Moms have been getting a raw deal for far too long

This weekend is Mother's Day, in a lot of the world that is. (Not unexpectedly the Brits celebrate theirs on 4th Sunday in Lent. Go figure; always no reason to be different.) Anna Jarvis, an early 20th-century woman's activist pushed to get it recognized, only partly successfully of course, but recognized nevertheless. Some countries picked it up; others refunctioned their own similar holidays honoring women, so there is no universally accepted day of celebration. And yes, it's one of those pseudo-holidays that Hallmark or one of those greeting card manufacturers breathed life into in order to increase sales. But, the fact remains that we still have a day to honor mothers, in spite of everything modern culture tries to do to ignore, if not outrightly suppress, them.

You don't have to be a zealot of political correctness to know that we live in a man's world, that our societies for the greatest part are patriarchal. This is one of those little understood aspects of life that has always fascinated me, for it never ceases to surprise me to what ends some folks will go -- mostly men, of course -- to justify this as some natural order of things. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Male dominance or patriarchy, and I'm referring to human beings now, is a cultural, not a biological or natural state of affairs.

Throughout most of nature, males are larger and stronger than females, but this is also not a given. It seems that among birds of prey, females tend to be larger than males; the female great white shark is larger and stronger than the male, and there is certainly a difference when considering propagating vs. social relations: praying mantises and black widow spiders have the final word on who's in charge; elephants, for the most part, live in female-dominated herds, while males are more of loners and only show up for mating; lion prides are organized by the females; but hyenas, lemurs and the bonobo all live within a strict matriarchal order. Given this wide range of set-ups, only a bean-counting statistician would insist "natural" male dominance, and I'm pretty sure that they do.

Biologically, however, at least as far as human beings are concerned, no case can be made for male superiority at all. Mothers conceive and gestate the young; mothers give birth (well, except for among seahorses, I understand, and you've got to love the irony of at least one species providing an exception). The only thing that men contribute to thee young of the species is 50% of the DNA and the determination of gender, otherwise, males are pretty much observers in the whole affair. Even a cursory reflection upon biology class and the X and Y chromosome lesson shows us that Y-chromosomes are complete, the X-chromosome is noting more than a crippled X (that is, one of its legs is missing) so in essence, boys are merely crippled girls. The fact that more boys then girls are born in the natural population is due to the fact that infant mortality is higher and later reckless behavior lead to more early male deaths. Male-female populations don't balance out till around 20 years-old or so. And, with males being more observers than participants in the whole new-life thing, it was the Anglo-Saxons of yore and the Jews to this day who correctly observed that the bloodline actually runs through the mother, not the father. Nature takes care of itself, it always has, and it could probably well use less of our help in getting along. (Of course, in regard to this gender thing in general, the Americans (unsuprisingly) have lost the plot and now find it one of their highest legislative and juridical priorities to sort out biology apparently gone wrong. Truth be told, nothing's changed in nature, just the way certain obviously ignorant and sexually-inhibited individuals choose to see nature, but there's nothing new about that either.)

The next biggest justification, and certainly one of the pieces of evidence I would take to support my own case for cultural choice as opposed to biological selection, is religion. The religionists all seem to have got together defend male dominance. We have to remember, however, that there is a huge difference between what religions' sacred texts say, what they mean, how they are interpreted and, finally but most importantly, collected into whatever articles of faith that are used to organize their affairs. Christians love to go on and on about how Eve caused the Fall from grace and were made subordinate to their husbands; even more love to use the writings of St. Paul to justify male domination (having converted out of Judaism and as desirous as he was to bring Gentiles into the fold, it is not surprising that he would take over any number of their "beliefs" in order to further his cause). You can open practically any newspaper or read any online new site and find all kinds of evidence of male domination in most Muslim societies and communities. The fact that the Indians and Chinese would resort to infanticide should a female child be born first provides evidence for their own fanaticism of male domination. Of course, what most people don't realize about religion generally is that there is an exoteric side to it, the one that you actually see and most often get to experience, but there's also an esoteric, or hidden side, where the real tenets of the faith can be found. (For example, since the notion of bloodline referred to above, or consider that the majority of Jesus' followers were women, that they were treated as equals if not more (for example, the controversial role played by Mary Magdalene, especially in the Gospel bearing her name) and that it's been well documented that later redactors of the Pauline texts even changed women's names to men to serve their theological needs.) It would seem the things that we need to take at face value, like biology, we don't, but the things where a bit more discernment is needed, say, with the texts, well, why go to all that trouble once you've got them saying what you want them to say anyhow? But what we should be aware of, in every instance, is the fact that when we start to speak of "civilization", we find men wanting to or actually calling the shots.

