States of Mind

I thought I might touch one last time on the Lapham's edition called States of Mind.  It is odd, as I reflect and glance through the edition, that I was expecting more from the essays and excerpts collected therein, yet was not disappointed once I finished.  As if I absorbed a state of mind from reading reflections on the subject gleaned from the best attempts to discuss said subject, a state of mind that reminds me that while history might recall past events, it also changes as time passes due to a change in perspective of those writing and reading history, and that if we accept that history is not static but a dynamic and evolving picture of events that have already taken place, then situational disappointment or elation with a magazine or other piece of literature, or a movie, or an event that just happened or will happen tomorrow, may also turn into the exact opposite response in time.

For instance, one might rightly assume that the marches led by Dr King during the struggle for civil rights, the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the mid-60's, and the elimination of whites only signs on restaurants, toilets and water fountains, might have filled the hearts of many black Americans with the belief that the tide had turned and soon true equality would arrive.  And, one might even conclude that the election of Barrack Obama proved that hope was true.  

Yet, we might find that taking the pulse of race relations from the perspective of those who were 30 years old or less in 1964, might indicate that the hoped for progress was surface in its nature, not deep rooted.  That, in fact, the even deeper roots of white supremacy could not be eradicated by demonstrations or a presidential election.  And, if one remembers that history proclaims that slavery ended in 1865, 100 hundred years before marches were still required to obtain equal protection under the law, it seems clear that our collective state of mind, while having evolved past the acceptance of public lynchings, is still restrained by the accumulation of prejudice that has passed through dozens of generations. 

Or perhaps one might examine the euphoria that embraced Germany in the 1930's and 40's, when national pride was successfully stoked by the rhetoric which glorified the fatherland and united German citizens by blaming all its ills on Jews, foreigners and other people "not like us".  And, when the German war machine found success after success in rolling though its neighbors, I imagine that the average citizen was happy that German power and dominance was in show.  Now, of course, the German perspective on the atrocities committed against humanity demonstrates a much different state of mind.

It is in this regard that I, at times, feel sorry for President Trump.  His early morning tweets, his lack of civility towards those that disagree with him, his clear belief that president equates to King, his obvious perception that a women's purpose is to provide sexual release and bear progeny all indicate a person with a state of mind which stalled in its evolution.  Rather than progressing with the majority towards an understanding that all men are created equal does not refer to only white men, he remains stuck in a Mad Men episode.  Worse, all his past successes, actual and manufactured, led him to believe that it was all him, no help from anyone else, which is reflected in his speeches where any accomplishment is his, no mention of any assistance, and any void where a success may not have transpired is filled with a made up one. 

It is almost as if the collective angst felt by white men who, aware of how horribly they have treated anyone not in their white skinned, XY chromosome club, and fearful of how they might be treated when their majority has passed, drives Trump to proclaim his superiority at every step while degrading anyone who came before him. 

So, what will the state of mind of America look like in 5 years, or 10 or 50?  Will we shake our head at the antics of a president who believed that laws were made for those without the money and influence to sidestep them, or will the successful candidacy of President Trump be another step towards America's experiment with oligarchy at best, fascism at worse.  Hopefully, we will get a glimpse of the answer in 6 months.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

States of Mind

Last week, I began reading the Winter Edition of Lapham's Quarterly called States of Mind.  As is the case for most of these wonderful editions, it has immediately fired all kinds of thoughts.

Last summer, I titled a post, Reading and Thinking.  In it I touched on a few of the things I had recently learned by reading, and made some other comments as I am wont to do.  After reading a few of the essays in States of Mind, the preamble by Lewis Lapham, an excerpt from Diane Ackerman's An Alchemy of Mind, and one from Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, it strikes me as unfortunate, perhaps even, if I may be so sanguine to say, disconcerting, that the concept and execution of "reading" has changed so dramatically in the past few decades.

First, of course, we read less than previous generations, especially those that grew up without the great distractions of television and the internet.  The printed word was king for 600 years, breaking open the shackles that had hid the knowledge of the ages from the everyday man, providing a medium and a market for new ideas, exposing the hypocrisy of rules and taboos that were created by those seeking to maintain their power and control over the masses, and freeing the mind of so many who before were constrained by only what they could experience.  More than anything before, Gutenberg's press provided the imagination with an infinite source for creating new states of mind.

But more than that, why we read seems to have changed as well. Where in the past, one went to the library, book store, or magazine rack to learn as well as for entertainment, to increase one's knowledge or to escape, if even for a little while, into a world created by the author's imagination, now we seem to read as much to confirm our opinions as to seek new information.  And, perhaps unbeknownst to us, our go to place for reading, the various sources of social media on the internet, have been programmed to direct us to opinions, sites and news that reflect our past clicks.

It is as if, when walking through the doors of a library or into a bookstore, your library card, or debit card were scanned for past borrows and purchases, and only those sections were now open for you to browse. As if, once a science fiction book borrowed or purchased, that is all you would be offered again.

What was conceived as a way to ease one's navigating the internet, cookies which track your previous queries and algorithms which predict where you might want to go based on where you already went, is now more often used to tempt you with the goods and services that someone with your profile might like, or to direct you to sites which share your previously espoused opinion, or present you with news that might influence and confirm how you might vote.

In short, where reading was once a personal experience, limited by one's own desire for entertainment or willingness to seek new sources of information, internet reading via social media vehicles is too often controlled by the unseen forces of a technology without a value system, or an advertiser in search of a sale, or an opinion manipulator with goals both insidious and unnamed.

I have always thought of reading as a way to improve oneself, promote self reflection, increase empathy, perhaps even make one a better human.  To create a state of mind that is free from the restrictions that make us turn towards destructive behaviors, individually or as a group.

When I engage in discussions with people, especially my dear wife Nora, about the obvious problems we see with the present direction of our leadership, I generally try to assuage her fears with the pendulum analogy.  Great progress and change is challenging, and threatening.  It should be no surprise that after 8 years of the first African American President, one with visions of real equality, racial, gender, marriage, etc, after 8 years of agreement that climate change is a real threat and that our nation needs to move away from fossil fuels, after 8 years of slow, steady growth after the near depression of 2008-10, after 8 years of the hard truth about the inequalities in our judicial and penal systems, in our boardrooms, and in our spending priorities, it is natural for the pendulum to swing back a bit.  

I tell her that our state of mind, while alarmed, must also be hopeful that the pendulum will soon slow in its current backwards path, and begin to swing back in a direction that reflects true Christian values if that is your choice, loving thy neighbor as thyself, turning the other cheek, helping the least among us, etc, or reflects the goals of a generation who believed in the message and visions of Kennedy and King.

