plinyblogdotcom

In an earlier blogpost (“IS IT SOUP YET?”), we declared that growing older, contrary to popular belief, is not a “disease,” but to the contrary, has many implicit benefits. To be sure, one’s physical body does begin to underperform, and occasional physical discomfort is experienced [based on long time use]; however, assuming relatively decent health, it is a happy and rewarding time. As previously observed, one is no longer beset with the perennial anxieties and stresses of earlier life, such as youthful insecure identity, inexperienced interactions with the opposite sex, school grades, selection of occupation; and later, courtship and marriage, child rearing, money matters and a host of others. An opportunity, at last, to be oneself,  to knowledgeably and maturely take inventory of one’s internal resources, and understand oneself in relation to society, are among the many unsung benefits of old age. As the earlier post additionally observed, one then accrues the available leisure time to pursue long- deferred interests, perhaps, travel, art, literature, a hobby, gardening, or others.

 

This essay expresses a profound lament entirely unrelated to the subject of aging; indeed, on that subject, our feelings, as indicated, are of the satisfaction of realized fulfillment of our knowledge of self, and a comfortable sense of mature perspective on the world, and on life in general. The intended purpose of the condensed reprise of the earlier post, above, [ regarding the unsung benefits of aging], is to avoid a possible (incorrect) perception that this lamentation represents, in reality, a projection of the unhappiness at growing old. Our profound lament, instead is based upon the current state of our nation, and our nostalgic recollection of better times. The diverse aspects of its degradation, are disappointingly, so numerous as to be best expressed in selective, analytical fashion.

 

SCOTUS:

The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS), the flagship of our Judiciary Branch of government, and the final arbiter of constitutional issues,in the past, justifiably enjoyed, an image of profound respect from the bench and bar, and as well from the informed American public. This has dramatically changed.

To preserve America’s “Separation of Powers” (Executive, Legislative, Judicial), there has historically existed the unalterable (adjectival) requirement, that no case may be accepted by SCOTUS for determination, which contains a political issue either directly, or by indirect effect. For this purpose, a proceeding seeking a “Writ of Certiorari” is initially required, certifying the complete absence of political subject matter in the case. Thus, we were shocked and confused when the undeniably political cases of BUSH v. GORE, and CITIZENS UNITED, were accepted and adjudicated by SCOTUS. Worse, the decision in the latter case, perniciously legalized corporate donation of unlimited funds by corporations to elections.

 

The purported basis, was that a corporation is a” person” and therefore, has the unlimited right of free speech. This ruling was truly bizarre, and its effect, anti-democratic. Indeed, every beginning law school freshmen knows that a corporation is only a fictional construct, affording to the entrepreneur, the safety of limited liability; and expressly not a natural “person”. These decisions demonstrate that the formerly revered and politically neutral, SCOTUS has, unexplainably, degraded into a political institution. The flood of money into our traditional democratic system, designed to be one man, one vote, had eternally been somewhat eroded by money; the Citizens United decision of SCOTUS, enhanced the flood damage to full tsunami status, and in (lamented) reality, diminished the significance of the individual (citizen’s) vote.

 

CIVIC AMITY, TRIBAL VOTING:

The optimistic founders of our democratic republic, were of the assumption that an informed and literate citizenry, would avail itself of the franchise of free speech, to engage in the responsible practice of socially constructive debate, regarding contested issues as they arose. The outcomes, as intended, would be useful to the responsive government in its guidance and policy making. Thus, they expected that the new experiment in nationhood would function as intended, a government for, and by, the people.

 

Debates, were active occurrences in our country for some time; contested subjects included, abolition v. slavery, excise taxes on commercial products, tobacco and alcohol use, currency standards, evolution, military conscription and land and water use. The Lincoln-Douglas debates concerning the metal standard for our currency,  [gold or silver] was among the most famous. Our generation can easily remember inter and intra-school debates and the popular existence of debating societies, which publicly, and informatively, litigated the contested issues of the day.

We sorely lament the tragic death of (the formerly prevailing) civic amity, in which  citizens of diverse opinions would debate issues while remaining friendly neighbors. Regrettably, for some considerable time, people of identical views, seem to have banded together in insular groups of people of identical opinion, each  group, evincing, by words and action, disrespect and antipathy for other like groups, with disparate opinions. Issues such as regulation of firearms, woman’s right to abortion, immigration policy, legalization of marijuana, and government obligation to assist the needy, have completely polarized and split the nation. Tribal loyalty, and not rational consideration of the issues now, too often, determine the voting choice of many citizens, neurotically needing, it would appear, the sense of identity and belonging, reinforced by voting and acting identically, with other members of their group. Such vote is typically based on a single issue, and in ignorance of the balance of the favored candidate’s platform. This harmful practice distorts the intended result and the purpose of the elective process, which was to function as a democratic expression of the public will. An evident, and entirely mind-boggling example of irrational tribal voting, is manifested by the consistent support by Christian Evangelicals, of Donald Trump, who routinely boasts, on about his immoral sexual escapades in the public media.

