Author Archives: joemiller

Sheltered In Page

A year before the pandemic, the author sequestered himself in a monastery room for five days with 37 volumes of his life record.

By Joseph Miller

In February of 2019 I retreated to a monastery with a 30-pound box of journals. Having blocked-out the better part of a week from my schedule, I extracted myself and drove up the California coast for four hours to a Benedictine monastery perched high on a mountain overlooking the Big Sur coastline. The remote New Camaldoli Hermitage is located near the center of a breathtaking 70 mile stretch of a two-lane ribbon which hugs the juts and recesses of mountain slopes that plunge to the Pacific. Amplifying the sense of remoteness is the fact that rockslides frequently plague these steep slopes, collapsing the road or burying it utterly.

a call to the sacred

The turnoff from the highway is marked by a quirky sandwich board promising “Deep Books” and “Holy Granola”. The effect, instantly disarming, suggests the monks have not only a sense of humor, but market savvy. Banished for the moment was any fear of meeting repressed sorrowful cloisterers at the end of the two-mile drive up the mountain.  A few words with the attendant monk at the bookstore (the only place where speech is permitted for retreatants) conveyed solidity, yes, but not weightiness. And if I had wondered if Deep Books meant only Catholic tracts, I was refreshed by the breadth of offerings. Reprints of classic Benedictine texts were available, yes, but also contemplative gems from Hindu, Sufi and Buddhist traditions. The monastery is ten miles down the highway from the alternative spirituality haven, Esalen, born of the 1960’s counterculture, an alembic for yoga, psychedelics and Transpersonal psychology. I wondered whether Old Deep and New Deep, in such close proximity, have much to do with one another. I have heard of monastery retreatants sneaking off in the night to luxuriate in Esalen’s hot tubs. I myself would have, too, had the weather been better, and had I internet access to make a reservation.

But internet access would have sinned (pardon the term) against the very aim of my retreat. And if I had  to choose between a 2:00 am naked, pagan, moonlit bath in sulfur hot springs, serenaded by crashing waves and barking sea lions in the dark, or my tiny retreat room with only Saint Romuald’s rule and a crucifix on the wall—I would, alas, choose the latter, if only to be shielded from internet temptation. As my cargo made clear, my purpose was pen and paper, not glowing screens or sensuous excursions. I had paid to be unplugged and stay put, and I wanted my full money’s worth of nothing.

Pacific Ocean from the hermitage

I felt uneasy about bringing the journals along. Every hour in my ordinary life seems enmeshed in a dozen contingencies, and the prospect of a few days of uninterrupted solitude was the highest luxury imaginable. Why would I wish to drag 37 volumes of the past with me? Aren’t I already expert at self-preoccupation? I once knew a philosophy professor who claimed he always ruined his vacations by bringing himself along. Might a few days of reading the journals risk opening old wounds, awaken sleeping dogs of shame, and dig-up unresolved narratives of the past? On the other hand, might they also reveal forgotten sparkles of insight, particles of wisdom that belong to me, but remain as ineffectual as a screwdriver lost at the back of the junk drawer.

I felt pushed also by mortal urgency. My adult daughter, a few months earlier during a visit home, was reviewing with my wife details of our estate, when she came to me with the question, “What do you want done with your journals?” She meant, of course, when the inevitable takes place. It was a question I occasionally asked myself, but always dodged. I knew it had to be faced by someone at some point. “But why now?” I squirmed, “Are we already at that point?”

In short, I felt not only ambiguities about facing the past, but positive dread of running what amounted to a five-day solo marathon saddled with the 30 pounds and 6,500 pages, pushing for a resolute decision I could live and die with. After all, when else would I indulge such an elevated perch? How else to gain perspective? If not now, when? Clearly, from the outset, the project was doomed. I would almost certainly return to everyday life, not refreshed, but a dizzy, exhausted failure. Why, then, did I bother bringing the journals?

This was their maiden voyage. The journals had never left home before—as a group I mean. Only six of the notebooks pre-date the house I moved into in 1990, and I have never lived anywhere else since. The journals began in 1982, only months before I moved to Santa Cruz to attend UCSC. In fact, just weeks after scribbling the first entry I drove Highway 1 through Big Sur for the first time and was ignited into ecstasy by the raw elemental beauty. A native of Los Angeles, familiar with the sandy recreational beaches of Malibu, Carpinteria and Santa Barbara, I had never dreamt such brave new coastline lay undiscovered only hours up the road. My decision that weekend to transfer to UCSC was influenced as much by those few hours along Big Sur as by the arboreal campus in the redwoods. My life of 21 years was making a decisive turn from the past, towards philosophy, poetry and inwardness. Every gliding gull was Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

So, one notebook in the box, the first, had already been up this highway, 38 years before, constituting a thread and a distant echo. The journals, taken as a whole, are a running witness in ink to the ineffable Something my younger self affirmed that spring weekend in 1982. Maybe I have maintained the practice, partly, out of a desire not to let him down. He was hopeful and hungry and vulnerable, desperately in need of support. What better way to prove he was not merely a dreamer than by keeping the dream alive? He turned to the journal to say things he could risk saying nowhere else, not because they were scandalous or salacious; but because they were existential, ontological and ultimate. He was in dead earnest, and acquaintances don’t like earnest. Parents don’t like earnest about these sorts of things—they like earnest about medicine, law and business. No one wants a weirdo for a son. That’s why Asian legend depicts King Śuddhodana taking elaborate pains to shield his son, Siddhartha, from the frayed edges of life: the facts of disease, cruelty, old age, poverty and death. But the shield failed, and Siddhartha never became a king, warrior, or businessman. He became a buddha. (And I went into drapery work; but that’s another story.)

