Author: plinyblogcom

Having been reared in the national credo, “All men are created equal,” we have paid little heed to the affairs of the British royalty and are sanguine concerning matters of pomp and ceremony, from any source, as demonstrative assertions of a nation’s purported greatness. However, we are fortunate in having amended our usual resolve, and witnessed the television transmission of the marriage of Prince Harry, of England to the American, Ms. Meghan Markle. Our thoughts went well beyond the beauty of the ceremony, performed in the historical Anglican Cathedral where English royalty has historically celebrated their marriages. Our spirits soared, in the appreciation of what such an eventful wedding signified, historically and sociologically, for mankind’s progress toward peace and human justice. Ms. Markle, a commoner, is black and beautiful, but uncontrovertibly black. They will be known as the Duke and Duchess of Surrey (after the late Duchess of Surrey ,who opposed slavery.)

We find it quite remarkable, that a European nation which has so exalted and taken pride in its historic tradition, as exemplified by the consistent perpetuation of its medieval pomp and ceremony, can now be recognized as the innovator of a vitally needed and dramatic step toward racial justice. While many American television viewers are still socially adjusting themselves to inter-racial commercials, England, who, not so very long ago espoused the statement that non-whites were white men’s (missionary) burden, has warmly welcomed a non-white young bride to its intimate Royal Family.

As we viewed the imperious Duke of Windsor, (surprisingly and perilously close to looking happy) accompany Meghan down the aisle, we thought of the many novels of the 1800’s, by such great English authors as, Dickens, Trollope, Elliot, Thackeray and Austin, in which people of color, stereotypically, servants, slaves and other “inferiors” were designated as “blackamoors”; Queen Victoria must be agitating in her grave with disbelief. King Leopold of Belgium, under whose tutelage of the Congo, hands of black slaves, working in the rubber plantations, were punitively amputated and kept as warnings to others [ See: “Leopold’s Ghost”, or Conrad’s, “Heart of Darkness,”] is another demonstrable example of the unenviable status of black people in Europe. In our country, self- styled, “The land of the free,” it was not so long ago that The Supreme Court of The United States, ruled that black slaves, legally, were agricultural equipment and that, accordingly, run-aways could be returned to their owner [Dred Scott Case].

The wedding was a happy and romantic event, but, historically, a giant step toward a better and more exemplary future for mankind. In addition to the traditional English royal pomp and ceremony, the wedding’s program explicitly and markedly articulated a black presence. In addition to the attendance of black guests, including of course, the bride’s mother, one of the sermons was delivered by a black minister (episcopal); members of the wedding entourage were black, there was a black solo cellist and a black American Gospel Choir singing “Stand By  Me.”. While we, in the US, are busy, gradually adjusting to the novel  inter-racial television commercials, our old, stodgy mother country has forever advanced the worldview as to race relations.

What will the dedicated haters who comprise the White Supremacy groups do now? After all, one clearly, cannot be “whiter” than a member the English Royalty. We have especial pleasure, in imagining the mind- set of those low information, flat earth bigots, who ignorantly see themselves as “defenders” against the “mongrelizing” of the white race, when they learn that a Royal English Prince married a black American bride with mankind’s universal approval.  From this day forward, they will only have their bald heads, Nazi flags and tattoos to be proud of, and not their skin color.

[Our sincerest congratulations to the happy bride and groom.]

-p.

Conceivably, there may be no more falsely asserted nor condescendingly used word, in the Anglo-American lexicon, than the pronoun, “they.” The word has positive utility in reportage, general observation, and in grammatical conjugation. Nevertheless, it seems to be employed, all too often, to mask a speaker’s lack of sufficient information, yet advance his desire to be convincing, by its counterfeit use and spurious reference. The false, referential use of the pronoun “they,” regarding a subject under discussion, has become a commonly used strategy, employed with the obvious intention to be persuasive, by means of an attempted (false) assurance of the speaker’s impeccably objective observations, viz., “that’s what they are saying.”

We, definitively are not, in this writing referring to the benign intention behind use of the word “they,” as employed with young children, with the intention that the child feel secure (as being an accepted member of his recognized group). It may be reasserted here, that notwithstanding such nurturing intention, the lessons of “we” and “they,” provide the seeds, ultimately, for human prejudice, and by sad empirical extension, conflict and war. However, this topic has been the subject of earlier writings.