 

SOCIETAL INTERACTION, COMMUNICATION:

We sincerely lament the incalculable loss to humanity associated with the tragic substitution of mechanical electronic messaging, for natural and expressive human conversation.

It requires no supporting argument to maintain that human progress from the lone, self-dependent cave man, to more modern, mutually interdependent, subsisting society, is essentially attributable to man’s facility of communicative speech. Communicated inter-dependence in developed skills, for purposes of joint defense, food gathering, and other matters of human survival and societal development, were made possible by man’s vital capability of  interactive spoken communication.

In addition to the expression of existential needs, speech has been the humanizing exchange that permits an interactive society of individuals to benefit from the empirical experience of others, to communicate events and happenings, good and bad, and, inarguably of the greatest importance, to make possible, normal life in society. Down through the ages, the pleasure of recognition of a familiar voice, the spontaneous exchange of thoughts and observations, the facility to express personal feelings, joy, empathy, encouragement and when needed, consolation, cemented a vital bond between communicating human beings. Personal interaction serves as a perpetual reminder that we do not exist alone, but can mutually exchange ideas or derive personally expressed support and understanding.

 

Among the most valuable benefits one accrues from societal living, is the luxury of enjoying the experience of personal interaction with others, by face to face conversation, telephone and, when truly personal and nuanced expression is desired, by letter. Yet, more recently, apparently ushered in, concomitantly, with the many advances in computer science, was an exponential rise in the use of small, hand-held computerized devices designed for use in lieu of personalized conversation. Certainly, computers have very positive utility in an uncountable number of functions and efficient applications; but not in substitution for natural conversation. Gone is the pleasure and comfort of hearing the familiar voice, its tone and nuance furnishing recognizable assurance. Gone is the desired reaction, the spontaneous and timely response, gone are the emotional tones evidencing, happiness, surprise, doubt, affection and the intended level of emphasis. Gone are the natural sounds of reassurance, encouragement, empathy, and when desperately needed, consolation. These valuable communicated responsive reactions have been replaced by lighted screen images of cold, data-like text. This is extremely lamentable, and, necessarily, results in a context of impersonality and separation, in lieu of personal exchange. Don’t we all read enough computer data? Human beings need and are entitled to authentic human interaction, and not merely the transmission of electronic symbols. Many members of our young generation will have absolutely no memory or conception, of the warmth and beneficial reassurance derived from real, as compared with, “virtual” experience.

 

SUPERFICIALTY, DENIGRATION OF KNOWLEDGE

We have observed, to our great chagrin, a popular decline in participation in matters of educational and cultural import, and unhappily, a corresponding increase in predilection for superficial and ephemeral diversion. It is existentially necessary to bear in mind that the most valuable and vital resource of any nation, is not its mineral water and natural resources, nor even its geography; it is undeniably, its people. As illustration, we have, in the past, cited the example of 20th century Germany; relatively small in geography, but possessed of a highly educated, skilled and mobilizable population. By reason of those vital attributes in its population, it was able to come [too!] close to the conquest of the entire globe.

 

The construct, or idea of a nation state, is, in reality, a legal, political and geographic conceit; it is successive populations that furnish its history, character and identity.  As the illustration cited above, of 20^th century Germany gives testimony, it is adequate education and cultural depth that are the ultimate determinants of a nation’s quality, strength and endurance.

 

In this existential context we have discerned an alarming growth of disrespect for academics, and the liberal arts, inclusive of literature, art and the humanities. These are subjects which lead to the enhancement of human understanding and perspective, and the personal advancement of the individual citizen, and, derivatively, his nation. Reading good literature, is enjoyable entertainment, but more to the point, it furnishes to the reader, wisdom and understanding; it enhances his perspective as to life’s classic human challenges, and the universal attempts at their solution. The citizen’s individual participation in the humanities, (and the arts and sciences) pays double dividends, producing an enhanced and self- fulfilling life for the individual, and as well, a valuable citizen for the nation.