I started writing in order to find my voice. An awkward, distracted, anxious, guilt-ridden young man, I was haunted by a fear of falling behind and being left out. I heard no calling. I shrunk from the spotlight adults were always turning on me, “What do you want to do?” I didn’t want anything (nothing that I would tell them, anyway), and I felt ashamed by that fact. But in 1981 while attending lectures by a brilliant UCSB professor, something within me stirred, and I conceived, among other things, a hunger to make better friends with words. Journaling seemed to be the best method for pinning my mind to the present tense and sense. I had never been much of a reader before that, far too distracted. But I soon discovered that the writing of words and the reading of books fed one another. What better way to become a more nuanced and retentive reader than to record quotations and page references?  To restate and wrestle with argument, and so make it more your own?

Thoreau wrote, “Associate reverently and as much as you can with your loftiest thoughts” [Journal, January 22, 1852]. The journal has been my method for recording my most elevated attitudes and broadest visions. The act of writing is reinforcement. The rereading of an entry on a later date is an invocation of the memory and feeling. Absent the journal, where would all the subtle experiences (which are really the deepest and most causal) end up, except oblivion? It seemed to me at the time, long before popular articles on brain science gave support, that practicing my best thinking was not only pleasant, but a good safeguard against invasions of negativity and depression.

I was writing not to express what I already knew, but to discover what I didn’t know I knew.

The physical journals are almost all college composition books—cheap, uniform, and readily available. To choose one sort of medium and stay with it appears to unify the endeavor. The line of journals on my shelf seems to suggest that I have been living one life, ensouled by one purpose, not fragmented into a series of disconnected episodes. The suggestion is not entirely wrong. A hunger for meaning, the quest for faith (confidence, not doctrine), the untangling of themes from classic scriptures, East and West, and a philosopher’s penchant for upsetting habitual viewpoints—these threads run through all the volumes. On the other hand, the journals also record a host of short-lived illusions, preoccupations, and obsessions. Were these to take form, and not hide between cardboard covers, they would litter the shelf with a hodgepodge of rubbish. But they are between the covers, and if my life is not neatly unified by one purpose, at least I have wrestled with it through a singular method.

The blank page is clean potential, a block not yet carved by experience. I go to the journal to dwell on the shore of this emptiness, the way I stand on the beach to gaze seaward. The new line I write—this very one right now—is always the far edge of my writing. The present line is forever a divide between what was and what shall be, between the formulated and the unformed. No matter what problem oppresses me today, to look at the blank page ahead is to touch something new, clean, unborn and inexhaustible, not apart but belonging to me. No sooner do I think my failures have put me in a box, and all but nailed the lid, then I open the journal to write that down, and soon feel the vanity of the claim. The open page means nobody has had the last word.

author with his “laptop”

I know there are skeptics of paper navel-gazing. I can hear the question, “What might you have accomplished otherwise, with all that time spent writing? Surely, there are profitable actions you might have pursued.” Actually, you will be surprised by how little time I have spent writing. If my pitch for journaling has a bottom line, it is this: a small investment yields big dividends. I am not a professional writer, but someone who scribbles in the margins of ordinary life. If you figure I spend 15 minutes per page, then 6,500 pages represents only 68 continuous days and nights. That’s only 1,632 hours, which is less than a fifth of Malcolm Gladwell’s formula of 10,000 hours to mastery. And I’ve been at this for nearly four decades—not a promising pace! By that criterion I would require a lifespan of more than 200 years to become an accomplished writer. A dedicated music student, by contrast, who practices three hours a day, clocks her 10,000 hours by the time she is 18. Mine is a paltry commitment, really. An adolescent who spends 8 hours a day on social media and gaming whizzes by me in just over six months! This child spends one-third of his life at his obsession; I have spent only .005 or five-thousandths at mine. That averages 7 minutes and 12 seconds per day—about half a page; or, what is more my pattern, 22 minutes every third day. Hardly a theft from practical living.

It has been my habit to turn to the journal only when I have something to say, or when possessed by the urge to work out how to say something. I have never set myself before the page with the imperative WRITE!  I was writing as much to shape myself as to shape my prose. I was writing, as my philosophy professor, Carlos Noreña, used to say, not to express what I already knew, but to discover what I didn’t know I knew. I was writing to add solidity to my being, “to give airy nothings a local habitation and a name”. I was writing to translate moods—which in the words of the Irish mystic AE, “belong too much to the twilight of the heart”—into something more definite. “We should wish rather for our thoughts a directness such as belongs to the messengers of the gods,” he continues, “swift, beautiful, flashing presences bent on purposes well understood.”