In this note, we are specifically directing our focus to the counterfeit use of the word “they,” to disguise a lack of sufficient factual knowledge, by the mythical reference to such third- party pronoun, as a purported authoritative source of information. We are all only too familiar, with such faux declarations, such as, “That is what they are wearing,” “they are saying or doing”. The referential use of “they” is particularly vexing and insensitive in the context of parental chiding of their children; accordingly references to “they,” are universally derided by teenagers; for identical reasons, the tactic is deemed presumptuous and objectionable, when used as in adult discourse as well.

It is a justifiable source of pride that modern American society places great value, legally and sociologically, on the individual citizen; whose rights are insured in its Constitution and Laws.  Every American has the franchise to live his as he wishes and make his own choices. provided he does no harm to other citizens, and generally conforms to normal societal expectations. It may strikingly be observed that, included among our generally non-conforming citizens, are many estimable folks who have contributed in great measure, to the advancement of mankind, in science, humanities and the arts.

The advertising industry is entitled to a free pass, regarding its assertions as to currently acceptable style (“what they are wearing”). The motivation of the industry, familiar to all potential consumers, is to increase sales, by positive industry assertions of stylishness and modernity. Their assertion of “in fashion” is understood, and not misleading, within its nuanced context. Their statements, “That is what they are wearing,” is universally understood in such context, as an expected portrayal by that industry.

It is the desire to subjugate and derogate individual taste or opinion, by arrogant declarations, voicing spurious assertions in an authoritative tone, while wielding the pronoun “they,” as supportive argument, by “pseudo-knowledgeable” self-anointed arbiters, that merits our distain. The reprehensible desire to purportedly assess or value selective reality, such as, “That’s what they are wearing” “That’s what they are saying” “That’s where everyone goes now,” usually delivered in tactically persuasive tones, is a shameful and misleading attempt to appear authoritative and convincing.

Such sham, pseudo-authoritative declarations of accuracy or societal propriety, regarding subjects such as, religion, politics, style, economics, scientific advances, by the cheap tactic of the assertive declaration of a counterfeited “they,” amount to no more than a despicable and vain attempt to portray the false impression of wisdom or knowledgeable experience. They are predictably made by insecure individuals, seeking (undeserved) recognition as an authoritative resource.

One may do well to merely recognize and observe this manifestation of personal insecurity, for what it demonstrates concerning the declarant; however, in response to a speaker’s authoritative references to “they,” one might do well to respond with a friendly query, such as “who are you referring to,” or some other request for clarifying specificity.

-p

An exuberant staccato of woodland songbirds
Dutifully issuing the “all clear” signal
Broadcast throughout the attendant forest,
“Morning showers are now done”.
Responsive critters resume their scamper,
Shaking off rain droplets from over- saturated leaves,
In their eternal search for sustenance

This now, is the rare and ephemeral moment
To savor woodland’s grand cru distillation,
By pleasurably imbibing inhaled offerings
Of the woodland’s aromatic, breeze- borne liqueur,
That rich, primeval mother nature musk
That bodes pleasure to all the senses.

Mercifully, it preserves the present assurance,
That our planet is (yet) alive and verdant.

-p.

Man’s vision which normally involves his seeing an object with both eyes (binocular vision) is productive of two separate, slightly different images, transmitted from each eye, separately, for interpretation by the appropriately specialized area of the brain. The slightly variant images are of vital importance, in that they afford to the viewer, depth perception, a sense of distance to the object in view, and the direction and speed of its movement.

The complement of a pair of binoculars, [two small, attached telescopes] enables viewing the desired object with an optical boost which enables a closer and better view. An alternate viewing device, the monocular, [single, small telescope] will also magnify the object, but with limitations. Unlike the binoculars, it cannot convey depth of field, distance nor direction and speed of movement. These two optical devices are the selected metaphors du jour, for contrasts in human nature, and the varying degrees of human perception and consequent understanding.

We have often written concerning the intimate and important subject of (what we have elected to call) our periodic life-long private conversation with ourselves. It is to be admitted, in fairness, that one’s personal, long-term observations and feelings regarding certain subjects, do have some impact upon his translation of received visual experiences. Accordingly, we all see images, organized for us by our brain, in a somewhat subjective manner [our perception] often, with some degree of variance from other viewers. To be sure, such subjective perceptions cannot stray too far from mainstream perceptions considered to be within societally acceptable limits, lest one be adjudged a deviant, and consequently, unacceptable as a continuing member of that society.  We each may see the color red somewhat differently, nevertheless, everyone is legally obliged to stop at a “red light”.

