Category: Uncategorized

A confident and consistent self-image is the bedrock reference point for one’s belief system, decision making and overt action. As the swift current of life inevitably courses on, we need to recognize our own participation in it, as responsibly aware and credibly distinct personalities.

Others get to know us and take our meaning and intention from their observation of our action and their awareness of our avowed points of view. Even more critical is our own individual knowledge and awareness of our personal, private identity known as our “self.” This is our essential compass which directs and orchestrates our understanding of rectitude and moral choices. Those who lack a confident, consistent “self” usually are destined to lead a rudderless, confusing and meaningless existence during their stay on the planet.

To be sure, one is always capable, by dint of newly attained enlightenment and sufficient contemplation, to alter his internal self- portrait, but even such a change must embark from a designated starting point and proceed to the newly established one, hopefully, by a rationally guided compass.

In one of the classic cartoon strips, “Pogo” the sage cartoonist, Walt Kelly, depicts his ever-present hero. “Pogo the Opossum” portrayed in Napoleonic battle dress, in front of a still- smoking cannon, proudly brandishing his saber and stating: “We have met the enemy and he is us!”

The opinions and judgments of individuals, who are seen as possessed of healthy and a well -adjusted persona, are, for such reason, worthy of consideration since the same are presumed to have been made thoughtfully and free from outside influence.

In the preceding blog, we urged the need to maintain a secure self-image to serve as an inner-directed guide in making moral choices, and the futility of the reductive rewards- punishment regime (Blog#72).

It has been said somewhere, “A Man’s Home Is His Castle.” This may have some cognizable value as to the rights of ownership and privacy; but a home and castle are only real estate. The essential habitation of man is found in his mature understanding of his personal identity, his “self.”

-p.

History consistently teaches that the most precious and valuable resource of a nation is its people. One illustrative example is Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s.That modest size country came close to conquering the entire world. This capability was the result of an effective social organization making possible the mobilization of a highly productive population. Under the leadership of the United States, the Allies were ultimately victorious, in large part, due to that ability to mobilize capable citizenry. The history of the Second World War is an instructive, albeit depressing, example of the continuing need for a productive society which is capable of being summoned in times of trouble.

Apart from such need for the purposes of defense and in times of catastrophe, the attainment of a nation’s potential is manifested in the quality of its intelligence and creativity; the same being in no small way, the end product of an appropriate emphasis on the teaching and study of the arts and sciences, an essential ingredient in the maintenance of a nation’s soul. Of all the useless, ignorant and shameful aphorisms, (see blog#11) two stand out as especially harmful:

1. Spare the rod and spoil the child and

2. Children should be seen and not heard.

Such traditional   claptrap must be the inspired result of some early American “Dark Ages” featuring a profound institutional ignorance and is predictive of neurotic and repressed offspring.

Mercifully, travesty number “1” is proscribed by most contemporary statutes regarding child abuse which laws usually carry criminal sanctions for their disobedience. A tip of the hat to Charles Dickens!

During brunch at a nearby Connecticut diner, I heard a father state to his young sons, as the family was preparing to leave, “Your behavior was very good, this time.” Having sat at an adjoining table, I was led to assume that the parent intended his statement to be a compliment to the children; as observed the two young boys were completely silent during their family’s meal. I dropped my fork in agitated distress, observing with disbelief that the parent’s standard for “good behavior” was no less than catatonia.

The practice of parenting is notably the most skilled of all the professions; the rearing of healthy children in the context of a mutually loving and respectful setting, being the essential goal. The cited example, regrettably, is not exceptional; many people, for various reasons, seem to be more intent on raising potted plants than spontaneous and creative offspring. The predictable outcome of such adherence to aphorism “2,” above, is repressed, neurotic and even rebellious children; worse, the future perpetuation of a style of parenting whose neurotic needs call for silent obedience. Some would even go so far as to call this a species of child abuse.

Children cannot attain their innate potential nor a sense of their worth in such a repressive atmosphere. They simply take on characteristics common incarcerated prisoners, serving an indeterminate sentence of 17 to 21 years under the supervision of a parental warden. People who are secure in their parental role do not aspire to totalitarian obedience as reassurance of their capability. By day to day demeanor they gain the respect and recognition appropriate to their role as parents. Remonstration and discipline on the part of such parents is an occasional and unpleasant necessity, not a duty. The effective parent instructs his children in morality and responsibility by imitative example. Children can thus develop a sense of their own inner-directed right action and personal self- respect; constant external supervision is unnecessary.

