One Head, Two Thoughts

I was fortunate enough that my birth lottery specifics resulted in me missing service in Vietnam. I turned eighteen in 1976, one year after its inglorious ending. This also means that I was not old enough to participate in the Vietnam protests which peaked in the late 1960's and early 1970's. 

I often wonder how my life's trajectory would have been altered had I been born five, even three years earlier. If I had been on a college campus from 1972 to 1976 instead of in high school, would I have participated in the protests, been active enough to have been arrested? Would I have fled to Canada rather than be drafted and sent to Vietnam? 

Based on the things I wrote, how I thought during my high school years, I am not completely sure how activist against the war I might have become, but I do know that if I had been able to overcome my fear of leaving my home country, or spending time in prison for my beliefs, or even sacrificing the good will of some of my family who would have been disappointed, if not antagonistic about my actions, my life would have taken a much different path. 

I relate this revelation because of my concern at the reactions to the current college protests against how Israel is conducting its war against the Palestinians. 

First, I wonder how many of those who protested in some way the Vietnam War see similarities in today's campus unrest, and wonder what percentage of those who participated in those protests are actively condemning today's students' protests.

The cynical side of me, the side which has expressed my disappointment with the Boomer generation in many previous posts, calculates the percentage of Vietnam protesters as supportive of today's protesters at 25% at best. Of course, I have no way of knowing if I am correct or not, but I do know that support of the protests is restricted to the more liberal TV commentators, and that the reactions of those "in charge" has been mostly negative, ranging from "they are just too naive or stupid to understand the situation" to "we should expel them from school" to "they hate America". 

For the record, I support the protesters, not just because I support their cause, but because I support their activism, their willingness to express their opinion, be arrested even, for a principle. To be honest, such actions, for principle, are not exactly common place today. Far too many people have compromised their principles, their alleged morals, for so long, they can't even recognize when they are doing it anymore.

The fact that at least some of today's young people feel strongly about a catastrophic war in a far away land and are willing to express those feelings publicly should give us hope for the future.

I told my wife yesterday that I don't understand the theory behind forcing the young people to take down their encampments, or go back to their dorms. It is the exact approach that will make them dig in, the exact method that will empower them to continue their actions. In the history of civil disobedience, when did "you can't do that, or you must not do that" ever work?

What do the protesters want? During Vietnam, they wanted the United States to stop killing innocent Vietnamese people. They wanted less taxpayer money for bombs, and less of their tuition money invested in the military industrial complex. 

As it turned out, by the way, those protesters were correct. We wasted billions of dollars, wasted thousands of young lives, and ruined tens of thousands of American families by our actions. History has proven those protesters correct.

In the case of those protesting the destruction of Gaza, they want President Biden to be more aggressive in demanding a ceasefire, they want less tax payer money to be spent assisting this slaughter, and they want their colleges to divest in those investments that enable this atrocity. Similar demands, one might say as their 1960's predecessors.  And, in light of our burgeoning obsession with calling America a Christian nation, seemingly consistent demands with that movement.

I expect that history will again demonstrate that these admirable students were correct, and that killing Palestinian women and children only created more hate and future violence.

As it relates to these protests, it appears that many Americans are not able to entertain two thoughts in their head at the same time. It is possible to condemn the slaughter of October 7th as a terrorist attack, as well as condemn the murdering of Palestinians. Doing both does not make you anti-Arab or anti-Semitic, but it does make you pro humanity.

I wrote a story earlier this year which detailed the discovery of a Hole which has formed in our atmosphere, a Hole that has exacerbated our tendency to selfishness. Perhaps this hole has also reduced our capacity to have two thoughts in our head at the same time as well, two thoughts that on their surface seem to contradict each other but actually have something in common more encompassing.

I could apply this theory to pretty much all of our current national issues.

For instance, being an advocate for liberal abortion laws does not mean you are in favor of killing unborn children. It reflects the very real scientific facts that maternal death rates in America are far too high, that a significant percentage of fertilized eggs do not become healthy people for all sorts of medical reasons, that forcing women to give birth to babies that will die after their first breath, or that were conceived through violence and/or incest, is not pro-life for the people effected by those draconian laws. In other words, respecting human life includes all life, not just that of the embryo.

This is also true for immigration. Being in favor of less stringent immigration policies does not equate to a desire to replace white Americans with brown ones, just as being in favor of stronger border security doesn't make you a racist. We can have both thoughts in our heads, a more secure border as well as a more humanitarian approach to immigration at the same time, could even achieve that lofty goal, if we weren't so adverse to thinking about both thoughts at once. 

