Greg Proffit Writing

Category: Philosophy

  • Labeling

    These are usually meant to be filled in by the wearer, correct? …Thought so.

    People who are all one thing may exist. I cannot prove they don’t. I am not one of them. Those I’ve known beyond the level of acquaintance have all seemed composed of a blend of interests and beliefs, like me. Their bundle of contradictions and idiosyncrasies may be a different size than mine, but I’ve yet to meet the human version of a concrete monolith.

    A feature – or is it a bug? – of Western culture is the inclination to categorize and to classify: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Thank you, Mr. Aristotle. These main categories are fine as far as they go. The broader the category, the more members. Within each main Classification are sub-classes for further sorting and refining. As the concentric circles of inclusion tighten for each subset, the smaller the pool of members. Inclusion in one grouping down the hierarchy happens simultaneously with exclusion and separation from the others.

    The 7 broad brush categories (and their nested sub-categories) are useful for some things, but be honest, prior to reading the category names, how long had it been since you’d thought of them? The classifications aren’t helpful at all in pursuit of self-realization (unless self is broadly defined as that which everything else is not). One doesn’t discover the concept, Species, and cry ”Eureka!, my quest to know myself and my purpose on this planet is over!”, ”I belong to a species!”, ”Glory, Hallelujah!”

    Deeper levels of categorization create problems. ”I’m a homo sapiens,” you declare, satisfied with the sub-division distinguishing yours from other species. Is additional fine-tuning necessary? Knowing your species and behaving as such will answer many questions: who can I successfully mate with? Is this why my body isn’t covered with feathers? So, my brain is larger than a lion’s, but I’m slower, so that means I’m supposed to out-think and not outrun them, right? Seems to be refinement enough, because traverse one level down and you’re at the edge of quicksand.

    There are several subspecies of homo sapiens, of which Homo Erectus is our home base. At this, the Homo Erectus level, we are one big, happy family of Man (pardon, ladies). And now comes the fun. We divide into Sexes. Used to be no biggie, but now we further divide into Gender (and its definitions – including whether or not one is Cis-Gendered) and Sexual Preference (with its accompanying divisions). We divide into Races. Always a biggie because it includes not only the amount of an individual’s melanin, but also National identity as well as historical atrocities and grievances . We divide by Culture. This one makes us feel threatened because of differences of language and art and world view. (Some of us even take shelter within a subculture.) We divide by Religion. Not content to rest in the security we find in our own, we must discredit, disgrace, and disavow all others, as well as belittle and exile those who neither share our preferred Faith, nor claim any Faith at all. We divide by Socio-Economic class. Because Capitalism, Yo! And…we divide by Political ideas, which is not exactly true, is it? We divide over politicized words, the common person having little to no real understanding of what the emotionally charged ”isms” even mean.

    The average person doesn’t know the difference between Communism, Democracy, or Socialism, much less the variants. If pressed to define those terms, could you do so without resorting to a dictionary? Can you confidently say what Conservatism is? Progressivism? What are the rules for inclusion? What you do know is how you feel when you see or hear political labels. You know some people you like, and you want them to like you; and you listen to what they say to believe, and that’s good enough for you. No further thinking required. Peel off the adhesive backing and apply the label.

    But what do you call a guy who spent years as a cross-country, touring DeadHead (and who still loves their music), a former drug addict turned street evangelist and full-time minister (who loves Jesus), a father of seven kids (all birthed at home and subsequently home-schooled), a gun owner and concealed carry permittee (who once even had an AR-15), an entrepreneurial small-business owner of an S-Corp LLC, who hasn’t worked in an office in 18 years, a lifetime Republican voter (until Trump v Clinton forced a decision to vote Libertarian, and then Trump v Biden forced a decision to vote Democrat)? What do you label a guy who would rather read than sleep (and often does), and who has accumulated more mostly useless knowledge on such a wide variety of topics that even he doesn’t know what he’s most interested in, but who could therefore convincingly debate either side of almost any topic, and enjoys doing just that? What do you call someone who has only strong opinions, but who is equally convinced that he could be wrong about any or all of them?

    Go ahead, pigeon-hole me. 

    However, the paragraph above notwithstanding, this essay is not about me. This is about the foolishness of labeling and of dividing over minutiae. I offered my details to illustrate the absurdity of slapping a too-granular, one-word label on another person. If pressed, there is no single label that comes to mind that I would be agreeably comfortable to wear. Your mileage may vary, but is that not also true for you? If yes, then what can we do about it?

