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.

Meaningless or meaningful: the choice is yours

The astute observer may have noticed, and the wary reader may have suspected, that the last of couple of blog threads were rather oddly intertwined. I say oddly merely because these themes are not often brought into close proximity with each other. Science, religion, a Christian holiday, paradox, politics and business are not often thought about together. We moderns -- especially the more rationally inclined among us -- love to separate, classify, keep apart and compartmentalize. (And if you can believe Bob Altemeyer, which I do, it would seem the authoritarian-minded amongst us are better at this than everyone else. Go figure. But that's another post for another day.) I'm convinced that's one of the reasons I have so much trouble getting anyone to pay attention or listen to what I'm saying: I'm often confusing the issue with the facts, or I'm talking about the other side of a given coin, or ... well, whatever.

Personally, I don't care if you're a hard-over materialist, militant atheist, fundamentalist or evangelical Christian, or simply a go-with-the-crowd-because-if-I-don't-show-up-for-church-on-Sunday-I-won't-have-any-friends believer. Really, it doesn't matter (or, as they used to phrase it where I grew up: it don't make me no nevermind). What you say you believe means very little to me. I'm an action-speaks-louder-than-words type, and what you do (including what you post on Facebook or other social media, whether you participate in demonstrations or boycotts, how you vote or the number of actual notches in your six-gun tell me most of what I need to know.

Yes, the world is full of theories, but we have developed good, sound, reliable, processes and rules for deciding which ones are the ones worth considering. Some call it the scientific method, some call it good-old common sense ... it doesn't matter. In the end, at bottom, when all is said and done, most things simply make sense, or they don't. Lord knows there are lots of people who can live without it, apparently, but I don't happen to be one of them.

There is a difference between whether something makes sense (generally) or whether something makes sense (to me .. and those who think like me). Take Easter, for example: there are those who believe that the Resurrection makes sense. To others, it is a mere myth. As I have never tired of saying, though, myth is more real than most of us like to think and whether a tortured and murdered Jewish rabbi rose from the dead 2,000 years ago is really not the issue. It's what we think it means that makes all the difference in the world. Or, take evolution: there are those who believe it is a fact, others who believe it is a theory, and still others who believe it is a bunch of crap. Theories are not truth, but they can be, and most often are -- good ones, at least -- helpful ways of thinking about things. But, here too, it's what we think it means that makes all the difference. There is, however, just a slight problem here, but it's an important one.

One of those unavoidable paradoxes of life is this one: does our (both personal and collective) existence have any meaning, or is it meaningless? You can't have it both ways. There are consequences -- far-reaching and existential -- to our decision on this matter. If life has meaning, then we have to say why and find a way to explain how things can be as screwed up as they are in this world. If life has no meaning, we can easily explain why the world is as screwed up as it is, but we're going to have a bit of trouble trying to justify why we just don't do whatever we want whenever we want, because in the end, it doesn't matter anyway.

That's the problem. The issue, however, is that if you choose "sense", then you must make clear to me what there is so much nonsense in our world. Are you putting it in, or are you cleaning it up? I have my suspicions, but ...

The root of paradox

To be sure, I'm the last person to claim we live in an either-or world. That's a mistake a lot of people make, though. For too many people these days, if you are not for A, you are automatically -- at least in their minds -- for B. That's ignorance in one of its simplest forms.

In general, between any two extremes, there is an infinite number of shades of gray, so to speak, just as there are an infinite number of numbers beween 0 and 1. Our computer geek wizard friends never tire of their digitality, but it is so limited and artificial, but too many ignorant souls like to think they also have something to say about life in general, but they don't. Not all opposites are digital. For example:

The opposite of "love" is "hate". We have two distinct words for these two notions and I think we all agree that they can be considered complementary; that is, there is some kind of scale along which you can go from one to the other. We characterisze the one as positive and the other as negative, which is a methaphorical way of describing them. Then we have single words that describe differences, like "temperature". To make clear what we mean, we use adjectives, like "hot" or or "warm" or "cool" or "cold" to describe just what we mean. There is a difference between, say, hot and cold, but it is not as extreme as are "love" and "hate". It's nice having a cold drink on a hot day, for instance. And then, we have what the Swiss-German cultural philosopher Jean Gebser characterizes as Ur-Wörter (that is, literally, "primal words"); that is a single word to identify a notion and its opposite all in one. For example, the Latin word altus (from which comes our English word "altitude) means both "high" and "low" or sacer (from which we get our English word "sacred") meands both "blessed" and "cursed"; or the Hebrew word GAL, a verb which can mean "to redeem" and "to defile". (In English, we only have one such word left: "cleave" which can mean "to cut apart" and "to meld together".) In the case of such primal words, of course, it is the context that gives the meaning away.

