There is certainly no shortage of homes for spiritual seekers to choose among in this multifaceted world of ours. Conventionally speaking they seem to range from large institutional religions with historically deep traditional roots to contemporary charismatic spiritual movements with leadership who guide their aspiring flocks. In nearly every case, subscribing to a pious preference involves at least two inherent features—a community of like-minded disciples and a systematized doctrine exhibiting a path toward some conception of salvation. To many of the world’s spiritually inclined, these generalized qualities appear to be readily acceptable.

I contend, however, that there are a number of spiritual searchers who prefer a solo quest, the contours of which they construct individually, intentionally, and perhaps idiosyncratically. For them, the journey is every bit as stimulating and motivating as is endorsing any finalized faith or settled belief. It is to this type of explorer, this uncertain but committed pathfinder, that I dedicate the following words. I too desire a fidelity to a conviction of the universe, to a conceivable reality, and to all-there-is which feels at least plausible and hopefully authentic. By taking some time now to assess where I am currently in this effort may add some color to the perspective of others as they contemplate the big questions of God and nature and the metaphysical roles they play.

A significant shift in my spiritual contemplations occurred when I encountered Baruch Spinoza. And no, I am not going in the direction of branding Spinoza as some type of philosophical guru. Instead, I will say that what initially struck me as remarkable about this Portuguese/Dutch Jew from the seventeenth century was his enlightened and novel approach to perceiving God. He endured profound ostracism in order to present us with an idea that God was not a transcendent and distant all-powerful entity manipulating the universe from afar, but rather a living and animating force that pervades and is present in all things always. The suggestion that God is in us and in all things universally, most strikingly in Nature, instantly connected with me.

It is difficult for us humans to not think in terms of all-we-know in spatial and temporal terminology. The metaphysical implications of space and time provide plenty of grist for philosophers to mill, which is as it should be. Given the lack of consensus of the phenomenal vs noumenal role played by space and time ontologically, I accept that my perception of everything, including God, will be for now influenced by my consideration of the positioning and everlastingness of this divine potency. So, Spinoza’s claim becomes more coherent when he locates God universally as opposed to transcendentally. God becomes an inherent and elemental force in all of creation in contrast to a distant overseer of creation for all time. This spatial imagery especially resonates. It makes sense and feels right.

Speaking of imagery, another subjective benefit of this all-pervasive view of God is that the anthropomorphism commonly associated with conventional explanations of a transcendent being does not transfer at all well to an acceptance of God as the inherent essence of all-there-is. I have long been annoyed with the symbolism of God as a Zeus-like figure perched on high dispensing avowals of one sort or another down on His hapless figures scurrying about on the world He created. I have always imagined that this metaphorical style was considered more accessible to an unsophisticated populace. Perhaps, but now the notion of a supreme commanding figure appears to be a monarchical device meant to keep everyone in a holy line. This father God story may work for many as an adequate religious trope, but it does not work for me.

Spinoza’s identifying of a unified, immanent, and monistic reality is known as pantheism. This was not a term coined by Spinoza or by any of his forebearers. The descriptor begins to appear twenty years after Spinoza’s death in 1677. However, the conviction of a universal divine presence expressed in all things has a history that undoubtedly influenced Spinoza in his crafting of a systemized monistic metaphysic. There is evidence that the presocratics, in particular Heraclitus, spoke of the world as infused with an active Logos or natural order manifest in Nature itself. In time, the Stoics continued the sentiment of Logos as the force structuring all of creation. They promoted a view of a universal soul that merged God and Nature. Plotinus of Neoplatonism fame also pointed to a basic monistic power that defines all beings. The Irish philosopher and theologian John Scotus in the ninth century merged Neoplatonism with Christianity such that God was embodied in and of the world blurring a sharp distinction between creator and creation.

During the Renaissance of the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries a natural philosophy began to be developed which involved revisiting ancient philosophical texts, challenging medieval church orthodoxy, and refining views of the natural world. Two names from this period stand out in a discussion of pantheism. Giordano Bruno constructed a system that embraced the growing outlook of an expansive universe populated by numerous worlds that were all expressions of an immeasurable God. He spoke of a world soul that energized a natural universe, and which was not dissociated from God. Tommaso Campanella described nature as a living organism evinced by an all-encompassing awareness directed by God. The notion of an internal and omnipresent Soul or Logos combining God and the natural world became more established during this period.

How directly these western influences impacted Spinoza’s formulation of pantheism is unclear. We do know that his intellectual investigations were rooted in three source domains: Jewish scripture presented rabbinically, the Latin humanist and philosophical canon of his time, and the Jewish-Islamic-Aristotelian philosophical hybrid constructed by the twelfth century Jewish intellectual Maimonides. As a Sephardic Jew living in the Netherlands, he benefited intellectually from availability of a rich Jewish and Latin body of thought with the freedom to scrutinize texts and doctrine while in the context of a liberal and tolerant Dutch scholarly environment. Indeed, it is ironic that it was his fellow Jewish exiles from the Spanish Inquisition who were the ones imposing an excommunication on Baruch Spinoza over the very issue of his pantheistic declaration.

Orthodoxies strikingly similar to pantheism were to be found in other parts of the globe over the past two millennia or so, although transmission of these principles were largely unlikely to have been made aware to Spinoza. Let us take a quick look at some disparate examples. One includes classical Hindu nondualism known as Advaita Vedānta which claims that Brahman is the supreme divine reality. A separate world of appearances, or Maya, is chimerical or deceptive, since in truth it is merely a manifestation of the one Brahman. The parallels of Dao with pantheism is another instance of note. Both spiritual approaches share a belief in the ultimate reality being a living whole, a diffuse harmony here in the world before us, not elsewhere in a distant realm. Both reject a creator-creation dualism, but both embrace following nature as a virtuous path. There can also be identified a kinship between pantheism and Native American spiritual beliefs. The sacred is immanent throughout all existence within many Indigenous cultures, not unlike pantheism’s divinity of Nature. There is no differentiation between being in relationship with Nature and with great spirits or God. The land, rivers, and air are vivacious, alive, hallowed, and in harmony with people. Many other such correlations between pantheism and other spiritual/philosophical customs around the world can be revealed.

One heritage that likely impacted Spinoza’s development of a pantheistic paradigm came from his own education as a Jewish youth in seventeenth century Amsterdam in the form of the Jewish mysticism known as Kabbalah. It is entirely plausible that Spinoza was exposed to Kabbalistic writings, notions, and teachers. Primarily he would have gained from them the observance and liturgical practices associated with an unorthodox monism. This was expressed in Kabbalah as consisting of an infinite God being in communion with its creation of a finite existence. In this mystical view infinite possibilities are imaginable within this relationship of the infinite and the finite. A divine conscious presence is shared between God and God’s creation making all-there-is dependent manifestations of God with nothing existing beyond it. The universe is to be understood as revealing of the sacred reality.

As was Spinoza’s inclination, he did not accept wholesale the Kabbalistic interpretation of theism. He found it too oriented toward a personal God with an imposition of commandments and covenants on the finite world. Spinoza would have found this flavor of theism closer to what today we call panentheism, a pantheistic and transcendence hybrid. Rather Spinoza wanted his pantheism to have a highly rational and mathematical precision, a mechanistic and determinist outlook regarding God and Nature. As influential as Kabbalah mysticism presumably was on Spinoza, the rupture between his highly rational description of the relationship between God and the world and the more deferential Kabbalistic teachings of the faith’s elders led to Spinoza’s banishment from Amsterdam’s Jewish community. Regardless, pantheism now had an established presence in western philosophy and theology.

Spinozian pantheism was not initially well received. Indeed, it was harshly attacked. In general, ideas that disrupt the conventional wisdom, especially if there is institutional calcification defending a prominent position, meet with fierce resistance and obstruction. Many movements succumb to the onslaught. Pantheism did not. To be sure, Spinoza himself was cast out of Amsterdam and the Jewish community by the Jewish upper crust. He retreated to the Dutch city of Leyden where he spent the remainder of his short life working out his highly rational and deterministic philosophical system. In many decades following his death, pantheism and Spinozism were widely seen among the European intellectual elite as terms of derision. Charges of fatalism, moral degradation, and atheism accompanied the memory of Baruch Spinoza. The “civilized” western world was not yet ready to consider a philosophical or theological challenge to the idea of a personal or transcendent deity and the merger of Nature and God.

At this point I will admit to feeling one great hesitancy with Spinoza’s philosophy, which I see as tangential to his pantheism, although I accept that many others may see it as more integral. My reluctance pertains to the immoderation of his rationalism which led to a deterministic and mechanized view of the universe, and by extension to the divine. Therein lies a big problem. If the universe is so pre-programmed as to unfold in an exact and predictable manner, then where does spontaneity, variability and even chaos fit in? Foregone destiny seems too regulated. Free will could not exist within such a highly reasoned and algorithmic paradigm. Nullifying human self-determination is to rob people of an essential feature of their character.

Spinoza’s short life briefly overlapped with the later years of Rene Descartes, the philosopher most credited with the onset of modern philosophy and with the western devotion to rationalism and science. Clearly, Descartes influenced Baruch Spinoza. The excitement to elevate human potential through rational thought and mathematical precision while emerging from the stilted palsy of medieval scholasticism is understandable. That it inspired Spinoza and led to a lasting mark on western philosophy is evident. However, as we have seen, not everyone took readily to pantheism. Many did not easily embrace determinism either. Indeed, over time and due to its ardent rejection by the seventeenth and eighteenth century elites of Europe, pantheism shaped a debate that altered the course of western philosophy.

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing was an influential and well known eighteenth century philosopher, playwright, promoter, and art critic who is today recognized as having significantly impacted German literature. So, it came as a great surprise in the philosophical and literary world when in 1785 the German philosopher Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi disclosed that in his last conversation with Lessing his colleague revealed, “There is no other philosophy than the philosophy of Spinoza.” This revelation incited what is known as the Enlightenment’s “Pantheism Controversy” within what was to be German Idealism. The intellectual world in Europe had not forgiven Spinoza for his blasphemy. His works were still widely banned. Therefore, the sentiment of Lessing was a shock to the refined minds of the elite. What ensued was a vigorous debate that in many ways defined the German Idealism movement.

In my judgment, the resurrection of pantheism in the midst of Enlightenment-era rationality added a greater degree of validity and panache to the notion of God and Nature being one even as the conception underwent intense investigation and criticism. History appears to bear this out. Pantheism’s reemergence generated disputes that remain unresolved to this day. In particular there are the dual conflicts of reason vs. faith and freedom vs. determinism. Jacobi, mentioned above, contended that absolute reason inevitably led to a deterministic universe devoid of freedom, individuality, and a personal and providential God. Faith must have precedence over reason he argued. Pure reason looks upon God-Nature existence as axioms from which deductively arrived upon proven statements are derived. It is difficult to see where human moral responsibility fits into such a universe.

A redefinition of pantheism eventually surfaced which included variations of an acceptance of a vital, spirited, and divine Nature with human agency as a core shaping element of God-Nature. I see this notably in the work of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775-1854), one of the principals of German Idealism. As with other German idealists, Schelling attempted to reconcile Spinoza’s divinity of Nature with the unacceptable predestinarianism of Spinoza’s rationalism. Schelling devoted his life and philosophical inquires to refining Spinozian pantheism. The depth and richness of his work is far beyond the scope of this essay, but I will summarize his crucial contribution this way.

Schelling elaborates the sacredness of Nature magnificently in his Naturphilosophie (Nature of Philosophy). He described Nature as infused with and expressive of spirit such that it is ever energetic and changing; always inventive and autonomous; and consistently self-becoming, self-regulating, and self-generating. Nature in Schelling’s world is not inert and listless or the product of a remote God, but rather forever developing organically toward cultivation and improvement. Schelling gives devout texture and definition to the qualities of sanctified Nature. This description clearly aligns with Spinoza’s God and Nature oneness.

With regards to human agency, I am struck by Schelling’s conflating of the ceaseless unfolding of God-Nature with the continual emergence inherent within the human condition. Schelling proposed a radical idea that the one true reality was not, nor ever has been, a finished product but rather an unending process of expansion, evolution, and progress. Fixed laws of nature did not arise from a starting point of time unchanged and left hanging like a framed painting hanging in a gallery. And since we humans are a direct expression of the One, as is all of Nature, we too live our existences in a state of growth and potential with freedom to choose life’s path. Schelling makes clear that the divine condition is a struggle between a chaotic darkness and a liberating light. It is within this cosmic churn that we each craft our lives. Yes, God and Nature are one, and a crucial feature of this unity is how we each flower, how we each flourish, or not. The process of becoming is fundamental to all of existence, including to ourselves.

Pantheism had traversed from chastisement and damning from the time of Spinoza through to the reform attempts during the period of German Idealism. In the years since the early nineteenth century pantheism has refused to expire. Indeed, it lives on as an influence in a number of philosophical and literary approaches. Romanticism writers, artists, and philosophers had an effect of adorning the heavily rationalist approach of Spinoza’s pantheism with odes, poems, hymns, landscapes, and a reverence for Nature as sacred. In their reaction to the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason the Romantics chose instead to smooth the differences between Nature, God, rational metaphysics, and the self. True reality was expressed in terms of emotions, imagery, and yes, the unity of Nature and the holy. Ordinary people were encouraged to be awe-inspired by Nature, ecstatic before the vastness and intricacies of the natural world, and comforted by the embrace of the world-spirit whose presence was all around them.

In time, pantheism retained varying degrees of relevancy in the philosophical trends of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It was less meaningful in the context of the English speaking world’s immersion into logical analysis with its concentration of language and logic. However, continental philosophy and its tradition of phenomenology turns out to be a more welcoming environment for the monism of pantheism. Theologians unsurprisingly have struggled with any alternative to their theistic model of a transcendent God, but even among the world’s great religions there are those who are less threatened with the divine immanence quality of pantheism. To some it makes sense and it feels right even if the concept is not preached from on high. Today, pantheism lives on in debates about God, Nature, ontology, and reason. Encouragingly, pantheism appears to be more widely accepted and endorsed nowadays than at any other time in modern history.

Speaking of my own spiritual journey, pantheism at my late stage of life is highly relevant and worthy of my continued consideration. As one who has not fit well into dogmatic traditions and their institutions, the view of a God and Nature harmony resonates plainly and warmly. It is not difficult for me to assign faith, that trust inspired conviction which we all settle on in our own very personal ways, to pantheism. May my heart and mind change fundamentally concerning this topic in the future? Possibly it will. However, I do not see this happening soon. Rather, I am content to see my faith in pantheism as rooted in three themes that form the structure of my personal metaphysics.

Call it the One, the Logos, the Word, the Collective Soul, All-There-Is, the Divine, or God the common throughline is the monism of reality. All of what is known to us, from matter and energy detected by us through our five senses to the most rudimentary a priori intuition and cognitive capacities we are born with reveals reality and fundamental truth as springing forth from a single all-powerful and all-inclusive wellspring.

Divinity is not restricted to an external and transcendent deity, but is instead infused throughout all of reality. Separating the divine from the commonplace implies naturally higher and lower orders. This does not feel right. Humans, because of our fallibilities, assume we are unwholesome in a fundamental way. Yet, the whole package of the evil and the sublime throughout the universe are features of the immanent divine.

Nature, including humankind, is not a produced entity manipulated and managed from afar, but is the basic, if not exclusive manifestation of the divine one. The genesis of reality is centered on God’s impulse of self-awareness. Not unlike how consciousness is our way of seeing and knowing ourselves, the divine too expresses itself to itself. Nature is the self-identification of God, inextricably bound and related.

To the seeker, the curious, the wanderer, and the explorer I encourage an examination of pantheism. A faith-based construction comprising the three themes mentioned above provide a starting point for the searcher who is not afraid to step out of the conventional religious models in their quest for a meaningful and subjective spiritual home. May we all find life enhancing revelation and light on our journeys.

There is a vast and deep pool of erudite thought in western philosophy pertaining to process philosophy. I am strangely attracted to it even though I find it maddeningly reality warping. Easily recognizable is that this branch of philosophy is a bold attempt at offering an alternative paradigm to the conventional wisdom of materialist philosophy. Beyond that point however, the ontological and epistemological landscape becomes other worldly. Process philosophy wants to take us on a different kind of phenomenal trail. One that transcends all that was thought and accepted for a lifetime about actuality, about authenticity.

I have been delving seriously into western philosophy for five years now. So, when process philosophy started to take hold of me approximately two years ago I had enough of a developed base to be ready to try to comprehend it. Little did I expect that this was to be the daunting cognizance challenge it had turned out to be. It is fine to accept that committing to understanding process philosophy means for me a lengthy and at times confusing endeavor. Nothing wrong with being a beginner at something new. However, what strikes me most at this early stage of the learning is the mental disruption process philosophy is generating.

Before going further, this might be a good time to explain what I mean by process philosophy. The concept first grabbed my attention during my initial chronological study of the history of western philosophy when I was introduced to Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947). A mathematician, logician, and physicist during the early part of his career he eventually shifted his attention and scholarship to philosophy and metaphysics. This transformation was much more than a career evolution. Whitehead proposed a radically different ontology to explain the nature of existence. He told us that reality is not formed by discreet elements of matter that exist autonomously, but rather that the fundamentals of all-there-is consists of the interrelationships among processes. Whitehead upset conventional wisdom by telling us in essence that the universe is not a noun, but a verb.

Process philosophy has taken on adherents ever since Whitehead and is today a position taken seriously by many credible philosophers both in and out of academia. It is a notion that is both believable and unbelievable—an enigma that both attracts and repels. A good place to gain a foothold with comprehending process philosophy is with the word “becoming”. Everything we know of is in a state of flux. Change which is both predictable and capricious is universal. A consistent theme within this ubiquitous process is the constant repetition of coming into being. Existence appears and disappears, sometimes simultaneously. What is foundational is that all things and events become over and over again. The universe appears to be, indeed, to subsist, in an ever active and regenerative manner.

Where this story gets very strange for western minds is that process has primacy over materialism both philosophically and scientifically. Physical matter constructed from molecules and atoms; the primordial stuff that keeps reshaping itself into everything there is takes either a secondary role within reality or else this galactic fabric is dismissed entirely as illusory. It is in this sharp distinction, this fundamentally divergent framing of certitude where the cognitive muddle begins. What to make of this contrast? Is there an essential truth supporting actual realism and if so, is this truth cleverly obscured or glaringly obvious? A journey into process philosophy will confront you with questioning all you previously thought and believed about what the world and universe are like.

Philosophical idealism has a lot to say. The mind is an immense and elaborate seat of consciousness. The magnitude of its richness and potential is beyond language to explain. Conscious experience appears to be foundational to all there is. Separating reality from pure subjectivity seems like an unprofitable venture aside from a possible interest in exploring metaphysical dualism. Perhaps Plato and Kant were onto something with their phenomenal and noumenal branches of existence. Maybe there is a realm of existence in which things exist in themselves independent of our perceptions. But how will we ever know? Without a mind we can never know if reality lies both within and without our awareness.

Idealism, the view that experience is elemental to sensing reality, in large part set the stage for process philosophy. In addition to jointly recognizing the primacy of experience, idealism and process philosophy also share a belief in the unceasing and dynamic creation of reality, and in a dismissal of static ontological materialism. To be is immutably linked to thinking and to think is an expression of being. To be and to think are active and not fixed states. To be and to think are always hand in hand leaning forward, always together onto the next thing.

One other core and defining element process philosophy and idealism share is an existential opposition to materialism. What I find most unsettling about this resistance to physicality is that I have always seen myself as living in a concrete and physical world made up of substances that naturally occurred as either solids, liquids, or gases. So, is process philosophy telling me and the rest of the western world that we are getting this perception of universal substance all wrong? To make such a declaration gives my brain pause.

Materialism proposes that existence is based entirely upon matter and its infinite configurations. All phenomena, including the workings of mind, are reducible to the constitution of substances and their interactions. As a result of our sensory abilities to perceive reality we have increasingly relied on sensorial observation. Empiricism came to dictate how we define reality. Science emerged as a discipline targeted toward determining predictable behaviors of materials and their interplay. Laws and causal powers of nature became codified, and a general belief arose that as we refined our observational capacity over time we would eventually be able to discern the underlying elements of matter and thereby peer into the true and immutable essence of everything. The materialist viewpoint became central to the conventional wisdom of western thought during the Enlightenment and remains the dominant sentiment to this day.

Resolving the most definitive and conclusive interpretation of nature’s true character, the process approach or the materialist tradition, will not be determined in this essay. Indeed, it may never be settled throughout the long arc of human history. Of note at this present time, however, is how can thinking people examine this process/material dichotomy in a way that beneficially tests ones assumptions, pushes one to seriously consider never before imagined ideas, and very possibly expand ones outlook on what is authentic and real.

The experience of cognitive dissonance comes to mind when contemplating the inclusion of process philosophy into an established materialist belief framework. This has certainly occurred to me. Like I suspect many people do, I was content thinking that the brain, through synaptic firing, gave view to a physical world that was always there and always would be. My brain miraculously gave me a ticket to sensing a universe that spent its time doing what universes do—transferring energy and reconfiguring matter. Idealism, and by extension process philosophy, shook up that lifelong impression. How am I supposed to now know what to believe?

Cognitive dissonance, the mental distress resulting from believing two contradictory ideas, can be a disagreeable place to be. Disequilibrium can be that way. It is a state of conflicting beliefs that leads to confusion and mystery. It is a disruption of values and attitudes that can be unsettling. Where cognitive dissonance gets really impactful is when one’s identity is aligned with one’s beliefs. Adopting new convictions can imperil one’s self-concept. Fortunately for many, this level of consequence pertains more to political opinions or professional scientific careers than to philosophical views. Nevertheless, selecting a novel way of considering the nature of reality does elicit, at the very least, carefully chosen cognitive modifications.

In my case, integrating process philosophy into my formally rigid materialist outlook is going to be, I suspect, a work in progress for some time to come. This endeavor compels me to humbly accept that I have a lot more to learn. Additionally, though, there is also my growing realization that deep ontological perplexities will most likely never be fully understood or universally decided by all of humankind at any given time. Rational investigation at some point yields to faith; a trust in unverifiable beliefs; a safe harbor for troubled minds. Given the chasm of viewpoints across the spectrum of humanity it is the height of haughtiness to think the one unifying theory of everything will ever be found and even more implausibly ever be widely accepted.

Nevertheless, we continue to try to comprehend; to know as much as we can about the primitive and fundamental source of all-there-is. I take some solace in accepting that the tension existing between a more processual or materialistic approach to metaphysics is a good thing. We gain a greater existential breadth and depth through an open minded exploration of both traditions.

The antidote for cognitive dissonance it turns out is to cultivate an ability to think counterfactually. Possessing an ability to envision alternative explanations and to accept the possibility that there may actually be something of value to consider in variant approaches can lessen cognitive rigidity and expand openness. Counterfactual thinking practice may settle for us an acceptable metaphysical paradigm to envision and accept, albeit a fresh one. And if we are lucky, more fluid thinking may even produce benefits far beyond engagement in philosophical debates.

In a world overflowing with demands, temptations, distractions, and possibilities one of life’s great conflicts is how to choose wisely. We discover at a young age that there will be a lifetime of decisions to make and that when selecting a course of action to satisfy making these decisions there is usually a single right way to act and many more wrong ways to act. Most, if not all of us, are compelled to determine which from among the array of options available to us is that one right way to go. Sometimes resolving which way to opt is easy and at other times agonizingly difficult. This very human predicament is as old as time and as relevant as ever during any era, including our own.

The topic I am attempting to introduce is the fraught notion of morality. When contemplating the very concept of rightness, we are necessarily entering into moral choice. For some people I will assume this is not an excruciating endeavor. I imagine there are those who are comfortable with their virtuous outlook on life and do not struggle with knowing what the right thing is to do each and every time they are confronted with a quandary. However, there are a whole lot of others, me included, for whom upright self-guidance is a frequent struggle. It is for us, the less than perfect, the ethically challenged, that I would like to direct the following exploration.

My initiation to morality as both a concept and as a precept was via the Catholic Church. The flavor of Catholicism I knew was practiced in Massachusetts, where I grew up. Therefore, Irish Catholics heavily influenced it. The people, family, neighbors, faith, and culture I first perceived were largely formulated by second and third generation Irish immigrants. I remember there being strict rules of engagement; hard and fast frontiers between what were acceptable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and which were not. Morality was serious business. I was left more in fear of it rather than of awe, which meant I was compelled to either push against or to recoil in the face of such fear. My general reaction skewed toward confrontation of what I came to see as an onerous set of commands and controls. From the elders’ point of view, I slipped through the cracks.

My story is but one of literally billions of stories of how people are inculcated with moral principles—approximately 117 billion if we count past generations of people now long gone. Moral themes and values are influenced by the cultural traditions from which they arise and by the aptitude of those who take it upon themselves to pass on chaste lessons to the next generation. Therefore, moral truths are a direct reflection of the cultures from which they spring. Beliefs are disseminated with varying degrees of fine-tuning for the times in which they are expressed. As is to be expected, culturally derived morals will either clash with or integrate with the teachings of other traditions. Congruence can engender peace among disparate groups while discord among moral conventions can and does lead to serious conflicts or war.

I am drawn to wanting to understand the nature of morality. In contemplating morality one thing seems quite obvious at first glance. Morality appears to exist most often in a social context. When identifying common cross-cultural moral themes, they mostly pertain to how people should treat one another. Being caring, fair, loyal, respectful, and courageous are ordinarily accepted creeds of a social moral code. These descriptors serve as guidelines for ethical treatment of our fellow individuals. Perhaps, morality only makes sense within a collective situation. If so, that is fine, but accepting morality as commonly shared standards only makes it akin to a set of laws. Valuable and important, yes, but hardly carrying the weight of a divine or sacred fundamental tenet.

Some would point out that morality does have an internal subjective relevance. Another universal credo calls for each of us to be pure and sanctified. Even looking at this belief though, the directive to be spiritually clean comes from traditionally based sources, such as scripture or philosophical texts prepared by others. Morality as an absolutely intrinsic feature of an individual life would need to be a priori—a self-evident realization each of us is born with. The question then becomes, is morality at its core part of our hard-wiring as human beings or is its origin as cultural doctrine developed by wise elders and passed down from generation to generation?

A view for trying to understand the nature of morality can be gained by looking at how the Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) addressed this question. Kant is a towering figure in western philosophy. His sophisticated inquiries of ontology, epistemology, political theory, and aesthetics have been remarkably influential. As too have been his contributions to the philosophy of morals. His speculation and analysis about the significance and sources of morality and its role in what it means to be human was a momentous achievement. It is very hard to imagine considering the nature of morality, especially in the western world, without contemplating Kant’s moral system. Of relevance to this essay is the question of whether Kant’s moral philosophy is merely an interesting Enlightenment-era historical relic or if it retains guidance for modern people seeking to understand morality in their lives today.

It is helpful to know that Immanuel Kant was raised in a pietistic Lutheran family, which was a style of Lutheranism dedicated to religious devotion, Biblical literalism, and personal humility. This upbringing certainly influenced his manner and lifestyle. For example, he was known to live a very ordered and disciplined life. However, he devoted his professional life to philosophy, not to religion. That said, his intricate philosophical system regarding morality has a grounding in fundamentals that appear consistent with religious conviction. Kant believed in the requirement that morality must be defined within a framework of universal principle applicable to all people from all cultures. The concept of universality implies sanctified unity originating from a supreme and all-encompassing source. In Kant’s thinking, allegiance to this source is the foundation of moral canon.

As was typical of Kant’s intellectual style, he peered deeply into the essence of how the human mind, in particular its ability to reason, set the stage for each individual to choose the right path, to know what ought to be done, to realize the actions which are good in themselves. Kant identifies the mind’s a priori knowledge, a knowledge that is innate and not dependent on experience; a knowledge which by its very nature presents the human mind with what he calls pure practical reasoning, the springboard of moral law. Here too, we see the impact of Kant’s religious training—a belief in an essential goodness ingrained into the mind of each individual person. However, unlike the precursors of the Enlightenment, such as Descartes and Spinoza, who credited each person’s capacity to think just so far before claiming further responsibility for human cognition rested with God, Kant is content with asserting the human mind has all the potentiality it needs to derive moral truth.

From this starting point, Kant constructs a paradigm consisting of what he calls the Categorial Imperative—the virtuous obligations to be followed. Kant formulated a deontology or an ethical system in which personal conduct was based on what one ought to do and what one was obliged to do. My initial thought upon learning this centered on the author or originator of moral thought and deed. Surely an external and omnipotent presence must be decreeing moral law from on high. But no. Kant’s claim is that true unadulterated morality springs forth from the mind’s pure reasoning, the capacity we each have to exercise our free will such that the right thing should naturally be done. The things which ought to be done are self-generated and internally driven. This is an extraordinary claim and a stark departure from the scholastic theological tradition that dominated Europe since Aquinas. Human reason, the capability to think, draw conclusions, and form judgments are the source of our virtue.

Kant envisioned that collectively we could create a righteous society in which we could ethically monitor ourselves and each other. A community where people would not exploit one another for selfish reasons and where the dignity of each individual was to be respected. Kant’s Categorical Imperative strongly emphasized universality, the notion that human derived rational moral rules applied to all people equitably. A hallmark of the Enlightenment in general was the introduction of individual rights and egalitarianism. Kant contributed to this social advancement as one of the Enlightenment’s most profound thinkers when he implemented universality as a key feature to his morality project. Universality explicitly states that moral treatment of all must be more highly valued than the achievement of personalized consequences such as individual goals or desired outcomes. Respect for all of humanity and all individuals as an end in itself superseding private needs and appetites is a major attribute of the Categorical Imperative.

Another key element of the Categorical Imperative has to do with consistency meaning that moral choice must not contradict rational thought. The standards Kant used to measure rational consistency refer to logical congruity; universality; satisfaction of “perfect duty”; and respect for oneself and for others. I have previously mentioned the roles played by universality and mutual respect in Kant’s moral system, so I will turn my attention to logical congruity and perfect duty.

Logical congruity is my term for what Kant is talking about when he says “contradiction”. Kant cautions against a moral decision that negates reasoned thought. Take the behavior of deception, an example Kant uses in one of his works. He imagines an individual who intends to take a loan he does not plan to pay back. Deception is not moral because if this practice were universalized, then no one would lend money anymore knowing they would not be paid back. The behavior of deception contradicts the action of borrowing. This would be an immoral detriment to society because lending is an economically viable procedure. The same could be said of lying. If lying became a universal custom, then we would not believe one another leading to a serious social inefficiency, if not flaw, in the use of language. Practical language usage would be contradicted. Hence, lying is immoral. Similar examples can be imagined regarding theft, violence, infidelity, etc.

Perfect duty according to Kant refers to strict adherence by each individual (and collections of individuals) to consistently follow moral truths that feature universality, avoidance of contradiction, and reciprocal respect. To be a moral person means to guide oneself into choosing perfect duties at all times. We should fully realize the necessity of exercising perfect duties. A mind that is focused on pure practical reason, as Kant calls it, will naturally be a moral mind. It will do what it ought to do because the mind is pure in its intention. Moral systems are deontological in that they prescribe proper conduct. Religious constructs base their deontology on God’s wishes. Kant bases his deontology on the pure practical reason of individuals.

I return to the question I posed earlier, is Kant’s elaborate morality framework merely an interesting esoteric exploration or does it have practical benefits for people looking to lead a more intentional moral life? I would like to share my impressions in an attempt to arrive at an answer. I would also like to begin by noting why morality matters in our lives. Its significance can be assessed both at an individual spiritual and psychological level and also at a social level.

To state the obvious, mental health is necessary for a flourishing life. To a large extent our mental health, if we are fortunate to experience it, is a result of luck and fortitude. We are born who we are—an amalgamation of ancestral influences and environmental conditions. Given the rational capacity most of us have we forge lives of idiosyncrasy and uniqueness in what become our personal spaces. To flourish as individuals, we require degrees of cognitive astuteness and emotional solace. These can manifest in a variety of contexts one of which involves our moral resolutions. Developing and refining moral character into lives of integrity give us strength and means to fulfill lives of purpose. Survival may be our base necessity, but keeping our heads above the torrent of all life’s problems is not enough. Light has to shine to cultivate our souls. Moral endurance can illuminate our existence.

Development of personal soundness can bring a sense of peace and reassurance. However, to think of morality as solely a personal pursuit seems exceedingly incomplete. Morality plays its largest role in how it enhances the quality of interpersonal interactions. Living life can have profound joys, but it also has weighty challenges. Finding delights and meeting difficulties alone can be unfathomable. Reliance on one another to greater and lesser degrees is crucial. Trust and relative certitude about the nature and intentions of our fellow human beings is what we crave, what we require in order to endure and to blossom. It is here, in the deep connections with others; here where we give and receive; here where sustaining our individual and collective lives is the ultimate goal to which morality is fundamental.

At a practical level among the vast collection of all people the Categorical Imperative can and is seen as a high bar, as a strict standard to be practiced by each and every individual. It requires a universal deontological acceptance of right and wrong with no tolerable exceptions to the moral order. However, as we all know, there are people doing wrong all of the time and it is done because we each play a mental game with ourselves that allows us to make an exception to moral rules. For example, there could be a time when we take something that does not belong to us. We know that we do not want a world where everyone takes things that do not belong to them, but we justify to ourselves that our reasons for breaking the rule this time is warranted. We know that driving a car under the influence is wrong and dangerous. We want roads that are safe to drive our families on. Yet, even after drinking too much we get behind the wheel of our car telling ourselves that we can do it this time and that we will be careful. If we think about it, we can identify within our own behaviors instances of personal wrongdoing based on a greater desire to satisfy our wants, needs, and passions over the universality of what is morally proper.

Therefore, can a more than two-hundred-year-old moral philosophy formulated by a Prussian academic assist twenty-first century humanity in trying to find its way in this world? In my judgment, yes it can. Now it could be said that Kant’s morality construct is fanciful and utopian and not grounded in the cutthroat reality we see all around us. This a reasonable attitude to have. We can make claim that to always do what we ought to do is too difficult and impractical in all situations. But in assessing the utility of the Categorical Imperative I am not going to succumb to these perceived weaknesses. I will instead recognize and appreciate the elegance and spiritual nature of the model. Rather, I will allow myself to be attracted to the key aspects of the Categorical Imperative. Features such as morality originating from the mind’s capacity for pure practical reasoning; the universality of moral potential across all of humankind; respect for the personhood of others; and valuing moral rules that make perfect sense without contradiction for everyone are characteristics that give Kant’s framework both a metaphysical greatness and a practical usefulness. For anyone seeking to ground or reestablish moral direction in their life, Kant’s Categorical Imperative provides fruitful guidance and direction.

North American and European democracies are on the defensive. Electoral events, especially of the past decade, have forced a reckoning and a review of the alleged benefits of democratic rule—economically, politically, and culturally. Many residents of these countries have vociferously expressed a dissatisfaction with the outcomes produced by democratic leadership. Reversion back to more authoritarian styles of governance is competing for recognition and legitimacy.

The most obvious example for an American these days is the transformation of the Republican Party with its adopted dictatorial traits such as amplified executive control, erosion of institutional checks and balances, politicizing of formally independent institutions and agencies, manipulation of election processes, intolerance of dissent, and the spread of tainted information. This playbook or something similar to it is being duplicated in the forms of Hungary’s Fidsesz Party; Poland’s PiS Party; the PVV in The Netherlands; Vox in Spain; AfD in Germany; the RN in France; and others in Belgium, Croatia, Finland, Slovakia, and Sweden.

In the US, the election contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, only thirteen years ago, seems like a quaint old electoral match in comparison to what elections look like now. The western world appears to be a different place than the relatively placid days of 2012. How did this transformation happen? How did this right-wing revolution come about? Why are we having to contend with this wild cultural swing?

Liberals, the left, and pro-democracy adherents are wracking their brains to try to understand this phenomenon and to know how to best confront it. The churn of perspectives, pieces of advice, and admonitions are fascinating to behold and will likely meld into a unified political counterweight at some point. However, my primary interest in assessing the liberal post-mortem is to see if there exists a fundamental causation triggering this political mutation. I want to know the nature of this right-wing antecedent.

(Note, my forthcoming argument will be specific to the American experience, which is my most reliable frame of reference. Whether my claim of philosophical dissonance carries the same weight in Europe and elsewhere is not a claim I am prepared to definitively make. However, I suspect there is a narrative arc.)

In an attempt to better understand the roots of the American right’s appeal I am going to play out a thought I have recently had. I have been hypothesizing that a significant motivator energizing far-right authoritarian movements may be that it is a reaction against the philosophical underpinning of liberalism’s adherence to analytic philosophy. What follows is my case for why the current analytic philosophy movement plays a causative role in today’s politics and a harmful one in part for today’s political left.

I need to give some contextual background to support my thought process leading to this speculative theory. To begin with I would like to be factually descriptive of the type of citizens who are drawn to the MAGA/authoritarian governance style. Secondly, I would like to examine the fundamental philosophical foundation that adherents to this movement both accept and reject. Thirdly, I must unpack in some detail what analytic philosophy is and how it holds such influence with the political left, particularly in the United States. From this review a better understanding may emerge that can assist liberals in assessing how their messaging is detrimental and in need of reform.

A start, therefore, is to take a look at the type of people who find Trumpism or the MAGA movement favorably. One of my favorite summaries of this cohort was written by the New York Times columnist David French on October 5, 2023, in a piece entitled How MAGA Corrupts the Culture of the White Working Class. In it French writes, “What are these working-class values, in the best sense? I don’t want to oversimplify a complex culture, but there are some common themes—directness in speech, a respect for traditional family structures and roles, a more instrumentalist view of work (your job is what you do, not who you are), adeptness at practical learning, a tough protective ethos centered on family and community, and a deep sense of honor and loyalty.”

I find this a charitable description of a group that has upended French’s conservative world. Regardless, using this description we can see how a large component of the MAGA coalition, namely the white working class, reveres simplicity, tradition, and pragmatism. They see themselves as the forgotten ones—the ones by-passed by the well-educated elite who are too busy conjuring ways of creating and stockpiling wealth than to concern themselves with people who concretely and sensibly engage with the harsh world set before them. The combination of economic resentment and cultural pride sparks a motivation to fight back against what is seen as a fundamental unfairness in our society.

To be sure, the MAGA coalition is comprised of more than just the white working class. However, it is this group specifically who best personify the MAGA ideology at its core. Let us examine their perspective. The elite are seen as riding the wave of rapid economic expansion into the new and highly energized areas defined by technological development and globalized interconnectivity. Many in MAGA world are not attracted to this way of life. Sure, the money yielded would be nice to have, but not at the cost of constructing such a lifestyle. Time tested and honorable customs aligned with patriotism, religion, and regional mores are seen as more admirable. Change is something to be wary and suspicious of—and the quicker the change occurs the more defensive one gets.

Threats to a life of tradition abound. Increased immigration dilutes the demographic and ethnic mix of communities. Minority groups or integrative collectives tied together by racial, gender, and other civilizing traits, are outsiders who must be managed in order to protect the integrity of the tribe. Attempts by the elite to advance equality by promoting and practicing tolerance of distorted and abnormal causes such as gender equality, sexual adventurism, climate engagement, substituting philosophy for religion, free trade, and other “progressive” campaigns prompt resistance. Government institutions also have become corrupted by a tendency to officiate movements away from heritage and towards leniency and change management.

Retaining cultural conventions for the long term is difficult to do. One’s guard must not be let down. A strongman who sings from your hymnbook looks like an appealing figure to have marshalling the challenge. Indeed, loyalty to an authoritarian who can best disrupt and parry the elite’s misguided actions is exactly what is needed. It is even worth considering that the presence of a powerful protector is heaven sent and consistent with natural law. MAGA is not looking for a compromiser, but rather a belligerent and antagonistic adversary to justifiably confront their political enemies.

Strategies, approaches, and leaders aside I contend there is something more rudimentary afoot in what stimulates and incites the MAGA crusade. I believe the MAGA pushback against the left and liberals is in part a reaction to the way the left thinks and reasons—a style of viewing the world that is in some key ways opposing the perspective of no nonsense plainness and customary prudence embraced by today’s right. The gap between the right and the left is not just about stances on issues or policy positions but is philosophical in nature.

One could be justified in thinking that philosophical contemplation is not what consumes the considerations of everyday people going about their lives. Rather, we are faced with more immediate concerns of trying to engender for ourselves the most comfortable, secure, and fruitful lives possible given all of the headwinds modern existence throws at us. However, philosophy is present behind the scenes in influencing and shaping the choices we face and the decisions we make leading to how successful or not our attempts are in crafting the best lives possible.

Our chosen political persuasions are also philosophically based. We align with like-minded individuals to form coalitions that have throughlines of similar values, perspectives, and beliefs. Expectedly, tensions arise when political philosophies come into conflict with other worldviews. This is natural, even within communities within which there is much to unite us despite our differences. Unfortunately, times occur when the dissonance between political factions threatens to unravel societies as we are now witnessing with the rise of right-wing populism. So, how did this happen? Here is what I propose to explain what we see playing out in America.

During the twentieth century philosophy as a discipline in the United States and the United Kingdom became entrenched by a school of thought known as analytic philosophy. Historically speaking in the US, analytic philosophy supplanted a philosophical system known as American pragmatism, which was dominant from the late nineteenth century to the mid twentieth century. Simultaneously, analytic philosophy eclipsed a longstanding and extensive European philosophical outlook known as continental philosophy, which had a degree of influence among American public and academic intellectuals in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, albeit limited. Analytic philosophy remains the commanding philosophical school in the US to this day.

Analytic philosophy gained a foothold in higher education where its methodological emphasis on precision, argumentation, and linguistic analysis found a natural home. There is not a lot of daylight between the practice of science and the practice of analytic philosophy. Scientific exactitude and measurability directed toward reduction of phenomena to fundamental elements leading to predictions of phenomenal actions permeates our modern world. This is most evident in the enterprises that fuel our economy. Innovation, research & development, and technical advancement are vital forces necessary to remain sustainable and competitive in business. These forces rely on logical consistency, clarity of definitions, and argumentative thoroughness. We value scientific scrupulousness and therefore educated people feel it is instinctive to apply a similar style of preciseness to our philosophy.

However, I contend that there is a price to pay for such a strong reliance on analytic philosophy. Although most Americans will never have heard of analytic philosophy it nevertheless has influenced the manner of thinking practiced by elites, including politicians, policymakers, and the media. On the one hand, this implies that elites are thorough, rigorous, and meticulous in how they conduct their businesses, but on the other hand, Americans who do not see themselves as elite see instead a highly educated aristocracy using detailed and sophisticated language to describe abstract ideas and priorities which do not relate to the hardships of their lives.

Climate change is a pertinent example. There is plenty of data showing that manufactured climate degradation is a serious problem. But for many conservatives, it is a liberal problem, not one that helps pay the high cost of getting ahead in America. Closely related to climate change is the liberal concern over a clean energy transition to more sustainable and renewable sources, such as wind and solar. MAGA world views the introduction of alternative sources of energy as economically risky or irrelevant to their daily lives. Economic inequality is another liberal priority that befuddles conservatives. To them it is liberal elites who appear to be hoarding wealth with little concern for the needs of working class people. Voting rights and the preservation of democracy is viewed as a another sky-is-falling leftist battle cry attempting to make a catastrophe where there is none. LGBTQ+ rights to Trumpism just show how out of touch liberals have become with their ill-advised ideas by trying to engender an unnatural world.

I could go on but suffice it to say citizens who align with today’s Republican Party see the educated purveyors of liberal causes as steeped in misguided priorities and policy positions that are far removed from the important and meaningful matters of the common person. Beyond stances on specific policy and political issues what appears to most irritate the right about the educated left is the perceived attitude that leftists are superior sounding snobs who know better than the rest of us. Nobody likes a know-it-all and that impression has grafted itself upon the brand of Democrats and the left.

About 35% to 40% of Americans hold at least a college bachelor’s degree. These degrees range from fashion to finance and engineering to English and a whole lot more in between. We would be hard pressed indeed to find any college major field of study today that is not heavily impacted by analytic philosophy. As a result, those of us with college educations think and talk like people shaped by analytic philosophy—because we are! Perhaps the time has come for the educated left to ponder how analytic thinking contributes to a perception of being out of touch. And while we are on the subject, what is it in our philosophical outlook that is being left out or not adequately considered?

American cultural thinking and discourse has lost something important with its adherence to analytical conceptualizing and its relative abandonment of the influences of American pragmatism and continental philosophy. Together pragmatism and the continental approach do not feel the compulsion toward essentialism as does analytic philosophy. Boiling all experience down to rudimentary elements in search of the theory of everything steers our thought toward scientific clarity, logical principles, and precise language. This is fine and necessary for solving problems requiring technical and medical solutions, but not for assisting us in navigating the complexities of life with all of its subjective and objective calibrations.

There is a huge difference between abstract analysis inquiry and lived experience not unlike the gap between our cognitive selves and our emotional selves. Making meaning and adopting values are rich life endeavors both at a personal and at social levels. We are all faced with trying to make sense of life and how to best flourish given all of the opportunities and challenges we encounter. We are enmeshed simultaneously in wonderful potential but also with profound hazards. A politics that brackets and ignores the fundamentals of lived experience risks irrelevance. I think this may have happened with the left.

The philosophical traditions that have been sidelined in favor of analytic philosophy were not afraid to tackle these phenomenological layers of life. They saw history as helping to tell the story of their people. The peculiarities of culture and how traditions evolved were worth contemplating. How personal impressions of the world defined externalities, including other people, were to be examined. Literature and art aided us and enriched us as we tried to anchor some sense out of this fluid and messy existence. This approach to thought, as uncertain as it can be, is to be embraced and celebrated. Might this attitude be finding a home in populism? I think it may be.

I see ways in which the current brand of American populism overlaps with the existential approach of continental philosophy and American pragmatism. A huge connection pertains to this notion of lived or ordinary experience. Populism is defined as centering on the common affairs and issues of everyday people. Populism values being grounded in the real world. They do not dig too deeply into the ontological structure of existence beyond the story religion tells. To use the all too trite phrase these days regarding the world—it is what it is. It is in the American spirit that we find practical solutions to confronting the problems that we share. Ten-point plans of action usually do not cut it. And when the time comes to celebrate we try to remember to rejoice in simple ways despite our current technologically complex existence.

Populism is not as anti-change as it appears at first. Experience presents us with countless situations that require us to revise our ideas and practices. However, in doing so we are reminded of a heuristic presented to us by the fourteenth century Franciscan friar William of Occam who instructed western thinkers to debate competing reactions to similar phenomena by selecting the simplest approach, the one with fewer twists and turns and plots and schemes. Subjective experience keeps us in touch with how we feel and think. We face the world internally with various degrees of abstraction in our attempts to make meaning. It is necessary for those who engage in high levels of rational absorption while trying to pin down reality to realize that for many others a plainer and more straightforward process is preferred.

