Interesting

The last few weeks have the odd distinction of being totally action-packed with the feeling that I've been doing absolutely nothing. Probably because almost everything I'm doing is so mundane--cleaning out the house, dealing with bills, taking care of my gardens and the outside of the house generally. There have been a few trips here and there, and I've been absorbed in various books now that I am on an American literature and history kick. (Don't ask me why. I honestly don't know).

I've been so busy that I've even cut down on social networking (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, etc.), though I still check in each day. One thing I haven't given up is my daily viewing of my RSS feeds, and of course fark.com.

Here is a compilation of the "interesting" items I've come across in the last couple of weeks:

1. House Cats Know What They Want and How to Get It From You

Well duh. As if I needed a science blog to tell me that.

2. Troublesome spirits? Don't call TAPS. File a lawsuit:
Family Sues Genie, Alleges Harassment

3. Speaking of lawsuits:

Wells Fargo Sues Self, Hires Lawyers to Respond

This sounds like that old joke about the Beatles (used in the Rutles), where they all sued each other and one sued himself accidentally. Only it's not a joke. All I can say is that I'm glad I sold off my Wells Fargo mortgage 5 years ago...

4. In religion news--this is VERY cool, I can't wait to take a look at it:

Oldest Known Bible Goes Online

5. Since we're talking about Western religion, we should balance discussion of God with that of the Devil. Of course, these are all literary and film devils:

A Mashup of Devils

6. And some science thrown in, oldies but goodies:

More Richard Feynman Explanations


7. Swearing apparently relieves pain. My Dad must be in a lot of pain when he drives:

Why the &*^% Do We Swear?

8. Lastly--what could be better than a cat and a physics joke?

I'm in yr space-time...

Amma in New York 2009

On Wednesday and Thursday of this week, I went into New York City to see Amma. As I've mentioned in other posts, Amma is my guru, by virtue of her giving me a mantra and a name. I've been going to New York every year since 2002, when Amma was still coming to Columbia University. That was her last year at that venue; since then, she's come to the Manhattan Center every year. However, from what I've heard (and can obviously seen), the Manhattan Center has become too small for her events. There is talk of holding it at the Jacob Javits Center next year, which is immense.

Every year that I come, it is different. That first year I was skeptical of what devotees told me about Amma, and eventually was able to see for myself what she was about. For several years I worked at the program, doing various sevas (i.e., service). In 2007, I had a very bad experience with one of the national tour coordinators while doing what I was instructed to do with my seva, and have not volunteered for seva since that time. The problem was not someone yelling at me, or a misunderstanding--I can handle both of those things. The problem was that I was told to come back in 20 minutes to help the coordinator, as she was doing something else. When she spoke to me, I never saw such contempt in a human being's eyes before. When I came back with the group I had to do the work, she'd already started the work with a different group and totally ignored me. This really got me angry, especially since I was the designated coordinator of that seva for New York. If she wanted to work with another group, she should have just said so--instead, I was standing around for 20 minutes when I could have been helping another group with Devi Bhava setup. That and the completely unnecessary level of disrespect completely turned me off. I realize that this kind of stuff goes on at various levels all the time, and I'm usually willing to put up with it--but don't waste my time and the money I've spent on hotel rooms to stay in New York to then not have me do any work at all.

So, between this and some of the other vicious politics, unctuousness, and general mud-slinging type sleaziness that goes on in the satsang groups over sevas, I've sort of given up. I realize that I've harbored a real bitterness towards the local groups. I did not attend satsang for almost 2 years, even though the New Jersey group was not the crux of the problem. Part of me understands that this sort of thing goes on around Amma. You would think that being around a spiritual master, people would be peaceful and behave better. In fact, the opposite is true. It's not limited to Amma's organization, nor to our particular satsangs. It is a human problem. Knowing this, I should just shrug it off and not let it concern me. But it's very difficult.

This year ended up being very different from all previous years for me. But before I get into that, I should explain a few things about Amma. I know I've talked about her before, but the subject comes up over and over again as to why so many people come to see her. She is called a "saint", a "humanitarian", a "hard worker", and a "very kind and compassionate lady". These things are all true, but they don't even scratch the surface of what Amma actually IS.

