Maybe we just can't change ... then we deserve everything we get

There are a lot of people who -- and quite a few of those I know -- think the world is the way it is because it reflects, what they call, human nature.

Think about it: death, destruction, mindless devastation of resources and the environment, wanton disregard for human life, crime, oppression, lust for power, greed, brutality, glee over the pain and suffering of others, violence of all kinds (verbal, psychological, social, physical), insatiable desires ... everything that turns the world we know into the hell we fear. That's the natural way of things. The world is as it is because it is simply in our nature to be that way. It's in our genes. It defines who and what we are. What an interesting view of one's fellow man. But, it seems to be the dominant perspective. Every time something goes wrong, someone gets killed, someone's oppressed: well, that's just the way we are. We are evil by nature. That's got to be the crappiest of all possible worlds.

In spite of all that's wrong with the world, there are still glimmers of hope: wanton acts of kindness, altruism, compassion, empathy, people willing to sacrifice (sometimes, big) for others, not to mention the sheer breathtaking beauty of just about any place on this planet that hasn't already been despoiled by the other humans who don't give a care about what's going to happen to us. The contradiction couldn't be more obvious. The paradox of life -- especially human life -- couldn't be more apparent. What are we to make of all this?

Given the fact that there are some -- albeit few -- people who don't believe the world is to be despised, and given the fact that there are some -- albeit few -- people who believe there is more potential for good than we're led to believe, and given the fact that there are still plenty of individuals -- albeit few -- who are more than willing to make sacrifices for things generally considered positive, it is difficult to draw the absolute conclusion that the world is the way it is because our nature as humans dictate that it must be so.

This is the part that has always fascinated me.

In a similar vein, I have a few (very materialistic-minded) friends who never tire of reminding me how closely we are related to our not-so-distant simian cousins. This doesn't bother me, to be perfectly honest, for I am thankful and actually happy about our closeness. We're not the same, that's for sure, but we're similar, and this is a good thing. We humans are different -- and that is not to say "better" in any sense of the word, but that's not something my friends have grasped yet. They -- I believe -- want to impress upon me that we are simply, or just, or only, animals. But, we're not. we're different. Very different, and it's this difference that captivates me, that captures my attention, that makes me ask all kind of "why" questions.

For the longest time, we've (and by that I mean, we humans have) interpreted this difference as "superiority". There is a "more" involved, of course: Koko attained the (sign) language equivalent of a three-year-old, but most of us have more comprehensive vocabularies and communication abilities. Great apes have learned the significance and value of fire, but we humans have taken this to ends that are -- I'll be the first to admit -- questionable at best (e.g., what good is nuclear power if it creates waste that can't be disposed of safely). "Better" or "worse" are ethical categories that apparently only we humans are capable of, even if we don't deal with them well. All that interests me, I can assure you, is that there is a difference and that, when all is said and done, that difference obligates. We're not meeting, let alone fulfilling, that obligation.

It would seem, then, that we humans are capable of great (and even, good) things, but we don't often give ourselves the extra push to turn potentially damaging ideas and actions into beneficial ones. It would seem to me, then, that we are not inherently "evil" or "bad" or even "sometimes harmful" by nature, rather, given half a chance, we'll take the path of least resistance and when it turns out to be less than optimal, or even desirable, we'll make use of that other human-only characteristic, namely rationalization: we'll use every communicative strategy and ability we've ever acquired to "make clear" why it had to turn out as it did. In other words, it would seem that we're just fundamentally lazy.

Our animal cousins, for better or for worse, but in accordance with their nature, have to find food, eat, and, as any good biologist will tell you, reproduce in order to keep the species going. They really can't just lay back and say, "Screw it, I'm not foraging today, and I'm not copulating next mating season." We can. There are those who do, I know, but they are not nearly as plentiful as our conservative friends would have us believe (and by that I mean all of my friends who are so upset by how good welfare recipients have it while they have to work overly hard for anything and everything they get.) Generally speaking, I would say, that given the slightest option, most human beings will opt for less than more when it comes to expending energy for gain. I'm sure it contributes more often than not to the sad state of the world in which we find ourselves.

In the lower levels of the society (or social economy) we've created for ourselves, this is viewed as parasitical. In the upper echelons of that same society, this is considered evidence of efficiency. When we stop to think about our behavior, we find rather quickly that we all pretty much act the same but some of us are permitted more leeway in judgment than others. This selectivity of perspective becomes a problem as soon as it becomes a public way of thinking (i.e., political). What's good for the goose is never, ever good for the gander, regardless of what the old saying says. And here we start getting closer to the real problem when it comes to so-called "human nature".

Humans have a notion, if not a concept, of "power". Our animal cousins don't. Whoever is the alpha male or female of the group gets there through very, very different rules than whoever becomes an alpha male or female in human groups. Our animal cousins have very grounded, biological, instinctual determinants at play that we humans have transcended quite a long time ago. We like to point to this or that behavior and compare it to this or that behavior of our animal cousins, but the behaviors, due to the motivations underlying them and the psychological, affective, and mental abilities enabling them, in humans are quite a different thing. And this is, in the end, what we need to recognize and acknowledge: humans are simply different from other animals. Yes, we share a lot, up to 98.5% of our DNA and all that goes with that, but there in that 1.5% difference is more challenge than most of our human compatriots are willing to deal with.

The mere fact that we know that we are oppressing/causing pain to/dominating another makes us different. The mere fact that we are aware of the discomfort/pain/anguish we are causing another makes us different. The mere fact that we can conceive of ways of domination that go beyond mere physicality attests to the fact that we are different from our animal cousins. The actual fact that many people choose the non-oppressive, non-painful, empathetic path in their relations with others underscores the fact that we are, in the end, different. We are capable of being different, even if we most often choose not to be, and choose to be, unfortunately, mere animals.

Irrespective of what our materialist compatriots would like to believe, we humans are capable of "more". And since we are capable, it is incumbent upon us to find out precisely what this "more" is and act accordingly. We can't merely fall back on some nebulous notion of "human nature" and maintain that the world is in such bad shape because we can't do any better, or that our "human nature" prevents us from being better than we are. There is a "more" that defines what it means to be human, and it would serve us well to find out just what that is. But, instead of letting it go to our head (as it has in the past) and using this difference to justify all the death, destruction and devastation we've visited upon the planet, maybe, just maybe, it would be worth our while to think about what that difference means in "being human" and rise to that challenge.

I'm convinced that the sooner we start acting (truly) human; that is, in accordance with our potentialities, not our actualities, the world could -- and would -- become a better place. Who knows, maybe it could become a place worth living in.

But, that would take energy and effort, and what lazy sod is going to invest that?

Déjà vu, all over again (or Thanks for the memory, Yogi)

Most of you don't know who Yogi Berra is, and that's OK. He was a part of my childhood. Every kid who grew up in America during my time, grew up with baseball. I was never a big fan, but there are times I still think of hot, muggy, summer nights at the ball park. That's a memory worth preserving ... but that's a subject for another time.

Anyhow, the title of this blog is one of Yogi's famous lines. A lot of people thought he was a little slow, but still a nice guy. I think he was a little ahead of the rest of us, and still a nice guy. I wonder if it matters which it was. I doubt it.

You know, it's weird when you get that déjà vu feeling. We've all had them, that's for sure. Usually, they sneak up on you when you least expect it, and suddenly you're overwhelmed by that feeling that you've been here before and done this before, and heard these exact words before ... it's like reality gets into a strange kind of time loop. It scares some folks, or so I've been told, but I've always found those situations exhilarating somehow. Well, I did, that is, until I realized my whole life is turning into one big déjà vu.

Just recently, an old internet-who-stepped-out-into-real-life friend stopped by for a visit. Since I'm back to where I started when Uncle Sam sent me overseas during my dodging-the-war-in-Vietnam days. Through more twists-of-fate than most people are allowed, I ended up doing liaison on the German-German border. I was sitting there in the Fulda Gap just waiting for "the balloon to go up" marking the onslaught of the savage Russian hordes who were just chomping at the bit a mere five miles as the crow flies from where I called home.

Yep, that was me at the End of the (so-called) Free World, keeping the world safe for democracy, ensuring that you could all sleep well at night. I was there. I did that. And, to this day, I wonder what I was doing.