The chief motive, as I’ve said, was to record advice to myself, reminders of attitude and perspective. But I eventually discovered that these degenerate into saccharine evasions unless I also make room for darker material. Flowers and sunsets are beautiful, but they are only a portion of a larger world which includes ignorance, death, conflict, and eerie unseen caverns. Certainty feels good for a while, but it becomes forced, defensive and self-righteous once it has an eye in the mirror. Follow the truth today, though it erases yesterday’s philosophy, unties all the pretty bows, and descends into the shadow of the valley of death. There is truth in the candid admission, “I don’t know the truth anymore.” Reading yesterday’s words does not guarantee access to their sense and animating spirit. Truth is never so caged; it requires new clothing each day. A truthful journal is the chase of a moving target, and a record of wasted arrows. Uncertainty, paradoxically, promises a more secure footing. Nothing is so top-heavy as self-satisfaction. There may be less Promise to my philosophy, but more promise for my method; less face to save and therefore better boots. Uncertainty negates the selfish illusion that I occupy a privileged, final vantage. Etymologically, to conclude is “to shut completely.” The conclusion of breath is death. A novice house painter can paint herself into a corner; and a writer can do the same.

My young journal displays idioms I picked up and tried to use without really understanding them. I hadn’t yet coined my own currency. I had yet to earn my vocabulary in the fields of experience. All authentic speech is original; not that it is abnormal or unusual, but only that its origins are verified directly. Think of the difference between two math students using the quadratic formula. Imagine one has derived it from completing the square, whereas the other engages it as a machine assembled by others. The first student can rebuild the formula, should she forget it. She can also use it with more confidence, since she has analyzed its rudiments. My later journals, in some passages, actively melt what former volumes so carefully minted. My early efforts, understandably, were attempts to display of a unified self; my latter ones are a patchwork of discrete observations and perspectives; even, quite literally, a scrapbook. The first volumes were animated by the hope of inking indelible truths; the later ones sketching tentative surmises.


The early notebooks, sadly, omit almost all biographical data. They are strangely disembodied. Reading the early volumes, I struggle to even know where I lived at the time, during my vagabond mid-twenties. Looking at some of these high-brow passages now, I want to shake the writer and ask him what he is hiding. Did he have indigestion? Who were his most important friends at the time? What about romantic infatuations? What career disappointments? Money problems? Personal doubts? Or grievances towards co-workers?  Most embarrassing of all, during the period of courting of my wife, there is no mention of her name, our first kiss, our engagement, nor any reference to our wedding. To be kind to my former self, I remember choosing to keep the journal from becoming a diary. It was an idea book, I insisted. After all, a naturalist’s notebook, or a mathematician’s, would also exclude biographical detail. That’s the sort of thing I had in mind.

But I also knew that recording biographical detail would mean vulnerability, and I didn’t want to go there. I wanted to outgrow the hang-ups I was hiding, the sooner to forget about them, not fold them in with my golden metaphysical and psychological distillations. Perhaps the wisdom I was recording (I dared not admit) could be read profitably by someone in the future. But if the pages also recorded a self-doubting, posturing, despairing young writer—what good would that do? It would only cast doubt on the value of the wisdom, which evidently failed to aid the first and most important reader.


But all this changed in time. Concert and theater ticket stubs get pasted in. References to events, people, bad moods and gripes about my upbringing are dwelt upon. Even a few extremely painful fits are laid open in all their ugliness, without any effort to soothe or salve them. Short notations about phone calls, conversations, flirts, slights, travels and purchases appear. As I age, I’ve come to see that the best language for life is life itself, and my own dignity demands liberty from any summary. I’ve come to mistrust tidy reductions and simple solutions. But at the same time, these are not the journals of a cynic, or a worldly man. Far from it! Flights of faith, mystical moods, and philosophic analysis continue to burst through the pages. But their potency is greater now for their brevity, more welcome for their unsolicited appearance and unconstrained departure. Lightning now strikes during ordinary life, where it is most needed, not blinding the eyes and obliterating the world’s detail but jarring the senses and illuminating the heavens for an instant, if only to shine on duller common moments.

There is this empirical side to the journals—drastic changes in my handwriting, which over the course of 38 years, begins illegibly, approaches something like beauty and clarity after 15 years and degrades thereafter. But just as the feebleness of age is not identical to the weakness of a child, so also my writing. The first was cramped-hand, forward-blown cursive, the tortured, imitative penmanship of Catholic school regiment; the latter is an idiosyncratic block script strangely crossbred with a year’s training in the Greek alphabet. The first, like an art student’s initial efforts, is forced and over-worked. The latter resembles more the mature artist’s quick strokes: partial, disconnected flits, incomplete gestures, neglected crossings and dots. Both are atrociously unreadable by anyone but me. For many years I thought my wife exaggerated the difficulty of reading my handwriting. And then, just a few years ago, I accidentally discovered the truth with a shock. Here is a very simple test, I suggest you try it with your own writing. It is a fact that most of us can read typed copy upside down. Open a book, turn it over, and read a paragraph. I can do it alright, and I’m guessing you can too.  But if I turn my journal upside down, it is impossible for me to read anything!  I am suddenly locked out of myself, a stranger to my own mind.