The artless parent teaches morality in the same manner as observed international foreign relations; by the employment of the” carrot and the stick.” Good behavior is rewarded with the carrot, bad gets the stick. This foolish, reductive and predictably unsuccessful mode, unfortunately, seems to be all pervasive. The child, if so reared, does not develop his own (internalized) standard of behavior without external prompting; else what is to motivate the child from wrongful acts in the absence of parental scrutiny. Right action should be chosen by the child for the reason that it is consistent with his developed positive self- image; wrongful action would be avoided, not to avoid parental punishment but by reason of the same motivation. This is a self- respect and dignified morality which will endure.

In similar context, and on a related subject, caring and sensitive responses to the inexperienced child’s inevitable foolish questions should be made kindly and with the mature awareness that young children are most impressionable and bruise easily. A sensitive, respectful and loving alternative to pedantic ridicule is a response such as: “OK holds that thought for a moment, what you think about this…” In styling the correction as a question, “what do you think about? …; correcting the child by respectfully asking for his opinion (prior to the proposition of the corrected facts) the grateful child’s ego and self-respect is left intact. Additionally, perhaps, the stated interest in his opinion will encourage thought. The frustrated, pedantic response, as an alternative, only hurts the child who, predictably, will remember only that his parent was angry and thinks little of him.

Children are not vehicles for the derivative achievement of parentally unrealized goals nor are they underlings to satisfy insecure parents’ neurotic need to achieve a feeling of power or significance by demanding their silent, puppet-like and immediate obedience.

Exceptionally sweet, high quality fruit is borne by properly tended trees; useful and desirable citizens are those that have been lovingly and respectfully reared to be spontaneous, creative and self-sufficient.

-p.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the appointed dates, people of every  description  gleefully step off their respective daily turf, climb up on to the holiday carousel and together enjoy the ride, the carny music and the  lights and  festive colors. These shared occasions and observances have profound benefits which are, in reality, a good deal more significant than the mere cessation of work and the consequent liberty for elective activity.

In these national celebrations, all Americans participate, regardless of divergent ethnos, culture and economic strata, and welcome such addenda to their respective observances and folkways. What make for our country’s unity are social glues of many kinds, among which is our uniform recognition and joint participation in mutually recognized holidays.

There are traditional observances performed in common by our diverse population, including for example, greeting cards, holiday symbols and paraphernalia, traditional greetings, even a shared annoyance regarding holiday traffic; we are festive and annoyed, together. The universal recognition of these special dates is often celebrated at parties and overtly and enthusiastically displayed by banners, costumes, lanterns, trees and ornaments; on Independence Day, we may display red, white and blue decorations

In addition to such salutary and positive display of shared sentiment and solidarity, it might just be possible to suggest a somewhat novel order of observance which would be aimed at increasing one’s own personal perspective, identity and self- knowledge.

Over the course of our individual lives, we experience significant events, which to each of us are particularly memorable, some even perceived as milestones. These might include painful recollection of loss or change of circumstance, as well as events appropriate to joyous celebratory activity.

Thus, while our sharing of public events in common is immensely valuable, the life of the individual has its own nuanced and memorable events which are filed away in the psyche and not publically shared. We all maintain personal libraries of memory which, if consulted, might offer useful perspective, personal understanding and acceptance. The alternative to this sort of constructive introspection may be a life which seems to us to have no separate identity, is amorphous and even, meaningless.

In addition to birthdays, wedding anniversaries, memorial dates and the like (which we do celebrate) we all have perceived milestones, favorable or otherwise, as well as numerous events worthy of note in our own life experience; our first school day, our first real kiss, the first day we drove a car, our first home, our favorite pet, our first publication, our first trip abroad, the first book read, the big fish caught. These, are examples of uniquely memorable experiences, worthy of celebration which offer us a sense of personal identity and of an authentic life lived. We need to ride a personal carousel of recollected salient events.