    We have two choices. One, we can stop focusing so much on the smallest circle of belonging, and widen our aperture of inclusion to the next circle out, or if that’s still too tight, the next. Unity lives in the big circles. It shares quarters there with Understanding, and Humanity, and Love. I know this sounds like idealistic, utopian, liberal-speak, but it’s true. If it’s not, then our second option is to keep digging smaller and smaller circles for our like-minded tribe until we’re down to a foxhole. That’s a tight fit to be shared with one, and only one, other person. I cannot speak for you, but I would be hard pressed to find anyone with whom I am in agreement on all things, 100% of the time…not even myself. 

    You may need that level of agreement and uniformity of compliance in order to feel good about yourself and your life. For your sake, I hope that’s not the case. That’s a hefty burden of insecurity to lug around. I don’t want any ideas or beliefs that are so fragile that I have to defend them against all opposition lest they die. The more compulsion I feel to defend a position, the less certain I am of its correctness. Truth and Good Ideas far outlive both their proponents and their opponents. Who wants to live in a carefully detailed, perfectly classified, scrubbed, and homogenized world? That seems more like a taxidermist’s shop, or a Nature museum than the messy Real World we’re in.  It’s not that hard to see that each of us is more than a slogan on our bumper stickers. One rung up the classification ladder, we’re a helluva lot more alike than we are different.

  • The Right Word?

    Fireflies in, and outside of, a bottle

    One of the worst things about writing is striving to capture with words the ineffable ephemera of a truly good life. There are times when naming a thing destroys it. Being familiar with both the phrase ”le mot juste,” and the tradition it represents, I nonetheless find myself swayed by the concept of linguistic relativism, which makes me doubt whether any two people actually hear the same word the same way, especially when phenomena or ideas don’t yield to a simple definition.

    I also recognize the cultural fiction which allows verbal fluency to masquerade as intelligence. Language skill makes one a good labeler. It is to words and concepts what a young child’s mason jars with hole-punched-lids is to insects and reptiles. Our cultural institutions promote the idea that a thing is real only if it can be placed in a jar of words. We kid ourselves into thinking the better the description, the more real. But a bug in a jar isn’t the same as a bug in the wild, no matter how much grass you pack in.

    So what if it is the other way around? What if the more bounded a thing becomes by the straight-jacket of having been defined and classified, the less the thing IS, in its real essence?

    I’ve found the surest way to defile the most precious experiences of life is with hyper-verbal attempts to describe and label them. Saying too much is as bad as saying too little. It is sandpaper that dulls the shine of the truly sublime. Then you’re left only with the memories of what you called it, how you described it, the stories you tell about it, and not the thing itself. This is a kind of curse.

    Our certainties, clothed in words, are the worst of us, not the best of us. It were much better for us to leave some things undefined, pure, whole, unencumbered by the clumsiness and inadequacies of language. This is an inconvenient, uncomfortable truth.

    Sometimes, a smile, and an ”Aaaahhhhh,” is the best that can be said.

  • The Menu

    Today’s selection affects tomorrow’s offerings

    You are born into this world and within a matter of years an invisible but real menu of options is  yours. Your menu is yours and no one else’s, listing things only you can do in your life. Some of the items on your menu are still there. They are still available to you. Other options have disappeared. They are forever off your menu. They may have vanished when you chose one course rather than another, that is, your choice of one thing, negated the other. They may have disappeared because the opportunity window closed.

    When you die, the opportunity window closes forever. I am not trying to depress or frighten you. The best time to have thought of this was fifteen or twenty years ago. The second best time is now. You have fewer items on your menu today than last year on this date. You may have fewer items than last week, or yesterday. The items on the menu shift and disappear. Some of the items on your menu when you were young are as gone as if you were already dead. This is an almost unbearable sadness when you think about it. 

    This is NOT you, but it will be each of us, one day.

    Don’t think too much about what’s gone. If you’re reading this, you still have a menu. But don’t hesitate either. An option available today, could be gone tomorrow. There remains the possibility that you will make a choice today of such import and impact that new items appear. You can create new options for yourself. While some items fade, disappear, and are gone, others will beckon you onwards to a life still to be lived. All the windows aren’t closed yet against the chill of age. What remains on your menu of choices? What will you have today?

  • How, Not What, Do You Think?