We all knew the drill back then: when those Russian missiles full of nuclear warheads were screaming in to kill us, well, just hide under your desk at school and then, once the big dust cleared, walk quickly (don't run) home, and take a buddy with you, someone who would have had to take a bus to get to his or her own home. It didn't matter if you liked them or not. The fate of the world was at stake, and everybody has to do his part, you know.

And then, well, there I was, staring Ivan and his evil cohorts in the face, just wondering when they were going to take advantage of the slightest lapse in our vigilance and come thundering over the border with their thousands of tanks. They were just salivating, waiting for the order to attack ... at least that what was I was told. I spent a lot of time out on that border, I can assure you, and not once did I see a bit being chomped nor anyone salivating. I did see a lot of sad-sacks like myself being forced to pull duty somewhere they never thought they'd be. And every once in a while, one of them would escape and we'd have to debrief them, and well, their lives weren't going all that well and they were looking for something better, so they risked life and limb to go for it. I wanted something better too, but in comparison I was too much of a coward to risk life and limb for it. I just wasn't getting that life-and-limb thing.

Ivan wasn't coming, not if he could help it. And neither was Klaus or Dieter or Hans or whatever their parents had named them. They were sitting out their duty and the end of their world just hoping that Paul Bunyan wasn't going to get frisky, like I was hoping that none of them were getting the itch to conquer either. Turns out, they weren't. Little foot soldiers like we were (and that we had 100% in common) don't want to conquer anything. We'd rather be at home, or with our friends, or having a beer, or looking for a date, or just avoiding hassle. Anything would have been better than what we were doing, but we were under orders. Big brains somewhere knew a whole lot better than we did what was good for us.

Well, that's what they wanted us to believe, but I didn't believe it then ... and from what I was able to gather, neither did Ivan, nor Klaus, nor Dieter, nor Hans. To quote my idol, Bob, we were "Only a Pawn in Their Game".

That Cold-War thing was a big deal. A lot of people invested a lot of time, energy, and other resources, not to mention money in keeping that illusion going, to get us to buy into the fear and uncertainty, to get us to live in abject fear of total annihilation, so that other people, most definitely unrelated to any of us normal mortals, could gain a helluva lot of power and make one whole helluva lot of money. Down here, on the ground, there were millions of ignorant, exploited, drones who were working their butts off in hopes of a better life while up there, in ephemeral spheres, a small number of spoiled elites were ensuring that we drones kept our noses to the grindstone so that their lives which were immeasurably better already could be even more immeasurably better, or something like that.

One thing I know for sure: none of it had anything to do with freedom, democracy, the will of a people, or any of those high-falutin' ideals we get beaten about our heads and shoulders. Ideals are just a red herring. In the end, it's mostly about money and power, but not for those who don't have it, rather for those who do (and they always want more).

So, I took my friend out to Point Alpha, the Cold-War Memorial site nearby, where they still have an actual compound that was used by the troops on the border and where you can see in real life what lengths both sides went to in order to keep alive that illusion that something great was at stake.

For my part, it was, and is, nice to be able to share a part of my life with another human being. I like taking people out to the border so that they can see the physicalities of what was going on back then. There is a little museum out there as well, so you can see pictures and artifacts and models and listen to real-life testimonies of people who experienced all that, back then, when the world was clearly divided into black and white, us and them, friend and foe. And while you're walking around, telling your friend what you were doing then and how and why, you suddenly realize that it's over 40 years later and at bottom, not a damn thing has changed at all.

Suddenly, you're overwhelmed: it's déjà vu all over again.

Again, the old heroes push their way into your head. Dylan, a classic if there ever was one, "With God on our Side", near the end, sings:

I've learned to hate the Russians
All through my whole life
If another war comes
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side

What the hell are we doing? NATO's piling in as many troops around Russia as is possible, though there is no (just like there wasn't then) any clear, reasonable indication that Russia wants anything more than to be left alone ... or be given a seat at the table, but apparently we'll be having none of that. The USA alone has more than 1,000 military bases overseas, and apparently it's not enough. And they've got themselves trying to stare down the Chinese in the South China Sea, and just what they're doing in and around Syria is anybody's guess, but one thing is for sure: the Russians aren't going to have any say in anything if Uncle Sam has anything to say about it.

And there I was: staring at the fence, trying to formulate a coherent thought, and it had slithered its way, unseen and unsuspected, into my ill-prepared consciousness: not a damn thing has changed no matter how much water has flown under the bridge of history.

None of this inspires confidence in my view of human beings and their ability to learn. None of this comforts me when I have trouble sleeping at night. There aren't any facts involved now, just like there weren't any then. It serves some interests to have this full-blown, heavily armed, and propaganda-rich animosity towards the Russians so the long-gone, almost-forgotten, Cold War has been heated up again. What's for dinner tonight, dear? Left-overs.

Things were, in many regards, simpler in Yogi's days. But, truth be told, they weren't much different. That's kind of sad, when you stop to think about it.

Think about it.

Just a brief message of truth

We're constantly overwhelmed with so much noise; so to avoid the overload, I'll keep it short:

The world cannot change until you -- yes, you -- change.

Some things are that simple.

EOM

If you can't take any more, maybe it's because you can't let go

The world's is sad shape. I mean that literally. I don't know how anyone can look out into the world and not be sad at what is happening, what's not happening, what's being said and how it's being said, and at how helpless all of that makes us feel. If you think you've got things under control, you're not paying attention to anything but yourself. But life's not about you, yourself, or what you personally think is right, wrong or indifferent.

Not being an ardent, only an interested, student of history, I can't say for sure, but the indications are strong -- very strong -- that we human beings haven't managed to learn very much in the course of our collective sojourn on this planet. For lack of a better number, let us say 100,000 years of hominoid and human history, most undocumented of course, and there's no real evidence that we're any better off inside that our forebears.

Oh sure, we've developed lots and lots of techologies and gadgets that were supposed to have made our lives easier, and while we now live statistically longer than our ancestors, there's no real signs that we're living better. We've simply traded physical ailments for mental and psychic ones. We've made it possible for our bodies to survive for a surprisingly long time, but we're not happier about it or doing it.

Take a moment and be honest with yourself: you're in the privileged position of being able to read this post. Thousands of years of hard work and sacrifice ... millions of deaths and lots of privation ... went into to making it possible for you to be able to do so. And ... ? Aside from the other car in the garage or the last bank statement or the country-club membership, are you truly satisfied with your life and the lives of those close to you, or you just living as if you were. You're completely and utterly content with the state of your own being and that of the world in which you find yourself? If so, then why are you reading this?

Anyone who looks into this blog a couple of times and all of you who peek in more often than not know unequivocally that I am not. The country into which I was unexpectedly and accidentally born has mutated into something that I cannot recognize anymore. The country which I have chosen to be my home is becoming colder, harder, more ruthless and irrationally violent than I would have hoped. The world in which I one day woke up has become a plundered and polluted environment that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy (if I had one), let alone upon my grandchildren for whom I'd sacrifice everything I have if I knew they'd suffer even one second less. But, I know as well, my sacrifice would be like every sacrifice ever made: in vain. Because we refuse to recognized, let alone acknowledge, that nothing -- absolutely nothing -- has to be the way it is. Things are as they are, not because we have made them that way ... we didn't wake up one morning and say, "Hey, let's see if we can't screw up our world beyond all recognition." ... rather because we have let them become that way because we just didn't know what else to do.

In contrast to what I'm pretty sure most people believe, I do not believe that human beings are inherently evil. By the same token, I also do not believe that human beings are inherently good. What I do know -- or, perhaps more cautiously stated, believe -- is that human beings simply are.

There are lots of things that simply are: the whole universe and everything in it. It's just there. We didn't put it there. We didn't make up the rules and laws that govern how things happen there. It's just there. We don't even have to want to explore the Mystery of Creation or want to have an answer to the big-W question, "Why?", to agree that whatever is is, and that's all we have to deal with. We human beings are simply a part of that. It doesn't matter whether we believe some omnipotent being put us here or whether we're the product of some alien intelligence gone wrong (or right) or whether there even is some omnipotent being or just blind randomness. It doesn't matter for the simple reason that we're here and we have to deal with whatever it is we are confronted with. We, as a species, but particularly as individuals, know deep in our hearts that we're here and somehow someway we have to come to terms with that. Do we really think that any more than that is essential for our well-being?

