Make-believe

Make-believe was a game we played as children. Playing make-believe is pretending that things are a certain way, even though you know they are really somehow else. When the games begin today, though, we're going to see all the little kiddies playing it again, and with much more enthusiasm than they showed when they were kids, I'm sure.

Let's face it. We love to deceive ourselves. We love to pretend that things are one way when we know they are just different in reality. As children, our contact with reality is not so strong, and it's easy to play make-believe. As adults, we're constantly confronted with reality, and given the current one in America, I can understand why so many would like to lessen that contact with reality. It certainly ain't what it used to be (even if I'm convinced, it never was what it claimed to be).

It's sad, but I sense a feeling of desperation over there. Things just aren't working out like they're supposed to. Crime rates are coming down, slowly, but they're still exceptionally high. The introduction of more and more legislation to keep things in order in only leading to more crime (that is, the crime base is broadening, even if the numbers of violent crime are reducing). The economy isn't doing very well; the perpetrators of the 2008 meltdown won't be prosecuted, and the level of force being used against peaceful demonstrators is increasing to what I would consider to be dangerous levels. These things are not evidence of a society that is self-confident enough to handle its problems. And, yes, that makes me sad.

But, let's face it: over the next three months it's going to get a lot worse. There are deep policy issues to be dealt with, but we all know what the Super-PAC ads are going to be like, from both the major parties. There will be name-calling, fact-distortion (if not downright, fact-fantasies), loud, abusive, and most likely violet rhetoric. I really have the feeling that regardless of how few people are going to go vote (and isn't it ironic that the country that considers itself the cradle of modern democratic ideals has the lowest voter turnout rates of all the western industrialized countries?) most will simply be voting against the other guy. There are increasingly fewer and fewer people who are actually for anything anymore. That makes me sad, too.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not wallowing in self-pity or nostalgia or anything for that matter. It's sad when you see things that could be different won't be different because, for the most part, we have simply come to believe that our make-believe is real.

Flights of fancy

Talk about making things up ... one has already and next week the other of the two-ring circuses is going to start in America. I'm talking about the national conventions for the two big parties. And a party they will be, I am sure: lots of balloons, confetti, streamers, zippy music, yelling, singing, jumping, bumping, dancing and applause ... lots and lots of applause. But who's being applauded?

If I remember the last time I watched part of one of these spectacles correctly, it was a lot of just applauding oneself. For example, as a delegate, you got to put on a funny hat and hold up a sign and jiggle it or wave it when you were told, and every single one of those delegates was from absolutely the best state America has to offer. It will be the best convention ever held, in the best city by the best hosts, and it will produce the best results ever. Both of them. It makes you wonder.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against fun. I'm all for it. I don't think we have enough fun in our lives, but the lunacy that is about to be unleashed upon us, is really not my idea of fun. In a certain regard, the shows in Tampa and Charlotte are simply emblematic of what's wrong with America these days. Really. I'm not bashing, I'm just saying. Over the next couple of weeks, I'll have a lot of explaining to do, because for an outsider, well, it's just hard to get your head wrapped around all that craziness.

Don't we already know who's going to be nominated? If the platforms have been established already - and they have - why hold a convention? If the campaign approaches have already been decided upon - and they have - what's the convention for? Hasn't the real election campaign already begun? If the people to run were picked ahead of time, what's the purpose of the convention? I don't know, and that's what I'll tell all who ask me. But, it's not really what I think.

I remember the first convention I ever watched ... OK, saw parts of ... it was the Republican convention in the run-up to the 1956 election. I was home sick and that was all that was on either of the two channels we had back then. I didn't understand much of it then, and it was unbearable to watch. (No wonder I became a voracious reader. It wasn't so limiting.) Back then, my parents really couldn't explain to me what the show was all about, and now, so many years later, I'm not better positioned to explain to my friends and co-workers what's going on either.