-p.

There is a fast-growing sentiment in the conscience of our nation, that the criminal sentence of solitary confinement is “torture” and as such, illegal under the U.S.Constitution’s proscription of “cruel and unusual” punishment. The absolute denial of the company of other human beings would seem to be directly contrary to man’s understood innate need for the society of other people.

For the purpose of this writing, and regarding its frequent reference to the noun, “friend(s),” we emphatically exclude that designation as used by the maestros of “face book” which signifies (only) that individuals have mutually consented to send and receive e-mail or text messages .Such misused term and relationships have no similarity, in any way imaginable, to the nature of a selective interface which features visual and audible interaction and the exchange of real words and expressive sentiment.

By stark contrast,  living in” real”  contact with others, personally  exchanging thoughts and opinions, ideas and experiences (good and bad), joint celebration of happy events and the rendition of mutual comfort, when needed, are truly life- enhancing phenomena.

Living near familiar company carries with it a cornucopia of benefits including the opportunity for objectivity, physical and emotional assistance, mutual consultation in the search for solutions to problems, experience with other patterns of behavior and thought and with differences in style of attire, cuisine and a myriad of assorted phenomena.

An isolated life is lonely, insulated, self- conscious and amorphous; there are no comparable instructive or referable models to emulate as useful guides to successful living and problem solving.

Fellowship affords to the individual a recognizably ascribed (or self- determined) identity (see: Blog#47)   and an overall guide to life- style. It also furnishes normative guides for dress, speech and expectations as well as calibrates responses to specific stimuli (Blog # 23).

We are especially understanding and forgiving in our reaction to the errors and weaknesses of our friends; we offer comforting thoughts, perspective and context, suggestions regarding the specific underlying circumstances, as well as the limited significance of the error, and, importantly, remind the friend of the great many past actions which were performed by him successfully. These are valuable services since most of us suffer excessively, often beyond the materiality of the error.

A puzzling and  insightful  question may be posed as to why we do not apply a similar objective analysis to ourselves; when we miscalculate, burn dinner, make a spelling  error, utter a malapropism, forget an  anniversary, drop the football,, even,  select the wrong mate; we do not extend to ourselves any grace, understanding or mitigating analysis.  Instead we, all too often, overreact and begin to reappraise our former understanding of our self-worth.

Is it because we are too personally insecure that we cannot detach ourselves for a moment and seek a modicum of objectivity?  Have we established for ourselves unrealistic standards? Are these the reasons why it seems to take the intercession of a third party friend for consolation and support?

To our main point, we need to be a friend to ourselves in similar manner as we would to someone else, and by being less judgmental of, and more forgiving, to ourselves.

When we make an error or miscalculation, p. would be bold enough to suggest the use of the following queries in aid of the promotion of our respective friendship with ourselves:

(a) What is the actual, realistic extent and impact of the error?

(b) Why define yourself by your mistake; why not by the great many things you have previously done correctly?

(c) Can you reasonably expect yourself to have an aptitude for everything?

Be your own counsellor and friend; you probably deserve it!

-p.

It is conceivable that, within the wide realm of possibility, members of the” smart-phone” sub-culture would  suddenly find themselves confronted with the presence of real (as opposed to “virtual”) people, making necessary the employment by them of acceptable and meaningful vocabulary. Such interaction would be an exotic one for the “dude” and “diva” after having acculturated themselves to “text talk” and the style of data-like transmissions in the changing patois du jour. Real words, spoken by recognizable voices, with nuance and personal expression for them would be” retro”, if not extinct.

The folkways of our modern era are not at all to be compared with those of the polite society of our distraught Jane Austen. We reference her times only to illuminate our point. In Jane’s day, as an example, on the occasion of the meeting of individuals, greetings and niceties would be exchanged in keeping with the protocol of the day; a possible scenario might be:

“My good Mr. Chillingout, I would request the honor and extreme pleasure of presenting to you the learned Reverend,  M. Theo Logica, formerly of Kent, presently occupying the living as the  Vicar of St. Jules,  Plinytown, North Sylvieshire.”