Of course, having two thoughts in one's head requires some effort. It requires a rejection of simple solutions to complex problems and the politicians who present them. It requires spending less time playing games on the phone or betting on sports or watching reality TV shows, and more time reflecting on how we might want to be treated in similar circumstances. 

I mention the birth lottery earlier in this post. If we were born in Guatemala or El Salvador, would we not strive to take our family to a country with more opportunity, and if so, would we wish to be treated with kindness, or labeled vermin?

The story The Hole, for which I have provided a link below, does not end happily. Science does not save humanity (see climate change), God does not intervene with an ark. We have made our bed, and now have to lie in it, so to speak.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-hole.html

 

But it is just a story. What has really caused us to be reluctant or unable, I'm not sure, to hold two thought in our head at once. 

I have posted under the heading Philosophy a few times before. One such post, which can be accessed by using the link below, was inspired by the writings of Simone Weil. She blames tribalism in general, but political parties in specific for our inability to think outside the constraints of the institutions which seek to control us.

Here is a link to that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/11/intellectual-leprosy.html

I especially liked her use of the term intellectual leprosy. I think this sums up precisely the inability for people to have two thoughts in their head at once. Sometime I wonder if the root of that deficiency has something to do with the nature of our instant gratification society, although Weil died in the 1940's before we really dove deep into the culture that glorified new and shiny over old but working, and planned obsolescence seemed to be the foundation for manufacturers.

Has our obsession with material possessions driven out our ability to understand the conflicting nature of life, the give and take, sacrifice and callousness. 

Animals in the wild are beautiful to see, but also violent and unmerciful towards each other as well.  

The sun setting over the ocean or against the backdrop of a majestic mountain is spectacular but that same mountain should it erupt or that ocean when in all its rushing fury can be fatal.

Understanding, nay, embracing the dichotomy of life could be the very essence of happiness yet all our institutions, political, national, religious, seem bent on explaining away that dichotomy, or worse, providing us with dogma that replaces the seeming contradictions with simplistic maxims.

Whether the answer lies in The Hole, or Simone Weil's theories, sometime soon, we need to demand more of ourselves and our elected leaders. Who knows, perhaps in the future, one of those student protesters currently being vilified will show us the way.

Life Changing Events

First, some house keeping. I had my best month ever in September, in terms of "hits" to my blog. Over 8100, which exceeded my previous best by 1500. The vast, vast majority were from Singapore, as I have previously mentioned. So, again, please feel free anyone from that country to leave me a comment telling me why the interest.

As this will be a philosophical post, I checked some that I have written before. Here are links to four that I thought might generate some interest.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/09/idealism-vs-realism.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/11/intellectual-leprosy.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/04/opinions.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/01/atlas-shrugged.html

Most people, when asked to retell events which they recall as life changing, can come up with a few. Perhaps the day they met their spouse, or their wedding day. The birth of a child or their children. Maybe graduation from high school or college, the purchase of their first home, a special trip. For some, world events such as D-Day, 9/11, the assassination of a world leader, or world influener. Perhaps even the day of a particularly exciting sporting event.

I commented once, many years ago, that discovering Laphams Quarterly was one such day. Not that I can recall the actual day, but the fact that this wonderful magazine existed without me having the least inkling. It was life changing, in that in the intervening years I have read and been exposed to ideas, concepts, opinions, and facts (this is especially important) that have altered my perception of the world and its workings.

I recently began reading a book that is replicating this feeling. A book whose title I found in that wonderful 2021 Christmas gift from my daughter who filled a glass jar with 100 titles in order to provide me with new reading material. 

"The Dawn of Everything; A New History of Humanity" by David Graeber and David Wengrow is the title.

At this point, I am about two thirds of the way through it. I find I can only read so much at a time so as to absorb its mind blowing words, but I also don't read it everyday because I don't want to finish it. As if, by putting it down, and away, I will lose the importance of its meaning over time, as I read other works, and as I am bombarded with the endless nonsense that we must wade through, nonsense that so easily passes for news, so easily is thrust upon us as if the world of data and information is experiencing a massive bout of diarrhea, with no end in sight.

It is hard to summarize what I have read so far. The 2 Davids, as I like to refer to them, are relentless in demolishing virtually everything I have been taught throughout my life. 

