plinyblogdotcom

With all respect, we find it positively mindboggling, that, despite their determined, radical aspiration to do away with unfair and corrupt institutions, historically existing in ancestral Europe, the Founders authored a replication of the arbitrary and corrupt institution of the “Royal Pardon”. (U.S. Constitution (Article II, Sec.2, Clause 1). The understood, intended foundational theme of the new, experimental, democratic republic, as envisioned, would do away with class privilege and arbitrary justice, and, instead, provide for an equitable nation, with “liberty and justice for all.” We are thus perplexed with the inclusion and perpetuation of this arbitrary royal privilege, in our foundational document.

We have read that one of the revered, Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, explained, that its purpose was, in times of national unrest, to quell retributory violence and promote peace. History reveals that the Presidential privilege was exercised to assure harmony and avert insurrection, by President Abraham Lincoln after the conclusion of the Civil War, and that it was employed to the same end, more than once, during the publicly divisive Viet Nam War period. Yet we have ascertained that this “royal privilege” was exercised in excess of 2,000 times, for sundry other reasons, including instances of political and social purpose. One is inclined to question the sincerity and accuracy of our protestations of proportional justice.

A sleeping dog was awakened, by the despicable pardon granted to Sheriff “Joe” Arpaio; known for his racism, physical torture of Hispanic immigrants, and public immorality. Our “ good old boy,” Sheriff Joe, had been convicted by a Federal Court of flagrant contempt, for intentionally disobeying the Federal Judge’s Order to appear in Court; to, no doubt, the celebrated delight of his rebellious red-neck followers. Our Solomonic Head of State, who counts such despicable miscreants among his loyal [“base”] supporters, summarily granted such monster a full pardon, even by-passing a statutorily prescribed administrative process, mandated to preliminarily take place, before the U.S. Justice Department, respecting pardons. This dishonorable, non-Presidential behavior, of Donald Trump, has caused much criticism and unrest in our nation, but no doubt, little surprise.

The late Senator John McCain, was among a great many Americans, who felt that the pardon granted by President Trump, to Arpaio, for the crime of criminal contempt of an Order of The Federal Court, created an illegal and dangerous precedent.

We are also concerned that the witnesses, appearing before the Special Prosecutor, as well as those who are to testify before the various Congressional Committees, will be tainted with the stain of arbitrary Presidential pardon.

The American Public which, is by now, unquestionably aware of the many scenarios, in which many people, close to the President, are charged with serious crime, of all sorts, domestic and international. It  appears that these felonies were committed on behalf of President Trump, himself. Many have been shown to have the actual participation, in fact, of the President, himself. It would seem to be a Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, if the President could pardon people for the commission of crimes in which he, himself, was complicit. How about his own proven criminal acts? Those of his miscreant family:  does the Mad Hatter, himself, have the authority to pardon?

We wonder, under the circumstances, whether a  Constitutional Amendment, eliminating the Executive Pardon, altogether, or at least, providing proper criteria for its exercise, would have requisite citizen support.

-p.

We can still recall from our childhood City summers, seeing long strips of yellow sticky paper, vertically hung, in grocery stores and other small retail establishments, slowly undulating, in response to the weak breeze emanating from the noisy and functionally impotent, revolving ceiling fans. The long, yellow strips of glue-sticky paper were taxed with the rather grim and thankless duty, of attracting hapless members of the Brooklyn fly population, to suffer the ignominious fate of death by involuntary adherence. The present title and this post refer to hapless, insecure and needy human beings, immobilized in a flypaper-like adherence, to their neurotic need for (group) acceptance; and voluntarily sacrifice their individuality in the process.

In most cases, the attribution of any of our societally positive adjectives, instantly summons up a Pavlov-style, reflexive, feeling of approval. Among such numerous laudatory adjectives, are words like, kind, loving, trustworthy, moral, honest, sincere, and at applicable times, our mot de jour, “loyal.” Generally, the employment of any of our lexicon’s inventory of positive words, unfailingly portrays a specific, distinct and admirable virtue. However, the adjectival term, “loyalty,” by lone contrast, has potential for double-edged attribution, and thus is not necessarily positive, but is, rather singularly, dependent upon its specific contextual application.