    With Seven Practice Questions
    How do you know what you know? Did you discover it by thinking, or were you simply told?

    As I work my way through the excellent essay, Two Concepts of Liberty, by Isaiah Berlin, I am experiencing anew a particular delight , common in my grade school years, of registering how the critical, skeptical, rational mind approaches a question. I am thrilled (which is exactly the correct word) to observe and follow Berlin thinking his way through complex questions about the nature of liberty, more than I am by any conclusions drawn. 

    I distinctly remember this feeling when very young; when I was first learning how to think, and not merely what to think. So much of my formal education, even at the college level, consisted in being told what, and not how, to think. (But that’s another topic).

    It is a rare treat to discover a writer or speaker with the mental and psychological discipline to use his mind when approaching a question, and not be used by it. One who employs his mental faculties to see a problem the way one utilizes a magnifying glass, or a microscope, or an MRI machine. Neither the glass, the scope, nor the imaging machine impose preference upon the subject matter. They simply observe it, (but at increasingly higher resolution, depth, and granularity of detail). 

    Too often, presuppositional prejudices in the mind are a blinding filter, canceling some of the information needed for the fullest view. When the search for evidence supporting a pet theory or ideological point of view usurps the place of pure truth as the ultimate pursuit of inquiry, the resulting conclusions are always suspect. Berlin’s treatment of the subject of Liberty doesn’t fall prey to petty bias. It is an exemplary reminder of how bifurcated issues should be approached by the intellectually honest.

    Here is a particularly thought-provoking quote from the essay: 

    ”[From the standpoint of Liberty,] ‘Pagan self-assertion’ is as worthy as ‘Christian self-denial’ All errors which [a man] is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good.”

    Some statements are worth reading at least twice. (The bracketed words are mine, for context). Go ahead. I’ll wait.

    Can you deduce what Berlin is asserting? He is not saying that Paganism is as worthy as Christianity. He is making no comparative argument about their respective virtues at all. He is referencing the respective practitioners solely in terms of their equal use of liberty in choosing to act for themselves without outside interference or coercion. Their respective liberty to choose their own path is equal. He is making no claims regarding the comparative value of what they choose.

    For many readers, seeing the terms ‘Pagan’ and ‘Christian’ in such proximal juxtaposition, will cloud the mind with prejudice so that the the point being addressed is missed entirely. And for some readers, the juxtaposition may reveal a different type of prejudice. That only those practicing socially, culturally, religiously approved liberties, should be allowed to do so; while those believing or acting contrary to the mainstream view must have their choices curtailed by restrictive laws to protect them from harming themselves, or polluting the mainstream.

    What do you think about the following questions? Remember – What you think is determined by How you think – so try to imagine your mind as a magnifying glass looking at each question afresh just to see all that is there to be discovered.

    1. Is it better to A) erect a barricade of laws – out of benevolence – to prevent a man from committing errors that my harm himself, thus prohibiting him the liberty to do so, or B) allow the man liberty to commit errors and suffer the natural consequences? 
    2. Which is the greater evil to the man in question? 
    3. What are the ramifications of either course? 
      1. What if the potential self-harm has the possibility of becoming public harm?
      2. Is this the most clearly revealed dividing line between private and public acts?
    4. How far-reaching might the ripples of consequence extend for either choice? 
    5. How large – or how intrusive – a barricade of restriction might be needed if A is selected?

    These questions and their answers are central to freedom. They form the heart, not only of Libertarian political philosophy, but circulate throughout both Conservative and Liberal ideologies. We all seem to share the idea that there is something wrong with allowing another to determine what is good for us, and then by force of law to constrain us to their, and not our own, ”choice”. Such an enforced ”choice” is no choice at all, in any normal sense of the word. Stop to think how many laws and policies have just this element of intrusive interference as their foundation. 

    These are things to think about, Dear Reader. These ideas make up the substance of the great questions of morality; and as politics is merely a branch, or social outworking of moral philosophy, we owe it to ourselves to get it right. And to do so, we will need to stop listening so intently to those voices on either side telling us what to think, rediscover the inward joys of how to think, and then get busy with it.

  • Heteronomy or Autonomy, You Choose

    If you are regularly (perhaps even daily), buffeted by contrary winds, whether they be social, cultural, religious, or political, can you say of yourself that you are free? If your emotional state is impacted every time you turn on the News, every time you read an article, every time you see a Twitter or Facebook post, are you not voluntarily giving power, real power to forces outside yourself?