The monastery bell chimes several times a day, beckoning monks and visitors to vigils, lauds, vespers and Eucharist. I am not Catholic and did not attend these meetings. But towards the end of my retreat, feeling too saturated with the weight of my seclusion, I heeded the bell one morning, and scrambled out of bed, through the dark and rain, to attend the 5:30 vigil. The Camaldolese are especially dedicated to the chanting of the Psalms. The low light, and the droning unison of the ten monks that morning, put me in contact with something very old, but also left me wondering, Is this still relevant? Why chant these old Hebrew tribal petitions now, in this age, in this land and language? I was glad at least to show my face and pay respects. If my stay was to be something more than a financial transaction, and the hermitage something more than a hotel or hostel, then three-quarters of an hour given to this gathering was the least I could do.

The new line I write—this very one right now—is always the far edge of my writing. The present line is forever a divide between what was and what shall be.

Then, the chanting stopped, and one of the monks began to speak. I had not heard any talk for five days, and I found myself as dilated as an eye emerging from a cave. Father Cyprian Consiglio—who I later learned is the Prior, and an accomplished musician/composer—gave a gentle homily. If this was first light, it was easy on my eyes. And it demonstrated a seamless meeting of the Old Deep and New Deep I had wondered about days before. The New Testament text was, “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.” Yet, the references Consiglio displayed to build his argument were no child’s play: his graduate studies, philosopher Ken Wilbur, post-modern values, pre-modern cultures, and Transpersonal psychology. This was a dazzling pivot from the Psalms; here was my surprise landing in Esalen without reservation! Consiglio, however, was brief, and the content was not gratuitous, but finely pointed, delivered conversationally, and capped by a touching personal anecdote. He described a beloved photo of his father, advanced in age, holding his baby niece. The two were very close, and displayed similarities. They both were a little wobbly on their feet; they spoke in halting words; they both loved naps. There was a parallel simplicity, noted Consiglio, whose master’s thesis had been on the Garden of Eden. “But Dad’s simplicity was different from Aria’s simplicity. Dad’s was a simplicity born of experience––and maybe some fatigue, and a certain mistrust of words, as if everything important had already been said and there was no use debating things anymore. Aria’s simplicity was based on the fact that everything was ahead of her; for Dad most everything was and is behind him now.” [Read full homily posted HERE].

But what was I to do with the journals? The question remains. 6,500 pages are behind me, but do I believe everything important has already been said? All writing is book-ended by two great silences. Maybe I should return my words to the silence deliberately, consciously, as the final entry, with flaming pen, while I am still alive. That would be the ultimate erasure. Perhaps a ritualistic act, a rite of passage, a beach bonfire on some significant birthday, dancing and drumming in the flickering light. Maybe my 70th . . . or my 60th, which is only next year! 40 minutes for 40 volumes, with a sentence or two sung aloud from each. I still squirm, “Are we already at that point?”

My journals represent four decades of self-discovery and self-expression. Whatever the changing forms, conditions, and relations of my outer life, this at least has been a constant: the line of ink running left-to-right, margin stop, and back again; the past above, the future below; the unseen current of thought expressed through a visible thread of vowels and consonants. I have yielded to an urge to say to myself and for myself what matters, what is relevant, engrossing, inspiring; what is real, what’s happening; and what’s it all about. The journal has been my way of deliberately accepting the burden of living—refining it, owning it, putting myself to a point.



Who does corona invite me to be?

Periodically sections of the Santa Barbara foothills erupt in flames, and in a matter of hours or days decades’ worth of over-and undergrowth is vaporized. Branches and leaves of the chaparral are indifferently reduced to formless ash. The slate is cleared. Everything that is vital and future is now hidden underground. This, forestry experts tell us, is the natural way of things. The health of the foothills depends on a periodic clean sweep of fire. During long years of growth, plant life on our sunny southern slopes captures light energy and stores it in rich organic compounds. Think of it as a great energy inhalation. And then comes the day when all that captured energy is released—a great exhalation. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The frightening glow of firelight is only sunlight transformed and released again. Nothing is held in form forever. Energy is more enduring, continuous, and of a higher order than the forms it regularly inhabits and disposes of. Hindu philosophy symbolizes spirit with the Sanskrit letter OM, but also spells it with three letters, AUM, to represent the phases of creation, maintenance, and destruction. No living form, object or event is exempt from these three phases. The forms blow in and out of existence, but the AUM remains.

Of course, humans find fire frightening and fascinating. A wildfire can be deadly or financially devastating. I’m all in favor of nature doing her thing until my home is built in her foothills. Then I no longer acquiesce so readily to her laws and ways. I am naturally self-centered and myopic about my concerns, comforts, livelihood and vanities. I take the whole thing personally. And yet, loss and ash are seldom the final word in human life, just as for the chaparral. Like the health of the latter, it may be a good thing, now and again, for some event to declutter life and chase the vitality back to the root, where, emerging again, it may branch in a new direction, with tender stems, new possibilities and open access to sunlight.

The Covid-19 viral event is like no other in our experience. From one perspective, it is a universal conflagration, thinning out the human population by some significant, if relatively small, percentage. From another perspective, it is a slow, creeping burn, which like Santa Barbara County’s 2007 Zaca Fire, will be with us for months. (The smoke from that fire gave this writer the worst pneumonia he has ever contracted). And all of us, in a defensive maneuver called ‘shelter-in-place’, have retreated to our roots, and abandoned the leaves and branches of nearly all outward living. Understandably, we experience this as irksome, inconvenient, frightening, unprecedented, unsustainable, anxiety-producing and even boring. But is it all bad? Why can’t this also be an unparalleled opportunity to face ourselves? Liberated from habitual conformity to entrenched patterns, we might recall someone prior to our acquired identity. We might rediscover, in seed form, affinities and aspirations made invisible and forgotten by the dense covering called ‘making a living.’