“Loyalty,” as generally understood, is a noble term, suggestive of righteous sentiment and faithful behavior appropriate to a recognized, devoted relationship (i.e., family, friendship, nation.) The underlying dynamics of this word, however, are somewhat distinctive from the other words in the class of positive adjectives. The subject word appears, uniquely, to be grounded, in large part, on emotional underpinnings and sentiments of mandatory homage, and in a far lesser part, on rational consideration. These dynamics can be problematic and deserving of our consideration.

We have only to look to Munich, Germany in the 1930’s to see the positive adjective, “loyalty” perverted to its most nightmarish application; a literate, educated society was, in the name of loyalty to the State, caused to dutifully exterminate fellow Germans, including babies, who happened to be Jewish, as if they were mere cockroaches, as literally portrayed, in Hitler’s insanely hateful “Mein Kampf”.”

Moreover, the misleadingly healthy and positive connotation of “loyalty,” has in fact, seriously challenged the very fabric of our democratic republic. We have previously written on the subject of “tribalism,” wherein insecure persons, vote exclusively for the candidate deemed preferred by their insular group, rather than, based on their own determination. And as well, of the “one issue” voters, loyally adherent to their singular issue, who vote for a candidate, solely, based upon the latter’s declared position on that issue. This latter practice, of course, ignores the other major positions in the candidate’s professed platform, thereby skewing any democratically attempted analysis of the national will. The phenomenon of loyalty, and the neurotic need for acceptance, in such instances are mutually indistinguishable, and as well, selfishly counterproductive.

It is obvious that the virtue of loyalty, founded on good principle, love of family, moral standards or self- respecting morality, is inarguably commendable. When based on irresponsible, neurotic need, shared bigotry, or exclusionary ignorance, it portends an act of blind and irresponsible self-immolation, very much like a fly’s persistent adherence to the fly paper.

-p.

 

We have recently, and unhappily, observed a remarkably popular tendency in modern oral interaction, to preferably, substitute the very latest jargon (“cant”), whenever conceivably possible, in lieu of traditional vocabulary. This worrisome practice appears to be no less than rampant, despite the undeniably experiential fact, that the use of standard, traditional language, predictably affords far greater assurance of accuracy of the transmitted message. Yet, uncannily, it appears that once uttered, the slang word is accepted, repeated, and shortly thereafter, exponentially morphed (metastasized into) general, wide-spread use.

It may be useful at the outset, to offer a modest sample of such referenced terms, as available illustration. We would also offer the ominous and remarkable observation, that every one of the provided examples, somehow, has already acquired formal and official acceptance, into the historic American lexicon:

[Examples: discombobulate (confuse), bamboozle (trick, defraud), flummox (surprise, disorient), bail (abruptly withdraw, or leave), crash (sleep), pig out (eat excessively), dude (guy), sweet (nice, fortunate), totally (I agree).]

We are of the view, that the extensive popularity of such terms, is demonstrably attributable to an apparently current (neurotic) need, to publicly appear to be “au courant,” or “with it” (in touch with) the latest trend in modernity. Our criticism of this modish preference for such cobbled together and widely distributed lingo is, in a few cases, merely aesthetic (depending upon the particular word employed); but, as to most of it, far more importantly, it is substantive criticism, based the universal need and civic responsibility, for members of modern, civilized society to communicate with other members, and be reasonably understood.

From the standpoint of aesthetics, such words fail to provide (even) a modicum of assurance of sincerity of personal expression. They are too familiar and unoriginal, non-personal, over- used, “warmed over,” tired and inarticulate expressions, as opposed to original, spontaneous expression, carefully and meaningfully worded. In emotional, personal interactions, an attempt at truly sincere apology will predictably fail in desired effect, if a well-worn slang term is trotted out, instead of a personal and applicable one; a sincerely intended remorseful statement, will be taken as dishonest, if one of the usual catch-words are employed. A nervously and hesitantly enunciated, proposal of marriage, clearly deserves far more, by way of a responsive and loving expression of assent, than “cool.”

It is to be emphasized that the English language fortuitously, contains an inventory, consisting of virtually unlimited number of word choices, making possible any appropriate, personally meaningful, choice of expression, suitable to any perceived need, and in any context.

In daily, mundane, situations, conversation is personalized, trusted and credible, most especially, when communicants speak in accordance with their normal and expected parlance. It is particularly important in business, viz., contractual undertakings must be specific, and clearly expressed, to attain the requisite (legal) meeting of the minds; the mere reply “sweet,” to a formalized contractual offer, just will not do.