One year at the program, I was chatting with a Buddhist monk who had come to see Amma. He told me that out of all the saints and gurus in the world, there was maybe only one other person like Amma--she was an absolute rarity. This is not to say that there aren't other saintly people who show others the way--it's just that Amma is different. How?

A new video has come out of Amma's visit to Kenya to open an orphanage and provide educational scholarships to the children there. Dr. P.L.O Lumumba, who is a human rights activist, gave a speech at that visit, in which he says, "I know that all religions believe in Avatars of God, I suspect Mama (Mother) that you are such an avatar." To be clear, he is not talking about the cute little icons people make for themselves on forums and IM programs. An Avatar is a God incarnation. To the Hindus, Jesus Christ is an avatar. Amma said once that "an avatar is like a great ship that can carry many souls to liberation. A saint alone cannot do this." In short, as far as I'm concerned, Dr. Lumumba is correct--Amma is most certainly an avatar, and I'm convinced more and more of it every year. She doesn't care whether you believe that or not--she has no opinion about what anyone thinks of her, she just sees the best in everyone, and attempts to help those who seek her help. But Amma is an avatar of the Goddess Kali, so the way can be fraught with chaos, difficulty and uncertainty. That said--it is still far easier under Amma to achieve liberation than it would be on one's own. She makes things comparatively easy. There is a Hindu belief that to simply be in the room with such a person can erase as much as 80% of one's past karma. And then to have this person physically embrace you...when you think about it in context, it staggers the mind.

So, that sums up what I believe about Amma, and as I've said before, I'm pretty skeptical and cynical about spiritual leaders. This year, I came to receive Amma's darshan (i.e., her hug) on Wednesday morning, and I arrived very early for that. I also came Thursday afternoon around 3:30-4:00 to hear Amma's talk and participate in the Atma Puja, which she performs with those gathered for the peace and harmony of the world. I brought a book with me both times, as I knew I'd be waiting on line for some time.

When I entered the hall on Wednesday, I saw some of the folks that I didn't not care for straight off. Somehow though, I felt a stillness settle over me, so I had no strong feeling about their presence. Suddenly I felt a great rushing in the center of my chest, which is the seat of the anahata (heart) chakra. It felt like a tornado was driving through the center. I alternately felt peaceful and sorrowful--I found myself crying for no reason on and off. I wasn't the only one--I noticed several people around me similarly affected during their meditations. Amma's darshan was long--she was talking to someone while she was holding me, which is what everyone hopes for--it gives you a bit more time than that 30 seconds with her. She never looked at me, though I've learned not to be concerned about that.

Thursday I was standing on line again, and was reading Ambrose Bierce, of all authors. Bierce is known for his bitter cynicism, and as I was reading, I was aware of how bitter I was in general. It almost took me by surprise, and caused me a lot of physical pain in my chest. I felt like crying again several times, though I was standing outside, so it would have seemed odd. Standing next to me on line was a woman I recognized from satsang, whom I hadn't seen in a long time. She was coordinating one of the sevas that I'd coordinated about 3 or 4 years ago, and it's one of the most difficult. She started talking to me about how difficult the politics were, and how uncertain she felt about whether or not it was the right seva for her to do--perhaps she didn't have what it took to do it. As we started talking, I realized that a lot of how she felt mirrored how I felt about the whole seva business. It made me feel a bit better about the whole thing. When we got into the hall, that sense of a great force rushing through the anahata chakra started again. By the time I left that night, a lot of my bitterness had evaporated, and I felt equanimity for the first time in a long time. I called my mother the next day, and found that a lot of the bitterness I've felt towards her for various things had also evaporated. That's no small thing. I was physically ill when I got home, but that is not unusual--it's like a massive purgation of bad stuff happens in the presence of the Master, and it happens every year.

So, Amma certainly did some interesting things for me this year, and as usual, they happen subtly, not overtly. During her talk, she said two things that stood out to me. One was that to achieve liberation, one had to develop dispassion. By dispassion she doesn't mean not caring--it means not feeling any attachment one way or the other to things of this world. There are 3 kinds of dispassion--temporary, gradual, and intense. Temporary is what we feel after an event gets us hyped up to "give up everything", but a few days later we go back to the way we were. Gradual is what most people on a spiritual path experience--not sufficient for liberation, but good nonetheless. Intense is really giving up everything and focusing only on God. I imagine that's the hardest--there are so many attachments...

