Month: December 2016

Analogy is a useful and interesting tool to covey an idea; for example, an atom has been compared to the solar system, the nucleus representing the sun and the electrons, the orbiting planets; the heart can be illustratively analogized to a pump.

We would use a musical analogy here, the “rondo,” a form used typically in the music of the classical period, in which a theme, played at the outset of a work, returns several times after periods of intervening music, called “episodes.” Our recurring theme here, is the predictable shift, in stages, of emotional dependence and the resulting interactions between parent and child.

We have previously written about dependence in general and life’s reliable dependent relationships. In this writing, we would focus on familial emotional dependencies and interaction.

From birth through early childhood, the child is largely, if not solely, dependent upon the parent for life’s necessities and, as well, for emotional nurturing. Dutiful parents, in addition to the mandatory basics of child husbandry, render love, assurances of safety and guidance regarding the outside world, school and later, the community.

The parent naturally derives great personal pleasure and a significant measure of self- esteem from this role, most especially from such dependent and loving interaction with the child.  However, this stage is universally only of temporary duration.

As the child reaches adolescence, his contemporaries and friends begin to take on ever increasing importance and reactive influence, and there is a corresponding decline in reliance upon parental services, especially guidance; this phenomenon is especially operative at the stage when the son or daughter leaves home for college.

The principal theme of our rondo is now accentuated. As the healthy and properly reared child becomes increasingly more independent and less dependent upon the parent, many parents, nevertheless, at least for some uncomfortable and unrewarding period, continue to maintain their outworn expectations founded upon the early familial history.

The “why don’t you call- I do call” telephone conversation, is a classic travesty; it evokes nothing but possible guilt and mutual anger, erases the possibility of any real conversation and may, in fact, lead to less telephone contact in the future and a strained relationship. Parents with anachronistic expectations will tend to, unproductively, necessitate the child’s maintenance of self-protective distance.

Every parent, simply as an adult member of society (independent of child rearing) owes it to himself, at least, to find some interest or activity which has the potential of his enrichment and life-enhancement; whether it be a craft, fine literature, the arts, botany, or some other elective pursuit. In addition to his enhancement and pleasure, such pursuits prevent one from leading a mono-focused and limited life experience. In such event, an enhancement of interaction with family members by telephone or otherwise, becomes predictable.

We all need to be familiar with this recurrent (rondo) melody and make it a permanent part of our life-time musical education.                      -p.

It was in the early hours of a weekday morning, on the upper east side of Manhattan, close to a crosstown street. At that corner, there is a large electronics store and there appeared, despite the early hour and frigid weather, exacerbated by an icy wind, a rather substantial line of people (a few with strollers with little children) waiting in a line that stretched back around the block. Upon inquiry, I was advised that a new “game player” was going on sale that morning and that these people were waiting for the store to open. Fortunately, for me my bus arrived shortly thereafter and we made our escape from the cold, but with a feeling of real consternation.

A great deal of energy, creative thought and money are presently being expended, in the search for some rational explanation for the unprecedented and highly unpredictable result of the recent Presidential election. Among the proposed culprits is an untimely letter from the U.S Attorney General, comrade Putin, the Russian hacking, and the personality of the losing candidate; the fact (and this is laughable) that she did not visit Ohio and Wisconsin often enough (the latter reason is typical of the limited circumspection of our political pundits). Everyone is nonplussed by the result, even the winning candidate, who had been, in apparent expectation of losing, busily engaged in the creation of a false scenario, as is his customary inclination, this time of a “rigged election.”

It is eternally frustrating to us that the “experts” are fluent solely in the customary pundit jargon and, based upon their consistent, predictable inclinations, do not realize that the fundamental and operative reason is essentially to be found in that early cold morning queue awaiting access to a new game player.

Since the available concepts in the media’s tool box are limited by a priori predilection and outworn assumptions, it usually relies on tangible items such as the letter, Putin and other, easily digestible phenomena. We need yet again, to refer to the sage credo of President Thomas Jefferson (which we have cited in many of our earlier writings) to the effect that, for a democracy to be successful what is essentially required is a  “ literate” and “well informed” citizenry.

