plinyblogdotcom

The mise-en-scène, viz., people, having been portrayed in the preceding writing, it would seem useful to discuss their inter- dynamics in “Society”, its definitional province. The previous context of “awareness is not merely a regular or quotidian state of consciousness of others; however, the subject of their overt interpersonal relationships may be more consequential

It should require no argument to maintain that interactive behavior, speech, and actions constitute the behavioral epoxy that binds together human Society.” Ranging from routine, verbal recognition of personal identity to the empirical existence of talk, or possibly, political or esoteric conversation, the universal exchange of thoughts and sentiments ( by the overt use of the nuanced relevant language) is the existential ingredient in all societal relationships. The same may be also evinced in joint projects as well as the verbal exchange of mutually accepted principles. Notably, an individual member of society may be identified or distinguished by his notable point of view.

Notwithstanding differences in secular political, religious, scientific, or ethical beliefs or practices, the fundamental dynamic of the discussed exchange of thought and principle is vital to the systemic existence of the societal relationship.

The thoughtful and selective choice of words is of paramount importance to the existence of meaningful and utilitarian verbal interaction. Their selective choice should be based on the speaker’s perceptive use of words thought closest to his intended message. The sensitive speaker is eternally aware that there are synonyms which have a common message, albeit vary in degree, or syntactical effect, from the nuance of his intended communication. The casual selection of lexicon is, on occasion, vulnerable to dispute as to the recollection of what, indeed. was said. It is at relevant times, of utility to be familiar with the persona and nuanced tone of the speaker in the complete understanding of his intended communication.

Readers of this blogspace are doubtlessly familiar with our eternal opposition to the smartphone, which severely mitigates the intended impact, meaning, and context of the spoken word, as well as its timely relevance; and, notably, its humanity. We have related many of its reported negative impacts, emotionally and socially.

The contemplative and discerning individual should be aware that, in an appropriate context, meaning may be clearly articulated by relevant action as well as words.

-p.

With all the distractions, positive and otherwise, engaging our attention, certain consequential constituents of interactive life are given insufficient consideration. One cogent illustration relates to the personal dynamic of “awareness” of self in relation to others; an existential in the functional classification of our” species, Homo “Sapiens”.

Recognition of, and sensitivity to, the societal element of “awareness” provides the exclusive route not only to one’s successful rational life but, notably, to his appropriate and morally responsible interaction with other human beings. The late, wise Elie Wiesel sagely observed that “The opposite of love is not hate but indifference.” We would observe that a serious impediment to meaningful communication and appropriate interaction with our fellow man is the proximate result of insufficient awareness, personal, inter-personal, and ambient.

The existence and endurance of meaningful relationships are made possible and enduring by one’s inclination to mutual understanding, compassion, and, when appropriate, empathy. The exclusive singularity of self-concern, predictably, results in a life experience characterized by the absence of mature perception, personal feelings of isolation, and of ultimate abject non-fulfillment.

The signature route to achieving societal success is through understanding and a compassionate sense of social commonality and universal identification as “Fellow Man,” and, notably, constitutes the impetus for appropriate, relevant action and response.

It is distressing to note that a thematic exemplar of the contextual human failing, empirically evincing total absence of inter-personal awareness, is, bizarrely and tragically, our unconventional President, Donald J. Trump, unfortunately, an instructive avatar of the thematic disability. He has been ubiquitously and accurately described as “living in his own personal bubble.”

Current events have been painfully descriptive of the plentitude of ubiquitous, dire, and inhumane consequences, domestic and international, of Trump’s such evident disability, including his unauthorized declarations of war, his threats to destroy the Iranian civilization, elimination of medicine and food assistance, and other horrific atrocities; such callous acts, notably, being the consequent product of his living, as described, in his own private, self-interested “bubble.”

Donald Trump’s self-interested, cruelly impactful actions have given rise to millions of Americans participating in public protests and the advent of serious consideration of Presidential removal, in accordance with applicable provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Remarkably, the Chief Executive of the most powerful Nation on Earth remains a rare and outstanding exemplar of the thematic, myopic impediment of exclusive self-concern and neurotic insularity. We predict that his present successes in his insatiable need for feelings of political success will eventually decline in subjective importance and be replaced by a predictable acknowledgement of emptiness and justified and implacable discontent.

