Paradox paradise

When choosing the lesser of any number of evils, aren't you are still choosing evil?

If "by their fruits you will know them", why is so much emphasis placed upon credos?

Can good guys be allowed (or even expected) to do bad things and still be good guys?

If G-d is the ultimate judge, why do so many of His followers spend so much time judging?

Why do alleged lovers of freedom coddle ruthless leaders who suppresses those in their power?

If you are sanctioned for exercising your rights, do you even have rights at all?

Did I miss a memo or since when is there such a thing as "good" (or even "moderate") terrorists?

Is stealing someone's heart a crime?

If gamblers are looked down on, why are speculators looked up to?

Why does Justice act like she can see even though we're all equal in the eyes of the law?

If truth is arguably relative, why do we argue about it at all?

How is it that might make right but right can never make might?

If knowledge is power, why are so many stupid things done in our name?

Given that certain truths are self-evident, why must laws be made to enforce them?

If actions speak louder than words, why do we put so much faith in what people say?

Where to go, what to do?

Though there is still, and will long be, plenty of grey areas in the world and how we see it, we are, nevertheless, standing at a metaphorical fork in the road. We're faced, believe it or not, with an essential and existential choice.

If we simply follow what appears to be the main road that we're on, we're doomed. You can call me a pessimist, a cynic, a nay-sayer, a doom-and-gloomer ... it doesn't matter what ... but we'll be out of here soon. It's no joke that we're destroying the environment; it is an established fact that we are contributing significantly to global warming; it is inevitable that sea levels will rise another meter in the next 100 years, driving hundreds of millions of people further inland; we have definitive proof that fracking and transporting sludgy sand across thousands of miles of farmland and aquifers is going to poison our water; we know that the casino capitalism we are practicing is not sustainable and another, even worse, financial disaster is inevitable and imminent; we can see that growing income inequality will have drastic, most likely violent, consequences. There are so many things that we know and that are clear and so many things that too many are too willing to do too little about. In other words, our current social, economic, technological and political trajectory is toward disintegration. We have it within our power to commit collective suicide or to allow ourselves to be murdered by the irrational believers in post-modern ideals.

When we stop to reflect on what we're confronted with, it becomes very apparent very quickly that these are not just decisive, dividing issues, they are inherently divisive: take the earth apart for its oil and minerals; divide crops into specialized areas and regions in order to industrialize; industrialization is the breaking down of a whole process into its lowest manageable units; poisoning the ground water cuts us off from one primary essential for life; capitalism is founded upon the idea of taking more than one needs even, or especially, at the cost of others. In other words, these are all rational activities and approaches, but in the end, they are destructive and deadly. The ultimate division, course, is the separation of life from the body, which we call death.

On the other hand, we can change. Though time is running out, it is not gone. There is still hope that something, that a wide variety of things, can be done to avoid catastrophe. The clock is ticking though, so we really don't have a lot of time to just sit back and think about it. We must act, and each and every one of us -- as I have been repeatedly emphasizing -- is required to take part, to get involved.

One option has been taken from us: the option to do nothing at all. In not acting, or in choosing not to act, we, by default, will be moved along the destructive path we are on. To choose is to choose to act, to do whatever is within your power, the scope of your creativity, the breadth of your knowledge. And here's the important point: it doesn't matter what it is. As long as you include in your action the benefit of at least one other human being, you will, in all probability, be on the other fork in the road.

If you don't believe me, try it, and find out.

The rational reduction

Growing up, the TV was black-and-white and full of Westerns. It was easy to tell who was who, for the good guys wore white hats and bad guys black ones. It has taken me years to get over it.

As we saw last time, with the introduction of perspective, points-of-view became the way to see and understand the world. More than one is possible, of course, so the question immediately arises as to which perspective, which point-of-view is the right one. We quickly moved from a simple what-is to what-is-right. A reasonable person will tell you that it depends: when seen one way, thus-and-so is right; when seen another way, something else is right. Our sensibilities regarding right and wrong, however, don't like to deal with more than one "right". Something is right, or it is not. In other words, we developed a whole way of thinking based on what is right. The good guys, in the white hats were right; the guys in the black hats were wrong, and a whole lot of effort was put into making sure we youngsters understood the message. Like I said, it's taken me years to get over it.

The competition between competing points-of-view leads rather quickly to relativity. Everything becomes relative, it depends on how you look at it, and in the end, it means that any point-of-view is as good as any other point-of-view, one opinion is as good as any other. But this is intellectually and emotionally unsatisfactory, we feel deeply uncomforatble. We long for clarity, for surety, for certainty.

And here came the cavalry or the posse to the rescue. It was all very clear: the good guys were right because they could draw faster and shoot straighter; they were stronger and better fighters; they overwhelmed the dark forces with strength, intelligence and, well, violence. Might made right. Apart from all the possible color associations that one can spin off of this, it was by power and sheer force that right was established. And in all this sorting of the wheat from the chaff, of the good from the bad, of the right from the wrong, we added an even more insidious degree of certainty ... at least those of us who were still in doubt. It was not simply a matter of either/or, either you're right or you're wrong, no, it became a matter of you're either with us or you're against us.

Not only was this thinking approach taken to an insane degree in recent American political history, what we find quite prevalent this days is the thinking that if you don't agree with the right point-of-view, you automatically subscribe to its opposite: if you are for the Palestinians, you are against the Israelis; if you are for gun control, you are against guns; if you are against the death penalty, you are for allowing violent criminals to roam the streets; if you are against GMO foods, you are an organic tree-hugger; if you are against casino capitalism, you must be a communist. Yes, it has come to this. And this type of thinking, this type of argumentation, which is way too prevalent these days, is dangerous, for it carries within itself its own seeds of destruction; it is by nature destructive thinking. It is this allegedly "rational" thinking that allows for the clearly irrational behavior we witness all around us: the destruction of the environment in the name of profit; the perpetuation of war and oppression in the name of freedom; the ... well, I'm sure by now you get the picture.

Our rationality is at an end. The rational reduction that I have experienced throughout my own lifetime has become, well, irrational.

Reference
Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)

Putting one's mental house in order

As anyone who has ever encountered mythology, say, in school, knows, it's impossible to keep all those gods and goddesses sorted out: who's responsible for what, who did what to whom, how does all of it fit together? This was the case two-and-a-half thousand years ago, as well, and the first people to try and do something about it were the Greeks. Thales, Pythagoras, Euclid, Democritus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many others set about putting our mental house in order. Fact, reason, logic, argument, demonstration, proof became the hallmarks of a clear mind and an acute understanding of the world around us. It was at this time, more or less, when the mutation to what Gebser calls the Mental structure of consciousness occurred.

For a millennium or more, humanity experienced, literally, heady times. Great systems of thought were attempted. Everything that could be measured was and things were described, categorized, classified, systematized, defined and ordered. The foundations of modern science were laid. With the fall of Rome, of course, we entered the Dark Ages; that is, a time during which we took a long break from all this, but we slowly but surely recovered. Around the first millennium AD, we really moved into high gear and in many ways made up for lost time. Universities and other institutions of higher learning were founded; study became more systematic, and thinking became more secular. And then a small shift occurred.

This is best experienced by looking a paintings and illustrations from the Middle Ages, for example, and comparing them to visual art produced around and after the Renaissance. What do we find? Perspective. Yes, the perceiving of something from a particular, identifiable vantage point, a point of view, if you will, and the rise of point-of-view thinking, which we all more or less take for granted these days, has brought about significant and far-reaching changes in our minds and how we understand the world.

In a manner of speaking, the world was mentally, conceptually divided into pieces. What was once a whole, which is how the Ancient Greeks saw the world, became a conglomerate of competing viewpoints. Where once reason dominated, rational argumentation dominated. We should recall that the very word "rational" is derived from the ratio, which is, among other things, a division problem.

Just why this is problematic will be the subject or my next post.

Reference
Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)

Different strokes ...

There was a time when the world was full of magic. There were nymphs and sprites, gnomes and dwarves, wizards and witches, and an array of both positive and negative forces that determined much of our lives. Almost all of us experience the world this way when we are children, for our environment is full of wonder and terror and protection and amazement.

Because of the association with childhood, this way of thinking is most often belittled by us moderns, but unjustifiably so. My favorite example of it, however, is in the film, "The Gods Must Be Crazy". While flying over the Kalahari, a pilot simply throws his Coke bottle out the window of his plane and it is found by Xi, a local bushman. Like everything else around them, the tribe first believes it to be another gift from the gods. It is the hardest things they have ever experienced, and it brings an unhappy, even destructive, dynamic into their lives. They agree that the gods must have made a mistake and the "evil thing", as they have come to call it, must go, so Xi declares he will take it to the end of the world and throw it off. The rest of the movie depicts all of his experiences with the modern world along the way. While the decision and the solution may appear child-like, Xi is anything but a child. He is a respected member of the tribe; he provides and cares for his family; he is willing to travel into the unknown to protect everyone from the evil influences of this "thing"; and, as is seen throughout the rest of the movie, he is a clever, resourceful, highly-skilled problem-solver. No, this is a loving, caring, responsible adult who just happens to understand the world very differently than those he encounters along the way.

The gods in Xi's world are capable of carelessness. They aren't particularly powerful even if they are caring for the tribe. Over time, however, the powers attributed to the gods increase in strength and become more formalized and find new expressions. These may be seen in the exquisite paintings found in the Lascaux Caves in Southern France, dating back some 40,000 years, or in the highly refined and intricately developed cosmology of the Ancient Egyptians. The pantheon of gods expands, and each god is in command of a particular force or power or controls some clearly defined aspect of life and nature. Whereas art and writing are unknown in Xi's Magical world, both of these methods of expression become dominant factors in the Mythical world. Of course, we moderns like to belittle this type of thinking as well. We find it these days in the adolescent love of superheroes, sports legends, our reverence for our "alma mater", be it high school or college (though in these latter instances it is not only tolerated but encouraged, oddly enough).

Two points are worth noting here. First, neither of these modes are childish ways of thinking. Xi demonstrates this clearly for the Magical structure, and the great empires of the past -- the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans -- were all products of the Mythical structure of consciousness. Second, in both cases, we can find examples of such consciousness in our everyday, modern lives. They are not dead and forgotten, they have not be discarded, rather they have been maintained, cultivated and adapted to play important roles in our lives.

Our modern problem is, to a great extent, that we fail to recognize them and put them off, but, as I believe, much to our own peril.

Reference
Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)

Can anyone save us?

And so, it would seem we've come full circle. When we reflect back upon the last few posts, we see that none of the disciplines or institutions that we might expect to come to the rescue can or will.

Science is capable of developing deep, insightful and helpful knowledge, but if we ignore it, we do so at our own peril.

Technology can solve lots of problems, but not all problems, and it is up to us to help it decide what's worthwhile and what is not.

Politics has become beholden to special interests, but it is we, the populus who have reneged on our responsibility to get involved and keep their noses to the wheel.

It should be clear that "the market", as it is currently practiced, is simply a degenerate extension of the political sphere. Money can never be the measure of anything, but we have essentially turned it into a god in its own right.

Turning the "religious" corner, we see that Jesus showed us the way, and he admonished us to follow suit, but we've chosen to ignore that.

And God, if He exists, according to His own accounting, told us all that if we don't do it, nobody else will.

This is where is all comes together. Regardless of whether we're religious or not, believers or atheists, in the end, we're all in this together. Regardless of what we may think is true and right, at bottom, we're all in this together. When all is said and done, there is no outside force, power or agency that can, or will, suddenly step in and snatch us from the jaws of destruction.

No, if anything at all is to be done or can possibly be done, we have no choice: we -- you, me, our families, everyone we know and don't know -- are the only ones who can do anything at all.

We have already raced past the crossroads, but it may be that we can backtrack far enough to take the other road. Whether we do or not doesn't depend on anyone or anything other than ourselves. As Pogo put it so aptly so long ago, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

If this enemy is to be defeated, however, only we can do it. Who's up for the challenge?

Can God save us?

This is the trickiest question of all. I mean, after all, the Big Guy (according to the legend) put us here, so he can take us out anytime He pleases (which he did once, according to the text: see the Story of Noah), and according to the believers, absolutely everything is in His hands. The atheists and non-theists among you will quickly retort, quite consistently, that He doesn't exist, so He isn't going to be doing anything. That may or may not be true. We cannot know for sure. Regardless of what you believe (there is or there is no God), it is simply a matter of belief. You can't prove it one way or the other. So, in one respect, this simply removes God from the equation.

There are a lot of people who believe in God or some kind of god or gods or the like. Truth be told, it is the majority of humanity. For that very reason, we cannot simply discard the God question out of hand. For that reason alone, it deserves to be taken seriously, regardless of how intolerant militant atheists can be. I certainly don't agree with a lot of people, but I do try to make an effort to understand why they think what they think and why they believe what they believe, and I am extremely hesitant to tell them flat out that their full of crap. (Unfortunately, this seems to be the preferred argumentation modus of our militant-atheist friends.)

Given the large sphere of influence of and my own upbringing within the Abrahamic Traditions, I'll restrict myself to that one perspective. (I believe, however, that mutatis mutandis everything I have to say applies outside this context as well, but that's another blog for another time.) We are told in the Good Book, Part I (Old Testament), right up front (1st book, Genesis, Chapters 1 & 2, in particular the latter) that we (that is, humankind) were put here to be the caretakers of this world. We might have screwed up and got kicked out of headquarters (the Garden of Eden), but we weren't fired; we still had the job, we just had to do it out here where all of us all. We're doing a pretty sorry job of it, too.

Granted, even God got fed up and washed the slate clean (literally), but He told us he wouldn't do that anymore, and from then on out -- according to the text -- he repeated sent this, that, or the other guy (or gal ... there are lots of stories in the Bible in which the female plays a decisive role) to remind us of what we actually should be doing. But, He told us flat out, He wasn't going to intervene so directly. The way I read the text and see the big picture, then, we've been passed the buck. The way I see how things have been developing, especially in the last couple of hundred years, though, we want to pretend like we don't have it ... never heard of it ... and that's why we are in the straits we are in. We've lost sight of our job description. We're not doing our job.

Can Jesus save us?

OK, OK, it's quite obvious how my Christian brethren will respond to this one: with a resounding Yes! or He already did!, but unfortunately, we have not evidence for that. They may be right, but if they are, it's a guess. I know they like to pull in the Bible (in this case, the New Testament) for "proof", but you can't declare that the Bible's the Word of God, then use the Bible to prove that it is. That's called circular reasoning. Now, if you want to tell me that this is what you believe, then I'm behind you 100%. You are free to believe it, but always keep in mind, it's a belief, not a proven truth (or Truth, for you metaphysicans out there).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the guy. I'm not all so keen on many of his followers, but what he had to say and the example that he set is precisely what I would expect from a guy in his position. When we look at what the Gospels (those are the first four books of the New Testament for those of you not so familiar with the source texts) have to say, I'm not sure that his death is so much more important than his life. I read it the other way around.

It was Jesus' forerunner (Wegbereiter, in German; that is, literally "path preparer"), John the Baptist, who put it best: "Metanoeite, metanoeite, the Kingdom of God is at hand." (I threw in the Greek word there, because there's no one single, best translation of the word. Coming in from the Latin, we end up with "repent". That is obviously a loaded word, especially for non-religious types (and there is no reason to think that Jesus -- or John, for that matter -- intended to exclude anyone at all). Luther translated it better, in my humble opinion: "turn around" (in German, kehr um (and this fits well with things that Jesus did say later about the Kingdom of God, namely that it was near, at hand, and well, within you). But, when we look at the Greek word itself, apart from any theological or Christological interpretation schemes, the word simply means "change your mind" or, said differently, "change the way you think".

This is consistent with everything else that Jesus said and did. He spent his time with the outcasts of society instead of condemning them and persecuting them; he spoke truth to power; he healed the sick, even when he wasn't supposed to; he fed the hungry and told us to do likewise. This was a guy who practiced precisely what he preached, much unlike just about every one of us.

It would seem that Jesus' mindset was more of I-showed-you-how-now-you-do-it, but it's not clear to me that this message got through. And, if you're not part of the Christian club, well, as far as they are concerned, he's not concerned with anyone who hasn't signed up, much to the contrary of how he actually acted when he was here.

For that reason alone, I think it's doubtful that he'll be rushing in with an angelic cavalry to save the day. And that, it seems, just leaves us with his "Dad" (as he called Him). Next time.

Can "the market" save us?

The answer here is more than obvious: of course, it's no. The market has never been in the business of saving. It's all about the money, and as we all know, money is the root of all evil. Those with enough cash to spare of capture and co-opted the politicians, and the players in the market, the global players, if you will, are all about growth at any price. The market as we understand it these days and the way it is portrayed by its loudest and most enthusiastic proponents is about gaining market share (always at the expense of others), growing (through destruction or assimilation of the competition), and attracting ever more investors; that is, attracting more and more money.

The purpose of business is business, opined Milton Friedman; and the purpose of business is the maximization of profits responded his acolytes. Yes, this is a quasi-religious rite that is played out each and every day in the global market place. I think it's obvious to even the most casual observer that if your primary raison d'être is accumulating money (or wealth, for you purists) than everything, and I mean everything else is secondary, is subordinate, to that purpose. Saving the world, securing the future of humanity . . . those may be noble and inspiring ideals, but they have absolutely nothing to do with “the market” and what goes on there. Friedman went so far to assert that business was wrong to even include social responsibility in its vocabulary. That was for others to worry about, not something that should be detracting business from its true and only purpose. No, business, “the market”, can't save us because it has said straight out that they have no interest in doing so. It's not even remotely part of their mind-set.

Well, science, technology, politics, and business – all players in this world can be counted out. And if nothing in or of this would can do it, it would seem that, in desperation at the least, we need to turn elsewhere to perhaps find our salvation. Where might that be?

Can politics save us?

This is not a trick question. I'm serious. Well, at least I'm serious that the question has to be asked. The role of politics in modern society is – or at least should be – to provide a safe and secure framework within which individuals and groups can live and prosper. Not only should politics ensure that science has the means and wherewithal to pursue knowledge, but also that technology can take the results of science and apply them in ways that benefit all of us. Unfortunately, that's not what they do.

Of late, they have been spending inordinate amounts of time and money on waging wars (both physical, such as in Afghanistan, and moral, such as the War on Drugs), spying on their own citizens (in the name of fighting terror), serving their own interests (the infamous “political revolving door”, their special salary, health care and pension benefits), and fighting amongst themselves (election campaigns, coalitions/oppositions). The little bit they do here and there for the safety, security and well-being of their citizenry is not worth mentioning. Things like a social safety net, livable wages, safe working conditions, and more should be of more concern to them. But it isn't.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, precisely that which science is telling us and technology is doing nothing about should be high on politics' agenda – such as, setting limits on pollutions, ensuring alternative energy sources and technologies are developed, strengthening the educational system, etc. – but it isn't.

No, it would appear that their mind-set has become one of self-satisfaction and self-serving. The concerns of “the people” take a backseat to financial and economic interests. And that, of course, will be our focus next time.

Can technology save us?

Technology is science's little brother. Big brothers are older, wiser, more imposing, but harmless. Little brothers are all about action, excitement, dynamism, and adventure. And this is precisely why technology can't save us either.

This is not to say that a lot of people don't put a lot of faith in it. Look at all the technological advances we've made, especially in the last century or so: we've gone to the moon, we are exploring outer space, we have amazing prosthetics, we can clone sheep, not to speak of the wide range of miraculous drugs we've invented. But we've also developed nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, we make environmentally unfriendly plastics, we pollute, misuse, destroy, and exploit on a global scale. When we step back and look at the big picture, when we draw up accounts, the ledger is seriously weighted on the negative side. Our standards of living are in general higher, but we suffer from more diseases, have slain untold masses, and are wrecking the environment at a record pace. How is that going to save us?

It's not. Technology is about bigger, better, faster, smarter, newer, snazzier . . . the list goes on. There are pills, machines, gadgets, replacement parts, vehicles, computers and Lord knows what-not to still be invented. The technologist will tell you that technology on the whole brings a lot of good with it, but technologists aren't the ones to point out what they're getting wrong. To them, to be fair, it's imply a matter of finding another innovation, another solution, then the problem's solved. The problem with this way of thinking, though, is that history doesn't bear it out. Ever since we learned to deal with fire, the technological path has been an exceedingly costly one in spite of all the alleged benefits.

No, it's not in the technological mind-set to save us. Granted, they might like to, but they aren't doing it, and in the end, that's all that matters. But what if they were better directed?

Can science save us?

Science can't save us. Well, that's the short answer. And if I already knew the answer, why even ask the question? The answer is that it's not just about whether, it's also about why. So why is it that science can't save us?

First, it is simply too ideologically burdened (it aims to describe, not explain, and certainly not to solve), it has a overly strong materialistic bias (except for a certain class of physicists), and it is far too concerned with itself. Second, science is mostly about knowledge, I suppose ... well, at least it used to be. We would know things, like how the world works, why the sky is blue and more recently that matter and energy are conserved, but who cares? Yes, that's the third reason. What do you do with knowledge? Most of it sits on the shelves of libraries, a lot of can be found on the Internet these days, but what do you do with it. The true scientist really doesn't care. The main thing is figuring it out. To the scientist, just about everything else is simply uninteresting.

There we are. Science is telling us that we hurtling toward The End. It can say, “Hey, you'd better stop burning fossil fuels or creating so much pollution.” but it's not their job, and they certainly don't see it as their job, to tell us how to solve the problem. They only answer questions they ask themselves. Other people's questions are for the most part, distracting.

No, science can't save us. It's not in its mind-set. So, if science itself isn't going to jump in and help, who can or will. And this brings us to technology, which we'll look at more closely next time.

Can we still hope?

To me, its quite obvious that the world's going to hell in a hand basket. This isn't just my youthful pessimism. As I pointed out just a couple of blogs ago, we may have already passed the Point of No Return environmentally. The climate-change deniers will tell you it's all a load of nonsense, the tree-huggers will tell you it's a done deal, but serious science tells us we're damn close to the precipice. You can believe what you want, but I'm going with science. At the moment, it's the most reasonable. Let's face it, primarily because of the deniers and the neo-liberal growth addicts, we're destroying the world faster than the rest of us can keep up. I think it is not unreasonable at all to start thinking about The End.

I mean, who's going to save us? (And this is assuming that we're worth saving at all.) The End means different things to different groups, of course. So-called Christians (especially the born-agains and evangelicals) have one idea about it, and materialists (especially the militant-atheist types, like Dawkins) have quite another. Personally, I think they're both in for a surprise.

There are a number of possible “saviors”: science, technology, politicians, Jesus, or God, just to name the most often mentioned and obvious ones. Maybe the right people in these various areas or the right miracles at the right moment could make the ultimate difference. Maybe ... perhaps ... I don't know for sure. It's something worth thinking about though, so I think that's precisely what I'll do.

In the next couple of posts, then, we'll take a look at the various possibilities, one by one.

Us vs them?

When you get right down to it, it has been quite a journey from the so-called evils of capitalism to being enriched by the culture of others. It's always a journey. It's always an adventure. It's what we call life. You can believe what you believe and you can advocate any system you want, but in the end -- and this is fate to which capitalism itself must submit -- is whether life, the world is ready to accept it. In the case of capitalism, it is obvious, the verdict has already fallen. The only ones unaware of this are, unfortunately, the capitalists themselves. Sure, they still have the power to destroy the world, to put an end to reality as we know it, but that won't be the end of everything; it will only be the end of capitalism and us.

As I have never tired of saying, there are alternatives. All of these, of course, are based on one simply premise (assumption, if you will), namely that "the other" (whoever and whatever that may be) is every bit as important as ourselves. We have to ask ourselves who these "others" are, but even a moment's reflection shows us that they are simply whoever is not us. I agree, that sounds rather simplistic. Of course the others are who are whoever I'm not, but it goes just a bit deeper than that. We assume, quite incorrectly I might add, that everybody is just like ourselves. Nobody is like ourselves. Our fate is that we -- each and every one of us -- is an individual and therefore unlike anybody else.

The paradox is that while we are are all individually unique, we share a number of ideas and beliefs, regardless of what our cultures have told us. For example, a modicum of food, clothing, and shelter are ideals that every one of us has. Add to this, a bit of security, to be reasonably healthy, to know that it's worth getting up for tomorrow. What all of this entails will vary of course: to some a warm bowl of porridge suffices, though for others it must be a multicourse meal. Though different in detail, both simply desire not to be hungry.

This is what I find so difficult to get my head around. Even is we are multicourse-meal types, why do we begrudge the other her porridge? I just don't know. It's an age-old problem, but it simply needn't be. Only the begrudger can make the difference, but only if he wants to. When we look out into the world today, it becomes pretty obvious very fast that too many multicoursers don't want to. That's bad, to be sure, but even worst, it is sad.

My sadness comes from the fact that I can see the day coming with our poor porridge-eater will have to go hungry because our I-have-to-have-more-for-me guy has found a way to get the porridge, too. At some point, it will all just blow up, most likely from the bottom. At the same time, as we have seen over the last few posts, from the top, the system is killing itself ... and it's taking every single one of us with it.

It's time to stop.

Those "others" that we so often despise and look down upon are really not trying to take anything away from us who falsely believe that we've worked hard and deserve all that we have. They, like the rest of us, just want to live something resembling a decent life. If we can't help make that happen, then we don't deserve what we have. It's very simple.

And when we consider how fast the world is getting small, it won't take long for many more to realize, it's not a matter of Us vs Them. It's only us.

The root of reality

When all is said and done, the world as we see it is nothing more than the world as we see it. Yes, it really is that simple, but in saying that, I have to acknowledge, that it really is rather complex. Not complicated, mind you, rather complex.

We only have our senses. We only have our own experiences to fall back on. But all of that, whether we like it or not, is individual, not necessarily valid for every other human being on the planet. What this tells me is that we should tread slowly. There's no use in proclaiming we've found the secret of life when in the end we have only found the secret of our own lives.

We share a lot with others, no doubt about it. And for this simple reason, it does us well to share with others whenever we can. Personally, I think it is even better when we can share more with others who are more different from ourselves than we can imagine. I have to admit that my current job, though not always the most exciting or demanding job I've ever had, offers me these particular kinds of opportunities to a degree I never thought imaginable.

Not only was I born into one culture, I have had the wonderful opportunity to be exposed to more: to have lived in a "home culture" other than my own (PA vs CA), to now live in a second version of a foreign culture (HE vs BW), but to spend most of my working time dealing with individuals with similar interests and concerns from very different cultures as well (AT, BE, CN, CZ, FR, ES, FI, FR, GR, HU, IT, JP, LI, LU, NL, PT, PL, SL, TR, UK, just to name the most frequently occurring). And, I can assure you all, my life has become all the richer for this reason. What I have learned is that there are so many different, but meaningful, ways of slicing up reality that it is hard to say ... no, it is impossible to say ... which one is "right" (or good, or proper, or most sensible). All of the people from all of these different cultures have all had something to share with me, be it emotionally or intellectually, and from each I have learned a little bit about who they are and what they think and how they see the world, but even more about myself. Each and every one of them has provided me with an additional "standard of comparison" for what I believe, think, and am.

All of this interaction has gone beyond the mere obvious, the superficial, the everyday. We have laughed and cried together, we've shared meals and experiences and sometimes tribulations together. Each time I was guest anywhere, my host has done what was humanly possible to allow me to experience the world as they experience the world. And, each and every time, my life has become richer because of it.

What fascinates and amazes me about all this is that not a single one of them has ever, ever asked for anything in return. The notion of self-interest, oddly enough, has never played a role in any of these experiences. Yes, I know, there are those who would like to reduce all of this to their simply wanting me to see their own culture more favorably. The problem is that to see them that way is to demean their sharing with me. I firmly believe that they all have done this for the very simply reason that they would like for me to at least once experience what reality means to them. I, for the other, am more than grateful for the opportunity.

Yes, I have tried to thank each and every one of them each time for what they have given me, but for the most part, they think it is self-evident that one would share. This is, when you really get down to it, a very basic, fundamental, human way of being. Sharing, it would seem, is much more basic, much more fundamental than any economic "system" could ever be. I don't know about you, but this give me plenty to think about. There are infinite ways to slice reality, but at root, there may not be such big differences after all.

Crossroads, threshold, whatever

There are enough alarmists running around: the end of the world, the end of history, the end of capitalism, the end of who-knows-what. I'm not one of them. On the other hand, we are faced with a number of serious issues which, much like the nuclear destruction of the world in the 1950s/Cold War, which could mean the end of all of us, if we don't wise up. There is no self-destructive, nefarious cabal hiding somewhere waiting to end everything as we know it. As Pogo said so long ago, "We have met the enemy, and he is us" (1953). As my mother never tired of saying, we're all our own worst enemies.

There is little doubt in my mind that if we continue (as a society and a world) along our current path, our day are numbered. We're polluting faster than we can find remedies. We're using up resources faster than we can recycle and find substitutes. We're polarizing each other faster than we can make friends. We're oppressing faster than we're freeing. In short, we are doing our damnedest to bring on the end nobody really wants.

It's not a big deal. I mean, why should I get all upset about any of this? If we destroy our basis for living, none of us will be around to be the wiser. OK, a whole lot of people will no doubt suffer and slowly die anquishing and painful deaths, but what the hell, wasn't it worth it. That second X-Box, that 17th Beamer, that €40,000 bottle of wine ... it all was worth it, right up to the end. And since there will be nobody left, there will be no one to give a rat's behind what we had or didn't have before we checked out of life. When we are gone, no one will be left to care one way or the other.

Still, I am one of those helplessly romantic people who think the earth is an overwhelmingly beautiful place. It is full of magic and wonder and beauty. It can put up with abuse than none of us can; it provides for all who are there, untill they take more than they deserve; it is, unquestionably, the greatest mystery that we can imagine. But, what the hell .. there's money to be made. Right.

Personally, I'm not all that excited or depressed about being or not being here when it all goes down the tubes. Chances are very, very good that I'll be gone before it happens. In a couple of decades, I'll barely be a memory in anyone's mind. Still, I have grandchildren, as do my siblings. By default, I have children who are going to outlive me. I may not care about what happens to me -- after all, I had my chance -- but I do care about what happens to them. That's just the kind of person I am. If I merely sit back and watch those who think they know do whatever the hell they please till there's nothing left for anybody, well, then I'm just as guilty as they are. I have no desire to die guilty ... not because I'm afraid I won't get into heaven, but because it simply isn't necessary that I do. I still have a voice (though faint), I still have the opportunity (though diminishing), and I still have the means (though restricted) to possibly instill a moment of doubt about the wisdom of the world as it is in any number of others.

No, it is not for me that I speak. It is for others who so far have no voice, no opportunity, and no means. The difference between me and many folks, but especially between me and the capitalists, is that others, "the other" (in philosophical terms) is more important to me than myself.

I'm not alone, I know. But I also know that I am an anathema to the current rational way of thinking. We are at a crossroads, or a threshold, or whatever. We all have to decide what we want to do. The upside is there are many options available. The downside is that TPTB want to think we don't have them.

You're choice. Your move.

The real problem with "arguments"

We like to think that we live in a rational world, even if there is craziness going on around us all the time. We assume that rational is normal and that craziness is not. Unfortunately, like so many other things, this is merely an assumption.

Though held in high esteem, rationality is little understood by those who advocate it most strongly. In the rational world, if this is right, then that must be wrong; if this is good, that must be bad; if it isn't one, then, by default, it must be the other. This is -- and you'll excuse my directness -- simply insane.

The rational mind, the mind that we exalt these days, is a mind of either-or: there are always only two options -- Republicans or Democrats, freedom or slavery, good or bad, right or wrong, capitalists or communists (or socialists, or whatever else they decide is "the other"). The rational world, it would seem, is reduced a mere black and white. It is this, or it is that. The trouble is, our experience tells us that it is anything but ... the world is not either-or.

Rationality, like so many other well-liked notions, is simply an unquestioned assumption. Who decided when and where that there were only ever to be two options. While I may agree that there are two sides to every question, who decided that we're asking the right question to begin with? This reduction to simplicity is a dangerous path to be following. It assumes that there are only two options. There aren't. There are as many options as we decide to allow.

I have long advocated that we start thinking about "reasonable" and abandon "rational". To be reasonable is to acknowledge that there may be a third, fourth, or who knows how many other options available. To be reasonable means we can try this because it seems like a really good idea, and when we find out it isn't working as expected, we can modify it, fine-tune it without having to throw out everything we've discovered thus far. To be reasonable means that everyone has a say, and what makes the most sense becomes clear.

Unfortunately, capitalists (to simply stay with the topic) are not reasonable people. They are absolute rationalists. The fact that their entire system is built upon questionable assumptions not only never occurs to them, they deny that such is even a possibility. If you base all you believe on one single notion -- in the capitalist's case: private property -- then a questioning of that notion, that assumption in this case, is a life-threatening act. As such, they are willing to resort to life-threatening actions to enforce their point of view (cf. the current escalation of political violence against the citizenry).

Capitalism can only work if private property is the non plus ultra of human existence. It is the most fundamental, basic and essential assumption upon which the whole idea rests. This is an assumption. And one which I question vigorously.

It has become so that property rights have now superceded, have now overwhelmed, human rights. We -- you and I -- both as members of a community and living breathing human beings, are no where near as important as whatever resources may be under our feet. We have created a system of belief that holds to be true that things are more important and more valuable that people. And this, all based on an assumption. It is supported, of course, by another assumption, that the world can be reduced to either-or, that we live in a rational world. This assumption is just as faulty.

The time has come, dear reader, that we all start questioning assumptions.

Even more problems with "arguments"

In most general terms, we can sum up our discussion thus far as "capitalism is an economic system that uses 'stuff' (money and resources) to produce other 'stuff' in an attempt to increase well-being". Like any other statement (and by now you should be getting the hint: the use of some words simply demand further clarification), this one raises a couple of questions as well, such as "Whose stuff?" and "Whose well-being?"

Today's free-market advocate will tell you that you should be able to use whatever is available anywhere it may be and in the end, all of us will benefit or be better off. I don't think that's a misstatement of the argument that is at the root of the current economic debate. And here we come to the crux of the matter.

The entire capitalist argument (more stuff is better for everyone) simply holds no water and this for the very simple reason that is based on an assumption, and this assumption is faulty. We assume that more stuff is better, even in the face of contradictory information. Yes, more stuff is better for some (limited few) but not for everyone. The assumption is that if I am doing better, you'll do better too. There's no evidence to support this, it is merely an assumption. In fact, capitalism (both as conceived and practiced) is built on a whole number of assumptions, all of which fail to hold up under scrutiny, but more on that later.

The real issue with all argumentation these days is that the arguments themselves are built upon assumptions that are never questioned, they are simply taken as givens, as if they were normal. They aren't. Capitalism, for example, has told us that more is better and the word they use to describe that is "progress". To them it is progress that we now have cars, and high-speed transportation, for example. These things make our lives "better". But what is better? That I have to spend four hours a day getting to and from work? That I see my family less because I spend so much time commuting? That the pollution that is caused by both cars and high-speed transportation which is demonstratably ruining our health and threatening the planet is a small price to pay for what? convenience? What is better about that?

We pick certain things, say they are more important than others, and everything is OK. But it isn't. Yes, we've been able to develop cures to a lot of diseases, and we've created as many more (either through stress or genetic and chemical manipulation that could eradicate our entire species); we have reduced the amount of time we need to meet our basic needs, but we've filled that free time with producing for others so that they may have even more than they already do; we have developed technologies that could connect us instantly, but we use them to oppress and control. You will have to excuse me if I don't get the whole "progress" argument.

The reason I don't is because it, like capitalism, is based on an assumption: more is better. We know that in most cases this is not true. Chocolate is good, more chocolate may have adverse effects on our health; security is good, more security quickly becomes surveillance which is not such a good thing. Assumptions are dangerous things. We should be careful when dealing with assumptions. Our biggest problem is that we assume that assumptions are true. They aren't, they are simply assumptions. We need to be able to question our assumptions in order to be clear on what we are really demanding. This is a learnable skill that, unfortunately, most of us have never learned, and which many more have never had the opportunity to learn. Fortunately, it's never too late to learn it.

The next time: a few (hopefully) helpful tips.