What this all tells us is that human beings haven't always had today's oh, so beloved if-you-not-with-us-your're-against-us mentality. There was certainly a time when the experiential situation brought forth the distinction; and there are times even now when we have to describe to which degree we want to express something, and we all know that the distance from love to hate can be no more than an exceedingly fine line. For the Ancients, all Life played out between 0 and 1 (cf. the Egyptians, the Pythagoreans, etc.), but around the time of the Renaissance, we finally made the split (we -- literally -- divided our thinking and became "rational", which we have imbued with positive connotations, even though the root of the word is division: ratio, as in a/b. Yes, we turned this notion on its head as well.

The point is that if you pursue a notion or a thought deeply enough, you come to a point at which is becomes paradoxical. This is, in fact, one of the primary methods for determining if you are getting to the root or wellspring of a concept, an idea, a notion. In other words, either-or, 0 or 1, is completely meaningless at the level of superficiality of everyday, modern life, regardless of what our geeky friends would have us believe. To delve into the depths, however, takes time, energy, willpower, fortitude, and a good dose of courage, which explains why most people never ever make the effort. It is so much easier to accuse another of not being for you, so obviously they're against you. But it is so only in your own mind.

Sometimes either-or is all you're left with

There is a tension between science and religion, which is, as we saw last time, more imaginary than real.

As most of you know, I'm not a big fan of religion per sé; that is, how those institutions that declare to represent a particular faith go about their business. By the same token, I've made it clear from time to time that I'm no big fan of science either, whereby I mean "science" in the same sense as "religion": how it is practiced by whomever declares themselves representatives of this non-spiritual form of faith.

Fundamentalism -- the most negative and least useful form of belief -- is not restricted to religions, as we commonly understand the term, rather it applies to any way of thinking that insists on belief in spite of facts and which restricts all methods and means of interpretation to those which they are willing to accept or sanction. We have religious fundamentalists that all of us more or less recognize and agree upon, but we have scientistic fundamentalists as well. Most often they make themselves known as militant atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, or revered figures of science who are taken to speak with authority on issues of which they know nothing and are eminently unqualified to pass judgement upon, like Stephen Hawking. Don't get me wrong: I think that both Dawkins and Hawking (who are merely examples, not personifications in any way) are very bright and intelligent people, but being bright is hardly qualification for anything.

There are a lot of bright people in the world. And I would bet that we all know someone every bit as bright or intelligent as Mr. Dawkins or Mr. Hawking, but for some reason, we don't accredit them with much authority at all, which is how it should be. Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, or the Dali Lama, for example, are both exceedingly bright and intelligent individuals. Both of them are capable of communicating deep insights into matters of a spiritual nature. But I don't know anyone who would go to either of them to find out whether reality may be a matter of wave-function collapse or for thoughts on whether there is validity to the multiple-universes hypothesis. And rightfully so. What doesn't make sense to me is why individuals like Dawkins and Hawking are allowed to make extra-subject-matter pronouncements that should be taken seriously while individuals like Sacks and the Dali Lama are not (though oddly enough, they don't, for they recognize limits to their own "authority), boils down to a simple fact: at the moment, there is a dominant belief system, and if you don't subscribe to it, you siply have nothing important to say.

Science-as-we-know-it assumes that matter is primary and everything else that we know to be the universe, or any part of it, derives from this basic starting points; this is the fundamental premise of materialism. Anyone coming from the religious or spiritual side of things assumes that G-d or something spiritual/non-physical is primary and everything else that we know to be the universe, or any part of it, derives from this basic starting point. And, the real issue involved is this: both are assumptions; neither can be proved; there is no way that we can know for sure which assumption is true.

In other words, when it comes right down to it ... literally ... we're left with an either-or situation: you can either believe the route to where we are and where we find ourselves is from matter-to-spirit, or you can believe it is from spirit-to-matter. At the moment, we're not aware of a third possibility (whereby, I, personally, don't believe we'll find a third one either).

At first glance, it may appear not to matter what we believe, but it does. Every action we perform, every statement we make, every decision we make can be traced back to this most fundamental distinction. More importantly, what we think, do or say all has unavoidable consequences for all our futures, and for that reason alone, we should get clear with our own selves, just where we're coming from.