Reverend Logica, in turn, would be the recipient of similar formalities. It is conceivable that the ensuing conversation might be somewhat briefer than the traditional dance of the introduction. However, in its day, traditional protocol and ceremony might have been useful in the peaceful acknowledgment of the relative status enjoyed by the diverse people concerned.

In the “modern era,” the introductory choreography, happily, was simplified and made less formal, ex:

“Joe Blogworthy, I would like you to meet my next door neighbor, Ken C. Google.”

The response then called for would be something like” Hi,” or “Glad to meet you.” This style of exchange is certainly sufficient and acceptable.

However, as a direct and proximate result of the emergence and exponential increase in electronic communication (smart phone e-mail and texting) simple, meaningful conversation, for many people went the way of the Dodo bird. The comfortable pleasure of identifiable verbal conversation atrophied and descended into an electronic transmission of code-like letter symbols. At first, the phrase “What’s up” (not a question, only a substitute for “hello”) then the more primitive, “s ‘up”. The next phase was the atavistic development of further symbols, such as “lol”, “omg” and the disgraceful others. This reversal of evolutionary progress seems to portend a return to the Neanderthal “grunt.” We would cry with Jane.

It is now evidentiary history that the nature of human conversation vastly declined contemporaneous with the advent of the “smartphone” (see blogs #3 and #25).

Evolutionary biologists, long ago, singled out the development of the opposable thumb as immensely significant in the evolution of primates and other higher forms of life. They would certainly cry with Jane to learn that such evolutionary advance (seen by them as destined to enable the use and development of tools) as a valuable survival and growth dynamic, instead became the main implement of retrograde individuals who would ignorantly reverse the progress of human, highly evolved, speech and language as a unique capability developed over the vast millennia.

Grunt, Grunt, Snarl!

-p.

Addendum: Sadly, it seems that the institution and aesthetically pleasing practice of letter correspondence has also gone the way of the Dodo and the Mammoth.

In the broad spectrum of anti-social, or errant behavior,” incompetence” deserves the most coveted prize. It is usually enabled by a concomitant of two miscreant features, ignorance and confidence; the  mutual allure is deadly.

Our nation’s most successful enterprise, aside from raising soy beans and corn, is unarguably, marketing. Impressionable, or dissatisfied folks, seem to evince an irresistible attraction to marketing propaganda, not entirely dissimilar to that of a moth and a light bulb. Offer an adequate incentive (money) to the agency and the response would predictably be, “no problem.” Sugar-laden drinks, potentially harmful chemicals, violent video games, miracle foods or diets, fitness programs for everyone (regardless of physical condition), “you name it.”  Glitzy, Barbee dolls, decked out with “bling” and masculine “hunks”, heroes, problem solvers, celebrities and incentive coaches promote age-defying creams and oils, medicines for every malady, from heartburn to bi-polar disorder (for you to edify your physician),  personal Injury lawyers, life extending elixirs and whatever may be the snake oil du jour.

In similar fashion, there are many individuals who, by means of their tactical representation of expertise and self-confidence, seem to have the remarkable capacity to induce unwary members of the public to so act, or refrain from action, to encourage cosmetic surgery, to buy into “get rich quick” deals ( in real estate or gold coins, for example) to purchase a particular automobile or wristwatch, insurance plan,  and even, for whom  to vote (albeit possibly against the voter’s interest).

Bad advice is often widely disseminated, by television, smart-phone and even more effectively, in person-to-person interaction. In the context of our great and literate nation, the fact that an ignorant, egotistical braggart-clown (the personification of reductive ignorance in attractive combination with self-confidence) can have himself popularly  selected  as one of the two candidates in an election for the Presidency, ought be beyond any reasonable ken or tolerant acceptability.

Experience has wisely taught us to avoid the society of the criminal and other unsavory members of our society. The latter, if not at first, soon thereafter, becomes identifiable and therefore,  avoidable. So express evil- doers rank only second in our spectrum of miscreants since we know how to be safe.

But incompetence has no warning lights and is all too often identified only after the manifestation of its tragic results. Thus, incompetence rates as more dangerous than criminality. It is often not recognizable and the amiable incompetent may with our permission, soon find his way into our “soft parts.”