In the meantime, I encourage those who might "read" this post to reconnect with your relationship with reading if you recall a pleasant one when young.  And, for those for whom that relationship did not flourish, consider trying again.

Create your own state of mind before one is created for you.

    

Discovery

Slow month in June; less than 20 hits a day on my blog.  It is months like that which make me question why I continue to share my thoughts.  Am I kidding myself to think that anyone cares to read my opinions?  Am I fooling myself to think that my writing is cogent, thoughtful, relevant, or any other term one might consider a compliment?

I rationalize the time I spend in this endeavor with the possibility that someday my posts will be read by someone of influence who will find them important enough to share within their circle of followers.  Or perhaps a particular opinion or thought might inspire someone to act in such a way that the world is better for it.  Or even that in continuing to record my thoughts, small ripples of change might begin their long journey towards an unknown shore, effecting behavior or a future philosophy in a positive way.

Or, perhaps, that those in my small circle of influence might feel better for having read them.

A resurgence of interest from Russia has me wondering.  In the past I have received some very nasty comments from a few Russian readers, making me think they might be the source of activity in that country. 

Is negative interest better than no interest at all?  Is our president's fascination with Putin generating interest in that country for the opinions of Americans, even someone as obscure as myself?

Just finishing the Spring edition of Lapham's Quarterly, called Discovery.  As usual, many fascinating articles, essays, thoughts on the subject from the depths of history.  A few that I took note of.

In the opening essay by Lewis Lapham, founder and continued inspiration behind the quarterly, he laments the rise of the machine, and our burgeoning dependence on technology for our information. This is not to say that being able to access Laphams digitally is a problem, but that in our growing dependence on our phones and tablets for information, we too often eschew the knowledge of the past, alluded to in Goethe's observation, that he who cannot draw on three thousand years is living hand to mouth.  Lahpam's further comment that the failure to connect the past to the present, the present to the past, "breeds delusions of omniscience and omnipotence, which lead in turn to factories at Auschwitz and the emptiness of President Donald Trump."
--
A snippet from Vera Rubin's Women's Work, recounts how, as an astronomy student at Vassar College in 1947, she wrote a postcard to Princeton University asking for a catalog of the graduate school.  She received a nice little note in response from the dean of the graduate school that Princeton did not accept women in its graduate physics and astronomy programs, so he would not be sending along a catalog.  It wasn't until the 1970's that such a thing would happen.

Rubin also recounts how in 1976 when the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum presented as its first planetarium show a history of American astronomy, only male astronomers, all but one white males, were included.  To Rubin, the thousands of little girls who streamed into the show, in addition to learning about space, learned the limitations of their futures as a result of being born female. Repeated efforts by Rubin to request the addition of female astronomers and their contributions were met with a shrug, presumably by white males.

Stories like this make me laugh at the recent rise in white male angst over the perceived slights that the attempts to even the playing field for women and minorities has generated.  I guess practically forever in recorded history is not long enough for them to be given all the advantages!
--
From the House of Representatives' report on the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, a bill was voted on in the House which would prohibit the administrator of the EPA (that is Environmental Protection Agency, lest you forget, an agency created during Nixon's Administration) from "promulgating any regulation concerning, taking any action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of greenhouse gas to address climate change".  

During the vote, three amendments were offered by the Democratic minority, one which would accept the scientific evidence that climate change is unequivocal, one that would accept scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are the root cause of the observed climate changes, and the third that the public health of current generations ins endangered, and that the threat to public health will continue to increase as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.

Laphams recounts this episode under the heading "Tyranny of the Majority", reflecting that fact that the GOP majority defeated all amendments, and passed the bill as a way of protecting the fossil fuel industry to the detriment of public health.  Fortunately, the bill did not pass in the Senate. Unfortunately, it is not far-fetched to imagine a similar bill passing both houses, and then be certainly signed by President Trump.

It is understandable why so many voters chose to turn over control of both the executive and legislative branches to the GOP, after the stagnation of the political process the last 6 years of the Obama Administration, but there seems to be a precedent which indicates that when a split government is in place, and the voters hold both parties accountable to the concept that common ground must be found to create a government that considers both majority and minority perspectives, then the majority does not operate in a tyrannical fashion, nor does the minority embrace the role of obstructionism to detriment of all.
--
In a 1953 talk General Electric physicist Irving Langmuir, who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1932, identified several symptoms of what he called pathological science - that is, "the science of things that aren't so".  A few of his 6 symptoms of Fake News include:

Claims are of great accuracy.

Fantastic theories are contrary to experience

Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment

Finally, in reference again to the recollections of Vera Rubin and the open discrimination she fought as a career scientist, one can only wonder how many achievements were delayed or missed throughout history due to the premise that only white males should be given the opportunity to think, to research, to discover.  

The good news is that the genie is out of the bottle.  When given the same opportunity and resources as their white male counterparts, similar levels of achievement, success, and innovation are attained by men and women, regardless of race, ethnicity, or any other means by which humans limit those who are different from themselves. 

Especially in the case of women, one might say despite the obstacles placed in their path.

The bad news is that we seem to be in the midst of a cycle that finds the pendulum swinging in the wrong direction in this matter.  Let's hope that we can recover from our misdirection, and discover (again) that the nature of inspiration lands equally in the minds of all and every type of human, and that to fully take advantage of that muse we must reject the notion that She prefers one gender, one race, one country over the rest.


    

Home

I finished the Winter Edition of the Lapham's Quarterly, called Home, last week.  As I was reading it, I bookmarked a few entries with the intention of commenting upon them after I was finished the entire edition.  So, here goes.

Floor Plans, from The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up by Marie Kondo begins with the question, do you greet your house?  It reflects her belief that in the process of her job as a "decluttering consultant" she feels it important to establish a connection with the house itself, along the lines of acknowledging that by showing respect for the house, the process of making the house more of a home for its inhabitants will be revealed naturally.  Kondo also comments positively on the act of tidying up, as a way of not only making one's shelter cleaner and more organized, but as a sort of worship towards the house, and consequently the inhabitants.  Her words struck me as I have more than once told people that sweeping the floor is good for the soul.  To me, it provides a break from the thinking part of one's day, yet still produces a positive effect.

Collectibles, from Travels in Hyperreality by Umberto Eco, discusses the need for people in general, but Americans in specific, to fill every space in their home with an object, especially an object that of itself represents something, usually glorious or revered, from the past.  Eco demonstrates his disdain for this practice in very clear terms, especially when the collections contain mostly fake or faux objects of antiquity.  He understands why someone might want to visit a house with objects d'art from various points in history but considers the homes themselves as unlivable, garish and pathetic.