-p.

We find it disappointing that Mankind has never been able to adequately comprehend the nature and intrinsic dynamics of human “life.” The empirical reach of reason in such endeavor appears to be beyond Man’s potential capability, analogous to his present inability to conceptually envision and empirically consider astronomical descriptions of distances expressed in multiple light-years.

We have come to the personal understanding that the electro-chemical phenomenon of “life” is temporarily contained within the human body, and further, that when it ceases, what is factually buried at funerals is but the “container” or functioning machine of life and not the singularity of the relevant persona. Like other existing questions beyond the human ken, the institution of Religion, for many, has conveniently and blithely filled in the gaps.

However, the principle that human life is irreplaceable and singularly valuable. is universally accepted. “Right to Life” adherents would choose to maintain that life begins at the formative, chemically developmental stage (the “fetus”), a subject of ongoing legal and moral contention. Most rational individuals, religious and secular, however, believe that life begins at birth. There is, however, universal agreement as to its singular. precious and irreplaceable value, and that Nature’s grant of the franchise of life is no less than sacrosanct. Notably, there is no conceivable societal evil comparable to intentional homicide.

The most abjectly evil charge is “Crimes Against Humanity,” established at the Nuremberg Trials, following the end of World War 2. The latter were the public trials of Nazi Officers who ordered the killing of millions of people, principally Jews. The historically referable events were a cogently ethical and humanistic reminder that human life is precious and irreplaceable. The sadistic perpetrators were hanged; a retributive sanction, albeit ultimately inadequate to mitigate or rectify the ultimate evil of mass murder.

The traditional punishment, of capital punishment for homicidal behavior, is legally retributive and perhaps societally instructive, but not in any way redemptive, relative to nature’s singular grant of the franchise of human life. Its historical and legal justification has done little to articulate the intrinsically singular miracle of human life, aside from the context of the penalty for its pathological destruction. Retribution by State homicide is of little metaphysical use in the assertion of the sanctity of the franchise and the uniquely precious singular value of human life.

Our sense of moral responsibility has been the basis for our opposition to the atavistic institution of Capital Punishment. In addition to our view that it is forbidden by the Constitution’s mandate against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Added to the barbaric institution are the occasional technical glitches, chemical or electrical, causing unspeakable suffering to the convicted murderer, and the occasional instances of unjust conviction; its retributive value is far outweighed by its cruel, temporal rationalization of the primitive standard of “an eye for an eye.” The foregoing Biblical principle of criminal justice may satisfy a primitive sense of just retribution, but it does nothing to ameliorate the tragic impact of the underlying crime and empirically doubles the number of killed individuals “Tit for tat” is the most primitive form of justice; reparations and conceivably, reparations (personal or financial), for example, would be more rational and pragmatic.

The State’s atavistic rationale for the imposition of capital punishment for homicide is empirically a repetition of the undeniably regressive and universally pathological act of homicide; if life is precious and undeniably irreplaceable, its legally justified, voluntary extinction is incalculably immoral, for any reason, including the State-authorized homicide as brutal retribution for murder.

Long prison terms, together with hard labor, the remuneration for which goes to the impacted family, as one example, would seem to be more consistent with respect for society and human life.

-p.

Conceivably, the wisest and most metaphysical admonition is ascribed to Socrates. The wise man’s mandate, “know thyself,” recommends the rigorous self-examination of one’s own strengths (“virtues”)and limitations to understand oneself. He famously articulated the classic emphatic statement: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

We have ventured to opine in past writings that one’s self-image is developed early in life by the subjective perception of the responsive manner in which those with whom one interacts. It is our belief that the resultant self-image constitutes the reference point relative to the perception of oneself and one’s ambient environment. It is tautologically empirical to predict that the response to ubiquitous stimuli will be consistent with such nuanced perception.

We would risk the charge of presumption by declaring that impactful events may change one’s subjective evaluation of reality, albeit the basic foundational elements, such as the metaphysical significance of truth, and basic humanism, would, by and large, endure. It is empirically undeniable that life has become, and continues to develop in ways unprecedented in past experience (Ex.: digital interaction).