 

Only a general populous, shamelessly and ignorantly content to manifest complete ingratitude toward evolution for its most generous gift to man-  a brain with magnificent capabilities- can enjoy television’s inane afternoon talk programs and game shows, trite soap operas, wastefully play computer games, and elect to cast its vote for Donald J. Trump.

 

-p.

We would suggest that the program, popularly known as, “The Women’s Movement,” be renamed, “The Women’s Movement for Civil Rights and Dignity.” The alteration in name would continue to express women’s aspirations and entitlement to rights equal with male citizens, but, would add as an additional purpose, the dignity of her own private person. In the arena of legal and societal rights, we have, admittedly made substantial progress; unfortunately, we are unable to similarly celebrate, an improved respect for women’s sexual status. More on this specific subject, later in this post.

America’s founding documents radically declared, that “all men were created equal.” The latter phrase, often misunderstood, was intended to sound the death knell to the ancient European institution of privileged birth. Based upon subsequent interpretation and uses, as well as other expressions of intention, it was taken to refer to the “rights of all men” [we would have preferred “all people”]. It was first intended to be applicable to “white men” with property. It took centuries to change this proviso, and no less than a shameful, national sacrifice of blood and treasure, in order to properly include black people within the category of “all men.”

Until the latter part of the l9th Century, the concept of personal rights for women, was non-existent. Thanks to many people, notably, Elizabeth Stanton Cady, (1898), a movement was begun to improve the status of women; to enable them to vote, own property, and to enjoy the privileges of being an adult person.  The latter privilege, is to be contrasted with women’s previous status, living under the legal protection of a husband or male guardian, and pursuant to his dictate.

Readers of Victorian literature are aware of the status of women living in 19^th Century England. They were little more than supporting players in the home, supervising its running (generally, in accordance with the husband’s wishes) looking pretty, giving birth to offspring and nurturing them, sewing her husband’s linens and perhaps playing the piano or painting pictures. A woman could not legally own property; even her inheritance would go to her husband, who, with the assistance of his personal solicitor, would carve out for her a “settlement” (deducted) from such inheritance. She, unlike men, had no “friends,” but only family and relatives who constituted her social life.

Women were given the right to vote, sign contracts, and own property as late as the 20^th Century; but it essentially remained a male dominated world, especially, as far as governance, employment, education, choice of career or profession were concerned. Today, women still strive for gender equality with men in areas of politics, equal wages and employment opportunities.

It was a full seventy years ago that a United Nations Charter expressly proclaimed:”to every human being, living on the planet, all women have the right to live free from violence, slavery and degradation, to own property and receive an equal wage.”

We are pleased to celebrate the significant extent of progress achieved in women’s legal and social rights (however slowly, and by necessity, from men in power). It is, however, puzzling and disturbing that society, which has been brought to a higher level of consciousness in recognizing the justice of equal legal and self-determinative rights for women, persists in vigorous contention over the propriety and legality of control by women over their own body; regarding the right to an (early term) abortion. Certainly, the aspiration to successful family planning does appear to be, manifestly, an appropriate, rational and personal matter.

Most troubling by far, is the sociopathic perception of certain singular male members of society, that the female body was created for their own personal attraction, and accordingly, is to be naturally and appropriately exploited by them; having no accompanying feelings of empathy or pangs of conscience. There are a great many reported instances of sexual abuse, most of which is stereotypically and dishonorably, committed by men in positions of power and influence, vis-à-vis the victim. Most instances of this pernicious misbehavior unfortunately, and understandably, go unreported for various reasons including, fear and shame.

The female victim is neurotically selected as the intended victim of the sociopathic offender’s lust. There is a complete absence of consideration on his part, for her feelings, her reaction, nor any basic empathy or remorse for her, as a fellow human being; perhaps, someone’s mother or sister. This atavistic, disgusting perversion is assuredly equal and democratic; ranging, all the way from the scuzzy neighborhood creep, to the rich movie mogul, and from a nominee to Judgeship on the Supreme Court of the United States, to the currently sitting President.

-p.

We confidently declare that there is no more ubiquitous phenomenon in human society, that that of “routine.” Indeed, we are presently employing that feature in the writing of this note.

It may be permissible to define the word, “routine”, as a regularized, standard, and unvarying sequence of behaviors, performed for one specific purpose. Examples of such unvarying routine behavior are seen to take place in all our personal rituals, such as going to bed, awakening, brushing teeth, shaving, bathing, getting dressed, having breakfast, commuting to work and answering telephone calls. Routine behaviors of individuals are so fixed and predictable, that they have been proposed by several legal academics, as a potentially admissible subject of testimony at trial, provided relevant to the issues.

