Personal notes and a miracle (of sorts)

For those who knew: Thank you for your kind thoughts.

For those who didn’t know: I still felt your kind thoughts.

Last week (of February 2014) was a bit of an adventure for me, involving a trip to the hospital emergency room, that morphed into a little more than a three-day hospital stay.

For those who don’t know me, I have suffered from a chronic heart condition for many years, which has included the implantation of a number of arterial stents in my coronary arteries, a rather unsuccessful attempt at coronary artery bypass graphs and chronic angina (chest pain and discomfort). It was the confluence of those conditions that compelled me to retire eight years ago.

Anyway, the last few weeks the level of my chest discomfort had increasec to the level which, at the advice of my brother (the surgeon) and my cardiologist's  physician assistant,led me to pay the visit to the emergency room at the area’s trauma care and teaching hospital, which led to yet another heart catherization (of which I have had quite enough, thank you) followed by a second catherization to install two or three (I really have not been able to keep that straight) stents (which brings me to at least 10 now) in my poor battered ticker.

The good parts of the story are a) I survived it all; b) I was able to have both my daughters visit (which is special) and c) I got rather good news, for which no one really has much an explanation.

The good news, for those who have followed my condition, is that one of those three occluded arterial bypass graphs has for some unknown reason and methodology reopened and essentially is clear now. I find this remarkable, as you see, as cardiologists in two major cardio-research hospitals had told me that it was closed and there wasn’t much that could be done about it.

The cardiologists working on me had said the new blockages in my heart (well at least one) offered them a considerable challenge since it one of them was at the junction of two arteries that already had one stent. Exactly how they solved the problem of putting a stent in this Y junction, I am not sure (even though I was essentially awake for most of the process and counting holes in the acoustical  tile in the ceiling and listening to the humorous chatter among the operation room staff).

However, I am home once again. Relatively pain-free (back to my normal level of angina discomfort that has been my companion for the last 14 years).

For those who may have said prayers for me: I thank you.

For those who say prayers for me now: I thank you.

For those who believe in these sort of things, know that I am thankful for the apparent miracle that has occurred in my body and am extremely grateful for the divine power that allowed it to happen to me.

You know, I really do think there is a God and God does have a purpose for us and takes an active role in our lives (if we let “him”). We just have to keep the faith and keep on truckin’ as the old saying goes.

Sheriffs vs. Presidents

Sheriffs refuse to enforce gun control laws

It seems that more than 400 county sheriffs in the U.S. are declining to enforce their respective states’ new gun control legislation. Does anyone have a problem with that?

If you do, then do you have any problem with the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States (and the various and sundry federal law enforcement officers that report to them) declining to enforce certain laws in the United States, like immigration laws or assorted portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Essentially, there is no difference. If it is fine for the President to order federal agents and others charged with enforcing federal statutes to use their “prosecutorial discretion” and not deport people for violation of U.S. immigration laws or not to impose statutory punishments for not abiding by the dictates and deadlines of the PPACA (better known as Obamacare), then it would seem to me that it should just as appropriate for the the elected local sheriff to declare that whatever the latest gun control legislation calls for will not be enforce … or be subject to priority enforcement.

Are not the Sheriffs following the example of our President?

Now, I understand not prioritizing enforcement of some statutes because of the vagueness of the law, or its widespread disregard. Heck, speed limits are not strictly enforced in the United States (except in speed traps) and that is because 90 percent of the drivers in the US normally exceed the posted limit by at least 5 to 10 miles per hour all the time. Heck, I can even understand not enforcing a law if you know the law is unconstitutional.

However, I do have problems granting waivers for laws because they are inconvenient or because they might cause political problems for the law enforcement people.

So, those of you who have a problem with the stand being taken by the sheriffs, I sure hope you are consistent and have equally vehement objections to the failures, or refusals, or downright ignoring the law of the Obama Administration.

Philosophy 101 – Essay 12

Twelfth in a series

Essay #1   Essay #2   Essay #3   Essay #4   Essay #5

Essay #6  Essay #7   Essay #8   Essay #9   Essay #10

Essay #11

The quest continues. As I look back over what I have written so far, I am glad you have persevered (assuming you have read 1 through 11), but yet I see a need to clarify my views again; if for no other reason than to demonstrate that my philosophy is not a selfish, narcissistic creed.

Now, one could look at the values that my culture sees value in and say superficially that it leaves no room for altruism; it leaves no room for others; it simply is the law of the jungle writ large. I agree that it might seem that way, except that I would say that those who see it that way are missing some major points.

First and foremost is the basic foundation of my philosophy is based on the concept of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I call it enlightened self-interest.

What do I mean by “enlightened self-interest” you may ask? Well, it accepts that everything that we do we really do in our own self-interest. You may not accept that but it is a reality that I believe is more than justified. You see we all have choices and the vast majority of the time those choices are driven by what we need and not by what might seem to be in the best interest of the “greater good.”

Note bene: There are people out there who probably are “saints” and truly are unselfishly devoted to the greater good (although I suspect even then they are trying to assuage some feelings of guilt or just to make themselves feel good or better, but that is the cynical old journalist in me talking), but they truly are few and far between. It is their rarity that makes us notice them and call them “saints.” The lesser beings, but ones who see themselves a little more enlightened than the majority, realize that adhering to the Golden Rule accrues benefits over the long run that would unobtainable by merely looking out for one’s self-interest in the short run. Of course, in the society I live in, unfortunately, living for the long term has given way to living merely for the moment. I suspect that will be our downfall. Most people merely see the Golden Rule as “he who has the gold rules” however.

Everything being a result of our choices and those things we were blessed with at birth, basically, therefore, I think that we should be grateful for whatever we have, regardless of how much or how little it may seem to others. I believe that we should be grateful for the mere fact that we are still alive and able to think about the world about us. That truly is a gift we often take too much for granted.

Secondly, in my view, we have to realize that there often is a synergy between individuals who pool their talents and abilities to achieve something larger than could be accomplished by the individual alone. This takes away nothing from the individual but merely recognizes that we all have something to contribute, however small it may seem and that contribution really is vital to the individual’s benefit. But again, the individual benefits from that contribution to the “greater good”, so the scales balance.

And yet, how does one account for truly unselfish acts? How do we account for something like someone willing to give their life to save someone else, a stranger totally unknown to them? Can we account for such things?

I could say that there are no “truly unselfish” acts, but that would be going far deeper than I would have space to explain (but a starting point would be to read Richard Dawkins’ Selfish Gene).

People do such things because they have an instinctive desire to be part of the “whole” or in other words, part of the herd/pack/hive/etc. because by being so, it helps not only the species, but also the gene line, to survive. (So much for my Cliff Notes encapsulation of a concept that probably would take volumes to explain by someone much smarter than I am – and a much better communicator) In essence, however, people don’t do anything without getting something in return, even if it is just an endorphin high.

Remember, there is no free lunch.

So, what should we do about those less fortunate than we are in our society? How do we make it in our self-interest (hence more likely that we will do something) to do things that those who believe in altruism think we should be doing. Obviously, just letting people fall victim to their own fates as happens throughout the other species of the animal kingdom is not an acceptable solution to a rational, thinking species that can discern right and wrong and morality and immorality. Those are the things that set us humans apart from the other species on the planet.

So, what do I see as the obligation in society for the individual to do for the less fortunate? Back to the Golden Rule, folks (not the gold rules rule). What would I want if I was in need of assistance? Ah? Assistance? You got it.

But assistance that comes, if possible, with the understanding that I have the option to opt out. Assistance that comes with the understanding that I am committing myself to some reciprocal obligations: costs and investments from myself. I may not like these costs – these prices that I have to pay – but if I want the assistance, then I have to accept them as part of the deal.

Remember, I am one of those people who thinks that life is a contract and it’s our individual part to honor the terms of that contract.

Yet again, I believe we should have the option to opt out … and if we do, then we also have the concurrent obligation to accept the consequences of that choice, of that decision.

In my humble opinion, the major problem with American society today is that we are way too busy trying to alleviate the consequences for individuals who make less than optimum choices in their lives and to insulate them from the vagaries of life. You see, we have those in our society who think that our society is wealthy enough that everyone can live like kings. They are wrong, but then they can have their view and I will just have to disagree (civilly, mind you).

Still, for those who have, they should have the choice of what assistance they are willing to provide, and I contend to provide that assistance is in their enlightened self-interest to do so. It is in their self-interest.

This article provides excellent examples:

Why courtesy?

As with courtesy, we have choices as to how and when we provide assistance … and while a case can be made that society through its agent, the government, can and should force us to be courteous and helping, I would argue that perverts the role of government as an arbiter of the social and personal contracts and corrupts society.

Pause to think about that awhile … and maybe you will see my point.

Nuff said for now.

Another NBC faulty premise

The barrier to reducing income inequality: the nouveau riche

Interesting story on the NBC web site. The premise is totally bogus, but it makes for a new narrative.