The long, dedicated crowd of people, referred to, predictably would not have braved the early morning cold and discomfort, to wait in line at any of our fine museums, lecture halls or theaters. If this is the “coastal intelligencia,” referred to by these savvy professional commentators, one wonders what they wait on long uncomfortable lines for in Biloxi or Texarkana.

No rational cohort of “informed and “literate” citizens would have, in the exercise of even a modicum of reason and concern for country, have chosen this candidate, who has publicly demonstrated himself to be incapable of the office of President and, as well, an arrogant, impulsive and ignorant person. Apparently, It was his “bull in the china shop” persona that appealed to the game players, and the reality show, low information voters; the vital question and concern is, essentially, how they got so numerous.

-p.

There is not one comparable word in the American-English lexicon that has been so unjustly maligned or has suffered such undeserved degradation as the word “dependence.”

It has commonly been used by self-anointed, unqualified social critics, to ascribe to others, a certain category of undesirable personal characteristics such as insecurity, lack of confidence or immaturity. There are, of course, occasions where such negative observations may be warranted, however in general, we see the word “dependence” as embodying a healthy and even, vital, societal phenomenon and write this note in aid of the rehabilitation of this rather undervalued word and concept.

Because there is such a widespread use of the subject noun and its concept, we would, for practical reasons, and with the aim of avoiding a charge of encyclopedic intent, omit a great many of its applications. Thus, we exclude discussion of certain references relating to abuse of controlled substances and alcohol, co-dependent relationships, as well as financial and legal dependence, scientific dependence (cause and effect) and religious dependence. We also exclude universal dependence upon the occurrence of natural phenomena (such as daylight, seasons, ocean tides, and weather phenomena).

Certain objects of dependency are identifiable by mere mention. In this virtually unlimited category, we list for illustration, hospitals and health providers, the postal and banking systems, the media, transportation and other infrastructure services, public utilities, the military, the police, fire and sanitation departments, State, and Federal agencies such as the FDA, SEC, ICC, and countless others.

We are, inarguably, dependent upon our bodily functions, the clock, the uniform system of weights and measures, the telephone system, the monetary system, traffic regulations, our recollected preferences for food and drink, our cultural work constructs such as weekends, vacations, holidays, coffee breaks and societally approved traditions relating to engagement and marriage.

Among the myriad categories of (healthy) dependency we are, as in earlier writings, most interested in the subject of one’s interactions with others in society and, in accordance to the present subject, the dependent expectations of ourselves and others in our respective societal roles.

In the absence of reliable dependencies, we would predictably lead lives that are insular, lonely and without redeeming value. Dependence, often maligned and denigrated is a noun that makes possible vital societal interaction and the satisfaction of reliable expectation in human relationships of every sort, mundane or romantic.

Family and community roles and functional responsibilities are recognizably identified and expectations based upon such determinations are depended upon by the community. Individually, our self-image, developed from our personal aspirations, as edited by experience and community perceptions (see earlier writings) is also privately and dependently audited by ourselves for acceptable consistency.

So that we can, dependably, know each other, I will agree to be me, if you will undertake to be you.

-p.

Our categorical position condemning the hunting and killing of woodland animals, has been amply expressed in an earlier writing, “Sanguine Sports.” However, it is the unlimited number of posts, featuring a man with a weapon proudly supporting the limp body of a dead deer, killed by him, and the denigrating of critics (of such acts) by sham arguments, that has motivated this addendum (redux). These human predators who, usually dressed in military khaki, insensitively, and shamefully, tramp about the woods with predatory intention and weapons at the ready, hoping to be lucky enough to encounter a suitable victim. They justify their flagrant behavior and seek to disarm their critics by accusing such critics of hypocrisy because they too” eat meat”. We will get to this inapposite justification and charge, but for now we will pause just long enough to say a mandatory “duh”.