We earnestly hope that, if the use of these bizarre slang words, or “cant” is at all chosen, that it’s expression be strictly limited to such appropriate venues as the club house, bar or sport stadium; and, further, that it be artfully exercised, in order to avoid the imminent danger of some sweet, dude getting totally flummoxed.

-p.

 

It is universally understood that the existence and successful functioning of human society, is fundamentally dependent upon the availability and use of a common language, as part of a system of interactive communication. Interdependence, problem solving, mutual sharing of empirical experience, as well as mundane social communication, are the basic structural supports, found in the underpinnings of any societal life.

Thus, because the element of interactive societal communication is basic to the establishment and perpetuation of society, we have, from time to time, deemed it useful and responsible to offer our comments regarding selected words, drawn from the American lexicon, which were felt by us to be deserving of comment.

By way of illustration, we have written that certain, apparently simple words, such as “repetition,” “nice” and “like” were unjustly given short shrift and, for the reasons proposed, ought to be accorded significantly more intrinsic value and respect. We have, as well, denigrated words such as, “tolerance,” as an expression of bigoted, faux self-praise, (who is it, that is qualified to tolerate, and to tolerate what?) and the hateful term, “race,” the latter, an entirely unscientific conceit, employed exclusively, for despicable purposes.

Our recent ruminations have centered around the tiny, seemingly inconspicuous, two letter word, “us.” The selected word is functionally and contextually, distinguishable from the similar word, we”, which latter term is frequently employed, merely to connote a first- person plural subject, viz., an objective, numerical observation; this characterization is, contrary to the case of the emotion-packed word, “us.”

It is with our sincerest of apologies to Robert Louis Stevenson, whose classic novel, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, we have chosen as a syntactical metaphor for our subject word “us,” based upon our word’s potential for polarity. On the positive (Dr. Jekyll) side, the subject word, “us” summons up warm feelings of acceptance, security, inclusiveness, sympathy, belonging, assurance, identity, safety, concord, mutuality, commonality, and other terms of positive societal attribution. On the negative (Mr. Hyde) side, the same word, autonymically, refers to insularity, bigotry, exclusiveness, asserted superiority, class or economic distinction, religious discrimination, political or social tribalism, xenophobia, anti-immigrant trope, selfishness and other like anti-social or reprehensible reference.

We have often written of a singularly, but common, instance, in which a Dr. Jekyll, (good) intention, nevertheless unwittingly but inevitably, results in disastrous (Hyde) outcomes. This well- intentioned practice amounts to the parental inculcation of their young children in the ethnos and belief system of their birth, [but, significantly], to the exclusion of a respectful and enlightened picture of other, divergent belief systems. While this practice offers the child the desired and intended sense of identity and belonging (Dr. Jekyll), it often delivers a harmful (Dr. Hyde) message, of a reasonable “we” (“us”) and a bizarre and irrational “they” (them), ultimately leading to a distorted emphasis of perceived contrasting differences, and subsequently, the development of hostility toward the “other.” This historically repetitious travesty can be avoided, in the practice of good sense and enlightenment, by a program of teaching, not solely limited to who we are, ethnically, [“us,”] but also inclusive of a fulsome and positive explanation in the Dr. Jekyll mode, which is inclusive of others.

The personal use and intended meaning, of the somewhat ubiquitous word, “us,” in any context, will depend upon whether the preferred self-image, is one comparable to a Dr. Jekyll, or to a Mr. Hyde.

-p.

Thoughts of younger years bring to mind a High School course in Euclidian Geometry; a course that may have proven to be the most impactful in later years. The study and accumulated ephemeral knowledge of angles, planes and concentric circles, were valuable to a degree, but far less valuable that the taught discipline inherent in the experience of the subject.

A set of facts (a “given”) was presented, in each instance (the “theorem”) from which, by logical steps, the desired principle was finally deduced. What was eternally significant, and impressionable, was the instructed process of orderly reasoning to a conclusion, from a fixed set of facts. The subject of Euclidian Geometry instructed the inestimable (lifetime) practice of the application of reason to the solution of problems.

We often reminisce about past events, most especially, our choices and decisions, to act upon, or refrain, from doing something which may have turned out to have considerable significance.  Any regrets or self-praise, in such instances, is not only useless, but illogical, and amounts to ex- post facto rationalization. We often make the fundamental, albeit common, error in the comparison of our personal choices, with the choices of others, perhaps erroneously ascribing to ourselves, comparative credit or error. In addition to being simply useless, these inclinations are totally senseless and irrational.