In keeping with the preceding declaration, it would follow that the change in empirical ambience or other critical events may occasion a temporary or, perhaps, sustained, perceptive modification of extant reality. In our rapidly changing world, in major contrast to the socially predictable Ancient Greece of Socrates, adjustments to previously held self-evaluations may be necessary or expedient. Aside from the fundamental existence of moral virtue and basic humanistic inclination, one’s self-identity (“Know thyself”) may be objectively (although not ethically ) caused to undergo (temporal or permanent) situational modification. In such a case, the contemplative individual does well to recognize his change in outlook and its empirical justification, to avoid inner conflict or systemic confusion.

In any case, the Socratic admonition to “Know Thyself” remains universally and eternally mandated, albeit thematically subject to empirically recognized changes in role or responsibility (e.g., parental, professional, experiential). The inner awareness, recommended by the great philosopher, may, when appropriate, require an empirically rational update.

-p.

At various times, we have chosen to employ the adjectival phrase “mauvaise enfant” in the portrayal of the outre persona and bizarre behavior of Donald Trump. Our reference has been accompanied by the analogical example of the needy-neurotic young child who opts to kick his mother painfully in the shin to secure her singular notice, fully aware of the retributive consequences.

Whatever may empirically be said about our orange-hair-dyed protagonist regarding his systemically hapless incompetence and miscreant behavior, he has, inarguably, been a theatrical success in drawing attention to himself, by a plethora of public, startlingly irrational and incompetent acts and statements. It may well be that inappropriate “shin-kicking” is notably effective, as empirically demonstrated by his adult ruddy visage and bizarre declarations, being a quotidian and regular occurrence on public television

In the attraction of public attention, repugnant or otherwise, Trump has sucessfully enjoyed the attractive and irresistible power of the aesthetically repugnant, albeit empirically irresistible, sight of highway “roadkill.”

The dumpster-full loads of domestic and international, immoral, incapable, and unconstitutional acts and statements of the singularly irrational,” orange hazmat” presently occupying the Oval Office have been referenced in many of our previous writings. The decline in standing of our previously venerable Nation, domestically and internationally, can be irrefutably attributed to Trump and his MAGA populists. The historical and moral tragedy is among the dangers of the universal voting franchise which bears the systemic impediment of a large population of inadequately educated and poorly informed citizens.

In intolerable and shocking addition to Trump’s autocratic denigration of the Constitution, Rule of law, and notably, the societal moral compass, he has now disgraced the Nation by his public use of the obscene vocabulary often seen scrawled on the walls of public bathrooms. This is a new and bizarrely offensive practice that can be said to be highly objectionable when employed by the ordinary populist citizen, but shocking, and adjectivally indescribable, when employed by the President.

More than socially and officially abhorrent, in our view, it is a cogent, clinical symptom of progressive mental decline and constitutes appropriate and responsible grounds for immediate removal under the Constitutional provisions applicable to Presidential impairment. The questionable reluctance to apply such provisions ought to be responsibly overridden by the potential for danger to the Nation.

-p.

,

If one were to ignore differences in appearance in height, orange versus sparse brown hair, sun tan, and swarthiness compared to pale and rodentlike, one might say that Donald J. Trump and his wily “bro-mate, apearance to have much in common.

Trump, an aspirational dictator, and Vladimir, an accomplished mafia-style tyrant, visibly share an arcane personality disorder (among a few others) of megalomania, mutually presenting in a context of hubris and profound ignorance, the latter, a roadblock to empirical observation and a catalyst to abysmal judgment. In the mutual sharing of such empirically demonstrated lack of judgment, they may be said to be compatible, albeit unequal in tactical intelligence; Trump is beset with the myopic blinders of a neurotic, lifelong quest for adoration, and Putin, more for the primitive demonstrative power and masculinity (Ref: photos of shirtless horsemanship).

In common with the demonstrated persona of all historic autocrats, they are intrinsic megalomaniacs, each suffering from the neurotic ideation of their personal singularity and inherent potential potency, which, history has shown, results in unforeseen and/or disastrous consequences.