I’ve always been attracted by Socrates’ assertion that philosophy is the practice of dying, as described by Plato in the dialogue, Phaedo. Socrates is well aware of the absurdity and morbidity provoked by this assertion, at first blush. ‘Philosophers are already half-dead’ jokes one of his listeners. ‘No one deserves death more than the philosopher,’ ominously jokes another. Socrates, ever generous yet subtle, surprisingly accommodates both points. Yet, he insists, those who make such snarky dismissals are not aware in what sense they are correct, because they don’t understand what death is. Death is a purification, a separation of the mind from the realm of form. The philosopher ‘practices death’ through a regular discipline of abstraction. No one is more vulnerable emotionally, or inflexible psychologically, than the person rigidly attached to social identity and possessions. Whether by fire, flood, epidemic or mortality itself, the mind will eventually be purified of accretions, and then the naked question remains, ‘Who am I?’ Why not preempt the inevitable by facing facts now, drawing back to the root of being by asking, ‘Who would I be without this job, this name, this home, this nation, these relationships, these roles? What duty or desire to live would remain relevant under comprehensively different circumstances? What motivation might stay intact were my personal goals suddenly nullified?’

A Man’s Imagination

The tedious vigilance required routinely by women, as discussed here, is sad. Point taken. But the take-away prescription from the end of this video – is weak and naïve. “If we only taught young boys that rape isn’t even an option.”  First of all, this sounds as if a lot of ‘young boys’ are already cherishing the idea of rape ‘as an option.’ Really? What a cynical thought. I was a young boy once, and I don’t remember any of my peers expressing any thought about rape. Also, this assumes that something learned in youth is learned once and for all. Aren’t there many intervening factors in hormones and the suggestions of mass-media AFTER youth that shape a young man’s desires and notions of women?  A perfectly decent boy might very well grow up and assault women, because of what he has become since.

Now, if the suggestion, however poorly worded, is: “It is never too early to teach boys respect for women,” I couldn’t agree more. And the best way is when respectful behaviors and attitudes are modeled by influential men in the boy’s life. Any headway you make, however, will be sorely tested by a hypersexualized commercial culture, and the ready availability of violent porn.  As a culture, we primarily value the free exchange of the dollar, sacred above all. There is a lot of money to be made in stirring up and steering men’s sexuality in all directions and byways. But then, we pay a terrible social price for this psychological exploitation.

I think this whole question parallels the gun issue.  We fetishize guns, and ‘sell’ boys and men violent games, movies, and actual weaponry. And look at the social cost.

Bottom line: the male brain is easy prey to illusions about sex and violence. If we really cared about women’s safety and dignity, and about men’s well-being, we would start with that assumption. We falsely assume that what goes on in the privacy of a man’s head and feelings is harmless, so long as he does not act on it. This puts men in conflict with themselves, and normalizes the notion of men in self-conflict. It puts the onus for outward peace on a psychological safety valve inside a man’s head. And those valves fail. Now I hear someone objecting, “Impulse control is a part of growing up.”  Of course it is. No one is arguing against that. But can’t we together visualize a healthier, more harmonious possibility for men?  An infected imagination must be controlled. But why assume the infected imagination in the first place?  Can we imagine conditions where that does not happen?  Or, at least, where it is less extreme?

We also assume that if only men were less bad, they would be good by default?  But the imagination needs practice in constructive social and gender relations.  It is not the case that if men were not violent and predatory, that would be enough. It would not be. That’s like saying if only I could stop someone from attacking a piano with a hammer, they could play music instead. No, they can’t play music without training. The attacker likely has no idea of the positive experience, and the intense motivation, that music can exercise in a life. So also, there is a positive experience and intense motivation in constructive, wholesome, personal relationships that men must come to know, and gain an appetite for. Only new growth can truly supersede old.


Why has it become fashionable for spokespeople on the Right to sneer at the word ‘Kumbaya’ with contempt?  Someone started that a few years ago (likely one of the AM radio mouths) and the thoughtless all line up behind them and do the same. It seems to function as a kind of password for demonstrating political masculinity. It’s a way to say, “Let’s get real—none of this lovey-soft stuff.” It justifies the will to estrange and bomb. It is used to support rejection of immigrants, drastic deportation, punitive justice, increased military spending. The word dates to slavery in the Americas, and is a Creole take on the phrase, ‘come by you’, and was popularized in the 1920’s among white collectors of folk songs.

On the face, ‘come by you’ is a most welcoming invitation. It could be the motto for the Statue of Liberty, a subtitle for Emma Lazarus’s sonnet. Yet, its rejection is in keeping with the fearful and uninviting attitude that is infecting our culture. And, dare we say it, is there not a note of racism in this? Why has this prayer of black dialect become shorthand for weakness? I don’t see them taking similar phrases from the Bible?  Why not spit on ‘amen’, or ‘alleluia’, or ‘God is Love’, or ‘hear our prayer,’ or ‘we need Thee, O Lord’? After all, don’t these mean the same as ‘come by you’? Why not ridicule anyone who uses those phrases, as well? Are they not the essence of ‘soft’? Why not, except that those words still ring in white churches.