To further pursue our optical metaphor, we are aware of too many American citizens who see (by choice or inability) with at most, monocular vision, lacking any interest in the enhancement of their own life, or participation in the welfare of our nation; evincing little depth of perception, and reductively blind to the responsibilities of modern living. In a democracy, this imposes onerous and unfair challenges and  burdens on the (binocular) people, who affirmatively subscribe to the tenets and manifest obligations inherent in personal growth and responsible citizenship.

We have often cited the pragmatically wise instruction of Thomas Jefferson that, for a democracy to be successful, it must have an informed (binocular*) and literate society. Our Founders envisioned a democratic republic where divergent points of view were to be tolerantly and intelligently debated among its citizens, so that a responsive government would, indeed be,“by and for the people”.

In a much earlier, elegiac post, “The Death of Civic Amity,” we sadly observed that, contrary to the intentions and prophesy of our (optimistic) founding fathers, citizens of divergent opinions have refrained from engagement in constructive, neighborly exchanges and debates; but have, instead, chose to develop insular groups, internally united in opinion, whose relations with other like groups of differing opinions, may be characterized as bordering upon cold war hatred. Many of these insular people would appear to be monocular adherents to ignorant and reductionist dogmas; others may be independently monocular. A clear and illustrative result is the shocking election of the current leader of our nation, a disturbing embarrassment and a real danger to many monocular, as well as binocular, people, at home and abroad.

The only conceivable antidote is to return the nation once more, to a nation containing a democratically decisive number of literate and informed citizens; perhaps through a combination of better public educational, as well as individual self- improvement programs. The achievement of such aspiration will certainly be difficult; but failure to do so, as soon as possible, will likely result in the continuance of the present worrisome state of our naton, one that no reasonable person would aesthetically desire to magnify and examine, up close.

-p.

*Not known to be included in any T.J. writings or attributed statements.

The number of television commercials offering professional investigative services into the subscriber’s family history, appears to be noticeably on the increase. Such companies warrant accuracy, based upon their asserted employment of modern procedures, including DNA science. We have little familiarity with these investigative methods, chemo-biological or otherwise [ nor, as to the extent of their validity, especially when applied to ancient items of evidence] nonetheless, for the purposes of this writing, we are willing to assume that the results, reported by such investigative companies, are responsibly accurate.

We recognize the value of an individual’s interest in his familial history as a matter of general information or curiosity. Moreover, from the standpoint of family identity and integrity, such personal history can afford to the subscriber, a comforting sense of security and continuity. We have some concerns, however, which we will shortly disclose, regarding the possible (problematic) motivation and (mis)use, by some of the recipients of such investigative results.

It would be useless, and impractical, to attempt to cite the many blogposts we have published, in which as the main, or subordinate theme, we have urged the rationally sustainable proposition that the entire human family, possesses equal potential for wisdom and advanced thought, regardless of geography, skin color or ethnicity. One does not read in Darwin or Spencer, nor in any of their eminent scientific successors, any suggestion that, Nature, in the process of delivering evolution’s most generous gift, the advanced brain, to homo sapiens, favored certain groups over others; ostensible differences in development, where they may exist, would appear to be the products of culture (religion, ethnicity) and not innate capability.

In related writings, we have strongly urged the retirement (or expulsion) of the noun, “race” from the lexicon. The concept, necessarily implied in the word, has proven to be capricious, unscientific and purely subjective; furthermore, history has demonstrated that self-serving assumptions inherent in such verbal construct, have reliably served as purported justification for dominance and bigotry.

To again state our purpose, our concern is not aroused by an individual’s understandable and perhaps, commendable, curiosity concerning his family tree; it relates specifically to certain instances of improper motivation for the search, and the reductive misuse of the search results.

Most of our written efforts have been devoted to expressing the vital need for the individual to develop his own distinct and personal “self-image,” or “personal identity.” We have suggested that one’s (objective) perception of his own persona, may be derived from his recollection of his own cumulative history of behavior. We would additionally add that the extent of his valuation of the human goals of self enhancement and objective perception, are relevant considerations. Folks who may believe that their “true self,” or persona, will be revealed through a search of their family history, (as if personality traits are bequeathed to future legatees), are wasting their money on such a delusional expectation. Self- knowledge can only be attained by a personal, sometimes, painful, inner reflection of one’s successes and failures. There are no valuable clues to be unearthed regarding the provenance of any enduring family trait, as may be fantasized, in any revealed history obtained from distinctly different people, albeit one’s relatives, living in divergent settings and earlier times.