Betty Friedan Reads the Labels from The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan is a remarkable reflection by Friedan concerning women as housewives.  Friedan, who cofounded the National Organization for Women, kept house and raised her children while taking freelance writing jobs on the side.  As the result of a questionnaire from her alma mater, Smith College, Friedan found that many of her college educated classmates were similarly dissatisfied by the lack of opportunity for women with brains, as well as the societal assumptions that women were still defined by the upkeep and appearance of their homes and children.

What is especially interesting about this essay is Friedan''s research into the marketing methods of the business world which had determined that women purchased a majority of their products.  Her investigation into how these companies perceived women, how they manipulated advertisements to present women with products and services that would provide the satisfaction that their lives lacked was fascinating.  Ultimately, women were separated into three groups; the True Housewife, the Career Woman, and the Balanced Homemaker, each targeted with a different marketing plan to produce more sales.  I have never read the Feminine Mystique, but if this is the type of information contained, perhaps I should.

At Grandmother's House, from Home Comforts by Cheryl Mendelson would interest anyone who spent any time visiting or living with their grandmother.  It touches on the the differing cultural attitudes towards housework, (in Mendelson's case, one Italian, one English/Scottish/Irish), as well as the "feel" that a home should or shouldn't have, depending on one's tradition and experience.  She also makes a wonderful point about how some consider housework a never ending chore while others find a gratification in daily housework in that routine tasks can be determined and completed.  A closed circle as opposed to the tasks of the business world that can last for weeks and months.

The Old Neighborhood, from Pseudo-Lot, or Concerning Patriotism, by Karel Capek is an interesting take on the bible story of Sodom. Capek's version features Lot as unhappy that God is going to destroy his home, to the point where he attempts to convince the angel tasked with warning Lot that there is good in Sodom and that perhaps God might reconsider his decision.  Capek's Lot indicates that his love of the Lord is connected with his love of Sodom and its people.  In light of the extreme partisanship of our politics today, where it seems that party is more important than country, I found it interesting that Capek seems to value patriotism over religion.  The fact that Capek died soon after the Munich Agreement granted part of the original Czechoslovak Republic to Nazi Germany, and that Capek was number three on the Gestapo's arrest list demonstrates that he put his money where his mouth was, so to speak.

Lastly, Whistling in the Dark, an essay by Renata Adler discusses the flow of refugees and immigrants into Germany from the viewpoint of a woman whose parents fled Nazi Germany in 1933, who was born in Italy, then moved with her family as a child to New York in 1939.  The essay touches on many aspects of the decision by Angela Merkel to accommodate tens of thousands of people from the Middle East.  It recalls Adler's trip to Germany to visit one small town that had been assigned a consignment of migrants, detailing the wide reaction of the townspeople, the preconceptions and disappointments of the migrants, and, Adler's own opinions as to whether such a plan could work.  It is a compelling essay in that Adler does not sugarcoat the problems, does not demonstrate prejudice against the migrants, does not convey the all or nothing reporting that seems so common in the media today.  

Unfortunately, there is not a happy ending, in that those consigned to the small town she visits are determined not to qualify as refugees, and must leave Germany. Additionally, there is an air of doom about Adler's final paragraph which reflects the opinion of some of those asked to take in people from a completely different culture, a doom aptly reflected in the title of her essay.

For much of our early history, men did not establish homes. as much as shelters.  It has only been the last 10,000 years or so that we began the slow cycle away from hunter-gatherers to a rural, agrarian society to, just in the last few hundred years, more urban in our settings.  

During such a journey, home has meant a myriad of things to humans. Today, with the prevalence of instant communication, the sense of home is both less important and more critical to our self perception. 

We change homes multiple times in our lives, sometimes even changing citizenship.  We are so much more global, yet at the same time, a nationalism has taken hold of the world.

If home is still, "where the heart is", let's hope that our perception of home continues to expand so that one day we will all consider Earth our common home, and treat it, as well as each other, with the love and respect that coincides with the sharing of the place where our heart resides.                      

Good Luck

The Summer edition of Lapham's Quarterly arrived a few months ago. The focus this time is Luck.  As a log time advocate for the understanding of how important and determinant is the Birth Lottery, I was expecting an enjoyable few months of reading.  While I can't say I am disappointed so far, I also can't say it is one of my favorite editions. 

Yes, there is a multitude of essays and stories demonstrating the link between failure and luck, and success and luck.  Perhaps because the concept was already instilled in me, this particular assemblage has not set off bells in my head, or made me say AHA, as has happened while reading other Laphams.

Until I came to a short essay towards the end of the edition.  This particular person's quotes were from a book published in 2008.  He begins by commenting on the phrase, "Luck is when opportunity meets preparedness", a comment with which he agrees, then furthers by suggesting that those who complain about others' luck aren't working themselves into luck.  "If you want to be lucky, prepare for something big", he says.

Further, he comments on those who vent their frustrations and anxieties.  How there is a trend of thought that says that venting ones problems is healthier than keeping them inside.  Unfortunately, he states, this is only true to a point.  Complaining without doing anything about it can be detrimental to one's physical and mental well being.  

 

With the advent of blogging and other forms of social media, he continues, "people are spending way too much time harping on negative themes.  The emphasis is out of balance, and the negative focus doesn't help the situation."

He goes on further to say, "Don't dwell so much on a problem that you've exhausted yourself before you can even entertain a solution.  It just doesn't make sense."

And finally, "It takes brainpower and energy to think positively and creatively - and to see creatively and positively.  Going negative is the easy way, the lazy way.  Use your brainpower to focus on positives and solutions, and your own mind-set will help create your own luck."  

Some good stuff there.  I like the part about exhausting yourself in worry to the point where you have no energy left to address a problem. We seem to be a nation of worriers if one is to believe all the stats about our usage of anti-depressants.  Also, I especially like the part about going negative being the easy way, the lazy way.  It reminds me of all those people who look for simple answers to complicated problems, who prefer the offerings of simple answers, black and white answers, and/or a deflection of a solution via blaming others, particularly a segment of the population that is not like oneself.  When complex problems require complex solutions, the lazy approach is to offer simple answers steeped in prejudice.    

So, who is this font of wisdom?  None other than Donald Trump, from his book Trump Never Give Up, 2008.

Surprised?  

Is the Donald Trump running for president a different person that the one quoted in 2008, or has he used the prep work of the GOP's platform of racism, anti-government ranting, and fear of those with different cultures, then multiplied it with the obsession over President Obama's nation of birth.  Is he lucky to be the GOP nominee, or just more prepared to take advantage of the mind set of a certain population of Americans, especially white, male Americans?