For instance, there is a lot of interest in aliens right now. Not just as to whether they are with us in secret today, but how many times they have visited in the past and which of the unexplained man made wonders of ancient times must they have built. Since we can't seem to build a house or a road to last more than a few decades, how could pre-industrial man have built the pyramids, etc, which have lasted thousands of years? Must have been aliens!

Now, the 2 Davids don't necessarily address this phenomenon, at least not yet, as again, I still have many pages to go. But what they do address is the idea that men who lived thousands of years ago couldn't have accomplished these tasks alone. That they weren't smart enough, or didn't have the right tools, or the right math. 

And it isn't just the building of great architectural structures that they address, but philosophical concepts of equality, social structures, gender relations, government, justice and fairness. 

In other words, this book takes on the entire sphere of propaganda that we have been taught via all our current institutions, religious, political, national, social, cultural, etc, and turns them all on their proverbial heads. 

But don't get me wrong. I don't view the author's purpose in a negative light. They are not anarchists trying to upend our very existence, or back to nature freaks who think we should go back to living in caves. I view them more as educators trying to explain that its the conclusions that we have been taught about history, especially humanity's progression from hunter gatherers to farmers and city dwellers, that is off base. And, that this progression should be considered with less of a value judgement (ancient men were less smart, more barbaric and violent, not capable of complex thoughts about life, for instance) and certainly not as a function of inevitable evolution where today's version of man is "better" than previous ones. 

Or not worse for that matter. Just different.

We have been indoctrinated (a loaded word in today's 24 hour news cycle) to believe all sorts of "facts" about how men lived before the miracle of modern technologies, how men interacted with each other, how the genders valued each other. But regardless of the teacher (religious, political, cultural, national), we are always taught that we are evolving towards a more egalitarian existence. That we are becoming more enlightened in terms of recognizing the value of diversity in man, as well as the environment.

Well perhaps that is too strong, but that certainly, we are more kind to each other than our ancestors of 10,000 years ago were to each other. That concepts like democracy and freedom and equality didn't exist before the Europeans crossed the oceans to "civilize" the barbarians they "discovered".

Graeber and Wengrow address these kind of conclusions, and attempt (successfully, so far, for me) to provide some different conclusions that fit the facts just as well, even better in some instances.

Pick up the book, if you can. I will share more thoughts about it when I have finished.  

Ego VS Selflessness

I caught the end of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty yesterday.  As it ended, I was struck with an idea about writing a blog concerning the topic of Ego and selflessness.  I assume that this thought came to me due to the scene at the end of the movie.  For those of you who have not seen this movie, I will not detail it here, but instead recommend you watch it when you get a chance.

The reason I thought a topic such as this might be interesting to explore, is that, as a writer (so proclaimed), it is difficult, if not impossible to separate one's ego from one's literary efforts.  After all, just the fact that a writer deems his/her ideas to be of enough significance to put them to paper, to attempt to not only share them with others, but to fashion in that attempt a message or specific meaning, is an exercise in letting loose the ego.  

While I imagine that it is possible for someone with low self esteem, or low sense of their own value, to write, or engage in any type of artistic endeavor, it takes a more developed sense of ego to share that work with others, to put it into the public arena, for good or bad.

Ego is often ridiculed in association with those who act or assume they are better than most everyone else.  There has always been a disdain by the everyday person for those who don't do the hard work that keeps society functioning, who exist in a world where the sheets are always clean, the food always hot and plentiful, the money always available to satisfy any whim, even though all those amenities and advantages are just there, with no effort.  To those of us not born in the lap of luxury, there is sometimes solace in believing that those people blessed with winning the birth lottery that provided for them most or all of their material needs, would not be able to survive the "real world", if not for their inherited advantages.

Yet a strong ego is also necessary to help drive those who innovate, those who think outside the box, those who fight against conventional thinking to create something novel.  Is it not partly ego (along with patriotism) that drives the Ukranian people to fight against overwhelming odds to remove the Russian army from its soil?  Not to mention, anyone who takes a scalpel in hand to operate on someone's brain.  

Ego as defined as a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance, seems a critical attribute for an advancing society to desire in at least a reasonable percentage of its citizens.  We want to nurture that sense of self esteem in our children so they will see no obstacle as insurmountable, and in our nation as a whole so together we can solve any problem.  

Did it not take great faith in our collective abilities, or at least of those who worked for NASA in the 1960's, to believe that we could send a manned rocket to the moon when, at the time, we weren't even sure of the math to make the physics work?  