Maybe. There are many of us who are always on the lookout for that "more", whatever it may be. It's simply hard to believe that this physical mess, with all its shortcomings, deprivations, pain snd suffering is "all there is". I have a body, which I can see, and a whole lot of wonderful (and awful) sensations that I can feel, and that makes me wonder about those who want to tell me that the physical (what I can access through my five senses) is all there is to Life. That's not enough. It comes up too short. There is so much more that moves me (sorrow, joy, hope, that feeling you get when you actually experience a sunrise or sunset or holding the hand of a person who dies) that I can't help but feel that my materialist friends and their simple chemical reactions in my brain and neuron-synapse firings can't really get into the game at all. I understand them, I think, but I don't know why I would want to live in a world that devoid of meaning.

But when I get on Facebook, for example, I'm suddenly confronted with diehard materialist who still find beauty in a work of art, exhilaration at a new experience, despair when a loved one departs and anger when they see injustice being committed. I don't know why they have (or better, acknowledge) those feelings (or maybe they're only pretending they do), but I'm nevertheless glad that they have them and share them. There's a lot wrong with social media, don't get me wrong, but sharing with others isn't one of them.

The point is really this: regardless of whether they are materialists, anti-religionists, born-again hopers, political activists, politically interested by-standers, environmentalists, free-market apologists, spiritual seekers, anarchists, democratic idealists, Realpolitik-realists, traditionalists, conservatives, liberals, militaristic-go-getters; pacifists, in the end, it just doesn't matter at all. All of them, regardless of where they're "coming from", generally believe that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. They're not satisfied with things "as they are" and they all share the same belief that regardless of how things are, it's not the way they have to be.

I'll be honest, right up front: that amazes me to no end. If I had sleepless nights, that would cause them: how can it be that so many people from so many different perspectives, imbued in so many different "philosophies", "blinded" by so many different belief systems and religions all come to the same conclusion: the world as we experience it is anything but the best possible world (to corruptingly paraphrase Leibnitz)? Shouldn't that give us pause to reflect? I think, "yes", but apparently much of the world doesn't think so at all.

OK, some people aren't reflecting because they think they have all the answers and if the rest of us would just let them have their way, we'd all be "saved" or at least have some kind of utopia on earth. Bzzzzzz! Wrong answer. We'd just have their limited, individual bullshit to put up with. None of us individually has T-H-E answer. We may have a contribution to the answer, but it's not all of the answer. The answer, whatever it may be, is bigger than all of us.

None of us -- neither you, dear reader, nor I -- is going to save the world. It may just be that the world, as we know it, does not need saving. It's not in good shape, that's for sure; it's in sad shape, as all of us know; but it may not be doomed.

It could also be that we don't need a strong leader, a long-lost messiah, a forgotten prophet or a supergenius to get us out of the dilemma in which we find ourselves. Did it ever occur to you that if you -- yes, just you ... little, old insignificant you -- started acting like you mattered (at least in the immediate world in which you find yourself) that the world at large might become a different world altogether? I believe it would.

Most of us are fed up with "the world as it is", but it is that way because we make it that way. If we act differently, no matter how insignificantly, the cumulative effect would be unignorable. We don't act differently because we think that however the world is is simply beyond our control. It is. But, it is not beyond our influence. We can change the world, truly, but we have to change ourselves.

I'm not asking you to become a different person overnight. That would be ludicrous, even if it were possible. I'm not even asking you to change your mind or way of thinking, though that would induce a change that may be hard to take. All I'm asking is for you to do is simply "let go" ... of all the ballast, the opinions, the solutions, the leaders, the parties, the programs, the whatever that you thought might make a difference. None of it will. The world will change -- and for the better, I can assure you -- when you finally start acting in a way that you know is right: listen, sympathize, and have compassion for others: first in your immediate environment, and slowly, but surely, in an ever-expanding circle of immediateness.

Just let go of what you think is right, and act as if you knew what right is.

The Wisdom Abyss

To a great extent, we all-so-clever modern may have sacrificed Knowledge on the altar of the jealous god of Profit. That's not exactly what I said in my post last week, but it was certainly in the back of my mind. Too many of us are too willing to do whatever it takes if the cash prize is big enough. It's a sad state of affairs, I know, but what do we expect? It's the easy way out. We love to value people based on the perceived size of their bank accounts. That old Puritan notion of wealth as a sign of God's Elect has never gone away. We simply swapped out gods in the meantime.

Let me just say this much about the "Elect" before I get to my actual concerns for today: it's always easier not having to earn what you have. I know, I know, the wealthy elitists today like us to think they work hard, but they don't. The vast majority of the fabulously wealthy inherited their wealth, they didn't work for it. So when their lackeys and mouthpieces start moralizing about working hard and getting ahead, I can only sigh and get on with my life: they condemn themselves by their own mouths. No, I'm more concerned about why we've come to think these days that we can do without knowledge and why Wisdom is for all intents and purposes -- at least in public life -- reviled. Don't you find that odd? I do.

What I was alluding to toward the end of my post last week first struck me when I first came to Germany and realized what a big deal most Germans make of the distinction between "studying" (studieren) and "learning" (lernen). Most English-speakers use the words interchangeably, yet considering their differences can be an enlightening exercise. Americans have been so taken in by (and I'm guessing unconsciously revolted by) Pavlovian "operational" and Skinnerian "behavioral conditioning -- you know, getting dogs to salivate even though they won't be fed or getting rats to run mazes in ever shorter times -- that is, the whole system of positive and negative rewards for desired behavior) that they simply take this type of "learning" for granted. That's just how it's done. Gold stars, trophies, medals, ribbons, graduation stoles, certificates of achievement, special ceremonies and lots of cheers and applause are just a few of the tools of the conditioning trade. So, when we see little Emma or Noah in their rooms memorizing all the information their teachers are throwing at them so they can get good grades, we like to say they're studying, but they're not, they're learning.

The Germans, we should note, are just as short-sighted about all of this, even if it was their language that got me thinking about this. In common parlance a person learns as trade but goes off to university to study. If you look real hard at what's going on behind the scenes, you'll see that apprentices are learning, primarily through hands-on practice and endless repetitions of the same things. They are given specific tasks and jobs and they practice and practice getting it right till one day, at least here in Germany, the folks from the Chambers of Trade and Industry show up and watch them do them so they can get their journeyman's certificates. If you look at the average college student these days, they spend a lot of time memorizing (these days, Powerpoint slides or clearly defined algorithms, etc.) so that come exam time, they "get it right".

There was a time when things were quite different at university. One of the most readable and insightful accounts of how it was "back then" (and here we're talking about the early years of the 20th century), can be found in R.G. Collingwood's delightfully entertaining An Autobiography. Eventually going to take a degree in Ancient History and Philosophy, he found himself in his first few terms having to find some topic in Ancient Greek literature that would be worth exploring and then working up papers on that topic (based on original sources, it was understood) that he would have to present in person to his tutor. The book reveals the travails of a bright, young man trying to find his way in his new world, on the one hand, but it also reveals how a university-degree program was organized in those days: the student spent a lot of time figuring out what s/he wanted to know, and had to spend even more time trying to figure out to find, process, and assimilate what s/he needed to gain that knowledge. When I hear the word "studying" (in whichever language or conjugated form) that's what's going on in my head.

Two things are particularly worth noting here: first, there were a lot of basics needed for Mr. Collingwood to be able to go about his work (he had learned Greek in secondary school obviously) and this no doubt entailed a lot of rote work, practice, and memorization), but, in contrast to what we too often find today, those activities were part of the overall educational process, not its end; and second, while Mr. Collingwood was doing most of his work in his head, studying, in the sense presented here, is certainly not restricted solely to abstract or purely intellectual pursuits.

If you've ever encountered a master craftsperson, you know exactly what I'm talking about. There are cabinetmakers, just to name one trade, who can make furniture that can bring tears to your eyes: the aesthetics of the design, the interplay of light, shades and hues in the finishing, the sensuous feel of a particular combination of textures, the precision of the joining and assembly, all let you know that here is a person who "knows" wood and "knows" what s/he's doing.

What student Collingwood was doing in his head, our master cabinetmaker was doing with her hands. And end product is conceived, the required conditions analyzed, appropriate methods, techniques and procedures were identified, and the knowledge of appropriate resources and tools were applied when and however necessary to reach the desired end. What these two examples have further in common, we should note, is that though each already "knows" a lot going in, at every step along the way they are gaining knowledge, improving and refining skills (perhaps even acquiring new ones) and gaining in experience and becoming more competent at what they "do". They're certain not merely acquiring information. Put perhaps a bit more metaphorically, their hearts -- not just their heads and hands, if you will -- are in what they are doing. There's one helluva lot of emotion involved. They are passionate about what they do. Just how many of our young people today have a passion for school?