There may exist, a human tendency to extrapolate presently existing circumstances with the past. This phenomenon, obliges us to responsibly critical concerning the popularly accepted nostrum, “those who ignore the past, are likely to repeat it.” With the humblest and the sincerest of apologies to George Santayana, the popular aphorism assumes that the comparative circumstances are factually identical (inclusive of the protagonists). In an individual matter, the reverential adherence to such urging might have disastrous results. Reason and experience teach that, regardless of source, all aphoristic expressions, even this one, need a measure of additional and nuanced scrutiny.

Recently, we were advised of a mutual friend who, against professional advice concerning the manifestly dire financial condition of a certain public company, nevertheless, recklessly and heedlessly, invested a substantial sum of money in the purchase of many shares of its stock. As advised, his heedless stock purchase turned out, unexpectedly, and against all prognostications of the experts, to be a very lucrative one. There are many people who would consider that investor to be enterprising and intelligent; we, emphatically, do not at all, agree.

The rational wisdom of any choice, we insist, may only be properly judged as of the time that it is made, and under the contemporary facts and circumstances in existence at such time; certainly not at the time of its (possibly surprising) outcome. The soundness of any choice should empirically be seen, fairly and reasonably, solely in the context of the existing facts (the “geometric given”) at the time of its determination. Granting the possibility that “wise” choices may ultimately, have a disastrous result, in matters of judgment, mankind will, with rare exception, eternally benefit from the consistent exercise of applicable and contemporary reason.

-p.

Many of us still have some memory of the childhood defensive tactic of a sing-song response to derogatory attribution: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” This popular childhood strategem, generally proved to be adequate to preserve the dignity and public standing of the offended. In adult society, wrongful and intentional false accusations, or the imposition of false, hurtful attribution to another person, is an established, precedentially recognized act of wrongdoing, and is dealt with formally. For centuries, the willful employment of false and defamatory words and accusations, injurious to the name and reputation of another person, has been legally redressable under established Tort law; written defamation, classed as “libel”, “oral” as “slander.”

Recent events, have made necessary this third post, regarding the wrongful, misleading and bogus use of the word, “socialist” or “socialism” in critical public discourse. [see past posts :American Socialism” and “Compassionate Capitalism”] . The word “socialist” has recently been intentionally highjacked and misappropriated, for tactical employment as an epithet; resulting in a reflexive (negative) reaction, most especially, by the ignorant and reductionist members of our American population. We have been energetically attempting, for a considerable period of time, to make clear the wide, distinctive contrast, between the federal government’s responsible, programmic exercise of empathic morality, as authorized by the representative Congress, and the misused and tactical attribution of the newly created bogey-man, “socialism.”

The word “socialist,” in actuality, applies to political-economic systems in which the government is the sole owner and manager of all industry and business; as distinct from private entrepreneurship. It can, confidently and emphatically be declared, that there are absolutely no contenders for political office in this country, who would champion such an unworkable and un-American theory of governance, as socialism. Yet cynical, right-wing political operatives have now created the ersatz epithet, to brand all opposition, with the tactical intent that it especially appeal to that insular cohort of the reductionist ignorant, who helped install the iconic Mr. D.J. Trump in the Oval Office.

That the arrogant and cynically intended target of this false propaganda, is irrefutably, the low information base, is evidenced by print advertisements, shown on television, bearing the publicly recognizable image of Karl Marx. As is generally known among the better informed, Marx was the founder of Communism, not Socialism. Significantly, Marx sought the elimination of government, altogether, in favor of a theoretical (mythical) “dictatorship of the prolitariat,” This is markedly in opposition to Socialism, which espouses the ownership and operation of industry and business by an existing central government. Any casual student of political theory and general history might tell you that these two widely divergent and competing movements, were mortal enemies. As observed, however, it is the same base that supported Trump,who constitute the targeted audience for such manifestations of intentional falsity and arrogantly practiced cynicism; unquestionably not, the informed citizen.

Instances of compassionate capitalism are readily discernable in such long-standing and traditional government programs, as social security, disability, retirement, federal loans and mortgages, flood relief, FEMA, environment cleanup, flood control programs, food and tuition assistance, regulations and protection of the health of the consumer-citizen and a great many additional instances of Congressionally authorized involvement with the quality of life and the safety of all American citizens. The “socialist-phobes” should recognize that they are in truth, fortunate recipients of numerous, vital and beneficial government programs, which, incidentally, and practically, makes any socialist type program from having any appeal or necessity.