Yet, it is just as clear that ego without a portion of selflessness, can be a negative.  While we might admire a privileged person who volunteers in a soup kitchen, or who knows the first names of their employees, and those of their spouse and children, our admiration can be extinguished for those who have exchanged their humanity for money and possessions, for those who have long ago jettisoned the understanding that it is only when people as a whole benefit from great achievements that great ego helps mankind.  It does a country little good when a resurgence of national pride comes from the subjugation of the citizens of another nation, or the dehumanization of certain minorities within that country.

Whether you are Vladimir Putin or those legislators who are proposing laws which isolate the LGBTQ and transgender community, actions driven by an ego that has lost touch with its sense of humanity, or dare I say it, with the unfathomable creation plan which has generated the myriad of species, and variations within those species for us to experience, are actions that betray the very foundation of ego and self-esteem, by destroying that very same sense in its victims.

I have had a number of conversations with friends and family concerning my belief that 5% of people are assholes.  Often the discussion begins with a debate on that percentage, but I stand by that number, for now.  Unfortunately, assholes come in all shapes and sizes, all genders and races, all socio-economic levels, although I have a personal belief that as income increases, especially into the percentile of the richest 5%, the chances of one being an asshole improve dramatically.  Generally, discussions along this line lead to a debate of how many of those assholes are born that way (nature) or created through experience (nurture), but we always agree that if not for that 5%, life would be so much easier for the remaining 95% of people.  

Is this the true challenge for humanity as given us by the creator? To figure out how to handle the 5% who are assholes while still living positive lives individually, and leaving the world a better place, collectively?

Also, not only are there assholes all around us, but each of us behaves like an asshole, from time to time.  It is as if we all have the gene, and it can rear its ugly head on occasion, but happily it remains recessive most of the time, in most people.  Yet, like a virus, it can spread quickly among us when the conditions are ripe.  

For instance, these past 6 years have shown just how quickly a spark can release the gene within us.  Who could have thought 6 years ago, that so many people would let their selfishness shine so much, would demonstrate against learning the facts of our national history, or against wearing a mask during a pandemic?  Yet that is what we see all around us, as the result of that great orange asshole we once called president.  Someone whose ego is so lacking in selflessness, that he is willing to sacrifice our country's democratic principles to prove that he could not have possibly lost an election.  As if making America great again can be achieved by rampant selfishness when it is genuine selflessness as demonstrated by those brave Americans who gave their lives, literal and figurative, to the causes of freedom and equality. 

Hopefully, just as McCarthyism, which brought out the asshole in so many Americans in the 1950's, we will soon see the end of this particular era, either as people realize the damage their inhumanity is causing, or open their eyes to the danger that an ego without selflessness can cause to our democracy, and to each other. 

And, as for my struggle with controlling my own ego while still expressing my opinions, I will allow my occasional readers to judge how I am balancing the two.

Idealism VS Realism

I recently finished reading The Education of an Idealist, by Samantha Power.  It was another of those books which I bought for Nora for Christmas last year.

For those of you unfamiliar with Samantha Power, she is best known for being the UN Ambassador for the United States from 2013-2017.  (I could comment here that the fact that most people do not know that she was our UN Ambassador, illustrates the problem with how poor is our collective understanding and knowledge of who helps run our government and our relations with other countries, including myself, but...)

Power's story is extremely interesting on a number of fronts.  She was born in Ireland, immigrating to the United States with her mother when she was young, so she has an affinity (I won't say natural as there are far too many first generation Americans who seem to forget that without immigration they would not be in our country, including Donald Trump), for understanding and advocating for immigrants and refugees, knowing full well the difficulties of acclimating to a new home.  Her mother was a strong woman despite her unhappy marriage to an alcoholic, so Power has a wonderful role model in a woman who moved her family, on her own, to another country, defying many norms of the day to do so.  And, perhaps most importantly, she spent the early part of her working career as an overseas journalist, covering some of the worst events of the world in terms of human on human atrocities.

If one could imagine a resume for the perfect candidate to be our UN Ambassador, hers seems to embody the experiences that would be most desirable.

There are an incredible number of passages and chapters in this book, that are both universal in their description of the human experience, and relevant to the issues we are debating and facing today.

The chapter on the Ebola outbreak in 2014-2015 is certainly one of them.  In it, Power describes a concerted effort between government (including the military), medical, and private entities, coordinated by a team of people (led by President Obama) to address the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible, with the least lost of life.  To be clear, the death rate of Ebola was far greater than that of the current pandemic.  Had that disease advanced beyond Africa and around the globe, it would have resulted in a horrifying loss of life.

This is not to say that the two situations are completely similar.  China did not notify the world of the specifics of COVID-19 as quickly as they should have, and is far less isolated from contact to the rest of the world as compared to the 3 countries in Africa which were first effected.  There is no way of knowing that the same process used to combat, and ultimately contain Ebola would have worked for COVID. 

However, in contrast to the rambling coronavirus daily briefings that I watched in March and April, the process described by Power which tackled Ebola head on, in Africa, was inspiring.  First, we cared that it was happening in Africa, as opposed to clinging to an isolationist viewpoint that might have waited until it came to America.  It seems an extremely salient example of why only caring about America, is not only selfish and not in line with our Christian values, but short sighted, in that world problems will almost always effect America. 

Second, there was impressive collaboration between government and medical personnel, as opposed to what we so often witnessed this spring, when medical experts had to walk back the statements of top White House inhabitants and advisers. 

Third, there was real concern in America that Ebola would inevitably come to our shores.  Calls for travel bans emanated from many circles (including the current president).  People even worried that American medical professionals who went to Africa to help treat Ebola patients, would bring the disease back and some, again, advocated even banning them from returning to our country.  As it turned out, two nurses did contract Ebola in Africa, but were flown back to America, treated, and cured, without any spread of the disease.  (Had people like Trump been in charge, they would have most likely died in Africa).

Again, Ebola was very deadly, but not as infectious.  It is not completely fair to compare the handling of both without understanding these differences.  But, it is also true that even in the beginning of the COVID outbreak, Trump was comparing his actions, travel bans, discounting the seriousness, keeping victims or even people possibly exposed (like those on the cruise ships) out of America, while criticizing Obama's response to Ebola.  Obviously, you don't hear those comparisons anymore, since no Americans, that is ZERO, died of Ebola, and over 180,000 have died, so far, in this ongoing pandemic.

Samantha Power's life is a wonderful example of a person who understands the foolishness of only caring about oneself, whether that philosophy is applied to one's own life, family, community or nation.  And, even more importantly, her life is a wonderful example of why people choose to work for the United States government, either in the various, everyday occupations that move our mail, guarantee our food supply is safe, work to expose those who pollute our air and water out of expediency or greed,  monitor the spending of our various government agencies (the GSA) or, on bigger stages, work to establish positive relations between America and the rest of the world.  Yes, those in the deep state, as people who would destroy these institutions, call them, are the meat and potatoes of one of the reasons that America had risen to be the most respected nation on Earth, a nation that would prefer to lend a hand than to launch a weapon.  To me, attacking those people is far more unpatriotic than the current protests playing out in the streets of our nation.

There is a somewhat famous saying that people are more liberal, when young and naive, more conservative when older.  "If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart, if you are not a conservative when old, you have no brain".  Oddly, it is usually quoted by conservatives, you seem to think that they are insulting liberals by calling them brainless, unaware that they are referring to themselves as heartless.  At this point in my life, I believe there are far more brainless idealists in heaven, than heartless realists.

Samantha Power's book, in my opinion, attempts to bridge the gap between the belief that it is one or the other, by recounting the process by which she has had to, at times, jettison some of her idealism, to actually get something done, even if it was less than everything she wanted.  That doing good is doing better, and in that case, realism can be embraced so that something good is accomplished.  It is not that one is sacrificed for the other, but combined to create the best result.

It is far too easy to pretend that idealism must be put aside in the face of realism.  In reality, realism without ideals and values is just a fancy word for selfishness.  While idealism is rarely, if ever, achieved, or perhaps even achievable, acting without ideals lowers the bar to a point where humanity is lost.

We need to refute the false equivalency that idealism must be sacrificed to face and navigate in the real world, and embrace Power's non-stated, but obvious goal of marrying the best of both philosophies. 

Perhaps that should be a goal for all of us. 

Intellectual Leprosy

Intellectual Leprosy is the title of an excerpt from Simone Weil's book called "On the Abolition of All Political Parties".  I read the excerpt in the Fall Edition of the Lapham's Quarterly called Rivalry and Feud, which I finished reading a few weeks ago.

Weil was a French philosopher and political activist of the early 20th century.  Although she died young, at age 34, and most of her writings were largely ignored until after her death, she is now regarded as an influential political thinker of her time.

