*                          

                           The Hindenburg as Self

Brian Lynch

History and myth: How do they come to be, and how can they be investigated and possibly changed? Is history not fixed, like 2+2? My purpose in these few words is not to answer these questions but to ask you to think about how the passage of time, when codified, becomes history. I want you to consider that our personal history is subject to the same forces as the history of the Hindenburg and that rewriting history when we find errors is essentially the same process.

Addison Bain, a persistent and great investigator, doubted that hydrogen caused the Hindenburg disaster. The Hindenburg, a dirigible that had made several voyages across the Atlantic as a passenger ship, was well-known from our school days. It was during the time of the Nazi regime in Germany, but World War II had not yet started. We have all seen the footage where the Hindenburg gently approaches its moor at the mast, and suddenly it bursts into flames. Almost everyone on board died. The investigation pointed to hydrogen, a highly flammable gas, as the cause. While I, like many others, have always believed this to be true, Addison Bain had doubts. He embarked on a quest to uncover the truth. I will share some details to create a sense of investigation and illustrate how the truth, once lost, is difficult to find.

There were 97 eyewitnesses to the tragedy: 95 on one side of the craft and only two on the other side, all on the ground. The accounts of the 95 witnesses supported the hydrogen theory, while the two other accounts, although they saw where the fire started, were discounted. Many inconsistencies emerged.

Hydrogen cannot be seen burning in daylight as it burns straight up and has a fine blue hue. However, the accident occurred in daylight.

Through the use of computers and colorization, it became evident that the fire was bright orange and red, not the characteristic flame of hydrogen. But you may wonder, weren't the ship materials burning, producing an orange flame? Yes, but here's another problem: the ship burned completely in just 84 seconds. Why did it ignite?

Addison Bain presented an elaborate model that demonstrated that if the hydrogen had burned first, it would have been seen in a different location. The spark would have been caused by electric static from thunderstorms that had just passed through. However, the mooring ropes should have grounded the ship.

His attention turned to the ship's coating. He hypothesized that the substance used to coat the Hindenburg might have been a good conductor of electricity. Additionally, he noted that the panels were attached to the frame with rope, which is a poor conductor.

Based on his reasoning, if the panels were good conductors, a high amount of electricity would have built up on them. The charge would discharge wherever it could, jumping the gap to the next panel and causing a spark. This spark would ignite the cloth. Why? Well, it turned out that the panels were indeed good conductors of electricity. The cloth was treated with aluminum and iron for specific engineering reasons, and both materials are excellent conductors. Addison Bain concluded that under such conditions, a spark like this would lead to the fire.

Two things further supported his theory. First, he obtained samples of the Hindenburg and subjected a small piece to a small static charge, causing it to burst into flame. It is worth noting that this material was 60 years old at the time. Second, he discovered a report in the German archives generated at the time of the accident that also proposed the same theory. This theory was not considered at the time, likely due to insurance reasons and the reputation of the Third Reich.

The consequences of all these findings were significant. Blimps and dirigibles were no longer used, and hydrogen became stigmatized. Based on this flawed belief, an entire lifetime has passed, and we have suffered the consequences. Society has been deprived of a highly efficient mode of transportation, and hydrogen has been unfairly condemned

So, what is the underlying point?  

How does this relate to the human psyche? The point is that when we are young we are like hydrogen. We can be given the idea, believe the idea, that we are bad, and spend a lifetime trapped in that prison. Just as our therapist friend liberated hydrogen from its past, at least partially, because perceptions die hard, we too can transform our self-image.

Creating good history is an arduous task. What is the truth? However, good history is not impossible, and with advancements in science, it is becoming even more attainable. Our lives are similarly open to scrutiny. It seems that we have some understanding of how we function, enabling us to look back on our own lives with more objectivity and discern the true from the false.

Often, we discover that we have lived with a sense of poor self-worth and shame based on a lie, perpetuated by many people in our lives, including ourselves. Understanding how hurt is transformed into myth is the key to uncovering the true explanations of our lives. By doing so, we can ignite a new flame within ourselves, akin to hydrogen burning with a clean and translucent glow.

History and myth are intertwined, and investigating and potentially changing them requires critical thinking and a willingness to challenge established narratives. As we delve into our personal history, let us strive to seek the truth, release ourselves from false perceptions, and embrace our authentic selves. Only then can we truly soar, just like the Hindenburg could have, had its history not been marred by misconceptions

Brian Lynch

The Knight and the Catcher: The Shield and the Glove

Two images:

A knight

A baseball catcher

The knight and the catcher, images that I have used to explain and explore two general approaches to the world that can be controlling principles for people.

