Autumn of life

First, I want to apologize to anyone who has followed this blog in the past: I have been woefully bad about updating, having somewhat abandoned you all to make links on my Facebook page. Richard Browne on Facebook

It has been easier to post links with brief commentary there, but I have decided to take the time at this point to more fully develop my headline thesis and Facebook is inadequate vehicle for that.

Secondly, I want to apologize for the lack of links that will be in this post, but a) I am lazy and b) I am going to credit you, the reader, as one who follows the news in the United States and therefore already will be able to understand the context in which my views are made.

Now, what do I mean by “Autumn of Life”? Am I referring to my own or do I have some larger portrait to paint? The answer to both is “yes”.

I recently reached the ripe old age of 66 and with my health being as it is, I am – I must realize and acknowledge – in the “autumn” of my existence. It doesn’t mean I plan to die tomorrow or sometime soon, but it is a possibility that will come to pass. Being an old codger with a few miles under my treads does tend to give me a perspective that I once would have applied only to my digressions into my studies of history – of American, of the World, of Western and other civilizations.

So as I read today’s headlines on the internet and read through the lead stories of the day, on one hand I have been struck by an increasing sense of doom and gloom, while occasionally I see flashes that there may yet be hope.

The problem in the U.S., to me at least, is that we have become too complacent, maybe even too apathetic, about who we are as Americans and what is expected of us as Americans. Understand, that for most Americans we take for granted a lifestyle that literally few, except maybe the very wealthy, around the world really can hope to achieve. But we assume that lifestyle as a right, and don’t realize it is a privilege that has been built on the hard work and discipline of our parents, their parents, etc.

It is our expectations that are at fault now and how we fail to acknowledge the basis for the life that those expectations are built upon. Over the course of my life, I have witnessed how the elevation of our expectations in outcome were not keeping pace with the expectations of what input it would take to achieve them.

It is, of course, de rigor now to teach every child that they can achieve anything they want to and that everyone can be a success. That concept is why we now downplay competition and celebrate mere participation. We do this to promote self-esteem in our young and a belief in their abilities … even if their abilities are not up to achieving their expectations. I remember the first year I played organized baseball, I had these visions of me driving the ball up the hill above our diamond and into the parking lot. I walked 13 times (I was a little kid and had a small strike zone) and I struck out 13 times. We forgot somewhere along the line that we also have to teach our progeny that what we want often is not what we get.

I remember a saying from my youth: Aim for the stars, but be willing to accept the moon, or even low-earth orbit, if that is what your abilities will carry you to.

It is called dealing with disappointment and dealing with the reality that sometimes what you want and what you can achieve are entirely different things.

For example, when I was a young man I would have given my eyeteeth to become a line officer in the US Navy or the US Coast Guard. It didn’t happen, but not for lack of trying. Events both in and out of my control augured against me and I was disappointed in nine different attempts. What that taught me, with each of the failures I had a long the way, was to fall back, regroup, and strike out again with a new objective in mind.

Over my life, I have had some successes and, if I am honest, many failures. It was the challenge of trying to pick up the pieces after each of the failures – an some probably should be legend – and go on. It is hard. It is not easy. However, I thank my parents for for somehow endowing me with the perseverance to keep going.

The problem I see with a large part of my nation these days is that we have lost the consensus of what it means to be an American … and even if to be called an American is a worthy thing. If you read much of the politically correct debate, you begin to wonder if being an American really is worth all we go through … especially if we who believe in the old American ideal were such evil and bad people.

We have lost the consensus of what is expected of the individual adult, or the role of faith is to play in our collective lives, or what role civil and community organizations are to play in our American civilization, or what the individual roles of city, county, state and federal governments are.

The role of the individual, as perceived by those rather smart white men who wrote the constitution that underlies our current republic, was guardian of his (sorry, certain groups were excluded, although that has been for the most part correct as a matter of law) own sustenance and future. It was not the government’s role (especially not the federal or state) to make sure the individual had a roof over his head or food on the table. The role of the individual, however, was to contribute to the success of his community and to stand in its defense … and in a larger sense, to his city, county, state and nation, as part of his obligation to it. It was the individual’s obligation to uphold the law through his own actions, rather than an expectation that the government, at what ever level, to enforce the law. All were to be treated equally by that law and it applied to everyone.

That perception, unfortunately, no longer applies. If it feels good and you can get away with it, it seems that today no one has an obligation to obey or uphold the law. In addition, that extends to those whose job it is to enforce the law. If, for whatever reason, it becomes expedient not to enforce the law, or to enforce it selectively, or in some cases rewrite the law by executive fiat, those who are charged with its uniform enforcement decline to do so.