We do admit to a measure of distain, however, for that class of individuals, characterized by a lifetime of inflexible, stereotypic inclination, who vainly seek, from the use of such search services, ratification of their own unfounded, reductionist, and often, perniciously bigoted views. Such folks do not search for a window on their family history, but instead, (fruitlessly) seek confirmation of the rectitude of their reductive and bigoted mindset. Moreover, they blindly and ungratefully give no thought, to the wasted potential, so generously invested in them by evolution (in common with every human being), for the development of knowledge, advancement and self- awareness. Such ignorant and selfish rationalization does not entitle such exemplars of ingratitude, and shameful waste of human potential, to any more than family shrubs; certainly not trees.

-p.

Wisdom may be obtained in various ways; the easiest and most accessible of which is by reading fine literature or authoritative works on any elective subject in the humanities or science. On rare occasions, it can be anecdotally acquired by an unusual life experience, delivering a memorable message. But, this is a narrative, and we should not hesitate, any further, to begin the story.

For upwards of two decades, we have been the titleholders of modest country property, abutting a pretty pond, in Kent Connecticut. We commute to it from our apartment in New York City, weather permitting, provided we have no conflicting engagements. We are avid gardeners, and in addition to raising flowers, have a special interest in raising flowering shrubs and small trees.

On one October, we celebrated a significant birthday, and received a gift of two very young pear trees. The problem was that the young trees were “bare rooted” (as opposed to being wrapped in soil) and planting season was at least six months away. Not knowing what to do, we telephoned the local agricultural extension for help. We received the prediction that the young trees probably would not survive. We pressed further and were told that it would be a “long shot” but, if the trees were kept extremely cold for the next several months (6), that there was some “slight” chance of survival. We have two bathrooms in our N.Y. apartment, and dedicated one to this chancy six months project, by keeping the window to one bathroom open (and the door closed) all winter, to keep the trees cold. In April, we brought the little bare branch pear trees to Connecticut, gently scraped the roots, and, after adding a small quantity of growth hormone to the soil, planted them, and awaited results.

Mother Nature was especially merciful; not only did the nascent pear trees live, but they survived the next few seasons, grew substantially high and produced normal, healthy leaves. Although they developed and grew tall, they did not, for some reason, produce any buds for reproductive flowering. The trees were similar, but different varietals, which, we were advised, was the necessary combination to interact sexually. After nine years of disappointing chastity, we bought and planted one other varietal and thereafter, a second varietal of these pear trees; still no buds.   One year later, we had a truly unique experience. Despite the complete absence of any flowers, a single pear had miraculously appeared, on one of the two original trees. We could not fathom how a fruit could be produced without a flower-fertilized (sexual) connection, and humorously called the event an “immaculate conception”. We cut the singular pear into several pieces to share the miracle with the family.

The following year we were surprised and overjoyed to observe that (after eleven disappointing years) the trees, in season, produced their traditional white flowers, and later, a modest crop of fruit. The harvested pears, after one week, softened and were delicious treats for the family; there were only about thirty harvested, but we were exultant.  We assumed that, when we return this year (2018), there would expectantly, be plenty of beautiful, delicious, green pears; enough to make presents to family and friends. Did we mention that the property abuts a beautiful pond? Perhaps so; but we did not mention that the pond is inhabited by a large industrious beaver. When we returned to our country house in Spring, having been absent for a few very cold months, we made a sad and frustrating discovery. There would be no plentiful crop of pears this year, or any year; the beaver chewed down and removed all the pear trees. We suppose that they were just the right size for that big tooth rodent to fell, and then to drag down to the water for his lodge, or some other large underwater infrastructure project.