No, back then, it was just too silly. A whole lot of hoopla, and not a lot of substance. I don't think it has changed, but all the heads will be talking and "analyzing" and discussing, and my friends and co-workers are going to be asking what it's all about. It was silly then; it's silly now. And for the next couple of weeks, that's the impression America will be making on the rest of the world: silly.

Are you willing to see it?

OK, short break, back to the regularly scheduled program ...

I know, I know ... I'm chapping more than one hide out there. Sorry about that ... well, actually, no, I'm not sorry at all. You got to get over yourselves. My point is, really, that when you think a thought back to its source (which is what our little thought experiment last time was about) you realize that at some point, it all become just a little bizarre, a little absurd, a little arbitrary.

To put it bluntly, at some point, we just decide to make stuff up and say, "well, that's how it is". That, dear friends, is strange. But that, dear friends, is how we make most of reality and most of our lives work.

To be perfectly honest, at the moment, I'm not interested at all in any rationalizations or alleged justifications for why things are the way they are. Whether our example had to do with Native Americans, the bushmen of the Kalahari, some Siberian tribe, or the Celts or the Cro-Magnons or the Neanderthals, well, it just doesn't matter. There was a time when no one thought about "ownership" or "property" and just because someone else came along with those kind of concepts doesn't really mean anything at all. There is no natural law that identifies, defines, or describes "property", for example. The notion is simply one that we made up at some point and that we all now just take for granted.

What amuses me most about all of this is that those amongst you who get your dander up about fiction, about made-up stories, are the ones who are feeling most chapped right now. Why? Because all that single-minded, grounded, factual, objective, this-is-how-it-is stuff turns out to be just as made up as anything else. The only thing "natural" about any of this, if you will, is the fact that we humans have a tendency to make stuff up and believe that what we made up are facts. They're not.

I would be the last person to maintain that there isn't a lot at stake here, but that's not the issue. My point, in case you may not be getting it, is that if we made this up, then we are perfectly within our "rights", actually are in tune with our true natures, if we decide to make something up to replace it. The world is the way it is because we have either made it the way it is, or because we have allowed others to make it the way it is. It's really a very simple idea. There is nothing Gd-given about it, there are no natural laws that describe it. Just about all of what is involved in how we organize and structure our social lives is a result of how we decided to organize and structure it. It is as it is, but it could just as easily have been somehow else. None of it is cast in stone.

This is, truth be told, a difficult notion. This is something that a whole lot of people have trouble wrapping their heads around. Nevertheless, I would like to suggest that it is possible. I'm not asking anyone to give up their cherished beliefs. I'm not asking anyone to deny their upbringing or what they hold to be good and true, or even sacred. What I am doing, however, is suggesting that it just might be worth your while -- in the long run, and that means for those who come after you, be they children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren or people you will never, ever know -- to think a thought or two to the end (or the beginning, depending on how you view it).

You'll be a better person for it. And, the world will be a better place because of it.

A Thought On Death

When life as opening buds is sweet,
And golden hopes the fancy greet,
And Youth prepares his joys to meet,
Alas! how hard it is to die!

When just is seized some valued prize,
And duties press, and tender ties
Forbid the soul from earth to rise,
How awful then it is to die!

When, one by one, those ties are torn,
And friend from friend is snatched forlorn,
And man is left alone to mourn,
Ah then, how easy 'tis to die!

When faith is firm, and conscience clear,
And words of peace the spirit cheer,
And visioned glories half appear,
'Tis joy, 'tis triumph then to die.

When trembling limbs refuse their weight,
And films, slow gathering, dim the sight,
And clouds obscure the mental light,
'Tis nature's precious boon to die.

-W.H. Auden

And Death Shall Have No Dominion

And death shall have no dominion.
Dead men naked they shall be one
With the man in the wind and the west moon;
When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone,
They shall have stars at elbow and foot;
Though they go mad they shall be sane,
Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again;
Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion.

And death shall have no dominion.
Under the windings of the sea
They lying long shall not die windily;
Twisting on racks when sinews give way,
Strapped to a wheel, yet they shall not break;
Faith in their hands shall snap in two,
And the unicorn evils run them through;
Split all ends up they shan't crack;
And death shall have no dominion.