Well, I'm beginning to think civilization is the problem. What this implies is that the opposite of civilization isn't barbarism, as we've been told to believe. Let's think about this for a minute: civilization meant the rise of the city-states, the old Babylonian and Mesopotamian empires ... society was organized well enough that surpluses were possible, resources were accumulated, food became plentiful and could be distributed among a larger number of people. All of these are good things are they not? And, of course, they are, but the fact that some folks are managing their resources and processes well implies that that there are other who are not. It also implies that there are others who perhaps want more than they'd otherwise be entitled to. In other words, the whole idea of not having enough which at some point turns into having more than anyone else enters the picture, and once these feelings take over, well, the next thing you know -- religious texts or no -- stealing, raiding, robbing, pillaging, plundering and other forms of aggression and violence against others suddenly becomes the norm. And here we are -- voila -- a mere 10 millennia later and there still isn't enough to go around for all the rich folk. What we need to remember, however, it was at the time that this civilization got off the ground that the women were kicked out of power (yes, there is strong evidence that pre-civilizational societies were matriarchal) and the men took over. In a perpetual act of what appears to be gross psychological compensation, we are privileged to live in a world so advanced, so powerful, so dominated by male aggression that we literally stand on the brink of annihilation, and most people I know -- men and women -- are standing by cheering these louts on. If you can inject enough testosterone into anything or anybody, if it has a mind, it will lose it. And that's where we are.

Now, I dare any of you who are now thinking I'm exaggerating to prove me wrong. Look at the state of something as irrelevant as sports these days: a male-dominated, rape-condoning, destructive, greed-machine that serves primarily to distract us from real issues that need resolving. What about international diplomacy: Their machos fighting our machos in a loser-loses-everything-winner-takes-nothing chest-beating with deadly consequences. Politically: the rapid rise of violent-imbued, rightist ideology from the entire American political caste to the Front National in France or the Polish and Hungarian proto-fascists, to our coddling of the new Turkish sultan who in turn has become the poster boy for male-dominance and misogyny. I could go on and on, and where is the voice of reason among them? Nowhere because at some point women wanted to become men and partially succeeded (e.g., Thatcher, Merkel, Fiona, etc.) but failed in the end because, well, they might act like men, but in the end, they just aren't.)

Too many people these days think that if you don't believe this then you must believe that, if things aren't one way then they have to be other. Nothing could be further from the truth, but nothing is more telling of how we moderns think. Whether the days of the matriarchy were good or bad is something we'll never know. We do know it was good enough to get us to written history and the documentation of millennia of blood-letting and conquest. We do know that for whatever benefits civilization and male-dominance may have brought us, it's at the end of its rope. We can't take much, if any, more of male aggression, violence and death, of hyper-masculinity. Matriarchy had its chance. Patriarchy had its chance as well. It's time to move to something more inclusive, an Integrum, if you will, in which men and women, male and female, integrate.

The Ancients ... even back in the days of the Matriarchy, when myth was first taking shape and being used to describe who and how we are as human beings ... knew the principles of essential balance, the complementarity of male and female; the need for allowing each his or her due and to make his or her contribution. We've forgotten that, too, of course. Or maybe we consciously, willfully, viciously drove it out of our minds. I wish it were the former, but it feels more like the latter. We've got our problems with gender equality over here in Europe, to be sure, but we've still at least got it written into our constitutions and there's still some hope we're going to "get it" before the next wave of mind-numbing PC washes over us from across the pond. Maybe.