Science and religion share more than you think

Recently, I've been reading a fascinating little book, namely Bernardo Kastrup's Brief Peeks Beyond: Critical Essays on Metaphysics, Neuroscience, Free Will, Skepticism, and Culture (iff Books, 2015). I know, some of you have already jumped ships and the rest are looking for any remaining lifeboats, but it's not what you think. Yes, the Enlightenment proclivity for book titles as long as the texts seems to be returning, but Kastrup's "essays" are reworked blogs and interviews for the most part, and are written in an engaging and easy-to-read way; that is, for the rest of us, not the professional philosopher or neuroscientist. Anyone with a little openness and willingness would find them both understandable and thought-provoking.

While reading, one of the essays on the theory of evolution and what Neo-Darwinists have unfortunately done with it, I was struck by an idea. Part of the striking goes back to a post I made not long ago on how so many classic authors are seriously, if not maliciously, misquoted, as the victim this time is not Adam Smith but Charles Darwin. Now there's a really nice guy that got a bum deal.

To almost everyone, Mr. Darwin is known for his evolutionary principle of the "survival of the fittest". As you might have guessed, though, Charles never said, nor wrote that. Truth be told, he adamantly opposed the notion which was actually put forth and promoted by Herbert Spencer, not unsurprisingly an economist (because we saw in that other post what happens apparently when economists read, or something like that). Of course, these days, economists are quick to quote this non-Darwinian "truth". No, Darwin himself promoted the idea of "cooperation" as the most favorable factor in evolutionary survival and benefit. He spent years hoping to find a genetic link to it, of course, without success.

This blarney about the fittest (meaning in most instances the so-called strongest) surviving is a one of those ideas that appear intuitively obvious and brilliant, until you think about them. The strongest is the one that has to constantly prove his strength, so he's the one that fights the most and has, as a matter of simple consequence, the greatest chance of gettting killed. While all the tough guys were out and about getting their genes eliminated from the gene pool, the more reflective (and I'll readily admit, cowardly), but certainly more cooperative types were adapting our plans to get through this life and our genes into succeeding generations. And what the overwhelming evidence that we have for the notion of evolution is that we cooperative types were simply more successful, as is the case in every other species on earth.

Put another way, those who are willing to share -- quite simply, adjust their behavior positively toward others -- be it food, shelter, knowledge, comfort, and love, live longer in this life and through the lives of their offspring.

Similarly, Stan Tenen at the Meru Foundation has pointed out that not only is the so-called Golden Rule the most widely spread principle common to all the world's religions, he reminds us that the science writer Michael Shermer has argued that the Golden Rule "does not rest on any underlying religious belief, but rather is simply the most logical and reasonable way for a human to behave". That is, doing to others as you'd like them to do unto you is, well, the essence of sharing, isn't it?

Those who think the world is too huge and complex for us to understand are simply avoiding the obvious. In the end, at bottom, life is really rather simple. For as complex as evolution may seem to be, it works best for those who share. For as much as we like to insist on how different the different religions are, they share the most fundamental tenent in common. And for those who think that science and religion are incompatible, well, apparently you never really stopped to look at or think about either.

Quite often, life is only as tough as we make it.

Happy Easter!

Just in case you were wondering, I have to admit that I'm enjoying this Easter a little more than some in the past. Oh, sure, the weather is more or less cooperating (I remember snowstorms, frost, sleet and rain on some); but I am also sort of enjoying the squirming some of the non-Orthodox Christians are going through this year. This isn't schadenfreude, it's merely an observation.

You will recall that the Roman Church and most Protestants would rather celebrate Christmas than Easter. For many of them, as is the case for many moderns regardless of persuasion, spirituality is a bit difficult to deal with. By focusing on the physical we can avoid all that messy metaphysical stuff. Up until now, the Paulites had the say: Jesus was killed for your sins; own up to it, accept it, proclaim it (preferably loudly) and you're home free (as far as the Protestants were concerned; you had to register this, so to speak, with the authorities and the Catholics considered you part of the club).

Unfortunately, this is just one view: Paul's. There are still some "weirdos" out and about, however, who think that Christianity has something to do with what Jesus said and did while he was alive, that what was important was not so much what you say, but what you actually do. The way I see it, this is precisely the approach that Papa Frank is pushing. I can't begin to imagine that he's making a lot of friends with it either. And that's why I'm feeling a little more upbeat today than usual.