Routine procedures for the accomplishment of many tasks are readily available and require no thought; they exist without the challenge of original evaluation and the hazards of creative experimentation. Since past routines have proven to be successful, their replication can be accomplished with confidence.

There exists, as well, the category of routine speech. This phenomenon is customary and useful in greetings between friends, neighbors, workmates and family. Other examples of routine speech, occur between commuters, travelers, vacationers, in table talk, in interaction at stores and barber shops, banks, and waiting rooms, and at all places of public assembly. Intrinsically repetitive and uninteresting, routine talk appears nevertheless, to have social utility by its perpetuation of existing societal relationships, accepted behavior and the maintenance of the sense of community normalcy.

Empirically, various members of society may be identifiable by their publicly known regular  activities or behaviors. For example, a neighbor may be known for the fact that he routinely and regularly mows his lawn on Tuesday afternoons, another for his nuanced speech, such as, “How ya dooin?”, someone else, by the fact that he is eternally engaged in the repair of his ancient car, yet another, by his daily routine of jogging through the community.

In stark contrast to the social utility of routine in mundane matters, it is understood that in the sphere of society’s search for vital solutions to its existential scientific, ethical and intellectual problems, routine thought, and timeworn ideas, are regressive, and can have the potential to be distracting and harmful. Essentially required in these instances, is the creative infusion of new ideas and untried, imaginative approaches. Intellectual prowess, and not stale replication, is essentially needed. To fill this need, it is essential to operate, support and maintain fine schools and universities and most importantly, a capable, educated and creatively inspired citizenry.

-p.

It would appear that after the attainment of a certain age, one has certain occasions in which he is not quite sure as to whether a particular recollection is one of an actual occurrence, or merely the memory of an old dream. There are some who would declare, as in the love song, that, “Life is just a dream.”

The “reality” of dreams, as contrasted with “empirical reality,” has universally been a subject of interest and scientific investigation, as well as a subject of atavistic, superstitious belief. In the apocryphal Bible story, Joseph wins great favor with the Royal House of the Pharaoh, by means of his believed ability to interpret dreams; the biblical tale revealing the ancient Egyptian belief that dreams were predictive of the future. The contemporary understanding of dreams is that they are either, meaningless, spliced film clips of personally perceived reality, or alternatively, that they are revelatory of our fears and inner conflicts. We would take the liberty of expressing our personal thoughts, concerning our take on the believed relationship between dreams and factual reality.

As we understand it, dreams are stories our brain tells us when we are in a deep (REM) state of sleep. It is a collection of clips of our past perception of factual matter, images and associated feelings, that involuntarily occur while deep in the sleep state. It has been suggested, by experts, that the reason that we have great difficulty in recollecting dreams is that, [ N.B.] otherwise, it would be difficult to distinguish them from actual reality. The “lucid dream” is a type of dreaming in which the sleeper is aware that he is dreaming and can often rearrange the facts of the dream. This phenomenon is thought to be a state existing somewhere in the zone between being asleep and dreaming, and wakefulness.

Reality, by contrast, is the view of the world as it actually (objectively) exists.  Despite the natural and expected differences as between individuals, as to (subjective) perception, it is a vital and existential requirement that we play a functional role in our personal reaction to reality in sync with the everyday working consensus of our society. Were there, ideally, the possibility of attaining a uniform perception of reality. the constructive result would be less contention and greater concentration and emphasis on societal advancement.

The noun, “dream” is, on occasion, employed in an aspirational context, as in the now famous, “I have a dream” oration, of the late Rev. Martin Luther King.  All right- thinking people also have a dream of a peaceful and just world; one day, we hope to awaken to this yet unattained, reality.

-p.

Blogpost # 280                                   THE FREEDOM TO LOVE

 

In common with most other main-stream Americans, we deplore bigotry of any kind, whether based on color, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious belief, disability or some other perverse category. Enforceable legislation has been enacted, regarding bigotry, consistent with the modern societal conscience, evidencing the government’s official disapproval of the practice. Such laws and consistent  legal precedent, seem to have been generally successful in securing compliance with the State’s articulation of such societal norms, although there is much yet to be accomplished. In contrast, the laws and case precedent have not been nearly as societally effective regarding homosexuality, and the associated subject of same sex marriage. Since our own sexual orientation, as it happens, is heterosexual, we felt it would be appropriate and responsible, that we choose to comment on this hurtful injustice.