So, I for one, will be celebrating Mother's Day, as I always have and hopefully always will. I still open and hold open doors for women, because that's how I was raised, but then again, I don't let doors I go through slam in anybody's face. And I will continue to recognize women for what they are: equal partners, our (we men's) better half, and more than ever our hope for any kind of tomorrow. If we don't manage to turn the hypermasculine, violent patriarchs around -- or at least put them in their proper place -- they'll manage to finish off the planet before we can do anything about it. And yes, I still say Mother Earth. Go figure.

When in the course of human events ...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." Thus begins the second paragraph of one of the holiest documents of the United States of America. In the 11 score and 17 years hence, some things have changed significantly. Some for the better, some not so much.

We now know that "men" in that statement actually means "humans", even though our forebears were really only thinking about males -- and those with property at that -- when Jefferson wrote those words and when the rest of "the guys" approved them. Yes, I know, Texas, the Republican party and Islamist extremists haven't caught on yet, but give them time. What's a couple of centuries amongst friends.

In case you hadn't noticed, that was the upside. The downside is that it really wasn't true then; that is, that they were held to be true, and they aren't true now. What is more, the following clause to the one above -- "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -- aren't believed in anymore either. Oh, it's not because we stopped believing in a Creator. No, not at all. In fact, it appears that those most willing to ascribe our existence to that Creator are the first ones to ensure that none of this high-fallutin' gibberish is put into practice.

No, what was rotten at the founding of America is what is rotten to this day: property, not inalienable rights, is what counts, and if you've got it, you've got rights; if you don't, well, it just sucks to be you.

Yes, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence tries to justify the rebellion on the grounds that at some point in time, it just becomes too damn obvious that the few-and-far-away are benefitting unjustly at the expense of the many-right-here. The Declaration is interesting, I believe, for this more than any other reason. The lofty language it employs and the general ideas it incorporates were not new then and they aren't new now. The notions that the words point to -- i.e., equality, liberty, life, and the fact that these are in fact inherent, yes, inalienable rights -- are not new either, but there was an indication, a glimmer of hope that a broader base of humanity had come to recognize this. That was the hope, as I said, but it certainly wasn't and it still isn't a reality at all.

Anyone thinking anything even remotely akin to what the Founding Fathers might have been thinking, can be, and most often is, simply branded a traitor and a terrorist. Isn't it ironic somehow that less than two-and-a-half centuries after someone tried to put the ball in motion, that in that same place there is today the largest, most active, concerted, organized and, whenever thought to be necessary, violent opposition to those ideas?

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.

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.

Free to eat, free to be

In case you want to read it for yourself, you can find the story in the second chapter of the very first book of the Bible. Like any good story it has characters, a plot, tension, and as we're so used to today, an unsatisfactory ending. You see, that was nothing that Hollywood thought up, even if they like to think they did.

It's a relatively simple story. There are only four characters: the creator of the universe (more specifically, the garden in which the story takes place), a serpent-like creature (who can, however, walk and talk), and a unsuspecting heroine/hero pair, Adam & Eve. The plot is rather simple as well. The one in charge of the garden is very pleased with both the garden and its new tenants and he gives them the absolute run of the place ... except, well, for one particular tree in the middle of the garden, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: if they eat from that, the one in charge says, they'll die.

The conflict in the story is not long in coming. Before you know it, one day while out and about, the snake-like character tells Eve that they can eat the fruit from the forbidden tree; they had been fed a line of BS. They could eat it and they wouldn't die. Well, to make a short story shorter, Eve eats, passes the fruit to Adam who eats, and lo, and behold, nobody drops dead. We've now got a bit of a dilemma.

Adam & Eve are, we should know, different after eating than before. We're told they're ashamed they're naked and hide themselves, and when the one in charge comes around and finds out what they've been up to, there's a lot of yelling, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, for the snake-like guy gets his feet (and voice) taken away, and everybody is thrown out of the garden. Poor Adam & Eve are now forced to work for a living. (I told you it ended poorly.)

The question for me is: what's this story about? We all know that it has been used in any number of unsatisfactory ways: as the source of Original Sin (a theological interpretation), the justification for the suppression of women (a sociological interpretation), and for the rebellious and aggressive nature of human beings (a psychological interpretation). It is all those, and all the others we've dreamed up in the meantime, that I'd like to ignore for now, and just go back to the story itself.