This uncomplicated preference for unsophisticated and unadorned answers over theoretical constructs sets the stage for populism’s attack on the analytically educated elite. Historic institutions run largely by the educated and privileged have served as the glue which holds society together. Nevertheless, they are now seen as entities entrenched in formalism and over-rumination. They have become a waste of fiscal resources and a danger to the status quo by imposing unwanted social transformations on traditional thought and practice.

Also, the populist view on the nature of change may mean that they are not as much of a threat to democracy as is commonly assumed. Democracy requires measured amounts of modification in order to keep government relevant and the citizenry cohesive. Thomas Jefferson told us as much. Pragmatism as a philosophy proposes that democracy requires continual reform and reconstitution. Combined with continental philosophy’s emphasis on community engagement and a willingness to question authority and we are left with an apparent acceptance of the general principles of citizen rule. I realize that can be obscured by the openness to authoritarianism, which is a serious contradiction, but peel back some layers and I am willing to bet that we can find that democracy still beats in there.

Enlightenment era democratic traditions will always undergo upheavals. It is conceptually innate to a system spawned by the maxim of rule by the people. We will necessarily wrangle with competing visions and rival notions of truth and reality forever. So what?! This does not have to be an existential crisis for our country. Hope does not need to be unceremoniously thrown overboard. Common ground can be found.

Speaking as a center-left liberal, lifelong Democrat, and hopeless political junkie I encourage adding an, uh, well, analysis of the impact analytic philosophy is having on political discourse, partisan relevance, and socially divisive engagement. Liberals are picking their way through the woods, looking for the trail they stumbled off of, so that they can find their way back to power. I therefore offer consideration of philosophical dissonance as a contributing factor in finding our way out of the wilderness.

It is interesting to ponder how an economic system can come to exist. Afterall, it is completely a human made invention with the lofty intention of improving the lives of humans. Economics as a discipline cannot pin its origins to naturally occurring phenomena such as biology, physics, and chemistry. Also, there was no stone tablet handed down from an omnipotent being with economic principles etched upon it. Rather, as we humans evolved individually and collectively we developed concepts, beliefs, and speculations about how to work with the environment we found ourselves in—with all its resource limitations and abundances—to craft a system leading to the best lives possible.

To better understand how economic systems such as the market economy of capitalism or the command economy of socialism were formed historically it is useful to look at the role played by philosophy. Philosophy has endeavored to discern the human condition and state of mind of a person at its most basic levels, giving insight into the roots of political and economic motivations. A philosophical strategy to determine the reason an economy becomes what it is involves knowing as much as possible the fundamental urges of discreet individuals regarding survival and flourishing. It is there, at the source of human self-awareness, a state of nature if you will, where the scrutiny needs to begin.

The Chinese philosopher Mozi (c. 470-391 BCE) depicted a state of nature in which individuals determined and followed their own “moral” rules. Not surprisingly, he recognized this led to social disorder. The remedy according to Mozi was to establish and apply a single moral order enforced by a powerful ruler. A generation later and in another part of the world the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BCE) alleged that “man is by nature a political animal”. This obvious but simplified observation however does not tell us enough about people’s intrinsic pre-political nature. It took the Italian expert interpreter of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), to develop Aristotle’s remark within a state of nature context.

Thomas Aquinas agreed that humans are instinctively social and political. Even so, Aquinas delved deeper by articulating what he saw as natural law or practical and rational standards that incline people toward moral goodness. It is natural, according to Aquinas, that people innately want to accept that “good is to be done and evil avoided”. Natural law was the path to divine or eternal law or God’s way. Being teleological, Aquinas saw proper collective action as an extension of the ethical purposiveness of the person. Since humans are fundamentally social, then natural law lays the rational and moral groundwork for how people are to conduct both their individual lives and their communal or political lives.

Centuries later, during the years leading up to and including the Enlightenment there transpired a more widespread attempt to identify the raw pre-political state of mind of humans. The impetus for this effort was embedded in the political philosophy of the time to settle on a humane and functional theory of social contract. The need for a more just, humanitarian, and functional set of rules, laws, and habits to guide society and government took on an increased urgency beginning in the sixteenth century. Philosophers held that by better understanding the natural state of humans as a starting point a superior social contract better binding the members of a social collective could come about.

Prominent at the outset of this trend was the Englishman Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Known among many as the philosopher who famously claimed the life of man was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” and who saw human nature as entrenched intrinsically in self-preservation. Such hard wiring meant humans, if left to their impulsive selves, would be perpetually at war and conflict. A social contract that emphasized curtailing some individual freedom in return for order and security was crucial for a society to survive and to thrive.

John Locke (1632-1704), also from England, had a more a charitable view of the human state of nature than did Hobbes. Locke speculated that humans fundamentally viewed themselves as grounded in equality and freedom. He nevertheless recognized that disputes do arise among people and that a social contract codifying basic human rights of life, liberty, and property was necessary. The Frenchman Charles-Louis de Secondat, also known as Montesquieu (1698-1755), attributed self-preservation as the primary motivation of humanity. Community and society were fashioned out of fear that without fellowship among all people the lives of individuals would not be sustainable.

Also from France, Jean-Jacques Rouseau (1712-1778) maintained a favorable view of people as essentially a good and peaceful lot who enjoyed their freedom. Where he differed from the other thinkers I have mentioned is that he saw society, and particularly the institution of private property, as degrading influences on the core purity of the individual. The necessary social contract according to Rousseau was one aimed at restoring the authentic equality and freedom of people.

In the twentieth century the American political philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) reformatted the state of nature concept to one he called the “original position”, a pre-political position in which individual people live behind a “veil of ignorance” regarding the needs, desires, and statuses of others. He did not concern himself with what natural proclivities were possessed by people in a natural state as did Hobbes et al. Rather Rawls was trying to get at what would constitute a universal system of societal justice. For Rawls, the original position ensured a greater degree of fairness and objectivity free of prejudices necessary for the formation of a social contract leading to a just collective.

Historically, social contract theory has been fundamental in the formation of advanced moral, political, legal, and economic structures. The history of thought highlights the types of social contracts exercised by communal and collective groups whether of traditional cultures or of modern nation states. What has persevered is a set of constructs accentuating the most pertinent values defining social life. Ethical principles such as consent of the governed, rule of law, natural rights, limits of power, codification of constitutions, social order, welfare of all citizens, and obligations of the individual among others lead to a civic virtue sustaining the common good.

From this political and philosophical churn appears economics, the modern versions of which can be said to be an outgrowth from social contract theory. There exist standards of reciprocal responsibilities between individuals and the collective which delineate the rights of each, identify regulations of goods and services, specify methods of production, and stipulate means of resource distribution that together make up an economy. To view the economy of a society is to regard the way the people think of themselves and each other. A moral code is in part reflected by the economic practices and conditions exhibited within a wider community.

The most common economic models in the developed world at present are the market economy, the command economy, and the mixed economy. The market economy, also popularly referred to a capitalism, emphasizes encouraging private interests and business to control production and the distribution of resources. The calibration between the supply of goods and services relative to consumer demand for those goods and services determines prices and distribution with minimal influence from government. Voluntary consumer and producer choice, competition, profit motive, and private ownership are key features of the market economy.

The command economy, generally thought of as socialism, places significant control of the economy with government as a centralized authority. Resources, production, consumer choice, prices, distribution, and economic planning are state controlled. The mixed economy blends parts of the market economy and the command economy and is the most common economic style of the developed world. Government and private enterprises interact to greater and lesser degrees of collaboration resulting in a hybrid economy.

At this point, I am interested in examining one particular feature of the market economy that has intrigued me for a few years now. That is the phenomenon of scarcity. Why would an economic system like capitalism tolerate scarcity of a good or service that is in demand? And if only a segment of the population experiences scarcity while another segment does not, why is that permitted? There seems something fishy about scarcity to me—as if it is a flaw of either the economic system or of the people accepting such a system. So, I decided to look into the matter.

To be clear, I am not talking about what I guess we could call natural scarcity. If I am sitting at home in New Hampshire during the month of December craving fresh New Hampshire strawberries, the kind that are only available in late June or early July, well no economic system is going to provide those to me. Similarly for fresh surface water in the middle of the Sahara Desert or clean air in downtown Bangkok. Falling short of having availability of desired resources at a wished for time in a limited location is often the way life is. We may not like it, but we have to either accept it or try to move heaven and earth to satisfy our sought-after desires.

Rather, the scarcity I am questioning can best be illustrated using some examples. There are obviously people around the world who need food. However, in a capitalist system governments or agribusiness will sometimes intentionally destroy or limit access to food in order to maintain a particular price for the food products, instead of getting unsold foods to people who need them. Another example involves the current housing shortage. Construction and sales of new housing are curtailed through stringent zoning laws in order to keep property values and rents high and to restrict population growth in a desirable location. There can actually be homelessness and vacant properties within a short distance of one another. Finally, within the electronics industry planned obsolescence of popular devices and appliances cause them to fail sooner fostering purchases of replacements more frequently than is technologically necessary.

The above examples are known in economics as artificial scarcity. This is a purposely planned for scarcity designed to inhibit market abundance and preserve the highest prices possible. It turns out that artificial scarcity is a major feature of a market economy. So, how did that happen? To find the answer we need again to take another peek back into history.

Starting as early as the twelfth century, but most significantly from the fifteenth century on, there occurred in England a practice known as the Enclosures. In pre-capitalist agriculture arable land was common land. A relatively informal utilization of the land’s use was self-managed among the populace. Private ownership was not yet a dominating force. However, as privatization became a more accepted practice land owners forcefully expelled peasants in effect creating land scarcity. The argument from ownership was that this new system was more efficient, a claim that remains to this day although the language has changed to terms like price control stability.

Capitalist thinking largely rests on the notion of supply and demand. Price is determined as a function of determining the level of demand for a given supply of goods and services. If demand is high, but supply scarce, then the result is a higher price per unit of supply. The inverse of low unit prices for weak demand and abundant supply is of course true also. Therefore, it is rational for consumers to make purchasing decisions based on what is perceived as a fair price and for suppliers to set prices based on demand. A supplier will want to have enough supply to meet demand, but at the highest price possible.

It helps to view artificial scarcity as manipulated or controlled scarcity. This often means suppliers manipulating or “optimizing” supply in order to set the highest price possible. We can think of this practice as profit incentive. There are a variety of means used by business to achieve optimal profits. In general, a supplier is motivated because they believe they can offer a good or service that is in demand at what is for them is the best price. This motivation finds expression in a number of actions.

Intellectual property laws, such as patents, copyrights, and digital rights management, are used to earn a return for creators’ insights and toil. Another effect is to constrain access of production to only those willing to pay a high price. Issuing limited editions and marketing exclusive brands can have a similar restraining effect. In the realm of commodities or more basic and common products actions like price supports are often used. Typically, a government practice, price supports such as production quotas, subsidies, and price floors help to structure scarcity by bypassing a more natural competitive balance.

Sometimes scarcity management can get extreme. Destroying unsold inventory, including even food, to engender shortages. Paying farmers to keep fields fallow to prevent over-supply. Stockpiling and hoarding “surpluses” to control item prices. As mentioned earlier, limiting housing construction by local governments or by property developers to maintain high property values and rents or to curb population growth. Also, designing planned obsolescence into a manufacturing process to ensure customers keep coming back for more. There are a lot of tricks to induce scarcity.

And this leads us to the obvious morality-related criticisms of artificial scarcity. The common good suffers from intentional impediments being placed on the availability of food, housing, and other goods and services required for everyone to have a chance at living a flourishing life. Reduced supply and artificially set high prices essentially is a restriction of inventory to a portion of the population. Additionally, resources are squandered when manufactured goods are destroyed, housing not constructed, and food left to rot. This leads to negative environmental results with wasted reserves and to economic consequences that sustain poverty. It can also be argued that intellectual property protections actually slow the rate of innovation and stifle competitiveness monopolistically.

At its essence, the dispute between a pro-capitalist rationale for artificial scarcity and a more cautionary perspective on this aspect of capitalism can be described as a lack of agreement regarding the meaning of equality. As I see it, the pro-artificial scarcity side sees allowing for individual economic initiative in the form of inventiveness and hard work as equal opportunity for all, which is as egalitarian as society needs to be. The con-artificial scarcity side would claim that an ethical obstacle emerges when society is bifurcated between those with market might and those who are less economically influential, in other words between the rich and the less affluent or poor.

I cognitively see both arguments but find that emotionally and spiritually I side with the capitalist skeptics who question this ethically weak facet of capitalism. To be clear, I am sympathetic to the equal opportunity position and in many cases realize that guaranteeing equal outcomes is not feasible. I also am not going to lose sleep over price fixing for luxury items that are not necessary for the wellbeing of low-income people. However, when it comes to essentials, such as food, housing, medicines, and care services, artificial scarcity has no justification. There is no such thing as surplus when there are people whose welfare is being threatened due to a lack of essentials.

Artificial scarcity intensifies inequality. The extreme inequities between the richest Americans and everyone else is now accepted fact in the US. This threatens democracy and has in large part given rise to the demagoguery of Trump and the MAGA movement. Most importantly, institutionalized inequality is contrary to a key tenet of the Declaration of Independence, one of the founding documents of the United States and one of the most direct links between the origination of the US and the Enlightenment. It was in the writing of the Declaration that the principles of individual rights, freedom, and equality became beacons of light for the new country.

Capitalism has undeniably provided great abundance and a higher quality of living for many millions of people than would have been possible under previous economic systems. Nevertheless, unfettered capitalism can lead to a number of social ills, including erosion of community solidarity, unfair treatment of labor, environmental degeneration, and over-commercialization of basic goods and services, among other misfortunes. An appropriate degree of governmental and internal industrial regulation is required in order to check the troubling consequences of pure capitalism. Controlling for the more harmful varieties of artificial scarcity is among the justifiable actions to be taken.

I have long had a fraught relationship with Christianity. Raised as a Roman Catholic in a Massachusetts family with Irish roots I was taught to revere the institution, which I did until I did not. Indeed, throughout much of my life I became a Catholic rebel or eschewer more content with finding fault with the Church than looking for the virtues, which to be honest I have always known were hidden there among the layers of hypocrisy, intolerance, and self-righteousness.

What follows is the kind of Christian story that still appeals to me. It is a kind of David and Goliath tale of an individual standing up to a far superior power. The commanding strength of the Church pitted against a single wily and crafty intellect. To set the stage let us review how Christian supremacy came to reign across Europe and the western world.

Christianity has long played a paramount and highly influential role in the life and history of the European continent since the fall of the Roman Empire. The collapse of Roman rule in the western part of Europe is generally dated to the year 476 CE, the date the Germanic chieftain Odoacer ousted the last Roman emperor who controlled the western part of Europe, Romulus Augustulus. (Of note, the eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire, lasted for another thousand years. The Great Schism of 1054 permanently separated Roman Catholicism in the west from the Orthodox Church in the east.)

The theological underpinnings of Christianity had been codified just prior to the fall of the empire in the form of the teachings of Saint Augustine. These stringent, uncompromising, yet to many revered dictates on topics such as the meaning of original sin, the necessity of salvation, the reach of God’s omnipotence, and the rigorous dedication required for each individual to pursue a spiritual journey set the stage for influencing western European religion and culture for many centuries to come.

With Augustine’s theological structure in place the Roman Catholic Church became one of the only significant institutions remaining from the empire that represented social steadfastness and constancy in western Europe. As the seceding centuries transpired a blend of the growing power of popes, the expansion of monasteries, missionary zeal, conversions to Christianity among royal lines, political marriages, military partnerships, and cultural intermingling led to the establishment of Christian kingdoms and religious unification across much of the continent.

It is difficult to overstate the authoritarian importance of Christianity across western Europe. As the faith became more entrenched across the continent the very identity of Europeans became defined by their adherence to Christian doctrine. Culture, social order, education, the arts, and personal conduct were decreed from the papacy in Rome as the Church replaced the empire in its universality. Indeed, state control in the form of feudal systems collaborated companionably with the Church to sustain and defend Christian orthodoxy.

Over time, however, cracks began to appear in papal control of western Europe. An eventual establishment in and slow rise of nationalism led to challenges of papal sovereignty. This was clearly evident during the Avignon Papacy of the fourteenth century when for seven decades seven consecutive popes left Rome to govern the Church from Avignon, France. Disputes with French royalty and instability among Italian states resulted in Rome being temporally abandoned by the Church creating an impression that popes were not as invincible as previously thought.

Of course, the most significant confrontation to Roman Catholic control of European religious life was the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Northern European religious reformers beginning with Martin Luther and John Calvin and nation state rulers such as King Henry VIII of England among others dared the papal preeminence on matters of theology, liturgy, and jurisdictional reach. By the end of the seventeenth century religious wars, internal corruption, political transformations, and theological disagreements permanently ended the Roman Catholic Church’s hegemony over the religious life of western Europe.

Nevertheless, western Europe remained under the ecclesiastical sway of Christianity, albeit within the two churchly provinces of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. To challenge the core of Christian canon with an alternative doctrinal conception was close to unheard of across the continent. To be sure, spiritual variants existed in medieval Europe although they were always limited in their reach. Folk and pagan traditions, heretical factions, mystical and charismatic visionaries, Jewish and Muslim communities, and general doubters and skeptics were evident, but restrained in their capacity to seriously narrow the scope of Christianity.

Rather, a dogged defiance of Christian creed that could not be easily ignored came from an Enlightenment-era philosopher, in the person of David Hume. Born in Edinburgh in 1711 and raised in the Scottish Lowlands close to the English border Hume became one of the deepest thinkers and greatest intellects of the eighteenth century. When I first began studying western philosophy my initial impression of Hume was that he was a radical empiricist. Nothing I have learned about him since has dissuaded me from that original notion.

David Hume presented a much more extensive body of philosophical thought than merely religious critique. His explorations involving epistemology, skepticism, ethics, and early psychology were sweeping, but it was Hume’s radical empiricism that prompted him to confront the frailties he found apparent in religious thinking—with Christianity, the prominent religion in his culture acutely in his sights.

Hume’s entire philosophical project rested on core assumptions chief among them that human beings are simply too restricted in their ability to perceive anything beyond what sensory experience reveals. A grand metaphysical structure, whether it be divine or solely physical, is an abstraction outside of our capacity to comprehend. All we can know about the world begins with our sensory impressions; those vibrant connections we make with the world external to our minds. These impressions convert to ideas which are the thoughts and conceptions we mentally construct as we reflect on our sensory experiences.

By rejecting metaphysics as a credible invention due to the lack of a direct tangible sensorial connection between humans and any alleged existential actuality, Hume concedes that we humans can never know the true nature of ultimate reality. Because of our epistemological limitations, which are confined to our senses, we cannot prove the existence of any transcendental realms or realities. This would include the existence of God, which most Christians of the eighteenth century (and indeed today) still view as a transcendent being. If God cannot be proven to exist, then by extension all the works and effects believers claim are the result of God’s actions are also called into question.

At the time of Hume Newtonian science was in full development. What science was exposing was that the universe had order—from the movement of heavenly bodies to the flow of blood within our own bodies. Surely, many contended, a grand design was evident in the makings of the universe, which deists and theists claimed was the handiwork of God. However, Hume was having none of it. How do we know God designed the universe? And if God did design the universe why did he design one with so many faults in it?

Hume intentionally engaged with conventional Christian thought assailing key tenets by consistently basing his commentary on his premise of the prominence of sensory experience. Take the causality of the universe, a fundamental discourse in the eighteenth century that goes as far back as the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides. Most agreed that whatever exists must have a cause for its existence. Afterall, nothing can come from nothing. Furthermore, no cause can manifest perfection unless the cause itself is perfect. God, an immaterial, intelligent, and perfect being must be the preeminent cause of the universe.

Not necessarily so said Hume. To begin with the typical claim of cause and effect in general is faulty. Because we observe repeated sequences does not establish causation. These common and everyday repetitions we notice in our lives only highlight typical courses of action, not causal relationships. Could we therefore not also be incorrect about claiming God as the cause of the universe? What sensory experience can we attribute to God creating the universe? Such a declaration exceeds human awareness.

Hume’s skepticism extends to religious conceptions of souls, miracles, and the idea of future states of being in heaven and hell. Humans are driven by emotions and passions and not by reason according to Hume. We want to share as social creatures in the glorification of common convictions, moral judgments, and belief in God. Custom and habit motivate our behavior. Our ideas about religion are based more on feelings, imaginations, and what we think works best. Abstract reasoning and identifying divine purpose are not our strong suits. Religion will not solve the ultimate mysteries of existence, but it feels good for many to enlist in spiritual community and to practice traditional rituals. David Hume is content to leave religion to that.

Hume is not an atheist in the way we typically think of a non-believer. To me this is revealed in his approach to the age old problem of evil in religion. Most atheists I hear say that because evil clearly exists in the world, then that is proof God does not exist. Hume’s method of relying on sensory experience can no more disprove God than to prove God’s existence. So, he states the obvious. God may or may not exist. We can never know for sure. But what is evident is that pretenses to God’s infinite goodness are suspect in a world where evil abounds. Hume calls into question what kind of God is it that permits evil? And on that point Hume is not alone.

We also do not find Hume rejecting morality. Rather he devises a secular set of ethics that rests on human nature and conduct which promotes happiness and reduces suffering. Religion is not required to live a life of integrity and goodness. I think Hume would have agreed with the future Abraham Lincoln who said, “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.”

It is difficult with a twenty-first century perspective to fully appreciate how socially and politically thorny it was for David Hume to confront the established Christian thinking of eighteenth century Britain. He showed awareness of knowing he needed to temper the presentation of his convictions when for example he expounded his critique cloaked in the guise of a fictional character’s dialogue. He was known also to conduct self-censorship. What is unmistakable is that he exposed himself to a hefty dose of inconvenience and distress.

Hume had very much wanted to be appointed to ethics and philosophy teaching positions at both the University of Edinburgh and Glasgow University. However, religious authorities consistently discouraged such appointments due to their claims of Hume’s heresy and atheism. The Catholic Church’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum or List of Prohibited Books included all of Hume’s books in 1761. Although never completely followed through, The Church of Scotland also began an action to try Hume for infidelity.

His personal life fared no better than his professional one. Throughout his life his critics referred to him as The Great Infidel and as an atheist. He was shunned by many of the professional class, although not by all intellectuals. In short, he existed as a controversial figure for presenting alternative views to the ideological norm. The time in which Hume lived is now referred to as The Enlightenment, but plainly that did not mean the period was fully illuminated.

As David Hume faced death during the summer of 1776 there was a public captivation across Britain with whether or not The Great Infidel would renounce his irreverent skepticism. Another great Scottish Enlightenment philosopher and friend of Hume’s, Adam Smith described Hume’s final days as buoyant and calm with no reservations of his beliefs evident. Another philosopher friend, the pious James Boswell, was beside Hume’s deathbed and gave his friend an opportunity to experience a last-minute conversion. But it was not to be. David Hume died as he had lived—content with his philosophical skepticism and steadfast in his convictions.

An important life task we continually find ourselves facing is to instill change in how others think, feel, and act. Even though attending to our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors is a full time endeavor we are nevertheless motivated to express ourselves toward others with the goal of affecting them in some way. We are compelled to leave our mark. Our egos need a sustenance that is only satisfied by community interplay, whether of one or of many. And from this contact we want to influence.

Are there responsibilities to be associated with the practice of persuasion, of which we should be aware? Yes, there are. They exist on two sequential levels. Foundationally we need to ask, are the grounds for attempting to persuade another justified ethically? Secondly, is the question of efficacy as in exercising best practice when endeavoring to persuade another. In this piece I would like to explore the concept of persuasion by trying to examine these ideas to see what emerges as a constructive impression. 

Persuasion as a practice is rooted in ethics. One can be a skilled influencer and adept at getting others to adopt their perspective, but if the cornerstone of the exhortation rests on deception, manipulation, and a lack of responsibility, then persuasion is perverted and corrupted. Conversely, if convictions are expressed within a principled context of virtue and decency with an eye toward improving the lives of others, then the persuasive effort is warranted. Persuasion is more than a skill. It is either a respectable exercise to add value or a tainted technique that rewards depravity.

Although I am examining persuasion as comprising two domains, ethics and efficacy, ethical underpinning and proficiency need not to be seen as separate matters. For example, we know that without building trust the intended persuader will not be effective. So how to build trust? By demonstrating fairness, honesty, and trustworthiness, which are ethical instances. A fundamental element of persuasion, establishing trust, is therefore both ethical and tactical.

Another example involves the persuader respecting the independence and freedom of the listener. Talking down to and forcibly coercing others to bend to one’s will is an egregious form of persuasion. It may accomplish inflating the ego of the persuader, but it does so at the cost of belittling other people and losing their respect. An alternative approach that utilizes the free agency of the listener will gain their respect and make them more amenable to processing and possibly accepting your position. Again, ethics and efficacy meld.

An elementary component of persuasion is to see the endeavor as an attempt to benefit both parties, the persuader and the recipient. Through initiation of openness, transparency, and making forthright what the intentions of the persuader are, the recipient can exercise their powers of reflection and reason to either make a change or adhere to an opinion. A perversion of persuasion is to have the exchange out of balance. When only one side of the equation receives value, then the interaction has devolved into manipulation and exploitation. Persuasion is best when it is a collaboration.

There are many reasons to employ persuasion. Team motivation, conflict resolution, product marketing, growing relationships, decision making, trust building, communication enhancement, and career growth are among the most common. The throughline is to encourage change — and hopefully change for the better.

Scholars who have studied persuasion come from multiple disciplines, specifically communications, social psychology, marketing, and leadership. As is the case with scholars they examine a topic like persuasion by identifying the constituent parts of the method and from those devise theories, models, and principles which when understood can better prepare one for involvement in the practice with a greater likelihood of success. It is useful to learn what conclusions they have formulated.

Persuasion is necessarily practiced as a dualistic dynamic. There is a party delivering a message and another one receiving the message. The quality and conditions of the interchange matter in determining if persuasion is reached or not by one party to the other. As with any interplay there will or will not be a fit in that a persuasive goal has been achieved, partly attained, or not fulfilled at all.

Let us look first at the party attempting to persuade. To increase chances of success the source of the messaging must be viewed as appealing as in being credible and trustworthy. Expertise does still matter, so projecting knowledge and competence is crucial. Context is also notable. If the interchange is occurring within a hierarchical order such as on the job the power dynamic is qualitatively different than if the exchange was occurring among peers. As the external power of the persuader increases so too do the chances of manipulation or coercion, whereas establishing a connection in which each party feels they are on a similar level has a greater likelihood of fruition.

Audience characteristics play a key role in the ability of the persuader to succeed no matter how good they are. It is critical to read the audience. Are they motivated to change, concede a previously held view, and comply with a new understanding? If audience motivation to change is low one of two things may occur. Either they will accept a temporary shift in their thinking in hopes something will be gained, or they will reject the message entirely. Conversely, if the audience is eager for a fresh perspective with a high prospect for reward, they are more likely to discern the logic of the message and adopt it.

Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University, a recognized expert in the field of influence, promotes tactics to make for a more persuasive fit between persuader and audience. (Above comments regarding expertise and persuader/audience parity are from him). The way the persuader hones and presents the message can make a difference. Soft skills directed to the audience like showing warmth and respect while downplaying power differences make persuasion more likely. Giving the audience permission to voluntarily accept opinion changes rather than demanding them is influential as is ethically expressing information as somehow exclusive or privileged just for them.

This brief examination of persuasion cannot be complete without mentioning its role in politics. Political discourse has always been heated, but never more so than in our always-on 24/7 modern-media saturated world. The messaging from all angles can be viewed as forms of attempted persuasion. Positions are staked, rationales are given, and arguments are made all in earnest attempts to convince an audience, which it is hoped, will lead to a building of support and diminishment of an opposition’s status.

However, as we have seen, persuasion without validation is hollow. When attempts at persuasion devolve into attacks the result most often is a fortification of opinions from those whose beliefs are meant to be changed. Rhetorical combat may clarify one’s standpoints and solidify their prestige within one’s tribe, but it rarely persuades. To be significantly influential one is required to demonstrate caring, support, and common ground with the other side. Without a significant degree of validation for one’s political opponents, attempts at persuasion are an exercise in futility.

To be persuasive, whether in politics, leadership, within a career, or among friends we hold close is not easy. To be persuasive necessitates being knowledgeable, well intentioned, skillful in communications, and above all kind. It requires stepping out of the rigid confines of one’s ego to try to make the world a better place for everyone, not only for oneself. This may be the most challenging feature of persuasion — being virtuous more than just being right.

In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity. — attributed to St. Augustine

There are times in modern history when the Hegelian dialectic forms the basis for social and political change. The thesis represents the status quo; the antithesis introduces deviation; and the synthesis emerges as the new normal — at least for a time.

One such metamorphosis occurred during the initial rise of industry from 1760 until 1840 with another iteration evident from 1870 until 1914. Broadly speaking the Industrial Revolution marked a formidable displacement away from reliance on hand craftmanship to machine manufacturing as the primary means of production. Mechanical power was harnessed to vastly expand product output and in the process the world was transformed.

The Industrial Revolution did not spontaneously combust. It became conceivable because a philosophical foundation was set to make it possible. A school of thought developed characterized by reason, empiricism, pragmatism, and a systemization of knowledge gain. In the west, social confinement finally began to shift away from the combined dominance of Church teachings and monarchial/aristocratic decrees as the sole roots of incontrovertible truths and guidance for all humankind.

The period known as The Enlightenment began in the mid-seventeenth century with Descartes and Newton and lasted until the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. The rational and scientific upheaval of this age of reason made possible the Industrial Revolution. Of significance was the synthesis of the many cultural, political, economic, and technical outgrowths spawned by development of industry.

We not only live at present with the technological and economic features of industrial capitalism, but also with its principal social and political theory known as classical liberalism. From the churn of new philosophical and scientific thought emerged a transfigured social order. A novel conception of what it meant to be human surfaced emphasizing the worth of the individual person. A looming fatigue and disdain for playing the role of chattel manifested. The human condition had had enough of subjugation and exploitation.

Classical liberalism began with a revisitation and reformulation of the concepts of the state of nature and natural law. Though interpretive consensus was lacking there nevertheless existed a prevalent and rising belief in an a priori substructure to the human condition. One that stated inconclusively that we are all born with common qualities, most importantly with universal rights. If there is a clear-cut and explicit focal point to the birth of classical liberalism it is with this crystallization of human rights.

In our hearts we never strayed from Aristotle’s claim that to be fully human means to flourish. Philosophy of the seventeenth century sparked a renewed reverence for what it meant to thrive, to try finally to live a life of wonderment, prosperity, and joy. However, recognition of our sacred solitariness alone was not enough to sustain it. We shared the world with others. We all had the right to flourish. We all wanted the same thing and therein lies the challenge of the collective for the individual.

Classical liberalism was a social contract. A systemized way of honoring individualism within the context of society. John Locke contributed much to articulating how this social contract was to be perfected. Locke perceived the budding natural law ethic of individual rights as consistent with his view of the human as free and equal in the state of nature. And revolutionary for his time, Locke saw the rights of the individual as superseding the authority of monarchs.

The macro movement of limiting the power of monarchs inspired Locke and led to his social contract theory, which became an elegant construction, the influence of which lives on to this day. A key hallmark of the social contract prescribed that government, a concept that Locke admits did not come from natural law, but which was a necessary creation of humans nevertheless, should be constituted and exercised by the governed, by the people. Its key purpose was to achieve social harmony by ensuring all could prosper.

To execute the social contract Locke composed a political theory that centered on four central functional elements for government to follow:

• Individual Rights to protect the freedoms of each person
• A Rule of Law that is applied to all equally
• Limited Government to safeguard against tyranny
• Economic Freedom as the means of achieving abundance

The job of bringing the classical liberal social contract to fruition fell to the early post-church and post-monarch nation states during the eighteenth century, primarily Britain, France, and the young United States. Despite their respective fits and starts and idiosyncrasies what eventually materialized were the liberal democracies, a movement that in time became globally pervasive due to its civilized capacity to merge individual rights with shared decision making. Consensus grew that liberal democracy best secured and expressed the values of classical liberalism.

Adherence to classical liberalism exerted within the context of representative democracy constitutes a humane and effective means of ensuring opportunities for flourishing of all people within a given society. One is hard put to see a system that is better. All other methods of command and control demonstrate an imbalanced concentration of power of one sort or another. Over-convergence of power, whether it be in the form of government, religion, corporations, monarchies, oligarchies, aristocracies, or media, eventually leads to hierarchy, domination, oppression, and a diminishment of individual rights and checks on power.

Retaining classical liberalism is not easy to do, despite its popular appeal. There are muscular forces in most societies which feel constrained and checked by broad and equal disbursement of rights. Classical liberalism promotes sharing of power and wealth among a citizenry. Those with a tendency toward hoarding power and wealth do not want to contend with these fundamental and vexing aspects of liberalism. Rather, they pine for a more traditional and antiquated arrangement in which some people, as in their kind of people, are better than others and more deserving of power and wealth.

Today we see such a regressive social and political movement in the form of illiberalism. This emerging ideology directly challenges classical liberalism. The traditional but menacing leadership practices associated with autocracy, dictatorship, all-powerful monarchs, and a privileged well-heeled class are always at hand. There is a rich history reaching back millennia of groups and individuals who believe in their hearts and minds that an entitlement class is necessary to ensure that a society or national state retains its cultural conventions and to prevent social descent into chaos and debauchery. They alone possess the means and abilities to best steer the populace.

The latest iteration of this authoritarian heritage is illiberalism. This perspective views classical liberalism as anathema to their mission. Illiberalism prides itself on advancing national sovereignty and what is known as national essentialism, an interpretation of a historic national core comprised of a founding people with valued originalist traditions and practices in need of preservation. It promotes a political culture that rejects change and attempts at progress in favor of customary rituals.

To further the illiberalism project, adherents renounce individual freedoms among those not included among the chosen people. Multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, and extensions of rights to minorities are shunned, if not forcibly curtailed. Limited government is also abandoned as power is concentrated into an all-powerful executive. To accomplish executive consolidation parliamentary and judicial systems are diminished and enfeebled.

Economically, illiberal supporters do not trust free trade and tend to be highly protectionist despite the many examples of economic decline wrought by protectionism such as high consumer prices, trade wars, inefficiency, supply chain disruptions, and reduced market access. Indeed, illiberalism is ambivalent about free enterprise in general. Its controlling nature can lead to cronyism and state intervention into economic decision making, not unlike communist practices.

Not surprisingly, illiberalism lacks enthusiasm for foreign policy that engages too much with the world and instead favors isolationism. Multilateral treaties and multinational institutions are seen as inconsistent with sovereignty and so are spurned. In the case of the United States, which has played a unipolar role internationally since the end of the Cold War, continued influencing of advancing democratic principles globally is also in conflict with illiberal thought. The conviction remains that a nation state can and should conduct its own affairs in its own interests with as little contact with others, as necessary.

Illiberal political parties are proliferating around the world. Their presence is now found in Hungary, Poland, Türkiye, Brazil, El Salvador, Venezuela, India, Philippines, Russia, Israel, Tunisia, and Egypt — and now here in the United States. The Republican Party has abandoned conservatism for illiberalism, and we have a president, who along with the majorities in Congress, practice it.

The Hegelian Dialectic acknowledges that social change happens. Political inertia is not to be expected. However, it is the quality of the antithesis and the resulting synthesis that most matters. The great challenge for our time in America and around the world is to see if the ideals of classical liberalism, which remain a revolutionary enhancement in governance, can survive and thrive in the face of a world disrupted by contemporary technologies and a globalized economy. Illiberalism represents a regression to times and methods ill-suited to address modern problems and opportunities. Rather, illiberalism is based on fear and insecurity and deserves to be soundly repudiated.

We are a little more than a month into the Trump sequel. So how is it going? Cringeworthy, huh? If you think this performance is good, then you might really delight in seeing functional systems and institutions destroyed. This rampage is not reform. It is demolition. It is safe to say that this is the worst launch of a presidential administration ever.

Let’s look at some highlights. There are the inferior cabinet picks, where expertise is shunned in favor of partisan bootlicking. There is the white supremacist nationalist Defense secretary with demonstrated ethical lapses. We have a conspiracy-addled anti-vaxer leading HHS. The nation now has an authoritarian-loving flatterer as Director of National Intelligence. And then there is the paranoid revenge-fueled FBI Director who also feeds off conspiracies and is ready to suppress free speech. What a rouge’s gallery!

In another despicable display by our leader is the latest embrace of Putin and its accompanying distancing of democracy as is evident in his throwing Ukraine under the bus. So the only way the US is now ready to aid an invaded democracy is if they agree to hand over 50% of their most valued minerals and agree to having their invader keep a third of their country? And listen to Vance in Munich giving his Yale-educated polished justification to why the post-war international order that has sustained democracies for eighty years is no longer worth keeping. What a slap in the face of the Greatest Generation!

And what to make of the shenanigans of our unelected co-president Elon Musk? Is this what Republicans want, a South African oligarch making decisions about what US governmental programs stay or go and what benefits his businesses? And as a tax payer and Social Security recipient, I know I’m not alone in being incensed that Musk has given access to a bunch of his twenty-something employees to handle the records of US citizens.

I see three levels of support for Trump, firstly the hardliner MAGA cultists, secondly the lifelong Republicans who have convinced themselves that Trump is better than the satanic Democrats, and thirdly those who were angry that grocery prices were too high in the aftermath of the pandemic. It is this third group that make up the president’s softer support. And they will be the first to bail on him if inflation does not come down.

This third group is starting to waver. Consumer sentiment is increasingly pessimistic and Wall Street is beginning to show some reservations. Trump and Vance themselves are now distancing themselves from talk of lower consumer prices. Meanwhile, Trump’s approval ratings are dropping.

Should we be surprised? No! This is what the USA voted for. There will be pain to feel in this country and it is hard to not shout, “So, what did you expect when you voted for this guy America?!”

Truth is such a sonorous word. It resounds with a command and a power reserved for only supreme ideas, the beliefs which are immutable and not to be doubted. We are raised in a world governed by indisputable premises such as traditional ideas of what is right and wrong. Who are we to question the values and edicts laid down by our elders, time-honored institutions, and conventions as old as civilization?

Truth carries the weight of the sacred. It provides certainty, a bedrock of assuredness, a shelter from the storm of chaos and entropy buffeting our lives. All ambiguity, indecision, and insecurity can be soothed by pinning one’s life to that which is undeniably real, Truth.

Human endeavors are based on a foundation of what we believe to be true. Whether it is the legal system, organized religion, the art guild, or any of the other grand institutional structures of custom that coordinate and guide society. The throughline is that all such human entities are operated upon principles widely accepted to be true. Indeed, expressing and acting on statements of truth is the core essence of human motivation.

Despite the zeal associated with living by what is truth, skepticism nevertheless sneaks in and brings forth hesitancy. Is there really a truth from on high or is truth nothing more than a ploy to direct one’s thoughts and behaviors? In short, it is worth pondering whether there really is a Truth with a capital “T” or should truth be relegated to a collection of common mortal concepts, including value, justification, belief, inquiry, etc.?

There are two schools of thought pertaining to the veracity of truth. (For the sake of consistency, I will now refrain from spelling truth with a capital “T”. Note, no value judgment is to be inferred by this decision.) On the one hand is the belief truth is intrinsic — unshakably steadfast and independent from outside perceptions. On the other hand is the view truth is instrumental — a malleable concept that has at most practical utility for achieving certain ends.

Intrinsic truth is woven into the fabric of the universe. Truth in this context is an expression of the essence of existence. It is divine in its radiance. It is reliably resolute. Instrumental truth is patently human. Handled like a tool, truth is wielded in service to a mission of achieving usefulness, practicality, and attainment of a desired goal. If truth is not advantageous, then it loses significance.

Examples may help to clarify the distinction between these two renditions.

Intrinsic truth, which philosophers would place as a subset of Realism, is first and foremost mind-independent. Truths in the real world are valid whether there is a thinker or perceiver or not. For example, science is replete with laws and facts describing the world and universe as it is naturally or inherently. Newton’s First Law of Motion declares that an object at rest stays at rest while an object in motion remains in motion unless impacted by an outside force. Further, water boils at 100º centigrade and freezes at 0° centigrade. These events are everywhere considered true whether or not there is an observer to see these actions.

Beyond science there are agreed upon moral truths such as not killing a defenseless person, not enslaving another, and that honesty is better than lying or deception. Indeed, our entire legal system is premised on a belief that justice and fairness is a fundamental truth applicable in all cultures and transcending all time.

An instrumental or pragmatist position of truth discounts or flatly rejects an emphasis on linking truth to metaphysical reality. The value of truth is in its expediency and the benefit it provides to people. Returning to Newtonian science, truth is determined by how scientific laws and facts can be used to foretell future materialist conduct. This predictive capability leads to innovations and novel implementations. Because scientific laws assist people in solving problems, then they are true. Truth does not derive from a manifestation of the universe.

Occasionally intrinsic and instrumental appeals for truth commingle in a sense. To illustrate, let’s take religious belief. Many people of a religious persuasion may fully accept that God is the source of all truth. If God wants something, then it must be indubitably true. However, it is possible there could be church members who embrace religious truths simply because doing so results in more purposeful and satisfying lives regardless of any divine origins or attachments.

Given the duality of truth telling, if you will, what then it the version of truth that is the most authentic? Is truth a fundamental aspect of reality or is truth more of a serviceable construct for people to utilize as they see fit?

I take an all-of-the-above position on truth. Yes, I accept the Platonic notion of a primary and primitive essence to nature in which universal truths are to be found. And I acknowledge that truth is not always as absolutist as commonly proclaimed, but rather is adaptable and compliant as human needs arise.

Philosophers refer to a Platonic conception of the universe. This invention is rooted in the claim Plato made which is that reality consists of two domains, one a fixed and pure realm of perfect forms, the other a fluid and imperfect, but sensible and tangible physical world, influenced by, but not directly mirrored by the purity and perfection of the realm of forms. Plato went further to describe the cosmos as possessing an active soul, the purpose of which is to continually model the ideal when bringing order to earthly reality as we know it.

Admittedly, to accept Plato’s vision is to buy into a reality that is determined and transcendental. Religion would call it divine or heavenly. Within this specter lies what is at heart. It is the core of all substance and experience. It is here that intrinsic truth lies. And I agree it is real. To be clear, I am far from being sufficiently aware or at all mystical to characterize in detail a complete construct of the realm of pure forms. That said, I am comfortable in believing that a monistic and aboriginal oversoul is at play in manifesting reality.

The early Greek Stoics spoke of a generative spirit, a sacred principle that governs the universe. This energy puts order to the cosmos, nature, and indeed reality itself. It is in this Stoic term logos that I look for intrinsic truth.

As much as many of us would like to reserve truth for intrinsic purposes only, we must appreciate truth is often used as a cudgel for reaching an objective. When someone speaks of the need to adhere to the truth it is reasonable for any critical thinker to question the aims of any issuer of truth’s fidelity. For the word truth can be bantered about casually, if not carelessly.

Truth, as it turns out, lies singularly in the eyes of the beholder. This use of instrumentalism is nowhere more evident than in the practice of politics. This brings me to the comedian Stephen Colbert who in 2005 coined the term “truthiness”, a clever parody of instrumental truth. Colbert recognized and mocked a disingenuous tendency practiced by politicians, political parties, and their supporters. There is a predilection to disconnect truth from evidence, facts, logic, and instead align truth with emotions, gut feelings, and idiosyncratic notions. Truth becomes what feels good, not what can be rationally confirmed. Truth becomes what one wishes truth to be, not what can be factually demonstrated.

Here in America we see truthiness on full display with the rise of right-wing populism. Donald Trump has built a brand and a rise to power by being fast and loose with the veritable truth. I for one never know when to believe him, so it is sensible to just not take him for his word at all. And I am not alone. At least half of this country knows he is a liar, but he gets elected president, twice.

This brings us to a serious fault with instrumental truth. If a society cannot agree on what is real and true, then we are a house divided indeed. The rise of misinformation, disinformation, psychological manipulation, gaslighting, fear mongering, and all the rest fractures institutions, social trust, and civility. America is deep into this dark place right now.

American Pragmatism was a philosophical movement that began in the 1870s with the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce and it continued to be intellectually influential with thinkers and writers such as William James and John Dewey well into the twentieth century until the 1940s. A hallmark of the pragmatism movement journey was in placing credence into human practicality as the grounds for meaning and truth. Philosophy among the pragmatists held value in how well it solved day to day problems encountered by ordinary people. The Platonic ideal was rejected because it was seen as too abstract and removed from commonplace life. Pragmatism underscored the utility of thought through empiricism and experience. It greatly influenced American institutions in law, education, political theory, religion, and social progress.

The pragmatist movement judged truth by how well it solved problems over time. Claims of what is true were subjected to stringent inquiry and testing to determine how well their usefulness held up long term. Examples of this include William James’s “cash value” idea, which promoted labeling a concept true if it helps to bring success. When using a map for instance one would want to know if the map shows an accurate way to a desired destination. If it does, then the information on the map is true.

John Dewey introduced the theory of “warranted assertibility”. A scientific hypothesis could be considered true if the hypothesis withstood continual experimentation and inquiry and was always shown to deliver necessary and predictable results. C.S. Peirce also emphasized rigorous analysis of truth claims and was satisfied that assertions were true if a collective consensus emerged.

The level of instrumentalism essentially applied to truth by American Pragmatism is in the American blood, so to speak. Since intrinsic truth is not empirically verifiable, even for the faithful, then a collective harmony is desired for a society to best function. We are stuck with an instrumental view of the truth whether we like it or not.

Like many things in life, truth is a paradox. It is both rock solid, but also pliable. It can point us to the marrow of existence, but also to which product we should reserve consumer loyalty to. We can try clinging to truth for stability, but find the support has too much play in it. This I know, when anyone tells me something is true I will retain a healthy dose of skepticism. Although truth is a subjective interpretation, if we can largely agree on what is true we can work and live together. If not, then we are at odds.

Most of us grew up and were educated in a world in which classical physics ruled as the basis for understanding reality. Of course this does not mean we all took high school physics class, but the scientific cornerstone for how we think of reality has been established in traditional classical physics.

Sure, we knew quantum mechanics was a thing out there among the brainiac set, but it was too esoteric for us normal everyday people to seriously consider. After all, quantum mechanics has a well deserved reputation for being hard to understand. It is beyond rocket science. It is really far out there.

Newtonian classical physics on the other hand was relatively accessible. Attainable that is to the extent that any disciplined science like physics is approachable to average folks. Classical physics has had a way of seeping from the halls of academia to the general population in that it has formed our conventionally accepted mindset respecting the nature of reality.

And what is this outlook? It can best be described by what western philosophy calls realism. In short, realism is the view that substance or material and the things made of materials belong distinctly to a world and universe external from ourselves. Objectivity is the guiding principle. Reality is objective. It is detached from our subjective perspectives. We are merely observers to a reality that was here before we were born and will be here after we die. Or so we are led to believe.

Underpinning this objective and mind-independent notion of reality is a belief in immutable laws of nature as posited by Isaac Newton and his followers. Indeed, this is science at work. We are unquestioningly convinced by the scientific elite that a deterministic set of motions and rules sprang forth from the Big Bang which has continued to shape the universe ever since. And then to be told by them that something is a law, as in Newton’s laws of motion, says in a stern voice, “This is how IT IS, period!”

When a cause and effect interplay occurs predictably resulting in a well defined materialist or energetic action, such as a drought lowering the water level of a pond, we see it as evidence of reality demonstrating what it does naturally. To us it is common sense. However, strongly implied in this observation is that reality has a fixed and steady quality to it. Change, when it happens, is just part of the interaction of basic elements, but underneath it all exists a permanent and enduring lay of the land.

Quantum mechanics is now trickling into the common way of thinking about what is real, albeit slowly, after one hundred years of its being on the scene. The influence of quantum mechanics is becoming profound, especially regarding the way it calls into question the permanence of realism. Quantum mechanics introduces uncertainty where before there was consistency and reliability. We have come to learn that reality is probabilistic rather than assured. The universe may be unfolding as it should, but it is doing so in way that is not so easily discerned.

Indeed, it is in the area of quantum measurement where we run into ambiguity. In quantum mechanics there is a principle known as superposition, which states that the subatomic wave-particle (the basic quantum entity) abides in many different states concurrently until a measurement is attempted. Upon calculation, one of the multifarious conditions of the wave-particle is recorded. Had time or space or the means of measuring been different, then another computation could have been yielded.

In short, there is no single and invariable assessment that can be made about a wave-particle. The measurement could have been any one of many possibilities.

Superposition therefore suggests that the very practice of measuring reality at the quantum level actually creates the reality seen by the observer. Measurement no longer computes a primeval or pre-existing state of affairs. Instead measurement reveals one out of many possible views of reality. Materials it seems do not have well defined and fixed traits. Rather reality requires that an observer be present to register that reality exists, or at least one perspective of reality.

Quantum mechanics raises the possibility that how we have thought about reality may be defective. Philosophical realism has not yet reconciled itself with the superposition principle of quantum mechanics. It is hard to see how these two schools of thought will ever harmonize. What we thought was a clockwork universe governed by physical laws is now called into question.

The implications of randomness and uncertainty being fundamental aspects of reality are far-reaching. What else does this call into question? Is Truth now also erratic? Are values fickle and unstable? Will anything last in perpetuity any longer? When the very essence of reality is called into question, then so also is the world we thought we knew.

In an act of fear, malice, and desperation and with a desire to anesthetize themselves against a changing world Americans chose Donald Trump as the 47th president. Our nation’s march toward normalization of zealotry, bigotry, vileness, and deceit is now more entrenched. We are no longer Reagan’s “Shining City on a Hill”. We traded that imagery for one that is now no more than a blemish on a pillaged landscape.

Elections are usually about forging a more hopeful future. We are accustomed to expect optimism and promise following a national plebiscite. However, in the electoral debacle which just occurred it is challenging to see from where the benefits may arise. A view of the horizon now does not reveal encouragement and confidence about social enhancements to come, but rather base level confrontations, hate, anger, and retributions designed to concentrate power among an insular privileged class.

As the refashioned Republican Party has clearly taught us the rules of the game have now changed. By electing a criminal, serial liar, rapist, fraudster, and insurrectionist we essentially have given ourselves permission to believe these faults are really not so bad. Indeed, if that is what it takes to return America to a land where white, heterosexual, Christian, corporate, patriarchy is in charge, then so be it. This appears to be the consensus. Good luck America with that one! Trump is merely the means to a fanciful and illusory end of “greatness” as the nation will soon come to realize.

The opposition to this now dominant MAGA mindset will have to become more creative. The strategies, tactics, and coalitions opposing leaders will need to employ must adjust to the unethical approaches the Trump acolytes effectively exploit for their self-righteous gains. A transformed center-left/center-right partnership that imagines practical and potent counterpoints and recognizes opportunities to effectively confront the MAGA nonsense will need to emerge.

Above all, the resistance to Trump must be rooted in the principles of equality and freedom set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Trumpism has already begun to erode both of these tenets and reestablishing and reinvigorating them must be a priority of any moral and virtuous dissent. In addition, defiance against Trump and his followers must be muscular when Constitutional protections are threatened.

Also of note, exit polls show that many Trump voters held their noses as they voted for him. Reuters and CNN exit polling both had the disapproval of Trump by his own voters at 53%. Presumably they were either lifelong Republicans who just couldn’t make themselves join other Republican defectors to vote for a Democrat or they were trying to make an economic statement, due to inflation. These may be among the first to bail on Trump once they see his expected abuses of power. It is sad that they did not step up for the health of their country when they had the chance on November 5.

Speaking of inflation, Biden received the blame of course for higher consumer prices since 2021 because they occurred on his watch. This overly simplistic view did not take into account how the Covid pandemic with its supply chain disruptions, surge in demand for consumer goods, labor shortages, the Feds expansionary monetary policy, and disruptions in energy and commodity markets were instead the prime culprits. Now we have Trump promising to introduce a slew of new tariffs which are anticipated to drive up the costs of imported goods. Stay tuned.

Time will tell, but chances are quite good that the election of an illiberal and corrupt leader empowered recently by the Supreme Court and by the American electorate will prove to be disastrous for the nation in multiple ways. Perhaps I will be proven wrong. We shall see. In the meantime, let’s treat each other as good neighbors and join in protecting the defenseless and the powerless against those who would bully their way to dominance during these unprincipled times.

At present it looks as if we are in for a tough few years. If so, we asked for it and we deserve it. Just don’t blame me, I proudly voted for Kamala!

With five weeks to go until election day in the U.S. I am compiling some short opinion essays I prepared over the past several months challenging the legitimacy and merit of the Make America Great Again or MAGA populist movement of Donald Trump’s. This collection is dynamic and I expect more pieces to be added to this group between now and election day. I will let the individual pieces speak for themselves without any preparatory explanation.

The Key Fault of Trumpism

I begin with a premise. It is that freedom and equality are the two pillars of what our country was founded upon and which has for the past 247 years sustained the United States of America. I contend these two are similarly weighted fundamental values.

We hear much of the significance of freedom. We are the “Sweet Land of Liberty” and here in New Hampshire we proudly proclaim “Live Free or Die”. But what of equality?

Jefferson wrote in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”. And Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, after proclaiming that we as a nation, “were conceived in liberty”, stressed that we were, “dedicated to the proposition that all men were created equal”.

It is clear to students of history that the spacious expansion of human development wrought by the Enlightenment first found a pragmatic foothold here in America. It came in the form of asserting universal freedom and equality for all Americans.

Yet here we are. The Right hugs freedom tightly and the Left declares equality matters. Trumpism, the aberration of conservatism, does not mention equality. In fact, it sees equality as a threat. This deluded movement seeks to retain the privileged position of those who historically have held wealth and power. And they have absorbed the working class to do their bidding with cynical cultural fears.

Trumpism is a grave peril to America. It seeks to rescind the democratic tradition of the United States in favor of a continued supremacy of the privileged. It does not want to share the fruits of America with those who they consider to be others. In their minds, others threaten their status, power, and wealth.

The Constitution continues to articulate and to promote the way forward for all Americans. Let us not allow a misguided and fearful faction of our population to diminish what makes America great. Trumpism must be defeated!

A Trump Role Model

Supporters of Trumpism in America point to Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary since 2010, as an example of the kind of illiberal leader they want to see in the United States. Before rightwing conspiracy theorist Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox News, he relocated his show twice to Budapest. The U.S. Political Conservative Action Conference (CPAC) held a special event in Budapest that was opened by Orban, and he was again present at the group’s 2022 national conference in Texas. Among the MAGA crowd, Orban is a rockstar.

So, what is it like in Hungary under Orban’s rule? Most notably is the concentration of power within Orban’s government due to emergencies known as “states of danger”. Orban identifies and “manages” crises to justify ruling by decree and nullifying acts of parliament and the judiciary he doesn’t like.

For example, one group of Hungarian professionals to feel the brunt of Orban’s iron fist have been teachers. They are seeking better working conditions and salaries. He not only restricted their right to strike, but passed what is called a “revenge law”, which expands teachers’ working hours and workloads and allows the government to relocate or dismiss teachers as they see fit. Last year a protest by high school students in support of their teachers was met by police using tear gas.

In another instance, women’s reproductive rights have been increasingly limited under Orban. There is now language in the Hungarian constitution by Orban’s government “protecting the fetus from conception”. There must be only serious risk to a woman’s life or a badly damaged fetus for abortion to be allowed. In a related move, Hungary has also outlawed adoption by same sex couples.

There are many other examples of freedom restrictions and offenses against journalists, media outlets, civil society organizations, LGBT people, asylum seekers, and the Roma people.

Seems odd that a group of Americans who claim to embrace freedom would admire this kind of ruler. But they do. It makes one skeptical about what they really value. Is it power at any price, some version of cultural or religious purity, anger at growing American multiculturism, or simply the joy of sticking it to people they don’t like?

Support for Orban-styled governance is not promoting freedom. Believing an autocrat will keep their people free is completely illogical. Quite the opposite is the likely outcome. A political movement that wants to emulate Viktor Orban is not one true American patriots should accept.

Trumpism and Autocracy

Democracy, as we know it in the modern western world and now across the globe, is a relatively recent phenomenon historically speaking. Sure, we all grew up in what has become a traditional form of American democracy, but let’s not forgot that we are but a small number of generations to have experienced this form of governance.

More typical throughout human history have been governments that adhere to a principle of centralized control over the population. Decision making concerning the rights and welfare of the people was concentrated on a single ruler or among a small set of overlords. Wielding absolute power is justified by a selective belief that autocrats know more than the collective beliefs and wishes of the populace.

Whether we call them a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, a theocracy, a tribe, a clan, an autocracy, or despotism there are some common attributes present when absolute power is exercised. Chief among them is a lack of accountability. Rule can be arbitrary or malicious and the people must accept it. Corruption and nepotism become common. Political opposition is suppressed. Institutions are weakened. This is how governments around the world functioned for millennia.

Until the eighteenth century that is. In the British colonies of America, a novel concept emerged among thinkers and the common people alike influenced by European Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant, among others. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people became the core value and message. A grand democratic experiment was underway. In time it led to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

And now that splendid standard of rule by the people is being seriously questioned by a segment of Americans. One does not have to look far to see seemingly normal everyday Americans on camera or in writing doubting the legitimacy and continuance of democracy. More than that, they express acceptance of the notion that our country is so threatened by a host of evil forces that despotic rule is the only recourse to return America to a greatness which they feel has been lost.

The MAGA movement gives voice to those who threaten our democracy. They are willing to risk snapping us back to the discredited past of despotism. This ideology does not want to go through the messy sausage making of reconciliation and a democratic rules-based government that accepts a multitude of viewpoints. Their level of self-righteousness, insularity, and unwillingness to compromise is a shock to a system that demands we all work together in a spirit of give and take for the common good.

The degree of fear, anger, and mistrust being expressed by Trumpism is beyond reason. It is driven by raw and destructive emotion. Autocracy is a threat to our country and needs to be defeated at the ballot box before it’s too late.

Trumpism and Christianity

What is going on with American Christianity? I accept that the Christian church throughout American history has never been a monolithic entity or uniform congregation and it should not be viewed that way. However, the schism now occurring in the dominant faith of America is of a different nature with the ascent of Christian Nationalism.

The term Christian Nationalism has gained political currency ever since Donald Trump blundered into all our lives eight years ago. From my observation of the phenomenon, I would identify Christian Nationalism as a movement of extreme religious and cultural moralism that envisions America as a fundamentally Christian nation. In this world, the nation’s culture and institutions should reflect the principles, practices, and policies consistent with a narrow and traditional interpretation of Christian values.

Many of Trump’s supporters subscribe to Christian Nationalism. Indeed, they are a significant segment of his base. Nevertheless, I contend that fundamentalist Christianity runs a risk to its future and viability as a cultural force by aligning itself so closely to the MAGA movement. I’ll explain.

As an institution, Christianity is in decline in America, particularly among younger Americans. The Pew Research Center surveyed the number of Americans who self-identified as Christians. In 2009 the number was 77%. In 2019 the number was 65%. Additionally, the number of Americans declaring themselves as religiously unaffiliated is growing. Of the top five most secular states in the nation, New Hampshire is listed along with Vermont and Maine.

Trumpism appears to appeal more to an older demographic who yearn for what they perceive as the good old days. By associating Christian Nationalism with Trumpism one wonders, does doing so grow the ranks of Christians among the young or hasten its decline?

Furthermore, Trumpism is opposed to pluralism and promoting diversity in the country. Christian Nationalists appear to be older and whiter. When conducting an AI search (ChatGPT), which scans nearly the entirety of the internet, regarding generations and attitudes toward pluralism the results reveal that Millennials and Generation Z, “tend to hold more favorable views towards pluralism than older generations”.

I realize Trump supporters will most likely not be dissuaded from supporting their candidate. But their support may come at a heavy price. After all, aren’t there some things more valuable and worth preserving than an ethically flawed and irreligious candidate — even one who sells Bibles at $60 each.

Trumpism’s Lack of Decency

We have become a courser and less kind country since the rise of Trump. Like him or despise him we can all agree that we have become a divided people with signs of internal hatred much more explicit than was the case in past years. Sure, there has always been a vile underside of our society motivated to gush malice at fellow Americans deemed unworthy. But Trump and his cult of angry devotees now give permission and approval to debase our social discourse to a degree not seen for a century and a half.

The term American exceptionalism is fraught with a range of interpretations from ones exalted to ones that are xenophobic. Personally, what I see as setting America apart from most countries is our history of pluralism. We have not been a nation born from racial, tribal, or cultural homogeneity as many around the world have been. Rather, the American nation was founded upon ideas of liberty and equality that to this day offer the greatest hope for humankind.

The great challenge for maintaining a pluralistic state, a country composed of citizens from a variety of cultural, religious, and ethnic backgrounds, is of course learning how to get along and respect all others who share the nation with us. At a minimum, citizens of a pluralistic state practice debate, persuasion, and compromise to forge laws and standards which we agree to live by. What results is a dynamic churn of norms that changes with the times, but which are based on principles of fairness and civility.

Trumpism is a movement that sees pluralism and the traditions required to maintain a diverse populace as antithetical to their worldview. They want to fundamentally change America into a version of cultural purity that places some segments of the society above others. In such a civilization there is a privileged class and there are those who are not. What Trump and his followers are communicating through their mean-spirited pronouncements is that unity is not valued, only division and separateness.

Once that line has been crossed it becomes acceptable to spew whatever filth comes to mind because their cause of superiority is greater than previously revered values of mutual respect and deference. Given that a depraved and flawed man is serving as the role model for the those who want to tear down America’s bedrock principles we have ended up in this uncivil place.

Our politics in 2024 has come down to a battle between those who are willing to fight for preserving a pluralism guaranteeing freedom and equality for all and those who want to radically change our nation into one of detachment and disunity. It is a hard time to be an American. We are called upon to remain good neighbors with one another despite this intrinsic confrontation we face. Some will take the high road, and some will take the low road. Which road are you on?

MAGA’s Misinformation Concerning Higher Education

A common rant of the MAGA crowd is the disdain they have for higher education. In particular, they see colleges and universities as cauldrons of liberal indoctrination and brainwashing leading our young astray and contributing to the degradation of our country. (That they see Trump as a force for American restoration is ludicrous, but I digress).

Here are two comments by MAGA writers in the May 7, 2024 issue of the InterTown Record (a local rural paper from where I live in New Hampshire) that illustrate my point: “I am afraid our entire education process has been manipulated out of sight…” writes one and “Could it be that the divisive CRT (Critical Race Theory) ideology which permeates many of these organizations…” writes another. They sound very confident that they know what they are talking about. But do they?

As pointed out by John Horgan, a professor at Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey, in his recent newsletter, this alleged “wokeness” in higher education is more of a MAGA talking point than an actuality. Horgan cites Open Syllabus, a non-profit group that collects and analyzes millions of syllabi from thousands of institutions of higher education. For example, Open Syllabus analyzed 5.5 million syllabi from over 4,000 American higher education institutions. This represents the most comprehensive collection of data available to signify what topics are taught in this country’s colleges and universities.

In 2023 Open Syllabus disclosed that expressions like “critical race theory”, “structural racism”, or “transgender” showed up in a whopping 0.08% of five and a half million syllabi! That is under one usage for every 1000 syllabi. The word “race” alone appeared in 2.8% of the syllabi and “gender” in 4.7%. The rate of usage of these words has been largely stable over the past fifteen years. Alright, “climate change” has gone from appearing 0.6% in 2008 to 1.3% in 2023. Not exactly a wokeness tsunami however, is it?

What these data tell us is that this so-called woke ideology is not being as widely disseminated in college classrooms as the MAGA crowd would have us believe. It if was it would show up in this analysis of syllabi. So why is the MAGA base so convinced something that is not supported to be happening nevertheless is happening in their partisan imaginations?

One doesn’t have to look far to see that right-wing media will take an issue, true or not, and just keep hammering it to their loyal viewers repeatedly. Fox has built a brand and identity on this tactic. One would hope the $787 million settlement they had to pay for continuously broadcasting a lie about Dominion voting machines would give them pause, but perhaps not. As for the other Fox wannabees like Newsmax and OAN News, well their so deep into being propaganda outlets rather than news organizations that repeating whatever riles the Base is fair game in their non-journalistic view.

So, I guess we will just sadly keep shaking our heads when we hear our MAGA neighbors bluster about the moral corruption of American higher education but know that despite the venom behind their claims it is really just a lot of hot air.

Trump’s Misguided Strength

Donald Trump has successfully branded himself as a strong leader. Indeed, a common refrain from his supporters is that he projects forcefulness and toughness, characteristics necessary in confronting a nation that in the opinion of MAGA world is degenerating.

I agree strength is a key trait we should want in a leader. The question is what kind of strength? Let’s take a moment to unpack this term and see if what Trump is selling is the strength this nation needs.

Strength is not a solitary attribute with only one definition. There are different types of strengths. Examples include physical strength, mental or psychological strength, strength of character, interpersonal or social strength, intellectual strength, and spiritual strength. So, how many of these does Trump possess?

Physical strength? Other than swinging a golf club does he demonstrate any other type of physical prowess? It is hard to say he looks fit.

Mental or psychological strength? Now we are getting into comedy. In my 71 years I have never seen a presidential candidate more devoid of psychic stability. He makes Richard Nixon look ethical.

Strength of character? Uhh, no. The man demonstrates amorality on a regular basis.

Interpersonal or social strength? OK, I’ll give him this one. Even though he totally turns off at least half the country, he clearly rallies most of the other half to his side.

Intellectual strength? Ever listen to one of his 90-minute campaign rally rants? One only hears three things: insults, wild exaggerations, and lies. No, he does not show intellectual strength.

Spiritual strength? You have got to be kidding me!

Let’s contrast Trump’s brand of strength with a more comprehensive and respectable version of strength known as gallantry. To be gallant one displays qualities such as chivalry, nobility, and valor. A gallant leader is courteous and respectful to the people they serve. They are stately in appearance and are revered for their selflessness in tending to the needs of their constituency. A gallant leader does not wallow in debased behavior and rhetoric trying to prove their worth. Clearly, I am not describing Donald Trump. He is not gallant leader.

Trump plays a cartoonish version of strength that is much more bellicose bombast than credible courage. He has never been about America’s people first. He has always been about Trump first. His brand of strength leaves us weaker on the world stage and morally and economically fragile at home.

We have a choice before us this November that could not be clearer. Yes, let’s elect a strong president and let’s reject false bravado. Donald Trump’s brand of strength is not what we should settle for, and it is certainly not what we need.

MAGA’s Assault on Freedom

We have all seen the Revolutionary-era yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flags being flown proudly in recent years, first by followers of the Tea Party movement and now by MAGA/Trump adherents. The presumed message being sent by these flag wavers is an impassioned belief in individual rights and limited government and a reaction against their perceived threat of socialism and centralized power in America.

What we are also seeing among these self-proclaimed patriots is a striking tendency to embrace and to promote the methods of their scorned opposition, the feared anti-libertarian communists allegedly among us who live to take away our freedoms. It is not the mythical Marxist boogeyman we need to be dreading right now, rather it is the MAGA movement’s plan to restructure America into a less free nation.

Despite all of MAGA’s pronouncements of their being a freedom movement this social and political aberration centered on their Dear Leader Trump is anything but. I could begin by mentioning how the Right’s overly liberal gun policies, which encourage placing weapons into all hands, including deranged people, takes away our right of freedom to live in a safe community. Or I could start by talking about how MAGA supports restricting women’s freedom to choose how to protect their own bodies. Or perhaps I could expound on how the Right delights in manipulating voting practices to limit the freedoms of Americans from casting ballots.

Instead, I will focus on the freedom-constraining Project 2025 manifesto prepared by the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank which has advised Republican leadership since Reagan. Project 2025 is a game plan for how to reduce American freedoms in favor of reshaping American government and consolidating even more power into a Trump presidency.

The limits on our freedoms described in Project 2025 are numerous. Some highlights include:

The freedom of government worker protections is diminished due to civil service “reforms”, which make it easier for the executive branch of government to fire career employees and replace them with MAGA sycophants.

The freedom to educate our children within a pluralistic society is curtailed when educational access and content is dictated by a narrow and intolerant political perspective.

The freedom to live on the healthiest planet possible declines when environmental regulations are abated by climate change deniers.

The freedom of LGBTQ+ citizens, who are just as American as the rest of us, is belittled in healthcare, employment, and education by a constricted viewpoint of who is worthy and who is not.

The freedom of speech is threatened by policy efforts to alter Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and other media policies.

I could go on. It is safe to say that Project 2025 limits the tradition of American governance to a perspective adhered to by a minority segment of the country’s populace. Giving this much leeway to minority opinion is unreasonable, excessive, and outrageous. We lose freedoms under this MAGA scheme. We do not gain freedoms.

Extreme socialism would also limit our individual freedoms, because such governments are run by a small band of “experts”. MAGA replicates this flaw through their my-way-or-the-highway approach to governance.

MAGA has become what it resists. It is a threat and a danger worthy of defiance. Like the flag says, “Don’t Tread on Me”.

American Fascism

The term fascism has entered the lexicon of American politics since the rise of Trump and with good reason. Trump’s rhetoric, especially in the last weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign, is not just hinting at fascism, he is full-on embracing it.

Perhaps a definition of fascism is in order. It is a political, social, and cultural expression of ultranationalism on the far right of the political spectrum. Its features include totalitarian power, forceful restraint of opposition, and a vigorous reordering of society and the economy. What is being described here is antithetical not only to American tradition but also to individual freedom, an alleged value of the MAGA movement.

A hallmark of fascism is its anti-immigration stance. Being xenophobic, fascists view immigrants as a risk to national identity and cultural purity justifying suppressive policies and rhetorical and sometimes violent persecution of immigrants. In a nation of immigrants, such as America, extreme nationalism can become anathema to our self-image and foundation as a people.

The MAGA crowd falls into two camps when they respond to charges that they have become a fascist movement. One reaction is to own the label by vehemently accepting it as a necessary kick in the pants that America needs. The other is an eye-rolling rebuttal that the left is overreacting and that Trump should not be taken so seriously.

The first group can be written off as hopelessly anti-democratic. However, the second cohort, which I think is the much larger of the two, deserves to be confronted for their indifferent or unconcerned attitude regarding their candidate. Let’s do so by taking a look at some of Trump’s recent statements (from among many) concerning immigration during the presidential debate, an interview, and from one of his ponderous rallies.

In September there were the claims that Haitian immigrants, who lived legally in Springfield, OH, were eating residents’ pets. This led to closed schools, bomb threats, and a plea from Republican mayor Rob Rue in response to Trump’s stated desire to visit Springfield, “should he choose to change his plans, it would convey a significant message of peace to the city of Springfield.”

On October 11 at a MAGA rally in Aurora, CO referring to Venezuelan immigrants Trump said, “We have to live with these animals, but we won’t live with them for long,” Incidentally, a person in the crowd shouted in response: “Kill them!”

At that same rally Trump pledged to “invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.” This Act authorizes the US government to capture and deport foreign nationals who are associated with countries with which the US is at war. Trump went on to refer to immigrants as, “very very very sick with highly contagious disease, and they’re let into our country to infect our country.”

On October 13 with Fox News, while speaking with the ever-fawning Maria Bartiromo, Trump warned about “the enemy from within…we have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics…. And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”

To cap it off are comments from former Joint Chief of Staff General Mark Milley as recorded by Bob Woodward in his latest book. Milley, who worked directly with Trump when he was president, says Trump is “fascist to the core” and “Now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is the most dangerous person to this country.”

Fascism reared its ugly head in the United States during the 1930s and is now back for a repeat engagement. True American patriots should fully resist it unlike the faux patriots who either adopt fascism or are complicit with it occurring. The most immediate action patriotic Americans can take is to not vote for Trump on November 5. Let’s join in sending a message to Trump and the fascists among us that America will remain a democracy and that authoritarianism has no place in our country.

A fascinating philosophical school of thought posits that reality can only be determined by a mind. An observer with enough sentience to at the very least sense, and in more sophisticated instances perceive its environment, is required for any reality to exist at all according to this view. Idealism stands in stark contrast to realism, the notion that a reality prevails “out there” and does not require an observer exercising some degree of mentality in order to substantiate the existence of this reality.

This tug-of-war between idealism and realism has been among the dominant debates in philosophy for centuries. One big reason it persists is because realism seems to be consistent with common sense, at least how the western world defines reasonableness. We seem to grow up with a feeling that the world we inhabit was here before we were born and will be here after we die. Our lives may impact the world to greater or lesser degrees, but any influence we may have will pale in significance to the universe “as it is”.

When I gaze upon Mount Kearsarge, a three-thousand-foot peak near my home in New Hampshire, I am quite sure it looks similar to how other people now see it. I also believe it looked pretty much the same in the nineteenth century and will look the same after I die when my mind ceases to be a fundamental feature of what was my life. Mount Kearsarge appears to be a very concrete example of an element of objective external reality. To think otherwise stretches imagination too far.

Idealism, on the other hand, challenges the conventional wisdom of realism by telling us that there is no observer-independent reality. Without our minds how can we claim there is a universe rich in detail that has always been there, at least since the Big Bang? All of reality from salamanders to stars necessitates mental observation to behold their being. It is hard to argue against the idea that mind is core to any understanding of reality.

However, the big problem I and many others see idealism running into is the charge of solipsism. The history of philosophy does not look kindly upon solipsism. Viewed objectively, solipsism refers to the claim that our individual mind or consciousness is all we can be certain of as real. Anything outside of our own personal perceptions cannot be proven to actually exist. Note how solipsism sounds similar to if not analogous to idealism as I’ve described it. Where solipsism provokes consternation is when it is seen as justifying extreme egocentricity and self-absorption. There is a point among us humans in which self-preoccupation to the exclusion of all others is considered unhealthy.

Therefore, proponents of idealism who insist full reliance on the mind is the way to best understand reality must confront the charge that their viewpoint ignores or even rejects the legitimacy of mentality within the collective of other individuals. If it is impossible to prove that others outside of oneself exist, then social cooperation and moral behavior become unnecessary. In a solipsistic world objective reality can be disregarded and individuals can give themselves permission to indulge in pure subjectivity only. It is easy to see how such a belief can lead to many social ills.

For idealism to become more mainstream and less arcane it needs to account for the fact that a prevalent and customary reality is shared among many individuals. There is much that we individuals detect in common and simultaneously which leads us to believe there is an external world. Now if the world is truly just a cerebral phenomenon or illusion how can it be that so many recognize similar worldly features and events?

Realism does not struggle with this fundamental problem. To realists there is us and there is the external world which we grasp through our senses. But is it really that simple? Are we nothing more than stimuli prone organisms limited by our sensorial capacities, but also thankfully enhanced by an ability to reason? Perhaps.

That said, idealism suggests that we are more than augmented amoebas with brains. It hints at a grander potential we have to reveal and act within a multifaceted universe that is much more than sensual. Our minds are certainly breathtaking. Our minds, more than our eyes, are the gateways to the soul and to the essence of the universe. To still be answered though is why does my mind appear to be similar to your mind and if that is indeed the case, then what is it that binds our consciousnesses?

It is like something to be me.

It is like something to be you.

But I will never know you as you know you.

And you can never know me as I know me.

We share with our fellow humans limited access and a narrow degree of understanding of our own private and unique realities. As best as we can determine, we each carry our own singular sense of self — our own subjective existences. In fact, I can only speak for myself in making such a declaration. I can only assume you exist within your own subjective self, one which is largely similar to my own. Still, I can never know for sure. I am unable to peer into, never mind climb into, your experience, your feelings, your manner of thinking. We are like members of an archipelago, separate but united communally.

Consciousness is that mysterious and miraculous continuance, that profound set of impressions we encounter as a consequence of being alive. It is as fundamental to our experience of reality as is the awareness of our own body. One could think that something so elemental to our identity must be generally well understood given the amount of investigation so many have done simply by living various levels of examined lives over so many millennia.

However, consciousness is not thoroughly understood within a widely accepted theory. There is no universally agreed upon principle or law which fully explains its generation and sustenance. No highly esteemed philosopher or scientist has revealed the immutably true and comprehensive nature of consciousness. Conventional wisdom suggests we all experience consciousness, but beyond that, those who ponder and speculate about the etiology of such an esoteric yet personal topic like consciousness are not in agreement about its causation, meaning, or purpose.

For many of us, there comes a time in our lives in which find ourselves motivated to consider how it is we have the mind we have — to think about how we think. This involves a meta-cognition or self-analysis of how we think, and by extension, how we also feel and behave. We realize that the reach and complexity of our minds is vast leaving us each with enormous potential to live rich lives. When we stop to think about it, I believe most of us conclude that it is truly remarkable that we can perceive such resplendence and fullness through our minds.

I have wondered if I should think about consciousness and mind as synonymous. When listening to and reading the philosophers and scientists discuss consciousness the topic appears twofold. Some do consider mind and consciousness as one in the same, albeit with some nuanced connotational differences at times. Others view consciousness as a realm in and of itself detached from the rational and sensorial mind we use to cope environmentally.

I see consciousness and mind as inseparably linked. Does consciousness beget mind or does mind beget consciousness? Neither. They are one and the same phenomenon, a marvel of the universe. The Logos, or generative spirit, is saying that to be complete All-There-Is must have an observer. We have minds illuminated by consciousness to be this observer.

At least that is what I think. But who am I?

What I am is an observer, a beholder of what is.

Self-discovery motivates.

Let’s look to see what is behind the next door.

This matters because to exist matters. And a big part of existing is to pay attention. We have a mind that allows us to be aware of reality. (Whatever reality is.) For now, I choose to be amazed at what I have spent the better part of lifetime taking for granted. That I can think rationally, feel sensations, have memory, speculate about the future, and notice the present moment is spectacular enough. But to take the position, as I am, that our consciousness, our mindfulness, our self-awareness is a direct bond to the core of universality, spiritualism, and the Logos is audacious but also comforting.

As humans, I believe we have to have faith in something. I say this as someone who has been skeptical, even suspicious, of faith. Faith has connoted dogma, rigidity, and closed mindedness to me. Age has softened this stance. I now see faith as a form of value adoption. Values give us purpose, a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Faith does something similar, perhaps even grander. It can give us a reason to live.

To have faith says we put our heart, mind, and soul into a belief. To be sure, how steadfast we are in our faith depends on incoming data. We have to allow for degrees of malleability regarding our faith. (Something a religious person would probably disagree with.) Nevertheless, resting our convictions on a bed of probability, even believability, is grounding and worth the attachment to certainty — however fleeting it may be.

I have faith in mindfulness, or consciousness as I will refer to it from this point on, as an expression of the sacred. We are born with this capacity to know of ourselves and others. Consciousness presents us with senses and mental ability to comprehend and to interpret. Some say this aptitude is nothing more than an evolutionary result of learning to grapple with survival in a hostile environment since life on this planet began. Or that consciousness is an illusory outcome of neural operations with little more biological significance than walking or digesting. I think consciousness is too majestic an occurrence to be lightly dismissed or rendered mundane. Its place in the universe could be every bit as imposing as material substance, space, time, and electromagnetism.

I seek to know what lessons can be learned concerning consciousness from history. I begin as I have by stating my premise or my belief that consciousness is not accidental or ancillary, but rather exists as a result of a necessary cosmic design born of the Logos, the generative spirit, the spark propagating all that there is. Some may call this originating energy God. And if it were not for the distracting and unsettling anthropomorphizing imagery of religion I would be fine with the label.

Regardless, I pursue an investigation of consciousness from my vantage point as stated for two reasons. One, I want to reveal why I have come to see consciousness as more than a happenstance of biology, but rather as a gateway to the One, the Logos. Secondly, I realize that this topic is voluminous and will occupy much of my remaining years. So, in the the spirit of learning I want to see what more there is to ascertain at this point in time.

Self-awareness, the most individual of perceptions

My mind, my viewpoint, my existence

Universal consciousness, the most inclusive of conceptions

Our minds, our viewpoints, our existences

Speculation on the origins of self-awareness and the nature of consciousness is at least thousands of years old as evidenced by recorded history across a variety of cultures. Undoubtedly, people have pondered the roots of their being and existence for far longer. Whether through the application of knowledge to better cope and thrive within a challenging environment or through deep contemplation and penetrating self-examination during moments of relative peace, humans have considered the existential meaning of life. It is by way of a review of the milestones of philosophic history that we can trace the development of phenomenological or subjective human thought.

I begin this investigation with ancient Indian philosophy. The Upanishads is a scriptural authority comprised of ancient Sanskrit texts composed collectively between circa 800 BCE to circa 200 BCE. The anthology focuses on philosophical and spiritual teachings and guidance. The Upanishads, along with the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras, constitute the Vedanta philosophy, one of the principal schools of Hinduism.

Credit must be given to the Indo-Aryans, an early branch of today’s populations of the Asian sub-continent and the speakers of ancient Sanskrit. They burst forth with a bold and intrepid recognition of and interpretation of consciousness. The Upanishads, a product of the Indo-Aryans, delves extensively into everything philosophical and spiritual from metaphysics to practical guidance for daily living. But one topic it explores keenly is the nature of consciousness.

The Upanishads distinguishes between the universal consciousness, known as Brahman, and the consciousness of the individual or soul, known as Atman. In this tradition, Brahman is true reality and is present everywhere and in everything throughout the universe. Atman is a manifestation of Brahman. The individual consciousness is an expression of the supreme reality. This unity suggests that each person, indeed each particle of the universe, carries within it the divine — the everlasting, pervasive, immutable, and sublime essence of reality.

Establishment of Hinduism relied significantly on The Upanishads. And in turn, Buddhism evolved from Hinduism. However, Buddhism does not identify consciousness as an immutable construct of the self. Indeed, Buddhism does not even recognize the existence of a self as is conventionally done in most other traditions. Rather, Buddhism views consciousness as a churn of internal psychological states of mind and sensory reactions to experiences that lacks permanence or innate substance.

Buddhism tells individuals that consciousness is a quality to be overcome. Meditation teaches us to confront the capriciousness of consciousness head on by not letting its seductive illusion of permanence or its unstable push and pull of impressions occupy our mental states. Since consciousness appears and abates constantly, Buddhism teaches us to let it pass and to not let it define us. Indeed, to transcend consciousness is to become enlightened.

Ancient Chinese philosophy, particularly Daoism, approaches consciousness similarly to the Upanishads in that self-realization is believed to be inextricably linked to the Dao, known as The Way or the foundation of nature. Dao is a similar concept to the universal consciousness of the Indo-Aryans, Brahman. It forms the basis of all individuals’ consciousness. The task in this life for each of us is to be in harmony with the natural rhythm and current of Dao. This is accomplished through a life of dedication, meditation, contemplation, and ethical practice.

The other grand philosophical tradition of ancient China, Confucianism, is less metaphysical or ontological about consciousness. Rather it sees self-awareness and mindfulness as an integral aspect of being human and one that is enhanced through moral practices that encourage strong relationships, sound personal behavior, and social solidarity. Personal growth and development, moral refinement, and social concord are best achieved by devoted individuals each acting on improving the quality of their respective consciousnesses.

The ancient Greek philosophers saw the importance of consciousness emerging as part of their engrossment in metaphysics and ontology (the branch of philosophy concerned with existence and being). As they attempted to understand the nature of the universe and reality, consciousness was seen as integral to the notion of soul, a necessary component of comprehending reality. Plato and Aristotle presented the individual soul as multifaceted with consciousness playing a critical part in the mind’s ability to reason. Reason, perception, and thought were believed to be essential functions to being human and not possible without consciousness.

More recently, the Islamic world also pontificated on the importance of consciousness. The notable hallmark of the Islamic position was to emphasize a linkage between consciousness and the divine. All pervasive reality is equivalent to Allah and consciousness is an expression of Allah. Furthermore, consciousness provides humans with an intellect to better unite with and to celebrate the wonder of Allah or reality. Intellect is seen as a most prominent part of the soul, because through it we can comprehend and appreciate how unified are the ontological truths about the existence of Allah.

I see my dog across the room.

How did the dog come to exist?

What is the story of the dog’s past?

What is the purpose of the dog?

Should I take an action because of the dog?

These questions do not need answers.

These questions do not matter.

All that matters is my experience of seeing my dog across the room.

Plotinus (circa 204-270) was born in Egypt. When he was forty years old Plotinus moved to Rome and there founded a school of philosophy. The philosophy he spawned would become a principal philosophical ideology from the third century to the middle of the seventh century, roughly the time spanning the fall of Rome to the Muslim invasion of Europe at Andalucía. What gave power to this system of thought was that it was an amalgamation or fusion of centuries of pre-Socratic through Aristotelian inquiry that was heavily influenced by Platonism and Stoicism. Today we call this school of the western philosophical tradition Neoplatonism.

The Neoplatonists helped to seal monism as the preferred way to perceive deity or the divine. The One, The First, The Being, The Good, or as the Neoplatonists said, Nous, was paid homage to as the single point of creation, the sole source of all reality. Among the attributes of Nous is the desire to create consciousness. This allows Nous to observe itself, to look both out and in. Out to its emerging reality. Then back in so as to continuously reconnect with its virtuous self. Consciousness is nous insistently and incessantly understanding itself. And a piece of consciousness is carried to each emergent entity within reality, such as ourselves.

Consciousness became a serious rumination of several philosophers in the continental western tradition beginning with Rene Descartes (1596-1650) in the seventeenth century. Descartes legitimized a philosophy of mind, which included consciousness, self-awareness, and soul as a critical non-material “substance” and which is separate in nature from the physical form or body. Underpinning the Cartesian approach to philosophy was his renowned proclamation “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). This assertion placed the mind at the essential core of his philosophical inquiry.

However, it was philosophy’s German Idealism movement during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries that elevated and developed consciousness as fundamental in modern philosophy. German Idealism also set up consciousness as worthy of scientific investigation during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. This chapter in western philosophy was dominated by two individuals primarily, Kant and Hegel.

During the years between Descartes and the advent of German Idealism, which began with Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), western philosophy had become an intellectual conflict between a reliance on rationalism, based geographically on the European continent, and empiricism, centered in Britain. Rationalism stressed the notion that the innate human capacity to think and to reason was the key to unlocking a comprehension of reality. Precise deductive and mathematical methods rigorously applied would reveal God’s design. In Britain, an alternative to the dependency on reason developed. Empiricism insisted that the knowledge humans needed to understand reality derived primarily from sensory experience. We can only know what the senses detect and to speculate beyond what sensory input displays lacks verification and credibility.

Kant, a native of Prussia, set out to discover a third way, a reconciliation between rationalism and empiricism. This mediation began with Kant’s revelation of the transcendental self. Also known as transcendental idealism, it is a concept placing consciousness at the nexus of the mind’s ability to both reason logically and to detect and to unify sensory experiences. Consciousness is an underlying subjectivity that makes possible all human cognition. It is an inborn and active instrument allowing us to perceive, systematize, and produce knowledge. Yes, we are limited by our mind’s power and potential, but regardless consciousness permits us to be both rationale and empirical in assessing reality. The mind started to stand on center stage across western philosophy more than it ever had before.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), originally from Stuttgart, continued the philosophical work of Kant by again placing consciousness at the nucleus of his idealistic project. Hegel viewed consciousness developmentally beginning with a primary stage that involved raw sense perception. As an individual matures their consciousness expands in sophistication such that thought is more capable of observing ever more keenly, of organizing and categorizing observable content, and of gaining more self-identification. In time, the mind progresses to think abstractly and realize global premises and fundamentals. Hegel claims that the ultimate stage of consciousness is when it accepts unity with what he called the absolute spirit, a concept akin to understanding universal principles.

Hegel’s absolute spirit is the peak of the consciousness pyramid, in which the consciousness of each person becomes conjoined and all-pervasive reaching a level of fundamentalism and universality that explains reality inclusively such that history, culture, and the collective energy of all individuals’ consciousnesses is engaged. There is a strong resemblance of the Indo-Aryan’s Brahman or universal consciousness in Hegel’s absolute spirit. This culmination of consciousness according to Hegel results in each person having a clearer self-understanding, an awareness of their place within their culture and the world, and a firmer knowledge about universal truth and reality.

Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), an Austrian-German, brought structure to a philosophy of consciousness, which had actually been practiced for centuries, but which did not have a distinct name. Phenomenology is the label Husserl chose. He defined this philosophy as “the science of the essence of consciousness”. By this, Husserl concentrated on first-person and subjective experiences as of fundamental importance. And crucial to this view is that consciousness necessarily functions with intentionality. What we see, hear, imagine, think, feel, wish, desire, will, or act upon involves external objects of our attention. Consciousness does not exist in isolation. It is a consciousness of something. It is how we make meaning of our world.

Phenomenology motivated a multitude of philosophical and psychological writers to explore the notion of first-person experience well into the twentieth century. Examples include the pragmatic approach of American William James (1842-1910), who saw consciousness as a continuous and shifting stream of perceptions designed to allow us to adjust to our environments; the British mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), noted for theorizing that consciousness or subjectivity exists in all entities of the cosmos; and the French existentialists Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986), who emphasized the ultimate conscious freedom inherent in each person to authentically and meaningfully exist as they choose in the face of the outpouring of perils life throws at us.

“The brain is locked in total darkness, of course children”, says the voice. “It floats in a clear liquid inside the skull, never in the light. And yet the world it constructs in the mind is full of light. It brims with color and movement. So how, children, does the brain, which lives without a spark of light, build for us a world full of light?“

Anthony Doerr from All the Light We Cannot See

In 1994 at the University if Arizona a conference was convened entitled, “Toward a Science of Consciousness”. Dr. Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist and psychologist, and Dr. David Chalmers, a philosopher and cognitive scientist, invited a multidisciplinary group of researchers and scholars to share knowledge regarding the constitution of consciousness. Intellectuals and academics from fields as diverse as neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, computer science, physics, and anthropology met for five days to unpack five consciousness related themes:

• Neural Correlates of Consciousness
• Philosophical Perspectives
• Consciousness and Quantum Physics
• Altered States of Consciousness
• Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness

No such conference had ever been held before. “Toward a Science of Consciousness” ushered in the contemporary study of consciousness that is continuing to this day. The Science of Consciousness conference, as it is now called, is an annual event at The Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona. As the title of the conference suggests, science and philosophy are now conjoined in the modern approach to consciousness studies. This fusion could be seen as an advancement of sorts. Up until then science, with possibly a few exceptions, had a mostly hands-off approach to consciousness. Science seemed content to leave the topic in the hands of philosophy and religion.

The historic gap between science and philosophy regarding consciousness was best encapsulated by David Chalmers at the 1994 conference when he distinguished between the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the “easy problems” of consciousness. By easy problems he was referring to the successes of neurology and psychology in discovering how neural networks and cognitive functions had been identified to explain mental operations such as perception, focus, and memory. But what science and philosophy had not yet done was to explain how physical mechanisms of the brain could yield subjective experiences and sensations, in other words what it is like to be me and you. That is the Hard Problem. Solving the easy problems has not yielded the intrinsic nature of consciousness.

What Chalmers is describing is the latest in a long line of versions of what is known as the mind-body problem. Since at least Plato and Aristotle philosophers and other thinkers have pondered and theorized about consciousness/mind/soul and its relationship to the physical or material body. Conjecture ranges across a span from consciousness being a by-product of physical processes in the brain to mind and body being comprised of different qualities able to exist side by side. In short, this is a physicalism-dualism spectrum. There remains no consensus as to a solution of the mind-body problem.

There is, however, one approach that may offer hope to resolving the issue of whether consciousness emanates from physical activity such as brain functions or if it co-exists separately but in tandem with the body. Panpsychism is a theory which may mediate between physicalism and its inability to precisely explain the emergence of consciousness from bodily material and dualism which does not satisfy our need to know how mind and matter truly interact. Panpsychism proposes that consciousness or mentality is intrinsic to and a basic characteristic of the universe. Each entity or being in the universe possesses within its core a degree of sentience, an element of subjectivity. If this were true, dualism as a concept would become inoperative and physicalism would lose its catalytic power to generate consciousness.

“There ain’t any answer, there ain’t going to be any answer, there never has been any answer, that’s the answer.”

Gertrude Stein from Brewsie and Willie 

I expressed earlier on in this piece an inclination toward having faith in the sacredness of consciousness. This belief is reinforced as I review my historic summary of subjective awareness. In particular, certain episodes of this consciousness analysis over the ages resonate with me more acutely than others. Intellect and emotion are sparked by some of these descriptions to such a degree that I am left to feel, “That sounds right. This makes sense. I think this could be true.” I accept that my truth may be at odds with your truth. Absolute truths, assuming they exist, are surprisingly elusive. We may have to agree to disagree. If so, that is fine.

When I read in The Upanishads about the account of Brahman, the universal consciousness, and Atman, the individual’s consciousness, then I nod my head in agreement. Contemplating the Dao as the cornerstone of nature and of all consciousness resonates with me. I accept the notion put forth and explored by Plato and Aristotle, and later picked up by the Christians, that we have a soul, which may very well be consciousness, mentality, mind, and spiritual awareness all rolled into one. Yes, the Neoplatonists were onto something when declaring consciousness as a means for The One to reflect upon itself. And the German idealists were shrewd to recognize the total necessity of mind or awareness as a means to understanding reality.

At present, I am left asking myself, what is it that really grabs my attention and imagination from the times we are now living? What will occupy the consciousness branch of my philosophical studies for the foreseeable future? At this point in my learning I see the following schools of thought as warranting the greatest attention and consideration — the ongoing speculative influences of phenomenology, idealism, and panpsychism. My interest in contemporary philosophy is centered on phenomenology, idealism, and panpsychism because they all bring what I see to be different, but related and valuable perspectives on the origins, impact, and reach of consciousness.

Phenomenology is immensely rewarding in accepting as substantial the ephemeral but precious conception of sentient experience. Phenomenology provides a permission structure for modern people to not be so tightly wedded to science as consciousness is examined, but to instead accept that the first person viewpoint carries significant weight, even if the origins of subjectivity cannot be definitively explained by science or by any other empirical method. The effect of phenomenology remains profound as we consider the connection between the self and reality. By exploring the foundations of lived experience we are able to get a more full picture of what human existence and reality are.

Idealism is philosophy’s way of saying the mind is preeminent in perceiving reality and all physicalism or materialist interpretations of reality are at least subordinate to mentality, if not otherwise hopelessly misguided. Idealism is a radical, but largely plausible attempt to challenge realism. Realism states that there exists a reality out there which is independent of our minds. According to idealism, our Cartesian brainwashing leaves most of us convinced that realism is true. But idealism, with its emphasis on the supremacy of mentality, and by extension consciousness, leads us to think otherwise. Philosopher Thelma Lavine puts it this way, “Idealism holds that ultimate reality is mental and that seemingly monumental things such as material objects are reducible to the ideas of consciousness or mind.”

In short, panpsychism represents a sea change in how the contemplation of consciousness is now taking place. Thanks to the panpsychist view, gone are the days of a wholly revered physicalism which at best could say that consciousness was the result of material processes not involving consciousness, as in neural activity. Instead, it is becoming more accepted among philosophers to think of human and animal consciousness as comprised of, or at least influenced by, more fundamental iterations of consciousness — a form of reductionism, if you will. The mind-body distinction has taken the study of consciousness to an impasse. Panpsychism may be a way for us to escape the cul-de-sac.

This summation of consciousness as viewed philosophically is a developing venture on my part. I will not be surprised to have shifted my way of thinking about it sooner rather than later. That said, my core interest in this topic and my reverence for the miracle of consciousness will not abate. Indeed, I will cling to and try to comprehend my consciousness as I do my life itself — as if they were one in the same.

Sometimes in life we find that what initially appear to be separate and discreet interests can converge to form a compelling composite which begs to be explored. When this occurs in the context of trying to live an examined life, then a stimulating and energizing endeavor is launched. For me lately, by which I mean the past three years or so, that is occurring at the intersection of philosophy and physics. Let me explain.

As anyone who may have taken any time over the last couple of years to read my essay posts, it is likely obvious that I have been enamored with philosophy of late. There are several reasons for this attraction. For one, as a retiree I have the good fortune of having the mental health and available time to engage in an academic exercise, such as studying philosophy and to the extent I can comprehend it, its companion and contemporary discipline, quantum mechanics. These topics have held my interest for many years, but while living the working life I never could devote the necessary time and concentration required to make any lasting sense of these subjects.

Beyond simply having time and casual interest in philosophy and physics I am drawn to these areas of study for several other reasons. I believe I am not yet too old to use this knowledge as a possible guide to living a more eudemonic or flourishing life with the years I have left. Additionally, as I conduct a life review and reflect on all I have lived and experienced, this study helps me to better understand why things are as they been and why I have engaged with this life as I have.

Finally, I want to prepare myself for what is next after this life. Unlike devout religious people, I have not relied on a prescriptive belief of a hereafter. However, now knowing more concretely that death is more impending than ever before I want to have some comfort in knowing what to expect. In short, I want to have faith in a likely scenario for what will happen to me after I take my final breath.

My informal examination of philosophy and physics began and continued for some while on separate tracks. However over time, I began to see that the two disciplines overlapped in ways I had not expected. Philosophy, while not a social science, is certainly not a hard quantifiable science either. It is too broad, too deep, and too subjective to be considered a science. It is a field of study uniquely its own.

Physics, or more specifically quantum physics or quantum mechanics as it is more popularly known, is indeed a hard science, characterized by objectivity, procedural rigor, and preciseness. So, where is the connection between philosophy and quantum mechanics? It is in a purview of fundamentalism or foundationalism, which I will attempt to explain.

To better understand this conjunction of philosophy and quantum mechanics it can be helpful to know that philosophy and science grew in tandem, emerging jointly from the original pontifications of ancient Greeks who were attempting to explain the core nature of the world in which they lived. Aristotle (384 BCE-322 BCE) can be credited with giving science an early and consequential springboard. He differed from his teacher Plato (c.429 BCE-347 BCE) in some key ways. According to Aristotle, Plato was too steeped in logically determined metaphysical underpinnings that were rooted in abstractness. His philosophical constructs were too perfectly defined and objectively certain for Aristotle.

Rather, Aristotle found it more desirable and necessary to focus on the full range of tangible worldly materials and the way they changed, developed, decayed, and behaved. He thought knowledge should spring from a deep scrutiny of the explicit substances available to us. Hence, what became a western-styled science was given permission to exist.

Science as we know it today did not have a single founder. Neither did philosophy. But when we look back through history to determine the origins of the eventual merger of philosophy and science we inevitably come again to Aristotle. In the fourth century BCE he was philosophically influenced and inculcated by two of the most prominent thinkers of the ancient world, Socrates (c.470 BCE-300 BCE) and his tutor Plato. With that philosophical grounding he went on to expand his understanding of the natural world through the practice of what became essentials of scientific inquiry.

To begin with, Aristotle was intensely curious. This mattered, because curiosity is the launch pad for examination, creativity, problem solving, social progress, and personal development. Aristotle directed his curiosity in the establishment of a systematization of two very human capabilities, observation and reasoning. Focused empiricism and self-guided reasoning together determined the foundation for scientific investigation still in practice to this day.

Among the areas in which Aristotle applied his empirical and reasoning method was to better understand what we call today biology, ecology, and physics. It was in these sciences, including physics which for centuries was known as natural philosophy, that he formalized the practice of disaggregating and classifying the natural world into discreet categories, principally causation, the elements, motion, and teleology (purpose-drive goals). Although many of his specific predictions did not stand up to the scrutiny of time, Aristotle’s three-way utilization of careful examination, logical reasoning, and classification nevertheless set the stage for the development of today’s scientific method.

Notice that Aristotle was drawn to a process which tried to base conclusions about the nature of reality by identifying and examining what he believed to be the constituent parts of reality. To better comprehend the totality of all there is, Aristotle determined it necessary to first apprehend the parts of all there is.

Aristotle was not the first of the ancient Greek philosophers to reach for a method we now call reductionism. A reductionist approach attempts to describe grand and intricate events and occurrences by minimizing, analyzing, and viewing them through their elemental segments. Key pre-Socratic philosophers also employed a similar technique.

Thales of Miletus (c.626 BCE-548 BCE) is another historic figure credited with early scientific thought. He proposed that everything in the known universe could be reduced to a single ingredient — water. Anaximenes (c.586 BCE-526 BCE) suggested that the fundamental element was air. And Heraclitus (c.535 BCE-475 BCE) offered that fire was what everything was derived from. The tendency to reduce the universe to its most basic workings has set the tone for how westerners contemplate and envisage all that there is from the beginning of recorded history.

As we see, the ancient Greeks set western science on a course of reductionism, which again can be simply explained as reducing complex circumstances or phenomena to basic and underlying components. To be sure, reductionism has driven science to comprehend a view of reality which has resulted in many remarkable discoveries. Through reductionism we have refined our ability to study phenomena, make predictions, and determine primal laws of nature.

As science, and in particular physics, matured the individual whose approach and legacy keenly exemplifies reductionism was the English scientist Isaac Newton (1643-1727). Whether it was in his works related to the laws of motion and gravity, optics, fluid dynamics, or in mathematics Newton applied reductionist thinking so as to better understand the nature of reality and predict natural processes. His procedures and methods have led to what has become the conventional manner of perceiving the known universe.

Newton’s influence on science and western thinking has been huge. Many of the services and products to emerge from applied science, which have had an immensely positive impact on humankind, can be credited to the profound influence of Newtonian schema and methodology. Historians claim that Newton’s contributions revolutionized science in disciplines ranging from astronomy to engineering and that modern physics and mathematics are attributed to his reductionist guidance. His analytic thinking that viewed natural phenomena through essential principles and equations remains extensive.

However, for all of the gains reductionism has brought to our world there has been a myopic and restrictive perception of the universe that has developed and hardened since the seventeenth century, such that conventional wisdom and commonplace thinking about the nature of reality is exceptionally mechanistic and based very heavily on rationalism.

Thanks to Rene Descartes (1596-1650) western thought took a sharp turn into the advancement of reason, which allowed for a skepticism to emerge about the reliance on Plato’s and Aristotle’s influence on scholastic thought, but also to question the power of the Church to dictate enforced beliefs. Among the great consequences of Descartes’ life work was to extensively influence a novel and rational pattern of western philosophical thought and by extension induce a metaphysical and scientific view regarding the nature of reality that exists to this day. Descartes can be credited with establishing a revolutionary intellectual environment in which Newton could pursue his creation of the new physics.

Descartes was committed to discovering the most basic truths of reality and did so by attempting to determine the most foundational aspects of knowledge or epistemology. In essence, Rene Descartes applied reductionism in an attempt to unveil how we as humans could understand the fundamentals of reality. He skeptically stripped away all of his preconceptions and premises about the world to search for that one incontrovertible truth marking the starting point for the thoughtful and aware self. “Cogito, ergo sum” became that target. “I think, therefore I am.”

The reductionist epistemological method used by Descartes contributed greatly to validating reductionism as a technique applicable to comprehending all that there is. As science developed into a set of disciplines in the years following Descartes, we see reductionism widely used as a process for peering into the nature of complex systems. Indeed, it is the approach of perceiving complex systems through reductionism that both helps and hinders our understanding of natural occurrences, especially when it comes to science.

As mentioned earlier, there can be setbacks to relying on reductionism to reveal answers to the mysteries of existence. To better understand I will begin by noting that there is no more complicated and elaborate structure than the universe. Reductionism attempts to simplify this vast complexity by identifying individual elements, which the thinking goes, combine to make the whole. As we are learning over time, intricate systems such as the universe involve more than parts. They also manifest qualities and processes that cannot be captured through an inventory of components alone.

For example, let’s look at consciousness, the phenomenon expressing our subjectivity and our sense of self. Is consciousness really just a result of brain action as in synapses among neurons or is there a more holistic, non-quantifiable, and universally fundamental process at play resulting in our experiential mindfulness? I would say, yes, that is very possible. Consciousness manifests as too miraculous and too illuminating to just be an outcome of the conduct of matter. Reductionism is too austere a method for explaining the richness of consciousness.

Synergy is a term referencing a type of alchemy. A force or efficiency is achieved within a complex system when its constituent parts interact such that the system’s overall effectiveness is measurably greater than the sum of the individual parts. How does this happen? It is counterintuitive and contrary to what basic arithmetic tells us. Synergy is a way of say two plus two equals five. Something magical appears to happen when components interact cooperatively resulting in the whole being more than all of the portions added together.

Reductionism misses synergy in its calculation. There are existing and emerging properties not easily discerned by mathematics and science. Properties that have their origin in a generative spirit the ancient Stoics referred to as Logos (more on Logos later). Systems, no matter how complex they may be, are part of larger systems. Sequestering easily identifiable components can miss the valuable interactions in force. Interconnectedness and constant exchanges inject dynamism and vitality to systems. Reductionism does not always do a good job of accounting for such interoperability.

Reductionism can be seen as a practice stemming from a belief in materialism or physicalism. Materialism asserts that all of reality is composed of physical materials. This view rejects any notion of a separate spiritual reality or of a distinct existence related solely to mental states or consciousness. All that there is can be explained by physical substances and the laws governing their actions. In this type of reality reductionism makes sense. Just keep slicing and dicing until you get to the most essential particles of existence.

So why you might ask, is there this criticism of reductionism and by extension materialism, a methodology that has been practiced for centuries and which has led immeasurably to the betterment of humankind? Credit for this mental approach of discovery deserves to be given to reductionism as mentioned in reference to Isaac Newton above. However, the past hundred years has begun a grand and paradigm changing revelation highlighting the limits of reductionism. This relatively newly learned lesson comes in the form of quantum mechanics.

As science has continued to dig deeper and peer ever further into the material universe it has run into a roadblock of sorts. Strange things are occurring at the quantum level of reality — so strange that what we have thought for centuries about materialism and its character is now being reassessed. The behaviors and processes of matter and energy at this level upends our understanding of the known universe.

Quantum mechanics is the most recent approach to the study of modern physics, which began in the 1920s. It is a study of the most fundamental conduct of matter and energy occurring at atomic and subatomic stages. Physicists appear to have largely run out of runway when it comes to discovering the next smallest particle. But of special note is the fact that we enter a bizarro world at the quantum level that seems to question the linear and sequential order of things we have been accustomed to.

Let us take a look at some key examples of the conditions goading the quantum game changing reality.

Our journey into counterintuition best begins with a look at wave-particle duality. As best physicists can tell, the most quantum materialist entities discernable are particles, the most commonly known of which are photons (light) and electrons and protons (both subatomic). What is noticeable is that these particles along with other quantum particles exhibit both particle-like traits and wave-like traits. For example, a key particle-like property is discreteness, in which a quantized energy level or value is detectable. In the case of wave-like properties an example is wavefunction, a mathematical statement providing probability magnitude of a particle’s location in space. One is left questioning, is the most basic constituent a particle or a wave or are they somehow unified?

Wave-particle duality leaves a novice student such as myself thinking that everything, including matter, is energy. I see no reason to date to think otherwise. The other consideration of note is that wave-particle duality is a good starting point for learning about the other unique and odd discoveries of quantum mechanics and of the most fundamental particle entities (also known as quanta). It is safe to say that classical physics, such as Newtonian mechanics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, and optics, ceases to be applicable at the quantum level of physics.

Superposition really rocks the world of how we thought things were. This term is used to describe particles being ubiquitous or in multiple states at the same time. It is only during an attempt by an observer to measure the state or position of a particle that the “wavefunction collapses” into only one state or position from among the many states or positions it could have been in. It is like Jim being in Moscow and New York at the same time, but until an observer intentionally spots Jim in Moscow can we say that there is where Jim is located at that moment.

Entanglement is just as irrational. In this phenomena we can have two particles entangled or influenced by one another, sometimes at great distances, i.e. nonlocality. The condition of one of the particles can be instantaneously affected by the other one even at distances where there should be a time lag due to the immense separation of space between them. Einstein remarked incredulously that such an occurrence was “spooky action at a distance” since an information exchange appeared to be occurring between the two particles quicker than the speed of light.

As you can see quantum measurement is a tough thing to nail down. How to measure key features of quantum entities remains a controversial and debated issue. When the very act of attempting measurement appears to affect the nature of the entity being measured how can one know its state in unobserved reality? In fact, one can wonder, is there such a thing as an unobserved reality?

As we are seeing, it makes sense that a central standard of quantum mechanics is known as the Uncertainty Principle. At the beginning of the quantum age in the 1920s, German physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) concluded that measuring the speed and location of a particle could not be accomplished accurately. In the nearly one hundred years since Heisenberg proclaimed the Uncertainty Principle it remains a valid concept. Once we dive deep enough into the quantum realm reality takes on a whole new meaning — one that is hard to wrap our minds around.

So what am I to apprehend from this convergence of philosophy and physics? What are my takeaways at this point in my understanding of this information and why should they matter? Does any of this change my perceptions to the degree that I think of the world differently than I did before? To begin answering these questions I will note what conclusions or beliefs I have from the above descriptions.

At heart, nature is my guide. I believe there is a natural process to the universe, an unfolding always occurring. Science and philosophy are lenses through which to view nature and from which to infer the basics of reality. Learning from nature is not as easy as just observation, however. Our six senses give us direct experience with reality, but they are also limiting in the amount of insights we can derive from nature. Something more than sensorial experience is needed. We humans are capable of integrating a non-sensorial dominion into our imaginations that can complement our rational comprehension of all that there is.

I have faith in Logos, the generative spirit introduced to us by the ancient Stoics, as my gateway to the non-sensorial realm. It is what produced the Big Bang and establishes the entire order/disorder of the universe. Logos is ubiquitous and present from the grandest structures in the universe to the quantum level. The expression of all physical and mental states have at their essence Logos. I believe this spirit is what is meant by a belief in God.

Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) advocated for a notion of pantheism, the idea that God is in everything. He taught there does not exist a transcendent God separated from the creation or nature. Pantheism, and its modern secular counterpart panpsychism, captures what feels right to me. Logos is my starting point and the place to which I frequently return for apprehending reality.

Beyond a faith in Logos I face a significant challenge. It appears I am searching for certainty in an uncertain universe. Quantum mechanics tells me that we cannot be sure about much, if anything, at the core of reality. Nature is not boundlessly dissoluble. We can only slice and dice or reduce just so far. A point in reductionism arrives when we enter a province that is unpredictable, random, contradictory, and contingent.

Christopher Bader, principal investigator for the annual Chapman Survey of American Fears, notes that the many fears Americans share can be traced back to uncertainty. There is a self-help expression encouraging us to embrace uncertainty. Yes, accepting chance as more likely than conviction is a key upshot for me and perhaps it should be for others as well. This encourages me to be more agile in my thinking and less definite in the conclusions I draw.

The brain, of course, can do many things. Among them is a capacity to ensnare chance and possibility. It is also stochastic in how it operates, meaning the brain can be inherently random in how it processes inputs. Many of the results the brain yields are not predictable and based in certitude, but rather are presented as probabilities and statistical distributions. This may explain our ability to be creative and to have novel ideas.

As Dartmouth College neuroscientist Peter Tse suggests, because the brain functions such that new configurations of thought and conception are possible, this is likely an indication that the universe performs this way also. A reasonable hypothesis is that quantum processes with all of their stochasticity are manifesting in our brains and reflecting the workings of the universe at large.

One of the great controversies and mysteries of both philosophy and science historically concerns the question of whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic. If deterministic, then all that has occurred since the Big Bang is preordained and destined to happen like the sequence of events in a movie. There are no interventions which can change destiny. All has already been programmed.

On the other hand, indeterminacy allows for capriciousness and irregularity, in other words the very randomness quantum mechanics indicates is commonplace. Change, process, and uncertainty are innate and part of the fabric of our reality. Learning to not resist this primary aspect of our universe seems wise.

I will finish with this observation. Of course our lives have a lot of predictability despite all of the evidence suggesting otherwise. The sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. Spring still follows winter every year. Death ends lifetimes. The past has occurred. The future is yet to be experienced. And the present is ever fleeting. Life is not easily understood and the more we try to make sense of it the more questions are generated. That said, the intersection of philosophy and physics is a fascinating place to be. There is much more to learn. I imagine I will continue to visit this place often.

The morning dawned cold and rainy. I fastened the buttons of my coat, pulled my green wool cap over my head, and tightened my red plaid scarf around my neck. Did I wish the weather on that Belgian morning had been more agreeable? Sure, I did. But I was heading to Flanders Fields and the site of what was once known as the northern part of the Western Front during World War I. During the years of 1914 until the end of 1918 this was a place of unspeakable horror for hundreds of thousands of young men.

So, no. I was not going to complain about the weather on that morning of March 14, 2023, the day I turned seventy years old. I was still alive and about to pay my respects to youth who no longer were. The weather could be endured.

Sometimes the primacy of nature and nurture are hard to separate. I was born seventy years ago as a male and as a male I was raised. Strongly embedded within the experience of growing up male is the meaning of manhood. We are nurtured with unmistakable messages as boys that to be a man involves the adoption of very specific traits. High among them is to display a selfless bravery to squarely face danger without hesitation. To battle when needed. To overcome one’s foes. And if vanquished, to go down fighting, which will at least preserve honor, even if life is extinguished.

Beyond this manner of masculine upbringing, I also have speculated about the role of nature in shaping men to be men. The expectation for boys to grow into men who are virile, strapping, and courageous is a presumption that is as old as history. At some point in this long and patterned progression of raising boys to be warriors it could be that the widely associated behaviors of manhood became finely integrated into the souls of men. An a priori masculinity may accompany the birth of each and every baby boy born into this world. This axiomatic essence of dutiful manliness then simply needs to be massaged during rearing to result in a fighter, a defender, a soldier.

Whether or not a boy grows to become a crusader, a crucial part of being a man is in reconciling or harmonizing the man one has become with the type of man one is supposed to be. Sometimes this urge toward manly expression goes awry, leading to overly aggressive males. However, for most of us men we need to find causes to sustain, people to protect, and missions to fulfill. These proclivities may not be played out on a literal battlefield, but they must find expression somehow, even in passivity. Like it or not, we men are preordained to live out as best we can the manifest calling inherent in our gender. Exploring this notion was in large part the motivation and need for reflection I was drawn to pursue on that birthday at Flanders Fields.

Young men from Germany, the British Commonwealth countries, France, the Low Countries, and eventually the United States and Italy converged at the Western Front, which stretched from Flanders Fields to the Swiss frontier with France. They were there to engage in a slaughter of one another. Their precious manhood was both exploited, abused, and celebrated during this horrific enterprise. The soldiers of the First World War were robbed of their innocence, their zest for life, and in far too many cases, their very existence.

The confrontation known as the Great War or World War I was among the greatest tragedies of humankind. It did not need to happen. But it did. Most of those who fought and died during the conflict were born during the last decade of the nineteenth century. As young boys they had every right to expect a high standard of guidance from their elders. They should have been shown by their parents’ generation how to love all people and how to try to make the world a better place than they found it.

Instead, this generation of young men were let down by their elders. They were squandered, misused, and harmed. Their lives were deemed expendable and not of precious value. Those poor souls who came into this world only to leave it too soon were robbed of their manhood and of their lives. Shame befalls those who encouraged this cataclysm to happen. The decisions, values, and hubris of the elders driven by their xenophobic mindsets starkly displayed a stunning lack of morality.

Some backstory will bring clarity to what happened. However clear history may be, the justifications for this debacle will never make sense of what happened. Historians categorize the causes of World War I into four domains: mutual defense alliances, imperialism, expanded and modernized militarism, and nationalism. I tend to group all these causes under the rubric of one foremost cause, that of domination.

The world of 1914 was a powder keg of outdated and maniacal monarchies committed to a ruthless competition for control over as many people and resources from around the world as could be made possible. Command, control, authority, and supremacy were the overriding principles of the world’s leaders, particularly in Europe. European empires, along with their colonies and spheres of influence, jostled for advantage. This led to a tangled network of alliances allegedly designed to ensure domestic stability and security while providing a nationalistic influential edge in world affairs.

By 1914 the stage was set for a ruinous chain reaction. European empires had been in existence for hundreds of years led by Great Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, and France. However, nationalism as we know it today has been a relatively recent phenomenon. Nationalism is based on the idea of group identity with common beliefs, values, languages, stories, and cultural traditions. The practice of forming nation states had been exercised all over the continent throughout the nineteenth century. At least this was true of those parts not already under the thumb of an empire.

The motivation to nationalize was strong by the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. For example, by 1871 smaller kingdoms were culturally compelled to unify into the nation states of Italy and Germany. One downside of nationalism is that it can leave people of different nations distrustful of one another. Borders can help to protect and to preserve, but they also can confine and cause cultural atrophy.  Unhealthy rivalries can result based on resource distributions and perceived threats to cultural integrity. Such mistrust took hold in Europe.

The inspiration to nationalize swept across the Balkan region of southeast Europe in the years leading up to 1914. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania are among the many countries that make up this region today. At the time, the people of the Balkans were squeezed between two prevailing and powerful empires, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. These empires exerted influence and pressure in the Balkans, which only encouraged nationalistic tendencies.

Meanwhile, a complicated assortment of defense alliances was established across much of Europe. Key alliances which led to World War I were that Russia was allied with Serbia in the Balkans and also with France, Germany was allied with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Great Britain was allied with France and Belgium. Such was the international stage when a Bosnian acting on behalf of Serbia assassinated the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife while they were visiting the Balkan city of Sarajevo on the 28th of July 1914. The consequent string of war declarations became the First World War.

The brutality of this war was made worse by the steady militarization of the European powers in the preceding years, which included the development of weapons marking the advent of modern warfare. Much more massive artillery guns and shells, machine guns, tanks, poison gases, and military aircraft were strategically introduced creating exorbitantly high death counts.

For those armies reliant on outdated battlefield strategies and tactics these weapons proved to be especially lethal. Along the Western Front in Belgium at Flanders Fields, infantry charged on foot from deeply dug trenches into machine gun fire, exploding shells, and even chlorine gas, which choked its victims, and mustard gas, which caused skin burns. The absurdity of asking young men to rush into such an onslaught is unthinkable.

A significant part of my wanting to visit Flanders Fields on that rainy and chilly day was to not only reflect on and feel sorry for the inhumanity inflicted on those unfortunate men, but to wonder what it would have been like for me to face the horrible challenges they did. My seventy years have never come close to war or any conflict that carried with it the risk of death or bodily injury. The stresses and strains of life that we all experience, which in my case were nearly all the result of my own flawed decision making, pale in comparison to the tensions of war.

Looking back to my younger years, I remember the confusion and uncertainty tinged with fear of the possibility of having to fight in the Vietnam War. I was on the young side of the age when unseasoned men were being drafted to fight in that conflict on behalf of the United States. My thinking was quite resolute in that I did not want to participate. The thought of moving to Canada was a serious notion I considered for a while.

My father, a World War II veteran who lost his only brother during that war and who was a proud American, said to me when I was sixteen or seventeen years old that he did not want me to fight in Vietnam. Even he could see the clear pattern of one generation after the next of young men fighting and dying in what seemed like an endless succession of foreign wars. My father’s realization of wanting to resist having his son go to war led to his distancing from the veteran’s organization, The American Legion. This memory is one of the very few where to this day I am grateful for my dad’s love.

So, had I been born in 1898 instead of 1953, and had I been born in Germany, Russia, Britain, France, or Belgium or in the United States at that time, I could very well have been confronted with the imperative that I must viciously fight for my country. I do not doubt I would have felt fear. What I do not know is if the nationalistic propaganda I would have been steadily fed would have trumped my fear.

Would I have felt that my life really amounted to a calling to “defend” my country even if it meant making the ultimate sacrifice? Would I have charged across fields of mud with a bayoneted rifle screaming a battle cry as bullets whizzed by striking down my comrades? Or would I have cowered in the trenches wide-eyed and gulping air as if each gasp were to be my last? Or would I have clung to my last shred of self-determination and committed suicide? I will never know. This deliberation will forever remain open-ended.

During that day at Flanders Fields, I paused at different cemeteries to place my hand on random gravestones. I tried to remain unrestricted and free to notice if I felt any kind of sensation or had any kind of inkling resulting from gently but intentionally touching those stones. At the German cemetery I crouched to place my left hand on a ground-level dark gray stone with the words, “Vier Unbekannte Deutsche Soldaten” etched upon it (translation, “Four Unknown German Soldiers”). I felt only pity. At a British cemetery, I placed my hand on the clean white standing gravestone of R. Porter, of the West Yorkshire Regiment, who died on the 28th of October in 1915 at the age of twenty-two. I was witness to a tragedy.

Toward the end of that day, I was at another British cemetery. The rain had stopped. Sun was breaking through the still thick clouds. A stiff breeze rendered the air from cool to cold. I was starting to feel fatigue from the long day. This time, while standing amidst the rows of white stones, I reached over to rest a hand upon the top of one from behind. I deliberately did not look to see whose stone it was. On this occasion, I felt something else. A ripple of energy coursed gently through my body. I experienced a slight disequilibrium. Was this a quantum or supernatural sensation of sentience, I wondered. Maybe it was just a symptom of not having had much water that day. I still wonder.

The flat green fields of West Flanders.

Now moist and quiet and peaceful.

Near Ypres the land rises. 

Once Germans held the high ground.

The British held the city.

Evil descended upon the area.

A half million souls lost

In a steady ugly stalemate.

Numbing.

A waste.

To be human can be severe.

My understanding of the founding of the United States, by which I mean the “1776” founding as opposed to the “1619” founding, is that the European Enlightenment inspired our founders to build a new democratic nation upon the fundamental values of freedom and equality. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote a line that has resonated throughout American history encapsulating these core beliefs —  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Clearly, within what was a new experimental American democracy the standard of equality was unambiguously spelled out. Also, the phrase, “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, spoke to individual freedom and liberty. Can it be interpreted in these words, or anywhere else in this esteemed document, or for that matter in the overall founding endeavor itself, that one democratic value is considered more moral or weightier or more important than the other? I suggest not.

It seems evident to me that the founders concluded that for a democracy to function both freedom and equality were not only required, but were inseparable and equivalent in scope and magnitude. These principles were two corresponding pillars upon which rested the ideology and conviction of the new nation. We were to be a people who honored the right to exercise individual free will throughout the course of our lives while simultaneously respecting that this right is to be extended to all individuals.

Of course, the founders were flawed leaders despite their unique ability to systematize selected philosophical thoughts from Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Charles Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Despite their infatuation with the concept of a social contract to encourage individual freedom and equality, the founders nevertheless lived prosperously under a social system that permitted slavery, Native American genocide, and concentrated power in the hands of property owning males at the exclusion of women.

These failings however, should not take away from the ideational benefits which the founders debated and documented and left for generations of Americans and other lovers of democracy around the world to ponder and use as a guide from which societies can operate honorably. As Winston Churchill famously said, “Democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others that have been tried.” It is reasonable to say today in the twenty-first century Churchill’s words still ring true.

Nonetheless, there is one troubling consequence which arises in matching the significance of freedom and equality. It comes in realizing there is a natural disengaging tension between the two. We are unable to optimize and to enjoy the fruits of both freedom and equality simultaneously and in similar measure. Let me explain.

When we allow individual freedom to be maximally expressed we soon discover a troubling reality settling in. A sorting of society’s individuals occurs like the pecking order of chickens in a barnyard. Wealth and power become concentrated among a self-professed elite group. The rationales for this aggregation may be centered on race, ethnicity, tradition, or generally perceived merit, but the result is always the same. A lack of social equality is the inevitable effect. Equality becomes diminished.

Similarly, an escalation of equality can lead to detrimental impacts. There can come a point in a social assigning of equal measure to each individual in a society when an over-homogeneity results. This can be characterized as a socially stultifying blandness in which people are pressured to all act the same and not drift from rigid social behaviors and thought patterns. Difference and innovation are reduced to being oppositional and uniformity is elevated to unnatural heights. Freedom becomes diminished.

We have a conundrum. As described above, freedom and equality are both of identical importance. But when each is augmented as much as possible an essential conflict emerges. Their shared power cancels out the advantages derived from each. What is to be done?

To start, we have to accept that each value carries with it great possible reward, but also great potential hazard. So instead of seeing co-nullification as an inevitable consequence when society attempts to practice the two virtues in tandem we can rather view them as keeping each other in check. It is a type of symbiose in which democracy needs both to survive. Yet a balance needs to be achieved in order to derive as much benefit and as little downside as possible.

In America, this striking of equilibrium is practiced by the two major political parties. One, the Republicans, seek to advance the cause of freedom over equality, while the Democrats vigorously promote equality above freedom. The outcome of this tug-of-war is the closest this society comes to a consensus of the freedom-equality strain of priorities. If the electorate sees too many disadvantages from an overemphasis of one side or the other, then election cycles should right the ship, depending on the pertinent issues of the day. So, if one is a diehard partisan, one has to learn to live with the heuristic that you win some and you lose some.

The greater problem, which America and other democracies are now facing, is when one political persuasion or the other decides to change the rules of the game. When striking the delicate balance between freedom and equality is thought of as too difficult to achieve or if impatience to get one’s way becomes too unmanageable such that undemocratic tactics become justified, then democracy is in trouble. When the arts of compromise and persuasion are abandoned in favor of a raw takeover of power leading to autocratic governance, then democracy ceases to exist and an unpleasant form of fascism or communism takes over.

I am writing this piece days before the 2022 U.S. midterm election. In other words, I and my fellow countrymen and women are both observing and participating in one big case in point. On the ballot, so to speak, is the question concerning whether or not American democracy, and its history of attempting to conduct free and fair elections, is to be continued, suspended, or abandoned.

The Trump-fueled right wing insurrectionists and their supporters, i.e., the Republican Party, sound as if they feel justified in canceling the electoral tradition. They are angry American society isn’t functioning the way they want it to. Of course, they are free to have their political leanings, even if their leanings are Euro-White-Male-dominated. But why is their grievance so pronounced that overthrowing free and fair elections can be considered just?

Sorry. I don’t see it. Coming of age during the 1960s I have seen social and political unrest. It is surely an experience of social disequilibrium. And it unquestionably both agitates and frightens significant segments of the culture. There can be both sound and absurd claims made by people. But that’s life in a democracy, isn’t it?

Things not going your way? Wish more of us would adopt your view of reality? Then be persuasive!  Convince us! Don’t change the rules to suit your own narrow interest. Who the hell do you think you are?!

Hopefully, I am needlessly worked up. The next several days will be instructive. How the 2022 midterms are conducted will portend the activism of the next couple of years. A satisfying endgame would be to see this MAGA movement as but one of several social-political episodes that occur periodically throughout American history. Like other unruly digressions of the aggrieved, it will soften and diminish, but nevertheless leave its mark on policy making for some time to come.

Long term, these societal spasms are likely necessary if democracy is to survive for centuries. However, they are weighed against other constants such as unconstrained elections and the tussle between freedom and equality. Striking a necessary balance between freedom and equality is truly an exercise in making sausage. It leaves democracy messy. However, let us not forget. Despite its innate churn, democracy contains within it the most civilized and just conception of how people are to live together that has ever been devised. Let us agree that its fundamentals should not be messed with.

“Toby! Toby! Where are you? Come here Toby!”

Toby was standing in the driveway of his family’s home gauging the wind speeds that morning by staring at the tops of a nearby stand of white pines. This meant he was close enough to hear his mother’s cries even with the windows closed. As was often the case, Mrs. Pelgren’s plaintive and desperate pleas were unrelenting once they started.

“Toby! I can’t do this alone. Come here, Toby! I need you!” Toby pivoted and slower than usual went for the side door of the house which let him into the kitchen where his mother was sure to be.

What is it this time?, he wondered. Something to do with his father most likely. Toby’s dad now required custodial care that was reaching the point beyond which Toby and his mother could competently manage. But the Pelgren’s, being who they were, did not consider obtaining additional care providers. Their situation was to be endured collectively, despite the burden each family member underwent individually.

“Yes, Mom?”

“Please sit down Toby before you go running off somewhere again,” Mrs. Pelgren said. “I need to talk to you.”

Toby sat obediently knowing more was about to be asked from him.

“I can’t do it all with your father, Toby. It’s just too much! Mrs. Pelgren looked at her son with her signature pained expression — the facial feature she seemed to wear most often nowadays.

“I know it’s difficult, Mom. You know I do what I can to help out Dad and I’ll do more as I have the time.”

“I hope so dear. I really hope so. It’s so tough. He needs so much. There is never enough time for me to do the things I need to do.” Mrs. Pelgren’s eyes became moist.

“I know Mom.” He did not like to see his mother in this state, but Toby knew he couldn’t change things. He stood up to go out to his car. He needed to get away from the house and his parents. As he walked behind his mother to get to the door he kissed her on top of her head.

Toby set the canoe into the river downstream about a half mile from where the river began to serve as a drain for the lake near the village. This stretch of the river required patience on the part of anyone hoping to navigate any kind of boat. True, a kayak would be more maneuverable when weaving in and out of the tangle of low-hanging boughs and half fallen trees that punctuated this wooded portion of the river. But Toby didn’t want to fish from a kayak. He grew up fishing with a canoe, was comfortable fishing with a canoe, and that was that.

Practice allowed Toby to zig and zag and work his way to the opening of a pond that was not too far downstream and which was cut off from houses and people due to its being surrounded by impenetrable wetland and the rough surrounding woods leading up to it. These same conditions made back casting during the summer in this small pond nearly impossible, so Toby decided to try wading.

Given the lack of rain ten days prior the water depth was manageable for his waders and he knew from past experience that the muck on the bottom in certain spots would not be too gummy. Toby was particularly excited to use some caddis flies his friend Dave had made. With the boat secure Toby waded in from the pond’s edge and spent the next three hours catching several 10-inch brook trout.

As Toby stood thigh-deep into the water of the still pond his mind vacillated between two states of awareness. One sensitivity involved being absorbed by the nature encircling him. The natural world and God were one and the same for Toby. There was no distinction. The shimmering light, the temperature of the water, the songs of birds, and countless other ambient expressions of nature at this time and in this space felt like caresses from the Creator.

The other impression occupying his consciousness was the seduction of fantasy. There were several at play. But they were all variations on a theme. They entailed Toby moving through life with confidence, finesse, and joy in his heart. Actions played out in locations that were imaginary — a reflection of his disdain for rootedness and routine.

Flipping between these mental states left Toby confused and imbalanced. It often did.

It happened again. Toby was in that place where he was too alert to nap, but to fatigued to function. He knew from experience that if he gave himself enough time he may eventually grab an hour or so of shut eye.

What intruded his thinking that afternoon was one of his reoccurring thought obsessions. Toby first read about this incident in one of the boy adventure books his grandmother used to give him at Christmas when he was younger. This book, the title of which was now long forgotten, consisted of a collection of tales meant to capture the interest and imagination of boys, who of course, liked risky and hazardous escapades. Perhaps Toby’s grandmother felt he needed a prod or two in that direction.

The yarn which struck Toby hard when he first read it at about age ten and which now was keeping him from sleeping was that of the wreck of the Monica Hartery. The Monica Hartery had been a seventy-three foot coasting schooner built in 1927 in Newfoundland and was being used by its owner at the time of its demise in 1933 as a trading vessel in and around the coast of Newfoundland.

In December of that year the Monica Hartley had sailed from Channel, Port aux Basques, Newfoundland to North Sydney, Nova Scotia to pick up a load of Cape Breton coal. The ship carried a crew of five.

After the coal was loaded, nasty winter weather set in. It delayed the departure of the Monica Hartery for several days. The crew members, all of whom ranged in age from 28 to 32, were anxious to set sail for Channel, Port aux Basques so they could be home for Christmas. Despite the continuing bad weather the impatient crew left North Sydney on December 23.

It is known that the night of December 23 and into the early morning hours of December 24 in 1933 the southwest coast of Newfoundland experienced a furious wind and blinding snow. A portion of the schooner’s decking was discovered floating near the entrance of Rose Blanche harbour, some forty-six kilometers to the east of Channel, Port aux Basques, on Christmas Eve. Later that day three bodies were found washed ashore nearby. A fourth was discovered three and half weeks later.

Toby felt so sorry for the lost crewmembers and their families. It seemed so unfair. Injustice disturbed Toby very much. And God was being very unjust on that day in 1933. The men just wanted to get home for Christmas. What kind of God would do such a thing! Toby still pondered the same thought.

Toby picked up the cappuccino for Nellie and a black coffee for himself. He balanced them carefully as he walked to the round high top table in the café where Nellie sat waiting.

“I’m glad I could get you to meet with me today, Toby,” Nellie said. “You’ve been hard to reach lately.”

“Well, you know. There’s work and there’s always stuff to do around my place,” was Toby’s response.

“Oh, yes. Your place. You mean your parent’s place, right Toby?” Nellie tried to make eye contact with Toby as she spoke, but his gaze would not meet hers. He looked downwards instead.

“Yeah, well, our place. I live there too,” said Toby still avoiding Nellie’s eyes.

“When are you going to get out of there, Toby? It’s way past time, don’t you think?”

Toby had feared Nellie would do this if they met for coffee. They had been friends since first grade and they knew each other well. Maybe too well was how Toby felt at that moment.

“It’s not so easy, you know, Nellie. Dad is sick as shit and Mom is going batshit trying to take care of him. I have to be there right now to help out.”

“Yeah, it’s too bad about your dad.” Nellie paused. “But you’re going to have to get of there sometime. You’re not going to be one of those losers whose always living with his parents, are you?”

Toby winced slightly. Nellie noticed. “I’m only trying to help you, Toby.”

Clearly Nellie was being impatient with him. Toby did not like it that she was.

“We’re going over to Jimmy’s shop after work, Toby. How about you coming with us?” It didn’t often happen that the guys Toby worked with would ask him to join them for beers after work.

Toby hesitated before responding. It left just enough time for Larry to quip, “C’mon Toby, drink a beer with us!”

“Sure. Thanks. OK,” Toby stuttered. The invitation left him floating somewhere between grateful and anxious. He knew he should do this. It is healthy and good to interact with others Toby was often told. But social situations almost always left him a bit fearful.

So, the four of them that comprised the crew of Don’s Landscaping hopped into their pick-ups and went over to Jimmy’s garage, which served as a tinkering workshop for many of Jimmy’s crafty hobbies and also as a man cave where beers were drunk and cigarettes and joints were smoked.

After his second Bud Light Toby knew he had had enough, but as was often the case at times like these he wasn’t quite sure how to extricate himself from the gathering. “Gotta go,” Toby said as he straightened himself up from the folding metal chair.

“But Toby”, said Don. “We want to hear more about what you think, you know about the big stuff. Life. And what it all means. You’re the thinker here. You got your ideas cooking up there. Give us regular guys some of your wisdom.”

Toby was the quiet one at work. He did his tasks silently and rarely got involved with the dramas that always seemed to occupy the other guys. Whenever he did give an opinion on some matter there were winks and nods and comments like, “So, this is what the professor thinks, guys!”

Toby didn’t mean to sound different from the others. He really did want to fit in.

“Sorry, but I got nothing more for you today. Thanks for the beers. See you tomorrow.” Toby walked out of the garage to the sound of three guys shouting, “Awwww!” and laughing loudly.

“OK, Toby!” Don yelled. “Maybe next time!”

Toby’s father was ill. It had been nearly two years since Mr. Pelgren began to display debilitating symptoms. He was devoid of most of his energy. He tried to navigate his thoughts through a sea of brain fog. And he was chronically short of breath.

“Hi Dad,” Toby called out as he entered the living room walking by the dusty old recliner where his father most often slumped.

“Hi son,” Mr. Pelgren said.

The sun was rising. The television was on. Domestic details were all in their place that morning, including poor old Mr. Pelgren in his chair.

“Do you want me to take you for a drive today after work, Dad?”

Mr. Pelgren angled his head ever so slightly in Toby’s direction. “Maybe, Toby. Let’s see how I’m doing then, OK?”

“Sure, Dad. We’ll see how you’re doing then.”

Mr. Pelgren returned to staring at the TV with his now typical blank and absent glare. Mr. Pelgren’s gaze told Toby that his father did not comprehend a thing going on with the television program. But Toby also picked up on the fact that his dad did not seemed distressed or in pain. He was just there. Not comatose, but also not animated. I guess this is a good thing, Toby thought.

“See you, Dad. Gotta go to work.”

“Bye, Toby.”

Mr. Pelgren knew he was dying. Every element of his reality was colored by that fact.

Toby liked his alone time. He did not exclaim to others that he liked to be by himself. Everyone who knew Toby simply knew he preferred to be solitary.

There were spaces in the woods near his home that he had discovered as a boy and which he returned to often even as a young adult. These were among his places of solitude where Toby went when he needed to feel more grounded.

That sense of being rooted, of being stable, was far too elusive for Toby. What with work at Don’s Landscaping and the constant pressures coming from his parents combining to drain him of not just his energy but of his soul, Toby desired respite. The woods gave him peace. The towering pines and oaks were his sentries and his angels protecting him and providing comfort.

During the week passed, Toby tried to get along with people as he did most times, but much of the effort left him more spent than usual. So on this day, Toby walked along his trail, one he had trod enough over years to establish as his path, ushering him to the cliff.

The cliff was a granite outcrop shaped perfectly by the glacier which had scraped and shaped this land ten-thousand years ago. It was a forty-foot drop from the precipice to its base, which is where Toby built a campfire site of ringed stone about fifteen years prior. Beside it he placed a log he had found, which held a divot just right for him to sit on.

Toby did not light a fire that day. Instead he sat still scrutinizing the beech and poplars and maples nearby. He was restless. He felt it and examined the feeling as if on high looking down on himself, detached and disembodied. Toby thought that if he could just see the true cause of his anxiety, then he could somehow effect his emotions — make them more positive, more enlightened.

Despite his mental exertions, his unpleasant and restive mood remained. So, Toby just let the rustling of the leaves by the gentle breeze and the undertone of bird song wash over him as he continued to stare at the beech and poplar and maple trees.

Nellie called his phone. “Hi Toby! I’m going over to West Leb for some shopping. Want to come with me? I can pick you up.”

“Thanks, Nellie. Yeah. God knows I need to get away.” Here Toby paused. “But Nellie. Don’t be going on about how I need to leave home and strike out on my own and be independent and all of that kind of shit. Can you not be doing that today?”

“Sure. OK. I promise,” Nellie chirped. “You know how I feel about it, but I won’t stress out your fragile mind this afternoon. I’ll be over in about twenty minutes, OK?”

“See you then,” Toby replied.

Toby had known Nellie since they had attended elementary school together. They had been friends ever since. Toby used to get teased by the other boys for having a girl as his best friend, but in his heart Toby could never understand what was wrong with that.

One line Toby and Nellie never crossed was to refer to each other as boyfriend and girlfriend. Neither one of them ever pushed for that designation. They were simply happy to just be friends.

Nellie wanted to buy some clothes and other things that Toby did not pay much attention to. He wandered around the stores Nellie took him to looking at the merchandise with no particular interest in any of it. What caught his eye more was watching Nellie examining this and that as she determined which items to put into her shopping cart.

She has confidence, Toby thought. She doesn’t worry like I do.

Toby saw how Nellie’s countenance was genuine. Her appearance was relaxed. And the natural look on Nellie’s face settled into a slight smile even when there was nothing obvious to be grinning about.

Toby took comfort in observing these traits of Nellie’s. He was glad she had asked him to join her that afternoon. And she did not press him about how he needed to be more autonomous and separate himself from his family. Not once.

Toby could not shake the memory of what had happened back up at the hunting camp on Cooper Hill Road. He was passing the road’s entrance in his truck on the way to a job site. The incident had been four of five years before as best Toby could remember.

A group of fathers from the town, including his own, had taken their sons to do some bear hunting up at a camp some of the dads owned jointly. Toby did not want to hunt black bears, but his dad did, and Mr. Pelgren wanted Toby to join him.

One thing about the experience that began to grate on Toby’s nerves early on was when he observed a few of the men and lads baiting bears with old junk food from the town’s general store. It was stuff like stale Drakes Ring Dings and Devil Dogs and expired Hostess Twinkies. It seemed to Toby cheap and lazy and unfair to “hunt” bears that way.

Sure enough, Tim’s dad, Mr. Thurston, shot an adult black bear which sported a thin white crest on the side of its neck. He strung it up back at the camp for everyone to see. Mr. Thurston called for the boys to gather around, so he could demonstrate how to butcher the bear.

When time came around for Mr. Thurston to slit open the bear’s gut out fell bile-covered Drake’s Ring Dings, Devil Dogs, and Hostess Twinkies. Most of the junk food was still enclosed in its packaging.

All of the boys and some of the fathers laughed. Toby looked around him in disgust and his mind was suddenly transported to a state he rarely dwelt in.

“This isn’t funny!” Toby snapped. “This isn’t real hunting. It’s fucken’ gross!”

Everyone stared at Toby. Mr. Pelgren looked toward the ground.

“Hey, Pelgren,” Mr. Thurston called to Mr. Pelgren. “Your kid’s got a big mouth! If you don’t have the stomach for this Toby, look away.” The snide use of the word “stomach” made the guys laugh again. Mr. Pelgren looked up at his son with consternation, if not alarm. He knew this was not going to end well.

The next morning a note was found by Toby pinned to the cabin door of the room he was sharing with his father. It read, “Ur not wanted. Go hom.”

Toby and Mr. Pelgren left the hunting camp and the boys and their dads and went home. They were never invited back to the hunting camp.

It was one of those nights.

Toby laid awake in the dark of the bedroom he had had for as long as he could remember. The house had a deafening silence. Toby did not know what time it was. Three or four in the morning? He didn’t know and it didn’t matter. He was wide awake. A dream had awakened him. That he was sure of. But what the dream was about he did not know. He was left only with impressions and feelings, mere remnants, no clearly recalled details.

Toby propped himself up in bed and did not turn on the light deliberately so that he could more easily let his emotions flow through him. He had enough experience with his own style of emotional reflection to know to not fight his feelings or suppress them when they were potent enough to awaken him. His sentiments were guideposts, signs of changes to come.

That night he recognized anxiety, fear, and uncertainty. He also discerned anticipation — a type of expectancy which helped to smooth the rough edges of his more agitated feelings. These sensations were conspicuous enough, but for this night anyway, they did not carry the force to develop into some kind of actionable plans.

Instead, Toby sat in bed and in the dark suspended in what was like an ether consisting of part imagination and part objective reality. He communed with his demons and gave thanks to his angels while floating there. The wait until first light seemed to take forever. It often did.

As Mr. Pelgren declined, Mrs. Pelgren grew increasingly agitated. The combination made the Pelgren home insufferable. Toby knew what he could control and what he could not control. The circumstance he found his parents in he could not control. Realizing the lack of command he had gave him some degree of ease in an otherwise unbearable situation.

If Toby’s father understood or accepted his fate he did not let others, especially the members of his family, know about it. His energy and self-control lessened as his sullenness and despondency grew.

“How are you doing today, Dad?” was Toby’s typical line of greeting to start each day.

A grunt with flat affect was the usual reply.

“I’m sorry this is happening to you.”

“Yeah, well I’m sorry to.”

“Want to go for a ride today?”

“And have me shit up your truck seat again?”

“I’ll cover it proper this time.”

“No. I don’t think so.”

After a couple of minutes of silence except for the blaring television Toby asked, “I’m going to turn down the TV, alright Dad?”

“I don’t care.”

Toby lowered the volume. Mr. Pelgren stared at the television screen unmoved. The repeats of old shows from the seventies played on while Toby and his dad sat quietly. Toby felt trapped and sorry for his father and mother at the same time.

Mrs. Pelgren sat quietly by herself at the kitchen table gnawing on a fingernail and looking worried.

Loneliness was far from an all encompassing experience for Toby. He rarely felt lonesome. However, today was different. Toby wanted to be with Nellie. He wanted to be near her self-reliance and her serenity.

Toby texted her. -Hey, wass up?

-I’m trying to figure out this sewing machine.

-Sewing machine? What sewing machine?

-One my Grannie had.

-So, ur starting to sew?

-Yeah. Thinken about it.

-Since when?

-Since I decided to sew. -Did you text me for a reason?

-I want to hang out with you.

-OK. Come over. -I’m gonna stay with this machine though.

-OK. See ya soon.

By late that evening Nellie and Toby could stitch together two pieces of old fabric on Nellie’s Grannie’s sewing machine. They smiled at each other enjoying the thought that they had done something new together.

When Nellie hugged Toby goodnight at her kitchen door as he was leaving she kissed his left cheek. This was an unusual thing for Nellie to do. Toby liked it. A lot.

It was a Saturday morning in winter. The snowbanks on the side of Route 4A were still white and not yet showing the grime of late winter.

Toby was driving his truck, but he had no destination. This was a fantasy drive. That is what Toby called these drives when he just wanted to let his imagination expand unhindered. On that day, Toby’s mind was conjuring possible places he could be aiming for as destinations as he drove his truck.

He was envisioning places far away. Locations he saw on YouTube videos or on the several travel sites he liked to scan.

Toby first pretended to be going to Door County, Wisconsin. He remembered seeing a picture of a restored red pick-up truck parked against a blue painted barn with white trim. An apple tree was nearby. The picture made him feel peaceful. So he wanted to be in Door County.

From there he would drive north in Wisconsin and connect with U.S Route 2 heading west. He saw himself traveling across northern Minnesota trying to find the headwaters of the Mississippi River.

Toby’s next make-believe was of him feeling free and untethered driving mile after mile on Interstate 10 in Texas. He would explore the hill country west of San Antonio.

Finally, he pictured himself in Indiana parking his truck beside a cornfield just before its harvest. In his daydream he walked deep into the field of cornstalks, all of them taller than he was. He visualized becoming fearful that he would be lost amongst all that tall corn.

In the evening, he would feel content sitting alone in his motel room with his only task being to figure out where he was going to drive the next day.

I do not go out of my way to engage in political discourse with others as much as I used to when I was younger. This is especially true for people I do not know well. That said, my political radar is always up when interacting with people I have recently met by assessing their comments in an attempt to discern their political leanings. It’s a bad habit, perhaps, but that is the way it is with me. I like to size people up.

One such instance arose during the 2020 election season. A hard working builder, who was excellent at what he did and who I grew to respect, worked for us on a project we undertook for a couple of months. One day, he and I were chatting during one of his work breaks. I do not remember his exact words, but the clear message was that on the topic of Covid leadership, President Trump was doing a good job and he deserved to be reelected.

Any resistance to not respond dissolved in one, or maybe it was one and a half seconds. I retorted with something like, “The way I see it is that the guy was lucky to have been given about three years with blue skies and fair seas and no major crises to deal with. He gets his first major challenge and he clearly is blowing it.”

I was looked upon with a touch of seriousness and surprise. We quickly learned we were on opposite sides of America’s gaping political chasm. But all was cool. Neither of us was up for contentious verbal fisticuffs and so we moved on to other topics. However, he let his position rest with a parting comment. “Well, all I know is that I like my freedom.”

Freedom. Beside the right to live, I cannot think of a more commonly valued belief than personal freedom. The right of each individual to live as they choose to is powerfully cherished around the world. And here in the western democracies, it is one of the key driving forces in how we individually and collectively live our lives. I agree with my Trump-endorsing friend — I also like my freedom. A lot.

It becomes easy to conclude that a principle as venerated as freedom is must be unrestrained, fostered, and respected in an unlimited manner by society. If freedom is a good thing, then the more of it there is the better, right? Well, I am enough of a skeptic to think there are limits to virtually everything. If there are universal and supreme moral codes underpinning reality, as espoused by philosophers from ancient times to the present, then I think the number of such ideal forms must make a small list indeed. Beyond these divinely inspired universals it seems to me all other values derived by humans have limitations. Freedom is among them. What follows is my examination of the limits of freedom.

To begin, it is useful to define what I mean by freedom in the political and philosophical sense. Therefore, I define freedom thusly: Personal freedom or individual liberty is the right for each person to decide on their own the course they want to follow to live their lives free from intrusion or coercion by others, whether such constraint comes from government, groups, or individuals. 

I am trying to keep this definition simple and uncomplicated. I also want a working description which is unambiguous and one which I feel is generally agreed upon by most people. This interpretation meets these conditions, I think.

Assuming this definition of individual liberty contains wording commonly agreed to, the question then arises how such a mental construct was formulated. Has humankind always felt a yearning for freedom throughout recorded history or has this value evolved over more recent times? Also, what is at the core of people’s psychology that motivates so many to achieve lives characterized by personal liberty? Anyone reading these words will have lived their entire lives with an understanding, and probably an acceptance of freedom, similar to the way I am describing it. Such familiarity can make us think the concept of freedom as we now know it has always been around. But has it?

A useful exercise to better understand today’s views of freedom is to trace its historical underpinnings. A review of political anthropology yields one strikingly stark fact. Even among the oldest and smallest cultural bands of people there exists evidence of social control of individuals designed to mitigate person-to-person strife. Given the profound challenges of survival from prehistoric times on, cooperative behaviors were deemed necessary, if not crucial, to maintain continuity of the group and its individuals. Historically, group norms appear to hold more valuation than individual liberty. In fact, investigations of pre-historic peoples find these folk viewed families as the more basic human unit, not individuals.

In the history of western thought, we can find Plato expounding on the notion of justice, which it can now be said forms a foundation for the modern concept of freedom. As Plato was wont to do in his writings he presented dialogues, as they are known, in which philosophical instructional discourses are offered. A leading character in many of these dialogues is Socrates, who Plato accepted as a teacher and mentor. Socrates never wrote his teachings, but rather delivered them orally. Thanks to Plato, we know what Socrates taught.

In Plato’s best-known dialogue, The Republic, the theory of justice is raised. Plato, through his leading man Socrates, concludes that justice may be considered in two very different ways, one of higher value than the other. Hence, it is observed that human nature propels people to argue and occasionally fight for what is in their personal interests. This is fine until one is attacked by someone else pursuing their own interests. In other words, humans in their natural state are nothing more than a collection of self-interested units in perpetual competition for resources, which is it hoped, will satisfy their individual desires.

To resolve constant conflict among skirmishing individuals a collective agreement is made by all to live within a set of just rules, thereby reducing conflict and leveling the playing field for each engaging individual. Sounds fair, right? But Plato and Socrates go further to state justice should be more than practical good behavior. Living justly or fairly they claim will result in a person being happy and content, a worthy goal in and of itself. Although it could be said that before agreeing to participate in a just set of rules with their fellow man, the individual was more free to act, but also more at risk of force from others wanting what they had. Raw individual freedom meant living with increased risk of despair and even death.

Once we leave ancient Greece we find that for the next two thousand years or so people in the west largely lived under two forms of social rule, neither one of which valued justice or personal freedom much. Monarchies, a form of totalitarianism at the time, and serfdom were systems under which unequal class-based stratification of people was the norm. The 1% vs. the 99% economic structure we hear about today was commonplace for much of our history. It is hard to say any member of the 99% was very free when the majority of power and wealth resided with the 1%.

As the Renaissance matured into the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, new thinking emerged regarding the idea of individual rights. Philosophers who delved into early science began to view the world as mechanistic and ruled by fundamental laws of matter in motion. This Newtonian perspective set the stage for a reexamination of what made nature, and by extension, people tick. As heavenly bodies and objects here on earth are guided by natural laws, then too humans must be compelled and choregraphed to act as they do by predetermined principles.

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) set the stage for viewing human behavior from this novel mechanistic position during this time. To understand Hobbes’ role in the formation of a right to individual liberty we can begin with his assessment of human nature. Note that Hobbes lived to see first hand the causes and consequences of the English Civil War during the 1640s. This monumental conflict pitted the supporters of the English monarchy, and their King Charles I, against the rising power of the English Parliament led by Oliver Cromwell. Eventually, the Parliamentarians defeated the Royalists establishing England as a republic. However, the fratricide which took place heavily influenced Hobbes’ writing of political theory.

Hobbes observed people similarly to Socrates and Plato in that he agreed they were essentially driven above all else by self-interests. He goes into great detail describing what he calls the State of Nature. Chiefly, Hobbes is saying the only natural authority among people is that of the parent-child relationship. Beyond this primary bond, everyone is in a scramble for getting what they want and avoiding what they do not want — a kind of law of the jungle.

The good news according to Hobbes, is humans proclivity to reason. By way of rational means people can agree to live together civilly. And civil order was a very big deal to Hobbes. Without it, people were little more than anarchical beasts. So given this reality, Hobbes promotes the first systematized Social Contract Theory. To form a civil society, people must first agree that giving up some degree of personal freedom is necessary so that all may thrive in life free of the fear of violent discord. Next, people must also consent to selecting a person or group of people with the authority necessary to enforce the social contract, i.e., a form of governance.

Where Thomas Hobbes loses many people is with his contention that the best type of social contract obliges people to obey the leadership of what calls a sovereign. What he means is a king or queen. Although not a strict Royalist during the Civil War — he did find merit in the Parliamentarians claim of representative government — he nevertheless placed significant importance in the capacity of a benevolent monarch who could best bring about law and order and tranquility to society. His Social Contract Theory was an attempt to forge a compromise between the two sides. Regardless, Hobbes’ aspiration was to encourage a socially civil arrangement among people, without which society would devolve into the primitive and hazardous State of Nature.

The notion of depicting a State of Nature of humankind, in other words social aggregates free of any external or internal government-like controls, continued to be the starting point for political theorists attempting to specify appropriate parameters of social control up to modern times. John Locke (1632-1704), another prominent English political philosopher and younger contemporary of Hobbes, adopted the Hobbesian approach of characterizing completely free and unconstrained people in a social context. However, Locke was less dire and pessimistic in his appraisal of human nature. Where Hobbes saw a dearth of moral temperance among people, Locke saw an opportunity for people to be naturally free and fulfilled.

John Locke recognized the individual freedom inherent in the State of Nature, but rather than being intimidated by its disruptive potential, Locke envisioned enormous benefit and possibility for people to live unrestricted lives of purpose. Locke’s relative optimism resulted from his belief that people were moral creatures and therefore capable of much more self-control than Hobbes gave them credit for. The basis for Locke’s proclaimed widespread morality was what he called the Law of Nature, which was given to all people by God. The divine Law of Nature dictates that humans not impair one another, but rather respect each person’s “life, health, liberty, and possessions”. Less government with its checks and regulations is necessary, because a moral population simply does not need management. Instead, they are kept in line by accepting God’s word.

Locke was not too Pollyannaish, however. Another component of the Law of Nature was that people could and should defend themselves from unscrupulous behavior, which Locke recognized did exist. Therefore, a degree of civil authority was warranted. Also, Locke revered the concept of property ownership. The image of a man communing with nature, by for example tilling a piece of land and producing food, was seen as a hallowed endeavor.

Locke began to speak of man as having rights — a radical idea for the times —  to live as he chose and to own what he acquired within moral reason and limits. Perhaps some readers will recognize the ethic of Thomas Jefferson in this description of John Locke. The American Declaration of Independence is a powerful reflection of Locke’s thought, and yes, Jefferson was indeed heartily inspired by him. So, where Hobbes advocates for a strong authoritarian sovereign to protect people’s lives, Locke’s vision of a social contract is in support of a minimalist government to protect people’s rights. Their core difference in defining social contracts and civil authority results from their extreme dissonance in defining human nature.

The next chapter of examining the transformation of social thinking with regards to liberty takes us to the reasoning of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Rousseau was a French intellectual, who became one of the pillars of the Enlightenment and a key provider of the rationale for the French Revolution of the 1780s and 1790s. He became enthralled with the investigation of the State of Nature, Social Contract Theory, and the concept of individual rights begun by Hobbes and Locke.

An interesting twist in our tale is the belief Rousseau held regarding the State of Nature. He contended that humankind prior to becoming civilized lived in a pure, natural, and idyllic state. Individuals were inherently free to live in harmony with nature and with each other. There was minimal strife and competition among people, due to their small numbers and the plenitude of nature. Rousseau claimed these early humans were kind and gentle and practiced caring for one another. This view is a polar opposite of Hobbes’ outlook toward human nature.

Once progress and civilization occurred in response to a growing populace and establishment of communities people’s lives became bifurcated into work and leisure times. A consequence of these changes was that life became easier due to innovations and the growth of specialty trades, however people began to compare themselves to one another leading to a proliferation of negative traits such as vanity, jealousy, shame, and loathing. In particular, Rousseau blames the establishment of private property as a monumental cause for man’s “fall from grace”. Note, the stark difference between this position and Locke’s concerning property ownership.

Rousseau saw the onset of private property as resulting in class distinctions. Either one owned property or one worked for someone who did. Wealth and power in time became concentrated among the property owners. Unsurprisingly, this was a situation property owners wanted to preserve. To do so, governments were established to make laws skewed toward the interests of the ownership class and away from the interests of those who worked for them. Rousseau recognized this state of affairs as indeed being a social contract, but an unjust one.

Realizing it was futile to imagine humans going back to the original State of Nature, Rousseau set out to envision a more equitable and humane social contract for the modern era. Beginning with his contention, “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains”, Rousseau suggests a social contract composition that essentially attempts to reconcile how people can live freely and together simultaneously. From the starting point of humans being free in their natural state, he opposes any notion of authority being legitimately derived from an entitled social class, such as the rich, and he vehemently rejects any conviction in a divine right of royalty to rule. Since we all start off life on earth free and equal, leadership which is needed to ensure the rights of people to live as freely and equally as possible, must arise from the consent of a free and equal community of people.

Rousseau therefore proposes the concept of a communal or general will derived from the input of all and which takes into consideration the interests of all groups and individuals in the population — in other words, direct democracy. To submit to a general will, individuals must renounce a degree of their distinctive and discreet freedom. Rousseau essentially tells us that not everyone can get all they want all of the time without taking into consideration the needs and wants of others. We are instead encouraged to submit to the conditions of a freely and equitably determined general will, including in the selection of authority.

Society is more than a collection of individual interests, Rousseau tells us. A synergy must be reached establishing a greater good for all persons to live as freely and fairly as possible. Achieving this state is more important than the interest of any one individual. Acceptance of this type of social contract best addresses the corruption which arose from our loss of the original State of Nature. If this requires that citizens be forced by law and tradition to conform to the parameters of the general will, then so be it. This is the Rousseau doctrine.

What Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau wrought is debated to this day. Their formation and refinements of Social Contract Theory has led in large part to the style of democratic governance practiced around much of the world today and which is under threat in some countries, including in the United States. More on that later.

To conclude our look at how Social Contract Theory has shaped individual liberty, I should mention one more political philosopher, John Rawls (1921-2002). After a long interlude of applying assessments of the State of Nature and Social Contract Theory to specify how societies should function ethically and legitimately, Rawls picked up the work of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau and utilized a novel approach. In his landmark work, A Theory of Justice published in 1971, Rawls conducts an abstract but useful thought experiment.

In place of the State of Nature, Rawls imagines what he calls an Original Position in which humankind, cloaked behind a “Veil of Ignorance”, determines what is the most just kind of society. Picture this. There is a diverse collection of people: women, men, all ages, all races, straight, gay, abled, disabled, rich, poor, etc. None of them interact with or even know about one another. They are not aware of human history with its prejudices, successes, or failures. Each individual knows only one thing, which is to settle rationally on the conditions or social contract necessary for what will be the most fair society possible for all of its inhabitants.

Rawls claims this imaginary planning group will naturally decide on two core principles. The first is that each and every individual in society is to have the most civil liberty or freedom as possible. No one would be more or less free than anyone else. The second principle recognizes the impracticality of thinking social and economic parity or equality will ever be fully achieved. Therefore, social and economic inequality can be considered just only if social and economic rewards are available and obtainable by each individual, whether or not each individual chooses to strive for them. In short, in a just society everyone is free to pursue their interests and values and no one is to be denied freedom of choice and opportunity.

I have chosen to examine the limits of freedom through the lens of Social Contract Theory because I find it the best way to track the history of thought and practice regarding humankind’s pursuit of the ultimate freedom each individual in a society can expect to express. I am not aware of such a concentrated philosophical and social attempt to address individual liberty elsewhere in the world.

So, what are we to make of all of this? To live freely will firstly be determined at the level of the individual. Each person will have their own interpretation of what freedom means and how much of it is desirable for their unique life circumstances. A fully functioning fair society must be able to accommodate this range of renditions — up to a point.

To identify where this point is located begins with a reading of human nature, not unlike what occurred with the philosophers mentioned above.  As cited in Hamilton/Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” I think it is fair to say, not all “men” are angels. Although some segment of our population is certainly comprised of wonderful souls traversing the expanse from being kind to Buddha-like, there is also unfortunately a significant number of greedy, self-centered, abrasive, and downright unpleasant people out there who would just as soon roll you over if it would be to their advantage. Maybe early humans were the caring and gentle creatures Rousseau characterized, but many sure are not now.

This unmistakable reality forces society into articulating limits to the behaviors demonstrated by individuals. One’s conscience, thoughts, and emotions have always been and hopefully always will be free of coercion and manipulation. But behavior is something else. Quite simply, if one’s freely chosen actions restrict the ability of another individual to act as they choose, then an imbalance has occurred. Whether this imbalance is justified, in other words fair, a reasonable consensus must be present. Typically, limitations to freedom occur for widely agreed upon reasons such as the need to preserve public order, national security, moral values, or the freedom of fellow citizens.

Defining freedom for a society, including its limitations, is where the device of a social contract can be very helpful. Codifying liberty, as can be done in the process of drafting, debating, and ratifying a constitution or also in judicial interpretations, can spell out the essence and parameters of socially acceptable free conduct. In the case of the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights and the remaining seventeen amendments to the Constitution that follow specifically define what it means to be free in the USA. In America and in many other parts of the world, freedom is expressed as highly precise and fundamental rights. Government exists in large part to protect these individual rights.

However, the concept of social contracts has come under criticism. A contract implies that at least two parties negotiated the terms and conditions of the contract. Regarding the U.S. Constitution, the bulk of the negotiating was done between 1787 and 1789 by the members of the Constitutional Convention. It is true, amendments to the Constitution require the input of Members of Congress and state governments over time, but largely the people living in America today did not negotiate or sign on to the social contract. We were literally born into its rules and values and raised to follow them.

Another criticism pertains to who sets the terms and conditions of the social contract. If the drafters of a constitutional-like document are those who control most of the society’s wealth and power, such that they write terms which protect their elite status rather than to universally disperse the benefits of rights across the entire population, then the social contract can rightly be deemed as unjust.

I would like to conclude this essay by mentioning the bizarre contortions freedom is undergoing in the American politics of 2022. If there was ever any doubt that former President Donald Trump had autocratic designs for himself and for his country, these were clearly dispelled on January 6, 2021 with the Capitol insurrection. We all witnessed a sitting U.S. president try to steal a legally and constitutionally conducted 2020 election in favor of himself. Trump told the country and his supporters that he was trying to save the country. In reality, he was trying to destroy democracy.

As I indicated at the start of this piece, Trump’s supporters claim they are lovers of personal freedom. I do not doubt that. The question becomes how best to ensure freedom’s continuance in America. Is it through autocracy or through democracy? Let us take a look at what autocracy is.

The opening line of the Wikipedia entry for autocracy reads: Autocracy is a system of government in which absolute power over a state is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject neither to external legal restraints nor to regularized mechanisms of popular control. I could offer other definitions, but this one sums it up quite well. In my judgment, and I am certainly not alone, this is what Donald Trump offers America.

Look at the current international order or at the world at any point in its history. Where is there evidence of freedom loving people living contently under autocratic rule? None can be found. Absolute power concentrated in the hands of one person is the antithesis of shared power, hence no liberty. Fair play requires each citizen, including and especially the president, to work for the betterment of the public good. A flourishing and prosperous citizenry demands independent and collective contributions from all within a free society, not the dictates of one person.

To jointly support individual liberty and Donald Trump, or any other autocrat, makes no sense. Americans must choose. They are either on Team Autocracy or Team Democracy. For the sake of freedom loving peoples everywhere, let us hope Americans — and all other lovers of liberty around the world — will choose wisely.

Provocations

All Drunks are skid row bums living in donated tents under bridges.

All Trump supporters are racist backwoods rednecks.

All Techies are self-obsessed nerds with no social skills.

All Lefties are self-righteous, insular, uncompromising prigs.

All Children are whiny, self-interested, unsophisticated brats.

All Pro-gun nuts are fearful, paranoid, faux courageous extremists.

All People of color are lazy and unreliable and always looking for a hand out.

All Whites are privileged, wealth hoarding, power hungry aristocratic wannabies.

All Christians are holier-than-though, intolerant, nationalist, white supremacists.

All Suburbanites are socialist sympathizing and corporate consuming phonies.

All Democrats are bleeding heart, atheistic, pie-in-the-sky spendthrifts.

All Republicans are cheap, selfish, cold-hearted, hidebound fuddy-duddies.

All Poets are naval gazing egotists who believe other people care what they think.

Soul Energy

My cursory study of

quantum mechanics

has hit a snag.

It seems to me

rightly or wrongly

that all matter is really

just energy.

All there is

is energy

behaving in different ways.

Energy behaves.

Now what? I ask.

Science is leaving me

stranded in a cul-de-sac.

Then I think, well,

what about

the energy which is

in all of us humans?

The energy giving us life.

The energy that existed

before we were born and

will exist after we die.

Soul energy.

Our soul is the eternal energy

expressing itself in each of us

individually.

Something to ponder for a while

I think.

Bread and Butter

He wore the same

baker whites as my father.

An old, kind, quiet man,

who took an interest in me.

I, a small boy.

He, a kitchen worker.

The slices of white bread

were toasted a light brown.

With the broad knife

he scooped a generous portion

of butter from the crock.

A quick spread, evenly distributed,

and placed before me.

The toast tasted delicious!

I am mystified

why such a memory

of a mundane moment

has stayed with me

for so very long.

It was nothing special,

just a warm, pleasant, and caring

experience.

That is all it was.

I guess, that is all it needed to be.

Where Is She?

It has been 36 years

since she implanted herself

outside of the uterus.

The growing union of cells

survived for some days and weeks.

How many is unknown.

Her destiny was to not be.

Her presence became a danger.

Her life force needed to be

snuffed out in order to

save her mother.

Her soul

as rich as anyone’s

needed to find a new

cluster of cells

in which to flourish.

I want to believe

she found it

and is living

a thriving life.

Excuse me

while I cry.

Mortality Dream

It happened again last night.

I awoke

gently

at about 3:00am.

I recognized the feeling.

I have felt it before.

More and more frequently

in recent months and years.

The dream that awakened me

has no memorable content

or occurrences.

Only a theme.

My life is coming to an end.

Not imminently,

or so I think

and hope.

But my advanced age,

my eventual demise,

occupies a more prominent

position in consciousness,

both when awake

and asleep.

I felt no fear.

Only sadness.

By 5:00am

I crawled back into bed.

She, in her sleep, reached over to

touch me.

At that moment

I felt blessed and

returned to sleep.

Angst

We begin with the angst of childhood

Being concerned about being loved.

Then comes the angst of adolescence

Do I have enough friends?

The angst of young adulthood is weightier still

I must measure up to what a normal adult is. I must.

Oh, the angst of middle age

So much to hold together — marriage, finances, work, kids!

Late career angst can also bite

Planning a well-earned retirement in Shangri-La requires a lot of fantasy.

To live long enough for post-employment angst

Making that fixed income last while sliding toward senility and decline.

And finally — the simple angst of end of life

Being concerned about being loved.

Prints in the Snow

The snowfall was heavy.

The cold was deep.

From the window I saw

the blanket of blanco

lay soft, firm, and virgin.

As days passed

the snow became speckled

with small disparate prints.

They would appear in

morning.

Made during the frigid

night.

Noticed by me throughout the

day.

Why, I wonder, are they expending energy

by moving about

on this patch of frozen landscape?

Who made them?

Squirrels, deer, fox,

a lone turkey separated from its rafter,

or the elusive fisher,

whose screams we have heard at night

like a lost freighted child calling out for help.

Protected and comfortable

in my woodstove-heated home

I try not to anthropomorphize

their plight.

But I do anyway.

God Will Save Me

(Remembrance of a story once told.)

Come away from the edge!

You could fall into the water!

Not to worry.

I am religious.

God will save me.

The boat lurched starboard and in he fell.

Here! Grab this life ring!

Not to worry.

I am religious.

God will save me.

A rescue boat appeared along side him.

We have come to save you!

Not to worry.

I am religious.

God will save me.

He went under.

Lungs filled with water.

He drowned.

At the Pearly Gates he approached God.

I have long worshipped you!

Why did you not save me?

God looked down upon him kindly.

I gave you ears for listening to others.

I gave you fingers for grasping onto helping hands.

I gave you a mind for reasoning.

The question should be,

Why did you not use your God-given gifts?

Uppers and Downers

Homeostasis is so

elusive.

Like a statistical norm it

exists in ether

not in our real lives.

Energy can be difficult

to direct.

Its simple options are

to go up or

to go down.

Like a constant

calibration.

Turn energy up or

turn energy down.

This way or that way.

Reach for the upper

to be productive

to feel exuberance

to practice acuteness

to enjoy wakefulness.

Reach for the downer

to relax

to be reflective

to go adrift

to smell life.

Equilibrium,

Sustainability,

Balance,

Perseverance,

Homeostasis,

is the ultimate goal.

The Old Family Photos

With hesitant

but expectant

fingers

he opens the old photo

albums.

To even hold

these collections

is stepping back

to distant times

long gone,

but residing still

in presents past.

His emotions are

mixed.

Warmth, sadness, and

subdued happiness.

A stark reminder

of gifts he had

been given

and squandered

by being less

than he should

have been.

Love and regret,

grateful and apologetic.

Reminded of Thoreau,

“The mass of men live lives

of quiet desperation.”

Unfortunately,

he joined the family

of these men.

Such a turn of events

for a rich life

endowed with beautiful

children and wife.

A seminal event in the development of machine learning occurred over a two-month period during the summer of 1956—about a half-hour drive from where I am now writing—at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. The year before, an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at Dartmouth, John McCarthy, generated the idea of compiling an eclectic group of talent who were to be tasked with conducting an original type of prognostication in an area so new that he needed a fresh term to describe it. Professor McCarthy coined a label for his proposed conference’s topic…Artificial Intelligence.

Although a decade before Gordon E. Moore of Intel prophetically surmised the doubling of transistors on a given unit of space could occur every two years, known over the years as Moore’s Law, by the 1950s it was becoming clear that the rate of electronic functionality and efficiency was improving exponentially. Given this background, John McCarthy set out to investigate the potential of this trend by bringing together an interdisciplinary potpourri of researchers from fields as diverse as cognitive science, electrical engineering, communications, neuroscience, information theory, psychology, mathematics, and computer science. Their mission for what became the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence can best be summarized by the following sentence extracted from Professor McCarthy’s 1955 conference funding proposal: “The study is to proceed on the basis of the conjecture that every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it.” Such was the launch of one of the most revolutionary movements of our time.

Artificial Intelligence, or AI as it has become commonly known, is simply intelligence displayed by machines. Beyond this terse definition nothing about AI is simple. Nor is it docile. AI is already shaping our world in ways never before seen. We now live with tools such as search engines, robotic automation, virtual product recommendations, and data-driven medical diagnostics to name just a few of the innovations unheard of by most people only a generation or two ago. And on the horizon? Self-driving cars, self-learning cybersecurity systems, robotic assistants for the elderly, and tailored genomic medicines merely begin the dazzling list of inventions coming our way. AI has already demonstrated potential for disrupting and altering the way we live our lives and we are just getting started.

The volatile and variable nature of AI agency prompts me to examine this phenomenon in some detail and with some urgency. At present, AI portends to be either a source of life enhancing opportunities or a basis for grievous intrusions and dislocations that could threaten our way of life. Its strength may deliver possibilities or burdens. Given this potency it is incumbent upon us to fully and intentionally participate in examining, monitoring, and directing the course of AI development. It’s not as if this phenomenon is some act of God beyond our control. It is manmade. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves, are we going to steer AI advancement or is AI going to drive us?

I approach this inquiry as a lay person. I have no significant education or experience in subject matter related to AI or machine learning, including mathematics, computer science, robotics, cognitive modeling, information theory, data science, or any of the other sub-disciplines that go into the structure of AI. I am just a John Q. Citizen who is interested in technological change and what adaptations it can bring to individuals and society. Counter-intuitively, my non-technical background highly qualifies me to look into the possible ramifications of AI. And I should not be alone in doing so. When science becomes so abstract that average people simply resign themselves to letting the smarty-pants of the world make the profound decisions of how we are to live our lives, then we have a problem. I think it best to welcome the benefits AI can bring to us, while maintaining skepticism and a wary eye about its possible perils.

It is tempting to think that AI will display its power largely as a source of new products and services for the universe of consumers always eager to be swept away by the newest shiny object. Technological innovations often reveal new and improved ways of completing common tasks. Undoubtedly, expanded capacities will emerge allowing consumers to benefit from a myriad of novel ways to perform daily life functions. However, AI will manifest itself broadly by transforming employment and by extension how we live our day-to-day lives. This historic interchange between employment and how we structure our lives appears to be on the verge of a mammoth AI metamorphosis.

For better and for worse we have been at a similar economic and social crossroads before. It may be useful to consider what transformations the last great such revolution yielded as we ponder how to best be prepared for the AI insurgency. Two hallmarks of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe were the rise of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. The Scientific Revolution ushered in new ways of comprehending the essence of natural materials and phenomena, which resulted from a newly developed thought process, inductive reasoning, while the Enlightenment encompassed a multitude of ideas leading to individual empowerment and the pursuit of just government. Together the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment set the stage for the Industrial Revolution.

Much of the world we know is the way it is because of the Industrial Revolution. Starting in England, where modern science largely took hold, and spreading quickly to many places across the globe, economies transitioned from homebased craft and agrarian work to factory-based machine production. This conversion led to many benefits such as more affordable and plentiful life enhancing goods and services, effective means of transportation, labor saving devices, and medical advances. For many non-aristocrats, wealth generation became possible and the rise in specialty professions developed. But these gains came with costs. The rapid migration of rural folk into industrialized cities, which were ill equipped to handle the influx, created inadequate, overcrowded, and disease-ridden housing. Increases in pollution, environmental degradation, and dangerous working conditions were also consequences. The lesson we can take from the historical shift of muscle to machine is that great advantages can and probably will come from fundamental economic pattern volatility, but these boons have great potential for trailing along a load of detriments and handicaps.

The Industrial Revolution impacted whole societies by changing how people lived. It ushered in an era of mass production and mass consumerism. Commensurate with this shift arose large corporate businesses, labor unions, immigration, government regulation, rural vs. urban issues, broad-based taxing, higher education, and improved widespread communications. Scientific progress introduced professional expertise in the form of rational problem solvers with job titles such as engineer, manager, and accountant.

The new AI revolution will likely rock the world similarly. When considering the scope and scale of such monumental change it can seem like it is beyond being managed. It can appear like a runaway train. Therefore, it may be helpful to view this latest grand social transition as primarily an economic one. Economics implies that what is underway is determined by people. Economics is a social science that simply cares about the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics is not controlled by external forces of nature or acts of God. We are not trying to control a competing power. Rather we are trying to control ourselves. Choice and decision making among people is involved in executing economics and it should also be entailed in how we face the rollout of AI.

Fortunately, in regards to human agency and control, a crucial difference between the economics of the AI revolution versus the Industrial Revolution involves centralization or incorporation. The Industrial Revolution engendered a corporate approach to group organization. Large collections of people amassed with a common purpose and legal authority to execute objectives, such as transacting business under a single name. Institutionalization became a widespread structuring principle across business, government, and society in general. People found that in order to benefit from this economic order they had to adopt and adjust to these institutional systems, including their rules, their schedules, and their cultures. Depersonalization and objectification ensued.

However, the novel technology and information world order we are now experiencing is by nature more networked and distributed and less concentrated. Therefore, it should be possible for individuals to exercise more control over their engagements, even if this means diluting somewhat the power of institutions. New grassroots organizing constructs based on ad hoc resiliency that combine global talent as needed has empowerment potential for people. Fitting AI into this type of schema, whereby individuals collaborate with both distributed talent and AI to realize goals is a possibility. To the extent AI can be harnessed in a blended sharing of ideas and solutions the more command people have over the direction of the future. Let’s utilize AI to help invent our tomorrow.

It may be helpful to envision exactly what kind of tomorrow we wish to have for ourselves. Clarifying an image of an optimal future allows us to strategically orient our resources, such as AI, to realize a destiny of our own intentional making. And as I suggest, AI can be one of our key resources or it could be a serious impediment.

Cultivating a positive collective future begins of course with projecting what is best for each individual. A reasonable contention is that the greater the number of happy or content individuals present in society, then the more satisfied the society will be as a whole. Achieving this state is really very non-technical. Technology alone is not necessary for individuals to be grateful for what they have, devoted to family and positive friends, having an optimistic demeanor, living in the present, and feeling dignified and purposeful. 

In addition to these very important psychological conditions we can include an economic perspective to round out our ideal vision of the future. Economics, more than psychology, can be shaped and influenced by institutional and governmental policy initiatives. The resulting economic model of exemplary standards will need metrics utilized to determine if desired goals are being achieved. To be comprehensive, a blend of quantitative and qualitative assessments need to be applied.

To start, let’s not rely too much on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is a monetary appraisal of the market value of all goods and services produced over a period of time. GDP has been widely accepted as a broad metric of the national economy for decades and by inference how well people are doing. High GDP rankings correlate with high growth economies, which traditionally is considered a good thing. Aside from the obvious problem of trying to distill as complex an edifice as a national economy to a single number, GDP is credited with encouraging a style of economic growth that manifests as resource depletion and pollution growth. In addition, for an economy with significant inequality, such as America’s, not everyone experiences GDP advantages evenly.

Zoë Baird, president of the Markle Foundation, is not alone in finding fault with GDP as an adequate measure of how Americans feel about the health of their economy, and by extension, their own lives. Rather, she proposes a more inclusive set of metrics, which highlight historic economic afflictions and begins to shape a more affirmative direction. They include evaluations of public sentiments, amounts of job creation, quantities of new businesses, indications of growing median income, signs of increased worker protections and training opportunities, and growing numbers of young workers. In short, if evidence of enhanced economic opportunity for all citizens to pursue high quality and secure work at good wages can be established, then we have at the very least constituted a foundation for widespread prosperity and happiness.

Staying with this theme of envisioning the general public’s best interests through economics we can note other useful perspectives. Daron Acemoglu of MIT points out that the greatest driver of shared prosperity are good jobs, i.e. widely available secure jobs with high wages. News flash, huh? When such employment opportunities occur within a milieu of rising productivity, persistent job formation, and equitable gains, then there is less social division and more sense of community. (As an aside for any Socialist leaning readers, Acemoglu sees proliferation of good jobs as a far more effective and preferable model than a shared prosperity paradigm of redistribution alone.)

Further public interest considerations involve democratic governance that takes into account the dignity of all citizens, prudent business regulation, worker rights protections, easily accessible high quality workplace education opportunities, and community development.

Let us now take a look at how AI is contributing to the realization of a positive future that includes the features just described. To date the record is spotty at best. The most significant concern is its inclination to enable entities to amass information and wealth. If left unchecked, this consolidation threatens to exacerbate wealth inequality among segments of the population, including among nations. Skills which benefit the AI industry will be favored with a corresponding deemphasis on skills which do not, leaving vast numbers of redundant workers, lower wages, and a decline in the tax base. A shift toward monopolistic behaviors have always occurred when a new game-changing technology has been introduced, whether railroads, oil production, telecommunications, etc. and there is no reason to think it will not happen again.

Particularly worrisome in these early days of AI are the directions of its deployment. Much of AI is targeted toward the automation of functions, the collection of data, and the conduction of surveillance. The loss of jobs occurring simultaneously with governments and business acquiring ever more quantities of our personal data threatens to disrupt social order and the future of democracy.

AI is being empowered to make decisions and to make “higher quality” decisions it needs to process ever more data. Algorithms are sequenced sets of instructions that guide AI in its decision making. Initially these are written by human programmers. Any biases which a programmer possesses can and does find it way into the algorithmic design. This can be apparent in the data selected for analysis by the algorithm. When AI decision making is scaled to impact large numbers of people these biases are amplified to a significant extent, thereby instituting discriminatory practices to a degree that can be hard to unwind.

AI is likely to boost profits for those entities controlling its mobilization. According to a McKinsey report, Alphabet (Google), Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix, Ali Baba, and Baidu control most of worldwide AI research expenditures. Erik Brynjolfsson, professor at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, points out that when technology replaces human labor wages decline and wealth concentrates. Job disappearance is not just a statistic. When people lose self-authority and motivation much more than just a job is lost. Are we to believe these mega-corporations are concerned about the rights and welfare of low-wage and minority workers, the work strain put on those working 70-hour weeks, or the social consequences of what they are unleashing? Perhaps, but I’m not entirely content on thinking so.

Our world is growing increasingly complex. The population is escalating and with it growing numbers of problems, more initiatives, expanding interactions, and multiplying challenges. The need for enhanced iterations of cognitive processing is upon us to address this intensification. The late Stanford University philosopher Kenneth Taylor referred to the overall cognitive load and the cognitive networks required to handle it. He saw cognitive networks as divided between humans and AI. Taylor’s anticipation was that the enormous degree of necessary cognitive labor will be tasked more heavily toward AI over time, simply because AI will be more efficient at manipulating this expansive load. If decisions require answers best made through coordination of vast amounts of information, then the machines will always be better than the humans. Therefore, it is incumbent on the humans to be sure cognitive networks are governed to distribute cognitive processing and decision making tasks such that humans remain a relevant part of the mix. Human workers need to insist they be targeted to resolve those issues for which humans are better qualified than machines.

Citizenry does not as a rule play a science oversight role. The closest we come is when we sit back and wait for science to send us new technologies which we either approve of or reject with our wallets. To think of ordinary citizens as overtly directing the progress of science seems almost ridiculous. But with regards to AI, this is what needs to happen. Concentrating vast power to a technology with so many inherent risks should not be an acceptable state of affairs. The people, the body politic, the proletariat must monitor, and when necessary, sway the development and deployment of AI such that the greatest good is realized by the greatest number of people.

To take on a citizen surveillance role begins with an agreed upon code of ethics. This is where we start becoming activists. Debate about what an AI ethic should look like will be a healthy exercise for society. Guidance on this issue can come from the work of Annette Zimmerman, a lecturer in philosophy at the University of York and an expert in understanding both the technology supporting AI and the social implications of such technologies. She encourages us to consider simple and common sense issues and ask key questions when thinking about AI. For example, just because a technology can be made, should it be made? Are the issues AI is made to address worth addressing? What is the AI’s objective? What is the likely effect of AI involvement? Might negative, unjust, or harmful consequences possibly result because of AI?

We don’t ask enough of these questions. Why don’t we? Zimmerman offers several reasons. Government has not yet been urged by voters to impose stringent regulations on AI developers. The right of AI businesses to make a profit supersedes prescribing any kind of watchdog at present. Furthermore, techno-optimists are encouraged to see AI as finally reaching an inflection point where its growth is becoming exponential. Also, an attitude exists wherein the public feels that high-end information technology is somehow sacrosanct and should be left to do its thing. Together, these conditions create social passivity just at a time when our guard should be up.

When looking at AI the core decision to be made might be, are the reasons for constructing an AI tool and continually improving it justified or should it just not be built at all. In short, is the proposed AI fair? As Rachel Thomas of the Center for Applied Data Ethics at the University of San Francisco points out, the established pattern for AI progress is too centralized among system designers and operators. As a preferred alternative, Thomas proposes that AI evolution be more democratic and participatory among end users and others impacted by AI. As we are seeing, a key component of AI ethics involves ordinary people being actively engaged and persuasive with both the corporate powerful and the individual AI design talent.

At Dartmouth College in 1956, John McCarthy and his cohorts saw the potential for every aspect of human intelligence as capable of machine simulation. Where this has gone over the past sixty-five years is that machine intelligence is focused almost exclusively on what Kenneth Taylor calls AI-as-engineering — deep learning machines that process Big Data looking for patterns from which to make predictions. This is but one slice of intelligence, but the one which at present is the most profitable, hence the most common in the AI industry.

Artificial Intelligence is here to stay. It will not and should not be eradicated. Great innovations will come from AI, leading to improved lives worldwide in ways that are just now being imagined. Progress which positively influences the greatest number of people possible should be welcomed, whether it originates with AI or not. However, we should never lose sight of the aims being devised for the use of AI’s power. We should be able to manage disruptions to our way of life. But degeneration should not be tolerated. Democracy, our glorious experiment in self-government, sanctions us to control the levers of power, including when necessary power in business. The time to do so is now.

Eyes flicker open. Another day dawns. The window reveals the morning sun breaking through what remains of the rain clouds. They have dominated the skies over the past few dreary days. Hope and possibility again seem likely. That familiar spark of energy is again kindled. My mind adjusts by reviewing and making plans with renewed enthusiasm and vigor. It is what gets me to stand up, stretch, and step forward.

This cycle has repeated itself countless times. It has led to much productivity and a feeling of purpose, in large part defining who I am. But today is different. This time the spirit is somewhat muted. A recognition sets in leaving me feeling that this routine has become repetitive and therefore incomplete. There is an urge to make a change—to add value and progress to a life that in many ways has atrophied. I determine to go through the day’s activities, but decide to let run in the background of my mind a self-dialogue and reflection to put meaning to this morning’s elusive sense of scarcity. Today is a day for reflection and growth. I can feel it.

There is an inner drive, a potentiality that propels us to mature, no matter what our age. This force, sometimes referred to as conscience, is our integrity speaking to us. It prods, coaxes, and ultimately compels us to be more than we are. In my personal case, I know I have had ethical lapses, which have been profoundly hurtful to those I love. My awareness of this will not let me forget. When in despair, hope is needed. There is no time better than the present to make good.

Often, we choose to be too busy to listen to our inner voice. Living in a patterned and predictable manner is easier than to change. Change is chilling. Transformation is unstable. However, despite the insecurity of mental and behavioral shifting there comes a time when one just has to face a simple, but profound life truth. Evolution and self-improvement are inherent to who we are. And life becomes richer when we welcome this elementary precept.

Life enhancement and fulfillment is congruent with virtuous living, which is the topic I would like to explore in this essay. As you will see I dig into both personal reflection and some western philosophical thought for direction and guidance in examining this topic.

We all got the message as youngsters to be good. To be good was our first lesson in assimilation to society via our families. Being good and “following the rules” meant we would be more liked, have more friends, get in less trouble, increase our chance of getting into heaven after we die, and so on. The message to be good was most often delivered in a social context, as in our goodness was measured against how good others were. We were either as good as, better than, or worse than our siblings, neighbors, classmates, etc. Being good was meant to please an extensive cast of characters ranging from our parents to God. Rarely however in my youthful experience was being good taught to me as a virtue intended for my own personal edification.

This imperfect concept of goodness from our childhood is played out in our adult lives. It leaves ethical behavior, as important as it is, limited for many to merely a set of regulations and requirements guiding our interactions with each other. The moral precepts underpinning ethics become reduced to standards gleaned from sacred texts designed to bind society into some sort of manageable order. At some fundamental point adopting a virtuous or good life has to be what we do for ourselves, each of us individually, for the simple reason that being good is exalting and noble. We glorify ourselves not merely to bolster our fragile egos, but rather to realize the potential available for us all to live what the ancient Greek philosophers referred to as the eudemonic life—a flourishing life worth living.

I have come to perceive that good is much more than a commonly used adjective, as in the opposite of bad or how we feel at a given time. My current awareness of good as a concept carrying both significant weight and having a transcendent interpretation has been a long time in coming. In short, what I am now beginning to see is that there is good and then there is The Good.

An examination of Plato’s (~423 BCE–~348 BCE) landmark work in the Theory of Forms reveals how an early conception of The Good arose. Developed during the third and fourth centuries BCE, Plato considered the notion that the wide range of physical objects which we observe and comprehend in the world are derivatives of eternal, stable, and universal concepts, which became known as Forms. The Forms are the essences of all matter, substances, common objects, and even human traits, collectively known in this theory as Particulars, which we come to know through our senses and experiences.  For example, the Form or essence of a particular aging and changing dog would be its Dogness, the Form of a particular legal trial with its outcome of innocence or guilt is Justice, and the Form of a lovely work of art would be Beauty. Forms are constant. Particulars are temporal.

Forms have been described by various philosophers as “unqualified perfection”, “real entities of an immaterial sort”, “an objective blueprint of perfection”, “essential natures”, and “the archetypal ideal”. However over time, Plato began to speculate that there must be a relationship among all of these disparate Forms, one which played a unifying function. In his work The Republic, Plato reveals his presumption by introducing the existence of a Form of the Good—a kind of Form of Forms. The Form of the Good was seen as superior to and the source of all other Forms. What we see here is that Plato came to regard an all-encompassing uncorrupted order to the cosmos with morals and virtues as having ascendant qualities best captured in the Form of the Good. It is also not difficult to see how this Platonic vision of the Form of the Good, eventually known simply as The Good, morphed into our current understanding and widespread acceptance of God.

The ancient Greeks began the tradition of constructing a metaphysics of western thought that continues to this day. The prominent philosophers of this time like Plato came to realize there was a central orderliness to the universe. It naturally followed to them that this order was based in propriety and goodness. An organic optimism and positivity about the very nature of the universe has been a fundamental legacy of this philosophical history. To the extent humankind has thrived over the millennia is in large part attributable to this preeminent belief.

Now, a crucial criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms is not unlike the common charge leveled against a belief in God. If the universe is supported by a core consisting of The Good or God, then what explains evil? Perhaps, The Good or God is not so omnipotent after all given the existence of wickedness. Plato saw two possible explanations for this. One, is that there may be a dualism of orders in the universe, one of goodness and one of evil. However, the more plausible reason for immorality may be due to a privation or lack of goodness in some situations. For example, there is not an ideal or Form of criminality. Crime exists because of a deprivation of goodness in the criminal. In either case, good needs to be summoned or made intentional in order for it to be expressed. Virtue requires effort.

“Life is Good” is a popular contemporary proverb, which may be just a cliché for some, but for others these three unpretentious words zero in on why we bother to choose virtuous living. If we accept that the ordered universe is rooted in essential goodness, then aligning our lives with the righteous nucleus of the universe should be the principled way to act, if we so elect.

Good intentions to live a more eudemonic life are one thing. Executing them is something else. One can decide the time has come in their life to act more virtuously, but determining the best means for realizing such a transition can be very difficult without identifying a clear and unambiguous plan. Again, I call on the philosophical history of western thought for some direction and this time look to Plato’s student, Aristotle.

Aristotle (384 BCE–322 BCE) developed a rich and complex system of philosophical thought covering many areas, including science, government, economics, linguistics, aesthetics, and ethics. For purposes of this essay it is worth noting one of his memorable utilitarian concepts known as the Golden Mean. Aristotle wanted to support people on their journey to becoming virtuous. Foundationally, he claimed that developing virtuous or moral character was more important than practice of any rehearsed set of behaviors or completion of obligatory duties with an expectation of positive consequences. Rather, when faced with a decision about how to proceed with a behavior or thought, virtuous character is cultivated by applying reason to identify the middle ground or mean between two extreme options which are seen as vices.

Aristotle urged us to reason that the extremes in decision making are vices because moral determination is most often bounded by excess and deficiency. To illustrate, a reasonable response to feeling angry is an honorable restraint between fury and anxiety; a morally appropriate encounter with an attractive person would be between lasciviousness and sheepishness; and noble conflict resolution would be the equilibrium between domination and impotence. Ethics is rarely clear-cut or precise. There is no statistical mean. It requires right intent and intellectual reasoning to find that moderate sweet spot. The more practice we have establishing the proper weight between extremes the more proficient we become in producing virtuous actions.

In addition to the counsel provided by Aristotle we can also turn to the Stoics for practical assistance in living virtuously. Stoicism was a school of Greek philosophy constituted during the third century BCE. Its teachings carried into the Roman empire until the emergence of Christianity suppressed it. Interestingly, Stoicism is undergoing a revival in the 21st century western world where it is viewed as an accessible means for finding meaning and purpose in our complex world.

The concrete practicality of Stoicism in terms of learning to live the virtuous life rests on what is known as the Four Cardinal Virtues. As Massimo Pigliucci describes them in his 2017 book How To Be A Stoic they are courage, temperance, justice, and practical wisdom or prudence. All religious or quasi-religious traditions quantify their tenets in sacred listings of one sort or another. The Four Cardinal Virtues codified by the Stoics are an encapsulation of the character formation beliefs developed by the ancient Greeks. The simplicity and elegance of these virtues makes them very attainable for the average person who need not engage in any extensive or esoteric training.

Applying the Stoic’s Four Cardinal Virtues in tandem with Aristotle’s Golden Mean provides the person inclined toward an examined life with a method and resource for strengthening character. This process is likely to cover many of life’s moral predicaments. The approach can be summarized thusly:

• When life calls for courageous acts to be performed, establishing a right balance between foolhardiness and cowardice is the moral position to take.
• When life calls for just acts to be performed, establishing a right balance between authoritarianism and leniency is the moral position to take.
• When life calls for temperate acts to be performed, establishing a right balance between profligacy and asceticism is the moral position to take.
• When life calls for wise acts to be performed, establishing the right balance between bombast and ignorance is the moral decision to take.

The reader may note that these illustrations are behavioral in nature. This is deliberate. In my judgment, an effective means to reform one’s thoughts and enrich one’s emotions is to advance one’s behavior. Yes, conduct can be compelled by thinking, which is prodded by emotion. It often is. However, I contend the reverse can work as well. Mastering behavior can be the gateway to principled thoughts and a feeling of contentment. In the development of virtuous character and ethical comportment, focusing on how we actually operate can be key.

Today I awaken with hope and confidence. Atonement motivates me as does the realization my continued growth best sustains my unavoidable aging. I am encouraged that an emerging ethical nature calls for my daily engagement. There is solace in relying on an effective paradigm and structure to make this effort self-supportive and meaningful.  When challenges arise, as they inevitably do, I can identify what virtue is called for to address it, whether it be courage, temperament, wisdom, or justice. By resolving which right action to take after an assessment of the extremes I can take another step forward toward better character. Another purposeful day to be gratefully alive dawns brightly.

The 2020 election is finally over. The feeble claims of election fraud by the Republicans have been shunted to the background of most Americans’ minds, at least for now. For most, getting past a year of Covid deaths, infections, and restrictions to an eagerly anticipated vaccinated future of health and socialization is looking to be a much more appealing topic. But of course with me politics never really takes much of a break, so now seems like a good time to assess the current condition and purpose of the Democratic Party.  My main interest today is in offering my take concerning the principal priorities and direction of the party in 2021 and going forward.

I have been a registered Democrat since 1972, but really a party “member” since childhood. Growing up among Irish Roman Catholics in Massachusetts during the 1960s can do that to a person. Therefore, to greater and lesser degrees over the years I have been keenly interested in what the party has stood for. Although my party affiliation was never in serious doubt, I nevertheless persist in being drawn to the party to define and occasionally question its influence on my ideological values. Being able to think more independently these days has not really changed my desire to still gauge the party’s principles and positions to see how I align, or not, with them. What follows are my thoughts about the Democratic Party at the start of the Biden/Harris era and what I think the mission of the party should be over the next several years.

Since at least the turn of the last century, if not earlier, Democrats have branded themselves as the “People’s Party”. This calls attention to the long-standing bifurcations of the ruling class and the working class, the wealthy class and the middle class, the haves and the have-nots, the rich and the poor. The Democrats have traditionally thrown their lot in with the cohort who directly operate machines, drive buses, teach children, clean hotel rooms, stock shelves, etc. You get the picture. This has always been a large part of the American electorate. They need representation. Democrats make sure they fit the bill. Workers and their families are the sine qua non of the Democratic Party.

However, there has been an obvious, dramatic, and troubling shift occurring in recent years for this core constituency of the Democrats. Many of the working class find Trump and his brand of in-your-face, authoritarian, tear-down-the-institutions style of politics preferable over traditional legislating as a means of achieving their political aims. Given the choice of intelligent, prudent, democratic give and take, which requires not just staking out a position, but compromise with those of differing persuasions in order to gain as much political benefit as possible, much of the working class has decided hate, nihilism, and rejection of America as we’ve known it is preferred.

I have to say, my initial reaction to this trend is disgust with these people. Although the domestic terrorists who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 may not be completely representative of the Trump voter writ large, I think it is fair to say they exemplify where the energy of Trumpism can be found. And it is deplorable.

Now here is the emotional me speaking. Violence, belief in lies, repudiation of democracy, and adoration of such a flawed man as Trump are negative traits no matter how you slice them. There are no two sides to this story. People such as those who conducted the insurrection don’t need extra time to be heard or more “fair” media coverage or their own unregulated social media. Their tactics are unsupportable, illegitimate, and criminal. It seems just to me that any of them who stepped onto the Capitol grounds beyond the original police line and especially those who entered the building should be tried and if found guilty in a valid court of law be incarcerated. Lock them up!

After a deep exhalation and counting to ten please allow me to go on. Again, I do not believe all working class Americans have become as despicable as the ones who raided the Capitol on January 6, but their clown did get 74 million votes in the 2020 election. That is a lot! There are clearly many who thought Trump deserved a second term as president. Some of this I understand. Sure, some if not many of those votes are from lifelong Republicans who would vote for any candidate with an “R” after their name. There are those who probably liked his tax cutting, conservative judicial appointments, tough stance with China, and oversight of the good pre-Covid economy, but chose to hold their noses and vote for him anyway despite his boorishness. Of course, it is also understandable that some of Trump’s votes were from citizens who distrust liberalism, “wokeness”, and profligate fiscal spending. As hard as it is, I can accept these voter rationales. I may not like them, but I get not everyone is going to agree with my political take on things.

Nevertheless, it is jarring and sad that the very cohort of workers I felt in support of for basically my whole adult life I now view with suspicion. Beyond the principled conservatives and lifelong Republicans, who I can understand up to a point, there are too many Americans, quite a few from the working class, who enthusiastically support Trumpism. At this point in my political journey I have great difficulty countenancing their position. It is hard to see they are worthy of an effort to “reach across the aisle”. They are akin to enemies of the republic. I can tolerate a lot, but I do not see how I can put up with these self-righteous, hate-filled, conspiracy-addled threats to our 245-year old country.

I have no trouble saying Democrats should go forward clearly knowing that there is this segment of the population, which may be beyond reach, whether they’re from the working class or not. As a party we should not feel compelled to expend much time and energy trying to win them over. Sorry, but folks who believe Democrats are run by a pedophile ring who drink the blood of children are simply too tainted to bother with.

That said, there are some inconvenient truths in need of reconciliation by Democrats—and myself. Trumpists are Americans too. There is a wide segment of our citizenry who feel left out, shunted aside, marginalized, degraded and demeaned, and unheard by the elites of this country. Democrats have to ask themselves why this is. Conventional theories point to feelings of deprivation brought on by globalization, panic among whites who see themselves losing historic levels of power and influence, inconsolable gaps between the lives of rural and urban Americans, and wealth flowing to the more educated, all combined with a show of little respect for traditional hands-on work. And all of these grievances get juiced by social media. Democrats may not be entirely sympathetic about these Trumpian triggers, but we have to recognize that they are significantly driving the opposition. It is wise to know what gets your challenger out of bed in the morning.

Democrats have a tendency to over-categorize the American population. The party tries to assess the state of the nation by examining the plights, conditions, and issues of a multitude of core and peripheral demographic groups. This may seem like a reasonable and systemic approach for understanding the citizenry, but unfortunately, such a reductionist process tends to result in a perspective that is too meticulous, painstaking, and provincial. Democrats rightly engender the criticism of engaging too much in identity politics. Electorally, it makes complete sense for strategists to form alliances from smaller citizen cohorts in order to gain higher voter tallies. But when the task is actual governing, leaders need to be more skilled in identifying and promoting broad-based policies designed to positively effect the largest population swath as possible.

Regarding the population as a whole encourages government to specify large-scale, wide-ranging, and comprehensive policy initiatives that are rooted in culturally recognizable common sense. It focuses on what unites us more than what what divides us. When dispersion of government induced benefits are enjoyed by more people, leading to far-reaching problem resolutions and improvements in the lives of people, then government is seen as more benevolent and less intrusive. Communities that might be seen as unrelated and disparate when studied at close range become part of a wider fabric mutually strengthened by their common national government.

This is the kind of all-inclusive governing paradigm I hope Democrats adopt in the years ahead. Citizens who feel forgotten and left out by their government need not and should not feel that way. Grievances abound whether coming from Trumpism or recent immigrants or any of the other demographic groupings which exist. I urge the Democrats to skillfully address these complaints and injustices in a thematic and integrated policy-driven manner combined with a strong intention to not leave anyone out. Inclusivity should be a term people think of immediately when they think of Democrats. It is not only consistent with the historic desire to help “the people” and the disenfranchised, but may actually get some of these Trumpists to ease up on their cultural fear and paranoia of being left out and marginalized long enough to rejoin the world of the sane.

For quite some time now I have wished the Democratic Party would enthusiastically adopt an “Opportunity for All” ethic. Instead of trying to please this group or accommodate that group, the go big and go wide game plan most often associated with Franklin D. Roosevelt seems particularly cogent at this time. Since Ronald Reagan, the New Deal has been on defense. Practicing fiscal conservatism and restraining deficit spending have been to greater and lesser degrees the marching orders for Washington since the 1980s. However, given the cyclical nature of American politics, the time now appears right to exercise an activist federal government unabashedly advocating for citizen support in finance, education, healthcare, social justice, and equity. Together these interventions provide opportunity for each individual and family to succeed in America. It is unrealistic to predict specifically what outcomes each individual will realize as a result of such governmental support, but there should be no question that each person is provided with the means to actualize their potential no matter where they fall in the demographic mix. The “Land of Opportunity” has become a quaint and unfulfilled slogan in need of revitalization. The Democrats should lead this effort.

Opportunity for All speaks to what is the major principle of the modern Democratic Party—equality. Where the energy on the political right is about liberty, the vitality on the left is centered on equality. Given that liberty and equality are of, well, equal weight one would think the two sides should be able to function together to forge comprehensive agreements honoring these core principles that point to what is best about America. Regardless, the Democrats are best at taking up the mantle of equality. Thank God someone is. Equal treatment, equal justice, and equal rights are key areas in need of powerful champions. Equality is the Democrats’ North Star and it should guide the development and execution of all Democrats do politically and in governance. Opportunity for All fits ever so neatly into this ethic.

Opportunity for All also of course includes more than the working class. A clear trend over the past generation has been the expansion of the knowledge economy with its growing segment of the college educated not afraid to play on a global stage and who seem to be attracting large amounts of capital. Encouraging Americans to be smart and competitive is not a bad thing as long as it does not lead to exclusionary practices of who is allowed or not to participate in sharing of the gains, resulting in excessive wealth inequality. All economic signs point to globalization and technological advances as being prime economic shapers for the foreseeable future. Democrats should encourage our capacity to engage economically with our global competition given this new world order.

The challenge of our nation’s founders and framers of our Constitution for each subsequent generation has been to carry forth the republican principles of the United States. These principles emphasize liberty, individual rights, and sovereignty, while shunning power based in aristocracy, monarchy, and corruption. To date, each generation has to greater and lesser degrees continued this tradition despite wars, social turbulence, and technological changes. Now it is our turn. America is in the process of becoming a more racially and ethnically diverse society representing influences from around the world. The face of America may be changing, but the mission has not. Our test is best encapsulated by Martin Luther King, Jr. who preached that we are all equal and should benefit from the same rights and privileges.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” This grasps the spirit and the goal of the Democrat Party as we advance today and tomorrow. Let’s get to work.

Between the lunch and dinner shifts I would be allowed a break from my dish washing duties at the Kittansett Club in Marion, Massachusetts. This was during the summer of 1973. If the weather was sunny, but with a light breeze, I would often choose to sit among the boulders, which were closely packed together where the end of Butler Point meets Buzzards Bay. For many of these days I carried with me a worn paperback book with a bright blue cover entitled Future Shock.

I was among the many readers and neophyte futurists to gobble up that book, starting when it was published in 1970. Although I was three years late to the party, by then I knew about the scope and flavor of the book’s buzz. It attracted me. And the book did not disappoint.

Alvin Toffler set out to highlight the importance of change among populations, cultures, and individuals. In particular, change that is ever more accelerated, novel, widespread, and challenging. Toffler was a futurist, professor, correspondent, and businessman. During the mid-1960s he and his wife Heidi detected that technology was hastening cultural change worldwide. This led to five years of research, resulting in the book Future Shock, which has sold many millions of copies, has been translated into numerous languages, and is still in print fifty years later.

Even as a kid, I found the notion of The Future to be fascinating. My mother may have unwittingly been a part of the reason why. Having grown up, if you could call it that, in wartime Germany in the late 1930s and 1940s, she always had a special admiration for things “modern” once she became a young mother and U.S. citizen in 1950s America. Later on she became a big fan of the NASA space program, the Mercury 7 astronauts, the Saturn 5 launches, the capsule retrievals in the ocean, and so on. I shared with her a love for that slice of American lore.

On my own, I loved science fiction when I was young. Those black & white after-school space movies channels 6, 10, and 13 out of Albany used to broadcast (along with the monster movies of course) were fun and imaginative. History also held an long time allure, so it wasn’t a big leap to shift my attention from the past to the future. How people lived and how they will live still remain appealing topics. Hence, my revisitation of Future Shock.

However, aside from a recreational interest in futurism, there is also my curiosity about Toffler’s prescience. We live today in what was his future. Given his forecasting was generally in the twenty to fifty-year range and now that we’ve passed the fifty-year mark I have found intriguing the idea of assessing his outlook. Alvin Toffler, who passed away in 2016, continues to have a reputation as an exceptional futurist. So, presumably he had an astute ability to both evaluate the etiology of profound changes and envision how they would eventually be expressed by individuals and societies.

Change forms the foundation of futurism. Change also brings out of people revealing aspects about how they process life. It seems as if change is more feared than welcomed. A lot of folks like things just the way they are and actively shun change. Of course, there are exclusions as with some individuals thriving continuous novelty while others live with life stories that scream for something better. Nonetheless, these types of people appear to be exceptions to the rule. By way of observation, most folks remain rooted after their hard-fought scramble to establish stability and security in their status quo.

Change management, or lack thereof, can be seen as a personality or social trait. Some leverage the possibilities and opportunities inherent in change, while others are more reactive and resistant. Large-scale change in and of itself is neutral. How it is perceived and engaged determines if it is to be handled as an asset or as a liability.

The question often asked is, does change represent an improvement or a setback? Clearly then, this challenge of people adapting to or defying change has huge implications for how societies either progress or stagnate. So, another impetus for reviewing Future Shock is to discern if Toffler provided us with an astute warning fifty years ago which perhaps went unheeded. If so, were we left by Toffler with a useful methodology for these times that deserves another look?

Therefore, an analysis of the premise, contention, and predictability of Future Shock will disclose the validity of Toffler’s fifty-year-old thesis. Of particular interest is the soundness of futurism as a worthy forewarning mechanism for societies to follow and also how the book may lend some insight into the possibly flawed conventional wisdom concerning opposition to change. 

Alvin Toffler wanted to get America’s attention in a big way. After all, one doesn’t insert the word “shock” into the description of their central argument and include it in their book’s title unless the intent is to jolt and startle. To that end, Toffler was successful as noted above. However, beyond selling a lot of books and presumably making substantial money, he was convinced humankind had reached a profound threshold by the mid-twentieth century that called for a bellowing admonition. The world as it was known in the mid to late 1960s was undergoing accelerated change, impacting not just that time, but more alarmingly ushering in an uncertain and potentially fraught and dangerous future. A cautionary portrayal of what was being faced by the American public, and by extension the so-called ‘First World’ population of his time, set the dark tone of this book. This is not a light and breezy read. Sure, he pointed out positivity and wise judgment being exhibited by some people capable of meeting the future when and where he saw it, but in general he seemed to see ordinary citizens and their leaders as totally unqualified to withstand, never mind benefit from, the onslaught of rapid technical and social transformation that had been unleashed.

Adaptation is a crucial ability. When applied to organisms it depicts the vital steps necessary for survival and continuation of the species. Biologically, adaptation is seen as both behavioral and physical. How organisms interact with their environments in terms of decisive actions and optimal body structure determines if they will endure or face extinction. Regarding modern humans, adaptation is largely a consequence of how intellect is utilized. People operate such that the handling of constraints and possibilities offered by their environment resolve whether they will thrive or founder. Mental acuity and creativity become indispensable in facing basic problems integral to human existence.

Indeed, whole cultures are incessantly challenged to adapt to dynamic and difficult conditions. In 2005, Jared Diamond wrote a compelling book called Collapse, in which he delved into the disintegration of several cultures throughout history that had failed to adapt to changing social and ecological circumstances. Cultural failure has happened before. And it seems imprudent, if not fatuous, to think it won’t happen again.

How we as humans adapt or not when faced with rapidly changing social and physical environments is the premise of Future Shock. The book’s purpose is to shepherd us through the turmoil of accelerated change by suggesting coping mechanisms, alternative attitudes, and reframed perspectives. The urgency Toffler saw was one of people needing to develop, if not command, their capacity to manage the rate of change washing over their individual circumstances and their affiliate society. Not doing so would shackle civilization to “adaptational breakdown” or “disease of change”, also known as future shock.

Unquestioningly, Toffler pointed to the proliferation of technology as the catalyst for hastened change. This is not to say he was a Luddite and opposed to technological advances. He was far from such a position. Rather, he saw technology as irritating the vulnerable space between externally derived change and human responses to it. Technology is innately new, different, innovative, and strange all at once. At the individual level and eventually at the social level, technology insists on adoption or rejection by the market. It was clear by the 1960s, if not sooner, that the tempo of novel technology introductions was quickening. An inflection point had been reached.

New technologies come with both direction and pace. Presumably they are established to solve a problem or add an improvement to what has gone on before. Fine. Enhancements and efficiencies should be welcomed. However, if the preponderance of technologies is such that the ‘old ways’ are continually being questioned and contested there can result disequilibrium and resistance. Therefore, to assess in isolation the justification, substance, and value of technology and the change it brings is shortsighted. The velocity of change must also be considered when determining if a new practice or process alteration should be judged as either a welcomed benefit or a shunned liability. Toffler took this perspective. He didn’t question the essence or merits of technological change nearly as much as the propagation rate of such change.

When I decided to re-engage Future Shock I found myself yearning to see if Toffler’s predictions for the future had been accurate or overly speculative or wildly missing the mark. My porous 50-year old memory assumed Toffler must have made predictions of the future like the old-fashioned world fairs used to do. I certainly remembered this was a book about the future, so prophecy must have been a big part of it. Turns out, I was somewhat mistaken. My recent re-reading of the book made clear early on that this was not meant to be a crystal ball in book form. Whereas, Toffler did engage in speculation about social and scientific trends and the yet-to-be-realized practices associated with them he expected his readers to know his conjectures were best guesses based on available quantifiable and qualitative information, flavored with a dash of imagination. Toffler decidedly stated, “No serious futurist deals in predictions.”

That said, I evaluate where Toffler was generally on and where he was generally off with regards to his main thesis. Has future shock been the severe affliction he thought it could be? If so, where is the evidence of future shock in our current time and if none is to be found, why not? Did the cultural, social, business, education, and technological trends he suggested as possible materialize or not? Did humankind ever learn the skills of adaption to control rapid technological change? Are we still individually or societally in danger of the negative effects of future shock? Can the future be utilized to improve the present time similar to the way study of the past has been found to be helpful? These are the kinds of questions I seek to answer.

Rereading a book you remember being enjoyable and impactful fifty years later is fun. (Maybe I should consider picking up again Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I remember really loving that one.) My overall impression this time around is that Future Shock attempted a bold and valid assertion. It also was impeccably researched. I get why it was groundbreaking and in many ways it still holds up. In general, Toffler was justified in popularizing the notion that technological change was gaining momentum with such unrestrained speed that the population could be at risk for psychological and sociological disruption. Replacing tradition with transience was an untested phenomenon.

Toffler revealed how increased knowledge was clearly fueling change, but not visibly informing people about how to adapt to it. Evidence was presented demonstrating how abundant novelty, innovation, and change can result in individual and group instability.  Anecdote after anecdote illustrating defiance of change among the wider public was also shown. The easily perceived mismatch between our capacity to intentionally merge rapid revolution with able adaptation must have seemed very conspicuous to Toffler and surely shouted for a clarion call such as Future Shock. He had a well-founded and authoritative reason to write this book. He also was not only quite prescient at times, but prudent in his counsel.

From the start, Toffler was correct to question our addiction to permanence. It is completely understandable, if not poetic, to revere traditions, customs, cultural mores, and tried and true methods passed down to us from generation to generation. There is comfort in connecting with the past and embracing time-honored conventions. Ambiguity, and with it stress, are diminished. We can be more at ease. Nonetheless, an over-reliance or excessive dependence on permanence leaves us ill prepared for a truism about our existences. Life is always subject to change. There is no such thing as the completely static life. Desperate or habitual clinging to constancy will eventually lead to disappointment, anxiety, and pain.

This reality is strongly reinforced by the Indian religions of Hinduism and Buddhism, where we see the concept of impermanence addressed so prominently. In short, these philosophical traditions state that attachment to people, things, and ideas is a fool’s errand, because they will all change or cease thereby leaving suffering in their wake. To reverse this pattern, which is carried out person by person and generation after generation, it is necessary to relinquish a craving for permanence. Toffler recognized we were set up for future shock, if for no other reason than because we ordinarily cling to changelessness. We are not primed to cope with the degree of change showering over us.

Toffler adeptly zeroed in on the causes for mass psychological distress and unease. Intensifying conditions without historical precedence were mushrooming mid-century at such a robust rate, questions about where it was all heading were naturally going to arise. A child in 1903 could have heard about the Wright brothers pioneering success in aviation and lived to an old age that witnessed astronauts walking on the Moon. This same child might have traveled to a rural school on horseback and driven a Corvette during their retirement sixty years later. Progress was revered and in many ways welcomed given the expansion of labor-saving improvements and fresh entertaining distractions suddenly made available. Nevertheless, mixed into this seductive lifestyle-shifting were disconcerting signs indicating all may not be well in the brave new world of modern America.

The exacerbation of transience, novelty, and diversity lay at the root of the personal and social torment most concerning Toffler. Even if we see these three trends as potentially positive, which of course they can be, there can still occur such a fast-paced proliferation of these developments that they are essentially rendered encumbrances. Coping mechanisms are required to manage the intensity and consequences of elevated levels of transience, novelty, and diversity. And it is just these management safeguards which are missing from wide swaths of the American and western populations.

Toffler succeeded in not only communicating the origins of future shock, but also the manifestations of unmanaged stress and relentless overstimulation. Future shock is displayed both psychologically and physically. Adaptation, or lack of it, was researched yielding studies and cases revealing physiological degradation and illness of individuals overexposed to change. Furthermore, he detailed the existence of an “orientation response”, denoting how people mentally adapt to external alterations. Our brains construct stores of previously assimilated information and use these impressions to reference and rate the quality and characteristics of new stimuli. Applying our orientation response requires mental and physical energy, not unlike being repeatedly startled. Repetitions of this reaction can leave one feeling stressed, similar to too much triggering of our ‘flight or fight response’. Symptoms can range from anxiety, apathy, and difficulty making decisions to uncertainty about what long lasting values to adopt.

In 2016, Robert Gordon of Northwestern University wrote a landmark book asserting that American economic and living standards underwent remarkable progress during what he described as the “Special Century”, 1870-1970. The Rise and Fall of American Growth enumerated how modernizing transformations in transportation, the home, food, apparel, retail, healthcare, and employment not only propelled economic growth, but vastly boosted the well-being of American society. Given our retrospective perch we can now see how Toffler’s viewpoint came from the end of that bullish stretch. To him it very well may have seemed there was no end in sight of more and more life-changing transitions.

I know what you might be thinking. But wait, the technology that would lead to the personal computer was just getting started. In the 1960s the guys at Fairchild Semiconductor in California, like Gordon Moore, were starting to make the claim that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit were now doubling every two years (Moore’s Law). Vast game-changing transfigurations were just around the corner. How can you say the Special Century was ending when the information revolution was getting ready to explode? As Robert Gordon points out, the splash of technology over the past 50 years, while impressive and compelling has not vaulted us into the level of elemental change or economic growth wrought by the life-fulfilling innovations evident during the Special Century. Toffler, on the other hand, had his recent past as his reference point and it showed a progression of radical changes of the type highlighted by Gordon. It made every sense to think the nascent but burgeoning technology sector would lead to a continuation of critical changes.

This lack of, well, future orientation may be in part the reason for some of Toffler’s overzealous prognostications. To begin with, Toffler seems to have overstated people’s inability to cope with the future. We have largely succeeded thus far to avoid mass psycho-biological paralysis. Future shock has not been as egregious of a “disease” as he thought possible. History has marched on these past fifty years and by and large we have weathered the storm of invention and disruption thrown at us. If anything, the eruption of technological change has made us more resilient and versatile. This is not to say there have been no instances of people confounded by technological changes to the degree they have felt frustrated or even debilitated, but overall the scale of psycho-emotional catastrophe imagined by Toffler is of a tamer magnitude than he thought likely.

Toffler also relied a lot on an ‘intentional community’ model when offering change management suggestions. For example, his idea of streamlining the family as an efficient and simplified mobile collection of two parents with similar careers and few children. If this arrangement were to become too restrictive to the all-business couple there could be “professional parents” whose job it would be to do the child rearing. Presumably the breadwinners were to schedule regular meetings to check in on their kids. Another case in point involves “preadaption”. To avoid the anxiety of frequent transitions to new locations, jobs, schools, etc. families could engage with a structured orientation, featuring simulations and remote meetings with key players from the new city. It is not evident practices like these have flourished.

There are many such instances in which Toffler proposed engineered and calibrated changes for people and communities as an alternative to experiencing abrupt upheavals in any number of areas of life. Whether these arrangements were to be centrally controlled by government or some other entity or whether they were to sprout organically among well-meaning citizens is rarely clarified. Regardless, after awhile these recommendations start sounding too contrived and unrealistic. Also of note, people are not as willing to be managed as Toffler seemed to think they were. As Toffler made clear, futurists are not in the prediction game, as counter-intuitive as that may sound. It’s good he clarified as much, because his forecasts make for a mixed bag as best.

When reviewing the changes of the past fifty years much has indeed been driven by technological advances. However, technology alone has not been the sole catalyst. Rather applied science has functioned in tandem with other significant influences. A principal trend impacted by technology and a source of great change was the resurgence of neoliberalism as the prevailing economic model of the U.S. during this time. Although neoliberalism is often associated with free-market capitalism it also promotes elements that have dominated the past fifty years such as globalization and free trade. Our ability to extend interactions and integrations across the globe via information technologies has come to define our current turbulent times.

In fact, remote connections among people affect not just international economic and cultural relations, but national and local ones as well. Social media has so ensnared the interests of so many that the generation and dissemination of information, both factual and not, is directly transforming our politics and dealings with one another. Privacy as well is becoming a quaint virtue of the past. We are all being rendered to data points as public and private institutions ascribe to Big Data serviceability models. So yes, technology is a phenomenon common to the consequential changes of the past half-century, but technology’s impact is most felt in its capacity to influence the dynamics of governmental, economic, and cultural trends.

If Future Shock were to be written today my guess is that Artificial Intelligence (AI) would play a major role. Just as Toffler was warranted in writing a cautionary tome in the 1960s when it was apparent the world was changing in unique ways, the 2020s can also be seen as on the precipice of an uncertain future. Like the technologies of the ’60s, which were billed as developments and improvements over what had been, AI is promising to introduce greater efficiencies of functional systems, problem solving and production processes, increased leisure time, and on and on. And again, as in the ’60s, this new fangled technology of AI ushers in ethical questions of appropriateness, risks, and unanticipated consequences.

We study history to better inform ourselves about the present. By not repeating mistakes from the past we can improve the quality of the current moment. Futurism also attempts to influence ongoing time, but instead of delving into recorded history to do so futurism identifies possible upcoming scenarios based on an analysis of existing trends, signals, and patterns with available pertinent data. Perhaps the best way to avoid future shock and a lack of adaptation is by undertaking a systemic process of strengthening preparedness. To actively prepare for change may be the best way to adapt. A good offense makes the best defense. Toffler’s work in this regard still makes sense today.

In conclusion, the morale of this story is that from some point in the last two centuries the future ceased to materialize as an unchanging and reoccurring episode as it had been throughout much of human history. Futures will forever more be uncertain. Therefore, for each new generation futures are now to be seen as planned, structured, and envisaged to determine if they will turn out to be either good or bad. The challenge of intentionally addressing and if possible shaping the future with all of its potential and jeopardy is owed to our descendants. The Anthropocene is upon us. We are God’s agents on earth. There is no time for future shock to impede us. Yes, let’s seize each and every day in our present time, but also leave a future worthy of enthusiastic grasping by our children and their children.

Trail Cat

Walking steeply down a hilly and remote Scottish footpath

On a glorious sunny Spring day

When below us emerging from the wood and crossing the stream

Appear two women with several young children

But wait! What is that?

Trotting determinedly along behind the last child

Like a loyal dog

Was a cat! A trail cat

Yes, a cat was marching with the women and children

A sleek, gray, attentive, and unusually compliant cat

The troupe climbed the hill toward us and we stepped aside

Ascending slowly but dutifully up the hill the cat panted

Uncommon sight it is to see a cat huff and puff

After a brief pause to study us

The cat answered to its name called from up the path

And resumed its hike leaving us to gape in surprise at the trail cat

An Unspoken Conversation

It’s a conversation he hasn’t wanted to have with himself.

Even though he knows it is necessary to do so.

Funny to think of avoiding a topic of which only he knows.

No one else need judge or reprimand.

He could speak to himself, but does not.

And that too scares him.

Pain and despair press down making it hard to breathe.

This weight suppresses any light or spirit he may have remaining.

There is no one else to blame.

Decisions were made.

Risks were taken.

The only one holding him back from taking the next step is him.

But, the future is wide open and so very frightening.

Back Among the Trees

We came back in late May.

The trees had fully leafed a couple of weeks earlier.

They’re hovering now over us and the house in a quiet, but imposing manner.

The wind is still and so are the trees.

But they can still shoot the color green all over and around us.

And the oaks alpha over the maple, birch, and beech.

These are things one notices.

Such can be life living under a dome-like canopy.

In a forested land that rolls and stretches as far as the eye can see.

The Rain

The Spring on the coast of western Scotland was very rainy. Unsurprisingly.

The Scots seemed to take it in stride and some let on they even appreciate it.

Returning to New Hampshire we found the Spring to be dry. Surprisingly.

The rain today clears pollen from the air.

And gives the thirsty plants a wee, but so far insufficient drink.

Usually I do not like rainy days.

They depress me and leave me feeling confined and annoyed.

Like an energetic child stuck inside a boring house.

But occasionally a rainy day comes along that soothes and comforts.

I make an extra pot of coffee to nurse throughout the day.

Allow myself more daytime reading than usual.

Listen to the steady sound of water striking leaves and ground.

It can be easier to sense the rhythm of nature.

On one of the good rainy days.

How Old People Can Keep Fit

Remember what we did so naturally as children?

Run

Jump

Stretch

Bend

Climb

Lift

Roll

Crawl

Reach

Kneel

Swing

Fall

Crouch

Hop

Skip

Twist

Dig

Balance

Squat

Flip

Let’s continue doing these activities as old adults.

(Except maybe Flip)

Doing so keeps us feeling alive.

The Introvert

People

Interactions, relationships, encounters, friendships

Reveal cringe-worthy memories.

Moments that produce anxieties, fears, fumbles, gaffes, regrets.

And of course, faux pas.

People

Was I smart enough?

Friendly enough?

Witty enough?

Charming enough?

Moral enough?

People

Cant’ live with ’em. Can’t live without ’em.

So many feelings to hurt, offenses to make, blunders to smooth over.

People

Avoid them purposefully.

Shift my focus.

Choose solitary tasks.

Allow thoughts to wander.

Reclaim a center.

People

Sorry, but I am out, done, finished.

Forever.

Seasonal Affective Mood

The muted light

illuminates the woods

in yellow.

Lively winds

from the northwest

send dry leaves

fluttering and spinning

to the ground.

Despite this beauty

I feel apprehension.

Another lengthy, frigid, dark, and biting

winter is just around

the corner.

The stratus clouds

are steely gray today.

They form a canvas

against which a V-shaped

flock of honking geese

fly south.

Firewood is stacked.

Flower gardens put to bed.

Colorful summer gear stowed.

The precious sun

sinks lower in the sky.

And I brace

myself for the advancing

onslaught.

The Bicycle

A borrowed bicycle

belonged to the homestay

in Hoi An

where I stayed.

Old and red

it rekindled a sentiment

of being a kid again.

I wove through a street market,

past tropical houses,

along dusty roads,

toward the sea.

Being a foreigner

among natives and locals

of Vietnam

who barely gave a notice

to this American

riding through their homeland.

This land

spoke fear and war

to my teenage years.

But today

the sun is warm

the ocean is bright blue

I am free

to ride a bicycle

across this land.

Listening Intently

We walk along the dirt road

located through the old woods

that was once a stagecoach route

which started carrying passengers in 1831

from Hanover to Lowell in a single day.

Today, as is true most days,

the road is quiet and seemingly still

as it penetrates this patch of forest

with its tumbledown stone walls

and a visible opening left over

from a logging operation five years ago.

We pass the pond with its far-off view of Mount Sunapee

as soon the road begins its rise to a stand of hemlock

where the wide path to the right invites

us to the lonely clearing on Shadow Hill

that displays the remnants of a campfire

and a high view of the pond and western hills.

Here the dog is off-leash sniffing and exploring

as I try to read the story of today’s woods

told cunningly and gently

through blowing of soft winds and solitary warbling of birds

and filtered light amplifying the lapping of water against the steep hill.

For those with an awareness and an attentive ear

and a consciousness which takes in the delicate vibrations of nature

can also be heard the orchestra of trees growing

with fallen wood rotting and humus decomposing

and the creaks and groans of water freezing

all punctuated by the tone of the decaying flesh

of a squirrel who lived its brief life among these trees.

A Day

Another day to float through.

Free of agenda and schedule.

Except for picking up your pieces.

Or so I tell myself.

What did you say?

I couldn’t hear you clearly.

You know, I’m not what you think.

Although maybe you know that.

With your head thrown back.

And your eyes closed and mouth gaping.

Excuse me, but…

Choices are strange, you know.

Life is a lot of risky business.

With stinging rebukes.

And nods of agreement.

Just by stumbling through another day.

Which reminds me.

Of the confusion of youth.

And silly false choices.

Combined with conflicting images.

From 1973.

Of cornfield mazes.

Abandoned gold mines.

Hitchhiking through Ohio.

Trying to be alternative.

While embracing middle class life.

And doing neither particularly well.

Doesn’t matter now.

It’s in the past.

Heaven and Hell can wait.

There’s more living to be done.

Beneath the full moon.

Which was here before birth.

And will be here after death.

My heart had finally settled back to its natural rhythm a short while earlier. My mind on the other hand had not. It had been about an hour since the near miss on NY Route 67 as it neared Interstate 87 north of Albany. The fright I experienced once I realized my tires were starting to be overpowered by the shoulder’s soft sand was a slap to my psyche. An oncoming van drifted into my lane forcing me to the right. Thankfully, the van’s driver snapped to in enough time to center the vehicle within its lane, but not before I found myself contending with several seconds of outright uncertainty, and to be honest fright, as to whether or not I would lurch sideways, flatten the 1960’s era guard rails, and land starboard side on a downward sloping embankment with a full load of beer, soft drinks, and bottled water.

Twenty-two year’s worth of driving know-how together with a sudden visit by Lady Luck prevented the worst from happening. Optimally calibrating a soft touch on the brake with subtle steering allowed me to securely grab enough pavement to right myself. With a jerk the truck was back on the road again heading east in the direction of New Hampshire instead of sliding downhill into a ravine.

It took a minute before I cursed aloud. I imagined having my thickset hands around the van driver’s throat and squeezing until he (or she) went limp. This image stayed with me longer than it probably should have, but such is rage. I wasn’t feeling very analytical or understanding or sympathetic. I was pissed. Eventually, as I replayed the incident in my mind I had to admit it wasn’t necessary to pull my rig so hard to the right as quickly as I had. There was clearly an element of overreaction involved. And I do recognize that sometimes my overreactions were more trouble than the initial cause. Fatigue more than likely played a role. After all, I had driven twenty-five of the previous forty hours, by far breaking trucking regulations. Truth be told, I was a wreck physically and emotionally. I just wanted to get home.

Sarah would be there. Ahh, Sarah. I knew she wanted more in life than to be settled with me in our mostly finished simple prefab house a couple of miles from the village in our desperately rural Sullivan County town. The truth was, I was the best she could do back when we met. At least that is the narrative I’ve been telling myself since she moved in six years ago. With little money, an ex-boyfriend who her threw her out, an abandoned GED program, but with a country-girl cuteness that still weakens my knees, I offered to take care of her. That’s what girls want, right? A man to take care of them.

She took two days to think about it, but eventually showed up in my driveway just as I was returning from a run to Connecticut. We had sex for hours that night. I thought I had won the lottery. But even though I could tell she didn’t share that level of excitement about me as I did her, I told myself, no worries. She’ll come around. She’ll realize I am the best she’s going to do.

And then Sarah announced a few months ago she was pregnant. She took the test to tell us the baby was to be a boy. I was both thrilled and scared. I hadn’t planned on becoming a dad and was afraid it would change my life too much. However, the more I thought about it the more pride I felt. Unexpectedly, the idea of being a father made me feel more complete, more proper, more mature. I liked that feeling. Knowing Sarah was going to have a baby boy made going home after a run like this a little better than before. I looked forward to seeing her in a way I hadn’t in the past. That was how I felt that afternoon. Ready to be home with my girlfriend who was going to have our baby. I shook off what remained of the jitters from the near-accident and continued driving east across Vermont. It would dark by the time I got home, but not too late. One more cup of coffee should do it, I thought.

It’s funny how a certain kind of outdoor space, a natural space, can shift my mood in an instant. I’ve driven this route west to east through Vermont many times and it contains several views on the roadside that catch my eye, give me slight pause, and induce calmness. Today, it was the one with a sweeping hillside that is grassy and kept clear of overgrowth due to having been hayed a couple of times per season presumably and which reaches a line of stout oaks on a hilltop forming a tight canopy. In the late afternoon on sunny days the hill and trees receive an angled light, which amplifies the colors and brightens the picture just the way I like it. Glancing this image for a mere two or three seconds as my truck rumbled by brought me a momentary feeling of peace and contentment. Things were feeling better. The near-accident was fading away from my thoughts.

My coffee was nearly done when I crossed over the river into New Hampshire and then south on route 12A. I pulled the rig to the outside edge of a parking lot near Walmart, so I could run in and get Sarah a bag of peanut butter cups. She’ll like that I did that, I thought. Twenty more minutes or so and I’ll be home. Once back on 12A I again appreciated my not having flipped the rig back in New York. Getting home in one piece felt like a reward.

Something felt off as soon as I stepped from the mudroom door into the kitchen. Sarah’s ‘hello’ to me was inauthentic, almost guarded. Her smile seemed somewhat forced. The air felt thicker than usual for some reason. I instantly sensed anxiety and apprehension seep into my consciousness. I hated times that didn’t go right. Suddenly, this felt like one of them.

She reached for can of seltzer sitting on the kitchen counter. It allowed her to take her eyes from mine, if only for a moment. I told Sarah I would be right back. I took my travel bag to my small office off of the living room where I dropped it to the floor thinking, I’ll need to ask her what’s wrong, because it sure felt as if something must be wrong.

While asking Sarah, what’s up, I opened the refrigerator door to grab a beer and noticed two six-packs of unrecognizable beer. I knew it was some sort of expensive craft beer, the kind of thing I never wasted money on and confusingly, either did Sarah. There were also two unopened bottles of pinot grigio, which is Sarah’s drink. Or at least it was before she became pregnant. But even before pregnancy, she typically kept only one opened bottle in the fridge at a time. Not two unopened ones. This didn’t look right.

I asked if she was planning a party or something. Her face looked fake. A mixture of discomfort and unease. Bubbling from her were insincere comments like, “Party?! No, of course not. I thought you might like to try a different kind of beer. So I’ve got some booze in the fridge. It’s not that big of a deal, is it?”

As I said, “I don’t get it”, a pickup rushed past the house on our dirt road kicking up a cloud of dust. Through the living room picture window I saw what looked like the back of Frank’s F-150, a good friend of mine in town. For a split second I thought, what is Frank doing around here now and why the speeding by without a stop?

I turned back toward Sarah. She had noticed the truck as well. Fear was spread across her face. She tried to hide it, but it was unmistakable. “What’s going on, Sarah?” I was tired and now feeling stressed. Sarah was pissing me off with her evasion and now this sudden look of dread. “Tell me what the fuck is going on, Sarah!”

She couldn’t or wouldn’t speak. Sarah never was a good liar. And her silence told me she wasn’t going to even try. Her eyes began to moisten and her mouth opened slightly as if she wanted to speak, but no words came out. Sarah’s left hand then slowly moved toward her raised stomach where it rested. My eyes followed her hand as she touched our baby.

I may not be the brightest bulb in the marquee, but I eventually do figure most things out. Frank! He drinks those fancy-boy beers! Was he coming here to drink them with Sarah? My heart quickened. The silence was broken.

“I’m so sorry,” Sarah said. “I didn’t know you were coming home today. Thought you would be in Buffalo tonight. I didn’t mean to hurt you.”

“Are those beers Frank’s? Tell me what you’re up to! Tell me now! Don’t bullshit me, Sarah! You and Frank were going to drink? And you’re pregnant! You’re not drinking these days. That was him driving by just now, wasn’t it? And he didn’t stop.”

Sarah started to answer me. “Me and Frank…we…don’t want trouble…have to do this. She quickly turned from me, grabbed her purse from the kitchen table, and bolted from the house to her Corolla. My surprise at her unexpected flight was momentarily paralyzing. By the time I got outside she had started her car and jammed it into reverse, barely maintaining control on the road. And then she was gone.

Sarah and Frank? What the fuck?! I gasped for air. A sinking feeling in my gut took hold as I realized my whole world had just collapsed. My blood reaching the boiling temperature gave me the energy and motivation to act. On a wall of my office hung my Ruger American hunting rifle. From my desk I grabbed the box of .30 caliber rounds and loaded the gun.

My mind was racing. “He’s been screwing around with Sarah while I’m on the road? I’m gonna kill him. I’ll blow his fucking head off!”

There was no sadness. No remorse. No second guessing. Just a feeling of disbelief mashed up with rage, leading to a single goal. To kill Frank. My truck was in the barn where I kept it while I was away on the road. With the rifle resting in the gun rack behind me, I charged dangerously fast to Frank’s place. Upon arriving, my truck vaulted from the road to his front lawn, leaving deep ruts where I had slammed on the brakes.

His truck was in the driveway. Behind it was Sarah’s Corolla. “I’m gonna kill you Frank, you bastard! Get out here!” I shrieked at the house.

There was no response. I screamed some more. Still no response. I figured Frank had his gun ready to use on me if I tried getting into the house, but I didn’t care. To get their attention I started shooting out the windows of his Ford and of Sarah’s car as well.

Strangely, it never occurred to me that the scene I was making would bring out the police. Even before I started shooting, Mrs. Lambeau who lived across the street from Frank’s house must have heard me, seen me with the rifle, and called the town police station. Officer Charpentier must have been the only one on duty to take the call, because she is who showed up to confront me.

“Put the gun down on the ground and step away from it, Mr. Dean,” Officer Charpentier called out from behind the town cruiser. “Once you do that we can talk about this. Do what I ask right now, please.”

“Not until I blow Frank’s brains out!” I yelled back to the police officer.

She responded with, “I’m not going to let you do that, Mr. Dean.” I saw that her service weapon was drawn. “Now put the rifle down slowly onto the ground and back away from it in my direction.”

“C’mon, Jim. Do as she says. Put it down.” Roy from down the road was speaking from the back of an oak on the corner of Frank’s property.

“Thank you, sir, but I have this,” Officer Charpentier said to Roy.

“So, Jim,” Officer Charpentier said to me in her even voice, “follow my directions and put the gun down.”

I don’t think it was what the town police officer said, but how she said it. Officer Charpentier was composed, steady, and taking command of the situation. As I listened, I was able to regain a shred of mental acuity. Enough clarity of thought anyway to allow me to realize Sarah was gone. As pissed as I was, she wasn’t coming back to me. I was no longer wanted. My breathing dialed down from huge gasps of air. I put down the gun on the lawn and walked to the cruiser.

The pain of the entire experience lives with me today, many years later. I would put it that I’m hurt and wounded more than I am defeated. I have my son a couple of days a week and I have something of a life. Working on being grateful for what I have is something I really do try to work on. Yet, crying comes to me much more easily than it used to and I kick at the rickety old boards of my barn in frustration a lot. It’s just that the anguish of betrayal, lost trust, and rejection continues to haunt me. Why we don’t make the best of our short time on earth, I’ll never know. I’ll just never know.

The most precious inheritance that parents can give their children is their own happiness. — Thich Nhat Hanh

Introduction

Deciding on a guiding set of principles to live by with the intention of getting the most from life sounds like a good idea. Perhaps I should say, the idea of experiencing happiness and purpose in life sounds like a good idea. I mean a purpose beyond just feeling good most of the time requires some structure or framework comprised of values, beliefs, and ethics which can provide a life affirming center or grounding while navigating the tempestuous comings and goings of life. Philosophy is a timeless discipline made available to assist those of us interested in such a pursuit.  

There are some who dedicate a lifetime to studying philosophy or the development of thought and knowledge as a guide to behaviors and the very nature of existence. To be sure, philosophy is a grand and historic academic discipline attempting to discern the universe as it is and exploring fundamental questions of how society and individuals should function within it. Unfortunately, as a subject it can quickly appear dense, abstract, and overly general or too specific, leaving a person feeling the topic is irrelevant and lacking in utilizable and concrete meaning. However, there are other philosophers who see their task as helping everyday people formulate their own personal philosophies as a way of self-improvement. Thankfully, philosophy need not be confined to ivory towers. It can also work on the streets, as it were, popularly sowing understanding and progress.

I’m interested in identifying a personal philosophy. Perhaps “identifying” is not the right word. Determining, building, formulating, realizing may be among better terms. Whatever verb I choose the larger question may be, why bother? There are a couple of reasons to bother. For one, philosophy, which literally means “love of wisdom”, is becoming more meaningful to me. Gratefully, I notice I’m getting wiser as I age, so peering more intentionally into the nature of wisdom is intriguing. Also, speaking of age, I recognize how the mind turns to a life review as we get older. Socrates sternly declared that an unexamined life is not worth living. Though a bit harsh, he makes a good point. Reflecting on how life is and has been lived shines a revealing light which can be useful in cultivating gratitude, personal growth, forgiveness, and a range of necessary corrective actions.

A lifetime of interest in politics, history, and psychology leaves me feeling incomplete. As engaging as they are, these disciplines do not provide enough guidance on how to live a good life. I’m drawn to exploring a more fundamental structure that better explains not only why I’ve lived as I have and what now makes me tick, but more importantly how I can prevail more satisfactorily during the years I have left.

I realize also, as late in the game as it is, that not being guided by clear moral standards and values can leave one unprepared or worse when the inevitable ethical dilemmas present themselves as they do in the lives of everyone. Simply saying one is ‘spiritual’ or ‘always kind’ or ‘being the best person I can be’ may not be enough to safeguard against damaging choices. Many of us find it easier to reject the advice of others than it is to replace their caring words of caution with a legitimate and bona fide set of convictions passionately embraced. I believe the younger one is in accepting this personal challenge of crafting a personal philosophy the better one’s life can be. I wish I could claim this had been my path, but alas I cannot.

Influential Philosophies

Identifying a personal philosophy is a luxury we now have given the times in which we live. Not long ago people were routinely born into a religious tradition complete with a step-by-step prescription for how to live one’s life and what pre-determined principles to value. Along with this inherited creed came the unambiguous and strict message that no questioning of precepts was necessary or welcome. This arrangement works well for those who readily accept faith and the infallibility of traditional thought, but for others who want to associate empirical evidence with conviction or inquire about the efficacy of applying old solutions to new problems, religion can be seen as deficient, if not oppressive.

Like most people my age, I was brought with a traditional religion. In my case, Roman Catholicism. As a child we often do as we’re told and attending church each Sunday morning followed by religious training or catechism after school each Monday afternoon is what I did until I was about twelve years old. Although it was far from a rapturous experience, rebelliousness toward this regimen was never a consideration. Indeed, by the end of this church-based indoctrination I wanted to explore the possibility of becoming a Catholic priest. One evening, when we were thirteen years old, my friend John and I scheduled an early evening chat with our parish priest Father Champoux to ask him how we could go about getting started with becoming priests. He didn’t hesitate to tell us that this is not something we should do. In fact, he was rather firm about it. Such was the start of my drift from the Catholic Church.

Despite not having been a practicing Catholic for the past fifty-four years or so I nevertheless need to acknowledge that the influence and teachings of the church for those first dozen years of my existence shaped much of my lifetime’s practical philosophy. Leaving behind for the time being the repressive and dictatorial manner in which Catholicism presented itself to children in the 1960s, (and no, I never experienced sexual abuse) I can humbly say there were indeed principles which were imparted to me by priests, nuns, and brothers, which I took to heart. Chief among them was a reverence for service to others. The call to reach into our benevolent hearts to serve our fellow humans—the sick, the weak, the uneducated, the elderly, the needy—is of profound spiritual and social importance. In addition, growing up around a lot of Jesuits as I did, who are members of a religious order known for their work in education, research, and cultural endeavors, gave me an appreciation for intellectual pursuits. Also, even the atheists among us have to concede that the social and interpersonal order society relies upon has many of its roots in old-time religion. For this, we can all be thankful.

So while acknowledging the importance Christian religion had in my early psychological, moral, and philosophical development I do not hesitate in declaring that adhering to a Christian tradition is insufficient for me to use in identifying my personal philosophy. I understand this is a brash and probably disrespectful declaration to make toward a religion currently practiced by nearly two and a half billion people. While not entirely dismissing the religious who claim their faith has all of the philosophy one needs with the added benefit of providing deeper levels of meaning and an exhilarating sense of amazement, I still ask why shouldn’t Christian teachings be enough for me? Why am I so special that Christian doctrine appears lacking? Quite simply, this religion, or any religion for that matter, is too doctrinaire, too obstinate, too pedantic, and too authoritarian. I may have been raised as a Catholic, but I was also raised as an American with a reverence for free will, individualism, and self-reliance. From a young adult age I noticed a discrepancy between the values of unquestioning faith required by religion and volitional decision making encouraged by democracy. I guess the liberating ethics of the Enlightenment appeal to me more than dogmatic loyalty to ancient rituals and scriptures.

So knowing which path I don’t want to follow exclusively in defining my personal philosophy, where do I turn? Well, the answer is a developing story. But it is taking shape. And one thing becoming clear is my personal philosophy will be eclectic—a cherry picked collection of values I find to be most gainful. There are so many intriguing and engaging approaches to philosophical thought it will be difficult and perhaps unnatural for me to select just one school. Therefore, what follows is a review of influential philosophies toward which I am drawn. Following my synopsis and in conclusion, I will cobble together a statement giving definition and clarity to my personal philosophy. An exercise such as this not only applies a strategy to help me reach my goal of identifying a personal philosophy, but may also serve as a stimulus or maybe even an inspiration for any reader interested in doing the same.

“There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.” H. H. The 14th Dalai Lama.

Next to Christianity, Buddhism is the next popular practice with which I also have familiarity going back more than thirty years. Notice I don’t refer to Buddhism as a religion, although many others do. I don’t because there is no theism involved. Buddha never claimed to be a deity or divine, but rather a human who showed the way to enlightenment. That fact alone appeals to many westerners oriented toward secularization, but who are nevertheless searching for spiritual and ethical guidance. Therein was my original draw to Buddhism.

Through considerable study and practice, much of it during my thirties in association with the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (now known as Triratna Buddhist Order), I developed some key takeaways, which continue to inform my philosophical thinking and outlook on the world. The concepts of mindfulness, impermanence, and egolessness speak to me about the nature of being human in the universe dealt to us. To be very clear, I am in no way making a claim I am anywhere close to fully comprehending these theories, never mind living in embrace of them, however I know enough that to examine their meaning and appreciate their gravity contributes to personal growth and evolution.

Mindfulness refers to being fully aware. Imagine receiving all of the unending physical and mental stimuli coming your way such that it is all perceived and observed, perhaps understood, but never fixated upon unless we make a discerning decision to focus on a given prompt. Living thus is beyond efficient. It is honing circumspection and polishing self-illumination. Meditation is one of the behaviors, along with intentional reflection, that slides us ever so slowly toward increasing mindfulness. A frustratingly subtle practice, meditation yields its attention-enhancing benefits drip by drip over a long period of time. Establishing a regular practice is difficult, but once started the seduction of always returning to it remains persistent. The gain of expanding mindfulness is worth it.

Another key Buddhist concept states that reality is ever changing and our clinging to any physical or mental entity is fruitless and ultimately deeply disappointing. Impermanence is a fundamental doctrine of Buddhism and a very useful condition to accept in life. Existence is “transient, evanescent, inconstant” according to the Pali Canon, a set of Buddhist scriptures. Notice how we tie our happiness to permanence all of the time? We develop a fondness or even love for people, places, and ideas only to discover sooner or later that they will somehow change or end completely, leading to angst. Preventing change takes a lot of energy that could be better spent elsewhere. By consciously de-linking our positive emotions to conditions which will naturally alter over time leaves us better able to live in harmony with others and with the natural world. If we are to deliberately align our happiness to impermanent objects and people, such as loved ones, doing so with the full consciousness of what the commitment entails, in particular its transitoriness, can help with preparing for the inevitable changes that will take place.

Related to impermanence in Buddhism is the doctrine of no-self or no-ego. We tend to each view ourselves as fixed and permanent individuals—at least for the duration of our lives. But this self-perception of our stand-alone selfhood is in direct conflict with the notion of impermanence described above. In other words, if there are no enduring and unchanging entities, then there can be no distinct and original self. Ego or self are therefore illusory and not real. Thinking this way can get abstruse and confusing, because it is so contrary to what we’ve always thought. Regardless, for me the importance of egolessness is that it helps me to not be as self-centered and set in my ways. By being able to take the focus off of myself with all of my opinions, desires, prejudices, fears, and perceptions I can more easily reorient to the needs of others and more clearly know that what I think I know today can and will most likely change over time. Together, mindfulness, impermanence, and egolessness contribute significantly to my personal philosophy.

Allowing myself to accept philosophical wisdom from the East, as I did with Buddhism, opened the door for me to examine other traditions from Asia. I have not dealt nearly as extensively with these other well established philosophies and my takeaways do not reflect the richness of these schools of thought, however two heritages stand out as relevant in my search for a philosophy of life. 

One is Confucianism. In the West, the philosophy of China’s Confucius (551 BCE–479 BCE) is associated primarily with an adherence to filial piety, or duty to and respect for one’s family and ancestors. Such devotion is actually a subset of a more comprehensive belief in the virtue of loving relationships with other people. How we develop character and usher in the good life is directly the result of the quality of how we interact with others, specifically the degree to which each of us practices benevolence, or caring deeply for all human beings. Also of note is righteousness or the building of personal integrity that avoids ethical breaches. Therefore, establishing nourishing and considerate relationships is the core to a Confucian philosophy of life.

The other intriguing Eastern practice is Taoism (often spelled Daoism). This philosophical system developed in China as well and is associated with the thoughts and writings of Lao Tzu, who is believed to have lived during a time of great turmoil known as the Warring States Period. Taoism prompts us to accept that uncertainty is prevalent in life and therefore to be careful about forming rigid assumptions about how life should play out. Flexibility, agility, and resilience are key attitudes to develop as we navigate through life’s ambiguities. We are called on to acknowledge that order is naturally accompanied by disorder, as is stability/fluctuation, sameness/change, control/disarray, etc. Wisdom and the good life emerge from our skill in self-regulation given these conditions. As Voltaire said, “Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is a ridiculous one.”

It shouldn’t come as a surprise, but the ancient West also offers us philosophical traditions. Several years ago I ran into the philosophy of Stoicism and I like a lot of what I am seeing. I think I can guess what you are now thinking. So, he wants to be stoic— impassive, aloof, detached, and sporting a stiff upper lip. Unfortunately, common English usage has corralled and limited the meaning of stoicism. In the context of philosophy there is much more to it. Thanks to Massimo Pigliucci, an author and philosophy professor at City College of New York, who I have seen and heard on a number of podcasts, I’ve been introduced to this ancient Greco-Roman philosophy. Several features stood out to me quickly. Firstly, paying homage to a philosophy from the West instead of the East for a change seems refreshing and balanced. Secondly, one can take simplicity and pragmatism from Stoicism, making it applicable in the short term without years of concentrated study. Finally, Stoicism openly admits to being a means for unearthing a eudaimonic life, by which is meant a flourishing life worth living.

Stoicism began with Zeno of Citium in Greece about 300 BCE. In time, many of its  principles were incorporated into early Christian teachings in Rome. There are two key foundational ideas underpinning Stoicism: one precept makes clear the necessity for everyone to become a moral person and the other pertains to a concept known as dichotomy of control. Regarding morality, an individual is encouraged to engage in a persistent practice of the four cardinal virtues — Prudence or always choosing the right course of action; Justice or seeking fairness at all times; Temperance or moderation and self-control; and Fortitude or strength and endurance. By practicing these four easy to understand virtues, as difficult as they may be to put into continuous practice, one can achieve a moral status. Dichotomy of control refers simply to knowing what one can control in life and what one cannot. This idea can best be summarized by the Serenity Prayer composed by the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr in 1934, “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”  Stoicism offers us a practical philosophical method that seems well suited for these times.

For many years I have personally thought of myself as a Secular Humanist. This has been a thought, but until recently without much thinking behind it. Secular Humanism, which I’ll capitalize because in this essay I’m using it as a discreet philosophy, is a good fallback position for those of us who are not religious, but still recognize value in morality, social structure, personal responsibility, and that ethereal assumption of spirituality. Those of us who are hesitant to join a club of any kind can find in Secular Humanism latitude to explore deep life issues minus membership into a creed or persuasion.

Secular refers to a preference for non-religious institutions, such as government, as the most just way of organizing society. Humanism indicates the significance of humans ability to apply reason and morals to satisfy human needs sans divine or mystical intervention or origin. Together these terms stress religion not having a monopoly on morality or ethics; the preeminence of individual liberty and human derived ethical standards; and a reliance on science and reason for understanding the universe; among other core beliefs. Development of righteous character matters to Secular Humanists, leading to suggested ethical practices for personal refinement. The principles of this philosophy can guide a person to create a life of meaning and purpose, free of religious dogma.

There are many philosophical influences one can investigate in order to identify a personal philosophy. I have described the key points to some of these schools of thought, which to date have had great influence on me. However, there are other philosophies which I have come across more recently that have piqued my interest and which call to me for further contemplation as I consider my own personal philosophy. What follows are summaries of these philosophies defined with an emphasis on the principal features of each that I find most intriguing.

Above, in the section on Stoicism, I mentioned that the Stoic maxim leading to a moral life is to follow the four cardinal virtues. Pretty straight forward. But then comes along Aristotelianism, a philosophy developed by, you guessed it, Aristotle, and we find him pushing back on the Stoics’ simplicity by putting forward a concept of moral relativism. And this in the third century BCE!

Aristotelianism is largely about interpreting eudaimonism (a flourishing life worth living) through a focus on balancing virtue with realism and reason. Aristotle shunned philosophical dictates that were too prescriptive. He chose broader objectives for people to consider such as living to one’s full potential, capitalizing on one’s strengths, and accomplishing one’s chosen goals. Most importantly, he chose promotion of a balanced life as more meaningful than a narrowly specified moral life. For example, frequent drinking to excess can be considered intemperate and therefore immoral. But what if one were to drink modestly most weeks and splurge for a special occasion like a wedding reception? Despite the hangover the next day was the person immoral? No, would say Aristotle. He had a good time, possibly rekindled old friendships, and did no one harm. Give him a break. Overall, our party boy may very well live a balanced and quite possibly a virtuous life, despite an occasional overindulgence. Moderation leads to greater happiness and health for more people than does strict adherence to rigid rules according to Aristotelianism. 

This notion of realism in philosophy is also evident in the American philosophy known as Pragmatism. Nineteenth and twentieth century American philosophers/writers, attempted to define and give utility to freedom and free will for a population that had won political freedom during the American Revolution, but was still trying to figure out what to do with liberty at a personal level. They saw that a great deal of life is making it up as you go along, which can leave many feeling adrift. Freedom to choose can be both a blessing and a curse. Figuring out how to make lives worth living within an inherently unsettled world is slippery going. Absolute values can appear inordinately elusive and abstract, leaving reverent dictates impractical and unworkable. Perhaps the best we can do in an existence that leaves us free, but with constraints, is what Pragmatists Charles Peirce and William James advocated—just make one’s world better by pursuing beauty, truth, and goodness. (My apologies to committed Pragmatists for the oversimplification.) 

Freedom also plays a significant role in the European-born philosophy known as Existentialism. In fact, as Jean-Paul Sartre put it, we are “condemned to be free”. We didn’t ask for this life, but now that we’ve been given it let’s embrace our freedom to generate the best life possible through our choice of actions. However, while doing so, we need to be cognizant of several parameters: constructing a personal essence is ongoing and fluid and ends the day we die; with freedom comes responsibility for others, because we aren’t in this alone; and there’s much about life we can’t change, but we can always strive to be authentically true to ourselves. Existentialism is intentionally non-didactic and wary of conventional behaviors. Rather, it’s a license to be fully expressive during a life that may be short, but need not be boring or oppressive. Happiness and the good life come from continuous reflection on how to find meaning in life while being our own person.

You may find here a variety of philosophy that isn’t very complicated at all. In fact, much of it can seem like common sense. To illustrate philosophical simplicity and straightforwardness there is the Effective Altruism movement. Perhaps Effective Altruism can best be thought of as a moral system or framework. Effective Altruism calls for each person to discover for themselves what significant problem there is in the world that they can make a meaningful contribution toward solving. This may involve targeting charitable donations, working toward policy changes, or directly assisting those in need. The goal is to be an agent of change and improvement. It’s concrete, measurable, and principled. All that is needed is a willingness to make the world better than you found it. Not a bad commitment to make with one’s life. (I think I can hear the ghost of Ayn Rand groaning.)

Finally, who says philosophy doesn’t have a sense of humor and a party side? Such is the reputation of the ancient philosophy of Epicureanism. A while back I mentioned how the word stoic has been undeservedly confined by popular usage in English. The same holds true for the term epicureanism. We think of it solely as a reference to the pursuit of sensual pleasure, particularly when it comes to food and wine. This impression should be no more than a starting point for a richer philosophy that speaks to a fuller cultivation of happiness and the good life.

Epicureanism is something of the bad boy of philosophies, given the religious ascetic and Platonic-based rationalism biases against pleasure, which together hold philosophical dominance. Epicurus (341 BCE-270 BCE) was dedicated to helping people live happy and serene lives free of fear. He established the foundation for this approach to be found in nature, both in the natural world and in human nature. At its essence, nature expresses blossoming, flourishing, and unfolding. We can embrace these properties as a guide to life choices which strengthen delight and contentment. Relishing the simple joys that nourish body and mind, savoring the company of friends, and making the most of every minute of this one life we have is the practice of Epicureanism. As the Epicurean Frances Wright wrote in 1821, “Enjoy, and be happy! Do you doubt the way? Let Epicurus be your guide. The source of every enjoyment is within yourselves.”

My Personal Philosophy

I see myself as practical and therefore outcome oriented. It is important that I know why I would bother expending time and energy on any pursuit. The intended end result must hold value. So, with that in mind, I choose to engage in writing a personal philosophy, because I expect in doing so I will expand my personal happiness and find contentment in having a life purpose to guide me during my final years.

Living a philosophy involves reason, contemplation, reflection, and decision making. These thoughts are experienced, felt, and colored by emotions. What necessarily follows are corresponding actions and behaviors. I conduct and judge myself through a continual assessment of my performance or interactions with other people, the natural world, and the competing selves within me. But, it’s what I do that matters most.

Philosophy is a conceptual structure. The technical components of this structure provide its essence and substance. We are each free to construct our own philosophical framework. Our building blocks are the values which we endorse and embrace and the order and weight we assign to these standards. For myself, my goal is to shape a philosophy that reflects the principles I hold as sacrosanct and which I will cobble together in such an idiosyncratic way as to possibly satisfy no one else but me. And that’s okay.

Here I present my personal philosophy as a medley of principles to live by.

Relations with others are to be compassionate, caring, respectful, and sensitive to needs.

“To serve, not to be served.” Such was my high school’s motto. I continue to take it to heart.

My center is in me. My center is in you.

Living introspectively and mindfully informs how I will channel my energy and how I will preserve my physical and mental health.

Nature is my guide. Nature is my rhythm.

Remain agile and accept change. Resist change only when very clear-eyed.

Do the hard things like: Adopt uncertainty; Meditate; Breathe through anxious moments; Trust in life’s brightness.

Bask in the love of family.

Morality is always a worthy aspiration.

Remorse for past transgressions is a natural part of life’s review. Don’t shy away from past sins. Own them. Learn from them. Move on better.

Find solace in the righteousness of secularism.

Be balanced, measured, and moderate in all things.

Savor my freedom and individualism daily.

Don’t hesitate to be generous.

Feel grateful and delight in pleasures large and small that life offers…always.

As I write this essay the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 is ongoing. This pandemic is breaking all of the rules. Among them is the enormous impact the contagion is having by upending national economies and the day-to-day lifestyles of many millions. To a greater extent however, we are being shaken from our oblivious slumber to suddenly find ourselves facing long term consequences of how global functioning and our individual lives are to continue as a result of this catastrophe. Unlike most news events in the modern era that seem to captivate attention dramatically, but briefly, before being swept aside by the next story this pandemic may well be a catalyst for changes in how the world’s citizens perceive priorities and policy strategies for years to come.

What strongly strikes me about the Covid-19 pandemic, aside from the conspicuous fear of contracting the disease, is that this may be an opportunity to jolt us from our provincial and staid world view, immersed as it is in a belief of limited repercussions for our actions, to rather an acceptance of the likelihood that we all share a much larger and more intricately woven realm of causality. Covid-19 serves as an example of a harsh lesson—the proverbial knock upside the head. It is a natural, albeit perverse, environmental phenomenon profoundly impacting our collective environment and forcing us to reorient how we live. We are being summoned to pay attention to something bigger than ourselves. Let us heed the call.

Our lives have always been subjected to the whims of nature. The conventional claim these days among environmental activists and other less strident observers is that we are witnessing, if not participating in, a growing tension between humans and nature. Certainly the data on climate change suggests a transformation is underway in the human-nature relationship. If we accept the premise that humans depend on nature, and given the power of humans to effect environmental change, that nature depends on humans, then the quality of this interaction becomes increasingly significant. As this insidious virus makes clear, mutual co-dependence of humans with their environment is worth a public re-examination and debate about how best to proceed, because something is evidently amiss.

Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2), a type of Coronavirus that is similar to but characteristically different from flu virus, has been introduced into the human population with devastating consequences. An examination of how and why this has happened will help us to see if indeed this pandemic is part of a larger story about how we humans intercommunicate with the planet. And this story, along with any conclusions we may draw from it, can inform us about what are more sustainable and beneficial practices we could or should pursue moving forward.

As you may remember from a science class somewhere in your past there are tiny life forms known as microbes or microorganisms. Bacteria is the most commonly referred to microbe, but there are others. What all microbes have in common is that they are very small and are all comprised of cells. In fact, some are only one cell in size. Their purpose is to play a critical role in the overall health and richness of a biome and to a larger extent of an ecosystem.

Viruses on the other hand are a whole different kettle of fish. Think science fiction alien-like, ahh, thing. They have been creepily described as existing on the margin of living things. They are 1/100th the size of a typical microbe and not comprised of cells. Instead, a virus or virion is a collection of genetic material that encodes proteins. It is encapsulated by a protein seal and exists in one of two ways—either in a dormant state just ready to strike when a vector or host comes along or it becomes “alive” once it infects the hosts’ cells and begins executing its genetic codes, resulting in a rapid reproduction of itself. But of course, despite its treacherous demeanor, we shouldn’t forget that viruses are here for a good reason. By transferring genes they promote genetic diversity, similar to the role played by sexual reproduction. Life on this planet inherently needs adaptability in order to survive and horizontal gene transfer, what viruses do, helps life fulfill this need.

A clear big takeaway from the Covid-19 pandemic is that nature can still pack a wide-ranging punch, even to a population who thinks of itself as seasoned, sophisticated, enlightened, and prepared for anything. It can be useful to remind ourselves that epidemics and pandemics have occurred before and some fairly recently. History is replete with real-life horror stories of communities ranging from towns to civilizations being decimated to one degree or another by such invisible killers.

For example, during the war between Athens and Sparta around 430 BCE the besieged citizens of Athens fortified themselves behind what were called the “long walls”. The overcrowding over time is presumed to have led to a not yet definitively identified pathogen outbreak among the people. Impaired mental functioning, inflamed eyes and organs, bloody throats, and foul breath preceded death. Approximately 100,000 died.

Perhaps the most well know historic pandemic was The Black Death, also remembered as The Plague, which killed nearly half of Europe’s population roughly during the years 1346 and 1353. A now likely extinct bacterium was transmitted from fleas on infected rodents, causing death from Asia to Europe. The disease followed the Silk Road route. Once infected rats who stowed away on merchant vessels to the Mediterranean and Europe offloaded the sickness spread widely.

More recently, the so-called Spanish flu (1918-1920) killed perhaps up to 100 million people around the world. It came in three waves with the second wave in the fall of 1918 being the deadliest. The Asian flu in 1957 and 1958 killed 116,000 Americans. I could go on.

It is a fair hypothesis to state that environmental degradation and mishandling will lead to unintended and severe consequences, such as pandemics. Some would say we’re past hypothesizing as evidenced by measurable and demonstrable adverse ecological conditions of recent times. Given our obvious inherent fragility two questions naturally arise: Should we be interacting with nature in a more intentional and respectful way that ensures or at least improves the chances of better lives for all people? And correspondingly, how do we best mitigate and prepare for environmental disruptions that negatively impact our lives?

We can examine the veracity of the above supposition by seeing if there is a link between environmental deterioration and social welfare. Before proceeding let’s be clear on definitions. Environmental degradation includes: reduction of high quality life sustaining natural resources such as air, water, and soil; destruction of ecosystems; annihilation of habitats; wildlife extinction; pollution or the introduction of deleterious impurities into the environment. Social welfare includes those universal objectives that bring value and excellence to life such as: health and longevity; sustenance and abundance; peace and safety; freedom and equality; literacy and knowledge; or as Thomas Jefferson succinctly put it, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a causal link can be established between human activity that leads to environmental decline or disruption and the worsening of social welfare, then we have highlighted an urgency and potential outline for constructive policy making, business practices, and individual behavior going forward.

Now is an optimal time to look at the factual information showing a connection between how we interact with nature and what She does to us as a consequence. As I’ve indicated, Covid-19 should be seen as a wake-up call. It’s impact has been so substantial that there is no question all of us are now paying attention. What is most evident is that a novel virus has arisen and penetrated our world. How exactly this happened is still being examined as of this writing, however epidemiological and genetic evidence points to it being very similar to a bat coronavirus seen in China and that a transfer from bats to intermediary animals and then to humans occurred. A California microbiology professor Kristian Andersen directed a team looking into the virus’s genesis. Their conclusion, “We propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of Sars-CoV-2: natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic [animal to human] transfer; and natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer”. In other words, new pathogens are likely to continuously undergo evolution in the animal world and they can transfer to humans who can serve as adequate hosts.

On the surface zoonotic transfer appears to be a naturally occurring process, albeit a potentially dangerous one. However, as the line between the habitats of wild animals and the human world becomes increasingly porous as a result of greater human encroachment we may be boosting the chances of zoonotic transfer and therefore of the disease risk associated with it. For example, this wet market practice being practiced in some parts of the planet, in which live animal species are interacting unnaturally due to human commerce may be extremely hazardous. Given how localized outbreaks can become global so quickly in the modern era, the danger of such markets should be called into question despite their cultural history and local importance. Developing sound methods of engaging with wild animal populations that reduce instances of harmful zoonotic transmissions would seem to be lesson #1 from this disaster.

Given the severity of the Covid-19 disruption to our lives it’s natural to yearn for a “return to normal”. Let’s unpack what normal was just a few short months ago. Edward Cameron is an Irish climate scientist and strategist living in Vermont. His description of the month before the pandemic started in earnest, also fondly remembered as “normal” times, is useful to contemplate. Commenting on stimulus money being spent by governments in reaction to the public and economic threat of Covid-19 he wrote in May 2020, “There will be a temptation to seek a return to the economy as it was on 31 December 2019. Should we spend these trillions of dollars and succeed in rebuilding the stock market, while still living in a world where more than 3 billion people live on less than US$ 2.50 a day? Should we grow GDP back to pre-crisis levels and still live in a world where 22,000 children die each day due to poverty and 805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat? Should we put people back to work but still live in a world where 750 million people lack adequate access to clean drinking water—killing an estimated 2,300 people per day? Should we resuscitate the price of oil and commodities and continue our long march towards climate catastrophe? Would we call that success? Would that world be a better world than the one we have now?”

Point taken. Going back to normal has a downside. Of course, we all want the security of living with familiar comforts and predictability. Such consolations provide us with happiness and mental health. Yet, it’s worth keeping in mind as we yearn for familiarity that many benefits come at an ecological price not often considered and these rewards are not as widely shared as we might like to think, thereby creating unresolved social tensions. A critical fact about epidemics historically is how they expose vulnerabilities in what had been normal prior to the scourge. These weaknesses inherent in societies’ living standards and political decisions are where infections take hold and tragedies ensue. Compounding the grief is the realization that while microbes and viruses seek to exploit soft pockets made available by human practices, it is those most at risk from these customs who bear the greatest brunt. We see this being repeated with Covid-19 as the infirm, poor, disadvantaged, and elderly are infected and die at the highest rates.

There are many like Edward Cameron calling for this crisis to be a moment of opportunity for ushering in a better world. Profound social changes have often followed epidemic disruptions. History shows social perspectives are altered impacting religion, economics, politics, and lifestyle habits in the aftermath of large-scaled cataclysms. Sometimes this leads to massive improvements like the loosening of the Roman Church’s dictatorial hold on Europe following the Bubonic Plague or what can result is disastrous such as the rise of the Nazi Party subsequent in part to the Spanish Flu pandemic. It’s naive to think there will not be a momentous reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic. The quality of the response depends on the excellence and persuasiveness of thought leaders and political talent.

An emerging line of reasoning hoping to direct the post-pandemic effort connects issues that often are viewed as separate challenges, specifically poverty, wealth inequality, and environmental devastation. Many of us first saw this amalgamated approach with the progressive left’s Green New Deal. The proponents of this process advocate for going really big, by tackling a range of environmental improvement and social welfare concerns, even racial injustice, all at once. The claim is there is an inherent inefficiency in tackling these problems separately or in a siloed manner. For example, if the focus is solely on emissions reduction to reduce global warming at the expense of addressing how agriculture, a leading emitter of particulate emissions, feeds the world’s population, then progress on favorable change is curtailed.

Despite the impassioned argument for going big with a set of multiple reforms simultaneously I’m left questioning the political practicality of initiating too sweeping of a reform movement all at once. An energized opposition is likely to become too much of an impediment, resulting in no substantial change occurring. To be clear, each component of a Green New Deal-type plan—poverty, wealth inequality, equal opportunity, and environmental devastation—seeks to remedy a critically pressing concern. And viewed holistically, a thread can be found linking these issues. However, making legislative progress on any one of these in isolation is a herculean task. Instituting meaningful policy on all of them together in a single comprehensive move seems like a very heavy lift indeed. So, whereas I can appreciate the desire to link environmental and social action at a policy level, the legislative impediments arising from this strategy could very likely weaken and dilute the attempt.

That said, I nevertheless find Cameron’s reference to socio-ecological resilience to be quite informative and promising. To be more specific, I find the term ‘resilience’ appealing, especially in the context of strategic resilience, which I believe is his intention. Progress, innovation, and change don’t happen unless there is an underlying ethic of reflection, preparedness, agility, and risk taking. These are traits that often seem to be in short supply among many groups of people, including those of us in the “first world”. Resilience as aptly described by Cameron pertains to the development of capability “to anticipate, avoid, accommodate, and recover from shocks”. Such thinking is in line with business continuity planning, a most useful and proven approach to executing strategic resilience. Business continuity planning is a systemic process designed to minimize threats, recover from disruptions, and maintain operations with just the right balance of sustainability and adaptability to allow for ongoing functionality. Covid-19 lays bare societies’ agility and viability vulnerabilities worldwide. A more premeditated methodology built around strategic resilience will better prepare us for the dangers and disorders yet to come.

“The main part of preparedness to face these events is that we need as human beings to realize that we’re all in this together, that what affects one person anywhere affects everyone everywhere, that we are therefore inevitably part of a species, and we need to think in that way rather than about divisions of race and ethnicity, economic status, and all the rest of it.”  Frank M. Snowden, a professor emeritus of history and the history of medicine at Yale University. Professor Snowden articulates what is the greatest challenge for us to customize a post-pandemic world. It is not just waging a fight against invading pathogens. It is not immediately halting all ecological ruination. It is not instantly remediating the effects of world poverty and injustice. It is finding a way to work together, to find common ground, to forge partnerships across diverse and opposing ideologies and world views that take us collectively to a place of harmony with nature and universal social well being.

Political divisions will always be with us—and they should be. As much as Washington and Adams warned the young American nation about the drawbacks and pitfalls of partisanship our early countrymen quickly resorted to establishing institutions whereby like-minded people sharing political positions and philosophies could coalesce and compete. Bias and partiality drives politics in every nation in one form or another and varying levels of cooperation and animosity facilitate or diminish government action and decision making in each of these places. Rhetorical conflict can result in progress or not. In the best of situations leadership quality and citizen enlightenment merge to discover solutions that elevate conditions for the greatest number of people. It is not the eradication of disagreement that is needed, it is the crafting of positive options from the scrum of our differences that is called for more than ever in the post-Covid world.

“With all the riots and BS going on, I’m starting to miss the days of the #chinesevirus at least that was laughable nonsense. Where did all that go?” Conservative contributor to Twitter from New Mexico. 

“I’m never wearing a mask…We ruined the economy for nothing.” Conservative contributor to Twitter from Washington, DC.

“Let’s all be honest. Democrat Governors all over the Country let criminals out of prison so they could show up for the riots. The plandemic was the lie they told. These riots were planned right down to the bricks.” Conservative contributor to Twitter from California.

The above quotes were taken from my Twitter feed on June 3, 2020. For the past week the nationwide protests have been occurring following the videotaped murder of an African American man by a white Minneapolis police officer. I could of course add many many more quotes of this type, but I think these make my point. There is a significant segment of America who dismiss and don’t accept the urgency of attacking a viral pandemic raging through their country. Can you imagine these folks rallying to combat climate change?! Whereas the marketplace of competing ideas yields the best solutions, as I’ve noted above, there does come a point where paralysis can set in due to unbridgeable chasms of opinion. We may very well be a this point.

I purposely follow a lot of conservative contributors on Twitter to help give me a sense of what this part of the population is thinking. Granted, Twitter seems to be a platform where MANY extreme views from the right and the left make their instantaneous presence, and despite the velocity of these well caffeinated and provocative conjectures, it may not be any more of an accurate reflection of mainstream viewpoints than any other source. But it is informative nevertheless, to read the thoughts of those who I do not encounter on a daily basis in real life. My grand takeaway is becoming that America is not only profoundly polarized politically, but now appears to be such a large and unwieldy country that to think of coalescing around a national purpose of any sort these days looks to be pathetically unrealistic. It makes thinking we can tackle threats that require national unity, rational problem solving, and concerted effort fanciful. And to be fair, the left can be soundly obnoxious themselves, particularly on the extreme end of the wing. Together our partisan palsy puts all of us at greater risk of mishandling future natural epidemics at a time of accelerated globalized change. This is not smart people.

The fundamental test therefore lies in comprehending, on a near universal scale, the common ground on which we all stand. Doing so involves a mind-shift toward seeing the world through everyone’s similarities, shared purpose, and sense of oneness. Of course there will be differences of opinion and perspective. But where is it written that any nation need cleave itself over these contrasts and disagreements? We should make clear to ourselves that collectively we can achieve greater liberty and prosperity for everyone by adhering to principles of equality in justice, brotherhood, and multicultural acceptance. I’ll drag out a banal, but incisive phrase—there is more that unites us than divides us. Or perhaps, we can simply listen to Desmond Tutu, “My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together.”

Finding common ground with those with whom we have disagreement does not start with sending links to articles highlighting one’s point of view, or by pointing out “incontrovertible” data, or by quoting experts in science, economics, education, and so forth. It starts with identifying shared values. We all live in communities we want to be prosperous and safe. We all want the best for our kids. We all want the freedom to live life as we choose. We all want to live long comfortable and flourishing lives. At our roots, we are moral, emotional, social, and intuitive, not rational. Reaching each other over how we feel about issues will forge alliances more than trying to get ourselves to think alike. Debate at a cognitive level can often be fruitless outside of a university-like setting. We think what we want to think. But appealing to our widespread sentiments of what feels right provides greater hope we can build coalitions.

Working within the framework of one’s civilization can reveal beneficial touch points in trying to find common humanity. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist in Virginia recognizes care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity as supporting morality, which I’ll define as a culture’s sense of right and wrong. Exploring these areas with the goal of intentionally establishing areas of agreement among disparate people allows us to seek agreements and reach accord. Understanding the moral interests and human nature of others is the place to reach them. Developing trust makes it easier to agree on win/win approaches. When we figure out an improved way of collaboratively merging reason and intuition we will have a greater chance of productively connecting to face incoming environmental and social challenges that we will surely face together in the future, whether we are ready for them or not.

Covid-19 should be seen more as a forewarning than as a one-off unexpected cataclysm. We are being alerted to not only future pandemics, but to a range of calamities that can result from the lack of congruence between humans and nature, including the efficacy of how science and governments respond to these threats. Will we snap back to a normal goaded by pent-up demand as Pilita Clark in the Financial Times describes as spending, “…money we don’t have, on things we don’t need, to create impressions that don’t last, on people we don’t care about?” or will we be guided by a desire for preventative science-based planning and funding that is cooperatively engaged across disparate agencies, departments, businesses, and even nations? Resisting the fratricidal tendency many people have to express hate, xenophobia, and scapegoating when faced with fear, as these forthcoming scourges will likely engender, could be our biggest obstacle to the necessary teamwork such times will call for. If so, this will be enormously difficult.

All times are a stress test of one sort or another each with their own zeitgeist of idiosyncratic incitements that make or break the people of their age. The grand conflict of our epoch is integrally enmeshed in the quality of the relationship between the earth’s dominant life form and their planet. We have had a shot fired over our bow. The time for awareness and resolve is on. How we engage this struggle will determine the kind of world we bestow upon or deprive from future generations. Whatever turns out to be our legacy we cannot say we weren’t warned.

The Virtue of Nationalism by Yoram Hazony

Basic Books, New York, 2018

The term Nationalism, as a descriptor of political philosophy, cultural identity, and governance methodology has been undergoing a reexamination in recent years. This evaluation is resulting in political lines being starkly drawn around how civil and partisan engagement is to be exercised among the citizens of 21st century sovereign states. The significant emergence of populist right-wing movements in a number of western countries during the 2010s is forcing us to review the advantages and disadvantages wrought upon societies and economies concerning the manner in which globalization’s interactions and integrations have been playing out over the past thirty or forty years. By investigating the way in which global exchange practices are developing in this increasingly hyper-connected world we can better determine whether nationalism, a profoundly universal social innovation, which emerged from the Enlightenment three centuries ago, continues to be a beneficial and relevant social organizing principle going forward.

Recent reading and podcast listening of mine in the areas of politics, economics, and philosophy has brought to my attention the latest work from Yoram Hazony, an Israeli political philosopher, entitled The Virtue of Nationalism. The impression initially given to me from the above sources is that this work is popular among conservative intellectuals as a serious promotion of nationalism’s positive effects and praiseworthy underpinnings going well beyond mere political theater and hyperbole to instead a revealing and scholarly justification of the concept’s current embrace among many on the political right.

Nationalism used to have a positive connotation with me, but since the Trump phenomenon its reputation now seems personally tarnished by its associations with xenophobia, jingoism, racism, and extremism. All told, this seemed like a good time to try understanding my political opposition more by peering into an erudite attempt to explain nationalism’s measure, worth, and modern relevance.

I went into this reading with a view of nationalism shaped largely by two influences, one my study of conventional American history, which by and large speaks of American nationalism as a blessed and hard fought gift to the world, created out of righteous revolution and gallantly sustained throughout numerous external threats and invasions. Secondly, beyond the American experience, I’ve observed nationalism as the glue that has held the world’s people together in an appropriate order of self-governing societies bound by common histories, languages, cultural traits, and religions. My key observations are that nationalism encourages pride, patriotism, and a rallying of collective spirit, leaving each citizen feeling as if they belong to something grand and historic. The national state model allows people to join in a synergistic manner to establish and protect their independent means of continuing prosperity and cultural longevity while safeguarding themselves against external threats. If one nation can’t defend its interests alone, then it joins in alliances with others whom they share concerns. I have always thought this arrangement was a marked improvement over the primitive feudalism of previous eras with its near constant bloodshed and tyrannical rule. Overall, nationalism has felt natural and fitting — until this time.

Nationalism has become a political hot potato and as with many topics of late with which there should not be widespread disagreement, such as environmental protection, universal access to healthcare, and shared prosperity, nationalism is now the cause célèbre, pitting those on the right, who seek a return to an allegedly diminished sovereignty, with liberals who view cooperative global connectivity among peoples as inevitable and positive.

For many, nationalism has revealed a dark side. Areas of contention include claims that a form of neo-nationalism in the west has arisen of late characterized by regressive and revisionist thinking; claims of racial superiority; intolerance of diversity; an embrace of outmoded social behaviors; denial or rejection of cultural and historical changes now underway; less respect for the rights of all citizens; a willingness to increase conflict with other countries such as allies; and less readiness to initiate and establish international alliances. In short, a debate now exists about whether or not nationalism contributes to universal welfare, peace, and prosperity around the planet or if it is instead an outdated relic of a more pugnacious and bellicose past.

Also, nationalism now has a novel and disturbing face to it. Donald Trump, Brexit supporters, eastern European strongmen, white supremacists, and angry old white men (and some women) many of whom possess only a basic level of formal education. It’s reasonable to ask, can there be anything redeemable of an idea endorsed enthusiastically by this lot?

To be fair, there have undoubtedly been tensions leading to a reassessment of how international relations are deployed and of globalization’s value more broadly. Growing numbers of Americans and Europeans see unsustainable and uncontrollable levels of immigration occurring; trade agreements that seem to favor cheap labor abroad at the expense of domestic workers; technological and business shifts overly favoring the highly educated; greater corporate empowerment leading to increased wealth inequality; terrorism targeted at the wealthy nations; and a sense that multi-state federations and alliances, such as the European Union, United Nations, and NATO, are weakening nations’ ability to determine their own policy initiatives and address adequately their own unique national interests.

Together these issues have called into question our rush to tightly connect the world technologically, economically, politically, and culturally. Many are welcoming this set of challenges as an excuse to reaffirm the benefits of nationalism and caution against any alternatives away from it.

Yoram Hazony constructs a thoughtful, well researched, ardent, and academic defense of nationalism, placing the practice in a long-term historical context. For critics of  nationalism as it has become to be understood today, in particular as a reactionary political movement, it is worth reading this sober and reasoned rationale advocating a means of governing and ordering of societies that is still quite recent in the annals of history. One element of credibility I expected from Hazony was his perspective on the topic as an Israeli citizen and self-admitted Zionist. The Hebrew nation was intentionally forged from centuries of enmity, bigotry, conflict, and genocide, providing Hazony and perhaps all Israelis, with a profound reverence for a system codifying independence, self-reliance, and empowerment for the Jewish people. He did indeed deliver his thesis from this vantage point, giving his claims added authenticity, if not veracity.

A principal dichotomy Hazony relies on to gird his central argument is the fundamental choice countries must make between having governments rooted in self-determined independent sovereignty or authoritative and centrally planned multi-state aggregations. The question is which system is worthy of development that best advances freedom, prosperity, peace, and moral integrity. Is it a belief countries should be free to pursue their interests, further their cultural traditions, and navigate their way through a world brimming with threats and opportunities? Or is it one ingrained with the notion global integration is a requirement for reducing racism and belligerence, while promoting tolerance, fellowship, and fairness? In other words, Hazony views the essential preference as one between nationalism and imperialism.

Hazony reaches into history to provide guidance and justification for the crucial ruling decision nations must make today. Empire has a long track record in the western world stretching back to Assyria, Persia, Babylonia, and Egypt. It is due to the latter empire with its authoritarian brutality and forced devotion to polytheism and pharaonic command, which gave rise to the reactive origins of nationalism found in the Old Testament. The Bible became the first document to present a political order alternative to imperialism as well as the tradition preceding it, tribalism. Of note, Mosaic law prohibited Israelites from launching incursions into nearby kingdoms and stipulated internal governing standards, which together formed the early parameters of the national state.

Later significant expression of nationalism occurred during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Rejection of the imperialistic Roman Church, following the invention of the printing press, occurred in England, Scotland, the Netherlands, France, and Sweden, leading eventually to the Thirty Years’ War, which broke the Roman church’s hold over much of Europe, resulting in the formation of national states throughout the continent. A common attribute of these nations was a self-proclaimed right of self-determination and adoption of moral requirements determining the legitimacy of governments, often codified in constitutions. This continued to serve as the building model of most nations reaching into the 20th century.

Nationalism today has been altered substantially by two penetrating developments—the philosophical emergence of what Hazony calls the “liberal construction of the West” and Germany’s 20th century attempts to forcefully apply nationalism as a springboard for empire building. In the first case, western political thought has been dominated since John Locke (1689) by a sanctified belief in individual rights and consent. By superseding loyalty and kinship to cultural, religious, and tribal origins with individual freedom and equality the nation state loses its moral fiber and tradition-bound purpose. In addition, the rationale for national boundaries is diluted or seen as unnecessary in a liberal world where universal principles that improve the lives of all humankind can be put into practice the world over. Hazony complains that defense of old-styled nationalism is not even given the time of day among the multiparty educated elites who are all in with the Lockean paradigm.

Germany saw the nations of England, France, Spain, and Portugal forming colonial empires around the world and thought they should have one too. The difference with the Germans was in their belief that instead of colonizing far-flung parts of the world they could establish their empire in Europe. Hence, World Wars I and II. Following the atrocities of Nazi Germany, a conclusion widely accepted was to believe nationalism could be inherently extreme and the cause of such horrendous crimes. By taking away their status of nationhood peace and prosperity would instead reign over Europe.

The result of these traumas is that the true national state, as Hazony sees it, has given way to a neo-imperialism most glaringly expressed in the European Union, United Nations, and Pax Americana. The faith buttressing these entities assumes the western world has identified liberalism, by which is included the rule of law, market economies, and individual rights as the true all-encompassing way to achieve peace and prosperity. He contends this comes at the expense of a conviction in nationalism based on self-determination and moral allegiance principles as the correct and proper way to govern. As is obvious to him, this doctrine can best be achieved via international alliances and other state integration schemes, which smack of imperialism and a drift away from sovereignty. The current wave of nationalism in Europe. Brazil, the U.S. and elsewhere is a rejection of the liberal construction of the West and the neocolonialism it implies.

Mr. Hazony attempts a reasoned case for his preference of nationalism over the other major political order alternatives, those being clans/tribes and imperialism. He basis his claim not on mere emotional devotion or an infatuation with institutional tradition alone, but through a carefully constructed logic centered on the ultimate eminence of people’s mutual loyalty to one another. Beginning with an endorsement of the idea that political order needs to precede philosophies of government he goes on to recognize politics as a means of persuasion uniting like interests of a community toward achieving common goals. Members of any collective join for one of three reasons: they are coerced, paid off, or see the aims of the group as sharing in the same values as their own individual aspirations. This latter motive, the most influential of the three, leads to an all powerful mutual loyalty, which is foundational to the formation of families, clans, tribes, successful institutions, and nations themselves.

The precious bond of mutual loyalty, progressively arising as it does from families and clans to tribes and nations, outweighs in importance personal gain, one’s survival instinct, and even the ability to live totally free and independent, according to Hazony. Any philosophy of government must take into account this fundamental truth — group cohesion resulting from reciprocal fidelity creates the highest quality and sustainable associations and institutions. To diminish or to be blind to this tenet is to follow a path toward enabling organizations with weak attachments and a fragile ability to meet threats, to benefit from opportunities, or to satisfy the individual needs of constituents. He accuses the current liberal construction of the West as falling into this trap by relying solely on individual consent and freedom as the keystone of government.

Hazony offers a useful analogy to make his point, by which he compares the two institutions of business and family. In business, employees and customers engage with the organization to greater and lesser degrees depending primarily on an expectation of what benefits are to be derived which will enhance one’s lifestyle and material well being. We could say it is a consensual relationship. The family, on the other hand, is comprised of members to whom one is devoted well beyond what comforts they provide. Indeed, family members may be quite difficult, nevertheless parents largely accept the obligation to pass on cultural inheritances to their children, which they had received from their parents, grandparents, and ancestors. The commitment to one another within families is a much stronger bond than is found elsewhere, particularly more so than within commercial relations. The claim is therefore made that a true lasting connection to one another in a nation is much closer to family than to business.

Nationalism is the sweet spot between the rule of clans and tribes, which leads to near constant warfare and anarchy, and empire with its inevitability of subjugation. It is only in the national state where citizens of common heritage, language, religion, and history join to form and give allegiance to a political order that in turn provides national freedom to all. Hazony claims a collective freedom must precede individual freedom and to think any individual can be free when their family or fellow citizens are not is folly. National freedom as expressed in free institutions and domestic power centers strengthens domestic peace and common well-being. Moreover, national freedom is founded on a empirical belief that the truths which hold a people together must result from a plurality of viewpoints over time rather than from a single universal precept delivered on high.

Hazony concludes his book by trying to address one persistent criticism of nationalism — the charge it promotes intolerance and hatred. The counter argument boils down basically to: ‘Well, imperialist movements do so too.’ Finally, much time is spent defending Israel’s nationalism, which frankly to me appears as an open and shut case given the history Jews have faced, despite their inability thus far to temper or mitigate the aggressiveness imposed by them onto their neighbors.

In general, I have to give Hazony credit for laying out a solid case for the continuance of nationalism. I agree with much of his rationale. Primarily, his placement of nationalism between tribalism and imperialism and his critique of these extremes is credible. A political order whereby individuals are able to benefit from established cultural teachings, uphold the future of their civilization, and further an idiosyncratic but legitimate expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is clearly acceptable. I embrace an approval of intercultural diversity, tolerance of differences among peoples, and a context requiring negotiation among disparate parties. A world of national states sets the stage for such interaction. He makes an obvious case that tribalism and imperialism impede such a scrum in favor of a more minimized and overly reductionist outlook favoring restricted thinking of how communal interplay should occur.

It’s also hard to quarrel with the value of mutual loyalty among like people, a fundamental dogma of his pro-nationalism argument. The bond folk experience from common backgrounds, values, and interests is profound and motivating. The sense of belonging is integral to personal mental and therefore collective health. Anyone who feels pride in their heritage, which is most individuals, knows how significant fealty and homage to one’s people is. Such fidelity to a group’s ancestors and the culture they imparted over generations should be honored, refined, and respected. However, it is on this overarching topic of mutual loyalty where I begin to question Hazony’s premise.

He makes clear that there are limits to mutual loyalty. In Hazony’s nationalistic world citizens begin forming the bonds of loyalty first to their families and from there to their local communities and to country. Historically, loyalty followed a path from family to clan to tribe and over time to nation. But that is as far as collaborative devotion can apparently reach. His claim is that without the ties of tradition loyalty toward others dissolves. What we are left with at best is a grasping of like interests from which to form political alliances with those outside of our cultural and national sphere. The default position is that members of a nation exclusively contain a limited and unique set of objectives necessary to sustain their people which are not shared with foreigners. And because there is not a universal commonly accepted principle that applies to everyone around the planet, or so he says, there is a natural constraint as to how far mutual loyalty can go. I ask myself, are the world’s inhabitants really that separate and different from each another?

Technology and a global economy join people in interdependent ways. We rely on each other for our common welfare and bounty in ways that is increasingly difficult to do at just a national level alone. International trade and cultural exchanges benefit a nation beyond what domestic practices, policies, and programs alone can do in the modern era. Not only that, but global climate change places everyone in the same existential boat. Our very survival no matter where we live is largely subservient to how global decision makers react to the scientific data beckoning us to act in a coordinated manner. Do we not jointly participate in a world marked more by what unites us than what divides us? Is not our common need to live fruitful lives in the here and now, while fashioning a plentiful future for our children, the elusive universal principle Hazony claims does not exist?

Hazony seems to have a limited view regarding the foundational thinking pertaining to political order, which emerged from the 18th century’s age of reason known as the Enlightenment. He restricts it to Locke’s reasoned claim of “perfect freedom” and “perfect equality” or in short, individual freedom, as the one grand unifying principle driving the theory of government that now dominates the West. However, I suggest expanding the notion of what qualifies as ordering principles derived from the Enlightenment beyond just individual freedom, as noteworthy as it is. Other conditions conventionally thought of as forming the basis of the good life inspire contemporary political action as well. Steven Pinker highlighted such requirements in his book Enlightenment Now (2018). In addition to freedom and happiness he identifies health and longevity; sustenance and abundance; peace and safety; literacy and knowledge; and environmental quality as critical outcomes all people should experience. Surely, attempts to ensure individual freedom and results such as those noted by Pinker together serve as a more complete unifying principle agreeable to all nations supporting a theory of government. Perhaps Martin Luther King put it best: “We are tied together in the single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. And whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”

To be clear, the above criticism is not a rationale for empire building. Hazony lays out quite well the pitfalls of a single multinational governmental structure. I agree the loss of national sovereignty can lead to a weakening of culture and a reduction of local decision making, both of which fly in the face of self-determination.

Be that as it may, Hazony singles out the European Union as a particularly flawed imperialistic gamble personifying the way nations should not be going. As is obvious, the EU is modeled on federalism and is populated largely with nations and citizens who want to be a part of it, especially now that the UK is gone. Advantages of the union include protection of basic political, social, and economic rights through implementation of a single market with no cross-border transaction fees; high uniform standards of food safety, consumer and employment rights, and environmental regulations; added global relations clout coming from a unified voice instead of 27 smaller voices; enhanced minority citizen rights; and more. Above all, the greatest benefit to date is the degree of relative peace throughout the European continent. After the bellicose debacles of the twentieth century this is no small achievement. I find it difficult to share Hazony’s glum assessment of the EU’s impact on governance and on the lives of European citizens.

Lest one think Yoram Hazony is simply a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, I would like to point out a fundamental point of his that popular liberalism can take comfort in. He goes to some lengths criticizing individual consent or freedom as inadequate on its own for basing a political theory. Indeed, this is the crux of his problem with the historic liberal construction of the West. Rather, he expounds on the virtues of mutual loyalty as the crucial missing component of current western political thought. What Hazony then actually does is to promote collectivism, community, and public cooperation as paramount while debasing an over-reliance on individualism. This plays right into the popular liberalism of American Democrats and European Social Democrats and says to popular conservatism in the West that its ideology is left wanting.

In summary, Yoram Hazony has prepared a sagacious defense of nationalism that I recommend to anyone drawn to a consideration of political theory, governing principles, and what is motivating the political right these days. Yet, I’m still left with the feeling that to promote nationalism without explicitly condemning its obvious shortcomings in the areas of racism and intolerance, not to mention the impracticality of isolation in a commercially globalized world, is leaving me somewhat unconvinced of Hazony’s brand of nationalism’s purity. Also, I don’t get that if in an empire one member’s national views are disregarded by the empire’s leaders it is despotism, but within the nation state if a minority’s views are ignored by a nation’s leaders it is an accepted price to be paid for the larger good of nationalism, then I see an inconsistency.

But even with these foibles I cannot support a removal of nationalism in favor of a one-world government. Nationalism is a system that may need reform, but not revolution. And thanks to Hazony, I can now better separate nationalism’s true value from the lunatic rhetoric delivered by the cast of nationalistic characters on today’s political stage.

I haven’t written much over the past three months. Some, but not as much as I expected to given I had a three-month period with precious few things needing productive attention and which were largely months that were mine to use as I chose. I can’t point to my lack of output to a busy schedule, or identify others as making too many demands of me, or even claim I was the victim of a damnable unexpected obstruction life sometimes throws across our paths without warning. Instead, I think I’ll blame it on Spain. After all, this is where those three months were spent.

Spain, or to be more specific, Andalusia, the autonomous southern region of the country where this time was almost exclusively passed, is a total distraction for an introverted, goal-oriented, New England-bred old man with an imagination deficit. I’m used to getting things done concretely in an environment where cultural and meteorological conditions are conducive to setting aside scheduled time dedicated to accomplishing large and small tasks every day. Especially during winter, with its sharp and biting edges, urging us poor souls to find warm shelter where we’re forced to occupy our time with meaningful indoor pursuits that keep us grounded and somewhat sane.

But winter in Andalusia generates no such exigency. Nearly every day exhibits traits seemingly designed to prevent an over-indulgence of objective-achieving activities. Plans to work on something can be easily thwarted. One’s normal laser-like focus can become refracted illuminating options for your day you didn’t earlier consider. Days can slip through your fingers with velvety abandon. Another night makes its presence and you are again surprised how smoothly the retreating day slid by like a passing skater effortlessly flowing down the paseo maritimo.

This part of Spain sends a message that living matters and we should be here on this earth to enjoy it. Rather quickly upon settling into these surroundings the senses begin influencing the brain to divert dusty patterned and sequestered thoughts and feelings outwardly toward possibilities only revealed by an abundance of sunshine filled skies and the big blue sea. The charm of Spanish culture ushers American sensibilities to a seat at any one of many cafes or bars where attentive and unhurried service awaits. Sipping this existence slowly can relax jumpy minds, reverse impatience, and if allowed, excite. Andalusia has a distinctive style shaped from a rich and turbulent history to share with those who go there willing to look, listen, and learn. It is a place confoundingly compelling and engaging and enticing. And that is why I haven’t written much in the past three months.

Arriving in Spain at the beginning of December for a pre-planned stay that involved living in a rented casa along the Mediterranean’s Costa del Sol for as long as the European Union visa laws allowed (three months) meant we were here for a relatively long haul. On the docket was a desire to visit other parts of Andalusia in addition to venturing out of Spain briefly. What eventually transpired was a two-week trip to southern Germany and Austria in late January. Other than this out-of-country trip, our time was encircled in Andalusia, including greater Malaga and the cities of Granada, Sevilla, Cordaba, and Cadiz. Also of note, this was not our first trip to Spain or to Andalusia. We rented a casa in the same locale for two months during the winter of 2015. So, we had a pretty good idea of what we were likely to face. Nevertheless, this fresh encounter with Spain expanded my appreciation of its more salient and positive traits.

High on my list of observed positive Spanish attributes, and one counter-intuitive to my own manner of being, is the Andaluz passion for life. The people strike me as very social and outgoing, especially among each other. Much time is devoted to long visits and energetic conversations, particularly over food and drink. Meals can go on for hours consuming entire afternoons or stretching late into the night. Family and community are revered. Time is gratefully committed to growing relationships. As has been observed by others assessing the Spanish psyche, the Spanish don’t live to work, they work to live.

This is not to say Spain is an unproductive country. On the contrary, it appears to function quite well. Municipal and private services abound. One observes things getting done, although patience is sometimes necessary. The manaña syndrome, or tendency to get around to task completion when one is good and ready, does make a not infrequent presence, or so I’m told. Urgency may not match northern European or American levels, but by adjusting to the Iberian pace quality of life need not suffer a decline, rather it can possibly be improved.

Another appealing feature is the weather. My, but the sun shines a lot there. Costa del sol is an apt description. Real estate agents, backed up by the country’s national meteorological agency, claim there are 320 days of sunshine per year. A harsh winter day is a cool, cloudy day with some rain and temperatures in the mid-fifties Fahrenheit. Coming from New Hampshire, this is a joy to take. Most days over the three months in Andalusia were sunny and in the sixties. Perfect winter weather!

Over recent years, I’ve noticed that I really like sunny days. Sunshine lifts my spirits, improves how I feel, and assists me in having a more positive outlook on life. These consequences appear to be having a greater impact as I age. It’s said sunshine boosts the brain’s delivery of the hormone serotonin, resulting in enhanced mood, calmness, and focus. Given my need for help in all of these areas I was very grateful for the daily solar exposure.

My daily walks were a pleasure. Energetic romps through the streets of town and especially along the paseo which followed the shoreline of the Mediterranean gave me not only exercise and time to think, but contact with the aforementioned sun. I often explored the streets where tourists did not venture, but instead where generations of local residents made their homes. Sure, they sniffed me out as someone not from there, but I was never made to feel uncomfortable. Whenever I travel I love wandering and observing people and places different from own experience. I am not so naive to know this is impracticable and unsafe to do in many locations around the world, but so far my excursions in many far flung spots has been rewarding.

To imply my stay in Spain was all comfort and leisure free of any mental exertion, leading to my dearth of writing is not completely accurate. There was another reason. I seriously tried to take my understanding of the Spanish language to the next level. This was really hard and pushed my brain to what felt at times like its limit.

Let me back up to make a disclosure. The learning of another language has been an unfulfilled lifelong desire. I studied my mother’s native tongue, German, for all four years of high school and one year of college. But as most of us know, this encounter rarely produces a proficient speaker, listener, reader, and writer of another language. Life went on and I never was able to comprehend and express myself in German beyond a rudimentary degree. Then, after our 2015 stay in Spain, I developed an enthusiasm for their language. Given its widespread use across the western world, including its growing presence in the US, I thought I could and should handle this one. I still think someday I will.

Learning a new language in one’s sixties is considered tough to pull off. I recently heard a linguist contend the older one gets the more difficult it is to learn a new language. Agreed. He went on to disclose, perhaps in an attempt to make people like me feel better, it was only necessary to learn about 500 keywords to become functional in a language. However, he didn’t say which 500 they were. Nevertheless, I persisted. And I made progress I’m happy to report.

As a base from which to build more Spanish language aptitude I had a year and a half of occasional lessons with a teacher in Mexico conducted via Skype over 2017 and 2018. This helpful introduction in combination with some more recent online grammar work, or should I say dabbling, provided me with a little background from which to extend my learning.

The approach I began with during this three-month language intensive largely consisted of trying to master those words and phrases most needed to conduct business in stores, restaurants, and other commercial contexts. From there I ventured into conversational attempts with locals. I relied heavily on two aids in tandem to accomplish this. One, the Google Translate app on my phone and two, my memory. I can’t applaud Google Translate enough. I would anticipate what I wanted to say prior to an engagement, look it up on the app, and then try to memorize as much of the text as possible. This exercised my visual memory in ways I haven’t done in years. Over time, this approach increased my learned vocabulary and communicative functionality immensely, not to mention giving my memory a well deserved workout. Before long I had a serviceable list of words and phrases I could speak in a natural manner without relying as much on the app. This was satisfying, indeed.

My most demanding situations were social ones, during which I tried conversing with native speakers who knew little to no English. Granted, these discussions didn’t get into great depth, but I found that when pressed I could conjure a large enough number of words to make myself mostly, or ahhh, should I say somewhat understood. To be honest, these sessions were mentally exhausting. Nevertheless, it was exciting to see myself begin to learn a new skill. As we age we typically rely on engaging in activities with which we already have some familiarity. It’s part of our chosen need to remain in our comfort zones. Trying to expand my ability to speak Spanish was a deliberate attempt to step out of that zone.

Of course, every glass is at least half empty, right? Being more a visual rather than an auditory learner in general I anticipated difficulty in comprehending the Spanish spoken word. Was I ever right. I left Spain knowing I never made as much progress in listening to people speak and understanding what was said as I wanted to. If the language is in print, it is much easier for me to process. Coming at me as verbal speech and I’m often lost. The one shred of progress I can claim in this auditory area is that spoken Spanish doesn’t sound as rapid fire as it used to. For most of my life I always thought Spanish speakers talked really fast. Now that isn’t necessarily the case. The speech now strikes me as slower, but unfortunately so is my ability to understand it sonically.

So, I have left Spain physically behind for now, but have taken a piece of it with me. I will continue to practice the language with the hope of one day being able to say and demonstrate that I can speak, read, write, and LISTEN to Spanish fluently. Also the pace of life revealed to me in Spain is one I hope to incorporate into my retired life. If not now, when as they say? And though I can’t take the Spanish sun with me wherever I go I can always carry the memory picture. I look forward to returning.

And now no more excuses. Back to writing!

Short story from late 2019 

I have seen you closely. I have seen you from afar. Your story reverberates in a continuous loop that saddens, warms, and captivates me. I can’t and won’t turn away from you. Ever. 

You clearly remember the whoop of excitement ringing out from your colleagues working closely by you in the kiln test pit the group was carefully revealing. One group member, Madeline, called to you by name urging you to see the pottery sherd they had just discovered. It was a reddish jagged ceramic fragment measuring about 12 cm by 7 cm and clearly part of a larger work given its image of a single eye with its deep red swoosh of an eyebrow flowing down the left side of a partially revealed nose bridge. At that moment you were more thrilled to hear her wanting you to join in her excitement than by the discovery of the actual artifact itself. Being invited into someone else’s joy was still a novel experience. You let the pleasure radiate for a moment before congratulating Madeline and the others on their find.  

As one of six first-year students from UCLA’s graduate institute of archeology, who were all selected to participate that summer with Spanish archeological officials to assist in the excavation of a newly discovered Roman site on a hill overlooking the southeastern Andalusian coast, you were living the dream. This is what you worked and studied for, an opportunity to systematically excavate with a team of like-minded enthusiasts while being supervised and taught by masters in the field. Your emotions ranged from pride to profound satisfaction as you emerged from the long slumber of stultifying childhood into assuredness and professionalism.  

You’ve reflected on that moment in the kiln test pit often. It has attained a symbolic status rooting you to a brief but significant apex in your development as a person. Sometimes you still carry regret for what might have been, but maybe not as often as you used to. Self-reflection was never something that came to you easily. Why should it? Your parents never seemed to encourage or even practice anything approaching rumination. But feeling badly for yourself. Now that always came more easily. It’s at these times you recall the meticulous unearthing of the stone column centered within the round brick kiln dating from the second to third century with people who felt like friends and remember what happiness was like.    

Although being a child didn’t bring for you many moments of exhilaration there were times of contentment. These moments stemmed largely from you not minding to be alone. You actually preferred solitude most of the time. Your interests were your best friends. They consisted of situations and characters involving meeting challenges head on, overcoming hardships, clever problem solving, gutsy self-reliance, and codes of honor. In short, gallantry. However, when you read stories and watched movies replete with such incidents, they weren’t enough to fully satisfy your attraction to these themes. In your search for more information on these topics what developed was a pursuit of understanding people from far off places and times, stepping stones really which led eventually to your love of archeology.  

Archeology represented for you opportunities to interact and commune with tangible links to ages in which you imagined such valiant deeds most often occurring. Your fascination began with weaponry, armor, and all things militaristic, but in time involved an appreciation of the primitive and mundane technologies, such as the development of pottery, fabrics, tools, and other material culture. You would envision simple people carving and shaping an existence out of the world as they found it. Individuals and communities battling with challenges presented by nature and fellow humans, while they also fashioned art and religion. This enchanted you. It still does. 

You spent time alone in the woods and fields around your home practicing archeology as a boy. Despite knowing western New Hampshire had been occupied by peoples for thousands of years it wasn’t as if you could easily find human skeletal remains, Native American artifacts, or musket balls from early English settlers. You sure tried hard to do so, though. Rather, you learned about the historic record told by the woods themselves, especially of the many topographic mounds and cavities that told of tree blow down events from long ago, the intent of the builders behind the peculiarities of stonewall constructions, and what prompted placement of colonial era homes as evidenced by long abandoned cellar holes. You felt peace and purpose during those outdoor explorations and adventures. 

As inconsistent as this may sound, another observation about your past is that you did care about what others thought of you. You cared very much, especially from members of your peer group.  There were several, although few, other boys in school who shared at least part of your interest in things historic and archeological. Together you shared stories, played games, searched for artifacts, and watched movies. There was that Saturday when you and Joey made cavemen dioramas in his basement and the time Thomas’s mother took three of you to visit America’s Stonehenge in Salem. These are still good memories. But for the most part you were seen as aloof and well, weird. You realized quickly how feeble your attempts to interact with regular kids often led to embarrassment and self-doubt. It became easier for you to retreat into your own safe self-devised frameworks. 

Of the little more than 500 students in attendance at your high school, coming as they did from your downcast hometown, a former cotton and woolen textile mill town having seen better days, there was hardly anyone you really knew or cared to know. The feeling seemed to be fully reciprocated. Not many of them wanted to know you either, except for you to serve as a ready recipient of teasing, bullying, and general harassment. There was a rock hound club that met after school on Tuesdays, which came close to an interesting school activity. However, the teacher who ran the club was young and although he had minored in geology, he wasn’t terribly inspiring. The numbers of student members attending continued to drop. It’s fair to say, your time in that school was often a silent and lonely hell. 

You were smart, though. Grades throughout high school were very good, such that it wasn’t a stretch for you to get accepted into the University of New Hampshire to study anthropology, which you planned to use as a launch pad into your eventual field of archeology. Your time at UNH was certainly a life improvement. It got you out of your hometown and meeting other people. There were a few you could actually call friends. Not being into the college party scene disadvantaged you socially, however. There was a lot of time spent in your room and at the library. Overall, you were more accepted in college, enjoyed your studies, and continued meeting with success academically. You also found yourself wanting to stay in Durham more than returning to your parent’s home when school breaks came.  

Then during your senior year came the big break! Acceptance to the University of California Los Angeles’s graduate institute of archeology with a generous financial aid package. You felt elation at the prospect of living so far from home studying a topic that always spellbound you and at a university that seemed alluring and exotic. The Westwood section of Los Angeles was trendy, bustling, and engaging with a warm winter and a cosmopolitan atmosphere. You dove into your classes and other program offerings at the institute. You enjoyed the city’s diversions. And what started as an intent focus on the historic story behind buried artifacts quickly turned into an appreciation and enthusiasm for disseminating this rich body of knowledge to localities and communities hungry for specific information about their pasts. You thrived on opportunities to share the work being done on conservation and field projects with community groups, museum guests, and public school students. The more subject matter you absorbed the more you wanted to share it with others. Occasionally, a thought would actually cross your mind that you might enjoy becoming a teacher in addition to an archeological research expert and scholar. 

Given the related pursuits of your college peers you made friends and acquaintances surprisingly easy. These relationships began simply enough due to assigned collaborations on class projects, but in time several of these interactions developed into true friendships — some of them the most genuine and satisfying of your life. Over the course of your first months in LA, it was as if a great weight of insecurity and dearth of confidence had been lifted. Your intellectual self was merging with a social identity, creating in you an certitude and conviction never before realized. Optimism started to make appearances into the back streets and hideaways of your days. You had never been happier. 

Alas, this gratification, this enlightenment, this indulgence was not to last for you. About a month into your second year at the institute you received the frantic call from your mother in New Hampshire. There had been an accident involving your father. Your dad had a small excavating business, which he had started as a young man after a stint in the Army. He generated a small name for himself in your area and managed to secure just enough business to keep your family afloat financially. Each fall it was his habit to pick up as much work as possible before the winter settled in when he would again rely on his snowplow. This fall was no different. One late afternoon in mid-October your dad was operating his bulldozer alone at a remote site some distance from town. He apparently stepped out of his machine to pull on something of interest from the freshly scraped earth when the idling dozer suddenly advanced pinning him to a large white pine. He wasn’t found until the next morning. You were told with precious little tact by the land owner that he was found unresponsive with a swollen blue face and well beyond the use of any life saving techniques. Your mother was called by the police and told an investigation was ongoing, but that it appeared this was simply a “tragic accident”.  

You are an only child. And in your family in-depth disclosures of feelings were never typical conversation topics. Hearing your mother’s anguish on your phone was unlike anything you had ever heard before. Her voice was so profoundly sorrowful. This sound shocked you more than the actual news of your father’s death. There was no question, but that everything you had going on at UCLA would have to be immediately dropped, so you could be with your mother straight away. In a stupor, you arranged to fly from LAX to Boston and from there took a Dartmouth Coach to Lebanon where you had arranged for a ride to take you home. The silence and darkness that awaited you in your house was more than unnerving. Your mom was sitting alone in her easy chair. She looked up at you once when you turned on the light, but said nothing. She didn’t need to. The woeful look and swollen eyes said enough. 

Your mother needed help and you had just lost your father. You were unquestionably in mourning for both of your parents, but the event didn’t paralyze you. It felt odd to you that you could carry on with burying your father and helping your mother put one foot in front of the other. In retrospect, you see it was a show of strength. But at the time, you were just doing what needed to be done. Not to say any of this was easy for you. Once your dad was laid to rest there was the matter of closing his business, dealing with his creditors, finding other excavators to complete his unfinished jobs, and selling off his equipment. You approached these tasks as if they were school assignments. You researched, formulated strategies, developed processes, and implemented each step systematically. This approach would have been improbable had you not had the training provided to you in college. For that you were grateful. 

There was never any going back to normal for your mother. She descended into an incoherent, depressed, and agitated state, which fluctuated greatly. Not very social to begin with, she withdrew almost entirely from friends and the community. Continuing her office administration job at the furniture and lighting fixture retail store where she had been employed for years was impossible. Anxiety ruled her days. She would veer from days of staying in bed for hours upon hours to pacing around the house during early mornings, because she couldn’t sleep. Soon it was clear to you that by remaining a constant presence in her life was helping her to achieve relatively functioning plateaus. This realization solidified a decision you were hoping to avoid. You were not going back to Los Angeles and school. 

Your degree in archeology was never completed. You never accepted this. Why should you? Rather, you only surrendered to it. This distinction left you feeling forsaken. Nevertheless, the pressure to find work took hold. The thought of your mother losing her home in addition to the upheaval her life had already become turned into an urgency. Fortunately, in short time your passion for learning and your disdain for taking a less than stimulating job combined to crystalize a pursuit you never considered before.  

While walking in your old woods one afternoon, feeling wracked with uncertainty and confusion about how to carry on with a job search, you were struck by the stature of a grand red oak. This beast of a tree was probably one hundred and fifty to two hundred years old. Being winter, only a few brown crinkled leaves remained of its crown. Still, the massive diameter of its trunk and reach of its stout limbs spoke to you of strength, endurance, and fortitude. Standing at the tree’s base you removed your gloves and placed the palms of your hands on its gray deeply crevassed bark. In the field of archeology, you were practiced at holding artifacts both precious and mundane and would feel their presence. You perceived an aura from these objects as if waves of long past human experience were being communicated to you. You found these encounters extremely satisfying.  

As you pressed your hands against the magnificent oak it too spoke to you. An ancient wisdom, viscerally tasted, produced a connection between the plant and you. Minutes passed. The tree continued to transmit and articulate its message, obscure at first, but increasingly evident. The environment in which you were destined to remain rooted was heavily forested. Trees could be the living and tangible artifacts of your life going forward. A notion began to take shape, transferring your thirst for knowledge about concrete substances and materials from the past to actual, palpable, and physical entities of the present may lead to a possible path out of your despair. 

Today, you are working toward building a specialty in the creation and maintenance of groves and orchards. Spaces that are often functional or aesthetic for your customers, but which are to you are sacred. Knowing things could have been different continues to interfere with what is. Your salvation, such as it is, involves being in these woodland places of light and growth where you need to forget what was and envision what can be.  

I remain ever hopeful for you.            

An opinion written during the fall of 2019 

The great challenge for the people of the United States as we move deeper into this century is to extend the privileges of democratic engagement, economic opportunity, and the capacity to shape cultural assimilation and definition within an increasingly complex and diverse citizenry.  

For more than 240 years America has been continually faced with an epic mission presented to us by the nation’s Founders. It was simply to create a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Doing just this, however, has been anything but easy. Demonstrating democracy with its inherent need for political participation and engagement within a pluralistic society, one which is comprised of traditional and shifting ideals and principles, has been and continues to be an existential exercise of both profound significance and enormous difficulty. Despite all of the practice and history we as a people have with perfecting democracy there is much progress yet to be made. 

It can be disheartening to realize there is no fully successful period we can look back to over the past two and a half centuries to claim American democracy had reached superiority. At no time has there been a commonly shared fortune of power apportioning, wealth allocation, or a broad set of mutually recognized voices determining who we are as a nation. Power and wealth tend to concentrate among those making up preferential groups. Historically, governments were organized around the ideals of aristocracy or some other form of autocracy, in which it was widely accepted that all-powerful authorities held reign. America was supposed to be different. Our revolution stated control was to be self-assigned equally. All would have a say in how the pursuit of happiness was to be achieved. To date, we have fallen short in honoring and realizing this value. 

As socially divergent as America was from European aristocracies at the time of its founding the country simultaneously carried the burden of class and race segregation adopted from Europe. While we were giving expression to Enlightenment principles at a scale never before done in the history of the world, we were also furthering many of the features of group domination over those people deemed to be weaker. This was consistent with despotic rule. Our country’s story is replete with examples of dominion, most often by white male and monied interests, lording over ethnicities, races, and genders not fitting into this Euro-centric mold. 

Each generation has included and elevated those individuals with passions for universal fairness, inclusion, and equality. Though up against great and at times insurmountable odds these circumspect and forward-leaning patriots have led movements and missions that over time have integrated deep-seated and liberating levels of egalitarian practice and recognition among the people. Prime examples include ending slavery, child labor, and civil rights discrimination, while instituting women’s right to vote, labor unions, and gay marriage. Now, as we burrow into the 21st century we are acclimated as a people to readily voice fairness concerns when any group is disenfranchised, including even those who once represented cultural, racial, and economic leadership. 

This time is no different. Discrimination and racism are still with us. The needs of large swaths of Americans are underserved and underrepresented. Cultural and economic ascendancy for a finite few can easily be recognized. In short, the rewards of prosperity and inclusion are not widely enough distributed. Inequality continues to reign, justice is denied, dreams are unrealized, and lives are unfulfilled. 

However, while we remain stuck in social disparity America’s challenge at this point in its history does present a unique arrangement of conditions. The current conflict is centered on two major problems, one primarily economic and the other cultural. Economically, we are living with the consequences of decades of neoliberal, free market fundamentalism in the corporate sector that has boosted Gross Domestic Product and for the most part Wall Street, but has not lifted the living standards of all citizens. Secondly, we are now in the midst of a long-term demographic realignment that is presenting as an increase in the numbers of formerly minority populations of African Americans, Latinx, and Asians with a corresponding decline in the percentage of the overall population occupied by Euro-based Caucasians.  

Both of these significant phenomena, which are occurring simultaneously, require not only weighty political interventions, but an all-hands-on-deck grappling of what it means to be an American. To repeat, the Founders laid down a dare for themselves and for future generations—are we going to fashion a representative government that allows everyone to participate in national gain or are we going to continue the long unjust and inequitable governing traditions of our past? This choice is unmistakable and unavoidable. What follows are thoughts concerning the achievement of successful results on both fronts, in particular regarding democratic engagement, economic opportunity, and cultural inclusion. 

•••• 

The basic economic outcomes being sought by most people adding up to a decent life are not complicated. Nor should they be elusive. They include employment with fair pay; safety and security for oneself and one’s family; an ability to be educated and to educate one’s children; having a long-term home; good healthcare; and means to live a dignified retirement. Relative equality in these critical and much desired areas should not be too much to ask from the citizens and leaders of a rich country. When there is widespread cultural adherence to the values of social justice and universal opportunity these outcomes should result. However, given 11.8% (2018) or 38+ million Americans live below the poverty rate (family of four living below an income of $25,465) and with many others living close to this edge we are faced with a reality that too many citizens are not realizing basic humanitarian living outcomes in this country.  

There doesn’t appear to be prevalent agreement that the conditions stated above are a problem. For example, a common refrain heard from supporters of President Trump is that too many losers, troublemakers, outsiders, criminals, perverts, etc. are quick to take handouts from hard working average Americans who are having all they can do to make ends meet. The idea of giving healthcare to illegal immigrants yearning to be American, for example, is particularly upsetting. In general, poor minorities are seen by many as somehow deviant. Since they were not raised with all of the same values and behaviors, never mind the looks, of the white dominant class they are not worthy of assistance or care. It’s worth noting 76.5% of the U.S. population is white and that proportion is in decline. Moving beyond systemic racism must precede debates about what is fair and what we should expect from one another as Americans.  

Acceptance and inclusion of all people able to call themselves American must occur before the fruits of economic well-being are to be shared in a reasonably equitable manner. Cultures historically seem to have a default mode of self-imposed segregation and preservation rather than an inclination toward tolerance of differences and assimilation. As the late Samuel P. Huntington, a political scientist, wrote during the 1990s, sustaining the characteristics of civilizations will continue to shape the nature of global politics more powerfully than ideologies or even nation states. Culture, or the traits that define shared behavior and thoughts, form the underpinning of the organizational development of like citizens known as civilization. The visceral power of culture and by extension civilization cannot be understated when determining the interactions of people around the world.  

America claims to be exceptional. Our unique founding with its philosophical foundation based in republican ideals rather than centered in a single ethnicity or conventional heritage makes our experiment extraordinary. Despite the culturally English and monarchical background of the founders they nevertheless were inspired to institute a representative democracy, a form of government never before brought to such a large scale. Fundamentally, this was an expression of the nation being of the people and not the sole possession of any family or divine ruler. By declaring itself as a representative democracy the young nation announced to the world that this place was different, better, and welcoming. This concept was and still is revolutionary. 

Given our history of not entirely living up to a pervasive representation of all members of our diverse society and also given the present moment of our political polarization, it is of great importance that all Americans unite culturally, societal, and enthusiastically to reassert our collective pledge to honor universal inclusion of all Americans, no matter one’s race, ethnicity, background, or religion, and to dismantle any remaining barriers or future designs intended to discourage full democratic participation. As the American writer-activist James Baldwin put in in the 1960s, “We are trying to forge a new identity for which we need each other…”. We are indeed. 

Principal impediments to this ideal are expressed by antiquated beliefs of racial purity, a long-standing expectation that minorities should aspire to conditions set by the dominant class, and a profound inability to comprehend the perceptions and prospects of those born and raised in other communities and circumstances. These handicaps lead to disjointed interactions among the citizenry with the result being some people are disenfranchised while others belong. And it is difficult for the in-crowd to see this disassociation. Psychiatrist Karl Menninger once wrote, “It is hard for a free fish to understand what is happening to a hooked one.” Hard, yes. Impossible, no.  

The United States of America has achieved iconic greatness as evidenced by countless countrymen and countrywomen bearing and fostering lives of delectation, purpose, and abundance. America’s challenge, therefore is that there should be no rest, no complacency, and no satisfaction until collective purpose as exemplified by general opportunity, means, and fellowship are afforded to each and every American. It is what we owe one another as allied compatriots.  

Wanting 

A child 

Sees the clear difference 

Between what she and others have 

Material riches, self-worth, dignity 

Not sure what is wrong 

But something definitely is wrong 

Work hard. Be like us. 

The message others give 

Nighttime hunger, outgrown clothes 

No new shoes at the start of school 

Fatigue, vagueness, fog, indignation 

Hard to be what they want me to be 

Depression, misbehavior, stern looks from teachers 

Why not?  

Life is unfair 

Living from rental to rental to rental 

Despairing parents 

Missing future 

Absent opportunity 

She stares into space 

Dying 

Brain takes command 

as always 

to prepare for death 

No more plans to make 

short-term memory 

loses importance 

replaced by life review 

decades-old events 

revisited 

Sleep prevails 

systems slow 

consciousness wanes 

peace descends 

Food and water 

are rejected 

for days and days 

while the catheter 

fills less and less 

The body 

dwindles and declines 

sliding into 

cocoon-like embrace 

slow reach to 

terminal stillness 

An Old Picture 

I ran across 

An old picture of my daughter 

Taken during the 1990s. 

It makes me sad 

That I can’t relive just one day 

Of her at that age 

Ever again. 

Moments 

To feel 

Moods strike stealthily 

Good humor, bad sentiment 

Push and pull of psyche 

Habits hard to break 

Circumstances take control 

Stronger than mind 

Stronger than heart 

Peer through haze 

Touch habitual responses 

Cultivate curiosity 

Embrace growth 

Gamble with uncertainty 

Impulses emerge  

Patterns arise 

Pleasure and pain are what they are 

Observe their nuance 

Free of judgment 

Live with what is 

Like never before 

Folk 

Family 

Wife, Son, Daughter 

Extraordinary lives 

Core of being 

Live in love 

Live in fear 

Don’t be taken away 

Appreciation is lacking 

Immeasurable passion 

Devotion to die for 

The choice is mine alone 

Young families 

Coordinate child care 

Am now free of that burden 

But at what cost? 

Groundlessness and self-centeredness 

Poor substitutes for nurturing 

Los Angeles 

Density 

Drone of ‘The 2’ 

Voices across properties 

Layered aircraft 

Hot days 

Cool nights 

Dry polluted air 

The Moon shines here too 

Mixed cultures 

Brown skin 

Interaction 

So many stories 

Sea of humanity 

Neighborhood islands 

Small houses 

Eccentric styling 

Reputation 

Creative flow 

Music and acting 

Hub of entertainment 

Domingo 

Highland Park supermercado 

Barbacoa de pollo e carne  

Bueno con cerveza fria 

Walk along Verdugo  

LA middle class 

Din of cars 

Birdsong background 

Orange 

Orange needles, once green, lie on the ground 

Orange leaves cling ever tenuously to maple trees 

Ripe pumpkins sit on a stonewall 

Passing light displays an orange radiance 

Once inside, the first warming fires cast an orange glow 

The calmness of yellow merges with the urgency of red 

To signal the demise of summer and winter’s inception  

This pigmented time of year produces associations 

And reminders of traditions 

Walks across campus quads and leaf strewn trails 

Establishment of studious and productive mindsets 

Plans made previously unfold with predictability and anticipation 

Gardens put to bed and warm weather paraphernalia packed away 

Sweaters and corduroys briefly forgotten are reintroduced  

Oaks foretell mice, chipmunk, hawk, and fox populations 

By the volume of their acorn drops 

Floral life, verdant and full not so long ago, languishes 

Mountain sides pop as palettes of complexion 

Auburn crowned birches lean over running brooks 

Lakes reflect angled beams of light, yielding their annual shimmer 

Air carries the pungent smell of decay and disintegration 

Cool air prompts more campfires 

There is still dried pine to eliminate 

The flames dance with orange brilliance 

Against hard granite stones 

Staring for hours into the blaze 

Contemplating the present moment 

And the frigid winter to come 

Dogs 

Their soulful, expressive eyes 

Short fur on tops of heads 

calling to be stroked and scratched 

Layers of affection and anxiety 

We finessed, managed, and loved them  

for so many years 

Rusty was the first 

When I was a little boy 

The big shaggy Collie didn’t last long 

Chasing cars, chewing shoes 

My earliest remembered profound sadness 

to know he had been given away 

Kemo came from a New Bedford shelter 

My life partner loved dogs 

We tried together to keep him 

Nervous, desperate, unpredictable 

“Damaged goods” is a usable phrase 

to best describe the poor boy 

Karga was on loan for a year or two 

A huge German Shepard and 

gentle giant 

Diligently guarding our son’s home birth 

in a rural New Hampshire farmhouse 

Sikkum, the Lhasa Apso 

could turn women’s heads 

when I walked him on Concord streets 

Our boy’s first dog  

who required more patience than I showed 

 Ahh, Else, the “girl biter” 

The Chocolate Lab lasted fifteen years 

A true family dog 

Was present when our daughter arrived 

Beautiful dog, loving relationship 

who would sell her soul for just one more bite 

of food 

Elwood, a most handsome German Short-haired Pointer 

needed a new home 

We were seduced by his tri-color palette 

but tested by his fears 

which grew worse over nine years 

We all tried so hard 

We all tried, Elwood 

Regal Tess had been abandoned 

An aloof and strong-willed Standard Poodle 

who preferred women over men 

A curly gray ghost with a singular agenda 

that was hard to penetrate 

I think, but am not sure 

she was grateful for what she was given 

Pepper stayed for her final eighteen months 

Her old owners had to depart 

for a nursing home 

She departed for our home 

A ragamuffin mix of Terrier this and that 

My only regret is that 

she had not spent her whole life with us 

Ernest came to retire in New Hampshire  

from urban California 

Our first hound. A howling experience 

Between us he sat 

on cold winter days and nights 

before the flickering woodstove 

melting our hearts 

Cringeworthy 

An uncomfortable 

but valuable (I think) 

phenomenon is occurring 

now that I’m retired. 

Unprompted and spontaneous memories of 

stupid-ass, 

embarrassing, 

awkward, 

tactless, 

faux pas situations 

I committed 

over many years 

are stinging my consciousness. 

There are many years to cover 

and numerous instances on which to reflect. 

Having stepped into it  

as frequently as I have 

gives my deep memory 

much grist for my mental mill. 

Why this is happening 

I am not sure. 

Perhaps I’m primed 

for a life review 

coupled with a slap 

upside the head. 

God knows I deserve it. 

My response 

after my initial cringe 

is resolve. 

Live more present. 

Observe more acutely. 

Be kinder. 

Reach out intentionally. 

Add and not subtract 

from future interactions. 

Beats just feeling like shit. 

Rooted Aimlessness 

Physics takes a recess while 

disparate experiences blend. 

Dream-like views prevail and 

suggestion becomes what it is. 

Like counting blueberries picked 

during moments leading to death. 

Also, weather becomes predictable 

like it has all happened before. 

Mothers and fathers fade away 

while suns burn hot. 

The aging actor only gets roles 

for characters who are old. 

Nurses heal, teachers teach, and 

everyone tries to carry on. 

The bridge’s incline keeps rising 

leaving me scared to gape over the peak. 

Peering into the eyes of dogs and horses 

is like seeing life itself. 

I miss the country when 

I’m too long in urban sprawl. 

Can I please be excused?