The ubiquitous theme of virtually all songs, movies, plays, literature and other public art forms is love, unrequited, as in Romeo and Juliet and West Story, or otherwise,  portrayed, down through the ages, in various settings. The institution of love, itself is specifically honored on our traditional holiday, Valentine’s day. Most people are successful in finding another person to love on a lasting basis, others may spend a “lifetime” looking for the “right person.” There is no extant, definitive understanding of the functional etiology of the dynamics of love, itself. There are those who believe that the purpose and root of the emotion is grounded in a natural desire to be child bearing, and so, for them, legitimate love can only exist in a heterosexual relationship. Yet, in most cases, love continues long after the birth or death of children and, exists as well, in couples with no children. It can be said that love has, empirically, been shown to be a separate, unique phenomenon, quite independent of the subject of child rearing.

We have been puzzled regarding the question: if the purported (child rearing) theory, as the thought fundamental basis for the dynamics of romantic love, is without merit, why is it considered by some, unnatural or wrong for homosexual people to love each other, to kiss and dance in public places, as heterosexual people do, without causing a stir. Certainly, heterosexual people, with no desire for child rearing, can do so, without any remarkable public reaction. What can the understandable basis be, for the observed disapproval and derision of the life style of the homosexual?

The answers, as we understand them, are the same neurotic reasons as any other bigotry, namely, insecurity and fear of the “other,” the neurotic need for a pecking order, and, perhaps, some religious basis. The first two proposed reasons are based on ignorance, some of which, in certain cases can be curable (depending upon the rare willingness to better oneself); the second, religious, requires an articulated clear reminder of what many centuries of sad and bloody worldwide history show, that the practice of religious principle needs to be voluntary, and not externally imposed.

The capacity for love is, inarguably, high among the most positive, creative and aesthetic traits of the human character. Its potential is present in all human beings without reference to sexual inclination. What is the problem? Each, category of sexuality, by definition, does not verily share in the same criteria as to sexual attraction, thus it cannot be, rationally, attributed to competition. It is, as described above, bigotry, pure and simple.

Heterosexual couples may choose to marry, or not marry; homosexual couples as well, may or may not, choose to marry. It is the undisputable right and choice of the individual, not his neighbor, nor the church nor his government. Every human being inherits the liberty to pursue his own peaceable path to personal self-realization. The most ignorant and irritating comments, of all the plentiful irrational gibberish that we have heard, are: “Same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage,” and:” Same sex marriage will hurt your marriage.” Really? How?  By the way, how are the facts of other’s marriage the critic’s conceivable business or concern?

Bigots of any kind, are hateful, and chronically injurious to the health and success of society.

-p.

It is an observable and, we maintain incontrovertible fact, that our society appears to be rife with people who manifest an irresistible impetus to incessantly audit their personal reflective image. Without question, the most commonly accessible device for such eerie dedication is the mirror, variously defined as a surface, typically glass, coated on the reverse side with an amalgam, which reflects a clear image. In this note we are interested in the intrinsic degree of importance, of such frequently reflected images.

If one chose to take the time to consider the phenomenon, he would, predictably, observe an uncountably numerous presence of mirrors throughout our (apparently, self-conscious) society. Mirrors of all sizes and dimensions, in private and public spaces, hotels, restaurants, department, stores, railroad and bus depots, libraries, theaters and places of public assembly. The existence of this plethora of mirrors, tends to give evidence of some neurotic need for constant assurance of identity. It is as if there were a fear of sudden, unexpected alteration in facial characteristics, absent constant monitoring. Clothing merchants provide ample access to mirrors, as a practical matter, for the intended use of the patron in seeking an appropriate garment. The perspective,  purchaser may instead, be primarily interested in viewing himself in a conceivably different aspect. If he approves of the “new me,” he will likely make the purchase. It might be more useful, as a practical matter, instead, to use the words of the Scotch poet, Robert Burns, to be able “to see ourselves, as others see us.”

Vastly greater significance is applicable to our self-image, usually developed over time, by our internal, subjective assessment of the history of our past reactions to others (family, friends, co-employees), and, to the varied stimuli that accrue in our life, positive and negative. Our long- standing assumptions regarding our self- image are the reliable source of our fundamental outlook on life, our adopted principles, perception of events, our morality and feelings of responsibility, of our capacity for love and our empathy and our fixed standards of rectitude.

Perhaps the foremost quality, having its fundamental derivation in our self-image, is our personal sense of morality; a quality which is essential for living successfully with others in society. The moral sense in properly socialized and mature people, is internal, and a replication of the (inner) self, consistent with their felt urgings of developed self-image.