Both the knight and the catcher wear “armor” for protection. Protection from what? From a hostile world. The knight is protected from slings and arrows and the catcher from a ball that can reach a speed of over a hundred miles an hour.

The image of the knight is several hundred years old. This is important. The image of the Catcher is somewhat over a hundred years old.

They serve to shed light on two styles of handling the world, especially the dangerous parts of the world. One seems more useful than the other.

The medieval knight as we see is regaled in full armor and burdened with a large shield.

The analogy is with a person that has developed an attitude of “strength” and of the power of not being hurt: “You cannot possibly hurt me because as you see I have all this armor on!”

The idea is that the catcher is in control. The catcher is “receiving” the ball. He is not fighting with it. The situation is controlled. The catcher admits that even though the situation is controlled, that injury can still occur and so is protected.

These approaches seem to me to be very similar to the way people manage their lives, especially their emotional lives.

The knights of the world are highly defended against the world feeling very much in control and feeling that “nothing can hurt them.” In psychology, this has taken on the form of telling people that if they get hurt that it is their fault. “You can only be hurt if you let people hurt you.” People then tend to build a wall around themselves and paint a sign on the outside saying “You can’t hurt me.” What I find interesting about this form of survival is that “if you can’t hurt me” then why do I need the wall? Why do I need the armor?

We see this in the schoolyard when children say “It didn’t hurt?” I always wonder why one would bother saying “it didn’t hurt” if it indeed did not hurt. As Shakespeare said, “he too much.”

For the knight and our friend in the schoolyard and ourselves, if we see ourselves playing out this style, we and they spend a great deal of time in very hard work building walls and wearing armor as at some point they had no control and felt quite hopeless about having much control over their lives. They learned that they must be prepared for the worst! As an adult, this is by no means obvious to them. Why? It is not obvious because they began building the wall many, many years previously. The world was cut off many years ago. It was “the world hurt me,” “I must protect myself,” “I will protect myself,” and “If I protect myself then I cannot be hurt anymore.” “There that is done!” “Now I can live!”

Much therapy has been built around this idea, much bad therapy. It teaches us to reinforce our amour, polish it, and oil it. We go to therapy and say that this or that relationship “hurt” us. We say we are confused. We come to learn that, practically speaking, “we deserve” our hurt because after all we “enabled” the other to hurt us. What does this tell us? It tells us that we should not have “needed” anyone. We are at fault for having needed to be loved. We are at fault for having been sympathetic and helping the other.

So we learn that we need to constantly be careful and be very afraid of “giving’ too much or “helping” too much. We build an amour. Although we still want connection, although we still want love we have learned that, well, we get to love by NOT helping, by NOT giving. We learn to protect ourselves from others' pain. We learn to say and act as “I once hurt but now I do not. “I can do it so can you.” If you stop needing people, really needing people and if you stop wanting to help people, really help them then you will be happy like I am.

Now of course these people will deny any of this.

The knight must do much to keep himself prepared. His armor must be clean and shiny. Swords must be kept clean and sharp. He must also practice, practice, practice. If fact he has time for little else, he wants love and affection but he must deny it for a higher cause and what is that? It is the defense of the nation, the defense in this analogy, of the self! Above all else, we cannot be hurt. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance!

In contrast, there is the catcher. The catcher is much more in control. The catcher does not mind that the ball is coming towards him because he accepts two things: One is that he has been prepared to catch it and control it and he has accepted that he can and sometimes will get hurt, sometimes despite his protection, he will get hurt.

I emphasize that the catcher does not mind the risk as they have freely entered the game. They enter into a relationship with the pitcher. The pitcher is on the SAME team. This teammate can hurt the catcher! The catcher accepts all of this risk because if all goes well it will be a satisfying relationship, the pitcher and the catcher work together to strike out the batter. The catcher tells the pitcher what pitch to throw. The pitcher does not have to throw the pitch that the catcher wants but he will only throw when the catcher knows what pitch is to be thrown. They are a team. But the catcher can still get hurt.

So why is being a catcher better than being a knight? It is better because protecting the self as a catcher is simply seen as a necessity. Taking care to protect oneself in the proper way frees the catcher to do many things. The catcher in many ways often controls the game. He mostly decides what the pitcher will do. He can influence the umpire. He is responsible for many “outs.”