    These voices aren’t making me happy! Can’t they just leave me alone?

    Each of us faces opposition to our preferences. When the opposition is internal, we recognize the working of reason putting up a bulwark or providing reinforcements so that we don’t succumb to baser desires. But when the opposition to personal preference is external, and beyond direct control, how then do we deal?

    Friend, exactly what is happening when you get upset over opinions that are different than yours? Why does a different viewpoint elicit irrational behavior? Are we not each entitled to our own opinions. To what degree does a complete stranger’s beliefs have an existential impact on you? What is the cause so dear, that results in you slinging zingers at the opposition? Do you suppose that deriding or defeating political opponents will create lasting happiness within you?

    This you???

    Does everything in your external world, things over which you have no control, have to be perfected aligned with your preferences in order for you to experience internal peace? Do you feel it your duty to verbally hack away at every perceived threat to your personal perspective? That does not make you smarter. It reveals your ignorance. It reveals the contradictions in the things you claim to believe.

    If your state of mind as an individual human is impacted over and over again by the willful statements and actions of politicians, celebrities, the group to which you claim membership, or social media strangers (regardless of whether their names are on your ”friends” or ”followers” lists), then you are living under the domination of a form of heteronomy.

    Who has you surrounded? Who is controlling you? Who gets to determine the “real” you?

    Your mental and emotional states are shaped, dominated, and ruled by outside factors that are non-responsive to your own will. And you may well be deceiving yourself that you are autonomous, self-directed, free, and impacted in life only by the things you will and choose. In Reality, you are just a bi-pedal version of Pavlov’s dog, and just about as free.

    As they say, “If the collar fits…”

    You have allowed yourself to be classically conditioned to respond to all sorts of stimuli that you have No. Power. To. Change. Instead, those external things are changing you.

    For me, not a single thing either Donald Trump or Joe Biden or Kim Kardashian or Matt Gaetz or Bob Weir or Mitch McConnell or Major League Baseball says or does today will add or detract from my actual life. My hunch is that is equally true for you, Dear Reader, if you would allow yourself to take off your ”Angry glasses” or your ”Victim glasses” or your ”Righteous glasses” and just look with your own eyes and reason, at the measurable impact on your life these people (you either feel so allied with or so opposed to) actually have on your day.

    You can reclaim your autonomy. You can.

  • We Don’t All Value The Same Things

    Every direction on the internal compass points toward what is valued…

    One of the most intriguing verses in the Bible is this:

    Every man’s way is right in his own eyes… ~ Proverbs 21:2 NASB

    This is a statement, in scripture, that confirmation bias and self-enhancement fallacies are universal. It is not a positive affirmation that whatever you think, and whatever you do, is right! It is a statement declaring that every person believes themselves and the conduct of their lives to be right.

    Clearly, everyone’s ways are not right.

    This raises two puzzling questions: What is right? Who determines what is right?

    Now, I am not making an appeal to you, dear Reader, that you believe the verse is true by using the authority bias and appealing to a scripture that you may hold no truck with whatsoever, which is, of course, your prerogative. I just find it fascinating for such a clear declaration of a linked set of universal biases to be sitting in the middle of sacred texts. 

    Rather, my appeal as to the veracity of the text is to the evidence of your own life. Do you make decisions and take actions because you believe yourself to be wrong? Or, do you do what you do, believing yourself to be right, at least right for you?

    The outworking suggested by the verse has been true for me, and I suspect, has also been true for you. One effect is that it causes us to project our own set of values, norms, and beliefs onto others. We will have a tendency to judge others by standards we hold to be true for ourselves. We may deceive ourselves into thinking that everyone shares the same value hierarchy that we ourselves hold. We may think everyone prefers and is pursuing the same thing. This is not the case.

    We don’t all value the same things. Even long-time couples, whose lives are intertwined in a myriad of ways so that they end up more as one thing, than two separate things, may have different values, different preferences and pursuits. They may entertain different goals and hopes. Enough difference between ultimate ends and there is a problem.

    If we all shared the same values, we could easily produce an algorithm that would assure us of using the appropriate means to achieve the goals we seek. The only debate would be about means, not about ends, since those would all be universally shared and agreed upon. Everything from dietary choices to politics would be easy. 

    But we don’t all value the same things. It is a plausible argument that we should, but most of us are too myopic to look down the road far enough to see what true value looks like, that state (I posit here that true value consists in states of being, not in things possessed) in which you say, ”This is a good as it gets. I am content. I am satisfied. I could ask for no more.”