More problems with "arguments"

We're actually pretty safe with our assumptions about something as basic and physical as "breakfast". Nobody really cares if you want cold pizza, steak and eggs, cereal, bread and coffee or a three-course warm meal. There are other things, however, that others do care about (for whatever reasons), but they, too, function a lot like breakfast. We do them, believe them, advocate them, support them, and, sometimes even, fight for them ... because we don't realize that, in the end, they're just like breakfast.

Let's stick with "capitalism" because it's something we believe we all know something about and just about every one of us has some kind of opinion about it. When we leave the realm of the concrete (e.g. "breakfast"), we leave the world of "nomal" for the world of "right". We may think it is silly that other people eat cucumbers and tomatoes for breakfast, but as long as their amongst themselves, it really doesn't bother us, it doesn't really affect us, and so we simply don't care. When it comes to abstract ideas (and "capitalism" is an abstract idea), we start thinking in terms of right and wrong. It starts mattering to us because it affects us directly.

What most people overlook at this moment is the fact that we have placed one thing (breakfast) into an individual framework (even though other cultures may do it differently, everyone if free to have for breakfast whatever the hell they like) while the other thing (capitalism) is placed into a collective framework, and by that I mean a framework that extends beyond the individual. Capitalism affects all of us, regardless of culture. (Oh sure, there can be variations as to how it is implemented from culture to culture, but the fundamental principles remain the same.) So, what is this "-ism" that affects us all?

In its simplest form, I suppose we could say that "capitalism" is an economic way of thinking in which capital (most often money, but it could also be resources of other kinds) generates weath. That doesn't sound bad at all, does it? Sounds downright harmless, if you ask me, but we all know that there is a lot of angry discussion surrounding the term these days. My last few posts could be seen by some (not incorrectly) as a direct attack on that very simple principle. What could possibly be wrong with that? It's a good question, and one that deserves an answer.

In our simple definition, we have two concepts that, at least to me, need further clarification: "capital" and "wealth". We think we know what these are, but I would ask, do we really? Let's work backwards. What is "wealth"? In many quarters, this simply means being rich, having a lot of money, having more than enough to satisfy subsistence requirements (food, clothing, shelter) and to be able to have some joy in life. In other words, it has something to do with an abundance of material possessions that makes life "more worth living" (or something like that). If we trace the etymology (history) of the word, we find that it comes from the Middle English "weal", meaning "well-being"; the "-th" ending indicating "a state of"; that is, wealth, at root, means a state of well-being. Hey, who could argue with that?

One problem arises when we mistake the words for the reality. What actually is "well-being"? Do we agree on what the terms means? I don't think so. For some it means having a lot; for others it means have very little (minimalists). Who's right? And then, we have the matter of capital? What's that? As intimated above, sometimes it's money, sometimes it is other things, like land, natural resources, or more).

At this point the observant reader will realize that some kind of tension is building. To move on, we need to resolve that tension, which I'll attempt to do next time.

The problem with "arguments"

Having thought about the last couple of posts, I thought it might be a good idea to take a break and explain something so fundamental that we tend to overlook it. The human mind is a fascinating object of study. How we think, why we think the things we do, how we learn, what we remember ... the list truly goes on and on ... are really quite mind-boggling subjects. We know something about how the brain functions, but we know very little about how it works. And, what is even more important, we have hardly any idea what "consciousness" is and how it may (or may not) be related to the brain. All we know is that the brain is involved.

Now, I'm not going to clear these matter up by any means. I'm not even going address most of them. What I am going to address is one way that we come to believe things and why we are ready to accept some arguments while rejecting others, even though those we reject may be more compelling. I'm going to keep this simple, but I'm not going to make it simplistic. There are some things about the process than everyone can, and should, know.

We all gather sensory data through our five senses (smelling, tasting, touching, hearing, and seeing). We don't, however, gather exactly the same data. Instead, we gather this data and process it through all the filters that our parents, teachers, society, culture, and friends have helped us to create. We like certain things, dislike others, really love some things and hate others. We all experience the "same reality", but we process it in very individual ways. That's one side of the coin.

While the five senses are a great starting point for physical things, they are not so well suited for abstract ideas and notions, things that happen only in our minds. Some people prefer red to blue, others prefer liberals to conservatives, some think capitalism is good, others that it is evil incarnate. This kind of perception is what has always fascinated me the most.

The point is this: regardless of what we get through our senses, we process it through filters that we have consciously and unconsciously created. Our experiences, upbringing, society and culture have all played a very significant role in all this. I have to go back to my overworked "breakfast" example to explain: What do you eat for breakfast (usually)? Why? When you look around the world to see what other people think what constitutes a "normal" breakfast, you will most likely find yourself asking, "Why would anybody eat that for breakfast?" Yes, why? Because to them, it is normal. Whatever any of us has for breakfast is simply "normal" to us. No more, no less. There is not one normal, but all normals are equal. What we know, what we are used to, what seems to suit us is what we consider "normal". There is nothing to prove it, there are no reasons to justify it that would convince others to change their ways. It is simply a matter of assuming that whatever we (and those around us) do is "normal". In other words, normalcy is really nothing more than an assumption.

Assumptions, however, are rather tenuous things. What happens if we find that our assumptions are misplaced? What happens if it becomes clear that our assumptions are harmful? What do we do?

Good questions. More next time.