A road less taken

This may seem like quite the diversion, but bear with me. The inherent difficulty with the "freedom" notion makes it however necessary.

We here in the West, whether we like it or not, have been massively influenced, and not always negatively, by the Bible. No, no, I'm not going to start thumping. I'm not that way. Regardless of what we may think about it otherwise, it is full of very helpful, illustrative stories that can help us get a different take on many things that we simply take for granted. We have to keep in mind that almost all of us have only ever read it in translation, and anyone who has ever taken a foreign language (let alone actually learn one) knows unequivocally that a simple one-to-one transfer of concepts, thoughts and ideas from one language another is as good as impossible. I think that we can agree, however, that the basic facts are there, but as with any story, there may be an accepted, traditional, even "official" interpretation, but that doesn't mean by a long shot that this particular interpretation is the best interpretation, whatever that may be.

From my days of studying literature, I'd like to propose that the "best" interpretation is the one that fits the facts of the story as presented, free from as much prejudice, ideology or pre-conceived notions as possible. In other words, I think it's a good idea to acknowledge when these factors are at work and not just act as if they're not there. What is more, I would like to propose that each and every story has something to tell us, and whatever that is should be discoverable in the story itself; that is, we don't need to go outside somewhere to find the justification for the story's existence. It can, in a word, stand on its own. Yes, I agree, this is just a bit simplistic, but I'm looking for the common denominator between those who see everything in this particular book, and those who see nothing.

Oh, the story ... well, we'll have to get to that next time, but so you know: it's a story about an (alleged) apple.

Going analog

This isn't going to be the first time in my life that I decide to buck a popular trend, but I want to say something about the analog part of our lives. The focus of the last couple of posts has been "equality" and in the last one I specifically maintained that it is, in fact, a digital notion: equal is equal, or weren't not talking equal; it is or it isn't. I can't emphasize enough how important this notion is, nor can I stress how important it is that every single one of us come to terms with what we think about the concept and how we are going to deal with it. It's essential, if not existential.

Like all good concepts, however, it is, and should be, often paired with another idea, for one because they are in a sense interdependent, but they are to a large extent co-dependent as well. And if usually the case when we get to such fundamental notions, one of them is digital (equality), but the other is analog (freedom). I know, I know, I can hear you all grumbling already, but suspend your disbelief for just a minute and think about this:

Complete and utter freedom is an illusion. We can't (and shouldn't) just do anything we please whenever we want: yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, taking your neighbors new car for a joy ride, walking into any given woods and just cutting down your next Christmas tree, just to name a few (granted, innocuous) examples.

On the other hand, our thoughts are often free, or as free as we would like them to be. We can imagine just about whatever we want to whenever we want to (though I'd appreciate it greatly if you wouldn't do so while driving). In other words, we exist somewhere between complete and limited freedom, and it is therefore not unreasonable to conceive "freedom" as a continuum, one that crosses mere physical boundaries but which extends from absolutely none to an idealized, unbounded limitlessness. This is what makes "freedom" analog.

It is for this reason that I believe it is a bit more difficult to really grasp the notion. What is "freedom"? What does it mean "to be free"? Yes, what?

Leaving digital mode

It will have occurred, even to the casual observer, that, besides trying to keep things closer to home, our generally accepted ideas of "equality" are ultimately intertwined with other notions, like "responsibility", which, truth be told, are not always applied in a consistent way. This isn't without it problems, for it does create – within us, and around us – an air of uncertainty and confusion that most of us, quite honestly, would much rather not have to deal with. The problem is, we can try to ignore it, but it won't go away.

What I like about the notion of "equality" the most is that it is, to phrase it in modern terms, a digital concept. In the sense that we've been using it here, in particular, either the other person is your equal or not. This, of course, has nothing to with whether s/he is smarter than you or whether you can run faster or whether s/he has been successful with her latest diet and you haven't. That's not what I'm talking about at all. It is – or at least should be – clear to everyone that everyone is in some way unique, that is, different from everybody else. Even identical twins are not 100% identical. What we need to keep in mind is that being different has nothing to do with being better or worse (which is how we tend to frame "equality". What is different is, well, just different, no more, no less.