So, whether you're getting ready for spring, looking for hidden eggs with the kids, having a special dinner, or simply wondering what others might be celebrating, I hope you have fun doing it, and I hope you have fun doing it with others. Easter should be, in my view, a family holiday. It's as good a reason as any to simply get everyone together and to spend some special time, eating, drinking, and being merry.

Yes, live it up. After all, that's what this particular holiday is supposed to be about.

Maundy Thursday

It is clear to me that many who read these posts regularly are bothered, if not downright offended, when I compare our current plutocratic capitalism to a religion. What is interesting, to me at least, that some of the upholders of that view are bothered as well as others of faith are bothered. That's a good thing. We should be bothered by ideas from time to time.

The advocates of "the system" like to think they are not religious, but I think it's pretty clear they are. They simply have a different set of beliefs that those who believe they are religious. The patterns are the same, the mechanisms are the same, there are rituals and professions of "true belief" involved, and -- most unfortunately -- the outcomes are pretty much the same (more death and destruction than life and growth). The religionists don't like it because they think being compared to a secular club somehow denigrates their religion. It only does if you allow it to, or if you practice what you call religion in such a way that it is hard to distinguish from its secular counterpart. That's where we are by all who believe that their religion is the true religion. This applies to fundamentalists of all stripes, but considering the real-life timing of this post, we're going to concentrate on our Christian friends.

Today marks the real beginning of the Passion of Easter. It should be, by all rights, the highest four days of devotion for all those who call themselves Christian. We need to remember: no Easter (that is, no death and resurrection) there's no Christianity. It's very existence depends on the events of these days 2,000 years ago. As it is, it is the Eastern Church, the so-called Orthodox varieties, who make this holiday the high point of the year. For the Roman Catholics and Protestants, it's Christmas; that is the celebration of the physical birth. If we look at the contention that Jesus was crucified, put to death, buried and arose again on the 3rd day, well, then what we are dealing with here is a spiritual birth. Religions, being by nature spiritual, you'd think that today would be the kick-off of the time of greatest celebration, but it isn't. We're going to spend a lot more time looking for hidden eggs and eating chocolate.

It's not exactly clear to me why, but I do have my suspicions.

The new religion

Don't get me wrong. I am more than aware of the power of beliefs. I may say that these are "simply" things that some folks believe, but "mere" beliefs have been the root of some of the most heinous atrocities in the history of humankind.

The problem is that it is an extremely small step from "belief" to "true belief", from "believers" to "true believers". True believers are not be questioners. By that I mean that they are not renowned for questioning those beliefs. Not only are they believed, they are accepted as true, they are taken as fact, and, in the end, it becomes heresy (or some kind of crime) to call them into question at all, to even hint that they may, well, questionable. And that's where we are with neoliberalism these days.

It would seem that we are confronted with a new religion. Neoliberalism, as currently advocated and practiced, has all the trappings of religion and its power is comparable, if not in excess, of its religious predecessors, be it the Islamic Expansion after the death of the Prophet Mohammed or the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. More specifically, it exercises its power through violence.

How many infidels were converted by the sword? How many non-believers were brutalized, tortured and executed for challenging the authority of the Church? And today, be it through the outright dictatorial oppression that the peoples of Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Poland, Russia, Southeast Asia, and post-Colonial Africa were (and in many cases still are) forced to endure, or the ravaging of whole economies by the World Bank and IMF, as is happening to Greece, or the militaristic corporate state that has taken root in the United States, how many of been beaten, arrested, imprisoned and persecuted for resisting the Power of the Market?

No, the pattern, the motivations, the modus operandi, the justifications, the argumentation ... it is all the same. Whereas the victims of religious zeal were at least promised a life of peace and happiness in the hereafter, in the New Dispensation you are condemned to Hell on Earth: insecurity, fear, pain, poverty, illness and arbitrary violence as the preferred means of control.

Or, as the new High Priests like to proclaim: or so have you chosen. Only you are to blame for your plight.

Oh, how far we have come.

When the inmates run the asylum

Now, for those of you who have "drunk the (neoliberal) Kool-Aid", so to speak. I'm sure you've got your undies in a knot over how I can just slough off things you so dearly believe in. My point is simple: each of the 10 items I listed as central to a neoliberal world view are, at bottom, nothing but beliefs, articles of faith, if you will, because they have no justifiable basis in reality. None of them are true. None of them are facts. They are, simply stated, just things you believe.

So, for the anal-retentive types among you, my point-by-point refutation:

1. Individuals act solely in their own self-interest.
   Please explain altruism to me. Provide any evidence that, say, evolutionarily speaking cooperation is not advantageous.
2. This self-interest is "enlightened".
   What does "enlightened" mean in this context? How does everyone looking out for him/herself automatically become "for the good of all"?
3. Markets should be free.
   What does "free" mean? If left to their own devices, where is the historical evidence that markets work to the benefit of the majority, not the minority?
4. Deregulation is desirable.
   See previous point.
5. Allowing private interests to dominate over government interests leads to more efficiency in the market.
   What does "efficiency" mean? Name one privatized sector in which public services are being provided at costs lower and more people are served with fewer resources than if the government were doing it.
6. Social spending is wasteful.
   Since social spending is, by definition, for the good of all, define "wasteful" in this context. Explain how spending $3bn on food stamps, for example, is "worse" than providing companies with $4 billion in tax breaks and subsidies.
7. Trade liberalization benefits all.
   Any evidence whatsoever would be appreciated.
8. When the owners of capital benefit, everyone benefits.
   If neoliberalism works, why do we have wealth/income inequality in the first place?
9. Those who capitalize more, deserve more.
   Based upon which criteria?
10. Property rights take precedence over all other rights.
    Why? Why is property so important to begin with?

In other words, where are the facts to back up the assertions? Where is the evidence to support the principles? If you can't show it, I am perfectly justified in thinking that these are not things that "are", rather they are simply things that you believe.

The fruits of delusion

The most extensive and exacting look at Friedman's and The Chicago School of Economics' approach has been presented by Naomi Klein in her eminently readable book The Shock Doctrine. She traces the path of influence and implementation of Friedman's and neoliberalism's activities over the past 40+ years, starting withe Chile, moving on to Argentina, Bolivia, Poland (post Solidarity Movement), Russia (and Yeltsin), South Africa, the Asian "tiger economies", through Thatcherism, Reaganism, up to the financial crash of 2008. I'm not saying that this isn't a controversial book. It is. But, it's well documented, well argued, and, in the end, pretty much on target.

Practically every principle or precept that neoliberalism holds to be true fails to hold up in reality. Free markets don't exist, but it's not that they haven't been free enough. Instead, we see that without massive government intervention (for example, as in Iraq), markets are not capable of organizing themselves. Without regulation, businesses, left to their own devices, will seek protected markets, government subsidies, and monopoly status to protect their interests, not the greater good. It turns out, in practice, that self-interest is anything but enlightened, rather Gecko's maxim, "Greed is good", prevails. Yes, a few benefit -- greatly, even outrageously -- but most of us are left by the wayside.

Yes, the neoliberal program has been forced through again and again, and the result is always the same: unfree markets, dictatorial governments, the widespread abuse of human and other rights, oppression, destruction, and, if necessary (or not), war to provide the shock that is needed to ... well, it is not clear what the real goal is. The non-violent, non-military, non-CIA-induced regime-change applications of the theory, say, in the UK or USA, has produced nothing more than rising unemployment, demonization of the poor, and a wealth inequality unparalleled in the history of the world. If there has ever been a failed mode of thought, this is it, yet it lives, thrives and is perpetuated, in particular in organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The (now discredited) policy of austerity is their non-military application of their principles. The Greeks are the latest victims, but, I can assure you, they will not be the last.

If so many lives were not at stake, we could afford ourselves the luxury of intellectual refutation, as Sheldrake's case against science demonstrates. These principles of neoliberalism, however, are not mere intellectual postulates. It is possible, rather easily, I might add, to demonstrate clearly how incredibly inapplicable any one of these "dogmas" are. Not a single one holds true. Not a single one is supported by any real-life evidence. Not a single one is defensible on realistic or real-life ethical grounds, but they are the New Gospel of Salvation.

Those who believe, however, are those who benefit from such ideas. Those who believe have access to the power brokers and law makers worldwide. Those who believe are responsible for the pain, suffering and even death of so many innocent human beings. If there has ever been a system of faith, a system of belief, a "religion" that broaches no other, neoliberalism is it.

References
Klein, Naomi (2007) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Picador, New York.

More on economics' delusion

It should be becoming clearer that this science of economics is a bit difficult to pin down. A lot of what happens in the world and what happens to all of us depends on what economics says should be. It would be worthwhile then, in parallel to Sheldrake, to identify those precepts of economics that are driving policy and law makers these days. Here is my suggested list ... those things that "economics" asserts to be true:

1. Individuals act solely in their own self-interest.
2. This self-interest is "enlightened".
3. Markets should be free.
4. Deregulation is desirable.
5. Allowing private interests to dominate over government interests leads to more efficiency in the market.
6. Social spending is wasteful.
7. Trade liberalization benefits all.
8. When the owners of capital benefit, everyone benefits.
9. Those who capitalize more, deserve more.
10. Property rights take precedence over all other rights.

If in fact economics (and granted, this is the currently dominant, neoliberal version of the subject that we are considering) is a science, even only a descriptive one, then we should be able to find evidence in our experienced reality that bears out these principles. So the question is: can we? I think even a cursory review of the list reveals they're not even close.

What I've described in those 10 points above is more or less the position that Milton Friedman advances in his seminal text, Capitalism and Freedom, the "Bible" of Neoliberal Economic Theory. This is the text that drives most of what has been happening from the policy side since the early 1970s. There should be a good body of evidence in support of these principles. Is there?

Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "no". Not a shred.

But wait, you say, where and when has any of this been "tested", in any sense of the word? And to that I can only respond: in too many places and in too many ways, but that's a subject for next time.

References
Friedman, Milton (2002/1962) Capitalism and Freedom, 40th anniversary edition, with the assitance of Rose Friedman, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

The economics delusion

The unexpected question (and the implied answer) were a bit surprising, I know. Every once in a while, a writer needs to wake up his or her reader. Good morning (or afternoon or evening or whatever, depending on when you are). We need to dig a little deeper.

The English philosopher R.G. Collingwood once defined "science" in a rather simple and straightforward way. He said that science is "a body of systematic or orderly thinking about a determinate subject-matter" (p4). Thinking systematically, in turn, is "answering questions intelligently disposed in order. The answer to any question presupposes whatever the question presupposes. And because all science begins with a question (for a question is logically prior to its own answer) all science begins with a presupposition" (p63).

I like this definition for two reasons. First, it certainly allows us to look at economics as a science (and the definition is equally applicable to the natural sciences as well). Second, it emphasizes (and reinforces) the point I have been making and that Sheldrake presented so forcefully, namely that all sound thinking starts with assumptions (and it would do us well to be aware of what these are).

When seen as systematic thinking, we can see what economics is up to. They should be able to develop theories, even if they can experiment with them, that can be used to explain what's going on around us. Those of us who were forced into economics classes in the course of our schooling and those who take an interest in more than sports have come to know some of the general principles that economics proposes: supply-and-demand (high demand, high prices, for example); too much money in circulation equals inflation; and more, but our experience also shows us that these principles (which economists like to pass off as "laws", which they aren't) don't always work. Anyone who thinks that gasoline prices, for example, are driven by supply-and-demand, is out of touch with reality. I've seen prices vary by as much as 10 euro cents per liter between 9:00 am and 2:00 pm. What we all drive to work but don't have to go home? No, it's the little things that give it away.

It turns out that economics, then, spends most of its time developing (mathematical) models that describe what is going on around us. My question is, just how helpful is that? I'm not convinced they are very helpful at all. All that economic commonsense that most of us were exposed to just doesn't seem to reflect what is really going on. Oh sure, the economists would like us to believe that the world has become so much more complicated that it's hard keeping up with reality. Truth be told, though, their models are just that models. Reality ... well, that's whole other story ... as any of us living there can tell you.

It's here that we see the weakness of Collingwood's definition, that is true, but it's the best one we have right now. There is systematic thinking about a subject matter going on. The problem is, however, that the thinking about the subject matter has little, if anything, to really do with the experience of the subject matter. In other words, it would seem that economics may have simply said adieu to reality. If that's the case, who cares if it is a science or not?

So it is to that, and its consequences, that we will turn to next time.

References
Collingwood, R.G. (1998/1940) An Essay in Metaphysics, Revised edition, with an Introduction and additional material edited by Rex Martin, Clarendon Press, London.

Is economics even a science?

There will be some of you who will be somewhat shocked by today's title. I think it's a legitimate question. When we reflect upon what Sheldrake presented and argued, we recognize that it is focused very much on what we call the "natural (or hard) sciences". The Queen of these is, of course, Physics, but chemistry and biology are well represented at court. Nevertheless, it is worth asking ourselves what constitutes a "science".

First and foremost, we should recall that the word "science" comes from the Latin verb scire which means "to know". Science is, then, at heart, a way of knowing. As such, it is more of a method than object. As most of us were taught in school, this method was considered the only really legitimate pathway to knowledge (and by extension, truth). The scientist came up with an hypothesis, performed experiments to confirm or refute that hypothesis, and based on the data and evidence collected through experimentation, s/he would revise the hypothesis and continue their research. Other scientists were invited to join in and contribute. In this cooperative and disciplined way, our knowledge base grew and progress was achieved. One of the strongest advantages of this approach was that if we knew what causes brought about which effects, we could make reasonable and accurate predictions. If this and this are the case, and that happens, then we would know the outcome.

A first look at economics in this light, however, makes it pale by comparison. Oh sure, you can form an economic hypothesis, but how do you perform an economic experiment without potentially endangering the well-being of a huge number of people? Breaking economic relationships down into manageable pieces in order to perform experiments, however, so changes the nature of those relationships that they no longer are valid for making predictions based on the outcomes. So, economics is certainly not a science in the same sense that physics, biology or chemistry are sciences.

Economics, then, was forced down a very different path. At best, it could attempt to objectively observe economic phenomena and then based on those observations, derive and formulate theories that would explain them. If this and that condition arose in a market, then one could predict what the consequences would be. Unfortunately, economics' hit rate was far lower than that of the natural sciences. It is not just that economic phenomena are perhaps more complex than physical, biological or chemical ones ... and we can well imagine how complex many of these are ... rather, there were too many factors that could affect the outcomes, not the least of which was the highly unpredictable role that people play in these situations. Humans are particularly good at surprising even themselves and doing something totally unexpected. That makes life for the economist particularly difficult.

This doesn't mean that there's nothing to salvage here and that we should just toss economics out the window. Given the role it plays in our lives, there must be a way of dealing with it, and I believe we can find some sound common ground upon which to stand. What this is and what it means for economics in particular, however, we'll look at next time.

More on science's delusion

There are many phenomena in the world, many experiences that we all have had (and will continue to have) that the scientific, materialistic worldview cannot and will not be able to explain. Any probability specialist worth his or her salt will tell you that the Universe isn't old enough in seconds to account for the random combination of anything into anything looking the least bit like life, let alone what we know as human life. The mere fact that the known visible universe only accounts for 4% of the matter and energy that there should be (according to physicists' calculations) leaves the experts stumped. Today's science can't tell you how we can see, how any of our senses really work, how thoughts and memories are generated or stored, or, most importantly, why we're even conscious at all. To some current philosophers of mind, consciousness is simply an illusion: it shouldn't be there, we don't know how it got here, so in essence, we should just ignore it. It doesn't matter because it isn't matter. I don't know about you, but I can't help but feel that the flat earth is not far behind. Two-thousand years of "scientific" and philosophic inquiry and that's all we have. Not an outstanding show.

The problem with basing "science" on these dogmas, as Sheldrake calls them, is that what most of us naively understand science to be isn't really practiced anymore. When I was going to school, we were told that science was a rigorous, structured way of exploring, testing, and validating the world. It conducted experiments, collected data and facts and combined them into theories that could further be tested, validated or falsified. When enough data was collected that no longer fit with the existing explanation, the theory was revised, new hypotheses were formulated and everyone moved forward again. Unfortunately, that is not always the case any longer. Not all questions worth asking are even permitted to be asked. It's sad really, because we are limiting ourselves before we even start. When certain questions are simply out-of-bounds, you have to start asking yourself "why"? At least I know that I do.

The parallels to the Church of the Middle Ages are overwhelming: the sun revolves around the earth/everything consists of matter; the earth is flat/there is no goal or purpose to existence; the cosmos is eternal/mass and energy are conserved. No questions necessary. The answers have been conveniently predetermined. And, the powers that control these answers see to it that even nascent challenges are simply nipped in the bud.

Sheldrake's point is that we must now rise up and resist the dogma. If we want to know what is what, we need to challenge the established orthodoxy. We need to demand that science live up to its true nature, that it, once again, become a way of knowing and understanding the world and everything in it. There can't be unaskable questions. Any question that can be asked deserves an answer ... or at least the reasonable, sensible search for one.

And so, the next time, we'll take a similar look at "the dismal science", economics, to see how it measures up.

Science's delusion

Let's start by taking a look at Sheldrake's case.

It may seem odd casting the august notion of science into the guise of religion, but it appears that this is precisely what has happened. As Sheldrake points out, challenging these articles will ensure that you receive no funding for your research. You will be excluded from conferences, you won't get your papers published, and if you insist on pursuing this heretical path, you will eventually be excluded from the community ... what the Church called Excommunication.