In the classic Dickens ‘ novel, “A Tale of Two Cities,” the esteemed Victorian author brilliantly demonstrates the temporal differences between Paris and London, during the French Revolution; notwithstanding the same, the contemplative reader can discern the essential commonalities in the human psyche and personal motivation.

In the contextual observation of our two thematic protagonists, both being authoritarian leaders of their respective Nations, one can easily see significant personal differences between them, yet discern the traditional flaws common to autocratic leaders, viz., flawed judgment, distorted by their egocentric megalomania. So it was, for example, in Napoleon’s disastrous assault against Russia

After publicly declaring that i would be over ” in a few days,” Putin launched an aggressive war against Ukraine (again). Such a boastful declaration, the Ukraine-Russian War is, at present, in its fifth year, with Russia affecting only incremental successes at enormous cost to Russia’s treasury and military forces.

Donald Trump’s ill-advised war against Iran is demonstrably consistent with our present theme, viz., that megalomanic hubris is the precursor of disastrous decisions. In predictable contrast to Donald Trump’s assurances of facile victory, his (and Israel’s) attack on Iran has been costly and, to date, arguably ineffective. It is our reluctant expectation that the war with Iran, under the bizarrely incompetent tutelage of Pete Hegseth, will not be soon resolved, as prognosticated by our delusional President, and, unfortunately, l continue for an extensive period at minimal benefit and great cost to the Nation.

A seriously complicating factor is Iran’s de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz. a relatively narrow (30-mile) waterway through which commercial ships, including our own, must pass. The narrow passage is of vital importance to commercial shipping, notably of oil and seasonally vital agricultural fertilizer. Trump’s aggression has been responsible for Iran’s responsive blockade of this crucially important waterway.

Despite the bellicose threats of our Orange Warrior in Chief, such as “I am going to bomb Iran into the Stone Age,” the blockade and aggressive existence of Iran persist.

Analogous to Ukraine, in the prolonged Russian-Ukrainian War (5 years), it is a pragmatic fact that America is losing the Iran war by not winning it, and Iran is winning the war by not losing it. Donald J. Trump, indeed, has much in common with his Russian Bro-mate and autocratic counterpart.

-p.

The misadventure into Iran, imprudently initiated by the myopic Trump Administration, has directed the world’s klieg lights to the Strait of Hormuz. The latter, as known, is a narrow body of water (30 miles wide) connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. It is controlled by Iran and presents a potential bottleneck to its prodigious shipping activity, notably for the transport of oil and agricultural fertilizer. The Trump Administration’s inept, empty-headedness has exposed the flow of shipping to the military control of the attacked Iran, causing universal economic hardship.

Analogous to said conundrum, we have chosen to use the tactical potential for blockade of the Hormuz Strait by the besieged Iran as a contextual and thematic metaphor relative to the ubiquitous failure or inability of the human persona to seek reason and empirical understanding; the same due to the personal blockage by atavistic or preconceived beliefs and assumptions, usually instilled at an early age, by well-meaning parents and associates. It has been our dedicated intention to encourage, where relevantly applicable, the removal of irrational, limiting, and potentially harmful mental roadblocks or bottlenecks to the natural progress or flow of human reason.

As readers of this blogspace are, presumably, well aware, we are among the countless rational believers in the epistemological theory of John Locke ( and the plethora of empirical philosophers), that Man is born with a clean slate (“tabula rasa”) and that his knowledge is solely and exclusively acquired through empirical experience or instruction. Accordingly, any and all pre-conceptual assumptions of naturally instilled beliefs or non-empirical conceptions are more than inaccurate; they are effective roadblocks or ocean-going blockades to the acquisition of knowledge and Man’s most singularly precious, s evolutionary gift, that of the capacity of empirical reason.

Human reason dictates that solely, sense experience, observation and experimentation, rather than innate intuition or preconception (“felt” or intuitive knowledge or awareness), are useful and enlightening.