And death shall have no dominion.
No more may gulls cry at their ears
Or waves break loud on the seashores;
Where blew a flower may a flower no more
Lift its head to the blows of the rain;
Though they be mad and dead as nails,
Heads of the characters hammer through daisies;
Break in the sun till the sun breaks down,
And death shall have no dominion.

-Dylan Thomas (1933)

Do you want to see it?

This is fun, so indulge me, please, for another thought or two about property. I told you I loved words: they're plentiful, bountiful, exotic, surprising, sometimes sweet, sometimes sour to the palette, but they can, when treated properly, also be an inexhaustible source of (mental) nourishment.

Here's another quote I read recently that really caught my eye. It is from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a 19th century, French social critic:

Property is theft!

Isn't that wild? I particularly love the exclamation point, even though I'm more than hesitant to use them myself. Talk about to-the-point, in-your-face, get-your-attention. So what are we to make of that? Well, before you just tune out and turn away, we should play a game ... one of my favorites, in fact ... one that I like to call "Think It Through". In other words, instead of just rejecting an assertion out of hand, let's think it through just to see how far we can get. Here's my try:

I (almost) own a house (see my posting from two days ago) which is sitting on a corner lot on a given street. I "bought" the house, but the property was "thrown in". Who owned it? Well, the people who sold it to me. And where did they get it? From the people before them. But at some point, wasn't it the city that "owned" it and said houses could be built there? Where did they get it? (And now I'm going to take bigger steps back in time:) From the State, which got it from the colony that it was before the State, because the King said it was his. But where did he get it? Well, he beat up another country that said it was theirs (why we don't know ... but war isn't theft, is it?), but we can ask where they got it. They of course, "came into possession of it because some guy in a boat or after a long walk stuck a flag in it and said "This is mine (actually, the king's because I'm acting in his name), but wasn't someone there before? I think you get the picture.

What this little exercise shows us, though, is that at some point, someone who never saw it before decided that since he didn't know who it might in fact belong to simply "claimed" it, it was now his (or his boss', depending on how you look at it). In other words, even though it really wasn't his, he took it and said it was. Isn't that theft? I mean, if you were asked to say in 25 words or less what "theft" is, you'd probably come up with something very similar.

Maybe M. Proudhon was onto something. Maybe ...

Can you see it?

Yes, what to do, what to do? Have you thought about it? I have. As I'm a real lover of words -- I'll confess -- I think I need to mull this "property" thing over a bit. Let's see where it takes us.

George Carlin would just call it "stuff", but we know that property is more than just stuff. Property, for a good many people ... maybe even most ... is what defines who they think they are. Be honest, just why do you drive that particular model vehicle parked in front of that particular house? Don't they tell just about everyone "who you are"? It's sad, I know, but that's how we think these days. Now, let me ask you this: do you own either? If you are leasing or still have payments on the car, and if you rent or have a mortgage on the house, regardless of what you think, you must answer with "no". Until that final payment is made and title is transferred to you, all you payment-makers are just the caretakers, regardless of how we have decided to phrase it. Not having title and saying you own something is about as meaningful as asking someone "How are you?" You don't want to know, it's just an odd way to say hello.

Our problem is, we do identify with our stuff and with our potential stuff, and we too often think that what we have says something about who we are. Well, it does in a way, but not in the way most of us would like to think. If you have a nice car and house, that's great, but neither of them make you a "better person", regardless of how you understand the phrase, than anyone else on the planet. What we have, at bottom, says nothing about who we really are. Who we are is determined by how we act, how we are perceived by others, it is how we act that lets others know who and what we really are. Actions always speak louder than words. Always.