What seems really strange, is that Hillary Clinton has also created her own luck to be in a position to be the first woman President.  Of course, she took the establishment path.  She has held political positions, first lady by default, but then state senator and secretary of state through hard work and personal ambition.  She knows all the players, knows how the system works, and spent the last decade preparing herself for the opportunity, despite the unexpected setback in 2008 when America chose the first Black President rather than the first Woman.

How ironic, the establishment candidate, a woman, vs the outsider, a white male, who in reality is not really an outsider as evidenced by his own words of how he donated to all politicians, GOP as well as Democrat, knowing they would take his calls and ease his path when he needed it.

Of course, one of these paths will win the day in November, while one will come up short.  If we are to believe Trump's words, it is nice to think that the electorate will recognize the lazy way, the negative focused way, the way of division, isolation and prejudice, and vote for the person who puts forward words of cooperation, community, and creativity towards finding solutions for our problems.  

 

As it appears that Trump is sticking with the path that garnered him the GOP nomination, let's hope that Clinton is that candidate, that she can cobble together a big enough coalition of those who can look past her use of the establishment way (a path no different from one walked by many white male presidents before her), and reject the prepared way that Trump has walked, no ran down, so effortlessly.

Final thoughts on Disaster

Took advantage of my day off yesterday to finish the Spring edition of Lapham's Quarterly.  A number of essays towards the end inspired this post.

The first was excerpted from William James' "On Some Mental Effects of the Earthquake", concerning the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.  James was in Palo Alto at the time, studying at Stanford University, where the earthquake was felt, albeit at a much lesser degree as Stanford is about 35 miles from San Francisco.  James' essay recounts how his experiences surrounding this disaster confirmed his belief that man can do extraordinary things when faced with difficult circumstances.  His observations centered around the cooperation that was exhibited by the survivors, how so many everyday people stepped up to assist where assistance was needed. 

Similarly, an excerpt from Rebecca Solnit's "A Paradise Built in Hell", expounds on James' beliefs, as Solnit recounts the response by those effected by numerous disasters.  Her conversations with the survivors of all types of natural disasters, led her to posit that the best of humanity is often displayed at the worst of times.  In fact, she goes further in her thinking that such disasters break us out of the modern lifestyle that corrals us into limited contact with our fellow man; the use of computers and cell phones rather than face to face conversations.  And, when forced to renew our social contacts, man reacts admirably, for the most part.  In essence, she uses the best of our reactions to disaster to contradict the prevalent belief that men are fragile, in need of professional help to navigate the perils of the world. 

But it is one thing to rejoice in the altruistic and honorable behavior of the survivors of disasters, and another thing when considering the victims of those same tragedies.  In Svetlana Alexievich's "Voices From Chernobyl", the story of Lyudmilla Ignayenko, and her husband, who was one of the firemen from the first fire brigade to arrive at the crippled power plant, is recounted.  What was striking to me was the juxtaposition of the day before the reactor's meltdown and everyday afterwards, until the death of Luydmilla's husband from radiation poison.  As it is when any story is retold, as it would be if we were to read about the day before activities of any of the 3000 people who died on 9/11, those stories include birthday parties, news of recent engagements or pregnancies, vacation plans, and a myriad of everyday events, going to school or work or church.  And that is the rub.  One day, life is normal.  The next day, everything has changed, forever. 

The reality however, is that everyday is the last day of normal life for thousands of people in our country.  Some die from a fatal disease that has sucked the life from them for a while, some from complications to a medical procedure that may have extended their life, but did not.  Some are killed instantly in accidents, vehicular or gun related.  These people and their families did not have the warning of a fatal disease diagnosis, just one day there, the next day gone. 

What is strange is that the odds are, we won't die tomorrow.  So we pretend we are temporarily immortal, and spend too much of the time of our life engaged in petty arguments.  We fight over possessions, land, minerals, knowing we can't take them with us, but fighting all the same.  We ignore the knowledge that while we may not die tomorrow, there will be a two day span sometime in the future where life will be normal one day, over the next. 

Perhaps ignoring that inevitability is good for the mind, keeps one from falling into an existential morass.  Perhaps.  But maybe acknowledging our immortality is what inspires the actions of those who survive calamities.  They experience death through others, are grateful to have not been a victim, and find their eyes are reopened to the wonder of being alive.

Do we cry when a loved one dies for them only, for the fact that we will never see them in this life again, or also because we know that day will one day arrive for us too, and we worry that we might not experience all that we want before that day comes.  Or do as much good as we could.

I would like to think that James and Solnit are correct in their belief that disaster brings out the best in us, because it assumes that the best is already there, waiting to show itself.  Now, if we could only demonstrate those higher qualities without the need for catastrophe. 

Barbarism

Getting to the end of the Spring edition of Lapham's Quarterly called Disaster.  Just finished reading one of the ending essays, by John Gray.  Very thought provoking, and challenging to both the prevalent world view which is dominated by Western thinking, and my personal perspective.  If interested, the link below will take you to the essay.

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/disaster/anomaly-barbarism

In a nutshell, Gray uses the current bogeyman of the day, ISIS, to rebuke the basis of, not only our generally accepted foreign policy, but the entire set of beliefs that equate the movement towards a modern society with the eventual elimination of barbarism.  He states that barbarism has long existed as part of man's nature, but rather than decreasing as man's sense of civilization has evolved, it has merely changed in its form of expression as technology has changed.  In other words, the simple slash, pillage and burn mode of conquering that was prevalent for literally thousands of years, has been dramatically altered with the advances in weaponry.  He cites the many 20th and 21st century examples of barbarism as proof that our ability to be cruel and savage has been multiplied by our ability to create nuclear bombs, kill from miles above the ground, and present our atrocities to the world via social media and instant access to information.  He in no means defends ISIS, but he does cite the many examples of those who went before ISIS using those same techniques.

Gray often mentions in his essay how it should be no surprise that a group such as ISIS has arisen in the Middle East, considering our disastrous actions to destabilize the region.  We remove the structure, however distasteful we may find it, and leave a vacuum of power that is instantly filled by those very same forces that were being restrained by that structure.  He scoffs at our naiveté in thinking that by liberating a people from a dictator, the West would be greeted with open arms, and a democracy would quickly follow, when the people of that area had no recent experience with democracy.  Gray reminds us in no uncertain terms, that our version of freedom, runs contrary to a population where religion is more important, and divisive, than in the West.  At one point he quotes a high ranking official who was prescient in stating decades ago that drawing lines in the sand to create countries where no national allegiance exists would need strong leadership rooted in suppression and restriction, not freedom.  Finally, he warns that continued destabilization in Syria would exacerbate the problem, not solve it. 