The above except begins with the following quote.

"One recognizes that the partisan spirit makes people blind, makes them deaf to justice, pushes even decent men cruelly to persecute innocent targets.  One recognizes it, and yet nobody suggests getting rid of the organizations that generate such evils."

Later, she writes:

"Just as within political parties, there are some democratically minded people who accept a plurality of parties, similarly, in the realm of opinion, there are broad-minded people willing to acknowledge the value of opinions with which they disagree.  They have completely lost the concept of true and false.  Others, having taken a position in favor of a certain opinion, refuse to examine any dissenting view."

From there, Weil gives examples from science, art and literature and even religion and faith which demonstrate that once an opinion of something is established, the arguments are based, for or against, regardless of facts or data.  The famous line, you are either with us or against us comes to mind.  

Weil concludes that rather than ask for or against, we should simply ask what do you think?  What are your ideas?  It seems that this topic remains as relevant today as it was then.  And, let's not forget, that "then" was a time when the citizens of one European country in particular were facing the choice to be for the exclusion of people of certain heritage or against, but not just in writings or polite political discussions, but in real life decisions to identify those undesirables, isolate them, eradicate them.

Some say we are experiencing another round of global nationalism.  Many people, out of fear of all the changes that have occurred in technology and communication which have brought us closer together than ever at the same time as providing us with examples of how we are different from each other, have turned to strong arm leaders who identify for them who is right and who is wrong, making the for or against decision that much easier.  Some of these leaders are freely elected, others accumulate power, slowly, inexorably, until only one thought is possible, and the for or against is predetermined.

One might say that Weil's fears of how this tribalism can be destructive, fears which created an environment which led to the Holocaust, have surfaced again.  Whether they were temporarily suppressed due to the horrors of WW2, replaced by a new hope that we had cleansed our world of such discrimination, or whether just redirected to appeal to a different base desire, greed, it is all conjecture.

But Wiel's main point, that intellectual leprosy as defined by a willingness to disregard any of one's own thinking or meditations, in favor of what the party or leader has determined to be the truth, is the true danger which results in humanity's complacency at best, brutality at worst.

Weil clearly concludes that political parties, among all the other tribal ways we identify ourselves, whether they be nationality, ethnicity, race or even sports team affiliation, unleashes a for or against mentality that "replaces the activity of the mind". Her belief is that it is political in origin and that it spread from there to infect the land, "contaminating all forms of thinking."

And so she proposes, and defends in her book, the abolition of all political parties; as if, by removing the head, we eliminate the poison which threatens the body.

The question is, can it be done?  It is clearly ingrained in our DNA to form social groups.  Not only part of our make-up, but a part which has led to our evolution to be, for better or worse, the people we are now.  Is it just a matter of increasing the size of our group?  Stop thinking about us vs them on a skin color or nationality level; instead make it a planetary one?  If we can't suppress millions of years of evolution, perhaps we just expand its definition. 

From that standpoint, does each of us, as individuals, progress the development of the concept of humanity as all earthlings, or do we continue to support and applaud policies and concepts that identify and isolate those among us that we have decided should not belong. 

Perhaps the first step might be to eliminate political party affiliation in the voting booth.  No parties, just names.  Demand that the electorate know something about the person they are about to choose.  And create a national guideline that requires every state to expand voting access, whether it be early voting, extended hours, more voting days, etc.  Nothing says intellectual leprosy to me more than a country that believes it is the best in the world, in history, yet struggles to get 50% turnout in elections.

Finally, and perhaps this shows my age, perhaps some type of required course in civics in high school might be a good idea.  How does our government work, what services and benefits does it provide, how is your tax money spent, and why is democracy the worst form of government, except for all the others.  It seems there has been a successful attempt to turn the American citizens away from their  government, to see it as an obstacle, or the enemy.  If our government does not reflect We the People, then it is only We the People that our at fault by not understanding it, participating in its function, and escaping the dangers of intellectual leprosy, when thinking is replaced by following.

     

The Age of Accelerations

Last week, I began reading Thomas Friedman's newest book, "Thank You for Being Late", which has a subtitle of "An Optimist's Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations".   While I am only 60 pages in to a book of over 450 pages, a few thoughts already.

First, Friedman seems a good role model for me, both as a writer and as a person.  In his writing,  Friedman does exhaustive research to support his conclusions, taking the reader step by step along the same path he followed so that, despite the complexity of the subject matter, understanding becomes enjoyable.  As a person, Friedman addresses the same topics being debated across America, topics that produce such extensive vitriol and divisiveness, without value judgments.  