Could it be that this is what good, old Uncle John was getting at? As long as any of us think that any of our possessions (or potential possessions) puts us at advantage over others who don't have what we do, we cause injustice to arise. When we think, because of our possessions (or potential possessions), that we have "more at stake" than others who don't have what we do, we put injustice into practice. When we believe, because of our possessions (or potential possessions), that we have have been endowed with more rights than others who don't have what we do, then we are simply part of the reason why the world's in the sad shape it is in.

Things can never be more important than people.

Who's blind?

We've got a bit of dilemma again. We'd like to think we live in a just society, but we don't. Justice should be blind, but she isn't. One of the cornerstone values of what we moderns hold sacred and extremely high value is little more than an illusion. How did we get here?

There could be a lot of reasons, and I don't know if any one of them is t-h-e reason, but one of them is certainly: we're confused. Most of us just don't know what to believe anymore, so we start grasping wildly at straws, mostly to no avail. Some find their solace in science, others turn to religion, but both are full of uncertainties and contradictions that make others suspicious of their one-size-fits-all answers. Besides, who really takes the time anymore to look into a subject such as this one and try to think it through? Right. That's what I thought. Yes, it's lonely out here. Nevertheless ...

To see if I can't get a synapse or two firing, let me share with you a quote I read recently. It's from John Locke. Many will have heard the name, few will be able to place just where. Locke was one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers, and his Essay Concerning Human Understanding is considered by some as a threshold treatise on the Western conception of self, of the individual. He was a big hit with the Founding Fathers and many of his ideas found their way into the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and more.

But, Locke, as many writers and thinkers of his day, presents us with a problem. Even though we love some of the things they say and call upon them as witnesses for our our positions when possible, they also said, wrote, and believed things that we might have trouble with today. But, in keeping with the notion of justice raised in my last blog post, I couldn't resist this quote:

Where there is no property there is no injustice.

Sort of flies in the face of that whole American Way of Life, doesn't it? It appears to imply, at least, that where there is property, there is (most likely) injustice. Considering the materialistic bent of that American Way of Life, it would seem that he managed to put his finger directly in the wound with this one. What to do? What to do?

The real question

In a manner of speaking, we're simply right back where we started: what is it that we really want? what is it that is important to us as a group? what defines our particular "group" ... our family, friends, community, region, country, the world? Having taken so long to get back to the beginning is really the tip-off: it's something we never really stop to think about. It is simply something that we take for granted. But, as I never tire of saying: it is precisely what we take for granted that needs the closest investigation.

I let the cat out of my own bag last time around: justice. To me -- and I'll out myself here -- human beings are social creatures who survive best through cooperation, not through competition. Not only is there good, sound, scientific evidence to support this contention, it is one that simply makes sense. It is commonsense. Nobody does anything all by themselves. It just doesn't happen. You can't survive as a baby without help, you have other people grow and provide your food, you use streets that other people made and, well, you get the picture.

None of this negates any individual effort that anybody makes ... that's fine, that's welcome, I think we should encourage and support that. But, at the same time, I don't believe that anyone is entitled to anything more than anyone else for any reason. What I'm saying is, just like being equal, what and who you are is unlimited; and, just like freedom, you are entitled to a lot, but never to anything at the expense of someone else. Those last six words are the most important. One's position, one's own sense of self-worth, one's wealth, one's power does not entitle you to have more if others will suffer from you depriving them of it, too. Everyone wants to live a decent life, and as long as everybody has the chance to do that, and we all make sure that we all can, I certainly have no problem with those who want to live more luxuriously, as a result of their extra effort, as long as it not at the expense of others. In other words, having more does not entitle one to more. Entitlement, as too many would deny, works both ways.

To my mind, a just society is one in which whatever rules are agreed are applicable to everyone, without exception; one in which whatever opportunities are available are available to everyone; one in which non-material things such as caring, nurturing, support, and understanding were just as important as one's own perceived status.

Some weird utopian dream? Not at all. It's really a matter of practicing what one preaches, and drawing attention to those who unjustly think they're bigger, better, stronger, or more deserving than the rest of us.

Does it matter?