The following (fictitious) anecdote [used in a prior blogpost] is illustrative, as well as thought useful, in making the point. Let us suppose that I wrongfully took (stole) your cell phone. Later in the day, I suffer unbearable remorse and guilt by reason of my wrongful act and, shamefacedly, return it to you, accompanied with my profuse, sincere and abject apology. You, being an exceptionally generous and forgiving person, accept my remorseful apology, and seeing my sincerely intense grief, generously, state   that, “I should forget about it, because, as far as we are concerned, it never happened.” Yet, I am not able to forget it, since, as far as my consideration of my self-image is concerned, I am still plagued with the disturbing thought as to, what kind of a person am I, after all,  to have stolen the item in the first place?

Mature and permanently developed morality does not depend upon the fragile and inconsistent system of reward and punishment. Proper moral sense is effective when internalized and developed into an integral part of one’s self-image. True moral responsibility, like empathy and the capacity to love, are entirely internal matters; our true persona and, to the point, its accurate depiction, vitally depend upon our internalized self- image, and not on superficial mirror reflections.

In an earlier blogpost (#261 “Mr. Rogers and Selfies”) we, sincerely and respectfully, paid homage to  the late Fred Rogers, for his special dedication and contributions to the healthy socialization of children; most  especially (and uniquely) his vital, and unique mission to teach the  importance of who they are, “inside” [“it’s You I like, not the clothes you wear …etc.] and the comparative unimportance of what they may happen to look like on the outside.

Would that more adults had subscribed to, and learned from, “Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood.”

 

-p.

 

As a practical matter, it would seem impossible for scholars to estimate the numbers of innocent people prosecuted and punished by ancient society for heathenism for daring to suggest the possibility that the earth travelled around the sun, rather than the obverse; after all, was it not the Church’s inspired wisdom that man was the center of the universe? The gradual acceptance of Copernicus’ heliocentric theory was a momentous step in the nascent understanding of our solar system, and, as centuries and knowledge progressed, of the Universe. Mankind now had an objective reference point for the location of our planet, with reference to other observed planetary bodies

A useful, and perhaps apt, metaphoric concept relating to the theme of this post, is the common field compass, known for its unwavering and accurate indication of “North” [by reason of the magnetic propensities of our planet] and thus useful as a reference point to verify or seek directional perspective.

We have in previous posts, referred to human phenomenon which we refer to as the private, intimate and not overtly articulated, conversation with (within) ourselves; a feature that has a shelf-life, coterminous with our respective lifetimes. As sentient beings, such private musings and private observations are natural and expected; they serve as a basic interpretive tool, directing and focusing our reaction; a known frame of reference, not very unlike the localizing function of a compass.

Such inner conversations and personal musings vary in subject in for properly socialized individuals, who have matured in perspective and understanding, by learned experience and the cumulative acquisition of knowledge.   The relative importance of events, as they occur, is evaluated by them in accordance with relevant criteria. The practical concern, initially, is whether the event in question has any impact upon oneself. Thereafter, those with maturity of perspective might consider the event from other applicable points of view, such as legality, justice and equity, impact on the environment, empathy, historical precedent or any other relevant consideration.

The frame of reference of the mature, knowledgeable individual is not fixated on himself, like the sole inclination of the compass: magnetic north. However, there are many who cast themselves in the self-assumed role of sole protagonist, in life’s theatrical production. For such people, events have designated  significance to the same degree to which they perceive they are personally affected. There are no other protagonists, in fact, there are no other players for such a person to consider. His compass does magnetically point north, but his has no other directional indicia. He is stranded, limited to one fixed location. Emotionally, he is completely liberated from the responsibility to feel sympathy or empathy; his sole operating emotion is that of schadenfreude.

He, of course, is ethnocentric, his bias and ignorance not having an understandable explanation such as,  lack of experience, or an inadequate education; it is, in fact, personal and  totally systemic. As an illustration, he has firmly declared, in his conversation with himself, that all foreign- born people, who speak English have accents. In fact, he secretly prides himself on his ability to discern the country of origin of any foreign speaker of English, from the sound of his accent. He is, however, constitutionally unable to comprehend that, to the ear of the foreign- born person, he himself. has an accent. In his limited perspective, only the other speaker can manifest an accent. Has compass, as stated, only reads due north, with no other directional indications. It may be said in his case that, even “due north” is not equivalent to “true north.”