It was the Enlightenment that raised Reason to the non plus ultra of human existence. Even the short-lived counteraction of the Romantics (Goethe, Beethoven, Delacroix, Blake, Wordsworth, Keats, etc.) couldn't stem the rise to dominance of reason. By suppressing all that even smacked of "feeling" or emotion, the Industrial Revolution (and all its consequent ravages and destruction) was made possible. We were made to feel as gods but without all that effeminate claptrap about "others" and "values" and such. We were masters of our fates and the progress brought on by technology would cause a tide of prosperity that would lift all boats ... or so the reasoning goes. Unfortunately, although many strides have been made, the reality hobbles along pitifully behind the vision. The reasons for this of course, is that we let our subjectivity and our feelings get in the way. Yes, we've got all the information we need to make a better world, but we can't somehow. What could possibly be wrong?

Young Collingwood and our competent cabinetmaker, as we have seen, add a healthy portion of passion to their work. The work primarily for the thrill of the chase, for the increase of knowledge that comes from their doing, for the satisfaction you get when you know you've done something well. They know as well that at the end of the day, there is no amount of money that would (or could) compensate them for what they have actually put into their projects. They work for something that money, for example, can never compensate. The knowledge they have and gain is literally and truly priceless.

It's the feelings, the passion that drives them to do a "good" job, for what is "good" is not determined by something or someone external to the process, it is an intimate and essential part of it. That standard of "good" will vary from scholar to scholar, craftsperson to craftsperson, but they will recognize the "goodness" of the other nevertheless. They speak similar languages of knowledge and skill, not necessarily the same cultural language. They recognize their peers by their fruits, not by their words alone.

What our examples do writ large is accomplished by untold individuals in all walks of life, each in his or her own way. Maybe its the hobby gardener next door, the shade-tree mechanic down the street, or the alto in the local barbershop quartet or the hobby cook whose zucchini casseroles should be featured on TV. There is more knowledge "out there" than the current state of the world would have us believe, but it is too often overlooked, if not simply ignored, because you really can't make a lot of money from knowledge. (Some people do, no doubt about it, but they don't do what they do for the money, that's for sure, and I'd be willing to bet a considerable sum of money that they'd be the first to tell which lucky break (not their own hard work) that got them the money-making opportunity. In the end, exceptions always confirm the rules.)

That dimension of feeling and passion, that longing for "good" overflow both easily and readily into everyday life. A fundamental notion of "good" easily changes and develops into notions of what is right and proper and what is not. Before you know it, we find it is the knowledgeable or are reflecting morally while the informed go about business as usual. The link between knowledge and wisdom is most likely just as strong as the one we saw between data and information. This is certainly not to say that you can only get to wisdom via knowledge, but that there's been a good healthy dose of feelings, emotions, and experience involved.

In the end, it would seem that the old, oft-neglected, if not forgotten, adage is true after all: our feelings tell us what to think. You can combine, categorize, reorganize and shift, sift, sort and shake data and information without having to suffer the "irrationality" of emotions, and this is why computers are the ultimate information-processors. Whether anything good or bad, worthwhile or worthless, or beneficial or harmless comes of it ... well, that's only something a knowledgeable person might know. A wise person, of course, would know for sure. There are not objective criteria for any of those pairs. There's more than a mere cost-benefit analysis or risk-reward calculation or an arbitrarily determined utilitarian output involved.

If a bridge across the abyss is to be built, it would seem that knowledge has to build it.

Between Mr. Eliot's "Rock" and a hard place

Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
-T.S. Eliot, from "The Rock"

Those are big questions. In fact, they're ones I ask myself a lot. Maybe I'm expecting too much.

Back when I was striving to maintain my sanity in Silicon Valley, we made a distinction between different levels of "head stuff", for lack of a better word.

Most everyone started with data: bits of pieces of this and that, sometimes numbers (1, 0.5, pi) or letters (a, b, c, x) or facts of a sort (25 people answered question 1 correctly) or something that could be used as an attribute (red, large, miniscule), or maybe a date even (2016-06-04). We recognize things like that, but we can't do much with them. They're just there. They have no real meaning in and of themselves and we find ourselves trying to put them into some sort of context for without one you really didn't know what to do with what you have. Maybe that's why Mr. Eliot didn't even bother to mention it.

Collecting data and placing it in a context, however, made that data more substantial, and that's what we then called information. Collect data together in some kind of sensible chunk and you can do something with it. In the business world, folks liked (and probably still do like) to think that you can use information to make decisions (e.g., stock levels are below the minimum threshold ... hence, we need to order more.) I find that too limiting. I see the difference between data and information more in the meaning realm. The date 2001-09-11, for example, is just a date like any other. But when we say, "On 11 September 2001, the largest terrorist attack in the United States took place," we have some context and hence meaning and we can start thinking about it in some way.

Mr. Eliot was writing and wrote our lead-in quote, he even then he was pointing out that information was overwhelming knowledge. What would the poor man be thinking today, in our 24/7-online-wired-interneted world? We're no longer just overwhelmed, we're awash in information, we're drowning in information. You can find the right, wrong, reasonable and outrageous answer to any two-bit question you can think of. Smartphone, wifi, swipe, type and in a fraction of a second you've got it. I'm not sure we do much with those answers once we have them, and I'm not sure how much can be done with them. But I can relate to Mr. Eliot's sentiment: where's the knowledge?

Now, I certainly don't want to break open an epistemological debate here, but it doesn't hurt to ask ourselves, "Just what is knowledge? What are we talking about when we use the term? We saw how data differs from information (at least in one way), so what is the difference now between information and knowledge? Don't know? I'm not sure that I do either, but following the conceptual trajectory already established, it would seem to me that knowledge is more encompassing (broader, deeper, richer) than information. If we took the step from non-sense to sense so far, what's the next step toward knowledge? Well, for the sake of argument, I'd like to suggest it is significance, whereby we've not just moved up a level, we've changed dimensions. Always take heed when you change dimensions.

One way of looking at this next step is that data and information are, in a sense, quantitative. You can, for example, glue together some data and come up with information, but you can't just glue information together and come up with some knowledge. You can also separate data and information into classes or domains: this is an economics statistic, that's a rule of logic, this is a history fact, that is the second law of thermodynamics. We can memorize all these kinds of things and we can call them up when we think we need them. But even doing that: memorizing and recalling really doesn't add much value to anything; data and information are things you can have, in your head, say, but possessing data or information can never make you smart. At best, you'll be informed, but that's all.

Knowledge, on the other hand, feels more qualitative. Some stock-market indicator is rising, unemployment is falling, tax revenues are declining, poverty is increasing ... this is information that we encounter everyday, but what does it tell us? Getting the answer to that question isn't necessarily something you can google. Is there a (or perhaps even several) relationship(s) among these pieces of data and information? What kinds of relationships are they? How strong are they? How do they change over time? Have there ever been situations where the relationships among these data and information have been similar, and if so, what was it telling us then? How comparable are these situations? And these are just the first questions that come to mind, and none of them are easy to answer nor can they simply be googled. We may never be able to get a final, definitive answer to all of these questions at the same time, but we're changed somehow by trying to find them: the search, the reflection, the further questioning, the further searching all make us aware of something that might be useful in trying to address the issues that questions like that raise. I'd say that here we're in the realm of knowledge.

For one, we can only get at it by actively doing something (e.g., looking for connections, searching for additional information, drawing inferences, reorganizing the data and information, asking new questions, etc.) What is more, pursuing the answers takes both time and effort, you just can't look in your crystal ball (or Google) and find what you need. Even more importantly, you start to realize along the way that there may not be "an answer" to any of the questions, let alone all of them together. You do, however, start to get a feel for what kinds and how strong certain relationships are, and you recognize that there are many factors involved and that you find that relating things you're finding out to other experiences you've had and read and heard about may provide support for lines of thought you are having. In other words, what you "know" is constantly changing, it is dynamic. The data and information you acquire is always the same, but what you know certainly isn't.