The short answer is "yes". The somewhat longer answer:

We simply need to be more aware ... aware of what is going on around us, aware of what we think, aware of what we believe, aware of what others are about ... we have a lot to be aware of. Unfortunately, we only have words to convey what's going on in our heads (unless we're visual artists of some kind ... but I'm talking about everyday interaction), and not everyone uses words the same way we do.

I hinted at this a while ago when I mentioned that "democracy" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone who uses the term. Well, the same is true -- probably in to an increased degree -- when we consider the terms "equality" and "freedom". This is particularly tricky with the easier of the two "equality". I made the case that it should be understood digitally; that is, two (or more) things are equal or they're not. I'm referring to us humans, it should be remembered. As it is, even I know that the meaning I proposed is not the generally accepted meaning in today's world.

George Orwell put it best in Animal Farm. After the successful revolution of the animals against the people, they painted their Seven Commandments on the side of the barn; at the bottom, so it would remain in the reader's consciousness the longest, "All animals are equal." But before it was all over, of course, all the commandments were replaced save one: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." And that's where we are today, isn't it?

Being equal has nothing to do with skills, intelligence, or ability. Thank goodness, we're not all exactly alike, mere clones of one another. Nature abhors uniformity and takes care to ensure diversity. But, like the pigs in Animal Farm, there are those among us who, comparing apples and oranges in name of an abstract notion of Fruit Salad, I suppose, have redefined the word to be just that. We simply have to admit that we are not all equal. No, we are equal, as human beings, but we're not the same. It's one of the reasons we have different words to describe different things.

Anyone who thinks that the idea of equality once allegedly enshrined in the Constitution still exists is living a delusion. Equality before the law cannot exist if your ability to get the best lawyer money can buy determines the outcome. Equality before the law cannot exist if a major corporation can marshall resources to simply crush any suit against it. Equality of opportunity does not exist if we make education a market that reflect socio-economic status. And equality of thought does not exist if others can simply ignore facts when it doesn't suit them.

This distortion is one of the biggest challenges we have to overcome, for the result of this is perhaps the greatest bane of all: injustice. Is this what we wish to applaud? I should hope not, but I'm not so sure.

Thought experiment debrief

Some of you caught yourselves thinking things you didn't think you did, I'm sure. It happens to all of us at one or another. We have lots of little "built-in" assumptions, prejudices and other hinderances to completely objecting thinking. There's nothing wrong with you – in the sense of "out-of-the-ordinary" – for this is perfectly natural behavior. What's important that we are aware that such things can, occasionally, cloud our judgment. The more aware we are that such is happening is, the better chance we stand of being able to work against it.

It is simply not enough to have high ideals in regard to key notions such as equality or freedom. We also need to have a willingness to question our own beliefs, to put ourselves in someone else's shoes to see what kinds of effects our own statements and beliefs may have on others. Yes, it's a lot of work. Yes, it doesn't always work. Yes, there is a certain amount of risk involved. But, the risk is manageable.

One of the things about living in the modern world is its dynamism and unpredictability. We can suddenly find ourselves in situations that quickly turn out to be precisely 180 degrees around from what we think we they are. It is not enough to simply have a position or an opinion about something, rather, it is important that we consider in which situations that point-of-view is appropriate, or which particular aspects of a situation are driving us to think in a particular way.

In other words, we need to be more involved in our own thinking. We need to be more aware: not just aware of whom we are dealing with, what we think, but also which impacts our way of thinking can – and do – have on others. We need to think about why we believe what we believe and what reasons we have for thinking that way. As our little thought experiment showed: what seems reasonable in one situation is suddenly not so reasonable in another.

I'm not telling you to beware, rather to be aware … aware of your surroundings, aware of others, and, of course, aware of yourself.