Let us set aside our grief for the moment and return to the theme expressed at the outset of this sad, but enlightening narrative, viz., that sometimes wisdom may be acquired from an unusual experience. We did learn a valuable lesson from this event; and it certainly, was not, the trite maxim “don’t count your chickens before they hatch” [ we, to the contrary, heartily approve of hopeful optimism, especially under such facts as this narrative]. The enlightened lesson is that, all of us who fancy ourselves, “owners” of property [ by reason of the filing, in some County Clerk’s or Register’s office, documents called Real Estate Deeds, with our names on it, prepared and notarized, bearing official seals, in accordance with the written law of homo sapiens] are in error. Our exclusive ownership is indeed, recognized and legally respected by other homo sapiens; but not by the beaver, deer, squirrels, foxes, otters and other creatures in nature. Our documents are unknown, irrelevant, and of no interest, whatsoever, to the critters, who are the authentic owners and original inhabitants of the property. Mr. Beaver does not owe his rights of residency of the pond, to the performance of an officially choreographed legal transaction, nor to official legislative fiat. He, and his fellow forest denizens, are, always were, and will continue to be, the rightful owners and possessors of the land, by the incontrovertible law of recognized inheritance. In accordance with the universal and eternal Planetary Law, we are mere squatters.

-p.

In an admittedly, intentional and deliberate reversal of logical procedure, we opt make the radical choice of stating our conclusion at the outset, and thereafter, setting forth the recital of our argument. We do this in the felt expectation that our unusual theme will be clear.

Conclusion: The use of the labels, “liberal” and “conservative” in the political lexicon, should be retired, permanently.

For as long as we have been aware, the more educated and informed citizen has frowned upon, often with contempt, the low information, unsophisticated (“flat earth”) person, who he has criticized for reductive thinking and baseless decision making (perhaps with some justification). Judgments and decisions are made by such people based on scant knowledge of the issue in question, and an insufficient apprehension of the effect of their vote. Often, as in the last election, they vote against their own vital interest (government assistance). Such inclination towards reductive (impulsive, non-factual) thinking, seems to permeate and direct the course of their lives, and their choices.

There appears to be a number of well educated and literate members of society who have  (admirably) expressed a desire to bring further education and enlightenment to such people, enabling them to enjoy a fuller life and, perhaps better equipping them to make more empirically rational judgments. We would share in such salutary goal, however, with the express caveat, that reductive thinking is not confined (solely) to the inadequately educated citizen. While we applaud the charitable sentiment, we are, also tempted to employ the old metaphoric admonition,” Physician heal thyself.

People are generally aware of the political etymology of the words, “Liberal” and “Conservative.” In the era of Adam Smith, (as we have observed in past writings) the mainstream “Liberal” was a staunch advocate of complete freedom from government participation in commerce (“laissez faire”). The supposedly self-sufficient entrepreneur himself, as well as all business and financial affairs, were properly, he felt, left to the free market, to be regulated by the natural law. The “Conservative,” reflective of his loyalty to the Crown, believed that the State (the King and the Parliament) should have supervisory authority over matters of business and finance.

Thereafter, the parties switched team uniforms; the Liberal now believed that the government has the right to referee business, and, as well, the obligation to protect the common man from onerous working conditions, and from hunger and privation. The Conservative, conversely, now fully subscribed to the historic, liberal philosophy of laissez faire independence.

As can easily be deduced, the subject designations were not imprinted on the two proverbial stone tablets delivered to Moses, but easily morphed with the changing times. It is our position that, in the present era, the two words, when used as political adjectives are at best, outmoded, and at worst, misleading and useless. The use of these tiresome designations, in fact, is every bit as reductionist, as the trait of that description, for which the low-information population has eternally been castigated.

Any rational citizen may find himself for, or against, any of the designated “liberal” causes, such as, gun control, women’s right to choose, affirmative action, guaranteed minimum wage, regulations to protect life and health, or climate control legislation; or, for or against, any of the traditional conservative preferences, such as, free trade, diminished regulations, strict immigration policy, or  increasing the federal stockpile of weapons.   It would be an unrealistic, and insincere, for a person who would self-identify as a liberal or as a conservative, solely out of some sense of tribal loyalty, to favor every one of the diverse causes in a party’s platform. The many disparate issues ought to be functionally addressed in the same manner as a metaphoric dinner “menu,” and the individual, like a dinner-patron, free to select his own nuanced preferences. Making a stereotypic choice based upon one’s avowed, or perceived, identification as a “liberal “ or “conservative”, would  be as reductionist, as any other non-thinking citizen, whether he be deemed part of the well- informed, or lesser informed population. These two misleading words should not be permitted to affect individual choices and judgments; and, since they have the likelihood of affecting the spontaneous exercise of freedom of opinion, they should be relegated to that famously full, dustbin of history. In voting the citizen would consult his perception of the nation’s and his own priorities, and make a considered choice; a more rational and democratic practice, than a reductive selection upon traditional tribal loyalties.