Most normally socialized and acculturated people condemn killing. It is expected therefore that there would be numerous “comments” on face book, evincing shock at, and disapproval of, these bloodthirsty practices. These critics are usually met with such arrogant and macho responses as “hug a tree” or “sing kumbaya”, or are even “accused” of the heinous act of voting for Hillary.

But the singularly” brilliant” and commonly used counter to such expressions of shock and criticism, is the irrational charge of hypocrisy on the part of the critic, since the critic eats meat, (which irrelevant defense seems to fully satisfy the khaki killer), respecting which we have previously awarded the well- deserved, and highly prized, response, “duh.”

Evolution has brought man to the stage of development where, in contrast to many feral animals, lower on Darwin’s ladder of ascension, he is no longer classified as a “predatory mammal.” Accordingly, he instinctively views killing as atavistic and wrong; it is for this reason that many military personnel previously involved in actual combat, return home with PTSD.

What will it take to convince these reductive, macho forest warriors that there is little or no moral equivalency between eating a dinner containing meat, and the actual killing of an innocent beast. Is one required to be a vegetarian to have the proper standing to condemn such cruel and heartless murder of forest animals? The normal, innate disinclination and disapproval of such atavistic cruelty is not at all compromised by the civilized act of by buying meat at the supermarket for consumption; it is the blood-thirsty lust for (and act of) killing that we condemn.
-p.

og # 116                        KHAKI INTRUDERS (redux)

 

Our categorical position condemning the hunting and killing of woodland animals, has been amply expressed in an earlier writing, “Sanguine Sports.” However, it is the unlimited number of posts, featuring a man with a weapon proudly supporting the limp body of a dead deer, killed by him, and the denigrating of critics (of such acts) by sham arguments, that has motivated this addendum (redux). These human predators who, usually dressed in military khaki, insensitively, and shamefully, tramp about the woods with predatory intention and weapons at the ready, hoping to be lucky enough to encounter a suitable victim. They justify their flagrant behavior and seek to disarm their critics by accusing such critics of hypocrisy because they too” eat meat”. We will get to this inapposite justification and charge, but for now we will pause just long enough to say a mandatory “duh”.

Most normally socialized and acculturated people condemn killing. It is expected therefore that there would be numerous “comments” on face book, evincing shock at, and disapproval of, these bloodthirsty practices. These critics are usually met with such arrogant and macho responses as “hug a tree” or “sing kumbaya”, or are even “accused” of the heinous act of voting for Hillary.

But the singularly” brilliant” and commonly used counter to such expressions of shock and criticism, is the irrational charge of hypocrisy on the part of the critic, since the critic eats meat, (which irrelevant defense seems to fully satisfy the khaki killer), respecting which we have previously awarded the well- deserved, and highly prized, response, “duh.”

Evolution has brought man to the stage of development where, in contrast to many feral animals, lower on Darwin’s ladder of ascension, he is no longer classified as a “predatory mammal.” Accordingly, he instinctively views killing as atavistic and wrong; it is for this reason that many military personnel previously involved in actual combat, return home with PTSD.

What will it take to convince these reductive, macho forest warriors that there is little or no moral equivalency between eating a dinner containing meat, and the actual killing of an innocent beast. Is one required to be a vegetarian to have the proper standing to condemn such cruel and heartless murder of forest animals? The normal, innate disinclination and disapproval of such atavistic cruelty is not at all compromised by the civilized act of by buying meat at the supermarket for consumption; it is the blood-thirsty lust for (and act of) killing that we condemn.
-p.

 

Klitter, Klatter, Rap, Rap!
Did you just hear? Did just you see?
A new baby was just born
He has small toes, he has small hands
And a round red face that wants to suck
Let’s hear him cry, do see him stir
Do wrap him fast to keep him warm.

Klitter, Klatter, Rap, Rap!
Were you just there? Did you just see?
His eyes are blue and looking out
What does he see? What does he hear?
So small, so weak, so warm indeed
But he does seem to look about.