    In the political realm (which by extension affects the social aspects of Americans, at least), Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence inked in some values. These were well thought out by the political philosophers of his day, vis. ”all men are created equal”, and the idea that each of us has been endowed with some inalienable rights, among which are ”life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. 

    These Rights, these Values, are a package deal

    These are value statements. If like me, you’re American, you will give hearty assent that these are valuable ends, worthy of pursuing and protecting. But Dear Reader, consider; what is life to a man who has no liberty? What is liberty to a man who is not treated equally? How can either pursue happiness?

    These values are interconnected, they fall apart if pursued singularly, with a willy-nilly disregard for their interlocking nature. Which, of course, is why Governments are instituted among men. (The sentence immediately following the enumeration of inalienable rights above). Inherent in the very idea of government is the individual’s sacrifice of unrestrained liberty.

    Yet to some, having not well considered these things, and believing their ways to be right, Liberty is the highest value. And so they have proven they are willing to use their liberty to jeopardize their neighbors lives during a pandemic. To them, the pursuit of happiness is more important than either equality, or life. But I submit that unrestrained liberty is as equally devoid of true value as unrestrained pursuit of happiness. And is as equally un-American as it is inhumane.

    The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to counsel. ~ Proverbs 12:15

  • A Narrative About Narratives

    Narratives are everywhere! Pssst! You’re living one, right now!

    The word narrative is a noun meaning: a spoken or written account of connected events, a story.

    That’s it. That’s the whole definition. There is no lurking subterfuge. There is no attempted brain-washing. There is nothing nefarious about the word. 

    Are there some narratives that do those things? Undoubtedly. The purpose of some narratives is persuasion. The objective of others is merely revelation. But those who use the word narrative as a pejorative are doing a disservice to the language which is the coin of the realm when it comes to attempted communication.

    We all listen to narratives, if only the one in our heads that assigns reasons and meaning to the things that happen in our lives. Some of those inner narratives are devoid of rationale, betraying our own neuroses and biases and fears. 

    External narratives are all around us. They make up the lyrics of your favorite song. They are buried in visual ads that tell the story of how much sex appeal you will instantly invoke if you buy this brand of deodorant or shampoo. Certainly, they are present in media ”stories”. How could they not be. A narrative is, after all, nothing but a ”story”.

    The trick is to recognize both the point of view of a story (narrative), and its object. Is the narrator attempting to show you something, or trying to get you to believe something? If you hear a story presented in the format, People like us, believe X,Y, and Z, I advise that you proceed with caution, someone is selling something.

    All stories fall apart unless they are told from a point of view, and unless they have a point to make (Even when the point is entertainment). Objectivity is impossible for a storyteller. The best storytellers can even change points of view so skillfully you don’t know it’s happening. (For a sample, try reading the excellent, Sometimes A Great Notion, by Ken Kesey. He’ll put you right inside the head of Canada Goose dropping through fog to land on a wind-tossed Oregon river.)

    I find the following lines from a song to be insightful regarding the role of storytellers. 

    ”The storyteller makes no choice

    soon you will not hear his voice.

    His job is to shed light

    Not to master.”

    ~ Grateful Dead, Terrapin Station

    Narratives are only scary if:

    1. You’re unskilled at determining the perspective of the storyteller, 
    2. you find it difficult to differentiate between statements of opinion and statements of fact,
    3. you struggle with recognizing what the story is meant to do, and finally,
    4. you believe everything you’re told.

    If that describes you, perhaps earmuffs and blinders are a solution while you learn to do so.

    In case you have followed along to this point and missed the clues I’ve dropped:

    This essay is a narrative told from the perspective of me. It is my opinion. (Except for the definition above, which is a provable fact). The point is to rescue the word ‘narrative’ from disrepute, so that we may disarm both it, and those who misuse the word against us. Finally, I could be wrong, so evaluate my statements carefully and appropriate them at your own risk.

    You have no doubt heard the wise and oft-repeated maxim, ”Consider the source.” Which we should all do, all the time. Even when, or perhaps especially when, evaluating the narrative playing in our own heads.

    So the next time someone tries to bludgeon you with the claim that you are just listening to ”So-and-So’s Narrative” about a particular topic, you can smile, nod, and know that they are listening to someone else’s narrative, too. 

    Thus endeth the story…er, narrative.