First, The Premise: The premise of the story is that because we are granted by the Creator the right of equality before the law, then that somehow translates into we have equal right to wealth and income. I am not sure how that computes, but it sure is a faulty logic.

First of all, people are not equal (except before the law, or should be, but aren’t these days as the federal government is busy carving out protected and favored groups at every opportunity). People are unique and different. It you deny that, then you deny freedom and the right to your own individuality.

People are not some cookie cutter pattern mass produced. Sorry, but human life just doesn’t come that way. Anybody who tells you that we are all the same and therefore deserve equality of outcome is handing you a pile of bovine scatology.

No, folks, we are all different. Our genealogy, our genetics, our talents, our abilities, our upbringing, our value systems, our life experiences, all work together to make each and every one of us unique. We are different, we are not the same.

Second, even if we were all the same, there are not enough resources to give us all the same standard of living. Sorry, folks, but that ain’t gonna happen no matter how you try. And trying is beyond being foolish because we are not the same and therefore we all want different things.

There is no way, in the United States, much less try doing it for the world, for everyone to get what they want. Our wants are as diverse as we are. We all have different talents, we all have different abilities and capabilities. Add to that our needs are different. Some of us are naturally healthy, others face health challenges all their lives.

So, to expect “income equality” is to build a strawman, a false issue with which to whip up resentment, jealousy and to foster hatred.

Secondly, while again the story points out that the 2 percent of the population (at anyone time) who make the most money in the country actually is made up of 1 in 5 or 20 percent of Americans, who find themselves in that top bracket for only short periods of their lives, before they probably drop back from the stratosphere.

Oh, but the article points out 1 out 2 Americans live in poverty part of their lives. It does a very poor job that some of the 20 percent also make up part of that 5o percent.

The article also takes pot shots at these achievers for looking at others and saying “Well, I could do it; so can you.” That is just not fair … oops, bad word there. I need to excise that word from my vocabulary, especially when I am talking about life.

Folks, LIFE IS NOT FAIR! Get that concept into your head and understand that. No, life is not fair and nothing we can do ever will make if fair. Remember, we are different people, each and every one of us. How can outcomes be equal when the inputs are not equal?

Fair? Fair is being equal before the law. Fair is government treating you no differently than any other member of society being governed. Fair is not the government giving this or that individual or group of individuals preferences or privileges based on some shared bond.

As a society, every society makes choices that rank abilities, etc., differently and the society rewards those it values. That is what societies do. If you don’t believe that, then find another world to live on because it isn’t the one you are living on here.

Is it fair? I would say so, but then my definition and yours probably are not the same.

I say embrace the fact that we are different. Revel in that fact. It is what makes the world such an incredible place. Like snowflakes, no two of us are exactly alike.

Don’t disparage people because we are different, welcome them. Treat them as you would have yourself be treated.

That is not the easy way, I know, but I suspect in the end, you will find it is the way that will reward you beyond your dreams.

Or maybe not, nothing in life is guaranteed (except death and taxes).

Tolerance and temperance

The day after the death of Nelson Mandela, I made the mistake of pointing out to my Left Coast former classmate that his Facebook rant on how dare people on the right and who supported people like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Dick Cheney, and maybe even opposed him back when he was the imprisoned leader of the African National Congress, mourn the passing of such a liberal icon that his position seemed rather juvenile to me. Nelson Mandela was a liberal and the conservatives couldn’t have him, he demanded.

He proceeded to threaten to block me and then chastised me for saying that at one time in his life, Mandela was indeed what one would consider a terrorist. He said that such posts were irritating to him while he was at work.

Well, I apologized … I am sorry that I am three hours ahead of him on the East Coast and despite his protestations that he is very well up on international affairs, etc., that I view his world view a bit differently.

You see, I don’t come foamingly unhinged at people like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly. Nor do people like Rachel Maddow, or James Carville, or John Stewart or Bill Maher particularly upset me. I don’t see people like Dick Cheney or Karl Rove as being some evil people. I don’t think President Obama is a jerk and evil person (he might be a naïve incompetent one who can’t really lead or govern worth a hoot, but he is not evil).

I don’t agree with these people on most things, but I tend to keep my view that in the marketplace of ideas, maybe the proponents of the best solutions will rise to the top.

I also don’t claim that people not of my world view can’t admire or mourn the loss of someone who has affected the world profoundly in many ways. But that appears to be the difference between the Left Coast (progressive liberal) world view and mine.

Now, as I said in an earlier post, Mandela was a remarkable man, but to claim him as a liberal icon is making a stretch I think even he would disavow … at least not in the American liberal progressive sense.

You see, Mandela was a devout Christian. Just ask Bishop Desmond Tutu.

He adopted a free-market approach to change in his country’s economy, much to the dismay of his more left-leaning allies, including a former wife.

He sought reconciliation and through forgiveness to bind up the wounds that the ugly years of apartheid had left on South Africa.

He stepped away from power, when he very easily could have ruled for life.

Those are not necessarily “progressive” or “liberal” attributes, but more of a rather unique and honorable man.

He did not turn into a dictator like Stalin, or Kim Il Sung, or Fidel Castro, or Moamar Khaddfey or any number of other post-colonial African leaders who have led so much of the continent into so much misery.

His path has not been followed by stellar leaders of his mold but so far South Africa has remained a far more peaceful, prosperous and unified nation than it would have been if he chose a different course.

So, it matters not what political banner you travel under, you can bewail and bemoan the passing of a leader that we do not see many of on this planet.

Unfortunately, most leaders are of a lessor sort, who – rather than through compromise, dialogue and reconciliation – seek to force those who disagree with them to conform to their agenda, their world view. We need to look no further than our borders here in the United States.

It is easy to cast blame on the Republicans or the Democrats. Heck, from my point of view there is ample blame to go around, but my observation would be that for the last five or six years, it has been the left that has been trying to ram their vision of the world through and into acceptance. Our president made no bones about his goal was to “transform” the nation; unfortunately that leaves little room for dialogue, compromise and reconciliation.

My Left Coast friend makes no bones of his approval of such an agenda, as he should because it obviously is saving him thousands of dollars per year. But as I have said, it all depends on whose ox is getting gored. Obviously, my friend’s isn’t, so he can celebrate the fact that he is benefitting. I am glad he is being helped in a way that he wants.

Now, I probably would have approached the problem differently … in fact I have … but that is the wonder of this nation … or has been … that we are able to seek our own paths through life and not force others to conform to our vision, however much better we may think it may be.

So, I took his rant as a teaching moment … mostly to teach myself to understand that there are others out there who don’t view the world through a prism that even remotely resembles the one I see. That doesn’t mean they are evil or bad … they just don’t see things my way.

I may think that they are very wrong … but I am not going to force them to conform to my vision. I might encourage them to reexamine their prism and inspect some of the facets of how they view the world … because I would hope they would see that there may be some validity in my world view.

Lost in Translation

Dealing with a lousy translation of Pontiff's letter

In my series on my philosophy, I allude to the problem that the person at this web site discusses.

I am not going to go into whether Pope Francis’ latest official papal letter (not an encyclical which would imply that it was infallibly true) is the last word for everyone to believe. I ain’t that stupid (I don’t want to start a violent argument), besides I am not a Catholic.

No, what struck me was the explanation of why the author found many problems with the official Vatican English language translation of a document that was written in Spanish (and not Latin, which used to be the common language for official papal documents, but the Pope is Argentinian and that is the Spanish he learned). It was that the the words used in the English translation did not mean the same in English as the Spanish words meant in Spanish. In fact, entire clauses and phrases were either left out or substituted with something meaning something else.

You see when you write in any language, you are hoping that the words you used mean the same thing to your reader. You really assume that they do, while in reality that may not be the case.

All words come with a context, a set of connotations, that are flavored by the both the writer’s/speaker’s experiences and the reader’s/listener’s experiences. If the writer and the reader do not share the same frames of reference, then things tend to get lost in transmission or if you shifting from one language to another, lost in translation.

For example, I may use a phrase that is familiar to me, but is entirely unknown to you. The phrase has meaning to me, but it has no meaning to you. Our terms of reference are different and so the message so clear to me now becomes muddled.

In the news coverage that we watch in the United States, we often see the same thing, but take away different meanings. And then often, we hear a person say one thing, and then the next person tells us what the first person really meant when he or she said whatever we heard. In the news business this is known as the “spin”.

For example, HealthCare.Gov website is supposed to be up and functioning this weekend. It is, I suspect, after a fashion. Because it is, after two months of being repaired, it will be deemed a “success” by those who support President Obama’s health services payment initiative (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare) and a vindication of the legislation. However, every tiny glitch, problem, malfunction, freeze-up, etc., will be seized upon by those opposed to Obamacare as yet another example of the president and his allies’ ineptitude and failure. (More spin)

I honestly don’t know whether it has turned a corner or not … not that it matters whether I think it has or not anyway.