Klitter, Klatter, Rap, Rap!
He squirmed and seemed to smile at you
Will he be grow big? Will he be wise?
We will just have to ride the train
Its forward push, its constant speed
We’ll pay the fare, and we shall see.

-p.

In Samuel Beckett’s iconic play, “Waiting for Godot” three comedic characters eternally, but expectedly, await the arrival of someone, or something, referred to as “Godot.”

In our lifelong search for personal identity, we too, with varying degrees of patience, await some personal illumination that will definitively resolve the determination as to who we really are.

At some stage in the natural progression of our individual maturity, a conglomerate consisting of our aspirations (perhaps, edited by experience) regular interaction with others, and the communal perception of our persona, results in a personal comprehension of self. It appears to be a gradual and cumulative process, which continues until the stage of our acceptance of personal identity and the discovery of our role in the theater of our life.

Starting with early childhood, we feel compelled to perform experimental acts of reality testing; at first, with parents, later, with friends and others with whom we interact; these interactions ultimately help provide confirmation of our accepted determination of self-identity.

Our identified “self” will flexibly and appropriately moderate in its necessary adaptation to the various roles we are obliged to play during our life experience, ex., as spouse, parent, friend, advisor, neighbor.

We have previously written on the dynamic ingredient of interaction with others as vitally important to our understanding of ourselves; elsewhere, on the definition of success as an exclusively internal assessment, based upon perceived self-esteem and self-fulfillment, and not upon any comparative scoreboard of asset accumulation. We also have recommended the periodic practice of self- accounting, the personalized internal auditing of our prior acts and moral judgments, hopefully, consistent with our avowed self- image.

Our society appears to have the desire, for some reason, to identify and categorize people, based upon their work, viz., Sol the doctor, Victor the accountant, Mike the butcher, Lenny the lawyer, Sara the decorator. Moreover, on the personal level, a great many people so self- identify with their regular work role as to make the life change of retirement, when it arrives, a time of difficult personal adjustment.

On a somewhat related, but disturbing subject, many unthinking and reductive people attribute personality traits and character, stereotypically, to people they have never met, solely by thei trade or profession. Such lazy attribution is reprehensible; Smith the lawyer is still Smith with of all his individual characteristics, working as a lawyer.

As an aside, but on a related topic, it should be emphasized that when the founders of our republic declared that “all men are created equal…” they were exclusively expounding a purely legal declaration that the class system of inherited privilege which existed in Europe for centuries shall have no application here. The founders certainly did not intend to declare that all men are equal in capability, rather, only equal at birth.

Aside from our declared equality at birth and our inalienable entitlement to the pursuit of happiness, the distribution of talent and capacities vary from one capable citizen to the other. The magic word is aptitude, defined as an innate inclination or capability to easily perform well or engage in a specific enterprise with a minimum amount of effort. Many people may fail in a designated course of study or endeavor, not due to lack of talent, but by their persistence in the continuance of an enterprise which is outside of their inherited proclivities.

Since self-esteem and self- fulfillment depend in great part on capable performance, we ought to, in cases of less than desired outcome, as possible, exercise the flexibility to seek other enterprises that do fit our innate capabilities. We often are cognizant of the problem, but may, understandably, be reluctant to risk change for economic or personal reasons. The choice is, in fact, risky and involves the sacrifice of the more comfortable but unsuccessful “ known” for the opportunity to discover great success from the selected exercise of our valuable, innate gifts.

In order to cash in on our personalized inborn capabilities we may, at some time in our life, be constrained to face our misgivings and not “ wait for Godot”; Beckett, himself, if pressed ,would have sardonically told you that there is no Godot.

-p.

All newborn homo sapiens, fortunate enough to be possessed of the appropriate range of relevant capabilities, are the rich legatees of a relentless, and successful evolutionary march in the direction of a sentient animal species. Most members of the species concurrently with their respective maturation, cash in (at least, in part) on such inheritance, the exercise of which potentiates a satisfying life and derivatively, a successful society.