Back in my Silicon-Valley days, we didn't talk a lot about knowledge. It was a messy notion, slippery, always just slightly beyond one's reach. It was much easier to just deal with data and information and identifying rules for manipulating them. Over time, a good number of people starting referring to that manipulation as "knowing" and sometimes even "knowledge" until it became just accepted practice that when you were talking about (mostly abstract) information and rules and principles, you simply used the word "knowledge". Before you knew it, there weren't many people who had any idea of what knowledge really is any more. And we're certainly deep in that place today.

Like a lot of you, I like to think that I keep myself well informed: I read, watch and listen a variety of news sources. I read a lot of articles and books from various fields and in many genres. (OK, perhaps I'm a bit of an exception in that I can read Adam Smith, Stephen Hawking and Kurt Vonnegut all in the same afternoon, but that's beside the point.) What I'm finding, however, and what's disturbing me is the fact that the more contemporary the material I'm engaging, the less knowledge (or knowledge-like notions) I'm finding. Oh, information en masse, practically buried alive in facts, figures, data and information, but damn little knowledge. I find that not only bothersome, but, to be honest, downright unsettling.

Knowledgeable writers (or presenters) are sharers. They not only let you know what they know, they let you follow how they got there, how they went from unknowing or puzzled to knowledgeable. You can follow the line of argumentation, get a peek behind the curtain of assumptions and presuppositions that otherwise would simply be taken for granted, glossed over, or ignored all together. You're shown the data and information, you're given reasons why certain questions were asked and not others, you're brought into the process, and you're given a feeling of inclusion. You never get the feeling you're being lectured, looked down on, or put in your place. You get the feeling your mind is being opened, that you are being stimulated to think along, reflect, consider and encouraged to inquire further on your own, should you so desire. They make the complex much less intimidating.

Oh, how different are how many (too often, self-proclaimed) experts (if writing) or pundits (if presenting). In your face from word one, focused (often claustrophobically so: I'm talking about unemployment, leave the stock market out of this), direct, unwavering, certain, dogmatic, a maximum of statements and a minimum of questions (other than rhetorical ones, of course), the only unknowing involved is in the heads of the readers/listeners), no revelations of givens and just-taken-for-granteds, no wishy-washy maybe's and what-if's, just here-it-is, this-is-how-things-are, and this-is-what-needs-to-be-done-about-it. No sharing, just telling; if you don't agree, you're obviously mentally or intellectually unfit for the task; you never have the feeling your mind is being opened, just filled, and many seem to revel in making the complex so complicated that it's downright intimidating.

(With the summer upon us and you, with perhaps a bit more time on your hands, may like to actually experience what I'm talking about. Try reading Graeber's Debt or Proudhon's What is Property? and Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom (and the order doesn't matter, by the way). Or try Zinn's A People's History of the United States and Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard. Or perhaps Wilson's Consilience and Thompson's Coming into Being.)

Unfortunately, I know as well that this is a situation that isn't going to change any time soon. I've been to and in enough educational institutions (of all levels) to realize that information processing is being massively pushed and that knowledge has been all but forgotten. Oh, I know there are exceptions -- there are always exceptions to the rules -- but these are too few, too far in-between and not in the "system". Mainstream education, both public and private, has bought into the information-rich-knowledge-poor paradigm. Look at the No-Child-Left-Behind-test-'em-till-they-drop or Common Core disasters in the US; look at the OECD favoritism for objective testing and academics over crafts and trades here in Europe; look at the overscheduled, over-requiremented box-ticking that passes as bachelor (and I would suspect the majority of) master-degree programs (i.e. "higher education"), more and more of which is being dictated by "industry" so they can get the graduates they claim to need.

We poor saps out here in society are the ones who will foot the bill and pay the price for this short-sightedness and by the time most of our highly schooled but hardly educated young people finally awaken to the realization that they're full of information but don't know a thing, it just may be too late to turn things around. Who's going to solve problems when there's no one left who can think?

And no, I never even got to wisdom ... I wouldn't know where to start. We live in a world, governed by a mind-set that is willing to destroy the environment to make more money, that is oblivious to have-nots and ever-fewer have's, that is incapable of distinguishing between price and value, that is thrilled by show, even when there's no where left to go. Where is the wisdom in that?

But, as Mr. Eliot so aptly pointed out, we're so busy just living (with the lack of wisdom, absence of knowledge, glut of information and data) that we've lost sight of Life.

Hunks of meat suspended in time

Recently, I had a bit of a discussion on social media (and yes, I know I'm too old for that, but I've got an extremely young grandchild and need to keep up-to-date, or some reasonable facsimile) ... well, it wasn't as much a discussion as it was an exchange. Let's face it: social media doesn't lend itself to discussions, nor was it ever intended to.

Discussions need to be done tête-à-tête, I agree, but I've been involved in the electronic medium long enough to know that it is possible to have long, deep, meaningful, debates and discussions online, but you need people who can, and are willing to, think and who are willing to persevere till Hitler (or some other Nazi reference) butts in. Exchanges are nice enough, but they are pretty meaningless in both the petty and grand scheme of things. Social media is there for people to spit out opinions, to try to impress others with one's own wit and brilliance, or to just vent. That's not really what I consider to be engaging an idea, notion, or possibility in any superficial or meaningful way, but we shouldn't expect more than a media channel can deliver.

Nevertheless, even such pithy exchanges, you can get a feeling for where the other commenters are coming from. Every time we open our mouths (or let our fingers do the talking) we tell the world where the shoe is pinching (as the Germans like to say) or what our particular problem is this week. People ain't refrigerators: they can't keep nothing. You want to know what's important to someone, what's floating their boat, tickling their fancy, or pissing them off to no end: just listen. They'll tell you. If you don't know what's bothering your partner, well, then you're not listening.

Oh, it's easy not to listen. In fact, it takes a good amount of effort. Most of us are so wrapped up in ourselves that we can't get past the monkey-chatter in our own heads to pick up on whatever it is that "they" are going on about. The old Zen saying may be that those who say, don't know and those who know won't say, but I can assure you that the vast majority of denizens of this planet don't know what they know nor are they willing to try to figure out what you might know. It's so loud in most of their heads that they would rather just turn it off than have to try and filter the worth-hearing from the noise. And let's face it, most of it's noise. There's a lot of noise, both inside and outside our heads.

But that's not the point. What struck me in my recent exchange was how few options we had. Center point of the back-and-forth was "human beings". You can love 'em, you can hate 'em, but you can't avoid 'em ... they're everywhere. For obvious reasons there are 7 billion of us on the planet these days and truth be told, most of us don't have a clue ... about anything. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining nor am I accusing: most of those 7 billion can't have a clue: they're struggling to survive today, let alone tomorrow; they're so poor they don't have dirt to rub together; they're hungry, sick, forlorn, forsaken and forgotten. But ... and it's a bit but(t): we in the West do, and we, in the West, should know better. But, we don't. And that's what hit me first. The vast majority of human beings in existence, that is, alive today, didn't even get factored into the discussion/exchange equation. What does that say about us?

The second thing, though, that hit me ... OK, it was more like a bitch-slap ... was the assertion/contention/assumption that if humans were involved, whatever the topic was, it was doomed to failure, because, well, human beings are beyond hope anyway. There was/is the implicit, though if necessary, explicit assertion that humans are incapable of anything other than stupidity, bullshit and nonsense. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not accusing my interlocutors of anything other than short-sightedness: they appealed to history, and history -- regardless of who has written it -- documents the failure of human beings. We haven't gotten a damn thing right in the half-a-million or million years that we've been here (and I'm only referring to homo sapiens right now, for simplicity's sake, not because it's the only way to see things): violence, rape, pillage, plunder, war, death, destruction, thievery ... regardless of whomever we love to pick out and praise as being laudable, enviable, praiseworthy. They only managed to stop the destruction long enough for someone to write down how great they were. I get that. Really, I understand that, but the conclusions they draw from this is simply ... well, wrong. Let me explain.

Two forces are at work here: First, there's the factual evidence that over time, and according to whatever records we have been able to salvage, the creatures on this planet know as "human beings" tend to act more stupid than smart and are much more violent than peaceful. But ... and, again, it's a big but(t) this says nothing about how human beings actually are. Also, and closely related to this, is the deduction/assumption that human beings are simply not capable of any more/better than that. In other words, if human beings are involved, whatever you have planned is going to go south; that is, there is such a thing as "human nature" and it more or less precludes that any other outcome is possible. These are insufficient, inadequate, inappropriate conclusions to be drawn from the evidence for they are based on an incorrect assumption about human beings in general, namely that they have a "nature" and this nature is somehow defective.