Amma also spoke about our obsession with our bodies. She says the body is like a rented house--you should try to keep it clean and in good order, but you're not going to invest your life savings into fixing it up. Amma definitely has a way with simile and metaphor, and I like this one a lot. People spend way too much time on the exterior--if they focused more on their interior, they would automatically look better on the outside.

Well, back to my work at home, before this post gets TOO long...

Ghost Hunters and GHI Re-runs: Observations

Money has been tight lately, so I've been spending more time at home, or at least doing things locally. Among the myriad of projects I have found for myself at home, I have also been watching the DVDs and iTunes downloads of my favorite TV shows. As I've mentioned previously, these are Ghost Hunters and Paranormal State.

I have Seasons 1-3 of Ghost Hunters in its entirety on DVD, and some episodes of Season 4 on iTunes. As I go through these, I can't help but notice that I really like some investigators and don't care so much for others. I'm not entirely sure why. I suspect it has something to do with talent in one area not necessarily translating to talent in another area. For instance, someone with a Ph.D. may be a bona fide expert on a particular subject; that doesn't mean that said Ph.D. is also a good teacher, even if they make their living as a professor. Pedagogy involves separate communication and organizational skills. Similarly--just because one is a scientifically-minded and meticulous ghost hunter does not mean that they will have television skills. Some people are awkward in the face of a TV camera, even if they're not stammering and fidgeting.

With that in mind, I'm presenting my opinion of the Ghost Hunters who have been on the program so far. I'm not including Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson, as they obviously wouldn't be where they are today if they didn't have the right stuff for television. I'm also including some folks from Ghost Hunters International, as there is some cross-over in investigative staff. Bear in mind that I don't think I would necessarily do better than the people whom I consider the "weaker" links in the program. I feel very awkward in front of cameras of any kind, so I'd probably suck at it big time. So, I am not suggesting that I could do "better"; I am suggesting that observed over time, perhaps these folks just don't have the right fit for TV, even if they are excellent in the field.

Andy Andrews: Andy has the distinction of being on the first season of Ghost Hunters AND Ghost Hunters International. I don't know what it is about Andy, but I find him terribly annoying. He's obviously a good investigator and debunker. But he comes across with an arrogance that makes you want to smack him at times. I've heard this opinion expressed by others as well. I think he's okay as one of the team, but if he's in a lead investigative position--I don't know, he just doesn't seem to work.

Brian Harnois: For all of the controversy surrounding Brian, I actually like him a lot. Yes, like everyone else, I got tired of the drama between Brian and Steve, between Brian and Jason, but he has a very strong and distinct personality. Having a personality helps, and on the whole he seems fallible yet likeable. He was one of the stronger elements of GHI when its first season opened.

Carl and Keith Johnson: These twin brothers are demonologists. It's hard to get a distinct lock on what they're like, exactly--most of the time they were quietly in the background. I'm not surprised that they dropped off the GH series, as having a demonologist on a team like TAPS doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. I've seen Keith and his wife on Paranormal State, and I think that show is much better suited to their approach.

Steve Gonsalves: I like Steve. He's smart, well-organized as tech manager, and has a sense of humor. I'm sympathetic to his fear of heights, and I had great admiration for him when he actually climbed the St. Augustine lighthouse tower stairs in the dark. I've been in the St. Augustine lighthouse, and I didn't get past the second round of stairs at the bottom--my legs were shaking too much. His phobias, while unfortunate, do add to your sense of him as a person, though it's a shame they have to hinder his ability to do things so much. I actually have the same phobias, with the exception of a fear of flying.

Dustin Pari: Dustin is amazing. I don't know why I like Dustin so much as an investigator. Maybe it's because he reminds me of my nephew. But for whatever reason--the thing that Andy Andrews seems to lack, Dustin has in spades. I was delighted when he replaced Andy as the co-lead investigator on GHI--he really does a lot for that show. He just has a presence that gives him a lot of credibility. He doesn't get overly emotional about things, and when he does get rattled, it's genuine. The Leap Castle episode from Season 3 is a perfect Dustin episode--you should get a hold of it if you haven't seen it. One of those episodes where something ACTUALLY happens...