The prospect of a Socialist state is rationally and empirically, non-existent; one would hope that the cynically, self-interested and tactical perverters of our system of governance, be recognized, and justly sanctioned as the real danger to our democracy.

-p.

In the European historical period, generally known as, “The Enlightenment,” man made great strides to rid himself of the widespread belief in supernatural or other-worldly influences, and to take personal responsibility for his independently determined action and decisions. In philosophical and ethical discourse, there was seen to develop, thereafter, no more materially determinant canon, than the new concept of “free will.”

We wholeheartedly applaud the elimination of the attributive influence of spirits, hob-goblins and other supernatural forces upon man’s actions and deliberations; yet we still believe that the term, “freedom” employed in the term “free will” is not yet up to the desired standard, since it is encumbered by many empirical considerations. It is our impression that the declaration of the declared concept, that man is purportedly free to make unrestrained, volitional choices, may be somewhat optimistic and overstated.

We revere independence, ethical autonomy, discretionary caution, diplomatic, as well as empathic interaction, as well as approved societal behavior; all inarguably acts of  volitional (“free will”) We are, however, interested in the extent of unrestrained spontaniety in each choice of “volitionary,” or” free act.”

Before proceeding further, we would like to reassure the reader, that it our firm, personal belief, that man is, in all respects, individually responsible for his actions and statements; our interest, here, is limited to the nature and the source of his personal motivatition. We believe that the laudatory and exemplary concept of the phrase, “free will” (viz., free from external influence) is more honored in its idealized conception than in its empirical  reality.

We have chosen to exclude the subject of “illness” from this note, except to observe that it is a matter of public knowledge, that the malady known as “depression” is caused by a chemical imbalance; either innately pre-determined, or  brought on by reaction to trauma. The motivation and behavior of the depressed patient, like a person who has ingested a psychic drug, is markedly affected, and not a product of his “free will.” The evident point is that changes in bodily chemistry, particularly brain chemistry, affect, or motivate, mood and behavior. Any  regular jogger or dedicated exerciser, knows that sustained exercise results in a felt change in brain chemistry (endorphins), resulting in increased energy and a discernably improved mood.

The concept of “free will”, might suggest to some, an independent, and unlimited franchise to think and act, in a completely infettered condition of temporal spontaniety.  The English  (l8th Century) philisopher, John Locke, declared that man is born with a blank slate and that all knowledge is acquired by learning from empirical experience. Early childhood teaching, including cultural mindset, language, societal attitudes and general approach, have been shown to be enduring, if not permanent. These early teachings affect later perception and decisional motivation.  Race and ethnicity, economic hardship, disability, state of health, economics; the remembered experience of traumatic or extremely unusual life experiences, such as fire or assault, by their enduring remembrance, may, also have their effect on our later choices.

Medieval, “Dark Ages” limitations on “free will” have, in large part, been eliminated (and where they may still exist, can be eliminated, by the proper application of mature and healthy reason). Where applicable, and needed, assistance in education, especially literacy and general education, can be offered to those who are willing. Medecine and therapies are available for people beset by chemical illness, behavioral therapies are accessible, for people whose choices of behavior are limited by previous experience of trauma or phobia, physical and medical counseling and therapies are offered to enhance the range of activities for the handicapped. For others, the portion of the American population, limited by low information and lack of vision, a resolute undertaking to participate in life’s unlimited enhancement possibilities, may be obtainable.

With the superstitious nonsense out of the way, we all now have the “free will” and the personal responsbility, to choose to take action towards the enhancement of the quality of our life, or, otherwise, simply let it grind on, meaninglessly.

Gremlins are reported to be gratefully relieved to be “off the hook.”

-p.

 

 

As we understand it,”Meditation,”essentially, is a mental exercise involving the complete concentration on one’s breathing, or on an object or a repeated mantra, for the purpose of attaining a higher level of spiritual awareness.

As is known, the concept and practice of “meditation” had its origins in Eastern-World religious practices, such as in Buddism and Hinduism. In recent times, the practice has, somehow, spread to the Western world; where, avid proponents and commercially successful entrepreneurs, claim that it has curative effects on anxiety, depression and general work-a-day stress. We have never shied away from controversial subjects, and offer this note to urge the patent inapplicability of the practice to the contextual dynamics of the Western world mindset, contrary to the claims of its many devoted partisans, philisophical and  commercial.