Ring, but I don’t know if they are heard. I can think of a few more that should be heard. “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” Or, “when I was hungry, you gave me to eat, when I was thirsty you gave me to drink, when I was naked you gave me your cloak.” Very Kumbaya.

To estrange and bomb (whether verbally, psychically, or physically) does not take courage. It is the failure to ‘come by.’ It is bolting or bailing. To not ‘come by’ is a failure of courage, a retreat. It is, in fact, running away from the true battle. It is much harder, but far worthier, to engage and not estrange, to understand, to elicit cooperation, to negotiate. To Love.

A Conservatism of Love


What is a conservative? One who conserves something. Conserves what? Conserves enduring principles thought by common consent and reason to be essential to society, politics, religion and the economy. Why should principles need protection or conservation? What is the danger? The danger is illegitimate innovation, bastard liberality that would waste and divert resources toward miscreations, and draw attention away from founding principles. Conservatism protects society from losing anchor and running adrift.

Constitutional government is a form of conservatism. The principles of the constitution are preserved, consulted, clarified, and applied. Practices and policies are not merely compared and contrasted with one another – ‘horizontally,’ as it were – but are analyzed ‘vertically’ in relation to that invisible object of reason called principle. Reason is important here. The U.S. Constitution is the child of the European Enlightenment, a cultural efflorescence that followed the emancipation of reason during the Renaissance. The founding principles of the Constitution – justice, equality before the law, liberty, freedom of expression, etc. – did not underlie the theocracy of the dark ages. The feudal system and the Church’s rule were found to be arbitrary, irrational, superstitious and oppressive according to the light of reason. Likewise, the imperial reign of England over colonial America was also found to be an arbitrary and unjust ordering of society, when assessed by reason.

Conservatism, then, is not the mere preserving of form, but of principles that are the roots of form. A conservative might well be antagonistic towards illegitimate practices and policies, and would therefore not wish to preserve them. He might judge that they violate and obscure fundamental values and principles; that they are like weeds sprung from carelessness and invasion. He would note that these policies and practices have their own advocates, those who wish to preserve them. These advocates might well take the name ‘conservative,’ but this would be a false conservatism. False conservatism is a holding to circumstance, not a regarding of principle. The false conservative wishes to preserve the status quo when it arbitrarily favors him; ‘arbitrary’ meaning without regard for the principle of justice. The false conservative, then, holds only to the principle of self-interest, and preserves circumstance only as it favors him. He may rationalize his behavior according to loftier ideas and motives, but he is essentially selfish in conviction and practice.

The false conservative is unable or unwilling to make the distinction between moral good and personal interest. In preserving the latter, he blurs, glosses or dismisses the former. He may do this in two ways. First, he might deny outright the existence of the moral order. What does not exist can make no claim on him. All is self-interest, and the essence of nature and human society is ‘might makes right’. Social Darwinism makes plain what is obvious to everyone, however much sentiment or fancy might wish otherwise. The second way is to equate the moral good and personal interest, recasting the former in the image of the latter. This is self-righteousness. What I own and do is totally consonant with principle, and beyond reproach. Therefore I need make no adjustments. I have nothing to learn and nothing to sacrifice.

The true conservative, then, is absolutely conservative with respect to principle, but is only relatively conservative with respect to circumstance. He promotes practices and policies that can be justified, but he does not conserve what cannot be justified, even where his self-interest is at stake. “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.” ‘Eternal vigilance’ characterizes the unchanging faithfulness of the true conservative. This absolute stance, in regard to principle, may necessitate a liberal or revolutionary expression in circumstance. That is, the holding and extension of principle requires, by turn, sometimes a holding, and sometimes a changing, of forms and practices. Thus, in the realm of change, the true conservative is known at one time as a ‘conservative’, and at another time as a ‘liberal’. What makes him a conservative is his faithfulness to the unseen, but thinkable, reality of reason.

Now, the most fundamental principle known to human kind, universally, is Love. By Love I do not mean merely personal affection or erotic emotion, though these may under the right circumstances be expressions of Love. By Love I mean what is known and expressed variously as unity, harmony, cooperation, justice, equality, dignity, and liberty. Again and again, through long ages and various cultures, celebrated individuals, honored for their wisdom and vision, have enunciated and urged the principle of Love. Without a relatively widespread recognition of this principle, the American Revolution would have been impossible. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense would have made no sense. The self-evidence of “We hold these truths . . .” in the Declaration of Independence would have been without witness. As the truest conservative is the one who reaches and holds to the most enduring and fundamental principle, the person who clings to, protects and extends Love is the true conservative. He realizes his good is bound up with the good of others. He does not shrink from this fact and its implications. He refuses to settle for a lesser equilibrium. He refuses all forms of self-enclosed ignorance, or self-justified inertia. He does not seek peace in separation, nor justification through condemnation. To the contrary, he sees himself as the trustee of the latent light of Love in all human hearts, and counts no cost too great for Its emancipation. He understands well Emma Lazarus’ reference to the “imprisoned lightening” (Statue of Liberty), and recognizes this release within the human heart as the true Work of these States.