Dave Tango: It's hard not to like Dave Tango. He's earnest, genuine, and a good Jersey boy. (I'm from New Jersey, so I know what that looks like). His early gullibility and perpetual sense of wonder really makes him very likeable. You've also been able to see firsthand how he's grown as an investigator, which adds to the show.

Donna LaCroix: Hmm. Donna was a great case manager, and seems like a really great person. However, I was not impressed with her as an investigator. TAPS is supposed to be taking a scientific approach to things, but I feel like Donna was often on cases for the production company's hype value. She was more interested in what she could intuit--which is not a bad thing necessarily, but in paranormal investigation you have to be careful. A location can feel very spooky at night, and you can feel like someone is there with you--but most of the time there's no hard evidence for anything. After the first season of GHI, I was absolutely glad to see her go--she was terrible. I'm sorry, I know she left because of an illness, and I wish her well, but her running around screaming and holding up crucifixes did nothing for her credibility. She seems more like she belongs on that Scariest Places on Earth show.

Joe Chin: Joe is now on GHI, where I think he fits in a bit better. He's very quiet, hard to know too much about his personality. I don't have a strong opinion of him either way as an investigator, though I like him overall.

Kris Williams: Kris seemed okay when she first joined the TAPS team, but I've not been impressed with her over time. I don't know why the women in TAPS don't seem to fit in as well, but Kris lately seems more like a giggly twenty-something than a serious investigator. I really like Amy Brunei, the other female in TAPS, though she tends to get silly like Kris when they work together. I don't know--like Andy, there's something about Kris that just doesn't work as far as I'm concerned. I find myself getting bored and wandering into the kitchen looking for ice cream while her investigation scenes are on.

and, on GHI:

Robb Demarest: I thought Robb was terrible during the first season of GHI, but I have to say he's gotten 200 times better. I think Robb suffered from the problem of being a normal guy who's a good investigator, but was really awkward in front of a TV camera. He was too wooden looking in the early episodes, too robotic-sounding, and was trying too hard to be like Jason Hawes. When he complimented Donna and Shannon Sylvia for running around screaming like idiots, I wanted to smack him. It was embarrassing--he was finding places "haunted" without much convincing evidence--even the owners or caretakers of the locations were not convinced. However, since Dustin has come on board, and there have been some team changes, things look a lot better. Robb has developed his own style as lead investigator, and I actually like it a lot. He's clearly taken some kind of acting lessons or something, because he looks more comfortable in front of the camera, and the whole show seems less awkward and stilted.

Shannon Sylvia: I'm not even going to comment. Someone just tell me why she called in the Penn State Paranormal Society to investigate her house when she's an investigator herself?

Barry Fitzgerald: The other strong link of GHI, who originally appeared in GH's Leap Castle episode. Barry gets a little strange at times, and his assumptions are clearly colored by his Irish upbringing (there's a strong tradition of believing in the supernatural there), but he's still a great investigator, and adds a lot to the team. He does try new and different approaches and new equipment, which keeps the show from being formulaic. I hope he doesn't leave the show.

Brandy Green: Great case manager, and great investigator. She really works well with this team.


So, that's my take on TAPS. I know there has been plenty out there about how things on this show could be (or perhaps are?) faked, but I still like it better than most investigative shows I've seen, and still feel it has more credibility. I am sure some things are hyped for television, and some things need to be taken with a grain of salt. Still, skeptics will always be skeptics, and believers will always be believers--and those that fall in between would have to have an experience that firmly put them on one side or the other.

Currently, new GHI episodes are on the SyFy channel on Wednesdays at 9, and you can see past episodes here: http://www.syfy.com/rewind/?sid=32857

New episodes of Ghost Hunters will be aired this Fall. You can see recent past episodes here: http://www.syfy.com/rewind/?sid=32855

Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson are on MySpace and Twitter (jchawes and grantswilson). There is a Facebook fan page for the show as well.

Birds

So, everyone knows the Alfred Hitchcock movie, “The Birds”. What I never understood was why the birds were attacking in the first place. Were they mad about Tippi Hedrin's "joke"? I still don’t get it.

But that’s a movie. In real life, I’ve been noticing a lot of bird-related delinquency, starting with larceny:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/seagull.asp

Ha-ha, cute! But then an airplane goes down over the Hudson River. Why? Because of...a bird. A Canada goose, to be exact:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227124.200

Okay, the pilot managed to handle everything correctly, and no one was injured. Canada geese are a pain in the ass—ask anyone who lives in Northern New Jersey. Usually the threat is in the form of goose poop that is EVERYWHERE. Now they’re getting a bit more aggressive. Hmm.