However, the words used in the debate over its fate will be fraught with meanings – multitudes of meanings – which will mean as Pappy used to tell me:

“What I thought I said was not what I thought you heard and what you heard was not what I thought I said and what you thought I said something entirely different;” or a shorter version “What you thought you heard was not what I thought I said.”

Now, what is the problem with all this? Well, to begin with it leads to misunderstandings, and misunderstandings lead to conflict and unfortunately, conflict often escalates into violence … and we don’t want to go there.

The problem with the mistranslations is that apparently some of it was written with a certain political agenda in mind; an agenda that people who believe in a capitalistic economic model see as wrong.

Unfortunately, what was translated may not really have been exactly what the Pope wrote and that would put his words in a different light. I still am in the process of working my own way through the various translations – which I may not even finish, so I really have no opinion yet as to what the pontiff may or may not have urged his Catholic followers to do.

Bottom line: Be very skeptical about what you read and hear. Realize that either will be open to interpretation and how people think things are becomes their reality. We as individuals act on our perception of reality and tragedy most likely will ensue if we interpret our perceptions wrongly.

The problem in politics, both domestic and international, is that both sides are trying to sell us their vision of the world … and probably both sides are really just selling  us a bill of goods with nothing really there.

Philosophy 101 – Essay #9

Ninth in a series

Essay #1    Essay #2    Essay #3    Essay #4

Essay #5    Essay #6    Essay #7    Essay #8

Still with me? Thanks for hanging in there. I hope this one will be edifying to you.

I have said a lot about choices in these essays, because I believe that they define who we are. However, I have to admit sometimes we don’t have choices, per se.

There are those things that happen that are outside of our control and therefore outside our choices (to some extent). By and large, however, even those things still leave us with some choice that may or may not affect the course of events but will define who we are/were. But, yes, there are things that are bigger than our choices and sometimes our choices have no impact.

Then there are choices where the choice is not between good and bad, or positive and negative, but bad and bad. If we are lucky, sometimes the choice is between bad and worse and sometimes the choice is between to do something and not do something, neither of which will alter the outcome to you.

For example, if you fall off a cliff, you have the choice of screaming on the way down or not screaming. Unfortunately, neither choice will have much impact on the final result when you go splat at the bottom of the cliff.

Life, sadly, is like that. Sometimes things happen that we can’t control. Sometimes things happen that our choices can’t influence. However, sometimes, just sometimes, even in those situations, the choices we make do have impact on others and that does make a difference.

I can cite two examples, if I may.

First, as pointed out by dear wife, an embryo – which is a human being or at least a potential human being – has no voice in the choice of the mother on whether to have an abortion or not. The fetus/embryo just is not in any position to articulate its choice, which one suspects would be to choose life over death. However, the mother gets to make a choice and that choice does have an impact on the potential human being. Here, events outside the choice control of the individual impact that potential person’s fate.

The second would be the case of the soldier who falls on a grenade to save the lives of his buddies. In that case, the soldier has made a choice and that was to cover the grenade with his body in order to keep its shrapnel from killing his buddies. Now, nothing he is going to do is going to stop the grenade from going off and doing nothing probably is not going to save his life, either. However, by choosing to cover the grenade with his body, the soldier has made the choice to impact others’ lives in what, he hopes, will be a positive way (i.e. keeping those he cares about from harm or injury). His fellow soldiers did not choose the alternative for him, but his decision definitely altered their lives. In this case, they had no choice and probably would have not chosen to ask him to sacrifice his life that way.

In addition, you see, not all of our choices are between alternative A and alternative B. Sometimes our choices are between doing something and doing nothing. Often choosing not to do anything is a much more attractive option that to do something. Sometimes, the situation is reversed. However, we must remember that in some cases, there are no options, no choices to make.

It is in those situations, I think that we really define who we are as individuals. How we react when everything is beyond our control says more about us as a person than anything else. Fortunately, I suspect, we rarely realize we are in such circumstances.

Sometimes we are faced with so many choices, probably too many choices. That poses its own set of problems. So, we have to winnow those down to a manageable number.

I have in mind a situation that occurred shortly after my step-grandson had open heart surgery. He was in his bed in the hospital and the doctors wanted him to sit up, and if possible walk. Now, the problem was his choices were too many. He felt that since it would hurt if he sat up that the better choice was either not to sit up or to delay that option for as long as he could. When he refused to sit up … well we all know how stubborn young men can be. In frustration, certain people left the room, leaving Grandpa to step into the void.

I patiently explained to my grandson that in actuality he only had two choices, and both of them were going to hurt. There was nothing that he or I would do that would change that fact. I explained, since I too had a “zipper” scar on my chest, that I knew the pain he was facing and the fear that was gripping him. However, his choices were that he would try to sit up on his own, facing the fact that it was going to hurt, or that Grandpa was going to help him sit up, and it still was going to hurt. The other options, I told him, had been removed from the equation.

Now, I am not all that cold-hearted not to know the fear that was terrorizing him, but I knew the necessity of him taking the next step. Despite his protestations, I wrapped him in my arms and pulled him into a position sitting on the edge of the bed. And then I let him cry as I held him, because I too had known that terror and fear … and pain.

But I had made the choice for him. Did I leave him with any other choice? No, I eliminated those other options as much as any other outside force often eliminates the options we think we have. He survived the experience. I am not sure he knew how much it pained his grandfather to lift him up, but it had to be done. I hope he forgives me someday for making him hurt, even if the hurt was unavoidable.

For you see, I, too, had had to make choices. My choices were that I could have just sat back in the background and done nothing (which I seriously debated doing) or to step forward to offer my help, my intervention where the others had only met with rather loud and raucous protestations because of the fear of the pain and had opted to try to calm the boy by doing nothing.

I am not setting myself up as some saint here, just as a concerned grandparent who knew from experience the pain would be transitory and I had the strength to do what others had chosen not to do. I do not fault them at all. We all contribute what we can.

The whole point is that sometimes life or other outside forces make our choices for us. We have to deal with that reality. We can wail about its unfairness or its cruelty, but to what end? Life is what life is.

People often fear the pain or the inconvenience that comes with events, and often choices that they have made that have not resulted in outcomes they wanted or expected. There is nothing wrong with that. It is natural.

What defines us, however, is how we deal with those circumstances. Do we even think about the impact our choices will have on others, or do we rationalize them to the point that the impact seems inconsequential.

I ask that you take the time to think about that. Mull it over. It is not the easy choice. It is not the simple choice. But then, who ever said the life would be easy or simple. (If anyone did … they were lying their heads off).

I am not sure why, but from my vantage point, I always have viewed life as a challenge. Maybe because I have experienced so many reverses and unachieved expectations, wishes and desires, I have grown to accept them and look on them as opportunities. At least I can say I did have opportunities, even if I failed to achieve what I wanted or thought I needed.

Life is like that … and the choices we make define who we are.

Nuff said.  Again, I hope I have left you with some food for thought.

Philosophy 101–Essay #7

Essay #1   Essay #2   Essay #3

Essay #4   Essay #5   Essay #6

Seventh in a series

Welcome back, as I continue my wanderings through the canyons of my philosophy.

As I left off in Chapter 6, my question remains: What should society do for us?

That is a tough question and I know I don’t have the complete answer.

Now, I would like it if we could differentiate between “Society” and “Government” but that seems so awfully hard to do these days. I don’t know when it happened, but there used to be two separate entities: Society and Government … but today, things that used to be the responsibility of society has, for the most part, seemed to have to morphed into things that we demand that government, as a representative or agent of society, provide for us.

You are free to disagree here, but one of the things that Alexander de Tocqueville found so appealing about the American experiment back in the 1830s was the degree to which Americans voluntarily formed civic associations to solve social problems. We did not look to government for the solutions; we turned to like-minded individuals and used that synergy to achieve incredible feats that made the United States so wealthy – in spirit as well as materiel – and powerful. It seems that visualization of how to solve our problems have given way to letting someone else deal with it … in this case the “government” as agent for us.

This sense of civic involvement has given way to an apathy, or at least a detachment, that since the “government” or “society” has assumed responsibility for solving all our problems and since we pay taxes to that government, then we have fulfilled our part of the social contract and no further effort is needed from us. It is the easy way out, but is the right way out?

Remember, I said that individuals are inherently basically lazy. Now, I don’t mean that in the pejorative sense of the word (well, sort of). What I do mean is that like anything else in nature, we people seek the course that requires the least effort from us. The easier it is, then the more likely that it is a choice we will make. This is not bad, necessarily, but it is the way we are. Deny that truth at your own peril.

Sometimes we do chose to take the more difficult path, but usually that is because we perceive a greater reward at the end of it than if we took the easy road. Again, that is simply the way humans are. We are self-interested and rightly so, because otherwise some predator in nature would have eaten us.