The institution that perpetuates this belief, that is the Keeper of Its Keys, of course, is the modern university. Godwin (1986) has drawn a poignant parallel between the role played by the Church in the Middle Ages and the role played by The Academy today, complete with rites, rituals and regalia that reflect the pomp and power of those deemed worthy to go forth into the world to be "experts"; that is, purveyors of the True Faith.

Some of you will take this for an exaggeration, but try obtaining grants for your research without the right papers and credentials, try gaining acceptability and respectability without the proper sigils and seals. You might have the cure for cancer in your head, but without the proper documents, authorizations and blessings of the Key Keepers, you will remain a non-descript, unknown novice, who will long have been forgotten before you were ever really known. Yes, there are vested interests involved, and they broach no rebellion.

It would be worthwhile, I believe, to at least list these ten Articles, for while I will not have time to deal with them individually in detail, they do establish a reasonable and comprehensible starting point for uncovering their true nature. On pages 7 and 8 of Sheldrake's book, he lists them (and discusses them in detail throughout the rest of the text), and I'll state them only briefly here:

1. Everything is essentially mechanical.
2. All matter is unconscious.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same.
4. The laws of nature are fixed.
5. Nature is purposeless and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Two things are immediately apparent. First, Sheldrake, being a biologist and chemist by trade, has focused on what we would call the "natural sciences", not necessarily science in general. Second, the philosophy of science that he is challenging is called "materialism". The idea is that everything ... absolutely everything ... can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry, for the most part. If it isn't anchored in matter, it can be ignored. Genes are responsible for heredity, mutated genes are responsible for differences over generations, everything happens by random chance, and that's it. Unfortunately, that's not it at all.

And that's where we'll pick up next time.

References
Godwin, Joscelyn (1986) "Priests, Professors, & Gurus: When the Academy is a Church the Hermetic Professor becomes a Heretic", Gnosis Magazine, No. 2, Spring/Summer, pp. 35-38.

Sheldrake, Rupert (2012) The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., London.

Seeds of delusion

The observant reader will have noticed that over the last few posts, a certain theme continually recurs, namely that too often we only think we know things when in fact we merely believe that things are a certain way. This error is much more widespread than we generally assume. The reason for it, however, is rather simple and straightforward, and I have been stating it in various ways throughout these posts as well. To put it another way, we fall into the belief trap when we fail to question our own "givens", when we do not question the assumptions we make. Whatever we take for granted, we think is, well, just however it is, that it is clear, obvious, even commonsensical, when, truth be told, it is none of these things.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. All of us assume that certain things are simply a certain way. We don't think about them, we don't question them, we just pick them up and run with them. I am convinced that in our current state of development as human beings, there are some things we just can't know. We can only assume, but the difference between the masses and the thinking individual is that the latter has taken the time, expended the energy and become aware of what it is that s/he is assuming, believing, identifying as their own starting point for their point-of-view. In other words, what is needed more and more is that we make ourselves aware of just where it is we ourselves are coming from. It may not be an easy task, but it is a worthwhile one, to be sure.

On this particular note, I was recently, reading Rupert Sheldrake's insightful critique, The Science Delusion (published in the USA as Setting Science Free). He advances the thesis that the current edifice of "science" is built upon the foundation of ten unchallengeable "dogmas" that establish the framework and the ground rules for what is acceptable and legitimate. Rather than being incontrovertible facts, or truths, these are in fact, assumptions lacking basis in fact. They are, if you will, the "givens" which form the starting point of all inquiry. They must be accepted, they may not be challenged, for doing so relegates the perpetrator to the fringes of the scientific establishment. In a word, they are Modern Science's Ten Articles of Faith. (Sounds famililar, doesn't it?)

Well, what I would like to do over the course of the next few posts is to pick up on Sheldrake's critique but extend it to the so-called science of economics. This particular "science" has taken over center stage in all of our lives. We are now living in a thoroughly economized world. Economics and economic thought permeate every aspect of our existence. The economic argument is the killer argument, regardless of the topic, and the currently accepted school of thought, neoliberalism, has, like science itself in more general terms, turned itself into something of a religion. There are certain doctrines that they hold to be true and inviolable, even if, at bottom, they are mere assumptions masquerading as fact. They are not only beliefs, they are unconscious beliefs. My goal will be to explore the parallels and perhaps seek some possible solutions for the future.

We'll get down to business, so to speak, next time.

Reference
Sheldrake, Rupert (2012) The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., London.

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?