Then I saw this article about a baseball game:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=290611105

Okay, so in this one the bird gets hit. And if you’re an Indians fan, you would probably regard this as divine intervention. Still, those birds are interfering where they’re not wanted. But they haven’t attacked anyone, right?

Woman is Savaged By Angry Seagulls

I don’t know about you, but I think I need some more cats. Big ones.

Demonology

I don’t watch much television these days, but I’m still a sucker for two reality shows: Ghost Hunters and Paranormal State. I’m not so interested in “proving” the existence of ghosts or similar phenomena, but I’m very interested in the approaches people take to dealing with these “paranormal” unknowns. Paranormal is the right word, regardless of whether you believe in ghostly phenomena or not. By definition, to be “paranormal” is to be something anomalous with respect to our “normal” everyday experience. That doesn’t mean that we might not find an explanation for it; just that there’s no obvious logical reason for it. Some things are without explanation, and those are truly “paranormal”, whatever they might be. In any event, I would refer anyone who places too much emphasis on everything have a reasonable cause and effect to the late Mr. David Hume.

The two shows take two very different approaches to the paranormal, though there is some overlap. Ghost Hunters relies entirely on evidence caught on film or audio; personal experiences, unless they are of a very physical nature, are usually discounted. The idea is to be more scientific in their attempts to identify truly anomalous phenomena. Given the nature of reality TV, this doesn’t always happen, but at least they’re giving it a shot.

Paranormal State also has a tech department that records audible and visual evidence, but they also make use of mediums and demonologists in their work. Ryan Buell, the team leader, does not attempt to hide his rather Catholic approach to such phenomena (I’m not suggesting this is bad, it’s just something to be noted). Additionally, they will bring in priests or ministers to do house blessings, and may bring in professional counselors to talk to affected parties as well. While I don’t agree with all of Ryan’s assumptions (e.g., the idea that 3am is the time that “mocks Christ”, a medieval Catholic notion), on the whole I would say the team pretty good about separating legitimate phenomena from hysteria or other factors. Even Lorraine Warren, an occasional visiting demonologist on the show, has been a pleasant surprise. She’s much more cautious than she used to be about labeling things as “demonic”—in fact, she hardly does it at all. Truthfully, I don’t think “demonic” phenomena really happens all that often.

But what is “demonic” phenomena? I was revisiting some old Paranormal State episodes on iTunes last night, and was watching the “Devil in Syracuse” episode, where the demon they won’t name is afflicting a family. This is supposed to be the same demon that is or was following Ryan from place to place. Of course, I can read lips, and they show a scrambled version of the name, and I know exactly which demon it is. Interestingly, Abramelin and other grimoires have described this particular demon as holding principle sway over this world and its desires.

I like this particular episode, because it makes some good points about the demonic. First, the house they are visiting is a complete mess. A family friend comes over regularly to add fuel to the family’s fear. And the couple who live there has serious marital discord. Ryan accurately notes that the demonic feeds on fear, weakness, and depression.

Which leads me to my own definition of the demonic, for better or for worse. Like the divine or angelic, the demonic is a deep psychological phenomena that can manifest as something physical, or affect the physical—like any deep psychological phenomena. It’s not unlike poltergeist phenomena in this way (though it is theorized that poltergeist phenomena have a hormonal component as well). It affects people who don’t have sufficient psychological boundaries. I would say “spiritual”, too, but they are really bound up in the same thing. To be possessed or affected by such a thing requires a very unique set of psychical and mental circumstances—and an invitation or evocation.

So how can demons be named and labeled? Deities and angels can also be named and labeled. They are qualities, elements of human experience. The form and function of such qualities are part of what is observed in the collective unconscious.

The theology of the demonic is highly developed within Christianity, particularly Catholic Christianity. The Church has special rites of exorcism to deal with these undesirable elements. Sometimes the rites work, sometimes they don’t. A lot of the rite’s ability to do good is based on the belief of those taking part in the rite. It would also depend on the psychology of the victim—sometimes the victim is unwilling or unable to let go of the offending influence that has taken over. But I would still say the offending influence is internal, not external, even though it may manifest in external ways. As one of my professors once said in seminary, “there is nothing ‘mere’ about psychology”. To call something psychological is not the same as saying “You’re imagining it”, or “It’s all in your head”, in a dismissive sense. Depth psychology is as tenuous an area as occult practice, and requires a great deal of caution when “jumping in”.