This is a common, widely spread, and simply wrong conclusion. It assumes too much, and it has to. Why? Because those who believe that "this is how things really are" start with two incorrect assumptions: (1) past actions of human beings are accurate predictors of future behavior and, the one I like to call the materialist fallacy, (2) we're just big hunks of meat who are the unfortunate product of chance. If matter is all there is, well, you can't -- no, shouldn't -- expect too much of others. After all, they are, at best, products of chance who have no clue why they're here or what they're up to. But, this is going to far too fast.

Now it's your turn. Think about it: who are we creatures we call 'human beings'? Is there a reason for our presence on this planet or are we mere products of chance? Does life -- no matter what we think it is -- have some meaning or is this all just a big coincidence? Do we have some fundamental, basic "nature", some way of being that when you get right down to it just can't be changed? Do notions such as "good" and "evil" really exist or are they just illusions? Do the ideas of "right" and "wrong" actually exist or are they merely conventions we've accepted so that we can get through whatever the hell this is we are experiencing until tomorrow? Do we have any say (in any sense of the word) in our lives or is everything simply determined, if not predetermined, by the accidental interaction of forces, events, whatever beyond our knowledge?

OK, I know these are what is often referred to as "heavy" questions. When you get down to it, though, each and every one of us has to have some idea, some story, some explanation that we like to tell ourselves that helps us get through the darkness of unknowing as to why we're here. But, hey, maybe there's no reason at all. I'm not claiming there is, I'm only asking you to think about what you think the answer to "the question" is.

So, where does this leave me with my "discussants"? To me, it's relatively clear: they are what we know in this day and age as "materialists" and they don't know, to be kind, any better. And here, too, you shouldn't misunderstand me: I'm not criticizing or condemning these folks in any way, shape or form. They simply believe that all there is to life, the world, the universe, to all that is is, well, matter. I know: it all sounds so simple. At some time, a long time ago, an explosion -- to be precise and scientific, a Big Bang -- occurred and the ball started rolling who knows how and who knows where and here we are. One of the products of this "bang" was matter ... stuff ... the shit we knock our knees against when we're not paying attention. Somewhere along the line, we -- that is, you, me and every other human being on the planet or who ever existed -- showed up, as a, well, coincidental by-product of this "bang". Though we don't know for sure, we still "know" that matter is all there is. And here we are.

Well, this is where my discussants are at any rate. We've got a lot of people now, just as there have been a lot of people before us, but all of them are more or less fortunate or unfortunate accidents of a huge fart that took place billions of years ago. (To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't trust these accidents with much of anything either, but I started from a different assumption, and that makes all the difference in the world.) We're (and by that I mean we human beings, allegedly with consciousness and free will) are freaks of nature, and I use the word "freaks" in the most well-meaning sense of the word: it was just an accident that we are as we are; there's not a damn thing we can do about it, and if we consider the laws of statistics and probability, we shouldn't be here anyway. Unfortunately, we are. Funny how that works.

Well, what disturbed my discussants, I believe, is the fact that the fate of our planet should be placed in the hands of these freaks. Oh, I understand their shock and dismay. After all the failures we have to show for ourselves, I am the last person who would jump up and yell, "Hey, let the failures take charge!", but the truth of the matter is that there is only us. We have it in our hands -- and here I've got a lot of good science on my side -- to destroy the planet or to at least eliminate ourselves (and probably a whole lot else, including thousands, if not millions, of other species) in the process, and these folks -- my discussants -- are the ones that potentially are going to save us from ultimate demise. I agree, the chances are slim, but -- truthfully -- if not us, who? Yeah, we're pretty screwed up as a species, but we're also the only ones who have even the slightest chance of pulling ourselves, and everything else, back from the brink of extinction.

Yes, I exaggerate. My hero of heroes, George Carlin, accurately, and I believe appropriately, declared that human beings are to the planet nothing more than a bad case of fleas: the planet can shake us off and go on as if we never existed. And for as right as he was/is, that's a whole other issue and not relevant here.

So, here's the point: what happens to the earth and all of its inhabitants is nothing we can worry or not worry about. It doesn't matter. What happens to us, human beings, as a species, is, nevertheless, in our hands. We can participate in the further development of planet earth or we can decide to opt out. And this is where things start getting both serious and interesting: it's up to us. We can change our behavior and play along in the Big Game of Chance, but we can also opt to just spite ourselves ensure that not a one of us survives. This is what my fellow discussants didn't get, or didn't want to acknowledge: we have a choice in the matter, and the mere fact that we have a choice makes us different than any other species of living thing on this planet ... for better or for worse. We may -- and probably will -- choose the path of death and destruction. We seem to like that. But ... whether we like it or not ... we, and only we human beings, have the option to choose Life over Death.

You can't fix stupid, but stupidity can be fixed

We've got a problem. By "we", I mean those of us who find ourselves in what we like to think of as the 1st World -- and I'm not the first to ask somewhat naively, where's the 2nd one? Yeah, you, almost all of your reading this, and your friends, and your friends' friends, if they have any, and the people around you, like family and neighbors, and all of us who have too much time on our hands, too much money in our pockets, and too little sense to know what to do with either.

Now, before you go off all insulted because you're struggling to make ends meet or you're starting to sweat all the debt you're carrying around or whether there is going to be anything left for your kids or grandkids ... if you're concerned about any of that, you are precisely whom I'm talking to. Your problem isn't insufficient funds, it's insufficient gratitude. The vast majority of human beings on this planet would swap places with you in a heartbeat: and you'd die having to deal with theirs, and they'd think they'd died and gone to heaven. It's a matter of perspective, true, but also relativity. According to popular, widespread, and most oft proclaimed ideology: you chose your problems; the vast majority of humanity had theirs dumped on them by people who care more about themselves than even you do. If you've got a conscience, you'll never make it into the top 10%, let alone 1%. You're not cut out for it. Or sell your conscience. At the moment, however, you're just in the way ... of progress to make a better world or your just another wannabe for those at the top who want, and will eventually, get what you have.

You might get the impression that I'm a bit miffed at the moment, a bit irked, a bit bothered, a bit off-center. And you're right. I am. But, I firmly believe that I have every reason to be. Oh sure, I've cobbled together a fixed-income existence; I don't own anything other than a car of good middle age; I've got family around me, a couple of friends (who at least people who tolerate having me around); I've got a roof over my head, enough to eat and access to the world's largest cesspool of information, the internet. I haven't got a single reason to complain about anything in my life. But I'm also not only not the only person on the planet and I'm not the only person in my immediate environment. I'm part of a larger whole that varies in size depending on time of day, phase of the moon, and societal configuration.

In other words, I lead a relatively normal Western life. And I'm thankful for that, believe me. I'm thankful that I have the wherewithal, the inclination, the talent, the time, the opportunity to share my thoughts with all of you. But, I must admit, I'm rather bothered by the echoes that are finding their way back to me. Like most of you, I've got a real life and an online life, and the online life has to do with social media to a large extent, and regardless of what you think about either in general, I can assure you that, in particular, the online part is causing me more and more concern with each passing day. That's why I'm bringing this up here, with you, with all of you who obviously have an online life as well. The number of people with online lives is growing daily. The "society" that these online denizens are forming, however, is not exactly what I had hoped it would be way back when 95% of the people on the internet lived within 10 miles of my home. Yeah, I've had a chance to watch all this develop, and I'm not all that excited about what I see.

I'm going to out myself right up front: I don't believe the least in "human nature", but I believe unboundedly in "human potential". I believe -- deep, in the very heart of my own being -- that human beings are the living expression of the possibility of all possible possibilities. (That's the optimist heart that beats in my breast.) And I also believe, unreservedly, that the low end of those possibilities is the world we have thought out for ourselves, the world in which we're all -- at the moment -- forced to live. Stated succinctly, we're the biggest of all of G-d's failures. (And thus beats my cynic's heart in that same breast.)

We are, and have shown, that we're capable of the most exhilarating flights of brilliance: fire, the wheel, more-than-sufficient food production, disease eradication, alternative energies and explorations to the stars. At the same time, we have demonstrated that we're capable of the most terrifying horrors imaginable: war, genocide, unimaginable physical and psychological violence, greed, selfishness, self-absorption, and lack of empathy that there are moments when I find myself almost yearning for that last affront to occur so that we all go down the tubes the blinding fire of nuclear annihilation. And therein lies the rub, as the bard so eloquently put it.