I think that the following quote best illustrates Gray's mindset.

"Civilization is not the endpoint of modern history, but a succession of interludes in recurring spasms of barbarism".

This is his main disagreement with the liberal mind in general, me in particular.  I believe that man is evolving intellectually, socially and spiritually.  That as time marches past, instances of terrorism will lessen, both on the individual level and group level.  Gray asks the question, why do we wonder why some European born men leave their homes to fight for ISIS?  He seems almost amused that we can't get our mind around why someone would depart from the freedoms that exist in most western nations to join an extreme group marked by utter control of the individual.  We ask how did they come to be "radicalized", yet forget that an entire nation turned to barbarism against those deemed less than human during World War 2.  We are baffled by the hundreds from Europe who join ISIS, without remembering the millions who followed Hitler and his policies of genocide.

Gray condemns the reluctance of western leaders to unequivocally call a spade a spade, and commit to a unified policy of defeating ISIS.  On that front, he agrees with the hawks among us who want to eradicate the ISIS threat.  Yet, at the same time, he rejects the notion that democracy and capitalism are the answer.  It is as if he has determined that we need to court the lesser of two evils by supporting strong arm dictators like Hussein, Khadafy and Assad, and hope that their lust for power will remain regional, and not spill into "our" world.  He is willing to condemn all those people whose only guilt will be to be born in the Middle East, to a life under the rule of a psychopath.  To me, it seems like a short term answer, yet understandable if one believes that man is more evil by nature than good.

So, we ridicule the Bush Administration for its debacle in executing the Iraq War, yet, perhaps, admire those who thought that the uplifting nature of capitalism and democracy might break the cycle of fundamental religious views that seem to mark so much of the region.  Certainly, and despite my belief that a similar backlash by those who cannot handle the changes now replete in our society are resulting in anti-human laws that seek to find sin and evil in those unlike us, I prefer a naïve optimism over a cynical fatalism.

As someone who has been more recently exposed to History, and the facts surrounding the advanced societies that existed in America before it was "discovered", in Southeast Asia, in the Middle East, perhaps we should ask ourselves if, centuries ago when Europe was marked by barbarism and all the advanced cultures were elsewhere, would it have been better had we been dismissed as people who would never change, could never change?

I often remark that violence begets violence, hatred breeds more hatred.  That only Love can defeat evil.  That, in the end, God created man to spend life searching for the line that separates good and bad, and to then choose a side, and that God created humanity to seek a group decision to act to benefit or harm each other, and the planet we inhabit. 

Yet, it is the real world we live in where there is in fact bad people engaged in horrible acts.  And, it seems ever more clear that despite our desire for simple answers, there are no simple answers to such complicated issues.  But perhaps answers will come more readily if we strive to expand our perspective, rather than narrowing it, whether that narrowing is caused by nationalism, religion, or politics. 

When one believes there is only one way, one Truth, one solution for every question, is that the mark of consistency or the burden of intransigence?

Is obliteration the only way to defeat those who engage in Barbarism?  Not if we assume that barbarism is part of our nature.  Does "using all means to defeat one's enemy" move us over the line from good to bad if we use torture to achieve that goal?  When is it time to fight the good fight, and how far removed from "good" is justifiable to fight that fight?

Gray takes on a tough subject.  Strange that his essay appears in a magazine called Disaster.




      

Disaster

The Spring edition of Lapham's Quarterly arrived a few weeks ago.  I have read about a third of it to date. The first section (of three) is called Premonition, and includes essays from people who have written about the possibility of impending disaster, some natural, some man made.  One which recounts the days and hours leading up to the Challenger shuttle disaster was of particular interest in that a number of scientists from the company which manufactured the O rings that failed were aware of the potential problem which cold temperatures might produce, tried valiantly to convince their managers and NASA administrators to cancel the mission, and were ultimately surprised, not by the explosion but by their lack of success to preempt it.  (I have since heard an NPR segment which detailed the guilt felt by these very same engineers, who blame themselves for not forcing those decision makers to listen, and the anger some still feel on being ignored). 

Similarly, the seemingly American hobby of discounting certain science, specifically science that contradicts religion (evolution deniers), and science that threatens certain industries (climate change deniers), is recalled both in the above example where NASA pride trumped caution, and in the opening article which details the ongoing research being conducted in the Greenland ice sheet which undoubtedly demonstrates the potential for disaster that will result in rising sea levels from ice melt.

But these strains of thought are not new to me. 

What is most interesting to date, were the essays taken from the writings of George Marsh and Sigmund Freud.

In 1864 (yes, during the Civil War), Marsh published Man and Nature, one of the earliest texts which argued that human activity could have significant and lasting effect on the environment.  The essay in Lapham's, touches on the destruction of the forests to harvest its wood for houses.  

Marsh calls it a Want of Foresight, in that he observes how temperatures in cities are a few degrees warmer that in the surrounding countryside, how removing the trees exposes the ground to faster flow of water, which can remove the ground soil, or what he calls the vegetable mold, making it harder to grow food.  He talks about how these man induced changes, effect the ebb and flow of rivers and streams, the existence of tidal pools and marshes, all changes which effect the flora and fauna of the area.  He observes without the bias of monetary gain or loss, or religious edict.  

Strangely, and I say this in light of the occupations and concerns of most of today's politicians, Marsh was an elected United States Congressman for the state of Vermont, and a lifelong conservationist who used his position and knowledge to further the cause of environmental awareness at a time when the Industrial Revolution was first changing America.  Talk about swimming against the stream!!

But the most illuminating essay was from Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents.  My familiarity with Freud was mostly focused on his Interpretation of Dreams, a topic which I investigated most seriously (and enjoyably) as a young adult, the ability to experience lucid dreaming being one of my earliest pursuits.  And, of course, as my interest in Psychology blossomed, Freud's creation of psychoanalysis was studied and debated.  But whether I avoided his darker theories on man, or purposefully ignored them, I was not as aware of his contributions in this area.

In this edition of Lapham's is Freud's discussion of the battle between what he calls the instincts of Eros and Death.  Without getting too involved in this theory, he basically boils it all down to our all encompassing instinct of aggression, and the "civilized" concepts we use to counter that instinct to create an orderly less violent society.  

What is fascinating is that he turns the basis of Christianity, original sin and the need to be saved through Jesus Christ, on its head by acknowledging that we are in fact, flawed (original sin being our aggressive and destructive nature), and proof is in the need to be saved and to adhere to the basic message of that savior, love one another.  In other words, we need to be told to be good, to have institutions that teach goodness, even to have the carrot of ultimate happiness, eternity with the creator, in order to counter our natural aggressiveness, our natural destructiveness.  Wow, talk about negative!! 