Which brings me to another assertion that Ryan frequently makes on shows dealing with the demonic. He refers to the encounters as a literal battle “between good and evil”. I would suggest that this is not exactly the case, though it is true on some level. The Eastern conception of the demonic is a bit easier to follow, and I think resolves some of the difficulties of the Western Christian perspective.

There is an extended prayer/chant/story in Hinduism called Srichandipath. It is part of a larger work called the Devi Mahatmayam. In this, the rishi (seer, holy man) explains to a businessman and a king the mysteries of the goddess Durga. To summarize—both devas (gods) and asuras (demons) populate the world. For many yugas (cycles) there may be a relative balance between the two, but eventually the asuras take over everything. This is characterized by a society that is greedy, self-centered, materialistic, and ignorant. The gods are forgotten, and the asuras “rule the Three Worlds”. Eventually the gods will call upon the great Devi (goddess) who is beyond the visible universe to help them. She appears as Durga, a goddess carrying weapons and riding on a lion (or tiger). In the Srichandipath, she comes on two different occasions, both times to do battle with and vanquish the asuras, and both times she is victorious.

There is another hymn related to the Srichandipath called the Mahisasuramardini Stotra. There is particular part of the seventh verse that I’ve always found interesting. It says:

Shiva shiva shumbha nishumbha mahahava tarpita bhuta pishacarate

It doesn’t translate nicely into English, but it basically says that the Goddess (i.e., Mahisasuramardini, or Durga) delights in both the “auspicious” god Shiva and the “inauspicious” Shumba (demon of self-conceit) and Nishumba (demon of self-depreciation), and the ghouls that feast on dead souls. What it implies is that both the “good” and the “evil” are manifestations of the Goddess (referring to Adiparashakti, the Supreme Primal Consciousness), and therefore all are “good” in the sense of being in the “order of things”, for lack of a better phrasing. The goddess doesn’t step in and get rid of the demons until they have completely tilted the balance of life in their direction. The goddess herself represents the Numinous, and is beyond concepts of good and evil. Life cannot happen unless there is a perceived split from the initial Unity of things. This is the basis of the Adam and Eve story (Eve is not a culprit in this view—worldly life can’t happen unless she and Adam recognize separateness), and it’s also the Kabbalistic and Gnostic view of life. Through pairings of opposites, life is created. We spend our days in separation, and eventually seek to become one with that essential Unity again. In order to do this, we need to “play” at life, deal with the demons, and eventually vanquish them along with our egos to achieve that final Unity. In such a world view, it’s hard not to believe in reincarnation—there is no way that this happens in one lifetime.

So, what is “demonic” is not particularly unnatural—all of us have both “divine” and “demonic” qualities, and we spend our lives trying to negotiate them. In rare cases, they can take shape and possess us—the same is true of the Archetypes that unconsciously rule our lives. In those cases, it takes highly symbolic acts (sigils, spells, prayers, whichever is used) to remove one from a possessed state. Other types of possession can lead to various forms of madness, and sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. In any case—the demonic is not all that abnormal, unless you are talking about possession.

Word of Christ...

Paul Tillich would have a field day with this one:

"It's too hard", Pt. 2: Editorial Process

“Editorial process” is the selecting of authoritative sources. There’s that word again—“authoritative”. No one likes it, but it’s a bit like what your mother told you about eating your vegetables—it’s good for you, so swallow it. (And no comments from those of you who know I don’t eat vegetables...:)).

There are many discussions in library science about what makes a source “authoritative”. An article peer-reviewed in a respected journal has more credibility in a research paper than a blog posting written by a twenty-year-old. Non-fiction collection developers purchase books and other resources for libraries that have met some criteria for having authoritative merit. Reference librarians serve the same function—they are there to help you weed through all the crappy information you find to get the useful stuff, and also to teach you how to make those decisions yourself. At least that’s what happens in an ideal world.