However, over the millennia, we humans have figured out that we can’t do everything by ourselves and that sometimes there is safety, if not more efficiency, in numbers. Hence, man has slowly but surely become more “civilized.” Individuals learned to specialize and trade things for those things that others had. As this civilization grew, so did the need for people to arbitrate and administer the transactions and the bureaucracy was born.

I remember once hearing a history professor tell me that you could tell the level of civilization within a society by the size of its bureaucracy. To wit, my jocular response was, “I think we are civilized enough now, already even, thank you.”

But, yes, what was the thing de Tocqueville was getting at? When we voluntarily come together, the results are nothing short of incredible. When we are compelled to work together, as was the case with the feudal societies of the Europe before the 19^th century, progress can be made, but it is restricted. Unleash the power of the individual and look out.

Unfortunately, from my perspective, that has been perverted somewhat by others – particularly the 19^th century social philosopher Karl Marx – into a view that seeks to release the individual from responsibility for existence and transfer that responsibility to the state. There are those who see Marx’s vision and philosophy as being the best option, but I would contend that they are wrong because it fails to take into account human nature. You are welcome to make your own choice.

The essence of the socialist philosophy (and no I have not read all three volumes of Marx’s epic epistle) seems to have been explained to me as “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need.” I find that concept quite seductive until I start thinking about it.

Let’s take the first part: From each according to their ability. Define ability? Are we saying all that a person is capable of? At what level of effort? Would that be minimum or maximum effort? How about “sustainable” effort? Who decides what that level is? How can we define it in a way that is fair to person putting forth the effort? Are all individuals willing to put out more than minimum effort if the reward for it is the same as for greater effort?

Secondly, who assigns the value to that ability? If we remember that society/state is made up of individuals, then who or what is giving that other individual as an agent of the state the right to assign that value? We can do that through our social contracts. We do that all the time in our lives when we exchange one thing of value with another person for something that person has of value. Of course, under a capitalist system, the individual gets to decide the relative values, where as in a socialist system that decision is left to the state and who is the state but individuals who have taken on the responsibility for others and substituting their choices for the original individual.

Taking the second part: To each according to their need. Define need? How much food, water, shelter, clothing, protection, etc., is required in order to fulfill anyone’s needs. Three hots and cot can be a pretty low standard.

If we cannot define “need” satisfactorily, then how will it be possible to fulfill all the needs of all the people, especially when each person is different and their needs essentially unique? Add to that, how do we allocate the limited resources we have, which – in case you haven’t noticed – won’t begin to fulfill all the needs of all the people to bring all the people up to the same standard (unless you set that standard pretty low – which brings us back to three hots and cot).

So, what role should the state/society/government have in our lives? It has to have some, otherwise it would be anarchy and I am not advocating that.

I alluded to what role I think government/state/the society should have in an individual’s life when I was talking about civilizations. The role should be limited to enforcing contracts between individuals, groups, and the various associations that humans form. Contracts are the basis for our existence. Oral, written, tacit, implicit, explicit, whatever form they take, in the end as members of society we have to agree to some level of enforcement of those contracts.

That is what we do with our unwritten social contract. It regulates our behaviors through social sanctions. Society breaks down when the system of social sanctions breaks down. If you don’t believe that, then just look around you, as examples abound. I could take a dozen news stories a day that would illustrate this point, where society has turned its head on individual responsibility only to have its face slapped.

Unfortunately, we have surrendered individual responsibility in favor of societal responsibility and we are paying the price.

Don’t agree? That is your prerogative, but in the long run, I fear that you will find that you are wrong.

Nuff said for this go-round.

Philosophy 101–Essay #6

Sixth in a series

Essay #1

Essay #2

Essay #3

Essay #4

Essay #5

Once more into the breach lads and ladies (or is that Ladies and Gentlebeans, Boys and Girls, Friends and Enemies, Pickles and Onions – oops, let’s not digress there just yet) … and let’s see where we land.

Society: What is it that we expect from it in our social contract?

That really is the problem facing people these days, isn’t it?

I mean it seems to be a tussle between what the individual is expected to do for himself versus what society is expected to provide for the individual. I am torn, sometimes, twixt the two; especially, since the modern definition of society has been replaced by “the government.”

Because, to me, it comes down to who is in service to whom? It would seem that an equitable contract would be that both sides would have obligations to fulfill and in some sense those obligations would equal out. You know, value for value.

Now, you may not agree, but I think people deserve to be compensated or rewarded for their work, efforts or ideas without “society” dictating what that compensation should be. Society doesn’t own those things. I am just of the opinion that people deserve to receive whatever other individuals choose to give them in return for whatever the individual is offering. It is not up to me or you to dictate that choice. And it doesn’t matter whether you or I consider those things necessities or fill some perceived need. We don’t have the right to demand that we get them and demand that society provide them for us.

There are those who would argue differently, especially those who have been raised in a social value system that emphasizes social obligations over individual choices or a system that argues for the equality of outcome. To me these people are saying that you belong to the society you are in, and as such its demands on you take precedence over the choices you might make as an individual. You might have a different take, but that is your privilege.

Now, I am not saying a) I am right or b) they are wrong, but it does represent two distinctly different philosophical views of the world. Heck, I may be wrong, but it is my belief that the individual and his or her choices are more important that the obligations imposed by society – whether it is law, tradition or a leader. You are free to disagree. I call it freedom of conscience.

However, that puts me solidly in a camp that may be different than a very large portion of the world’s population. I can accept that … the question is can they accept my position with equal equanimity? Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, they can’t because while I can accept that as individuals they have made different choices, their view of society means that I have to accept their choices and make them my own. I am not sure they have the right to do that.

So, I am of the opinion that society should expect us to be willing to fend for ourselves as best we can, when given our individual circumstances. This is the price we pay for having the liberty to make our own choices about what we want to do with our lives and how we want to go about living them. When we stop making those choices, then we have to live with the choices made for us by others.

This is not to say that “society” cannot agree to offer assistance if the various individuals who make up that society make that choice and agree to offer it. What I am saying is that I, as an individual, cannot demand that society do anything for me as a matter of right, other than leave me alone. Radical concept, I know. And it fails to adhere to the concept that we are all our brothers’ keepers, but what the hay? My conscience is clear. I have chosen to help those in need when I can and I haven’t demanded that that society help me when I have been in need.

Society can, by the same token under the contract, insist that I observe certain rules, which I have the choice not to abide by but must be willing to accept the consequences such as the condemnation of the society.

Now, and this is where it gets murky for a lot of people, I also feel that as an individual I have a personal obligation to choose to help others in my society as my part of the social contract. There is a difference between demanding my help and my offering my help as a freely arrived at choice. Again, you are free to disagree with me here.

Does society have the obligation to provide me with the basics for survival such as food, shelter, protection, etc.?

There are those who believe it does. In fact, it seems that such a premise rapidly is becoming the dominant socio-cultural belief in the Occidental World. To them, if I am interpreting them correctly, because we are told by our religious texts that we are obligated to help the less fortunate then society is required to provide these things for the individual. The argument goes, so it seems, that it frees the individual to pursue higher ambitions not tied to necessities of survival, like the pursuit of fulfilment or truth. I am not sure that really works but I think that is what its proponents think.

I have a number of problems with that conceptualization of society. First and foremost being is that it fails to take into the most basic component (some will say flaw) in human nature and that is that each individual basically is selfish; not only selfish, but also lazy and prone to take the path of least effort whenever possible. You are free to disagree with me on this point, but I would invite you to review the history of mankind – in fact all the rules of the universe (the concept is known as conservation of energy) – and show me where man has not shown himself to be such a creature. (I concede there are isolated instances, but generally and predominately, people – left to their own devices – always will look for the easy way out that takes the least amount of effort and gives them the greatest benefit, regardless of the cost to others or society at large.)

Since people, really individuals, always are looking for ways to get more out than they are putting in, you have a problem. The equation, the contract, just won’t balance out as it has to … Nature so loves balance that she gets rather nasty when things upset her equilibrium and so do social structures (which tend to collapse when the balance gets too far out of whack).

Secondly, if there is no price to be paid for these necessities of survival, then they have no value. If something has no value, then it is not appreciated. If it is not appreciated and taken for granted, then it usually is wasted and abused. That, too, pretty much is a component of basic human nature. If it ain’t “ours”, then who cares what happens to it? If I am not invested in “it”, then why should I care?

Thirdly, no matter how you want to cut it, slice it or dice it, resources are limited. They have to be distributed and they have to be rationed. This sets up a conflict between the producers and the consumers. Who gets what and for how much. Unfortunately, such is life and such is the lot of humankind. Until we can provide every need, and fulfill every want and desire, to every individual, then there will be conflict over the distribution of what resources we do have. There will be competition.