Mankind has always valued reason and its ultimate goal, wisdom, as vital ingredients for successful existence. Rene Descartes famously said, “I think, therefore I am.” This pithy observation can logically be extended to a corollary viz., to the extent that man has the capacity and inclination to reason, he is an identifiable member of human society. Socrates, exercising even more economy of speech, taught, “Know thyself,” mandating man’s pursuit of identity, self-awareness and a true inner understanding of his capabilities and inclinations.

This most abundant cornucopia of potential skills, inherited by man by way of evolution, equips him potentially to attain a rich and satisfactory life experience and, as well, affords him the opportunity to contribute to his community. Growth from understood experience, from the study of the arts and sciences as well a plethora of available sources, each capable of augmenting human understanding and personal insight, is the path to the attainment of his potential and a fulfilling life.

Sadly, there exists a sizeable portion of our American population who seem to, perhaps unknowingly, squander these innate gifts and the resultant potential for that fuller and more satisfactory life; whether the causes are cultural, sociological or otherwise, is beyond the scope of this writing, and its author. It may simply be stated that the loss to the individual of his potential for a full and satisfying life, as well as the potential loss to society of some contribution by him is unnecessary, tragic and wasteful.

Most of those people are not aware of the possibility of the (universal) potential for meaningful living, the great pleasure in self-realization and the feeling of self- fulfillment. Such ignorance inexorably is predictable of the feeling of meaningless and disappointing existence; unfortunately, this limited lifestyle and vista are often passed on to offspring. As barren and empty as their life proves to be, the same is accepted, somehow, as (disappointingly) normal; it is, indeed, a wistful vista. Many attribute their unhappiness to some imagined cause that robbed them of happiness or project the blame and hatred outward to others, especially others who look or live differently. Additionally, many such people are ripe targets for demagogues and snake oil salesman of every conceivable stripe including, political, religious, racial or financial; anyone who promises” hope”. Such folks may be led to behaviors harmful to themselves or others.

Thomas Jefferson famously believed that for a democratic country to succeed, it must have a literate and informed citizenry; such informed citizens would debate the various issues, the outcome of which would be useful in making decisions. The non-participation of so many citizens with innate but unused potential for reason in lieu of ignorance amounts to a substantial potential loss to the country as well as the  personal failure of potential on the part of the individual citizen.

We have never favored missionary activities. They usually have the religious goal of “saving” people by persuading them to worship identically as the missionary does, on pain of being “lost” and punished in a mythical after-life. As we have expressed in some of our writings, it is inarguable that people acquire their own religious persuasion and belief systems, randomly, though the accident of birth. The religious missionary, aside from causing much cultural distress and confusion, particularly abroad, has damaged an untold number of traditional and previously successful cultures and has been responsible for conflict and atrocities. The religious missionary has forgotten the random acquisition of his own particular religious belief in his misguided, egotistic and ethnocentric zeal.

We would however propose, by stark contrast in purpose, a (secular) missionary program dedicated to  raising the awareness of those insular, limited American citizens, of the benefits to be derived from the revelation of new vistas, including an exposure to literature and the arts. Of course, it would be purely voluntary, and predictably at first, there would be only limited interest in the program. But there are possible routes of success despite difficulties in its initiation. When one considers the American genius for advertising and sales promotion, especially by means of the media, many possibilities seem to present themselves.

It seems to us that we do have some ethical and perhaps, patriotic obligation, affirmatively, to find a remedy for fellow Americans whose lives have unknowingly been squandered; people who only “inhabit a life” rather than live it, and fail in the fulfilment of any of their innate potential for the higher life as homo sapiens. Self- discovery and enrichment can fill previously empty and joyless lives with a new arousal, inner sight and newfound internal resources. We need to create more Jeffersonian citizens.

Those who would be able and willing to bear the cost of such a revolutionary program would be those financially capable Americans and commercial institutions who believe that the importance of opening   doors to the world for so many to the purposeful and joyous  acquisition of a real life is worth the money and effort.

-p.