Such two words, obviously,  have utility, in the non-political context, such as: “Jules was liberal with the apple pie, but Judy, unfortunately, was too conservative with the ice cream,” “She made liberal use of metaphoric references” or: “He wore a conservative suit, but a psychedelic tie.”

The reader is now enabled, as desired, to return the beginning of this note, for the stated “Conclusion.”

-p.

After a reasonable period of deliberation, we have reached the confidant decision, that the printed evidence appearing on the yearly calendar, outweighs in probative value, the recent testimony of media weather forecasters, and that therefore, it is now adjudged to be Spring. At such time of year, our thoughts naturally gravitate to gardening and verdant subjects. These perennially include the amazing phenomenon of what appear to be, drab and inconspicuous tiny seeds, and their innate potential for truly magical performance. These small, unassuming power houses, when  natural conditions are favorable, (temperature, moisture, oxygen and darkness) are switched to “on” and prodded into action.

Much life on Earth, whether fauna and flora, owe its germination and existence to one kind of seed or another, activated by some mysterious force (which we choose to call the “spark”) and develops to its destined maturity. We are absolutely in awe, truly mystified and immensely respectful, of this eternal dynamic. But what is the origin and nature of this mysterious and essential spark that precipitates earthly life, governs and abides its existence, and at some point, sputters out, causing life to end? Devotees of Deistic religions have opted for an easy way out. A Deity of some denomination or another, omniscient and omnipresent, is their recognized origin, curator and source of life, as well as the referee as to longevity. There are, comfortably, for such believers, no such unanswered, agonizing questions to ponder, as there is for the agnostic.

For some perspective on the longevity of such Deist belief, we would refer to the many ancient religions in Europe, and elsewhere, who worshipped the Sun God. At certain times of the year, it was universally believed that the Deity was sick and dying; the presenting symptoms being, declining vegetation and trees, cold wind and snow, and the scarcity of animals. The sole exception were the wondrous evergreen trees, which magically continued to flourish. Societal rituals, involving evergreen trees, were religiously and faithfully enacted, and consistently resulted in the gradual, healthful recovery of the Deity; as evidenced by the appearance of new green plants, leafy trees, the thawing of frozen streams and the re-emergence of bunny rabbits and other woodland animals. It has been theorized by academics, that such early religious belief and rituals provided the foundation for those later faiths which chose to incorporate the “miracle” of “death and resurrection” in their belief and liturgy.

Comfort and satisfaction is derived from traditional religious explanations for the existential dilemmas and profound questions which eternally befuddle the agnostic. Yet, the latter, it seems, systemically, cannot ascribe to non- empirical explanations for earthly phenomena, such as the performance of seed, the laws of gravity and electricity, and, indeed, the earth’s origins. They would, defensively, stress that the word, “faith,” in the expression, “religious faith,” is distinguishable from the word, “knowledge,” in that the word “faith,” affords the permissible choice, to be a “believer” or not. Thus, believers have an obligation to not consider agnostics,” lost souls” or outcasts, and agnostics have a like obligation not to consider religionists, superstitious or schizophrenic.

We would surmise that it is doubtful that the underlying genesis of that “spark,” that impels a little seed to beautiful mature growth, will be empirically discovered; nevertheless, its scientific pursuit is most appropriate, as part of man’s natural and continuing aspiration to discover knowledge, and understanding. In any event, people of disparate opinion and belief, should respect mankind’s mutual limitations, and on principle, religious, or secular, entertain respect for each other, and practice reverential care for the Planet, its natural environment, and for all living things.

-p.

In the 21^st Century, mankind continues to have sufficient reasons for disappointment and concern. There is yet no establishment of lasting world peace. World poverty and hunger have still to be adequately addressed. Economic injustice seems to prevail everywhere, with small percentages of national populations owning virtually all the wealth, while the far more numerous others are suffering various conditions of want. The planet and its immediate atmosphere is in the process of despoliation, despite which, many ignorant people, and selfish profiteers, are adamantly denying climate change (in the face of uniform warnings of the world’s most accredited scientists). Most rational priorities have been turned profoundly askew, with the denigration of scientific and social research, as well as intellectual pursuits.