Unfortunately, there are those who look on competition as a bad thing. Nature doesn’t, but people do. Competition is inherent in our universe and to deny it is there is, in my humble opinion, another attempt to deny reality.

So, I hope you can see that in all things there is competition, literally and figuratively. It is how we deal with the competition that marks the differences in world views. We can either accept it as a basic premise in our social structure or we can try to ignore that it is there and wish it away. (Hint: The latter view doesn’t really work very well).

And finally, my interpretation of those religious texts is that they are directed at the individual – choices the individual should be making – and not being forced to make. (I know I probably not translating you correctly, Martin Luther, but that is what I take away from your explanation of what Jesus the Christ was telling us.) It is through our individual faith, choice and actions that we “earn” salvation, not through what we are forced to buy or do by some social hierarchy.

I hope that gives you some food for thought.

Nuff said for this go-around.

Bad Republicans

The Republican conspiracy

I read this article on the Huffington Post and I about fell out of my chair laughing. Why? Because the author’s premise is so silly.

First … the Republicans. TEA Party-nics and conservatives are not Democrats or progressives. They are the opposition. You know, people who oppose you. They should be expected to do what they can to make your policies and plans fail.

Now, it doesn’t take a savant to figure out that they don’t agree with policies like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). So, if you are the elected representative of your particular area (and a majority of the people in the last election for your office voted for you) then it is pretty much a given that you represent at least some of their views and that should govern the way you vote. If your district doesn’t really like some law or policy, then it is your job to do what you can to overturn or change that policy.

The author of the article seems to think that Republicans are some terrible beasts because they don’t view the world through the same prism that he does. That is what is wrong with the world.

Reverse the shoe, say a war in Iraq. Is it not the right of the opponents of such a venture to do whatever they can to end it? It seems that was the progressives’ line just a few years ago.

Of course, they were chastised in much the same manner as the right is being assailed today. That is politics, folks.

I find it humorous to the absurd to watch various people and groups of people hammer their political opponents for their views in language that probably would have been reprehensible in my youth. However, the historian in me knows that the language of politics in the United States always has bordered on the rough and tumble.

I guess what I find most humorous is the view that everyone has to view the world through the same lens, the same philosophy, the same cultural view plate. I find it humorous, because it is so tragic and misguided that it really makes me want to despair, but I chose to laugh at my troubles rather than cry.

I wish, as Pappy used to say, I could knock some heads together in order to knock some sense into them.

People, we are all different. We all look at the world and see different visions. Depending on our experiences and cultural environment, we value different things. Some of these things we agree on the value of and others we profoundly disagree; however, the mere fact that we disagree doesn’t make us bad people.

Just because a person disagrees with you does not necessarily make that person evil … just different. Sometimes that person is evil, but it is not because they disagree with you.

The difference, as I see it, is a different view on how much responsibility the individual for his or her life. Are we, as individuals, supposed to be willing to accept the consequences of our choices? Are we supposed to be willing to accept that life is not fair and often sends adversity our way when we can ill afford it?

A lot of people say we are not. They say we are obligated to help all those less fortunate than we are. I would agree with part of that. I would say I have an personal obligation to make that choice, but that society, or the state, doesn’t not have the right to compel me to do it by force.

So to insist that anyone has a right to demand or compel another give them a good or service at a price less than they are willing to do it is, in my humble opinion, wrong. Even lifesaving medical care.

Another unfortunate aside: It seems to me that in our narcissism that seems to afflicted so many people, we seem to believe that we are supposed to live forever. Wrong answer, folks. We are mortal and every day here is a gift (that is why they call it “present”).

Sometimes, I think, in our quest for immortality, we forget that others have rights too. We forget it is not ours to demand that they forgo their rights just to our benefit. This is not to say that they can’t forgo those rights, but the choice is theirs and not ours.

Anyway, I love when progressives try to defend their demands, but it makes me want to laugh in their face when I hear them denigrate those who disagree with them. What was it Pappy used to tell me about the pot calling the kettle “black.”

Philosophy 101–Essay #5

Fifth in a series

Essay #1

Essay #2

Essay #3

Essay #4

For those who have just joined us, I am exploring the roots of my philosophies and sharing them. This really means asking a series of questions and then trying to answer them. Those who have read the earlier essays, I hope this continues along in a satisfactory vein.

Society: What is it? What do we expect of it? What does it expect of us?

Ah, therein lays the rub. Expectations and how do we deal with them.

Society, as I see it, is the social contract that binds humans together to form … well … society. It is the social contract that defines every society.

So, what does a social contract do? It does what any contract in human relations does: It defines expectations. It tells the party of the first part what is expected of them and in return what the party of the second part is expected to do in return. No matter where you are, where you live or with whom you are living with, there is a social contract that outlines the rules of the relationship. Sometimes these are written, but more often they are not. Usually, they are not even articulated but understood because of the conditioning that we all receive from our experiences and cultural environment as we develop into adult human beings.

Interestingly enough, this is where the cultural environment comes into play and pretty much defines how the contract is laid out and enforced. In the United States/North America there are maybe a dozen and a half or so cultural environments or patterns that have been laid down and compete for dominance. Each has its own value system as to what it considers important and what it doesn’t. Unfortunately, while they may share some aspects, they can be mutually exclusive in others in what they expect. Expand that to include the whole world and the competition for dominance and the breadth of beliefs is mind-boggling. We simply cannot comprehend it, or those whose world view is so different from our own.

For instance: What is the role of the individual? What place does the individual have within the construct of a given cultural value system? Is the individual important or merely another bee in the hive?

That adds another paradigm for us to consider when we look at people: Are we herd animals? Are we pack animals? Or are we hive creatures? In each of those paradigms the individual plays a different role, but the question is which paradigm is the best for humans to adopt as a social model? Or maybe there is another model out there for us to consider. Interestingly enough, we humans exhibit characteristics of all those social models, so go figure.

I for one have made the choice that the individual is probably the most important element in the social model, any social model. It is the basic component and is capable of making independent choices separate from the group. To an extent, it can survive without the group, but the group cannot exist without individuals. That is reality. And where there are two humans, one of each sex, then the group at least has an opportunity to thrive and grow. Without those individuals making the choice to be together, then there will be no society.

Others may not agree, but assume for the moment that what I posit is true.

So, the next question becomes how we define what we expect society to do for us and what should society expect of us in return. Remember, this is a contract and like any contract it is a two-way street. Of course, you are free to disagree with that formulation, but I suspect that any society that you create that does not recognize that life is a contract and it goes both ways will be destined to collapse.

Let’s go back to my earlier contention that we all basically are operating in our own self-interest seeking to meet our basic needs in the hierarchy of needs outlined somewhere by psychologists that I vaguely remember studying way back when I was getting that formal education that many of us go through. (Of course, if you want to read a more current version; then read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins – I found it a difficult but very interesting tome.)

Realizing that I am speaking in generalizations, but people are not really altruistic for the most part. There always is a somewhat selfish reason for what they do, even if sometimes they can’t even articulate that reason themselves. People are – at the same time – very complex and very simple creatures trying to satisfy that hierarchy of needs. Occasionally, I admit, saints do walk among us, but they are the exception rather than the rule and societies cannot be built on the expectation that everyone will be a saint (unfortunately, that too is a recipe for failure and disappointment). So, if you want things to work, then find reasons for people to want to make things work. Society needs to make whatever it is in the individual’s own best interest to do what it expects.

To do that, society can use two methods to modify behavior: Rewards or punishments or some permutation of the two. Rewards are more positive ways to reinforce acceptable behavior, while punishment often is a better teacher for immediate correction. Mistakes are nature’s best teacher because usually there is a negative consequence (id est: a punishment) associated with it – sometimes very severe consequences. Fire burns. Touch it and it hurts.

But before we must choose which manner we want for our society to work, we have to decide what we want society to do. So, as individuals, what can we expect society to do for us?

Well, that is the great debate that rages in American society today. In fact, I suspect that the same debate is raging in societies around the world as they come in contact in an age of near instantaneous global communication with differing philosophies and cultures that pollute their environments with strange and new ideas about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

The point I am making here is that we are all the products of the environments in which we grew up. Whether we want to admit it or not, everything we think, do or say, is a result of those influences that have shaped our lives. We are not clones. We are not all the same. We are different.

Unfortunately, in the modern world, the boundaries have shifted. Our societal expectations, a product of our being exposed to different cultural environments, are in a flux. Whereas, for earlier generations, expectations did not shift much over time; now – with the telecommunications revolution and flow of people and ideas from land to land – the rigidity of cultural expectations are collapsing left and right, leaving many people adrift. In fact, entire countries, societies and cultures are adrift. We are desperately trying to reestablish what those cultural norms are to be.

Well, folks, we ain’t there yet … and I suspect I will be long dead and gone before you get there.