We, admittedly, are not authorities on the subjects of mental health, depression or anxiety; we are, however, sincere advocates of the philisophy of the 18th Century thinker, John Locke. Most modern thinkers of note, agree with the Lockean theory, that man is born with a clean slate, a “tabula rasa.” It follows, therefore, that all knowledge, is acquired, or “learned” from sense experience and resultant reason. Locke’s empiricism refuted many of his contemporary thinkers, who felt that man is born with certain inspired knowledge, the latter forming the basis of his future pursuits.

If, as we believe, man is born with a clean slate, it is clear that his learning  begins with his early childhood experiences including his specific ethnic acculturation. These early learning experiences and absorbed identity, can later on, be modifiable to some degree, but are, nevertheless, durable, if not permanent.

It may be fairly observed that the spiritual and religious aspirations of Eastern religious and social cultures (ex. Buddism and Hinduism) look to the ultimate elimination of the “ego,” “I,” or “self”, from philisophic contemplation; resulting in the successful attainment of Nirvana, affording the consequent elimination of temporal pain and inner conflict. The traditional, Eastern mindset, looks inside, to the inner person, for spiritual growth, self realization and peace.

By contrast, in the Western traditions and cultural mindset, the “I” or ego is not to be  suppressed, but to the contrary, asserted and success- oriented; morality consists in the humanely directed ego. The aspiration for inner peace and comfort, is not to be attained by any attempted setting aside, or elimination, of the “I,” or identified “self,” as is the case with Eastern religious belief. Virtue, in the Western context, consists in good moral behavior and an empathic self-identity. The important dynamics in Western life are all external and objective.

By reason of such material (cultural) difference (both, of course, estimable) it is our view that the Western, stylish trend towards orthodox “Meditation” is interesting, but perhaps Quixotic. The Western practitioner of the attempted dynamic, cannot, culturally and effectively eliminate the “self” from his existance; even by his dedicated attempts to look inward (to an acculturated consciousness that is always self- aware and protective). He must look outside himself for fulfillment, and no attempt to rebrand this ineffective practice with the social worker appellation of “mindfulness,” can be sufficient to reconstruct the long- ago established cultural consciousness of self.

-p.

 

 

 

Caution, dear reader, brace yourself. In a few days, the perennial tsunami, appearing every February 14, will predictably reassert itself, in all its traditional force. The sole fans of the feared flooding are the usual suspects, the greeting card companies, the chocolate manufacturers, the florists, the retail jewelry businesses, the pajama industry and the novelty sales folk. The expected high tide of the Valentine’s Day inundation, judging by previous experience, will submerge all land masses, human population and baffle all reason. Among other phenomena, the advertising industry will publish a stage 4 hurricane of notices, featuring photo-shopped, seemingly amorous couples, in intimate proximity, to their highlighted sales merchandise.

Since (mercifully) this holiday has only a short half-life, one day, the need for effective, sales propaganda becomes urgent. Unaccountably huge profits are earned by companies who, presumptuously, maintain that there is a realistic (and commercial) need to supplement the interaction of couples, who love one another, with their manufactured paraphernalia. Greeting card companies are especially guilty of this self-serving assumption and hire distinguished “poets” to create trite doggerel, consisting of inane expressions of love and fidelity, for the thousands of presumably, aphasic, anonymous consumers.

The most objectionable of the various Valentine’s Day symbols, is the trite, red valentine “heart,” an outmoded and retro- configuration, broadcast without relief; on all holiday products, greeting cards, gift wrapping paper, stuffed toys, pillows and candy boxes.This  stale symbol is glaringly imprinted on all items for sale on Valentine’s Day, as well as on the consumer’s mind, by some Manchurian Candidate type, propaganda.

Various research people [ who apparently have no more pressing fields of inquiry for the employment of their PHD acumen] have uniformly reported that the classic red symbol is derived from an early, incorrect understanding, by [no less than] Galen and Aristotle, who believed that the heart contained only three chambers. [It may be noted, that Dr. Galen and Mr. Aristotle were, innovatedly, accurate on many other subjects]

The valentine depiction of the human heart, maintains the very same proportionate degree of accuracy, as a wood duck, in appearance, bears to a moose. Nevertheless, it has, over the ages, been foisted upon, and willingly accepted, by the consuming public.  appr

In truth, the human heart is shaped like a pear and is the approximate size of a man’s fist. This life-or-death chest muscle is taxed with the existential job of circulating blood and oxygen throughout the body. It has no time, or noticeable inclination, for holiday Hallmark sales propaganda, as the purported source of love, courage, strength or kindness. The statement, “He has a good heart” should be reserved, solely to a positive determination by a cardiologist, and not a comment on such traits as a person’s, love, generosity or empathy. We are only concerned with cardiologists and not “cardeologists.” How would you value a positive comment on generosity, like, “He has good kidneys.”