Nevertheless, the blockades to human reason and intellectual enlightenment, like the narrow, confining geography of the Strait of Hormuz, have atavistically persisted (viz., religious, superstitious, prejudicial, attitudinal) into the present digital age and have continued to unnecessarily stifle Man’s potential for evolutionary advancement and the pursuit of ultimate wisdom. The geography of the Persian Gulf is fixed and unalterable, unlike Man’s potential for the development of empirical reason; it is hoped that the extant blinders to reason and reality-altering pre-conception, superstitious beliefs, human prejudice, and other irrational and limiting blockades to human advancement, will soon be but a matter of an atavistic past.

-p.

We feel obliged to share a salubrious thought which has recurred to us on several of our ruminative excursions. We would deem it equally reasonable for the reader to accept or reject the same; either way, it is interesting, albeit a measure, surreal.

The two problems constituting the contextual scope of this writing are each existentially significant, although empirically diverse, in that they are unrelated, but of paramount significance to the happiness and fulfillment of the individual, and, as well, the enduring health of the planet. The effective solution to both relevant but diverse problems is conceptually significant yet identical. We would humbly call upon your patience with this admittedly exotic, dual panacea. Permit us to explain.

Medical science in this digital-electronic era has observably grown beyond the most optimistic of predictions. Countless lives have been saved or improved by modern diagnostic and treatment devices. Our thematic conception relates to the life-altering and potentially dangerous element of anxiety, the pernicious, life-altering malady of ubiquitous mankind, often bearing the effects of a lifestyle of prolonged anxiety. In addition to its non-productive element of fear, it can lead to serious medical conditions such as arthritis, chronic pain, hypertension, heart disease, stroke, and chronic ulcers. Would it not be salubrious and beneficial to medically erase such a life-limiting condition?

The second challenge is the limitation, or at least, the significant amelioration, of the present march toward planetary Armageddon, i.e., global warming; inarguably, the ultimate result of the ubiquitous use of fossil fuels. While widely disparate in nature, but not in toxicity, our nuanced inclination to perseveration seems to have furnished us with a panacea in common for both disparate, albeit existential problems, which, if pragmatically successful, would result in a human life experience more like a “strawberry field, forever” than in the precarious one.

Contextually, we would refer to the remarkable salutary advances in life-changing and life-enhancing technical advances in scientific medicine, prolonging and improving the quality of life, through diagnostic, genetic, and treatment methods and appliances. Blood exchange, genetic engineering, the use of the MRI, CT scans, CPAP, oxygen and respiratory equipment, prosthetics, and an extensive menu of diagnostic and curative developments. The speed of development, analogous to that of the digital world, may, fittingly, be described as exponential.

Consistent with the above observations, our thematic conception amounts to the life-altering, salubrious development of an electronic medical appliance capable of rendering treatment for severe anxiety by siphoning off the harmful excess nervous energy and transferring the same to storage cells for the pragmatic purposes of clean energy for machines, autos, heating, cooling, and otherwise. The health benefit and lifestyle of the treated patient would be enhanced, and the aspiration for “clean energy” on behalf of the health of the planet would be achieved in a predictably plentiful and non-polluting supply.

Life on the green planet would be “Strawberry Fields.”

-p.

For countless eons before Christopher Columbus arrived in the Western Hemisphere to infect indigenous mankind with the ugly scourge of European disease and plunder their wealth, Mankind had been a nomadic hunter-gatherer, in existential pursuit of food and shelter. Long before the anthropological-social development of tribal and later, more modern “society, the “City-State” and then the “Nation.” Man was, by existential necessity, obliged to eternally seek safe and nutritional habitation.

The growth and advancement of Homo Sapiens was made possible by the socio-ethical sharing of empirically developed skills and the mutual exchange of experience. The historical record demonstrates the ample salubrious and protective benefits of shared civil existence and of its cultural growth and development of singular, culturally -nuanced character, language, and belief regimen. Peaceful interaction, commercial and otherwise, between such societal entities served to promote alternative ways of solving problems through the exchange of experience, as well as spiritual conceptions.