A thought experiment

What's that, you may be asking. Is this an experiment to see if thinking is going on? Well, not completely, but sort of. No, a thought experiment is when you try to think about a proposed situation (that is, a particular configuration of events or circumstances) to determine what are the consequences or the results that come of it. A thought experiment is a chance to not only think about something in a particular way, but it is also an opportunity to reflect on how our own minds work. OK? Everything clear? All right, let's give it a go. Imagine you overhear someone near you make the following statement:

"These illegal immigrants are getting out of hand ... coming in here like that ... no one asked them to come, that's for sure. And now they're acting like they own the place, running around with their weird customs and speaking that foreign language nobody can understand. They're just spreading out and taking over everything. Using up all of our stuff. Why doesn't somebody do something about it? Why don't they just round them all up and send them back where they came from. This is our country, not theirs."

Now, take a moment and reflect on your reaction: did you agree (whereby agreeing is relative; it's a sliding scale from "not at all" to "absolutely!")? Did you think the speaker was maybe overgeneralizing? Did you think perhaps that the speaker was being too emotional? Did you think that perhaps s/he had a point and there was food for thought there? That's what I'm talking about. Go ahead, take a few minutes to reflect. I'll just wait here till you're done ...

So, how did it turn out? What does that tell you about how you view a topic such as illegal immigration? Did you think about why you might feel the way you do about certain aspects of the statement? I think you will agree, though, that thought experiments can be interesting, maybe even fun (within limits, of course), even though some of you are patting yourselves on the back for how tolerant you are and others are praising themselves for their principled position.

OK, great, now let me add just one little tidbit of information that I left out when presenting the statement: it was made by a Mexican in what we now call Texas in the year 1834.

What are you thinking now? The same? Something else? Did you feel that little twinge of hey-wait-a-minute? The only one who needs to know the reaction is you, of course, but the additional bit of information – the context – I think you will agree, plays an important role in what we think and why.

So what's stopping us?

If you've been following for a while, I think you can see a pattern forming. We need to talk. In order to talk decently and reasonably to one another we have to acknowledge the other person as an equal discussion partner. If we can do that, we need to be free enough to present a position without automatic and immediate rejection; it needs to be taken seriously. And, we can and will be different, but there is no one different that's always right. I think it makes sense, and the feedback I've received over the past couple of weeks confirm that I'm not the only one that thinks so.

So, the question immediately presents itself as to why it's not working. Oh, I don't mean between you and me. I'm talking in general. There's no real public discussion and debate. There's a lot of ignoring and ignorance being spread around. There's categorical rejection of certain ideas. We would rather label than lucidly consider who is saying what and why. There seems to be a theory-practice divide opening up. Maybe Jan van de Snepscheut was right: "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." What is this hurdle that we can't seem to get over?

I – personally – think the answer is pretty obvious. It's exactly as Pogo once remarked, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

The consequence of the line of thought I've been laying out lately is this: everybody has to change, at least a little bit. I'm not talking about weighing mine against yours or my buddy Jake's change against your Aunt Edna's. No, we simply all have to get off of whatever center we happen to think we're on and take another shot at it all.

From what I can see, nobody's got very many answers, but we've got one helluva lot of problems – or issues, if you prefer – and we need to start thinking about which ones we want to deal with and who else might be interested in helping out. But we won't, because we can't, and we can't, because we really don't want to. Change is something that everybody else ought to do, never something that anyone can expect of us.

Well, I never expect of anyone something I'm not willing to do myself. I've made my move. When are you going to make yours?

Individualism?

Yes, who decides who gets what, when and why, and how much for how long? These are the proverbial flies in the ointment, aren't they? You see, all this talk about equality and freedom is just fine ... until we get down to the nitty-gritty; that is, when it's about us, individually. We all know how that goes, don't we? Or do we?

The individual has come to play a very significant role in our thinking, not just because most of us tend to be bigger egoists that we like to admit, but because it has been told we're important, special, unique, or whatever all our lives. We somehow feel that everything and everything should be about us ... well, some do, but we all think we need to play a very central role in whatever happens wherever we happen to be.