It is certainly inarguable that all human thought and emotion are exclusively functions of the brain and, empirically, not the traditionally romanticized heart muscle. Admittedly, however, it would be impractical to artistically create a brain-shaped cartoon figure to serve as a symbol of the holiday.

The senseless valentine “”heart is best replaced by a preferable love symbol, the unique and marvelous tulip bulb. Certainly, the outline of the traditional bulb is simple to replicate, artistically. More important, the bulb has always been a reliable symbol of future growth and predictable beauty. Relative to the modern conception of true and healthy love, the tulip bulb is independent and self-sustaining, having within its inner self a sufficient systemic source of future nourishment as well as the natural ability and inclination for growth and the achievement of its innate potential.

The tulip bulb, in the Middle Ages, was thought to be magical and priceless. There are historical records of its individual sale for the modern equivalent of several thousand dollars. If you should offer one to him/her and it is refused, we earnestly suggest that you look elsewhere.

ADDENDUM:

Why should it be necessary to dedicate a one- day holiday in recognition and expression of love; and, further, to do so by trite gifts of holiday nonsense? Love, where it is genuine, is experienced on a regular basis, and expressed in tender interaction and caring, personal acts. This one- day holiday is sadly  comparable to gifts of free turkey dinners on Thanksgiving to the needy. Hunger exists year- round and the poor and unfortunate need more than a gratuitous symbol.

* perienniel message

-p.

Life rockets on, like a cold, insistant mountain current, fast, furious and determined. No rocky impediment can hinder its raging impatience, nor burden its gravity inspired speed, in its steep dramatic journey from natural promonitory to the sea, far below.  Its unabating power and untamed turbulance, have the two-sided potential to inspire admiration, or true atavistic fear.

Metaphorical life too, inexorably surges on, apparently undaunted by temporal impediments, and at an alarmingly, uncommon speed. The old folks ironically observe, “The years are short, but the days are long.” The breakneck speed of man’s years, as they seemingly dissipate, sans empathy, seems to completely blur specific recollection, with the exception of exceptional matters of life-altering significance. By cognitive contrast, the day presents itself at once, in sixty minute, conscious and sometimes, seemingly, prolonged doses.

The use of the waterfall image is an exciting, but rather limited metaphor, specifically chosen to portray the immutable and unrestrained passage of time; and as derivatively applicable to each man’s relatively brief allotment of lifetime on Earth.

Of all the terrestial, sentient fauna, man has the good fortune to possess the exclusive knowledge of his ultimate mortality. His nuanced reaction to the impact of that eventuality, varies with age, sophistication and persona, and can indeed, be a material determinant in the quality and degree of his ultimate satisfaction with life.

It would undoubtedly be harmful, unhealthy and non-productive, to eternally dwell on the reality of one’s inevitable mortality; in such event, long term planning and personal aspirations, would appear to any such person, as foolish and impractical. People who fearfully live their entire lives, waiting, in readiness, outside death’s door, sacrifice all of the joy of living  and surrender themselves to insular, limited lives. Some, perhaps, seek succor and comfort, from the traditional archaic pretentions of religious dogma and spiritual fantasy. To many of those people, life on earth may be merely a preparatory precursor to something better, as promised.

Those with healthier perspective, appreciatively affirm the priceless gift of life, most especially in their understanding of its limited timespan. They enthusiastically and energetically, open themselves up to life’s virtually unlimited array of available potential for the pursuit of advancement and intelligent stimulation, and strive for personal self-fulfillment (happiness). Pursuits such as the regular reading of good literature, attendance at lectures, travel, theater, enjoyment of music, are sources of personal development, satisfaction and the pure joy of living. Additionally, very rewarding are voluntary services rendered to worthy causes. These undertakings and pursuits, make valuable use of whatever time we have allotted to us, and result in a hightened appreciation of life, and a recognition that it is indeed, a most, generous, planetary gift, for as long as alloted.

-p.