If one were systemically optimistic, he might entertain the hope that in the future, mankind, at some point, will become more  informed and motivated, and such problems then capable of solution; what is necessary, he knows, is merely a popular realization that the path to their amelioration is in the direction of addressing such problems by rational awareness and enlightenment.

Sadly, no such optimistic outlook is possible for Sr. Antonio Vivaldi, the brilliant 18^th Century composer.  His most famous work, four short (combined) violin concertos each dedicated, respectively, to one of the natural seasons, is known as “The Four Seasons.” In Antonio’s day, and until recently, there were, inarguably, four distinct seasons, to which Vivaldi gave mellifluous, and specific recognition, in that inventive and exciting  Baroque composition.

Summers had been reliably hot and humid, for which we wore, appropriately, light clothes, Fall, cooler and drier, necessitating warmer dress, cold and snowy Winters required heavy clothes and boots, and Spring, called for lighter, more comfortable wear. The dates indicated on our yearly calendars, informed us of the (approximate) times when the distinct seasons were to arrive and expire.

In recent years, we have experienced unprecedented alteration in the seasonal weather patterns, manifesting no regularity, and little advance predictability.  This spring, as an illustrative example, had its dramatic inception with ice and snow, followed by strong cold winds and heavy rain. Past months  have demonstrated unpredictable weather events, often at variance with our  empirical expectations for the respective season. Accordingly, there is now the practical necessity to dress as dictated by the needs of the particular day, as opposed  doing so seasonally; there are, now, functionally no “winter jackets” or “fall” or “spring jackets”; there are only “heavy” And “light jackets.” . Our choice of activities, as well, may depend upon the day’s weather, rather than those in which we were traditionally engaged relative to the season.

We may be inconvenienced with the inconvenient clothing adjustments, but we are especially troubled lest these irregular meteorological shifts, portent future catastrophic planetary events. We are not versed in the discipline of meteorology nor climate studies, but  intuit that this phenomenon may be related to the climate changes referred to by our leading scientists. Their published findings warn of the dangerous  impact of man’s harmful production of hydrocarbons and other hazardous chemicals, polluting the earth’s atmosphere. We would like to  issue a serious public challenge to all “climate deniers,” to furnish a more cogent reason for these unprecedented and unusual meteorological  events.

While many Americans may opt to stay calm and await further developments, we can envision the unfortunate Antonio  Vivaldi, sitting quite alone, in his heavenly music room, severely dejected, concerning these recent events, most particularly concerning the possibility of downsizing  (or heaven forbid) the determined obsolescence, of his beautiful, four-part symphony.

-p.

The degree of accuracy contained in the apocryphal tale of America’s first President, George Washington, which provides that, as a youth, he spontaneously and honestly confessed to his father that he (wrongfully) chopped down the cherry tree, or the conduct of an inquiry into the historic basis for President Abraham Lincoln’s nickname, “Honest Abe,” is relatively inconsequential. What does matter is the symbolic message communicated by such folklore, viz., that the good character and natural  inclination of Americans, is to reliably tell the truth (today, we might say, it is in our DNA). These two virtuous Presidents were elected by a voting population which did not deem it necessary to suspect any variation from the implicit traits of honesty and truthfulness, they experienced in interaction with each other, and expected of their governmental representatives.

The natural assumption of truthfulness, in fact, comprises the cornerstone of any successfully stable, interdependent, and interactive society. Historically, survival and existence were dependent upon truthful and reliable reports, often concerning matters which bore on life and death. As societies matured into more complex political-social entities (city states, and much later, national entities), presumed accuracy and truthfulness, remained a cornerstone support, facilitating mutual protection, social interaction, and ultimately, the growth and maturity of such societies through the communication of reliable information and instructed skills.

Since veracity, was always implicit, any questioning of the same was perceived as blatant insult. Like the traditional trust that necessarily exists between family members, especially spouses, its questioning was unnecessary and rare; and usually portended serious problems. It has been observed, empirically, that once the elements of trust and veracity, are breached, they can never be fully restored.