We have read that the elements of social interaction, intermarriage, the sharing of responsibilities, including the existential need for food and mutual protection, spontaneously led to the phenomenon of preferential change of society or social group. Whatever the extant cultural mode of change or alteration may have been, it is safe to say that the phenomenon of societal change was no doubt ceremonial, but notably, socially recognized and societally acceptable. Loyalty to his newly altered societal identification was often ceremonially demonstrated.

It is extremely difficult to rationally comprehend the so-called “Modern” Man’s rejection of the thematic change of societal ambiance and loyalty, occasioned by the need, or desire to change to another society than the one of his birth, for perceived reasons, including nuanced insecurity or simply to improve the immigrant’s lifestyle. The American Nation, populated by foreign immigrants and their respective progeny, has the tradition, statutory procedure, and social experience to welcome those who elect to change their nationality to American;; it, notably has the overt, welcoming symbol, “Lady Liberty,” colossally raising her welcoming lamp as a warm invitation to prospective new Americans.

Even more dystopian is the eventful distinction between officially designated “legal” and “illegal” immigrants. The difference, notably, is as crucial a distinction as it is frustratingly petty. The immigrant who has registration papers is safe from being attacked, arrested, or incarcerated, and summarily banished to foreign torture jails, without due process, by a horde of masked (ICE), Gestapo-style Trumpian hoodlums. The paper-recorded immigrants, by bright contrast, are theoretically free from such un-American jeopardy. The history of civil service paperwork has never possessed such petty and arcane significance.

The Paleolithic man, if consulted, would have recommended two soft beats on the official Tom-Tom, as an acceptable alternative to the extant, officially recognized acceptability.

-p.

Man’s choices, we find, are initially based upon the perceptive consideration of the known, available, contrasting choices. In keeping with such empirical observation, it might be useful to compare the Nation’s venerated Chief Executive, George Washington, with the “hands down” ubiquitous choice for the worst of the category, Donald J. Trump.

It is relevant that George Washington served as the military leader of the colonial army in America’s “War for Independence,” and subsequently, refused an extended offer of monarchy, instead of being elected as the President. He proved to be enlightened enough back in the 18th-century America, to have the colonial forces inoculated against smallpox (a factor attributed by certain notable historians to its success against the British), set the stage for republicanism and the peaceful transfer of Presidential power, and presciently advised against “entangling foreign alliances.”

In honor of such superior character and faithful service, the Nation’s capital and a plethora of cities, towns, public venues, schools, bridges, and institutions bear his venerable name, together with the national currency. George Washington, one of the venerated “Founders” of our Democratic Republic, was also a spiritual avatar of its radically conceived, radical democratic future.

It is a viscerally arduous and intellectually challenging task to compare the character and record of George Washington, the acknowledged “Father of Our Country,” with the perversely neurotic, self-serving, hubristic Donald J. Trump; however, as noted above, the consideration of empirically demonstrated extremes is useful to our deliberations and ultimate choices.

“The abstract, conceivable, comparison of George Washington with the “beyond ‘the pale,” infamous and empirically cartoonish, Trump, easily yeilds a universe of difference between the historic leader of the American Colonial Army, and Trump, who. famously had\ used family influence to cause his alleged “bone spurs” in his ankle to attain the valiant status of “draft dodger,” publicly referred to the vast number of graves of soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery as “Suckers” and “Losers, ” revealingly stating,” What was in it for them?”

Unlike Washington’s solicitous concern for his army in his prescient (18th Century) program to responsibly have them inoculated against smallpox, the Trump-appointed Secretary of Health has engaged in a national policy to ban vaccination, an irresponsible dystopian policy that has already seen the reappearance of several mortally infectious diseases.

Unlike the avatar of Republican Democracy, who famously refused his country’s invitation to be a King, Trump has publicly declared his intention to rule as a “Dictator,” such an un-American intention evinced in his voter denial, disregard of the Constitutional tri-partite architecture, Separation of Powers,” declaring war and tariffs without mandated Congressional approval, interference with the right to vote, astronomical violation of the “Emolument Clause.” enriching himself and family, use of the military for perceived domestic need (posse comitatus) raising and generously supporting a private, masked army to arrest and deport innocent, law-abiding Hispanic emigrees,.

The potential choice of the Nation’s Chief Executive resides eternally with the voter.

-p.