Americans, in particular, have been brainwashed with the John-Wayne and Rambo individualists. The whole notion of Rugged Individualism was raised to an ideal almost as important, and as unquestioned, as the American Dream. It practically achieved the status of a "given", something we never really even think about anymore. The problem is, it is precisely these "givens" that we should be questioning. There never was such a type, and all that we have left is the hype. Staking out a claim in unknown lands was an act of hubris, not individualism. There were people there before who knew all about that land, but what's mine is mine, and, so the rugged individualist, what's yours is mine. It never really worked, but even if it did, it certainly doesn't work anymore. What is more, the idea of individualism itself is simply incompatible with we're-in-this-all-together, which is what we are slowly coming to realize ... reluctantly, admittedly, but to realize nevertheless.

What we should have realized by now, however, is that we are, and should be uniquely different from those around us. There is no need for a one-size-fits-all anything. It's not individuality – and that's what we're talking about here – that's the problem, it's the individualism. It's just too close to egoism.

As is so often the case, it's the "-isms" that get us in the end.

We're all in this together

It is the universality of the story, it's long-entrenched position in our Western culture that gives the story its poignancy. The digital notion of equality and the analog notion of freedom are constantly working with and against each other to shape and direct our lives. We are continually at the center of the interaction of these two forces.

The universality of the story also lies in the fact that it describes each and every one of us, as we are, here and now. Equality tells us that everyone is more or less entitled to the same kinds of things (and I'm not talking about possessions here ... that's a completely different issue that we may get to later), ideals, hopes, dreams, feelings of safety, security, health and more. Freedom tells us that it's not an all or nothing game, there are degrees of freedom: children are not as free as their parents, nor should they be, but they should be raised to be able to deal with freedom. In some situations, like the movie theater referred to earlier, we must limit our freedom ourselves. One way to think of it is that your own freedom stops where the next person's freedom starts. Equality reminds us that we're not naturally deserving of any more of it than anyone else. To put it another way: we're all in the same boat together.

As such, it is necessary that we find a way (or ways) to accommodate one another. We need to work with each other, not against each other to achieve common goals. In our boat metaphor, what benefits one of us (be she look out in the front or the guy holding the rudder in the back), benefits all of us.

What is particularly tricky (and intriguing) about the situation is that at different times for different reasons, individuals may have different needs, and this is part of the equation as well. Being in it all together does not mean that there are no reasonable or worthy differences that shouldn't be accommodated, for there are, and there should be.

The question that springs to my mind is, however, who decides and how?

Getting to no

There are any number of things that one could focus on in the story: the admonition not to eat of the one tree, the snake-like creature who lets the cat out of the bag (not dying, though we never find out how it knows this), the unsuspecting pair, the hapless defense ... and, as it is, in all the interpretations that were mentioned last time(and more) one of these "facts" have been the focus of interest. What I don't like about that approach, however, is the fact that I don't think you can get to any particular good interpretation based on any given "fact" or select combination of "facts". What is the point of the story? And it is this point that each of the allegedly fact-based interpretations apparently misses. They come up too short. They are only theological or sociological or psychological or ... . What's the bigger story here?

Without the admonition not to do something, we have no story. Without a foil (the snake-like creature) to initiate the tension-causing situation, we have no real story. Why? Because without a combination of these two events, our hero and heroine would never be in a position to make a choice. The situation is "rigged" if you will to enable them to choose. The story, in my mind, is about being able to make choices.

And why is this so important? Without the ability to make choices, we are not free, pure and simple. The degree of freedom which we can express is directly related to the scope of the choices we can make. Sure, after the "event", things end badly, in a sense, but not really. What happens thereafter is that our hero and heroine are simply responsible for the choices they make. Throughout the course of their lives, they will continually make choices, some good, some bad, some that turn out great and some that are disastrous. Just like the rest of us.

The important thing for me is that the protagonists in our little tale were eventually earned the right to say "no". It may be preferable many times to simply say "yes", but without the ability to say "no", we are not free. But, as the story points out, this is one of the hardest things we ever learn to do, which makes being free one of the hardest things we have to learn to be as well.