He has scant interest in books, theater travel, hobbies, social occasions, but, by contrast, is up to date with the news media; diligently, checking numerous reports, most of which he is relatively certain, do not affect him directly, or indirectly, such as events and disasters occurring  beyond the span of his binoculars. He lives a lonely, but “safe and undisturbed” life in his fixed magnet north, with no interest in an alternative. At various times, his inner conversation speaks of loneliness and disconnection, which he summarily dismisses with much comforting gratitude, for the security of his reliably fixed position, his magnetic north.

 

-p.

Only little more than 200 years ago, one had to be male, white and prosperous, to be eligible to cast a vote. Fortunately, the franchise was ultimately extended to all American citizens and has remained the salient, definitional feature of our republican democracy; the one man (or woman), one vote, political doctrine has, in recent history, properly enjoyed the status of an emblematic American landmark.

Recently, serious and threatening attacks on the sanctity of the American election system by computer interference (“hacking”) has been uncovered, apparently conducted by a foreign agency, believed to be Russian. These contemptable and illegal acts of espionage have justifiably incurred an outraged response by our nation. At present, an official investigation by our security services, has been convened to seek confirmation of the perpetrators, and the determination of appropriate, responsive action. The apparent motivation, if confirmed, would seem to be the frustration of our democratic system of election, by the skewing of its results, thus resulting in an inaccurate or false expression of the will of the American voter; and perhaps the general undermining of our cherished democracy. It is beyond question that the fundamental operation of our democratic republic, relies upon the expressed will of the nation and is deterred by such wrongful acts of distortion of that will.

It is our intention in this note,  to highlight two primary instances in which the American voting franchise is misused by a significant number of American voters  (as opposed to foreign miscreants), whose irresponsibility and lack of mature perspective, bring about results which are ( as in the matter of such foreign criminal hacking),  effectively atrophying or distorting election results, and thereby defeating the citizen-government responsive mandate of our established form of government.

Our first category of irresponsible voters, we term the “one issue voter.” There seems to arise, in every historical period, “hot,” polemic issues, regarding which the public becomes seriously divided in opinion. The polemics du jour seem to orbit around the issues of abortion rights, gun control legislation and climate science. Many “single issue voters” will, predictably, cast their vote for the candidate whom they believe, shares the same view as they do regarding a selective, hotly contested issue; thereafter, shamelessly enjoying the illegitimate, but perceived, feeling of having dutifully exercised his franchise as a good citizen. He is deluding himself; in fact, he has irresponsibly performed an act, which is inarguably antithetical to the very principle of the democratic vote. Every candidate’s platform consists of views and positions on various issues. The “one issue” voter, ignores the views of the candidate, other than his position on his single, mono-focused issue. His irresponsible vote for the candidate might serve to articulate a blind approval of the candidate’s stand on issues, which, conceivably, may be against that voter’s (or the nation’s) best interest.  From the standpoint of the rational administration of the nation, the single- issue voters may (ignorantly) be every bit as culpable for a skewed or distorted expression of the popular will, as the despicable Russian hackers.

We have borrowed the terms, “Tribal” or “Groupthink” as the conceptual reference to our second category of dysfunctional voters. This class of voters appears to be made up of (insecure) people who seem willing to expend their valuable franchise (as well as possibly, principle) on the candidate, or issue, who, by some explicit or subtle suggestion, is favored by influential members of their insular group. Many members of such groups, have similarly bartered their neurotic feelings of insecurity and loneliness, for a more comfortable perception of social acceptance and identity within the perceived shelter of groups, by subscribing to mutually agreed upon, identical views. The failure of “Tribal Voters” to vote in accordance with their own, nuanced, personal beliefs and interests, is another act of disgraceful frustration of the national elective purpose. An astoundingly bizarre and illustrative example, of the “Tribal Voting” syndrome, is demonstrated by the reported, continuing support by Evangelical Christian voters, of Donald Trump, who has boasted, publicly and flamboyantly, of his numerous immoral sexual escapades.

We have been profoundly disturbed and frustrated with these thoughtless perversions of our fair and rationally devised democratic voting system, and earnestly look forward to the appearance, someday soon, of a wise enough person with effective resolutions to these problems.

The continuous record of progress in the ascent of mankind (and society) from the paleolithic era to the present, would inarguably appear to be commensurate with the rate of decline in superstitious belief. As eons of time passed,  earthly phenomena, thunder and lightning, plague, successful or failed crops, change of seasons, extreme weather, childbirth, life and death, were subjects of empirical experience, by reason of which man began to acquire, and accumulate, rational explanations; these usefully supplanted former legendary lore which, universally,  attributed causation to some supernatural agency.