In order to satisfy the political beliefs for some, rather than take the language at its face value, it is twisted and turned into something Orwellian to behold. George Orwell’s “NewSpeak” is alive and thriving in 21st Century America.

On one hand, there are those who believe – not as American tradition holds – that in the 21st Century the rights and beliefs of the individual no longer matter but the rights of the community and democracy trump the individual with the “government” as the arbiter. We see political candidates to date making it clear that it is their position in no uncertain terms.

For example, take firearms. Well, you have the right not to own one, but does that make it right to deny someone who wants to own one to be able to do so. Just because you are scared of guns does not necessarily correlate to a need to ban guns.

The Second Amendment makes it an inalienable right of the individual to keep and bear arms, as so many of the people who debated its adoption pointed out. And it was not just for hunting, but it was survival … survival against enemies of the Republic from both within and without. The government is not giving us this right as a privilege and it doesn’t have the privilege to take it away from American individuals without showing good and just cause. It is not up to the individual to prove that he or she worthy of the right; it is up to the government to prove that he or she is unworthy of the right.

Now, I know that is not a popular position with some of our elites, particularly among our media gatekeepers and pundits and others who consider themselves to be progressive. To them, we have “evolved” past the need for individuals to be willing to step and defend not only themselves but their communities “from all enemies foreign or domestic.” (I know that oath because I have taken it many times) To them, that is what we hire police and the military for, but I would disagree with them.

In our hubris, we are letting our expectations and wants get ahead of our abilities and capabilities. In our hubris, I would posit that my country has reached the autumn of its life. Those who are familiar with the Cycle of Democracy will understand what I am saying … if you are unfamiliar with it, then I beg forgiveness and ask you to research it.

For many decades now we have let those who want desperately for everyone to succeed and raise everyone to the the same level as everyone else raise expectations without pointing out that there is no free lunch. Everything comes with a price and what you want sometimes is beyond the reach of what you can afford. That this is true does not necessarily mean that you are failure – I can attest to that, for I don’t consider myself a failure … I may not have been perfect or roaring success who achieved all his goals without effort, but that doesn’t make me a failure.

Unfortunately, we have raised at least two, if not three and possibly going on four, generations who were not taught that while all things are possible, not all things are probable. That as individuals we have to be prepared for disappointments and that we will take losses, probably in greater proportions than our gains.

I once gave a poem to my step-son and commended it to his reading. I told him to listen, hear and attend to its words, for they are good rules to live your life by. I hope it has helped him … and I would recommend everyone, especially every adolescent and young adult to read it and pay heed. It is the poem “If” by the British author and poet Rudyard Kipling. I know there are those who will immediately dismiss it, given Kipling’s provenance, but they would be wrong. It truly is an eternal lesson that knows no race, religion, creed or era.

When I look at events of recent days, I am struck by the fact that evil does walk among us … and, yes, there are evil people out there. They feed upon the envy, resentment and hate that is being fanned every day by people on the internet, in the media, and in our political leadership. We cannot escape that truth. All we can do is prepare ourselves to cope with.

How do we do that? There are a number of things we can do, but it falls to individuals and not to “society” or “government”.

First, we can endeavor to live our own lives by the only one true and universal rule of life: Treat others as we would have them treat ourselves.

Easy to say, but difficult to do. We wish we were ruled by our reason, but the truth is we are move often ruled by our emotions and our passions. Still, we must learn that it truly is better to forgive rather than to let our anger and hate eat away at us and turn us into beasts we do not recognize.

The second thing may seem at odds with the first, but it is just as true: If we want peace, then we must be prepared for war.

Whether it is war at the individual level, the community level or the national level, we must be prepared to step forward and take whatever measures we can to combat evil when it comes … and it will come. This is not something we can farm out to mercenaries in the form of police or the military. This is something each of us must take on as our personal obligation, not just to ourselves, but also to our communities, our cities, our counties, our states, territories, commonwealths and districts, our nation … and probably, by extension, to our planet.

I say these things without consideration of color, or race, or ethnicity, or economic, or social status. It doesn’t matter to me. Unfortunately, for far too many Americans, it does matter these days. No longer is it important what the law says, or what people’s actions are in accordance with those laws, it only matters what someone’s perceive gender is, or sexual orientation, or color of their skin, or whether they are rich or poor or somewhere in between. This is wrong and is part of the evil that has brought autumn to our Republic.

If you have bore with me throughout this lengthy essay, I commend you. If you agree with it, I hope it inspires you; just as I hope it it inspires you to respond with a comment if you don’t agree with me.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.