    That wasn’t so scary was it?

  • Independent Thought & Individualism – Myths of a Kind

    Looks easy but may be the hardest thing of all for any of us to do…Think for ourselves.

    Is it possible that the most difficult thing for a human is to have an independent thought?

    It has been said that everyone is the unconscious exponent of some dead philosopher or other. In other words, we’re all drinking somebody’s Kool-Aid. Every idea you have has been borrowed. Every belief inculcated. From birth, each new idea is absorbed brick by brick from the people around you. This continues on into school, high school, college, books you choose, media you consume.

    If true, then what we Americans like to think of as individualism is just a certain species of social confirmation theory. In other words, we reinforce (and are reinforced by) the ideas we and our adoptive tribe subscribe to. In too many ways we are automatons, conditioned  to thinking, saying, and doing what we’ve been reinforced by our preferred social group to think, say, and do. (In the military for instance, independent thought is not a value, it is rebellion.) What would your friends think, or your ”followers” if you happen to voice an idea outside the accepted orthodoxy of your circle? So you don’t. You want to be accepted. You want to fit. You want to belong.

    To push that idea further, that means there are no true individuals in the classical sense; that being who is truly independent, non-reliant, un-attached, un-molded, un-shaped and unique.

    Certainly not you if you’re reading this. You’re dependent on someone even for the ability to read. Somebody else, long ago, turned these squiggles into a language that you were taught to speak and read. Your brain sees the squiggles and with no effort on your part, converts the shapes to meaning. You didn’t do ANY of that for yourself. 

    And the squiggles appear on magical virtual paper in front of your eyes. They aren’t carved in stone, or painted onto papyrus, or inscribed on vellum, or scratched into bark. Unless you developed the technology to display abstract language on a screen using only ones and zeroes, some silicon, glass, and light supplied by electricity. You are dependent on those who did. You are this moment dependent upon those who keep the electricity flowing to your device of choice for reading this. Mic drop. 

    It is very difficult to escape ethnocentrism. We believe the culture we are born into is the best one. This is probably not unique to Americans, but it may afflict us to a worse degree. America’s greatest export by volume, is our culture, or at least the pop-Art aspects of it. But is one’s birth culture really the ”best” one? Or is it merely familiar? 

    But wait, Americans aren’t satisfied with being simply American, are we? You need a jersey to wear. Red, or blue for you? And you need a code to follow. We divide along dogma and credo down to the granular level. And be mindful not to step on the cracks of separation, or you’ll get labeled, ”other”. 

    It fascinates me that in Japanese there is no word for ”individualism”. A deeper dive removes some surprise since they have a culture shaped by Shintoism with its profound veneration and appreciation for ancestors. A Japanese citizen is not too proud to acknowledge the help they’ve received to become what they have become. To think they’d done so on their own would be a sacrilege.

    In America, individualism is a religion in its own right. I am more convinced than ever, that it is a form of cult-like psychosis. There is a willful denial of the interwoven, inter-dependent nature of our lives. What a particularly Orwellian brand of ”group-think”, in which the adherents ludicrously claim ”individualism”, while parroting the same words, wearing the same clothes, supporting the same issues, flying the same flags. Oh, right, individuals…I see. 

    I find ironic humor in the fact that so many professors of independence and individualism make their claims via the megaphone of billion-member social networking platforms. Kinda belies the claim, doesn’t it? 

    Americans have arrived at a cultural, social, and political inflection point at which we must determine if we are flexible enough to allow for a plurality of viewpoints. Are we going to continue to splinter and fragment? Are we going to wage the RL version of Battle Royale against one another? Is your group so sure of its righteousness that it is willing to go to war with a differing group? Even a war of words using the weapons of vilification, condescension, and ridicule is counter-productive and mutually destructive. Are you that certain you can do without them?

    The idea of America is quite literally coming apart at the seams. I’m not unique in believing this house is too divided to stand. Can we recover? Maybe. If we’re willing to embrace the ideals that the country was founded upon. If we adamantly reject all disinformation from whatever the source. If we hold crooked and lying politicians on both sides accountable. If we look more for similarities than for differences in one another.

    I think in the next few decades, not just in America, but globally, it will take all of us, working together, pulling together, mutually dependent, and mutually benefitting to stay alive on this planet and help it recover before we go extinct ourselves.

    This planet we ride on can do just fine without any of us, and it will recover speedily once we are gone. It doesn’t need us. Consider that.