Our Founding Fathers, several of whom were sincere Deists, bearing in mind Europe’s history of religious repression and injustice, desired to create a secular nation, featuring an unassailable mandate of separation of church and state. It is to be noted that there is absolutely no reference, whatsoever, to a deity in the Constitution (except the guarantee of freedom of belief). They also feared that the inclusion of religion in the foundational philosophy of the new republic, would run the risk of the undemocratic influence of religious zealots.

The early archetype of the ideal citizen of the new republic, was a self-made, self- educated person, who was successful by means of his diligence and pursuit of knowledge, fame and fortune. Thomas Paine described the latter part of the 18^th Century as the “Age of Reason,” wherein a citizen’s intellectual capabilities was his primary judge.

The struggle to attain the goal of enlightenment, sadly, continues to date; the Scopes “Monkey Trial” in which the “blasphemous” teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution, was prosecuted by the State as a criminal offense, was as recent as 1925. At the present time there are a great many citizens who we have impatiently described as “flat earth people,” who, stubbornly cling to their beliefs in traditional, but disproven or irrational dogma, publicly denying evolution, as well as matters of serious existential concern, such as climate change.

It has been our consistent position that evolution’s truly generous gift of an advanced brain to mankind, carries with it the (grateful) obligation to make use of it to one’s fullest capability, in the pursuit of enlightenment. The atavistic dependence on irrational superstition is an unforgiveable impediment to the dedicated march of mankind toward a just and rational existence; from a morally responsible sense, it is a betrayal of his anthropological duty.

There persists, in this modern day and age, the atavistic belief that the Bible (Old and New Testament) is the primary authority respecting human life and is a reference to be consulted for ultimate answers to mundane and existential questions. Initially, it may be noted that every recognized religion (and perhaps certain cults) has its own distinct book of inherited “ultimate truths” which seems to demonstrate, respectively, major differences in precept.

The declaration that the holy scriptures contain life’s ultimate truths and is to be consulted on a regular basis as the guide to proper living is, apparently, grounded upon the belief that it was written with the inspiration and guidance of the Deity. The men who wrote the (very many iterations) of the Bible, and who “wrote with the inspiration of the omniscient Deity”, declared that the Sun orbited around the Earth [many were burnt at the stake for espousing the accurate, but blasphemous, heliocentric theory.] The Bible, in its “infallible” language approves of slavery, capital punishment, xenophobia, warfare, revenge and a servile place of women as compared to men.Further, It is worded in archaic obtuse language, readily capable of subjective interpretation, as necessary,for self-serving rationalization.

We sincerely do empathize with the many people who employ the Holy Book for needed comfort; life can, indeed, be difficult and disappointing, even tragic; the irrefutable, ever- present awareness, of our universal mortality is, objectively, very troubling. May we be forgiven if we, with due respect, use the metaphor of the common Teddy Bear, used by toddlers for comfort at bedtime, to portray the widespread use of the holy book for the acquisition of courage, or as a reaction to tragedy. At the risk of an accusation of being pedantic or lacking empathy, we are obliged to recommend the more rational and effective, reliance upon experienced wisdom, and on the comfort of close friends and family, rather than on any physical object of superstitious attribution. The recommended source of human comfort appears to be mature and certainly more in keeping with a rational acceptance our natural plight as mortals, but, all the same, as highly developed, healthy and, most importantly, rational beings.

-p.

Moist ethereal breezes intimately whisper
Cooling balm to sunbaked foliage.
Trees, now attired in military raiment,
In styles bespeaking revolutionary riot,
Proclaiming in eye-sparkling manifesto,
The swift advent of seasonal overthrow.
-There’s no time to lose!

Boughs strain heavy with seasonal fruitage.
The bounty, tho’, forsaken by large mammals,
In search for safer havens
Alas, no time for juicy gorging,
Time’s to be spent for seasonal survival.
Smaller ones, storing food, burrowing deep.
Instinct warns, dalliance spells disaster!
-We must not tarry!

Winged creatures depart aloft
Huge flocks with little hesitation,
Escaping to safer geography.
Could one but hear beneath the forest floor,
The excited chatter of woodland critters,
Anxiously nose-wrinkling rodent reconnaissance
-Is there yet time?

Darkening clouds bespeak woodland calamity
Soon, winter gales, storms, sheets of ice,
Snow, that covers safe niches and hide-outs,
Cold that delights in shivering death.
All must forsake the Fall magic.
– And again, we will be ready!

-p.
(Leonard N. Shapiro, Sept. 2018)