Let, then, nominal conservatives take stock, and measure themselves by the principle of Love, and its demanding courage. Let them discover if their houses are built upon shifting sand or enduring stone. Let them reach beyond temporary labels of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ to find brethren of the heart behind diverse masks of party, gender, race, and association; and find others, too, who have forgotten that they are also of the heart, yet may be reminded through respect and patient example. The two great conservatives of the 20th century are Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., for they were faithful to Love, and to Love’s presence in both friend and foe. To be conservative is to be inwardly faithful, and outwardly kind. Love is the real core of our being, and any abandonment or betrayal of Love is a failure to conserve what really matters.

True conservatism must be in mind, heart, and discourse. If I spread fear and distortion through discourse, in order to summon outrage in others, I fail to be a conservative. For I have failed to conserve Love, the ultimate principle. “There is no fear in love, but perfect love is the casting out of all fear.” I may set mass action in motion, but it will have no lasting relevance. I have only confused others about the objects of loyalty, and therefore I have impeded their growth as true conservatives. In their confusion, they will identify with and promote something less than fundamental, and their efforts to build on that basis will be undone by time. Justice will in time correct their distortions, for justice faithfully works from the real foundations of Love. This is because Love is Reality. “God is Love.”

Joseph Miller
Santa Barbara, CA

Walt Whitman, Radical Patriot

I’ve posted now to YouTube the full length “Walt Whitman, Radical Patriot”. Below you may find YouTube links. There is also an audio interview from KCBX radio that plays directly from this page.

This play was first written and performed in 2004, as a free cultural event at the Santa Barbara Central Public Library. This filmed performance took place in 2005 at Victoria Hall Theatre, Santa Barbara, CA, due to generous support from Karuna Foundation and the Institute of World Culture. Special acknowledgment to Alison and Ernie Tamminga for videography and editing, and without whom there would be no living record of this event. Special thanks goes to fellow thespians Peter John Duda, Maria De La Vega Delgado, & James Colbert, who trusted me, and profoundly imbibed the exhilarating words and heart of a great American. “Walt Whitman, Radical Patriot” was honored with a Santa Barbara Independent Theater Award in 2006.

YouTube links:

Walt Whitman, Radical Patriot, Part 1

Walt Whitman, Radical Patriot, Part 2

KCBX interview with Joseph Miller, hosted by Marisa Waddell: Central Coast Forum, October 19, 2005.


“Walt Whitman, Radical Patriot” is a celebration of the life and words of
the American bard, coinciding with the sesquicentennial (2005) of the publication of “Leaves of Grass” (1855). Staged for four actors and multimedia, the play uses drama, humor, song, choral recitation, and movement to evoke Whitman’s great heart and sweeping vision. A collage of poetry and prose recitations is threaded together by a narrative line that follows his childhood, youth, artistic awakening, burst onto the literary scene, involvement in the Civil War (as a nurse), impressions of Lincoln, and broad views on faith.

Camerata Pacifica at Hahn Hall, Friday evening, November 18.

Clay pots and electronic loops – what’s chamber music coming to?

Bach stitches it all together, old and new

Review by Joseph Miller

Artists are always stretched by a tension between past and future, known and unknown. When an artist’s work meets acceptance, the temptation is to capitalize on that form, to repeat and stay with what is safe. Aging rockers become tribute bands to their own glory days. And in the classical music world, we tend to view Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and Bach as fixed constellations in an unchanging heaven. No one dreams of improving the night sky, nor of exhausting the wonder it arouses. But, as contemporary astronomy reveals, there is nothing fixed about the stars; celestial objects are not only diverging and receding, but accelerating in that expansion.

Ani Aznavoorian, Ji Hye Jung (David Bazemore)

Ani Aznavoorian, Ji Hye Jung (David Bazemore)

It’s trite to say, of course, but even the music of J.S. Bach was once new. And with this audacious program, Camerata Pacifica’s Artistic Director Adrian Spence seemed intent on storming the museum and freeing Bach from the glass case where he’s been suffocating. Not only was Bach’s music juxtaposed to modern compositions, but instrumentation ranged from harpsichord to clay flower pots, and even finished with live electronic looping.

The concert began gently and accessibly with harpsichordist Paolo Bordignon playing 2 Part Invention in F Major, a short lead-in really to Bach’s Trio Sonata in G Major, which added flute (Spence), oboe (James Austin Smith), and cello (Ani Aznavoorian). The Canadian-born Bordignon, whose far-ranging career includes principal harpsichordist with the New York Philharmonic, is one of the world’s experts on the instrument. He has graced the Camerata stage before, memorably at the Brandenburg Concerti climax of the 2014-15 season. For the Sonata Aznavoorian played from an upraised platform, that amplified the cello’s sound while doubling the basso continuo line. Woodwinds paired and sparred like twirled DNA strands above the steady stepping of cello and keyboard.