Oddly, Freud died in 1939, before the atrocities of World War 2 occurred.  I would imagine he would have silently nodded his head with the knowledge that the attempted genocide of the Jews by the Nazis, the incessant bombing of England, the firebombing of Germany and the ultimate use of atomic weapons in Japan, would have proven him right, especially in light of the fact that all of these barbarous acts were committed by people who thought such acts were the beginning of a better man,  or blessed by a righteous God, or the only way to combat those that were evil.

Want of Foresight seems even more at work now than ever.  We continue to make decisions based on short term outcomes, whether those decisions be in the business or political world, or on the battlefield or in the election booth.  And we abhor the violence of others while clamoring for our own righteous version of violence against our enemies. 

Still, there are signs that we might choose to act to prevent disaster, and that we might choose to reject aggression in favor of love.  Hopefully, the tipping point will come before we have gone too far down the wrong path.


         
   

Insecurity?

The initial 2016 edition of Lapham's Quarterly is called Spies.  It begins with a scathing essay by the founder of the quarterly, Lewis Lapham.  In it he details the loss of freedom that Americans have relinquished in the name of national security.  From the Patriot Act and its authorization of unlimited domestic surveillance of the citizens of our country, to the exponential growth of government agencies tasked with preventing future 911 attacks, to the everyday messages broadcast in our media asking us to be alert for subversives among us, and enabling that alert by providing the characteristics of those who would want to do harm via religious and racial prejudices, we have willingly traded freedom for safety.  But what does such a trade mean?

One of the first quote in Spies puts it bluntly, and is attributed to Rebecca West.

"I cannot think that espionage can be recommended as a technique for building an impressive civilization.  It is a lout's game." 

Her quote was in reaction to the number of British citizens who were put on trial after WW2 for spying, and in particular Anthony Blunt.  Her focus is as much on the fact that rich people are allowed to break the law without the same consequences as the poor, as it is that when traitors are discovered they are so often granted immunity to break their trust with the other side and reveal the others' secrets.  She seems to be saying that the cost of loyalty is easily purchased.  And, she also wonders aloud in The New Meaning of Treason, why those responsible for allowing such breaches of secrecy seem to be the very people conducting the trials of the traitors suggesting that this closed circle of secrecy is never full revealed to the citizens of the country those involved are supposed to protect.

For me, the ever extending reach of paranoia that routinely infects those at the highest levels of government (and business), might suggest profound insecurity.  Are we so distrustful of our beliefs, so faithless, that we believe that only in killing those with differing ideas can we protect ourselves?

Adding insult to injury, are the human and monetary costs of the path we seem to be following.  What have we spent in our war against terrorism since 2001?  Google "cost of war on terror" and $1.6 trillion dollars pops up a few times.  Military deaths - over 6700 lives lost with another 50000 injured, not to mention the psychological damage that so many of our veterans face after multiple deployments.  When news of the poor state of the Veterans Administration hit the papers, outraged abounded.  But proper medical care costs money, and in these 'lets slash the budget" times, we can't spend billions on defense, while providing the necessary care to those who do our dirty work, let alone fix our crumbling infrastructure, address our failing urban schools, or face the future cost of climate change. 

All the flag waving and patriotic fervor don't pay the bills, yet at the same time we all profess our love for America, we do our utmost to pay the least amount of taxes possible, especially those with the most.  Perhaps Uncle Sam should be renamed Mom and Dad Sam because it appears that, like children, we want all we can get from our government with the least amount of cost.  And, like children, we want to believe we are safe because we have the greatest killing capabilities on earth, as if ideas and ideologies can be killed.

Even worse, one might say we are bankrupting our country morally as well by turning a blind eye to the use of torture, or worse, condoning it in the name of saving future lives.  We condemn those we oppose when they commit atrocious acts in the name of their safety, yet commit those same atrocities to protect our own hides.

Is it not clear that we become, not just lout's in our use of subterfuge, espionage, assassination, and torture to thwart our enemies, but just like our enemies?

But Joe, certainly you are not suggesting that we allow foreign tyrants to kill their own citizens with impunity, and acts of terror to go unpunished?  Would it be so radical approach to try it once?  To show by example that freedom means being able to pursue one's own happiness while allowing others to pursue theirs?  To encourage democracy by actually voting in our own elections?  To stop the cycle of violence by not responding to violence with more violence? 

In Spies, there are many stories of people withstanding torture, some who were eventually freed and whose stories did as much to bring down their torturers as bullets and bombs, some who died but whose conviction inspired others to further the cause. 

We love to recount the success of World War 2 in defeating the evil of Hitler, and resort to that analogy when talk of dialogue with an enemy is proffered.  Yet we so quickly forget the actions of Gandhi who fought an enemy of a different nature and won the day.  Or those that used non-violent protest to bring down the walls of discrimination, whether they be in America or South Africa. 

Perhaps then, the greatest security cannot be found behind the tallest walls, or the biggest guns, or the most widespread surveillance systems, but in a certainty of beliefs, and a faith in humanity and humane acts.       

More on Swindle and Fraud

A few more thoughts as I read the spring edition of Laphams.

An essay from PT Barnum's Humbugs of the World, addressed the topic of the wide variety and seemingly endless supply of humbugs, Barnum's word for all those schemes and deceits that have been perpetuated on men by their fellow men.  From religion to medicine, business to literature, he cites example after example of ways in which men gain power, money and fame through trickery.  But, at the end, his final example, the biggest humbug of all, he saves for the "man who believes - or pretends to believe - that everything and everybody are humbugs." 

It is his opinion that while certainly there are schemers, plotters, and tricksters among us, and that some of the more successful of humans are those who have schemed, plotted and tricked better than most, it is the utmost fool who sees and expects the worst in everyone, sees wolves behind every tree, and casts doubt upon every plan and invention put forth by his fellow man. 

And this from a man who made his fame by rounding up all manner of the odd shaped, then embellished those unusual characteristics to create a circus of the macabre, all the while collecting money from those who preferred to believe the exaggerations.  It is as if he looked in the mirror, recognized the fake for who he was, but also believed that without the goodness of men, those like him would have no platform upon which to succeed.

What also strikes me about this essay, is that Barnum calls himself out, but also separates himself from those who pretend to believe in the evil of men, and those who actually believe.  I fear the former more than the latter, as the former know the truth but use the continuation of the lie to further his agenda, while latter may some day learn the truth and perhaps alter his perceptions.  Sorry to point a finger here, but it reminds me of the so successful Fox propaganda machine that is controlled by people who are certainly smarter than the fiction disguised as news that they propagate, but purposefully hire those who do actually believe some of the nonsense, mixed with those that know the power of the lies and choose to perpetuate them for their own benefit. 