You should be aware that all of G-d's children don't have the same intellectual capabilities and capacities. And that's OK as far as I'm concerned. Some of the nicest people I ever had the honor of dealing with weren't the sharpest pencils in the box, as they say, but they were Menschen, in both the true and Yiddish senses of the word. They cared about others, were kind, generous, helpful, supportive, and chock full of empathy and sympathy for the plight of others. I don't consider these people stupid, however. No, to me, stupid is when you think you know something, when you think you are smarter than you really are, or when you let external, non-personal "attributes" drive your actions.

Three of these are particularly dangerous: money, guns, and power. You can be bright, but once money (or in its most fundamental and nefarious form, the love of money) takes over it's good-bye smarts. Money is a prime cause of stupidity. You think your money makes you better, and smarter than everyone else, but it doesn't. It makes you think you're an authority on things you have no idea about (e.g., Bill Gates and world health or education). Guns are also a classic, and they (or the violence they represent) is a key feature of the gangster/Mafioso boss Hollywood has infected us with for decades. The propensity toward violence or violent behavior, the willingness to use it so "resolve arguments" is prototypical of stupidity in general. And finally, power ... often some vague combination of the previous two attributes, or "actual" power, like a political office (here, Bush the Lesser jumps out as poster child for what can happen when the intellectually challenged get it in their heads that they're better than and worth more than others) ... is the worst of all. And it's the one that has the most disastrous effects on the most people.

Even the most superficial gloss over the history of humankind reveals that it has been those awash in stupidity who have been in charge. We don't know who it was who figured out "fire", but we know practically everybody's name who used fire -- in one form or another -- to ensure that hundreds, thousands, if not millions of people had to suffer to satisfy their own egos. And we praise them, look up to them, remember them, and as school-children are forced to memorize their names, but in the end, they were stupid, self-absorbed, self-serving egoists who forced their personal mentation on others. Alexander the Great, the Roman Caesars, the British and other European royal houses, from Stockholm to Madrid, and, most recently, a whole bevy of American presidents (not starting with but particularly egregious since Reagan), have tortured the life out of countless human beings for the greater glory of , and we laugh and gloat and cheer and pat ourselves on the back for being so "great". But why? What's so smart about being able to kill untold human beings at will? Why do we think -- at this point in history, here, at the beginning of the 21st century (since we've agreed on counting years) -- that this is a good thing? Sure, it enables you to sit there in your room; fat, dumb and happy that you can look down upon the vast majority of humankind; but you need to explain to me what about this is good.

Recent history has shown us what's going on. Whether is was Thatcher in Britain or Reagan in the US, or Clinton (who could cover it over better than most), or Blair or Bush the Lesser (if that wasn't the tip-off, I don't know who was) or Merkel, or Cameron or Juncker or Schäuble or Gabriel or Obama or that it's not the bright ones who are leading the way and seeing to it that the proper shots are called. No, among this limited selection of individuals there are those who -- on their own, in a normal conversation -- would come across as half-way intelligent and reasonable, there seems to be the overwhelming propensity, if not compulsion, to blow any and all alleged inherent intelligence to the wind and strut forth as a contender for the crown of Village Idiot.

This -- not the results of neoliberal economic policies -- is what trickles down. We then find the same behavior patterns in the general population, be it in alternative political parties (like the AfD in Germany) or alternative political candidates (like Trump in the US (though Hilary isn't much better) and his followers) or just plain misinformed-and-proud-of-it welfare-bashers, gun-nuts, evangelicals, flag-wavers, sports-fanatics, and small-minded bleaters would rather complain about others than actually do something for or with others to make a difference. And I'm amazed each day at the number of people for whom this description applies.

No, I don't have a very high opinion of the general quality of information available on the internet, but there is a lot of good, sound, reliable information to be found there. But you have to go looking for it, and you have to wade through cybermiles of sludge and jungle to find it. There are good, sound, and inspiring insights to be found there, but you have to be able to weigh and evaluate, compare and contrast, and, well, think, to figure out which they are.

Of course, you have to be willing to explore thoughts, ideas, opinions, and views with which you don't necessarily or immediately agree and you have to be willing to assess their validity, their impacts and maybe even their worth. But that takes both time and effort and, well, with all the important stuff so many of us have in our lives that needs to get done, who is going to ensure they do this as well? But, most importantly, you have to be willing to communicate what you find and discuss it with others, not just with people whom you agree with. You need actively engage other ideas and notions if you are ever to come up with thoughts and ideas of your own. And who, pray tell, is going to be willing to do that? There are some thank goodness, though they are few and far between. There are some who haven't yet given up, even though they are reviled and ridiculed by those who have chosen stupidity and their particular way of life.

The point is that we don't have to be in the messes we're in. We don't have to deal with all the ignorant nonsense which pervades most of our lives. We don't have to allow stupidity to rule our lives ... but we are, we do and we will, because to change any of it, we might just have to change ourselves. So, don't complain about stupid (and all that is wrong with everybody else) if you choose stupidity yourself. And that is the choice too many people are making.

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.

As a cynical optimist, I question my own sanity

For the most part, people believe what they want to believe and for the even larger part, most people are impervious to facts. Oh, part of the problem comes from the rampant relativism that's taken over modern mentation (and notice, I dared not call it "thinking"), but part of it -- I'm afraid a large part of it -- is out of downright ignorance.

Let's face it, experts gave people who know stuff a bad name. There are people who simply know things, some even in more than one field. We have a long history of being moved -- socially, economically, politically, etc. -- by so-called polymaths (that is, people who are highly competent in more than one field). You know, people like Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Newton, Leipniz, Jefferson, Franklin, Hume ... individuals who were not only good at STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) subjects, but also in the languages and the arts. Newton, for example, wrote over 1,000,000 words on the subject of physics and natural sciences, as well as over 1,000,000 Biblical exegesis (interpretation of Biblical texts, most often in their original language; Newton's focus was what we call the Old Testament, available mostly in Hebrew), as well as over 1,000,000 words on alchemy in his search for the Philosopher's Stone. Of course, he also died "mad as a hatter" from inhaling all that mercury, but his legacy is brilliant regardless of how he ended up vacating his on-earth slot. Just where are all our polymaths today? Not in the spotlight, that's for sure, because somewhere along the line we decided that only experts have anything worthwhile to say and in the meantime we have found out that experts are paid by interests to say what the interests want them to say. So much for the freedom of inquiry and knowledge.

No, this whole I've-got-an-expert vs you've-got-an-expert thing has ruined it for those of us who don't have the time, energy and inclination to know everything about everything in the world. It is becoming harder and harder to find those individuals who really do know what they are talking about, and when you do find them, chances are that monied interests are either trying to buy them out, drown them out or shut them up. "Cui bono? Cui bono?" my friend Julius used to tell me. If he were still alive, he'd still be telling me.

The result of this is, of course, that everyone, including Joe Shit, the ragman, thinks they know something and have something to say. It's not bad enough that they have nothing to say. No, they insist on their right to say it, and that you should have to listen to it, even though it's nonsense. And there are some areas of life where everyone's an expert, even though they have no clue as to what's going on. You think I'm exaggerating? Think about it: everybody went to school, so everyone's an expert on education. Everyone speaks their mother tongue, so everyone's an expert on language. Everyone has a job and hs bills to pay, so everyone's an economics expert. Those who served in the military (for whatever reason) are military strategy experts; those who helped their friends move are logistics experts; and we all have to pay taxes is a tax expert. Don't believe me? Bring up any of these subjects at your next happy hour and you'll end up with more indigestion that the hors d'oevres allow.

Now, if this were all playing out down here in Littleguy's Land, I don't suppose it would be much of a problem, but if you take a step back and look at what is happening above our own petty oxygen level, you'll quickly realize that our fates are in the hands of not-so-stable individuals. They, however, are playing out their own roles as if they were at happy hour with us: taking their own level of not-knowing and misinformation to levels we can't begin to imagine.