If you have to (or if you feel the need to) qualify the term in any way, then we're not talking about the same thing. To me, for example, I take (almost all of) Mr. Jefferson's words literally, and as I believe deep in his heart he intended, that all [human beings ... not just literally "men"] are created equal. Granted, it took lots of folks well over a hundred years to "get it", and some haven't got it yet, and while that may be reason to give up hope, I'm not quite that far yet, but that's another story.

It's just one of those things: it is, or it isn't; we are, or we aren't. If we aren't, of course, everything I've been saying up until now is pretty much out the window. There are some ideas we just need to take seriously, whether we like it or not.

Can you get there from here?

I've been told that up in Maine, if you ask for directions, the most likely response you'll get is "you can't get there from here" (and then they go on to explain how you do). That's got to be what a lot of you are thinking right now, and I certainly don't blame you. The demands are high, but so are the stakes. It won't be easy, but it's possible.

One of the most fortunate twists of fate I've had in my life was the opportunity to study at the University of Giessen (Germany) in the late 70s/early 80s. Most of all, I had the privilege of having a couple of the most insightful and profound thinkers of the time as my teachers and mentors (Hans-Eberhard Piepho & Lothar Bredella), neither of whom any of you have ever heard of, but that doesn't diminish the power of their thinking one iota. Piepho was pragmatic and probably the best foreign-language teacher I'd ever experienced, but his whole focus was on communicative competence. Bredella was the philosopher who had studied with Hans-Georg Gadamer and who introduced me intensely to the thinking of the contemporary German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, undoubtedly one of the profoundest thinkers of the 20th century. What all of these guys had in common, however, was an unshakeable faith in the human capability to communicate reasonably, to discourse rationally, and as a result, come to understandings that were grounded enough to actually make the world a better place. We could use more of them these days.

Although idealists in the philosophical sense of the world, they could envision what is possible. Through their practice they instilled that vision into their students. As bright, and capable, and deep as they might have been, they engaged their students as partners – equal partners – in the search for knowledge and truth. They ... I know it is hard to believe ... practiced what they preached.

We need to talk, discourse, discuss, and debate, but not to see who in the end is right and who is wrong, not to win or score points or obtain bragging rights. No, we need to communicate. We need to acknowledge our discussion partners not as adversaries to be defeated, but rather as agents of agreed-on change. We must accept the "other" as an free and equal participant in the discussion that brings benefit to all. And that's the challenge that many will have difficulty overcoming.

What do we really want, take 2

Unlike a cat chasing its tail, sometimes it's simply good to get back to where you started. We need to talk, find consensus, listen, discuss, debate. It should be clear that the reciprocity of which I spoke a couple of posts ago when discussing the establishment of moral standards is actually applicable in more realms than just the moral. Personally, I think all decisions are moral decisions, but I understand that some others might want to take a more restricted view. Nevertheless, we can't make any headway at all if we don't recognize certain truths as being self-evident. And, regardless of how self-evident they may be, we should still be clear on what they mean.

To reduce it to simplest terms, as I see it, two conditions must be met in order for a true discussion, for true discourse to take place: the participants must be free, that is, free to express their views, free to think differently, free to think outside or inside the box, free to think in directions that you may have never thought of; and, the participants must be equal, that is, when it comes to discourse, serious discourse, there can be no hierarchy, no better-than, no smarter-than, no tougher-than.

I know, I know ... I can hear some of you squealing already, but sorry, we need to have a common understanding of what the terms "freedom" and "equality" mean, and beyond that, we need to understand what it means to live by those understandings and not just play lip-service to them. For the most part, most of us have given up our equality to the experts (cf. "Roszak and Eliot", "Expert terror"), and most of us have given up our freedom, most often for security (cf. "Fear of freedom", "Free – really?") . But I'm here to tell you: we don't live in a safe world. We never did, and, chances are very good, if we ever do, it will be a long time coming. And moreover, a whole lot of the mess we're in these days is simply because we let the so-called experts have their way.

At the end of the day, then, don't you think it might be about time to finally realize that if we're going to be affected about whatever is decided, maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't be a bad idea if we were part of the decision-making process? I do.