Second, I love the title; it says nothing and everything about the book.  When I first unwrapped the book (it was a birthday present), I had no idea what the book was about.  Nice!  But within a few dozen pages, the intent was clear, not because it revealed the topic but because it established a mind set that is contrary to the hectic lifestyle that is so prevalent today.  Thanks for being late is the exact opposite reaction most people receive when they arrive after a designated meeting time, a reflection of the "time is money" perspective that rules all business, hence America itself, and the accepted value judgment that associates being late with improper time management or plain rudeness.

And finally, the reason for Friedman's gratitude to the occasional friend that is late; they have inadvertently provided the author time to step outside his regimented schedule to look around, smell the roses if you will, and/or reflect on his life, his actions, his future.  

One of the most difficult things to do in life is to look objectively at the events which surround us, whether those events are effecting us personally or globally.  It is a very rare ability to be able to recognize the pivotal times of our lives or our society; more likely we don't know the significance of a moment when it is occurring or just as likely, overemphasize a particular event through the prism of ego-centrism or nationalism.  Self reflection is an important tool in this endeavor, but a tool that seems to have been removed from the toolbox in this age of the 24 hour news cycle and ever accelerating forces that are changing everything that is important in our lives.

Thank You for Being Late reminds us of the importance of time without the incessant buzz of a cell phone or the latest viral tweet or the most recent inane facebook entry where we can argue among two choices that have no real relevance in our lives.  And, if I am to believe in its subtitle. will provide me with a positive spin on a world that is experiencing exponential change across a variety of fronts.

Nice!!     

Opinions

I finished reading the Winter Edition of Lahpam's Quarterly a while back, book-marking a few spots in "States of Mind" for possible future posts.  One in particular was a back-of-the-edition essay written by Damion Searls called The Difficult Task of the Future.  The essay discussed the dilemma faced by Carl Jung after the publication of his seminal work"Psychology of the Unconscious". 

Jung was perplexed that, faced with the exact same evidence and/or same situations, his colleagues in the field of psychologyy often came to divergent conclusions.  For instance, Freud traced everything to the instinctual sex drive, Adler to the ego's lust for power.  Unlike most of us, Jung wanted to examine how he might be imposing his own psychology on his conclusions as he suspected his contemporaries did, and to investigate these disparities.

Self reflection at its apex, one might say.

As described by Searls, Jung began developing a theory in which he concluded that there were two types of people, introvert and extravert (Jung's spelling).  Further, that each type of person was prone to different mental illnesses. and, most importantly, it was fundamentally impossible for a person of one type to rise above the restrictions and characteristics of that type to fully understand someone of the other kind.

This theory, which eventually resulted in Jung's Psychological Types, published in 1921, set forth his beliefs and set off a firestorm of responses as he was essentially saying that there could be no objective truth in psychology (or any belief system for that matter) because all explanations are colored by the psychology of the person creating the conclusion. 

Still, Jung understood that even this schema, created by him, was influenced by his psychology so he set off to find an intellectual sparring partner to help him overcome his prejudices.  To accomplish this herculean task, herculean in that it required Jung to attempt to identify his own biases in light of his conclusions, while also openly listening to the justification of another's different conclusions while also acknowledging that that person also was effected by their own biases, Jung eventually found a psychiatrist named Hans Schmid.

From here, it is best that you do your own research, perhaps by reading Searls essay, or by reading publications by Jung and/or Schmid relating to their correspondences.

For me, Jung's watershed theory seems applicable considering the partisanship of so much of the public debate that is rending our country apart at the seams.  For those that support President Trump, any fact which paints him in a light less than brilliant is false, while for those who do not support the President any story which depicts him unfavorably must be true.  Examination of the details is irrelevant, when seen through the eyes of blind support or discontented fervor.

I am just as guilty, despite my efforts to explain to those who have the opposite opinion of our president.  I would like to think that my disagreements with President Trump are due to a vast difference in our opinions on climate change, income inequality, immigration, gender equality, fair treatment for the LGBTQ community, nuclear war, protection of our environment, compassion for other species, and the rule of law, among others, but it is not hard for me to believe any story depicting Trump as a poor human, let alone president, considering my biases against his differing opinions.  Recognizing them is certainly a start, but doesn't make it any easier not to succumb to condemnation without proof, and most assuredly will not allow me to listen to his speeches, or read his tweets, or agree with his nominations or policies without the filter of my biases against his opinions which seem so foreign, dangerous, and occasionally inhumane to me.