In the interest of our own self-preservation, we are mandated to avoid the “sell,” by conducting our own research and inquiry. Comparative experience, research in the literature, and a thorough examination of the subject are invaluable and are highly recommended; however it should be note that the most effective antidote to this “Eighth Sin”, incompetence, is the liberal exercise of our human reason.

-p

In our ever-present aspiration to attain self-knowledge and identity it is essential to examine and review our past record of acts and behavior. In the course of such internal audit, misleading subjectivity may be minimized by sufficient attention to those societal norms to which we ascribe, as well as to the comparative behavior of individuals who we consider worthy exemplars.

Our present system of laws and ethical precepts are, necessarily, dependent upon the premise that we, as individuals, can freely choose between right and wrong. The competing belief regarding action and behavior is the theory of “determinism” or fate.

Many celebrated philosophers and theologians have used “free will” theory as the cornerstone of the infrastructure of their ethical precepts and teachings. In free will, man (ex., Adam) is solely and only responsible for his choices; good choices beget benefits, bad ones, suffering. Free will is the shiny bauble of philosophical morality; where necessary, man had to be taught, or forced to, right action.

Contrariwise, those who were (and still are) adherents to the theory of determinism, maintain a belief in the active participation of outside, third party forces or agencies that affect man’s behavior.

It is much easier to critique the belief in outside forces as third party agencies which are believed to influence or determine man’s behavior, than to reliably calibrate free will.

The wide-spread belief in external, influencing forces was a significant, typical and salient feature of the long-lived Dark Ages, existing prominently until the liberating development of The Age of Enlightenment (blog 61) which rationally devalued the eerie currency of superstition.

It would necessarily follow that no moral code or concept of right action could rationally exist, were man’s behavior manipulated by some external puppeteer. No blame or honor could be logically bestowed under determinism; the latter is best relegated to a museum of antiquity or the graveyard.

The competing theory in the examination of the dynamics of human behavior is the theory of free will. The analysis of this alternative theory is not capable of a simplistic, reductive review as is the case with determinism.

The theory of free will is not solely reserved for didactic philosophical discourse. It is also less esoterically recognized and utilized in such worldly areas as criminal and tort law, marketing and advertising, choice of belief systems and opinion, aesthetic choices, entertainment, conversation as well as a myriad of mundane phenomena.

The   belief in freewill is enormously empowering and infused with potential for creativity and self-realization. However, Classical Free Will, in its purest and ideal state, would predictably result in full responsibility for action, without any equitable explanation or understanding To subscribe to the ideal is to indulge in the concept beyond usefulness, empathy or understanding (blog#20).But  free will does not merit summary rejection or unfavorable  critique as applicable to the theory of determinism.

Impinging to no small degree on free will, are evolutionary dynamics, psychological and chemical factors, (as demonstrated by recent findings in modern behavioral science) genetics, environmental factors, parenting, belief systems, health, race, economic factors and others.

From the time the fetus (now, child) is forcibly evicted from the safe, warm and familiar environment of the womb, the unconscious mind, in its primitive desire to avoid danger has caused the individual to fear change as a threat. (blog#15) Our bio-chemical system, in tandem with our psyche, often orchestrates an internal, primitive warning, sometimes constructive, sometimes not. Often, a disinclination to take necessary action, results from a subtle feeling, not an explanation; the latter is often supplied (perhaps incorrectly) later as a retrospective rationale. The unconscious mind is usually not our friend.

Despite the limitations on free will, we are still responsible for our actions. The theory, nevertheless is useful in the understanding the personal, private bases for our thoughts, impulses and feelings. The goal is the attainment of freedom of choice of action despite the existence of impulses and inclinations of a non-constructive nature.

We have the potential to lead rational, useful lives despite our individualized repository of old fears and predilections. Free will is the only construct that exalts individuality, growth and creativity.

-p.

 

I saw a man the other day
His nose was long, his face was drawn
His pleading eyes said “go away”
Yet curiosity drew me on.

With gnarly hands between two knees
As bony as an unfed rat,
He faintly smiled, with visage green-
Part covered by a dirty hat.

I stared as if by magnet led-
He rose and left, right at Times Square
The door then closed, the train sped on-
And left me puzzled, blinking there.

I looked about, but no one seemed
Disturbed by such a grisly view-
But I, impressed by this sight, dreamed-
And tossed awake for half the night.