Another interesting thought came to me from an excerpt from The Secrets of the Great City, by James Dabney McCabe in which is described (2) methods of robbery employed by street walkers and an associate.  In the first, a girl brings a john to an apartment which has a fake wall with a sliding panel.  The pigeon's clothes are placed on a chair near the wall, and while the man is otherwise occupied, the associate slides open the panel and rifles his clothes for valuables.  The second method involves the street walker asking for the money up front, but before the act can be begun, her "husband" arrives home unexpectedly.  The poor girl begs the john to leave by a side exit promising to fulfill her side of the transaction the next night.  Of course, that meeting never happens. 

Each has their advantages.  The second scheme saves the girl some energy, but she must now avoid that victim in the future so it limits her opportunity for standard business going forward.  The first plan allows for future transactions, but probably not a future robbery.

Expanding that analogy, I imagine that the real experts at fooling mankind, have multiple level plans to address the various level of fools that they must victimize.  Those that can be fooled only once, must be approached differently than those who can be fooled over and over again.  When I see the same phrase used by various pundits to describe the same false perception, I wonder if they are addressing the first type or second.  Is it enough to repeat a lie over and over again to make it be true, or do you need a willing ear to believe it as well?  And, can you prime that ear enough, give it just enough small truths so that when the big lie is stated, it is unrecognized by that trained (or untrained) ear?

Ah, yes, indoctrination.

The process by which we are all trained to accept myths and half truths as facts.  Trained by our parents, our religion, our country.  Trained for our own good, trained to protect us, trained to keep us on the path that will lead to our happiness.

But this excerpt from "Secrets.." also inspired this thought.  While reporting on violence, mayhem and wrongdoing seem the basis for so much of our news, the reality is that crime has decreased in America.  Especially violent crime.  Of course, this could be a blip, and could be attributed statistically to any number of causes, but (as I have said before) I believe it is due to the continuing evolution of mankind's spiritual nature.   But what if crime is down because people who historically had to turn to crime, the poor, the homeless, the shunned, now have a modicum of security through the various social nets that have been created in the last 60 years?

Social security, medicare, welfare, unemployment, disability income, etc, are frequently portrayed as examples of the nanny state where people are no longer required to fend for themselves.  Cradle to grave security which suppresses creativity, persistence, self reliance.  Is that the yin and yang of those programs?  Less crime, less violence, less desperate acts, to the detriment of strength of character, self motivation, independence?

Survival of the fittest sounds good, makes a great sound bite, but what about those that are less fit?  And do we all not experience states of less fit multiple times throughout our lives?  Infancy?  Sickness?  Accident?  Old Age?  It is easy to scoff at death when one is 24 with perfect abs and a clean colon, but that time is fleeting.      

When I first saw the title Swindle and Fraud, on this edition of Laphams' Quarterly, I thought it was a strange choice.  Now that I am reading it, I find it one on the most interesting and thought provoking topics yet chosen.     

Fraud, Swindle and Truth

Last week I found myself out of reading material.  I had finished the March editions of National Geographic and Smithsonian, and mentioned in a previous post that I had completed the Winter 2014 Laphams quarterly.  And, of course, I had finally published An Atheist for Christ, which was the project I had hoped to complete via my built up vacation days from work.  Fortunately, the Lapham spring 2015 edition arrived in the mail.  Good timing, good topic; Swindle and Fraud.

About 30 pages in, I encountered The Importance of Being Deceptive, taken from The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli.  I would imagine that most people have heard of Machiavelli although he is probably also one of those writers that many people think they "know", but have not actually read.  I include myself in that statement, as I do not recall ever reading The Prince, but have described various people and/or policies as Machiavellian.  So, spent a few minutes on Wikipedia reading about the man; for those also curious, here is a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli

I imagine that most people, were they to be asked if Machiavelli was a good person or bad person, might assume the worst based on their understandings of, and the connotations associated with, the term based on his last name.  It may surprise many people then, when they read that he was an historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher and humanist.  That he is considered one of the founders of modern political science, more specifically political ethics.  And, that he also wrote comedies, carnival songs and poetry.  In short, he was an accomplished, erudite thinker, and exerted much influence in early 16th century Florentine, which means therefore, he was an important figure during the Renaissance.  

That his greatest work, which includes his views on the importance of a strong ruler who is not afraid to be harsh with his subjects and enemies and less truthful than wise, may be more a result of his living during the time of strong but warring Italian city-states which were vulnerable to the other unified nation states, particularly France.

In other words, his philosophy was as much influenced by his place in time as his personal beliefs.

So far, I have only read about a quarter of Laphams Swindle and Fraud edition but I am beginning to see a pattern.  Regardless of the time, 1200 BC Troy or Rome, 16th century Florentine or London, or 20th century Nuremburg or New York, there have always been those who use fraud and deception to gain power, fame and riches, for, as it was so notably quoted, "there has never been a shortage of sheep to be fleeced".

(Note here.  If indeed, there have always been a subset of men who spend their days looking for pigeons, always finding them with ease, doesn't that mean that most men therefore are honest?  And isn't that a good thing?)

Today as I was walking the dog, I wondered what Machiavelli might think of the United States of America today.  Would he nod approvingly? 

Is not our entire advertisement industry based on deceit?   What product or service is not touted as the best?  And the pharmaceutical industry has created a whole new category of advertisement deceit in which they invent a disease, create a pill, then, via small print or an overdubbed voice tell you that their product might kill you.  All the while showing happy people who have been cured.

Politics?  Just today I saw a 2016 presidential candidate announce that he will be shopping for his health care insurance via the exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, the day after he proclaimed that if elected president he would repeal every single aspect of said act.  He is not above taking part when it suits him, nor is he troubled by castigating it when talking to his base.

Perception is the most important thing, substance a distant second, if that.  Obama is a socialist whose policies will wreck the American economy.  You can hear someone saying it on Fox and in many American homes every day.  Yet, since the peak of the recession, say around 2010, the US economy has not only rebounded, but it may be argued is as strong as any, in the world.  Unemployment is under 6%.  The stock market flirts at record highs every other week.  Corporation war chests are bursting with cash.  And, even better (or most likely even worse), the 1% have continued to realize a bigger portion of the pie than ever. 

The rich people club of America could not have written a better script; paint the president as anti-business, label equal pay for equal work, and higher minimum wage proposals as socialist, weaken unions, and allow jobs and assets to be sent offshore where lower wages, and taxes can double and triple profits.  And, oh yes, encourage the GOP to continue tossing out losing presidential tickets and far right candidates with limited agendas and intelligence, so that the rich can continue to feed the lie that big government is the enemy. 