So, what to do.

Resist is an easy answer, and a correct one, as long as it is policies we resist, and not just anything that comes from his office.  There will be decisions made by the GOP and President Trump that are positive, and, like the blind squirrel who finds a nut sometimes, we need to be able to recognize those times, just as we hoped that the GOP would have given Obama more of a chance rather that being against everything he proposed. 

On the other side, patience is a virtue and I must acknowledge that the patience shown by President Trump's supporters is impressive.  But please, keep your ears and eyes open.  This much smoke, from the abuse of public funds by some of his cabinet members, to the obvious disdain for any news that does not toe the party line, to the twisted road of money that began with unreleased tax returns, might indicate some fires.  Don't let your eagerness for a wall or an anti-abortion law override your concern for the overall health of America.

And finally, let us all take a cue from Carl Jung and analyze our biases, admit that they effect our opinions, and keep an eye on those opinions that merely reflect preconceived perceptions and not actual facts.









   

Atlas Shrugged

Last week I drove my son back to college for the spring semester.  It is a 6 1/2 hour trip each way for those who have not read my blog in the past.  During the drive, we discussed a number of topics.  I was pleasantly surprised that he is very well read, certainly more so than myself at that age.  For those of you who think that today's young men and women are all about texting, video games and everything electronic when it comes to social interaction and entertainment, perhaps you need to look past the fact that they make use of what is available to them, just as we would have done if these devices were around when we were young, and actually try to engage a young person in a meaningful conversation.  Perhaps you will also be pleasantly surprised. 

Anyway, one of the topics we broached was Ayn Rand and her philosophy of the virtue of selfishness as brilliantly depicted in her novel Atlas Shrugged.  The popularity of her writings seem to ebb and wane as a new generation comes of age.  I read her books when in my twenties and again in my forties.  Lately, the rise of Ron Paul's libertarian viewpoint and the current popularity of some high profile conservatives who quote Rand's characters when bemoaning the "welfare state" has again brought her writings into the discussions of college dorms and "individualists".

And, of course, her philosophy is enticing to the young, and those who are successful.  It glorifies individual accomplishments.  It presents a viewpoint that anything is possible if those with the talent and drive are left to their own devices, without interference from the state as represented by those who cannot do for themselves but need to leech off those who can.  It plays perfectly in to the minds of people with above average talent, above average resources, above average opportunities, and those with the bulk of life still to be lived. 

For those who have never read Ayn Rand, in a most simplistic summary, the characters of Atlas Shrugged, those with the greatest talents and ambition, remove their skills and abilities from society.  They take blue collar jobs working in the fields they love, but do not lend their ideas to these endeavors.  Manual labor only.  Perhaps this is a stretch, but sometimes I detect a bit of this thinking when I hear people declare that by taxing the rich we negate the incentive for the "job creators" of our society.  As if, if they cannot make gobs of money, they will withhold their skills and settle for only piles of money.  Curiously, in my readings of Atlas Shrugged, I don't recall money being the end game for those noble characters.  They loved their work; monetary rewards (and public recognition) were a byproduct of their efforts.  Expected, perhaps, but not the driving force behind their energy. 

In a previous blog, I mentioned the importance of pride in one's work.  The characters of Atlas Shrugged demonstrated a pride that bordered on arrogance, at least to those who didn't share as strong a sense.  If making money is the only goal of one's work, does not the actual work get lost in the process?  For those at the top of the economic ledger, is creating jobs part of their calculation when creating and running a successful business or is it only creating and maintaining a profit?  If the former, it seems hard to marry the current state of unemployment when corporate profits and investment income is soaring.  If the latter, then perhaps those who espouse the "trickle down" economic theory should at least be honest with themselves (if not the public) and admit that their character pales when compared to those of Ayn Rand's novels.

Here's a thought.  Perhaps we need a few days of "Joe Public Shrugged".  A few days without TV because all of the people behind the camera choose to shrug.  A few days without Starbucks because all of the servers decide to shrug.  A few days of trash on the sidewalk, no policemen walking the streets, no firefighters to answer the call, no newspapers delivered, no supermarkets open, no one to walk our dogs or babysit our kids, or move the masses in buses, subways, trains.  Perhaps we need to send a wake up call to the Atlases among us that there are far more of us than you and if we were to shrug in unison... well, what a day that might be.