The problem, unfortunately, is that we are still clinging to some absolutes and those are the cultural blinders that we grew up with or we have instituted new ones to replace the old. We still are thinking that everyone in the world, much less our own societies (at all levels), is singing from the same sheet of music but they aren’t. Because they aren’t, we get mad and insist that everyone play by our rules.

So, we have this great chasm in a country as large as the United States over what we expect from society and what we expect society to expect from each of us as individuals. Expand that to include the rest of the human race and all its various cultural environments and it gets even worse.

What will have to happen, in the end, is that each individual will have to reach an accommodation with the social structure he or she chooses to live in. That process is known as reaching a consensus. We don’t have that right now and I see a lot of conflict ahead of us before such consensuses begin to shake out.

Be not disencouraged, however, this is normal. In fact, admittedly usually at a bit slower than the breakneck pace we see today, mankind has gone through these upheavals many times and has survived them all so far. I think it will do it again.

I hope I have given you some more food for thought.

Nuff said for now.

If JFK lived

Book reimages what life would have been like

Give me a break folks. This month is the 50th anniversary of the death of President John F. Kennedy. Guess what? I could give a rats behind.

Seriously, folks, what does it matter now whether JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald or not? It isn’t going to change history one whit.

You can make up all the stories you want about what JFK might have done, or might not have done, but guess what? They didn’t happen.

JFK is dead … and has been since about 1:30 that afternoon. I remember that day. I was in high school. It was about lunch time out in California when it first started filtering through our school. I remember drifting out to the front of the school to see them lower the flag to half staff.

I remember my English teacher running from my class (the first period after my lunch) when the announcement was made over the school’s public address system that it was official that the President of the United States had died of an assassin’s bullet in Dallas, Texas. I remember the next four days either watching the endless TV reports or riding my bicycle endless miles through the orange groves (at the time) of Orange County, California, with my best friend talking about it … speculating about it and the death of Oswald two days later.

Over the years, I have interviewed various “investigators” as well as people related to people involved in the events in Dallas. And I came to a conclusion long ago.

It doesn’t matter who killed Kennedy. You can charge all the people you want and it won’t bring him back. It won’t change the course of the Lyndon Johnson administration. It won’t change what happened under Richard Nixon. It won’t change what happened to Robert Kennedy or Martin Luther King. It won’t change a damn thing that has happened in the last 50 years.

JFK was not a saint. I think that should be obvious to everyone now. If it isn’t, then you have been willfully ignorant of all the other things he did in his life.

Robert Kennedy wasn’t a saint either. Nor was Martin Luther King.  All were fallible human beings torn by the currents that tear at all our lives. Sometimes, I think we want to make them into Gods, but they are not.

So, does it matter if, had JFK lived, that history might have been different? No.

Yes, it would have been different because a different person would have been in the Oval Office making decisions, but would that history have been better than the history we (who are old enough) lived through? We don’t know, we can’t know and it is silly to speculate otherwise.

Let’s deal with the here and now. No matter how perfect our hindsight is, it is irrelevant.  History is what it is. We have to deal with the now, with what we think we know now and make our decisions as best we can.

I think, like the American Civil War, it is time for the American people to get over the JFK assassination. It doesn’t matter any more.

Philosophy 101–Essay #4

Fourth in a series

Essay #1

Essay #2

Essay #3

Still in a quest of definitions to define your philosophy? I am, so follow me.

What is society? And how do you define it?

Up to now, I pretty much have focused on the basic element of human existence, as I see it, and that has been the individual, but that is not the whole story. Human existence also has been defined by the associations that individuals make with other human beings. For lack of a better term, I call that “society”.

Society, in its smallest form, is the nuclear family most of us grew up with. It takes on a multiple of other forms as you expand the size of the group.

Societies come in all sorts of forms that can be defined essentially by the group’s behavior. You can have paternalistic societies, where the dominant leaders are normally male and take on the characteristics of fathers; maternalistic societies where the dominant leaders are female and take on the characteristics of mothers. You can have authoritarian societies where the leader makes all the decisions of any import or anarchical societies where no one is in charge. You can have societies where the individual is responsible for everything concerning himself up to where the whole society is involved in every decision that is made concerning the individual. You can societies with “herd” mentalities, where it basically is just follow along with the crowd, or “pack” mentalities, where the individuals band together to work together but under the leadership of one.

There are democratic societies where the decisions are the entire group’s responsibility. There are republics, where the group is so large that subsets of it select individuals to represent them in a central decision-making group. There are aristocratic societies where the leadership and the key roles are passed from parent to child. There are feudal societies where usually aristocratic style leaders follow a hierarchy based on professions of loyalty. And occasionally, you run across meritocracies, where the leading roles fall upon those who demonstrate the best capabilities in their fields. You have tribal societies, where the needs of the tribe or clan rank higher than those of the individual. You have communal societies where everybody shares everything … sort of kinda but that never really seems to work out that way over time.

It is obvious that the human race has developed a society for just about any style of living that you can think of … and then some. Some work, some don’t. Why? Well, I have my theories, but they are just my opinions and you know about those … still, I am going to give you my reason. Those that work take human nature and work with it. Those that don’t work try to change or alter human nature and that is a recipe for failure.

So, that takes us back to the individual and why does the individual do anything. Why do people do anything? Because they perceive it is in their own best interest. In other words, it meets a need that they have, whether it is food, shelter, protection or acceptance (The four basics as I see them). In exchange for helping the individual meet those needs, societies make certain demands on an individual and that usually is conformity to a set of norms concerning behavior.

Social scientists will tell you this is called the social contract and I think it is a pretty good way to describe it. Society says to the individual: You want to participate in our little group, here are the rules. Abide by them and you are an accepted member; don’t and you a deviant and will be ousted. That is the contract and you sign on the dotted line by your consent to live by those rules. You can argue with that definition, but I am not sure how you would replace it.

Now, the problem arises because not all people agree on what type of society they want to live in, not by a long shot. And the bigger the population, the bigger problem gets because the more people you have, the more differences you have. Each individual (there I go harking back to the individual) has their own view of how things should be. Granted, the language he learns to think in and the customs and traditions she grows up with play a major role in how a person views what society is and should be, but they still will have their own feelings and thoughts about the system. Because we do think, we are different. (OK, Pappy used to tell me that most people don’t think, they merely rearrange their prejudices, but that doesn’t necessarily apply here).

However, then the question arises do we act more like a herd or a pack? Remember, a herd rarely has a “leader” per se and generally just flows along, drifting here and there, trying to make sure those basic needs are met. This does not exclude the fact that some herds seem to follow leaders, but those leaders are not choosing, nor are they necessarily chosen, to lead. A pack, normally, is smaller than a herd and, usually, travels with a purpose while following an accepted leader who either chooses to lead or has been chosen to lead. People, unfortunately, tend to display both tendencies which makes it hard to figure out what they are going to do in any given situation. Are we a herd today or are we going to be a pack? Of course, sometimes we prefer just to wander about on our own. Aren’t we a contrary species?

Still, society at all its levels plays a major role not only in the choices we make but also in the choices that we have available. Those choices usually are the result of centuries of traditions and customs so deeply embedded that sometimes we don’t even recognize that they are there and shaping what we are doing. This is especially true when you apply the language to our thought patterns and the value systems that we are exposed to as we develop from infants to adulthood. They form the framework and basis for all else that comes after – with subtle influences from genetic pre-dispositions thrown in to complicate matters.

Those instinctive behaviors – basically stuff handed down to us by thousands of years of specie-specific survival – include our basic reactions to certain stuff that no matter how hard we try, we can control to some extent, but we can’t seem to shake. The most obvious of these is that humans are sexual animals. It is how we reproduce and propagating the species is a very basic thing for just about any creature (otherwise they go extinct). Sex is, after food, just about the most important thing in an adult human’s existence. Sometimes we do it just for the pleasure, but it is pleasurable to encourage reproduction.

(Another aside: Yes, I believe in the evolution of the human species. I do not find that incompatible at all with believing in God. In fact, it reinforces my belief in a divine being. I also think that the Bible can be interpreted many ways, and in our hubris we tend to put it only in terms our own relative comprehension, without considering that, assuming that it is inspired by the Creator in one way or another, God may be traveling to a different drummer and playing on a different time scale that we are. However, I am not going to digress further on that topic. Just remember, time is relative.)

How a society is structured, coupled with its cultural (value-based) influences, together are the key elements in how we humans are. To that end, I would recommend a book that I recently read “American Nations” by Colin Woodard. It does a very readable and interesting job of explaining how the various cultures of the North American continent influence its politics and social behaviors. It is not a perfect explanation, but it does a pretty good job of synthesizing the interaction of the various factors that make up our world.

I hope all this gives you food for thought.

Nuff said, for this round. Stay tuned for another chapter.

Philosophy 101–Essay #3

Essay #1

Essay #2

Third in a series

As I extend my exploration of my own personal philosophy of life, I hope you will follow along as I continue in search of definitions on which to base further discussion. I really hope you find these wanderings of value and possibly interesting.