Where does he go? Who can he be?
Does he know love? Can he not speak?
And was” He” (shudder) watching “ me”?
Am “I” the one who is more weak?

-p (attributed to Leonard N. Shapiro (1950) 2nd study, Wordsworth: meter, style.

I wander far within my mind
A pensive trail from vill to vill
I travel oft and far, and find
Each time a new succeeding thrill

I oftimes wend a weary mile
With slight expenditure of will
And halt at times, to see and smile at-
Hind and buck upon the hill

The summer with its vital dew
The springtime’s rich and muddy womb
I see the skies, both grey and blue
I see the diaper and the tomb

I see the city’s murky mist,
The country ivy nod and climb
An infant’s cheek, so gently kissed
A ‘ fested bog all ooze and slime

Man well may brave the seas or span
The space in search of human kind,
For me, no venture is more grand-
Than that within the human mind.
-p (attributed to Leonard N. Shapiro)

• (This was his 1949 study of the structure and meter
of William Wordworth’s famous, “Daffodils”)

 

 

It might be a wise move to eliminate the term, “socialism” from the non-academic lexicon; it is useful in a college course on political theory,  but has  been so perverted and misused by our low information population (and those who pander after their votes) as to effectively become an epithet.  In a society where so many devalue education and wisdom,” tags” albeit inaccurate, are popular (See: Blog#28).

There is, inarguably, is no socialism in nature. A bird with a broken wing, a deer with a lame foot, an owl with impaired vision are all goners; inadequate rainfall leads to the mortality of fauna and flora alike. It would be extremely challenging to identify any human beings on this planet that have had the capacity to exist and survive without some societal assistance, especially regarding sustenance and protection.

With the rise and development of industrial mass production, the perception of the intrinsic value of the common man was depreciated and reduced solely to the measure of his potential utility and capacity to work and produce profitable goods for the industrial entrepreneur.

Charles Dickens (and others) artistically and compassionately depicted the brutal and unprincipled use of men, women and young children as instruments of labor (rather than as human beings) in the Victorian era.

Adam Smith, then denominated a “liberal,” maintained that a proper just and efficient society should be completely free of and unfettered by State (Government) control or influence. This brilliant (but errant) philosopher opined that the natural law” of supply and demand would ensure a successful society. The talented contemporary novelist, Ann Rand, shared this heartless economic theory. It simply doesn’t work; ask Charles Dickens, himself or President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

In response to the “Great Depression” of the early 20^th century, FDR entered into a binding social contract with America, providing for federal participation in the operation of the American economy for the benefit of the nation and its people. This necessary entry by government into the economy and life of the people ,forever repealed the law of the jungle and its Darwinian cruelty and made way for a more compassionate and moral society. Government sponsored projects in general infrastructure, including bridges, roads, transportation, construction of colleges and museums, hospitals and countless others, for the benefit of the worker and citizen in general as well as the nation. Social security, health and labor laws, the protective oversight of hospitals, food and medicine are among a myriad of responsible life enhancing developments which evolved and which have become vital ingredients in the context of the good life of the American citizen, thus elevating him above the merciless world of Darwinism.

FDR’s contract with America worked, it still works. The proper understanding and employment of a calibrated and balanced participation and oversight by government, assures us of safety of our person when we walk the streets, travel, eat, are ill, and even when we invest.

Capitalism, happily and predictably, will always remain our American form of government.   Nevertheless, our “flat earth people,” are encouraged by that materially successful portion of our society, which greedily worships at the altar of the many-fisted profit deity, to believe that government policies of responsible assistance are “Socialism,” an evil pied piper who is leading our nation to ruin. The same modest, low information people, who, in reality, may stand in most need of government assistance, are persuaded and misled into virulently opposing all such programs .It is particularly vexing to observe that the large number of our Congressmen, ( usually Republican ) who publically decry and condemn all government assistance programs (as” Socialism”) but who comfortably accept and  enjoy salaries and benefits, health insurance (which they oppose for the American citizen),retirement benefits, travel and emoluments of all and every kind which are paid for by the federal government.

It may be possible to avoid some discord by naming our polity “Responsible Capitalism.”

-p.