Thus, truthfulness and sincerity, existing as natural and implicit assumptions, an individual, who had been shown to have uttered a falsehood, became a social pariah, a resident outcast from society and, in effect, a stranger. The intentional act of lying, encompasses the secret withholding of the truth, from others, by the perpetrator, who may see himself as superior, by virtue of his exclusive knowledge of the truthful facts. Yet, by this lone and selfish act, he has effectively separated himself from those he knowingly misled; in pictorial terms, he has donned the invisible mask of deception, and has effectively, become a stranger, living behind that mask. This would be unendurable for a properly socialized member of society, who might well, remorsefully, confess his lie. Not so with the selfish, or sociopathic liar who may see his engineered deception as a personal accomplishment. It may be surmised that the latter never was, in essence, a dedicated and fully committed, member of society and had always worn a mask.

In sum, the element of truth was universal, and ultimate faith in its existence, made any explanation of such assumption, superfluous. Truth was never a subject for discussion but was the natural expectation; in rare cases of offense, the miscreant was adjudged a societal pariah, an outcast from that society.

From its inception, the surprising elevation of Donald Trump, an incapable, ignorant, egoist, to the office of President, began to evince harmful, bizarre and embarrassing activity. In his first days of office, Trump commenced an unprecedented series of adolescent style, informal, telephone calls to foreign heads of state, despite his complete ignorance of official protocol, or any knowledge [ by this transmographied former game show host] of the political state of affairs between the respective country telephoned, and the U.S.  Further  damage to the Office of the President and the country, has included appointment of self-serving, inept, cabinet members and departmental Secretaries; causing national and international embarrassment and disrespect by his acts and statements; publicly expressing his derogation of science, especially climate science; articulating voiced disrespect for the women’s movement;  commission of publicly advertised acts of sexual abuse; making bigoted statements on the subject of civil rights; manifesting consistent opposition to sensible gun laws, in support of the NRA; showing express disrespect for learning and intellectual pursuits; engaging in an inappropriate and cruel nativist immigration policy, and so very much more, as we have enumerated in prior writings. Notwithstanding the extensive list of these shameful misdeeds causing great damage to the nation and to the Office of the Presidency, due to his incompetent and impulsive rule, we see, yet, a far more devastating and enduring wound to the very heart of the nation; and that is his attack on, and disparagement of, that precious, systemic and irreplaceable commodity, truth.

We assume that the substantial social and political injury caused to our nation, domestically and internationally, by Trump’s sheer ineptitude and ignorance, in time, will be repairable by succeeding competent leaders. But, we fear, that spiritual damage to the basic systemic identity of our nation is so profoundly insidious, that full restoration and healing may not, be completely attainable. We again refer to the essential message of the “Honest Abe” and George Washington societal myths, which still have significant resonance, and are in stark contrast to Trump’s total disregard for, and frontal attack, upon truthfulness. Not unlike traditional and practical faith in marital fidelity, the subject of implicit citizen truthfulness had always been the normal assumption, and had never, until now, been a subject of discussion, but was always the natural, automatic assumption. Such an effectively damaging outcome could never have been accomplished by any well- financed propaganda campaign of a foreign enemy.

The conduct of the Trump presidency, from its outset, has shown little regard for veracity. His profound ignorance and complete lack of capacity for the position of America’s chief executive, complicated by an adolescent ego, seems to serve as an impassible roadblock, preventing Trump from accepting any guidance regarding his impulsive and perpetual mistakes. Accordingly, mendacity, inconsistency and subterfuge, continue to be his defensive strategies and main survival tactic. On a great many  occasions, he has, wearing the referenced mask, comfortably contradicted statements he made the very same day. Trump’s constant output of mendacity and sham, is loyally ratified, when needed, and called upon, by his chosen sycophants. It is the (legitimate) media such as the N.Y. Times and The Washington Post as well as the (long standing, dependable) news services, he persists in claiming, that are disseminating “fake news,” (a signature Trump defensive term) critical of his Presidency.

We are gravely concerned that the policy of glib, apparently super -confident, but false, statements of fact, on the part of, (no less) a President of the United States, may, conceivably, result in some degree of erosion of the previous American emblematic reverence for truth. We fear that in some subtle and gradual fashion, regular exposure to the President’s convenient, defensive tactics of mendacity, may acquire some measure of normalcy, the smallest degree of which, would surely constitute major, devastating injury to the traditionally understood American moral character.

Society cannot advance, nor can its citizenry strive for enhancement, unless the conduct of our lives is reliably unmasked, and proceeds in a milieu of mutual trust.

-p.