal work-to-death life, can easily be excluded from participation in government to which we are entitled as tax paying citizens and benefits for which we have paid.   
     Even though people have been indoctrinated to believe that they must keep capitalism functioning, the truth is that the only people to suffer more than short-term inconvenience if capitalism were to fail is the elite capitalists. You eek out a living. They get filthy rich from your labor and by your over-consumption. Not long ago I was visiting family in a large Midwestern city and walking down the street of their suburb. Almost every house had their garage doors open. They were all filled with “stuff” leaving no room for an automobile. Such excessive consumption is necessary for capitalism to continue but the price is extremely high; viz. the number of hours a couple must work to pay bills and buy all the things they are told they need to buy, and the damage such consumerism does to the environment, just to name two examples.

     Conformity, in an of itself, isn’t really the problem.  I conform to a rather ridged moral code and set of principles.  I did not conform because it was expected of me. I conformed because I considered that moral code and those principles and determined that they were true, valid and worthy of my compliance. If the behavior to which I am asked to conform is logical, realistic and purposeful, I am going to comply. For example,  some of the greatest conformist in the United States are screaming about the violation of their right because they are required to conform to wearing masks due to of COVID-19.  I don’t want to die of COVID and I don’t want to be the cause of someone else dying.  I want to see us get this virus under control as soon as possible, and the best way anyone has found to do that is wearing masks and practicing social distancing. This being the case, I will gladly conform.  Isn’t it ironic. The nonconformist is the first one to conform. 
     What we quickly learn is that conformity is simply a behavior which, for the most part, is by our choice.  It is when it is forced upon us, as in a fascist state, or we conform as a result of the pressures and indoctrination of social systems, that conformity becomes a dangerous proposition.  Under those circumstances conformity becomes a killer.  It kills the soul, destroys independent rational thought and castrates a virile species. Such conformity is what puts people like the current occupant of the White House in power, and makes way for fascism, which is defined by the Father of Fascism as the combination of the power of the corporation and the power of the government. (iii)  Conformity without rational thought and consideration is the foundation of social systems which are controlled by an elite few and benefit only those few.  Conformity without rational consideration is the death of independence and critical thought.  Without independence and critical thought any chance of a free and egalitarian civilization is dead. We become like animals in a zoo, bred for a purpose decided upon by those who run the social systems and spending our lives working for their wealth while our lives and souls shrivel and disappear like the scrotum of a castrated dog. 
     I guess I really am a nonconformist.  I don’t refuse to conform just to be contrary.  I refuse to conform when conformity is neither in my best interest or that of my fellow beings. I refuse to conform when conformity enslaves me, attempts to manipulate or control my life, and takes away my independence and individuality.  I refuse to conform when conformity destroys the environment and nature upon which all life is dependent for the sake of an elite few whose motivation is only self and more wealth.  I refuse to have my life defined, described and controlled by social systems.  If I must forfeit my life it will be on my terms not for one who sees me as nothing more than an asset to amass greater wealth. That’s the difference between a conformist and a nonconformist. 

FOOTNOTES: 
(i)  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
(ii)   https://oldconservationist.blogspot.com/2020/03/what-constitutes-social-system.hThe tml
(iii)  Mussolini, Benito and Giovanni Gentile. (1932). La Dotrina del fascismo.  Enciclopedia Italiana.  Rome. 
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm