The Randomness and Uncertainty of Reality

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.

 

 

America Takes a Huge Risk

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!

A Critique of MAGA

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.

 

 

Idealism’s Troublesome Weakness

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?

 

 

 

 

Consciousness Considered

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Intersection of Philosophy and Physics

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reflections from Flanders Fields

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom AND Equality

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! 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.

 

 

 

 

The Limits of Freedom

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ten Poems III

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Artificial Intelligence Appraisal

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thoughts on Virtue and Character

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 Democratic Party Moving Forward

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Future Shock Fifty Years Later

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.

 

Ten Poems II

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Trucker

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Identifying a Personal Philosophy

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After the Pandemic

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.

Book Review: The Virtue of Nationalism

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blame It On Spain

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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Secret Friend

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 youYou 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.            

  

America’s Challenge

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.  

 

Ten Poems

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? 

Living with Entropy 

A reflection written during the summer of 2019 

The day begins as many do with the making of coffee. While the water is heating to a boil and during the time it takes for the hot water to drip through ground coffee, I begin to arrange dishes, cups, glasses, and silverware, which have been air drying overnight onto and into their respective places on shelves, drawers, and cupboards.  

While sipping caffeine my mind turns to the day’s tasks before me. Clothes need to be washed, dried, folded, and arrayed in dressers; the house needs to be cleaned and made to look orderly for guests arriving later today; the garage has descended into an unorganized mess, such that I can’t slide my car in; the refrigerator and pantry require restocking; unopened mail is stacked on my desk calling for attention; and on and on and on.   

Many days are like this. A significant part of the mundane life involves putting things in their place. Another day, another corralling of cats. The multitude of variables attached to physical entities that occupy, crowd, intrude, define, and fill our lives call out to us continually, forcing us to decide on any number of organizing courses to take. For all of our possessions demand choices to be made. Do we ignore, dispose, categorize, save, give, sell, bequeath, or destroy each of these countless items we’ve bought, acquired, or adopted? These decisions can’t be avoided, because the natural order of things is that our stuff and consequently our lives progressively descend into disorder.  

The list of must-dos we assign ourselves is vast indeed. They include an endless list of activities related to maintaining a home, occupation, family, community, and environment. Efficiency and custom dictate that everything has its place, so we engage in unceasing arranging and re-arranging of materials in a never-ending energy and time expenditure. Pick up, shelve, store, tidy, clean, and pack. And to what avail? Is the effort worth it?  

I’ve often questioned whether the vast amounts of time spent on combating muddle has value. Why, after all, can’t we just live life as it is without feeling this urgency to establish and maintain countless patterns and systems? Isn’t the universe unfolding as it should without need for our frantic and artificial human interventions?  

Entropy is a term borrowed from physics, more specifically thermodynamics. Technically it refers to the naturally occurring disorder and randomness of a system’s thermal energy, rendering the energy less available for conversion into mechanical work. For the layman, it is a useful word for describing everyday chaos, turmoil, and disarray that can occur if left unattended. As seems to be our common perception, the disparate yet connected domains that make up our worlds do seem to be forever crumbling before us, urging us to sandbag against an impending flood of clutter time and time again. So there. Entropy. We now have a word for it. 

It undoubtedly appears that have tipped my hand in this piece by explicitly leaning in a critical direction when suggesting there may be liabilities of too much entropy-reducing indulgence. After all, isn’t there more to life than marshalling belongings? Do we run a risk of enslaving ourselves to a life of constant orderliness, leaving little time and energy for more enriching pursuits? Yes, I do believe this is a condition we must guard against. When the realization snaps into focus that nearly every waking hour is dedicated to some manner of organization is a good time to consider the possibility of alternatives.  

The trick for me, and I suspect for many other people, is in determining how to live with just enough life-sustaining upkeep to enjoy the benefits of a well-ordered world, while not becoming consumed by an over-maintenance of seemingly humdrum details. Perhaps a means of identifying where on the ‘neat-freak/c’est la vie’ spectrum one is can be approached by conducting a type of cost-benefit or SWOT analysis. (SWOT, by the way, stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats. It’s a business school thing.) A purposeful self-examination can get us focused on the potential and actual gains of combatting entropy and how much outlay of time, energy, and stress is worth expending to realize these rewards. 

We all have an individualized way of approaching such a personal inquiry. For example, let’s say I am examining my disheveled surroundings. I have a tertiary choice. Leave it as it is, add to the mess, or intervene by cleaning. What drives my decision? Ultimately it comes down to what will make feel better. Will I find greater satisfaction by preserving the status quo, by contributing to the chaos, or by tidying up? So, which will it be?  

My strength is in doing what feels right to me. My version of propriety means I am following a valued course of action, which has the added value of creating an incentive or opportunity to perform other acts of decorum. To give into my weakness would be to procrastinate and avoid action, possibly setting the stage for other confrontations, which may leave me unable to cope. Do I want to feel empowered or not? Emotion governs behavior. 

Perhaps, nature can serve as a guide. Free of human involvement the earth’s other life forms, the most conspicuous being plants and animals, just go about their business of sheltering, feeding, and procreating. No muss, no fuss. The process appears pre-determined and programmed and there are challenges to be sure, but overall the generations manage to burn brightly for their allotted time, followed by a convenient decomposition, providing grist for succeeding lifetimes.  

We humans in contrast have certainly arranged to complicate our time on earth considerably. To live in a manner inspired by nature may simplify our range of freewill demands. We could give ourselves permission to match the rhythm and pace of the natural world by calibrating mindfully the amount of demands we cram into a day with the potential freedom that can come from a more intrinsic outlook.  

Free of an unforced over-organizing tyranny it becomes possible to glide through life unhurried, with less stress, and fewer regulations. We are liberated to enjoy life as it is and consciously feel gratitude for our surroundings, even if they are somewhat disordered. To stand in our own power without worrying what others think becomes easier to do. Getting control of our own lives and schedules can be the tangible result of intentionally letting go of the incidentals. 

On the other hand, a degree of order enhances life and ties us to a comforting sense of place. In a chaotic world we need predictability and stability to ground and center us. Immersing ourselves in an environment that increases both situational efficiency in that we know where things are when we need them, but that also soothes our souls as we take in our pre-arranged décor, art, and sentimental objects tastefully configured around us.    

In truth, the choice before us is not one of selecting entropy-reducing enslavement versus living a life of disarray absent order or organization. The answer for each of us individually is to find our own plot point on the spectrum between these extremes. However, broadening our awareness about how and why we confront entropy in the manner we typically do on a daily basis can be self-informative about how we meet life’s challenges, the allocation of time and energy we expend addressing what we think is important, and the level of joy we derive from each day.   

My Political Evolution 

A reflection written during the Spring of 2019

My earliest political memory is from the early evening of Tuesday, November 8, 1960. It was the night John F. Kennedy won the presidency. My mother needed to run out to a store of some sort and I sat in the back seat of the car. It was cold and dark. I was seven years old and living in Lenox, Massachusetts. My mother’s nervous energy and intense concern were palpable. She and my Massachusetts Irish Roman Catholic Democrat father wanted very much for Kennedy to win. The car radio crackled, because my Mom was desperate to not miss any news about the election that on this special night was dominating all broadcasting. This was the night I began to learn that politics was a big deal. 

In many ways my reverence for politics, history, and the importance of government came from those few years of President Kennedy’s administration. The Massachusetts Irish Catholic Democrat side of my family adored Kennedy. He was held up as the best thing to ever happen to this worldjust shy of Jesus of course. My mother was a young German immigrant and she took her cues of what to believe in America from my father’s family. Regardless, she readily embraced the adoration of Kennedy. As a result, politics and the government were introduced to me as hopeful, inspiring, and fundamentally positive constructs. This belief shaped my approach to politics that in many ways continues to this day.  

The Kennedy story ended tragically of course. It was the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963. I was sitting in my fifth-grade classroom at Lenox Elementary School listening to a lesson our teacher Miss Neill was presenting, when our principal walked into the room, walked up to Miss Neill and whispered the news of the president’s assassination into our teacher’s ear. The shocked look on her face sent waves of anxiety throughout the room. In retrospect Miss Neill handled it all very well. She calmly, respectfully, but with obvious pain told a room full of ten and eleven-year old boys and girls what had happened to the president. It couldn’t have been easy to announce this news to us and it wasn’t easy for me to hear it. 

My mother cried for four days. The black & white television was on continuously carrying news of the shocking account. The grief was cutting and profound. I remember watching Oswald being shot on live TV, the president’s casket lying in state under the Capitol rotunda, and the salute John-John gave the funeral procession. To this day, I can relive the sorrow and gloom. It will never go away. 

One afternoon during the summer of 1964 my friend John and I made Johnson for President signs and held them up to traffic traveling on Walker Street in Lenox Dale. No one prompted us to do this. It was our idea of having fun and doing something meaningful. By then politics was of high interest. Although I don’t remember having a fondness for LBJ, nevertheless he was President Kennedy’s VP and had been sworn in on the day JFK died. That was enough reason to support him and I did so enthusiastically. Barry Goldwater, Johnson’s Republican opponent, was successfully portrayed across the country and in my circle of family and friends as a dangerous and unpredictable menace, who must be defeated at all costs. The election of 1964 cemented in my mind that Republicans were menacing and Democrats virtuous. For better or worse, the political narrative of my life has largely followed this course. 

1968 was a tumultuous year in American politics. I was in high school by then and totally drawn into the drama of civil rights and anti-war protests rocking the nation. Eugene McCarthy, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota, emerged early in the election cycle as liberal provocateur running for the Democratic presidential nomination with a demand to end the war in Vietnam as his principal issue. By this time young people were quite politically active, certainly compared to later periods. Many youthful, anti-war, counterculture types found McCarthy appealing. And therefore, so did I. My path of teenaged individuation hitched itself to this rainbow-colored, daisy-decaled bus. 

Prior to the election of 1972 I was old enough to vote. Full of urgency, I asked my father to take me to the town hall so I could register to vote as soon as I turned eighteen. The desire to vote continues to attract. I may have missed a few local elections held on a rainy Tuesday for offices seemingly far removed from my life. You know, the kind that garner 20% of the possible electorate, if that. But in general, I have been a loyal and devoted practitioner of the voting franchise. I have never missed a presidential or midterm election. Not one in 47 years.  

*** 

Politics is about values. History has taught us that for people to live in harmony with shared values is quite difficult and has too many times devolved into a deadly endeavor. Although articulated by an erudite American, the universal quest of citizens across the globe can reliably be said to converge on the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Realizing the serious consequences of getting politics right occurred to me early on as profoundly important. Having had two parents whose young lives were consumed by World War II, one as a young girl in war-torn Germany and the other as a teenager fighting the Japanese in the South Pacific, I learned early about the repercussions of societal and cultural breakdown. 

I am also the product of the positive story America tells itself about our history and exceptionality. The myth of America as the Land of Opportunity, forged from a righteous revolution against tyranny, designed by an exceptional group of enlightened founders ordained to bring light and hope to the world was an exciting and inspiring tale to behold. It fit in naturally with a feeling that I was born into a country unparalleled in greatness and capability. We were the ones who won World War II, sent astronauts to the moon, invented products the world craved, and were large and powerful. This place and people must be special. I grew up proud to be an American. 

My patriotic optimism was soon tempered during my junior high school and high school years by the war in Vietnam. Early memories of the war are from Walter Cronkite and The Huntley Brinkley Report giving daily battle updates, news of troop movements and enemy atrocities, and the grizzly broadcasts of weekly casualty totals from Vietnam. The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese combined totals were always higher than American losses, which gave a sense of American fighting superiority. But I was a history enthusiast and remember thinking, does every generation of Americans have to fight in a war? And is this the one I will need to fight and possibly die in? It was not a comforting thought. This recognition was reinforced in 1973 when the Selective Service lottery drawing for my birth year (1953) was held. My number was 117, which was a relatively high and therefore safe number that year. I was relieved. It looked like I wasn’t going to Vietnam. 

As an aside, I did end up visiting Vietnam in 2014 with my wife. We spent a month working our way from Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) to Hanoi. It is a lovely country. My memories are fond. Regarding any connection to the war, there were visits to jarring and sobering war museums, but most significantly for me was to focus on the reception we received from the Vietnamese, who knew we were Americans. It was genuinely warm with no sense of animus, even in Hanoi, the locus of the former enemy. While on the streets of that city one afternoon my eye caught a group of local middle school-aged girls walking together on a sidewalk. Having once been a middle school teacher this was of interest to me. Amidst that cohort of friends as they receded from view revealing their backpacks was one who had on it stitched an American flag. Time can heal, I thought.        

By 1968 the war in Vietnam and the protests made me a cynic. I accepted rather briskly the idea that there was a dark side to the American enterprise. Why I found that my home country was capable of imperialist and grievous behavior and why many of my peers, as I’ve learned over the course of my life, did not is a mystery I’m stilling trying to solve. Needless to say, I became sympathetic to counterculture memes and the politics of liberalism, civil rights, toleration, peace, and a Rousseauian back-to-the-earth naturalism, infused with an anti-business/anti-capitalist belief. These influences guided my political thinking for many years and are addressed to this day in my political musings, but with greater maturity and sophistication—or so I would like to think. 

I have been a reliable Democrat voter. I’ve voted Democrat for every presidential candidate election since 1972, save one. In 1980 I voted for John Anderson, an independent challenging Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. I have regretted that vote ever since, wishing I had voted for Jimmy Carter’s reelection, even now despite knowing the outcome. The pattern is the same for other elective offices. Almost always I voted for Democrats, occasionally for independents, but never for Republicans. I’ve clearly had a loyalty to the party. I remember my Aunt Betty telling me once while chatting with her about candidates in an upcoming election as we sat on Seabrook Beach, New Hampshire one afternoon when I was about twelve or thirteen years old that she routinely voted “straight ticket” for Democrats. I asked her to tell me what that meant. She said that a ballot gave a voter an option to vote for every candidate of a given party without having to select each one individually and that this was how she usually voted. This admission was another influence in my becoming a Democrat.  

*** 

A lifetime of interest in a particular field produces a depth of understanding. Much of my reading on a daily basis is political news. Since the creation of the internet it is easy to get deluged in political reporting and commentary. I love it. In addition to such study, I have found it very useful over the years to not just reinforce my political perceptions, but to challenge them. Indeed, much of the growth or maturation of my political beliefs is due to this simple dictum. Another useful practice has been to engage with others in vigorous political debate. This is a time that tests conjectures to see how they hold up to critical scrutiny, especially if communicating with others of differing persuasions. Together these habits have helped me to shape a personal ideology, dynamic to be sure, but serviceable in determining what I believe at any given time. Values clarification is grounding and political thought is really not much more than that.  

Despite George Washington’s reservations about Americans bifurcating themselves into two principal political parties it happened as soon as his term as president was over. The names and governing themes of both parties have changed over our history, but the paradigm of two competing political powerhouses ascertaining and articulating the values and ruling priorities of the country remains constant. To a large extent the popular will of the people can be comprehended by understanding the preferences of each party. Following is my objective assessment of the Republicans and the Democrats in 2019. 

Today’s Republican Party is harder to define than in recent years due to the rise of Trumpism. Prior to the presidential candidacy announcement of Donald Trump in 2015 I would have ascribed the following characteristics to Republicans: They believed in small government, low taxes, little regulation, personal freedom/responsibility, hawkish foreign policy, free trade, a right to gun ownership, and the facilitation of business growth. But since the rise of Newt Gingrich in the 1990s Republican campaign and governing tactics took a sharp turn toward abandoning democratic norms of mutual tolerance for political opponents and forbearance, by which is meant applying restraint when exercising institutional leverage. Gingrich advocated for hyper-partisanship and enhanced combativeness in dealing with political rivals that is now commonplace, reaching its zenith in the presidency of Donald Trump. 

The Republican Party has become an amalgamation of anti-establishment, anti-institutional, anti-immigration activists motivated by a populist return to a time when white men were the controlling demographic group. They are threatened by multiculturalism, claims of climate change, economic globalization, women equality, gun regulations, free trade, and pressures to curb corporate intervention in governance. Republicans have also adopted a much more non-interventionist approach to foreign policy, abandoning traditional international alliances and holding back on committing American troops to overseas hotspots. Despite this they see fit to increase military spending. What remains from Republicans of old is a penchant for low taxes of the rich, pro-business policies, and individual freedom. 

The Democratic Party, with which I am affiliated due to cultural and familial reasons already mentioned, and with a history reaching back to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison is the oldest active political party in the world. It went through significant changes over this time and its background is a blend of both admirable and egregious positions. The current Democratic Party can be traced back to the robust federal interventionism, some would say intrusion, of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs of the 1930s. The result is a modern party that promotes the interests of labor, minorities, women’s rights, gay rights, immigrant assimilation, universal healthcare, environmental protections, opportunities for the disenfranchised, consumer safeguards, higher education, and urban issues.  

Democrats are faced with a big challenge at present concerning wealth inequality. From the time of its founding in the early 19th century the party aligned itself with agrarian concerns and away from banking and business interests. In short, it has a long history of being the party of the “people”, by which is meant in today’s vernacular the working class. However, in recent decades an unforeseen abnormality has occurred. As many of the Baby Boomer children of the mid 20th century received college educations and correspondingly higher standards of living than their parents the affairs of the working class increasingly receded from among affluent Democrats. This became glaringly obvious when many of the types of voters who historically would have voted Democratic voted for Trump and the Republicans instead in 2016. This has led to a bifurcated party of progressives, who in part want to re-establish outreach to those lower on the socioeconomic spectrum primarily through wealth redistribution and the centrists, who see capitalism and economic growth along with redistribution as a foundation for financing programs for the poor and lower middle class.  

An argument can be made that we may be seeing another realignment of the party system, in which former working-class Democrats are shifting to Republicans permanently and educated high income suburban voters who in the past leaned Republican are shifting to the Democratic Party. The 2018 midterm elections supported this view and the 2020 election may reveal more about whether such a partisan transformation is in fact occurring. My sense tells me that it is. 

*** 

What I have presented thus far is a prelude to my prevailing political thought. It is worth noting in describing these values that I am consciously and intentionally trying to avoid animus, malevolence, and acrimony despite my day to day strident feelings toward the political opposition. Rather, I am relying on a combination of innate optimism regarding human nature and what I see as a refined observational astuteness of contemporary conditions within a historic context. Afterall, I have been paying attention to this stuff for about 50 years.  

In describing my ideology, I intend to paint with a rather broad brush, finding it unnecessary at this time to “get into the weeds” concerning political positions. This will not be a well-researched white paper detailing policy prerogatives supported by sophisticated rationales. Relatively expansive themes concerning what I see to be political fundamentals will instead be the order of the day.  

—————————————————————————————————————— 

I begin by laying out what I’ve been calling for some years the “3 dichotomies”. At around 2007 or so I had this epiphany that explained to me some, if not the, elemental differences between liberal and conservative thinking. Boiled down they are: 

Distribution vs Production, Community vs Individual, Equality vs Liberty  

The left side of each “vs” is predominately a liberal value and the right side is chiefly a conservative value. When I first concluded these dualities made sense, I quickly realized that I was a political moderate or centrist. And that was fine. All of these values I shared. Sure, I leaned left historically and emotionally, but it was now much easier to not demonize those on the right.  I felt relieved at not having to remain in a defensive posture supporting liberalism as the only valid dogma. Tension between each of these dichotomies is how the political philosophies struggle, engage, and debate. If conditions skew too far in any one direction, then the balancing tendency of American democracy asserts itself. I am still comfortable thinking this simplistic rationalization is functionally accurate. To me it explains a lot of partisan wrangling. 

—————————————————————————————————————— 

Politics is largely about economics or the distribution of wealth and power throughout the population. Individuals want to know that the system of resource apportionment is fair. Of course, political conflict comes from how all of the disparate people of a nation define ‘fair’. As a result, questions of policy, programs, and initiatives often seem to be about what priorities are worth the appropriations of tax revenue. However, I think all of this activity, while incredibly valuable, masks or distracts from what is most fundamental and paramount regarding politics — the continuation of cultural traditions and identity.  

Culture, more than politics or even nationalism binds us as a people viscerally and elementally. It’s what ties us to our past, informs our present, and inspires our future. Languages, religions, values, histories, holidays, shared knowledge, proverbs, and accepted behaviors just begin to describe the unifying power of culture. That which we believe sustains our civilization motivates our politics. The force of cultural expression cannot be easily understated or challenged. 

The deep sensibility of culture needs to be calculated when appraising the cogency of a political focus. Appealing to tradition can take a positive or a negative turn. For example, Ronald Reagan was smart to entice voters with images, such as “Morning in America” and America as a “City on a Hill” that poetically reached into the heart of the nation. Donald Trump on the other hand conjured trepidations of immigrant invaders and the rise of the ‘other’, by which is meant non-whites, taking over our way of life. Such fear-mongering significantly contributed to his 2016 win. 

—————————————————————————————————————— 

A quote from Zen teacher Diane Musho Hamilton serves as a good opening to my next value: Rather than relying on a thin, idealized hope that we will all one day just get along, we can approach conflict resolution as an art form that we are privileged to develop and hone. 

I long ago abandoned the fantasy that there is only one right way to think. Especially when it comes to the best way to solve problems or improve the world. Politics emerges as soon as two people confront a shared reality. If there is motivation by one or both individuals to alter in any way that reality a negotiation takes place. The ensuing transaction is almost always influenced by a power dynamic. Each person tries to exert compelling leverage to most influence the outcome. The individual most able to persuade, generally achieves that goal. This everyday practice seems natural to me.  

I link political power and persuasion as foundational to a democracy. The more convincing one is the more powerful they become. Democracy assumes an equal footing for all individuals and groups to practice persuasion in order to effect change or continue traditions. If that basis is perverted by one party grasping political power through unjust means, such as over-exerting the inducement of money or taking control by military-style force, then democracy ceases as a practical governing   model.  

I am most often impressed with political exchanges that yield progress by reflecting an amalgamation of differing viewpoints constructed from the persuasive attempts of multiple parties. In short, compromise. Forging agreement among opposing interests is very difficult. It requires four things: 

All negotiating groups are committed to the concept of compromise as a fundamentally fair practice and agree to negotiate in a civil manner. 

A search for common ground or shared interests is conducted. 

All sides are able to claim a win to some degree in whatever the final outcome turns out to be. 

Everyone agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the comprise until a renegotiation occurs.   

  Political maneuvering that is fair, mature, courteous, and respectful while also being calculated, tough-minded, strategic, and forceful can be a beautiful thing to behold.           

 —————————————————————————————————————— 

Much is made of American exceptionalism. Interpretation of the concept is multifarious. And it seems everyone who uses the term seems is exceptionally confident they have the right meaning. There are variations of American exceptionalism espoused. They range from a view that the United States has a historically unique origin born from ideology and revolution to the notion that we have a missionary imperative to spread the ideals of liberty, egalitarianism, and democracy across the globe to a belief Americans are ascendant. I’m comfortable with all of this conviction except for American superiority. Accepting we are better than everyone else smacks of tribalism and plants the seeds of unnecessary conflict.  

I recognize and embrace that we have something special here in America. In particular and perhaps most important is our 243-year experiment in representative democracy. Within a group of like-minded individuals, who share similar histories, ethnic backgrounds, and cultural traits democracy is not an especially challenging governing method. Majority opinion is easily formed and debate about how to best approach issues is reasonably tame. This is not our experience. The United States is a multicultural nation in which a diverse set of influences flow to form a volatile and ever contentious mix of power, rights, beliefs, assessments, and perspectives. Reaching consensus among the many disparate interests that make up our country is incredibly arduous.  

As Winston Churchill said in part during a speech before the House of Commons in 1947 “…democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried…”. How true. I have a deep reverence for democracy. It blends the best parts of individualism and collectivism, representing a mature form of governance. To be sure, if not well managed, it can lead to oppressive majority rule. After all, Adolf Hitler rose to leadership as a result of a democratic process. We should never be complacent in thinking democracy once established is permanently to remain in place. Democratic governance has not been the norm throughout human history and there remain powerful forces, even here in the United States, which could topple democracy.  

For democracy to remain vibrant and useful the people of the country must respect each other. Fundamental conditions include mutual toleration, accepting the political legitimacy of competing political forces, and the results of free and fair elections. Without this basic level of regard for our fellow citizens, then we cannot work in political harmony even as we vigorously oppose each other’s positions. Democracy sets up rules of engagement that all agree to adhere to. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. Developing the art of persuasion becomes paramount within a democratic system. Exercising inordinate force that delegitimizes or overly weakens one’s political opponents threatens democracy, the nation, and the citizenry. Therefore, I revere democracy over ideology. An ideal that triumphs as a result of extra-democratic power is not an ideology worth celebrating.   

—————————————————————————————————————— 

The two grand pillars that support and define politics are culture and economics. I pay a lot of attention to how these foundational concepts play out both in contemporary politics and historically. However, it is the latter of these two principles that I would like to address the following thoughts. 

A dominant view is economics boiling down simply to the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. With regards to politics, I include the general welfare of people as the core point of the economic activity just identified. All individuals and communities need both goods and services, otherwise known as resources, to consume in order to establish and sustain quality lives. Also crucial is the dignity and purpose involved in producing and distributing those goods and services to others. We are all economic agents. How and for whom many resources are produced, distributed, and consumed informs much of political discourse and government intervention.  

The “pie” continues to be a useful metaphor for reducing a complex social science to a comprehendible instrument for lay people. This economic pie shrinks and grows and is sliced in any number of ways. It is these three actions—growing, shrinking, and slicing—that consume much of the discussion about the pie. Correctly calibrating the right amounts of pie growing, shrinking, and slicing to induce social benefits, such as full employment and relative wealth equality, but also business benefits like maximum production of high value goods and services is a most difficult undertaking.  

Systemizing this challenge has been tried worldwide with a variety of economic models over recent history, ranging from highly centralized government command measures (Socialism and Communism) to laissez faire free market systems (Capitalism). In reality, what emerges from the philosophical give and take of politics is an amalgamation of the two extremities. I’m fine with the tug-a-war between Socialism and Capitalism. The struggle strikes me as natural. However, I recognize that over the arc of my political thought, I have moved from a greater belief in the merits of Socialism to an adherence of Capitalism.       

Although well intended Socialism requires a heavy concentration of power in government. It is this notion of condensed power, whether in government or any entity for that matter, where I get uncomfortable. Diffusion of authority across several institutions or agencies, such as government, business, and a free media creates a check and balance system not unlike the self-regulating arrangement within the federal government of executive, legislative, and the judicial. Socialism assumes there is an all-knowing group of decision makers who put the economic interests of everyone first. The problem is as history has shown multiple times that those in charge of socialist regimes tend to fortify themselves with levels of power not susceptible to democratic criticism or compromise. Additionally, socialism typically produces slow economic growth and reduced motivation and innovation among workers.  

Capitalism assumes private ownership of industry with profit as the prime motivator. History shows capitalism to provide robust economic growth, characterized by innovations that have improved lives worldwide. Since the onset of market economies, which were a key result of the values of individualism and reason spurred by the Age of Enlightenment, capitalism has contributed significantly to modernity and many of the benefits millions enjoy today. Of course, any paradigm has its shortcomings and capitalism is not exempt. Without regulatory controls capitalism can lead to wealth inequalities with a small number of very rich people controlling most of the capital, an exploited working class experiencing hard work and low wages, manipulated consumer prices, and an unstable series of booms and busts. 

Simplistically stated, capitalism determines the size of the economic pie and socialism, or a term I prefer—liberalism, decides how many slices are carved. The resulting tension between these two philosophies is natural to me. And played out in the context of democracy everyone’s interests can be addressed.  

*** 

This discourse is a snapshot in time. Political thought is dynamic. It will undoubtedly change more over the years I have left. The boy who first recognized the significance of politics and the man who continues to follow its importance will remain engaged by observing, reading, writing, and in other ways weighing in on political topics of the day. To me, doing so is more than just interesting, it’s fun!   

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

         

 

The Hills of Western New Hampshire

A reflection written during the Spring of 2019

I live in the hills of western New Hampshire.  

Rocky and forested it is a place of lakes, ponds, and rushing streams. Especially in the late winter and early spring. The hills of western New Hampshire are sparsely populated. Of the 3,000 plus square miles that make up this region there live around 200,000 people. We’re pressed up against the megalopolis, but not subsumed by it. At least not yet.   

Someone wise once said your paradise is where you choose to make it. I take this to mean one need not travel to all of the world’s glorified and hyped hot spots to find wonderland, but rather it can be right outside your door. Now I’m not sure I can call the hills of western New Hampshire Shangri-la—indeed I know I cannot—but I’m happy to call it home. The hills of western New Hampshire exemplify an intricate sense of place, one reaching to my youth and stimulating lifelong sensorial benchmarks along the way. I feel the hearthstone of these hills. 

It makes a difference to live in a place with distinguishing characteristics. It matters to discern and delight in the exceptional traits a place exhibits. To feel connected is to feel at home. To bond with the environment, its nature and its cadence can unite a person with an entity beyond oneself.  

The hills of western New Hampshire await personal attention. The relationship can be austere, but also cordial. To live here calls for stamina. Resilience is rewarded. Solitude awaits, ready for the asking. Becoming charmed is always a possibility.         

My granddaughter 

seven years old 

from Los Angeles 

visits the hills of western New Hampshire 

during winter 

eagerly anticipates northland climate 

it is novel and unique 

like her beloved movie, Frozen 

snow and ice and cold 

my expectation 

she would remain beside the warm woodstove 

did not happen 

dressed in seasonable garb provided by her grandmother 

winter coat, snow pants, boots, mittens, and warm hat 

she plays outside 

snow appeals 

cold does not intimidate 

air tastes fresher 

I am pleasantly surprised 

 

The comforting sense of place can happen almost anywhere. The wide plains of the heartland, the misty mountains of a northwest peninsula, the bustling streets of an eastern city and countless other settings become sources of visceral bonding. It depends on where you were raised. If that space is where an initial and sustained awareness of surroundings occurred, then the profound connection is made. Helpful too, is if a correlation becomes established between the comforts of life and the site where they were first sensed.  

For me this transpired in the Berkshire Hills of western Massachusetts. I was raised there. The rolling green hills morphing into splashes of October color and eventually yielding to snow encrustation afforded me a panoply of visual beauty and regularity that was annually anticipated and unconsciously respected. All of life’s dramas, joys, anxieties, and expectations materialized against the backdrop of this place. It was the way things were and the features of the place have always been with me. 

My current corner of the hills of western New Hampshire sits only about 160 miles northeast of where I rode my bike, played in the brook, and sledded as a boy. Given that both locations are fragments of the larger Appalachian mountain chain they are similar in appearance and feel.  

After raising children and constructing a career elsewhere in New Hampshire this geographic familiarity had an influence in driving my residential decision as I neared retirement. The appeal of the hills of western New Hampshire is that they remind me of where I grew up while permitting me to remain in a state I know well.  

Nostalgia has a way of playing a supporting role in the thoughts of an aging person. Memories percolate to the surface, long-held familiar feelings are triggered by prevailing stimuli, and lessons learned—or unlearned—meld into a reoccurring reckoning of what is and has been important. Linking location with its lasting peculiarities triggers a personal values clarification.    

   

Winter loses its firm grip  

clouds coat horizon to horizon 

light filters through robed evergreens and naked deciduous 

the lake, a white plain with ice out weeks away 

distant woodpecker taps rhythmically 

crow caws 

 

Winter stirs and ponders a morning stretch 

hilltops rounded by glacial activity  

eons of weathering 

cold nights, days above freezing 

sap should be running well 

dirty snow banks line muddy roads 

cool breeze  

urges hemlock boughs to sway 

nature’s pulse is apparent 

 

Be still 

align with subtle inflection 

discover  

refresh and ruminate with Nature  

offset modernity 

 

This is the New Year 

not some random day in early winter 

hope, rebirth, imagine new beginnings 

 

The sun breaks through 

illuminate granite hills 

throw shadows 

photons reflect off snow 

blinding  

the future feels imminent 

 

The hills of western New Hampshire, as much of the northern half of the northern hemisphere, was molded and configured by four repeated glaciations during the Pleistocene Epoch. The age began about 2.6 million years ago and ended a bit more than 10,000 years ago when the last of this series of glaciers finally receded to the north. These mammoth mile-thick masses of ice sliding across a granite surface left an impact. The resulting churn shaped the state’s current mountains, valleys, lake beds, and coastal plain. Cape Cod and Long Island to the south, really just alluvial deposits of moraine, in part consist of New Hampshire material plowed to those locations by the glaciers. 

In the western part of the state we are blessed with genteel hills and small mountains ranging in elevation from 1000 to 3000 feet above sea level. What strikes visitor and resident alike are large granite rocks once formed from ancient magma flows.  Scattered among this region are the many lakes and ponds that owe their idiosyncratic configurations to long ago glacial activity, which today draw both wildlife and people. The two largest of these gems being lakes called Sunapee and Newfound. The Connecticut River flowing southward carves a sharp boundary with our western neighbor Vermont. 

Much of these hills are forested with a mix of temperate broadleaf, conifers, and northern hardwoods. Large sturdy trees bespeckle much of the area. Old growth forests still persist in some remote spots. Outside our small yellow house, which sits within a wildwood stand, tower three large white oaks in a row. The middle and largest of these is estimated to be about two hundred years old. We are stewards of these gentle beasts committed to their welfare and longevity. The combined summer crown of these three sisters leave us feeling we live under a dome. The grand foliage laden boughs stretch and reach above us. As are the trees, we are rooted to this place where stagecoaches and drovers rumbled by transporting people and goods in an earlier America.  

  

Gray-haired man 

closely cut, clean shaven 

goes about his business in a taciturn manner 

not unlike many others of this place  

 

Appearance is often uniform 

worn denim pants 

high topped work boots, mink-oiled many times 

red plaid wool shirt 

khaki cap 

the visor’s edge beginning to show tattered wear 

 

Calloused hands molded from years of labor 

physical work 

accomplished masterfully with care and respect 

 

He doesn’t ask much of others 

self-reliance is valued  

and lived as much as possible 

he’s faithful 

to his wife, church, grown children,  

several grandchildren,  

the community 

 

Climbs slowly into his pickup 

to drive 3 miles home 

through hemlock woods 

and over the hill 

time to get evening’s wood in 

supper will be soon 

 

In-migration to New Hampshire has increased in recent years among people in their twenties and thirties. Good news for a state that is a graying state. Graying? Like the color of granite? Yes. New Hampshire sustains a population of old people. There are a lot of us. We are ranked third by age of population among all of the states. Only Maine and Vermont have older populations than New Hampshire’s. So, it’s good news if younger people want to start living here. We need the workforce. Low taxes, which New Hampshire has, may be good for business, but not having enough working-aged people is not good for business. 

 

The old-fashioned and traditional virtues of New Hampshire self-reliance, independence, and grit continue to be evident in the hills of western New Hampshire. From that culture springs an economy that is tied to the land, to history, and to a present-day macroeconomic transformation fueled by amplified globalization and advanced automation. 

 

Naturally, we might think of the kind of work done in these wooded hills as primarily involving lumbering, maple sugaring, landscaping, and farming. These are but a small slice of the area’s occupations despite their iconic imagery. Most employees work in less glamorous, but more financially fruitful pursuits that include healthcare, office administration, manufacturing, sales, and hospitality. To lesser extents workers earn a living performing in small businesses, education, technology/sciences, and construction. It’s a busy and largely prosperous rustic location. 

 

Statewide New Hampshire’s economy is quite robust, at least according to some key metrics. The state enjoys the second lowest unemployment rate (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and the lowest poverty rate in the nation (US Census Bureau). And we are continually in the top ten states ranked by both per capita and median household income (US Census Bureau). Also, while looking at the newest hot topic economic measurement known as the Gini Coefficient — a measurement of income and wealth inequality among individuals — New Hampshire has the third lowest level of income concentration in the country (US Census Bureau). Wealth is spread relatively evenly.  

 

Healthcare is a big employer in the hills of western New Hampshire. The state’s largest hospital is located here. Aging population and healthcare go together nicely. In fact, New Hampshire enjoys a ranking as the third healthiest state for older people in the U.S. (2019 New Hampshire Healthy Aging Data Report). Education, including higher education, employs many. This stimulates entrepreneurial enterprises. There is an outdoor ethic that pervades the area. Many residents relish being on trails, slopes, and lake fronts. This contributes to the health and wellbeing of people here. If you’re going to grow old in New Hampshire, appreciating the environment adds to the quality of life. Given how many elderly citizens choose to live in these hills we appear to be on the right path. 

 

Work tied to land 

shape, sculpt, move, knead earth 

with machines and hands 

sweat and toil 

brains and technology 

experience 

reading the land’s behavior 

align with its rhythm 

to create practical solutions 

nest in the embrace 

of this hardscrabble place 

 

He works the Bobcat with skill 

among strewn stones and boulders  

lift, carry, set rocks 

stair here 

wall there 

the shovel swivels fluidly 

to pry an elusive target 

arrange land anew 

 

The old stone wall is dismantled  

new bed installed 

stones reset 

strategically 

beautifully 

large stone support small stone 

tabletop finish 

400-foot run 

form and function  

exquisitely rendered   

 

Driving around the hills of western New Hampshire is a simple pleasure. The roads pass through valleys, follow stream beds, hug lake fronts, and traverse old main streets of small towns whose histories reach back two to three hundred years. Some towns are tony, many are not. For those of a certain age taking such a drive conjures feelings of nostalgia, scenes remembered but rarely recalled, from the viewpoint of a long-ago child sitting in the back of Chevy station wagon. 

 

I enjoy seeing the general stores, Mom & Pop diners, antique emporiums, barns in various stages of solvency, Colonials, New England frames, the ever-present woods, and stone walls, lots of them, that can be unearthed while winding along these old byways. It is estimated there are in excess of 200,000 miles of stone walls in New England. Western New Hampshire has its share of them. In general, large stones are from walls that once housed livestock. Small stones are an indicator of former garden walls. Stones were gathered by laborers and beasts of old, piled in a field, and used to create boundaries, enclosures, foundations, and mills. 

 

From the green at Dartmouth College with its late eighteenth/early nineteenth century ambiance to highpoints on the road exhibiting vistas of consecutive mountain ranges, each flaunting a different hue of blue, a random journey through these hills can bring enjoyment and contentment. Place matters. As do roots, history, and where one builds and lives a life. Many of us have a choice of where to be. For me it is in the hills of western New Hampshire.