However, what happens more often is that “research” papers from students are becoming cut-and-pastes from Wikipedia, or whatever they found first on Google. They don’t even ask librarians for help. Students act surprised when they get to university or college and get failed for handing in such papers. One might chalk it up to student laziness, but recently I came across a more disturbing example of not using editorial process.

The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops issued a statement in recent months about Reiki therapy. I happen to be a Reiki Master, so I pay attention to these things. In short, the Bishops did not want Catholics to receive Reiki treatments because there was “no scientific evidence” that it works, and because it was outside the Catholic religion and potentially “dangerous” to a Catholic soul.

When I first read this, I thought it was a joke. These men had studied theology, they were leaders and scholars. There’s no scientific evidence that prayer, anointing of the sick, or most of their other practices work for anyone. And how does an energy therapy “endanger your soul”? How in the world did they come to this conclusion? Where did they get their information about Reiki? There are many nuns and communities of Sisters that offer Reiki therapy as part of their work. Did they ask any of them? How about the experts in the Reiki field? People like William Rand and Frank Arjava Petr?

William Rand himself looked into the statement, and followed up with his own statement. He looked over the resources consulted by the Church, and found that most of them were just random websites with misinformation. There is a tremendous amount of misinformation on the Web about Reiki.

I don’t know if the Church has acknowledged Rand’s statement, or if they’ve amended their declaration, but to me, it’s a lesson in not doing proper research. People who still care about what the Church says are going to avoid or view with suspicion a practice that may be beneficial to them or to others. While Reiki may heal some, no responsible practitioner makes any claim to heal anyone—it’s a relaxation technique. It is religion neutral, and often used in hospitals as an enhancement to traditional therapies. Rejecting Reiki makes the Church look stupid, and puts those Catholics who receive or engage in Reiki treatment in a tight spot for no reason. All because they never bothered to ask anyone who had done real research on Reiki’s origins and practices. It pays to select your sources carefully.

Public service librarians face another challenge. I can’t speak for international education, but in the United States, elementary school teachers are expected to push students to absorb as much material as they can in a short space of time. This doesn’t leave time for developing things that can only be learned with time and patience—such as language skills, writing skills, and research skills. The students are burned out by the time they’re twelve. When they grow up and go to college, they are unable to do any of these things well—they can’t spell, they don’t use proper grammar, they don’t have good oral communication skills, and they are clueless about research. They also no longer care—they don’t want to learn at this point, they just want to get the grade and get out. Why not? Because “it’s too hard.” This is the teacher’s excuse, and it’s the student’s excuse. It’s an uphill battle, and everyone is tired of fighting it.

So, what is the answer to “it’s too hard”? I haven’t a clue. It certainly won’t be a three-word solution. I do know this—if librarians and other library professionals don’t understand and stand by the basics of their profession, the answer may be that we don’t need libraries or librarians. I’m not suggesting for a minute that this is a correct answer, but it may be the conclusion that society comes to if we are no longer in the business of providing organized access and editorial process. After all, they can search Google and Wikipedia at home.

"It's too hard", Part I: Access

This morning I was thinking a lot about my current profession. I have a lot of ambivalence about librarianship in the 21st century, and I’m sure I’m being kind when I say that. I started thinking about exactly what’s wrong with the profession today. I realized that I can summarize the whole complex mess with three words: “It’s too hard.”

Librarianship has two principle components: organization/access, and editorial process. The former is traditionally associated with cataloging, technical services and systems. The latter is associated with reference services and collection development. However, there is not a strict separation—both components need to be integrated to have a successful library environment.

Let’s look at the first one. Organizing information into somewhat meaningful categories is the backbone of what we do, even if the taxonomies used are highly imperfect. Over the years, standards of organization have been developed that are very complex—in the United States we use AACR2 and LCRI for description, LCSH for subject access, LCC or DDC for classification, and MARC format to make the records accessible in an inventory system.

This system worked great for books, but the information world is no longer about just books, or even about physical items that you can check out. A lot of material is now digital and virtual, and this presents a challenge in an organization system reliant on describing physical items. But we still have many, many physical items in our libraries, so we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Unfortunately, “it’s too hard”.