In our daily lives, there are many knights and many catchers. Unfortunately, it seems to me that many of the knights in shining armor are the people we often see as the most successful and happy. To be sure many of these people do a tremendous amount of good but they also often do a tremendous amount of harm to themselves and others in private. The knights are often the brightest of the bright, the leaders. They tell us to be strong to fight, to die; they give us something to believe in. If you follow me you may become a knight or a lest help me in my endeavor.

The lesser defended of us when faced with incoming stimuli that might hurt us might run away, we might ‘freeze’ and then blame ourselves for getting hit, we might run away by changing the subject or mediating our pain with drugs or alcohol or we might attack back in a sloppy dangerous way where we will get hurt even more. The knight however is deceptive if you go looking for “them” you do not find “them” you find pure defense. “I will not run away, I will not blame myself for my predicament as don’t you see I spend all my waking hours preparing for the worst. If I avoid you it is only because I am smarter than you are. I will move away only so that I may prepare better to attack you later and defeat you.” Finally “I may or may not attack.” “You must understand that I usually prefer not to attack but sometimes you force me to. So the politician, the social reformer, the priest, the shining doctor, the industrial leader, who are they? Are they well-defended shining knights in armor only or is there a person there?

Ah, but this is not fair. Yes, there is a person but they are lost. In my experience in dealing with people, all of this starts because, and this is extremely important, these persons wanted connection probably more than anyone else. And they were denied it. The more they wanted it and the more they were denied it the more they hurt. The more they hurt the more they did not want to hurt again. The more they hurt, the more likely there was no one around to help them with this hurt.

A boy is dressed in his best waiting for his estranged father to come and pick him up at age 3 and the father does not show.

A girl spends all day painting a picture for her mother just knowing that when her mother comes home she will love the picture pick her up and kiss her and hug her. The mother comes home and is so tired she says “Later honey” and goes to bed.

A boy has been so happy that his father has stopped drinking but one morning gets up and comes downstairs and the nanosecond he sees his father the scene becomes dreadful. His father is passed out at the kitchen table with an empty fifth of 7 Crown beside him.

No matter what I do my older sister seems to get all the attention. I get all “A’s” and get first in the art contest but for me, it is always “you can do better” where my sister does poorly and gets kisses and hugs and I think it is because she is cuter.

So it seems that this is where it all begins. This is my experience. These people are in danger of becoming two people and as I have seen I think that we all are at least two people as we all have experienced some early disappointments. We have all experienced shaming experiences. Few people are really “integrated.” So we are all in the same boat. We all want connection and love. That is the loving humanist person in all of us. We manifest that person when we feel safe and in loving company. We can be completely another person when we feel that we might be hurt again. This often happens, unfortunately, also when we are in loving company. Why does it happen? It is because the feeling of love and excitement and caring reminds us of the time(s) when we were little and wanted love and affection and did not get it. Now in the present, these “good,” even “magnificent” feelings, can make us very fearful that we will be disappointed again, hurt again and so we end the good times ourselves.

Often with many of us, the two people are not in touch with each other. It is, I think, simple to understand why the two people are not in touch with each other. It is because we are told that “adults” are completely reasonable people that can solve problems. Most people do not believe that their childhood has much to do with who they are. I believe this to be a lie. I believe, to paraphrase a teacher, that unfortunately adult life “is about continuing to ignore what we all knew anyway but we are continually told to continue to ignore it.” That is we are continually told to ignore our feelings, to get on with it.

Is there hope for the knight? Sometimes I think there is little hope for them because they often are too intelligent for their good. All their reason goes into activities that justify more and more their way of being. They forget what real enjoyment and sharing are and substitute excitement and “adventure.” They claim to defend the weak and poor but seem to despise them, as the way to care for them is to tell them to “shape up,” “work hard,” and “don’t ask me for help. Don’t you see I am defending you and have no time to help you!”

The integrated person, so much as they exist, goes out into the world with their catcher’s mitt and the minimum of armor. This amour is practical. It needs not be shined or extensive, or expensive (someone said to be wary of enterprises requiring new clothes). The integrated person knows that whatever comes at them can be at least in their power to try and control. This is because the catcher is focused. They are living now. Fear is, at most, at a low ebb. In fact, of course, for the real catcher there is no fear at all. There is enjoyment along with excitement and interest.

So I try and teach people to put on their catcher’s mitt. To keep it limbered up, to hold it where it is supposed to be, right over the diaphragm. To absorb the “hit,” catch it, and then what? Then you have it. You take the ball out and can examine it, learn about it, and even become interested in it and it is no longer any kind of threat at all.

Brian Lynch