At this point, one has to wonder if truth is even possible.  Would we buy a product that advertises that it is as good as the rest?  Or that it is cheaper because it is not quite as good?  Would we vote for a candidate that tells us that we can't be the world's policeman, without expecting blowback from those that we kill and displace?  Or a candidate that tells us that we can't pay for the benefits we expect without paying our fair share of taxes? 

Is the truth, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder?

If so, then Machiavelli it is!!


  


  


 

Interstellar and Time

Happy New Year!!

I am starting the new year off "right" by taking some time off from work.  Of course, not everyone has the luxury of a stockpile of vacation time, or a job where taking one's vacation time does not interfere with the smooth operation of the business, but that unfortunate fact is topic for another day.  In my case, I plan to take a few days every other week for the first quarter of the year.  Hopefully, it will provide me the time and the opportunity, to catch up on my reading, and e-publish something I have worked on for far too long without completing.

In the meantime, I finished the Laphams Quarterly called Time.  It was interesting in parts, but a bit redundant in others.  I say redundant in that essays, poems, reflections about Time seem to fall into a smaller group of categories as can be inspired by other topics.  I guess after the umpteenth example of someone expressing regret over wasting their time as their life comes to a close, after another example of a metaphysical approach to defining Time in relation to eternity, God, space, etc, after yet again someone's reflection of how Time makes a mockery of earthly possessions, fighting over specks of land, angst over almost any of life's events when compared to forever, I was beginning to tire of the effort to read.

Then I went to see the movie Interstellar.  For those of you who have not seen it, I will try not to spoil the story.  In essence, it is a love story, set with a background of time, space, and the future of mankind.  For me, it brought to life many of the concepts encased in Lapham's Time edition.  I would imagine that for most people, Einstein's theory of relativity is just that, a theory, but something hard to apply to everyday life and experiences.  Reading a magazine like Laphams, I surmise that there may be an attempt to make such a theory come alive by compiling the musings about Time over the course of thousands of years.  With just such a perspective, it is a sobering read.  But, perhaps regrettably, seeing the effect of relativity as played out on the big screen with believable actors in a not unbelievable story, seems to bring home the point all that clearer.  For me, one of the most striking scenes is the one in which the father is reunited with his daughter after his time in space.  It is a reunion in a hospital where the daughter is dying of old age while the father has aged only slightly.  On the face of it, something out of science fiction, but as theorized by Einstein and as depicted in the movie, as realistic as any scene could be.  

To return to Lapham's Time, there was one essay that caused me pause.  It was written by a father who, with fond memories of his childhood days at a summer vacation spot, decided to bring his own son to that same place.  At first, unsure that Time and Progress may have changed his summer retreat, he moved cautiously.  But, upon arrival, and after the first full day, he was happy to discover that very little had changed at the lake.  Except him.  While Time had seemingly stopped as far as the summer vacation spot was concerned, he had aged.  When he looked at his son, he remembered his own father and he started to combine those images.  He saw himself as both the son and the father, interchangeable.  This, of course, made me think about my father, already gone for two years, and my son, just graduated from college.  I am the link between them, yet also the end result of a link that extends multiple generations in the past, and hopefully, the beginning of a chain that will extend multiple generations into the future.  A bit of immortality, both backwards into history and forward into Time.

There is no time like the present.  A nice little saying.  Ridiculed by some who perceive those who live in the present to be irresponsible or immature.  Yet, is it not the present that links what has happened with what is to come.?

Which begs the question; what is preferable, or what is worse; living in the past, living in the present or living for the future.  The past is a nice place to visit when one feels nostalgic but its experiences tend to exist through rose colored glasses, always better in reflection than they were in reality.  It may be pleasant to start one's sentences with "I remember when.." but turning back the hands of Time is not a foundation to build upon for the future.  While the future is an imagined place, a wonderful or dreaded place depending on one's age, outlook, economic situation, country of birth, gender, race, health condition, etc.  For those of us approaching retirement, there are too many stories of friends or relatives who plan for their years after work, only to pass to the next realm within a few months,  never actually reaching the future they planned for so long. 

Perhaps then, there is no time like the present is the better choice of philosophies, perhaps the only choice that adequately links the past with the future.  The only choice that values what has come before, honors what is now, and appreciates what is to come.          

Youth and Time

I've been singing "Winter Wonderland" lately, as we have had light snow falling since yesterday.  Not much accumulation but the song still runs in my head.  My favorite line is "walking in your winter underwear", which is, of course, not in the song, but is my Yankovich version.

I finished reading "Youth" the fall Laphams quarterly, and began the Winter edition called Time.  Not sure what the thinking was to have those topics back to back, but the juxtaposition seems appropriate. 

I must say that I found myself distracted/less interested as I read Youth.  While there were many interesting essays, poems, stories, I was not as engrossed in the overall collection as usual.  Since my drive to work is only 30-40 minutes now, I have a bit less time to myself in the car, but during a recent commute, I thought about why Youth was less appealing to me.  The obvious is, of course, that I am not young anymore.  That in itself is a disturbing concept, and can very readily lead to a reluctance to read about the wonders of youth. Also, as I may have mentioned in a previous post, I also tire of the those past their prime who bash the young at every turn, as if the next generation is the worst to ever set foot on the planet.  Reading tirades such as these that date to the seventeenth century, the 9th century, and times with BC after the date, confirm my suspicion that youth is one of the most envious attributes, and the one which inspires a myriad of attacks from those who have lost theirs. 

Do I wish to be young again?  I don't think so.  Certainly I wish to have more energy, i.e. feel less tired.  And, if you haven't figured it out yet, I sometimes wish I had pursued writing at an earlier age, had went all in rather than writing as an ancillary aspect of my life.  But, if we knew now what we didn't know then .....  I certainly don't regret the main decisions I made in my life.  Marriage to a wonderful woman, two tremendous children.  Perhaps a writing career would not have lent itself to a more traditional life, and, were I to be a writer, I would be wondering if I missed out on the joys of a family.  As the song lyrics go, "It is not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got".

As for Time, I certainly do hope I have a fair amount of time to come.  More time to continue writing, more time to spend with family.  We all know that life is uncertain, that the car on the other side of the yellow line can come head on to yours due to a bee flying through an open window, or the scent of a flower that makes one sneeze, or merely due to a day that was too long with too little sleep.  We all know that ultimately, our time is limited.  Yet we spend so much of our lives looking past the present, wishing to be older, wishing for the weekend, wishing to be young again.  We seem to spend so little time in the present, then wonder why the presents have not added up to happiness.

Youth and Time. 

Here's hoping that you enjoy both!