We already have massive amounts of data in the form of MARC records—bibliographic data and authority data. For the non-librarian—bibliographic data is what you see in your catalog when you search for an item. It describes the book/DVD/CD, whatever. Within that bibliographic data is something called “authority controlled” data—author names and subject headings in particular (yes, some titles too, but I’m not going there right now). There is a separate unseen authority record for every author, every subject in your catalog. Those records not only contain the chosen “authoritative” form of the name or subject, but all other seen variations—and in the case of subjects, related terms, broader terms, and narrower terms. The idea is that one heading is chosen as the one listed, and if you search for something different, a message will pop up telling you to “see” the authoritative heading, or to suggest other possible headings. Sounds good, yes?

Well, it should be, but no. Library catalog systems have not been designed to make good use of authority data. Keyword searches only search the bibliographic record. So, if you haven’t used the terms in the bibliographic record, you’re “SOL” if you stop with a keyword search. The only way many systems allow you to access the authority records is to do a “browse” search—if you do a subject browse, you will then get the benefit of those extra messages if you type in the wrong thing.
There are many problems with traditional catalog searching, but I won’t go into detail about that here. Recently, integrated library system vendors have been trying the “faceted” search approach, which does allow keyword searches to access the authority data. This is a big improvement, and I do hope libraries implement faceted search interfaces when they become available.

However, we still have another problem—library users don’t search the library catalog. Yes, I know, it’s a generalization, but I’ve seen enough surveys of library database usage to know that the catalog is the last place people look, especially if their past experience has been trying to navigate a crappy Boolean/BRS search engine. In university libraries, I’ve seen another problematic trend with respect to the catalog—students don’t want to use books, or at least they want the bulk of their information from online resources. And who can blame them? It’s easier to get things online, and in certain fields, the information in books is out of date by the time the book is printed and distributed.

Still, there is a lot of good information in books that is missed, so libraries want users to use the catalog, and they want them to check out or at least look at the book sources. Ideally, it would be nice to have a federated search that allows you to search the catalog AND the electronic resources at the same time, and give you one result set. But wait!, you say—such products already exist! Indeed they do. And they are highly inadequate, because of yet another problem—the searching protocol problem. Try this: go to your local library, and look up something in the catalog. Look up anything you want, though a more complicated search makes it more fun. Keep your result list—print it out, whatever. Now go to your library catalog via another site--
Did you get a list of items? Good. Save that, or print it out. Now—go home and go to a neighboring library’s site that offers access to your catalog. It could be through another County library system (e.g., if you are in New Jersey, search catalog.mainlib.org in Morris County, then search the same catalog via Passaic County or Bergen County’s site). Do the same search you did in your library and look at the list of items. Compare it to the first list. Are they the same? I’m betting they’re not, especially if your search was more complex.

This is because of the Z39.50 protocol. When you use a search protocol that allows the different library servers to “talk” to each other, the search is not executed by the system in the same way. And that’s just in a regular library catalog—try putting an Ebsco or Proquest database into the mix. Their searching is entirely different.
The bottom line is that one federated search will often give you disparate and confusing results. A standard, consistent search that would give you relevant results across different platforms has not been effectively developed.

The point I’m trying to make is that we have very good data, and for all of our technological developments, we don’t seem to be able to design library systems that make good use of this data in a simple, user-friendly way. Why not? Apparently, “it’s too hard”.

Instead of treating this as a programming/technology issue, the library profession has attempted to rewrite the rules. There are huge flowcharts about “relationships” between different types of “entities” that looks like a huge, confusing Peyton Place of data, only not nearly as interesting. Ever practical, the Tech Services staff and librarians are responding by saying. “Nice flowchart. So what do we do with it?” Over the last 4 years of workshops, conferences, and lectures, I’ve not yet heard a coherent answer to that question. Two big mistakes are being made—letting academics drive the rule-making, and allowing the technology to compromise basic organizational principles. Programmers don’t understand the principles behind the library data structures, and rather than try to learn them, they’d rather we dropped all that “fancy” stuff and made it simpler. The academics go along with this, because I think they somehow believe that the idea of traditional librarianship is obsolete, and that they have to “get with the times”. All I can say to that is—librarianship is still librarianship regardless of the technology. The fact that a lot of things are “born digital” now shouldn’t be making us scramble to change our standards. Digital object metadata is not useful for physical items by itself, and shouldn’t be treated as such—just as the converse is also true. But we don’t demand that the technology accommodate us because we’re told “it’s too hard”.

Part II tomorrow...