Adrian Spence, James Austin Smith (David Bazemore)

But this was all prelude to the night’s heavy-hitter, Elliott Carter’s Sonata for Flute, Oboe, Cello & Harpsichord (1952). Spence reported from stage that Carter always insisted his music was very simple. “It is simple,” Spence quipped, “there just happens to be lots of simple.” He advised the listener to step back from the music a few paces for perspective, and even permit the attention to wander. I took that suggestion to heart, attending to the phrases and contours rather than the notes, and verified indeed that Carter has a point. Still, it is easy for the diatonically-minded to be unsettled by broader tonalities; a surprising dunk in cold water, which assaults while it invigorates. From the musicians’ side, the Sonata is a demanding work that frequently places the harpsichord in dialogue with the ensemble, which then answers in tightly arranged outbursts. If the sound of harpsichord instinctively calls up baroque associations for you, this work goes miles in updating that mental file.

Then percussionist Ji Hye Jung and bassist Timothy Eckert joined Smith and Bordignon for Les Citations for Oboe Harpsichord Double Bass & Percussion by Henri Dutilleux, which “cites” or quotes composers Benjamin Britten, Clément Janequin and Jehan Alain. The work began with a beguiling plaint on Smith’s oboe, but soon textures thickened and tensions ratcheted. One compelling section featured solos by Eckert and Jung, and moved with the loose logic of free-form jazz.

The first half concluded—in obvious features at least—as it had begun: Bach for solo harpsichord. But after the Carter and Dutilleux, the ears were ready for a very different face than the one communicated in the Trio Sonata. Bordignon handsomely tackled the wild Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue in D Minor with all its roving key centers and irresolution. Spence’s programming intention seemed clear: it’s not a question of how radical was Bach, but how radical is Bach! And, of course, there was the rare pleasure of hearing the work articulated on harpsichord rather than piano. This might ordinarily have felt like a ritual concession to “authenticity”; but after the Carter and Dutilleux it simply became the right color and texture for the piece.

The second half of the program featured Jung in three duets by young composers. But first the percussionist wowed the audience with her solo marimba arrangement of the Fuga from Bach’s Violin Sonata No.1 in G minor—the most stunning translation of Bach to my ear since Edgar Meyer modified the cello suites for double bass. Aznavoorian then joined Jung for Caroline Shaw’s whimsical Boris Kerner for Cello & Flower Pots. Shaw, who is the youngest composer ever to win the Pulitzer Prize, is impressively conversant with styles and daringly open to unconventional sounds. Jung knelt on a mat before 9 clay flower pots which she played with drum sticks. The introduction was a quarter note walk on the cello through scaler figures and intervals that resembled a dance from a Bach sonata, before the pots burst out in with rapid-fire rolls. The aural colors of ceramic flower pots are unlike anything found in the conventional percussion arsenal, some bordering on wood blocks, others as delicate as glass bells. Spence joined Jung for the most lyrical and soft moment of the night, Japanese composer Naoko Hishinuma’s duet for flute and percussion, On a Full Moon Night. Finally, the program concluded with the very unusual upbeat work, 21 for Marimba and Cello by Caribbean steel drum virtuoso and composer, Andy Akiho. Not only did Aznavoorian and Jung master the impossible polyrhythms, but they made it look like fun. The opening measures were digitally recorded, and then looped back at several points for extra texture. Amping-up the concept of multi-tasking, Aznavoorian played the foot-pedal bass drum and cello simultaneously, while Jung added to her marimba a foot-controlled tambourine and the electronic loop petal. The result was a sense of four or six distinct musicians on stage. And to top all, Bach stitched together this second half as well: Akiho’s 21 was inspired by the sequence of harmonies in the 21st measure of the Fuga that began the set.

We can thank Camerata Pacifica for a very unusual night of cutting edge music, old and new; one that certainly would have pleased a progressive artist like Bach.

Audio Interview with Fariba Enteshari 5-13-16


The Sufi Inspiration in Rumi’s Poetry

Presenter: Fariba Enteshari

Saturday, May 21, 2016 from 4:00 – 6:00 pm

The Institute of World Culture 1407 Chapala Street, Santa Barbara CA

Information at IWC website  805-966-3941

This recitation of and commentary on the poetry of the 13th century Sufi teacher, Jala ad-Din Muhammad Rumi, offers entry into a universal path to self-discovery and healing. By exploring the images, symbols and messages in Rumi’s poetry and stories, one can develop inner knowledge, spiritual insight and health, mental and physical.


Audio Interview with John Mead 5-1-16

John Mead taught college-level music for 20 years – and at art academies in Italy, in Greece and in Chicago where, born to be a compulsive explainer, he developed skills in demystifying the intricacies of music to non-musicians.  His love of 16th century music started with ecstatic experiences as a cathedral chorister at age 14. His formal education included classics studies at a preparatory level, then studies in composition with Leo Sowerby (Pulitzer Prize, 1937 and the Prix de Rome,1941).  John’s mentor and teacher for conducting, et al, was William Ferris, twice nominated for a Pulitzer.   John has held positions as organist and choirmaster – while concurrently teaching high school mathematics and then later working in IT.  His association with Buckminster Fuller (1971-72) in Greece had a profound influence on his life including spiritual matters and completion of the M.Sc.

Renaissance Music

This conversation was in anticipation for John’s presentation The Genius of Renaissance Music in collaboration with Adelfos Ensemble, at The Institute of World Culture in Santa Barbara, CA on May 7, 2016.