They actually hire people with credentials to do their dirty work for them. Well, OK, industry usually -- and generously -- picks up the tab, but they've got all the expertise they need to make it appear as if they are doing what needs to be done. That's why the earth's environment is getting worse, new climate agreements are regularly necessary, and all us tree-huggers are simply annoyances. That's why the rich are getting richer even faster than the poor are getting poorer, but there's always justification for a bit more exploitation and humiliation nevertheless. That's why the petty national interests of my country trump the petty national interests of yours, especially since I have bigger bombs and more bullets and am more than ready to use them. That's why we're the smartest, slickest, best-looking, most fabulous, kick-ass, cool people who have ever existed and we can't solve the simplest of our problems. And that's why the most psychopathic, sociopathic, self-absorbed, narrow-minded, ruthless, unempathetic people we can possibly imagine are the candidates for our highest political offices (and I'm not just picking on the USA here ... this applies elsewhere as well, though your mileage may vary).

The result, of course, is what I like to call rule by opinion. We're supposed to accept the fact that one opinion is as good as any other -- which is not the case -- but the higher in the political pecking order a given opinion is expressed, the more valid it is. That's how the world is functioning at the moment. The scary part is that people who, by any real standards in any arena other than politics, would be considered mentally unstable, if not downright sick, are permitted to do their thing at the expense of the rest of us. But what's even worse, most of us little folk cheer them on. Just where is all that progress that my history teachers loved to tell me about?

How can it be that a trade agreement is being pushed as "beneficial for us all" that is so secret that no one is even allowed to talk about it once they find out what's in it (TTIP)? How can it be that a two-bit regional wannabe leader is a threat to the security of the entire world (Putin)? How can it be that the mightiest military on the face of the earth can't win a war? How can it be that candidates for public office can express views in public (and find support!) that one should be ashamed to say in private (Trump in the USA, AfD/Pegida in Germany)? How can it be that even after we finally realized that spanking does nothing to make a child behave better that we still think in international politics that might makes right and that we can sanction (merely political spanking) whomever doesn't dance to our tune? How can it be that even though 1,000,000 years of human evolution have shown that cooperation trumps competition in the struggle for survival we still think that every individual's fate is in his or her own hands? That, my dear, readers is simply insane.

But, it's this insanity that we're all confronted with every day. We're confronted with -- if we don't have our noses rubbed in it -- every day with absolute insanity: the politician who rabidly opposes transgenders supports a child molester; the Noble-peace-prize-winner is proud of his reputation as drone-executioner; one of the greatest abusers of human rights is made chair of the commission on human rights; the most overtly devoted religionist is the perpetrator of the greatest violence against others; the list goes on and on. And what bothers me most is that most of us just accept it. "Well, that's just the way it is." "What the hell are you gonna do?" "What's a little person like me supposed to do about all of that?" Oh, I can understand how you can feel that way. I can understand as well that it's in a lot of people's interests that you feel that way, too. If my own study of human history and development has taught me anything it is that there are always a few who try real hard, and very often succeed, in making most of the people feel like they've nothing to say at all.

That's why my optimism is waning. It's too easy to get most people to shuffle and jive, to sing and dance, to do what has to be done to let those interests in power have their way. None of us are allowed to think any more, to develop our own opinions on issue or propose real solutions. That's all taken care of by "their" experts. Too few of us are willing to think on our own and talk to others about what we're thinking. Too few of us are willing to recognize that together were strong and divided we're nothing. Too few of us are willing to inform ourselves, to discuss with others of differing views, and engage in a real debate about things that actually matter. And the longer this goes on the greater the chances that the untenable situation in which we find ourselves will simply have to give, but when it does, it will be more like and explosion than a mere crack.

When things go south, folks, -- and it won't take a lot: another financial crisis, a failed industry in a major economy, a lost harvest across the third world, overzealous military intervention that goes nuclear -- a lot of people are going to get hurt and a lot of those who get hurt are going to be people we know. The planet has become way too small for any of us to really escape. The more you ignore, the more you put it off, the more you bide your time, the greater the chance that someone you know and love is going to get hurt badly when things simply break down. We're already living on the edge of insanity and most people I can see are feeding it. My cynicism tells me that the feeders are going to win, which means the rest of us lose. My optimism tells me we can still turn things around, but it ain't going to be easy.

Lenten listlessness

One week down, almost six to go. Bet a lot of you didn't know that.

I'll be honest: I'm not taking the season as seriously as I once did. Oh, I did all kinds of fast-like things at times. My high-point, I think, was while I was in California, hustling my way through the Silicon-Valley buzz. There are all kinds of fasts these days. A brief internet search will reveal way more than you ever wanted to know. Being a fan of tradition (while not being a slave to it), I've always leaned toward the more well-known ways of participating in the season: giving up meat, beer, alcohol in general, sweets, you know, that kind of thing, but one year I decided to get real about it all.

In the olden times, Jews, for example, fasted on Mondays and Thursdays; the early Christians, in order to differentiate themselves from their primarily Jewish brethren, chose Tuesdays and Fridays as fast days. That's why when I was growing up, my Catholic friends couldn't eat meat on Friday, but that got loosened in the past few years and meatless Tuesdays have popped up again. All my Catholic friends that I asked couldn't tell me why that all was, but I really don't expect most people know why they do half the things they do. Nevertheless, I decided, on a whim -- how else? -- to do the "real deal", or at least what I could determine that might have been.

It turns out this regular fasting meant drinking only water during the day, and when the sun went down, eating only bread and salt. (The bread part is obvious, and if you ever spent any time in a desert, you get the salt part too.) I wasn't going to get this past the family, of course, being that at most times they're more concerned about dad's health than their own, I compromised. I only had water during the day, and after sundown, only something light for dinner: a tomato-and-lettuce sandwich, a bowl of cereal, you know, something like that. Oh, I still had to put up with a lot of squawking, but each intercession gave me an opportunity to at least thematicize Lent-relevant topics, like fasting, belief, physical needs, habits ... a whole array of topics. You should know that dinnertime in our household was more a food-augmented discussion rather than a meal in the traditional sense of the word, even when it wasn't Lent. Evening dinner in our house could go on for hours; to me (and I think to the others) it was special time together.

No, I had no enlightening experience during those 40 days, but you couldn't help but notice that the world was different. I finally realized how little is actually required in order to get along physically well, and that the time spent with the family, even without eating, is time that cannot be better spent. I came to see that what we truly need is not necessarily food, though there is a lower limit we should not -- and cannot -- dip below, but rather the presence and interaction of others that makes all the difference in the world. I also finally understood that Life is something to which we are connected by the slightest of gossamer threads. And, I grokked what it means to be thankful, for the least of anything. The last lesson was the surprise lesson of the exercise. The food I ate in the evening were some of the best meals I have ever had.

We all have to gather our own experiences in this phase and time of our existence. No one will argue that. But, I can assure you that too many of us miss far too many opportunities to get the most out of the experiences we have. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort. Sometimes a very slight shift in viewpoint -- like a fast, for example, during Lent -- can give us just the nudge we need. If you never look, you'll never see.

Dark days are upon us

Dark days are upon us.

The heartless command, our attention at the very least. It may be a
madman with an Arabic name; it could be a finance minister whose
madness won't allow him to admit he is wrong.

Our minds are not being molded, they are being violated, bludgeoned,
abused, every bit as debilitating as any comparable physical abuse, but
as Stockholm taught us, it is possible to love one's abusers. It's not
mentally healthy, but it is a survival strategy.

Democracy hasn't been taken from us. You can't lose what you never
had. What has been taken from us, though, is our democratic ideals and
beliefs. In the United States, money talks; it's speech is free. Here in
Europe, we politicize instead - it's so much more sophisticated - and we
simply deny sovereign states their sovereignty. Both methods are
employed in the name of "unity", but we're not one, nor of one mind, nor
should we be, but we will be made to be alike.

It's not the silence of the masses that frightens me. What does
frighten me is the moment of their awakening to the realization that
they have been lied to, manipulated, and extorted. No, right now, what
makes me so uneasy is the silence of those who should know better.
Perhaps they have been bought; perhaps they have been intimidated;
perhaps they have simply lost hope. It doesn't really matter when the
results are the same.

The paternalization of society, not just here in the West, and
misguided feminism (only in the West) have made everyone just a bit more
manly: we're so easily distracted by shiny, glittering, but ultimately
worthless little things. We can argue for days about meaningless,
trivial, irrelevant details, yet we won't admit, neither to ourselves
nor to others, that there's a real problem that needs to be solved.
We're in crisis mode all the time. Men are, as you know, always in
crisis mode.

Dark days are upon us. And, they will not find the light as long as
we can be distracted, frightened, threatened, intimidated and bullied
into thinking that different is dangerous, that otherness is
ostracizing, and that only each of us can save him- or herself.