Our world is made up of what we can hear, see, taste, smell, touch and imagine. I think we all can agree on that.

But how we perceive that world is heavily influenced by a host of learned factors that color and add texture and nuance to that perception. What are these factors, these influences?

By and large, the greatest is our own experiences with life. Each of us, individually, have encountered a unique set of environmental stimuli which has been stored and processed by that incredible computer we have in our head called our brain.

I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be a particularly well-educated person, nor am I all that much smarter than the average bear, but I have interviewed, interacted and even lived in close proximity with some people who are/were far smarter than the average bear as well as being scientists, specialists and experts in a wide range of human endeavors (Sounds like those TV commercials with one of the Baldwin brothers). That relatively unusual confluence of experiences does give me, I think, my own unique perspective on our world.

It is, for example, the reason I believe that the individual is far more important in human events than we give them credit for. And I am not talking about the “key man” theory of history, or anything related to that. I am more in the vein of the “want of a nail” theory of life or one where each of us, however insignificant we may think we are, plays a role in the greater scheme of things and without that influence, however small it may be, things could and would be different.

Now, you are free to disagree with me, but I have seen far too many instances of where instants make a difference and the sum of those instants make a major change in the course of events. Stop and think sometime about major events in your lifetime. Think about all the things that happened to you leading up to that event … the little things, that maybe delayed you a second or two here or there or a street light that you ran that got you to somewhere 20 seconds earlier than if you hadn’t ran it. Add all those “chance” happenings, multiply them by the number of people involved and you get an incredible array of possible outcomes that didn’t happen. Now, multiply that by all the events that happen in a day … and you will be overwhelmed … it is simply not something you or any computer would be able to handle. Then add in the factor that you have a choice and it is not always binary (yes/no, black/white, pass/fail, go/no-go) and you really begin to wonder. And every person faces the same thing and that is what has made up human history. (Now, I have read that some in quantum physics claim that all those multi-verses exist, but that it too much for me to deal with. Let’s deal with one universe at a time.)

Passing aside: People wonder why I question things like opinion polls and computer models. It is simple, they are too easily manipulated. Change one word here, or a byte there, and the whole thing goes spinning off in another direction.

There is a quote somewhere supposedly by Dwight Eisenhower that goes “Plans are useless, but planning is everything.” That is because plans make various assumptions that usually are not valid … or at least change before you get very far … and it is the planning process that allows you to anticipate the various alternatives that you have to choose from. Life is like that and each of us does our own planning.

So, please remember, that choice is integral to our world along with the person making that choice. Your choices are important.

Next, we have to consider what elements – like our experiences – shape the choices we make. Experience is only one of the things that give texture to our choices. Our environment, and by this I mean our social and cultural environment, also plays a major role, if not a definitive role. You see, our social and cultural environment determines what and how we think.

I know I just lost some people there, so I will step back and make another run at it. What we think and how we think is a product not only of our experience but the language we are brought up and steeped in. That is our social and cultural heritage, our environment, so to speak.

Without language, we cannot think. It is language that gives us the ability to shape our thoughts and imaginings into words that we can share with others. We don’t have the ability to transfer our thoughts via telepathy (well, most of us don’t) and imagery goes just so far with intangible things, so we are limited in how we transmit information from one person to another to words that we agree on what they mean (language). It also is how in our brain that we process and organize those thoughts and ideas that we seek to express.

The words we choose to give wings to our thoughts – whether in written form like this essay or aural so that we hear it – make a major difference in how those thoughts are perceived. And it is important to remember that others have different social and cultural associations with those words even if you are speaking the same language, which in the vast majority of cases around the world we are not.

How we decide to use those words is what our social and cultural environment teaches us. We learn words from all sorts of sources in our lives, and our vocabulary and accent often defines us to various people and groups of people. If you haven’t read or seen the play Pygmalion or the musical play/movie My Fair Lady, then you missed an exercise in what I am saying.

But words, written or spoken, are used because we have agreed on (sort of kinda maybe) a definition of what they mean. Our society/our culture define the words we share, but each of us has our own customized definitions for each word.

Suffice it to say, the cultural environment that you are born into and then chose to live in defines you and helps shape the choices you make and the words you chose to express your beliefs. Again, however, it is very individual and despite what some people will have you believe, just because you share a lot of opinions, views, beliefs with others, it does not mean that you don’t have your own mind. Remember you, and those not-you, are different and each one not-you is a unique individual. (Take that, stereotypes!)

Yes, culture through language often encourages conformity, as does our own need for acceptance and companionship, but it does not negate the reality that each of us is an individual, who perceives the world through our own eyes, our own prism, our own separate set of parameters and paradigms.

One of the hardest parts of “growing up”, I think, is coming to grips with the fact that we indeed are all different. That we really are unique in our own way and that means that we are separate from others. That can be a very discomforting thought for a lot of people because, to introduce a new concept here, people are part herd and part pack animals. (OH! Did I forget to say that we are part of Nature’s Animal Kingdom? Well, we are, so get over it.)

Nuff said for this round … I hope it gives you something to think about.

Philosopher as a soldier

Israeli general as a philosopher-soldier

The Israeli Defense Force’s Brig. Gen. Herzl Halevi is a man after my own heart, it would seem.

You see, I like philosopher-soldiers. They make great leaders in my experience.

I knew one once in the US Army … Gen. Carl Steiner. He was a special warrior in more ways than one (He not only was commander of the XVIII Airborne Corps but also served as commander of US Special Operations Command), but the thing that always impressed me about him was his depth. He was an amazing fellow that knew that once you passed a certain rank in the military you not only had to worry about enemy minefields but the political ones as well.

I interviewed him several times at length during his stint as commander of 18 Corps, including a special one-hour interview with him after Just Cause about how the operation was pulled together and executed under his command.

What is a philosopher-soldier? One who understands the true nature of war, its price and its necessity.

Like Gen. Halevi said, wars and military operations don’t necessarily solve problems, but sometimes they are the price you have to pay.

There are no simple wars, he told the New York Times in the above article. AMEN to that.

And all you can do is hope that the one you are fighting now is decisive enough to deter the next one for as long as possible because there will be a next one, and one after that, and one after that, ad infinitum. It is the human condition and no matter what you do or say, that is not going to change.

So in peace, as more than one brilliant military leader has observed, the best way to preserve that peace is to be prepared to fight, to wage war, better than anyone else.

The Americans have done that for the past 60 years or so, after relearning in 1950 that the era of wars was not over. It still is not over, despite what we might want or hope.

The problem with the American Way of War for the past 60 years (with a couple of minor exceptions) is that we have not come to battle intent on making it decisive. No, that would be too costly or too heavy-handed. We must be proportionate to the threat or some such nonsense.

Understand, I am no warmonger and I doubt any real “professional” soldier – which I was not; I just trained part-time for many years to be able to survive possible combat – is. I do, however, having witnessed the impact of battle first hand appreciate the costs of war. It is not pretty. It is not something to seek glory from. It is not something to enter into lightly.

Having said that, war sometimes is a necessary evil that outweighs the other options. You may not agree, but then we will have to agree to disagree. Some people just don’t or won’t respond to talking or negotiating in good faith. Compromise to them is not an option.

Israel faces that dilemma. An enemy that refuses to take yes for an answer. Unfortunately for Israel, the only solution it seems that is acceptable for those who oppose it is for Israel to cease to exist. And people like Gen. Halevi are not going to let that happen. His roots in Jerusalem go back 15 generations and I think he is entitled to stay there.

The Palestine problem is complex and far beyond my meager views to be able to solve. I do understand both sides wanting the thrice-promised land. Partition has been tried and offered several times, but it is never enough it seems to me.

But isn’t that indicative of the human condition? Are we never satisfied with what we have? Don’t we always want more? Don’t we always expect that we should be given more?

It seems to me that it doesn’t matter what culture or society that you have grown up in, the desire for more is always there. I may be wrong and I expect that you can cite instances where there are social groups where people do not want to improve their lot and those of their offspring. However, I would say those instances either represent very, very small groups of people or are aberrations that either collapsed due to their own internal contradictions or were unable to compete against aggressive neighboring societies.

Still, to me, the soldier who knows and understands philosophy – not just Western philosophy but the philosophes of different cultures (especially those of potential enemies) – is far better equipped and prepared for the next war … and there will be one.

Philosophy 101–Essay #2

Second in a series

Essay 1

As I set out on this voyage of exploration, I hoped that you my reader will follow along with me. I already have defined the basic unit of my philosophy and that is the individual, the individual human being who is capable of imagination, realization and of making choices but what of the world in which that person lives?

What can we say about that world and how do we define it?

First, I could say that when we are born, our world is very small but it seems huge. It basically encompasses only those who give us sustenance and nurturing as we develop but it is all we know. Our world then continually expands. It grows to include our parents and siblings, oftentimes extended family members, members of our clan or our “tribe” or community. On it grows in our awareness until we know that we live on a planet with more than 6 billion other human beings and teeming with all sorts of other living creatures. The planet also is subdivided into a plethora of various cultures and nations but as an entity it is this tiny speck of dust in galaxy made up of billions of stars and that galaxy is but one of a multitude in the discernible universe. It can be and is a bit overwhelming to think how small and insignificant we as individuals have become in our vision.

We discover that there are political subdivisions that govern our behavior within those societies that we have been born into. Those societies are divided by their prevailing world view, but to us as individuals – until we learn better – we think that that world view is universal and shared by all 6 billion of us. That perception is wrong, but it is difficult for us to shake ourselves free of it.

There are a few things as humans that I believe we do share: a desire to be fed, to be warm and dry, to be protected from the elements and predators, to have companionship, to reproduce, to protect our offspring, to protect ourselves, to feel as if we have dignity and that we have a place in the cosmos. How we meet those needs often brings us into conflict with others who are either competing for resources or for an elusive feeling of power that we are somehow better than others.

There is nothing wrong with the latter. I view it as being part of our essential psychology, part of our “human nature.” Because we have that feeling, and need to recognize that everyone shares it, it becomes the role of society – or civilization – to moderate those competitions. But in the end, there always is a basic need for each of us to feel that we are “right.”

But to have right, we have to have wrong. Don’t agree? Well, try to define right without having something to compare it against? You can’t really do it.

So that brings the next challenge: Who decides what is right and who decides what is wrong in the world? IF you really have the answer to that question, you might have solved the riddle of mankind.

You see, the problem most of us face is how the heck did we get here? Look, we are very tiny bits of mass in a very, very, very large universe. How is it that we developed into creatures – the only ones we know of at least – that have the ability to think in the abstract, to communicate those concepts to other individuals and then ponder not only the origin of life but the meaning of it. When we realize just how small we are in the larger scheme of things, sometimes it is overwhelming.

Obviously, there are forces at work that we don’t understand. Maybe we will never understand them but we feel compelled to explain how these forces work and interact. For many people, the answer lies in religion. Religion often is ridiculed as merely belief in ancient mythologies, but it does seem to be something that many people share: a need to believe in a higher power.

To others, the answer lies in “science”, but that is more a method of approaching problems than a belief system … or is it? There are those who say if science can’t answer it, then it doesn’t exist. I am not sure I buy that, but that is my own belief and I am not requiring you to accept it. Of course, science does assume some rules, but basically those rules are articles of faith and accepted demonstrations of validity. Beyond that, nothing is in control. However, I have a problem with that … but don’t take my word for it.

You see, if you accept that the world is without control, without some higher power giving it some purpose and those rules, then there are no limits on what you can do. You essentially can be out of control, because life is out of control and what does it matter – especially when you look at how little an impact an individual seems to have on the course of events. If life and death have no meaning, then why do we have the means to ponder it? Why do we even honor it? Why have a moral code?

Only when you try to claim that there is a purpose to all the travails that afflict the planet, then you have to come to grips that some entity must have established the rules for the universe and the planet. This is where a lot of strife enters the world: Whose version of this ultimate power, this creator of the universe, do you accept?

Now, I am not going to be so arrogant as to tell you what God or vision of the Creator to accept. Not my place, I have decided, so I am not going there. I will tell you that, yes, I believe in God/Creator. I believe in the one based on the Judeo-Christian template. I believe that is a real force in our lives, because I can claim to have felt that force in my own life. How and when and where is irrelevant to my discussion, only that I have faith and believe in its existence.

I believe it is from the influences of this God that we – in the United States and North America – have developed our values, our senses of what is right and what is wrong. Yes, I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am. Faith is, as someone once said, believing when all else tells you not to believe.

I accept that there are those who have different visions or even believe that it is impossible to believe in any divinity that would allow bad things to happen to good people. I accept that because in my faith, it is the individual’s choice to follow wherever his or her conscience dictates. That people are free to believe what they want to believe. My “God” allows that and only asks of me to hold one rule really inviolate: Treat others as you wish to have them treat you.”

If that sounds like the “Golden Rule”, well … it is. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” I believe it says in the King James Version of the Christian Bible. To me, those are pretty good words to live by. Unfortunately, not all religions (Christian denominations and otherwise) agree with that interpretation and it is more important to say you believe in the right vision of God than it is to merely uphold the Golden Rule. (I won’t go into the other version of the golden rule just yet)

And then there always is the Code of the West from the movie “Waterhole #3”: Do unto others before they have the chance to do unto you.

I hope I have given you a little to think about the “world” as we view it.

Nuff said for now.

Philosophy 101–Essay 1

First in a series

I have been challenging myself, of late; challenging my own world views by trying to answer questions about them. Given the state of politics in my native United States, it probably should be understandable. Well, it has been an interesting experience.

Those who know me know that I am an inveterate, voracious and somewhat eclectic reader. As I say, it broadens one’s horizons.

Well, between reading articles on the internet and from my again-growing personal library (both physical and e-book), I find myself asking questions about the world as we see it today. I am trying to challenge my assumptions and compare them to more than six decades of observation of the human condition.

Who is right? Am I wrong? Heck, I think I am a big enough person that I can admit that I can be wrong or that I even have made a mistake (or two – or a whole bunch, because I have and still do). I even have admitted when problems are bigger than I am and asked for help. However, having said that, I wonder if my perceptions of the world are indeed correct. I am beginning to suspect that I have been more prescient than I have ever realized. So, I decided I would compose a series of essays on my philosophy, my beliefs, and my assumptions. I will leave it to you, my reader, to judge whether my views have any merit or not. I am merely sharing them.

The problem, I fear, is where to start and that is the most difficult question to answer because anywhere I start, I feel as if I am jumping in mid-stream of my thought processes and trying to decide which bank I want to swim for. However, I guess a good place to start is to start with a series of definitions. I do this, so that we all are on the same sheet of music when I delve into my digressions and views on philosophy.

When you are talking about humans and their world, what is the basic element? To me it is the role of the individual human in that world. It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about a family, a clan, a tribe, a community, a city, a state, a nation or any other subdivision of human activity, the basic element in each is the activities and choices of the individual.

So, what makes up an individual human being? Philosophically or biologically? The challenge already is laid down.

What is a human being? Is it merely a collection of protoplasmic cells that through some mysterious process has developed the ability to rationalize its existence? Is it that ability to synthesize perceptions into a belief structure and the bag of bones and water that carry that ability irrelevant? Who was the philosopher who posed “I think, therefore I am.” (It was the French philosopher, René Descartes.)

Ok, let me define the individual as a human being who has the ability to think, rationalize, essentially to think abstractly, to imagine things that aren’t and to solve problems. An individual is capable of making choices that can affect not only the individual’s life but others around them.

But then that begs the question that when does the individual become capable of doing all those things and what do we do with the individual prior to that point? So, maybe my definition isn’t so good after all.

My beautiful wife makes a very compelling argument that a human individual is created at conception and implantation in the mother’s womb. I won’t delve into all her points, but the basic one is that once the embryo begins to divide and grow there is, and can be, only one result and that is a human being that will – with the passage of time – meet all the requisites of my definition. Now, I know that one could digress into viability, the obligations of one individual to another, from parent to child, and all the other issues that surround the debate about the rectitude of permitting abortions, but I choose not to go that route right now.

So, if we take that individual, what else can we say about him or her? Well, for one thing, each one is practically unique. Yes, twins do have identical DNA but they are burdened with different life experiences and exposures and hence there are differences between them.

Next, does that individual have a free will? In other words, does the individual have the capability and ability to make choices? Then we have to answer how much responsibility can be laid to the individual over the choices they make? That is a more difficult question, it seems.

It revolves around the issue, it seems, that which controls a person more: Their nature or how they were nurtured? Neither, it seems to me is adequate to account for the diversity of people and what they do. Yes, genetics does play a major role in what a person will become, how they view the world and how they make their way in the world.

We all are born with different physical and mental attributes, talents and abilities. We see that every day, so to deny it is to deny reality.

By the same token we see that the environment people are raised in, the expectations and values that are taught to them from the time they are born make a tremendous impact on each and every individual. Often we can see incredible changes in individuals when, for whatever reason, they change their values or their expectations about whom they are or what they can accomplish.

So, we have to accept and admit that nurturing, or the lack thereof, plays a very important role in the development of a human individual. It is that realization that leads me to want to write this series of essays. If words and individual acts can make a difference, then I chose to try to make a difference.

We are all individuals. We are all different. We are all free, in my mind, to chart our own path through the world and our lives. It is the choices that we make and the expectations we have of others in the choices that they make that ultimately determine our fates – so to speak – in a world that truly is chaotic and without boundaries.

I hope this gives you food for thought before we progress on.

Nuff said.