    I have seasonal allergies. My body responds to pollen as a pathogen. It attacks it as harmful and invasive. Pollen is certainly not a pathogen. It is the substance of fecundity and life. There is something wrong with me, not the pollen, or the trees, and other flora producing it.

    Just because this stuff attacks me, doesn’t mean its bad and I should attack it. It’s doing its job, the problem is mine.

    In our melting pot society, different cultures and ideas have always melded and blended, and coalesced and cooperated. Our cross-pollination is what makes us unique among the roster of nations. Differences of opinion, experience, history, and perspective should not be treated as pathogens! They shouldn’t be attacked, but embraced, understood, mined for truth, and winnowed for better ideas. 

    The differences between us are the pollen of a society fertilized and pregnant with possibility. If you’re allergic, it’s likely there is something wrong with you.

    Americans by nature are allergic to concepts that challenge “rugged individualism”, but we can grow up now. It’s ok. There’s plenty of Kleenex to go around.

    And we might as well start with the idea that none of us is really all that independent. None of us is really as individualistic as we might puff ourselves up to be. Lean in. Here’s a tissue.

  • Take No Thought

    Yesterday’s post posed the question: would you accept a salary that would meet all of your needs for the rest of your life? I then discussed some pitfalls pursuant to chasing wants.

    My morning ritual involves coffee, a quick run-through of automated reminders about bills due, and a quick check of banking software to assure the resources are available for the bills, lest I should need to move funds.

    I start each day making sure that I have the financial resources on hand for that day’s financial needs.

    But what other resources do I need for today? And can they be stored up? Can they be transferred from account to account?

    I’ll need breaths. Lots of them. Even more if I can squeeze in a walk or bike ride. I dare not try to store them up.

    He’s gonna need a much larger bag, no?

    I’ll need Grace. Lots of it! That can’t be stored either. Grace is deposited via the conduit of Faith on an as-needed basis and must be spent immediately.

    I’ll need my heart to keep beating. I don’t have any way to put the needed beats in an account that I can withdraw from if I start to run low.

    I need all the neurons and axons and dendrites in my neural cortex to fire correctly all day long. No neural storage banks either…

    Anyway…made me think.

    The most valuable things I’ll need for today, I’ll have to receive moment-by-moment as the need arises. Like the manna of old, I’ll have to gather only what I can use today. Attempting to store more than a day’s worth will spoil and breed worms.

    I think maybe that’s what Jesus meant when he said, ”Take no thought for tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.”

    The things we take for granted, like breaths, and heartbeats, and mental processes are where the really important things reside. While we spend our energy and our time chasing and storing up, ”bread that does not satisfy.”

    Have a nice day! It’s the only March 29th, Two Thousand and Twenty-One that you’re ever gonna get.

  • Karma

    picture of toppling dominoes in a circle shows that karma is sowing and reaping. What goes around, comes around.
    What goes around, comes around…

    “Karma.”

    “Sowing and Reaping.”

    Call it what you will, there is a universal acknowledgment that not only our actions, but our intentions will have repercussions that in the unfolding and endless cycle (circle) of life will find their way back to us.

    A quick look at the etymology of Karma shows that it derives from a Sanskrit word meaning simply, ”action”. There is no ethical implication attached until much later.

    When it comes, it connotes the familiar western idea, found in the laws of Isaac Newton, father of Physics, that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The idea of causality mingled with that of reciprocity.

    This is the basic idea hidden in the simple word Karma, but the meaning transcends the merely physical world of Newton’s laws, and suggests that it is an all-encompassing truth, affecting not just bodies at rest, or in motion, but everything, in all worlds, everywhere, in all time (whatever that is).

    The biblical metaphors of sowing and reaping are not talking about agriculture, but about one’s life. The Christian disciple is warned about the inescapability and inevitability of this principle when he is instructed, ”Do not be deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man sows, that will he also reap.”

    A couple of Grateful Dead lyrics posit the same idea. This from the song, Deal

    Since it costs a lot to win

    And even more to lose

    You and me better spend some time

    Wonderin’ what to choose.

    Goes to show you don’t ever know.

    Watch each card you play and, play it slow.

    Grateful Dead: Deal

    or this from Franklin’s Tower

    “Some come to laugh their past away

    Some come to make it just one more day

    Whichever way your pleasure tends

    If you plant ice you’re gonna harvest wind.”

    Grateful Dead: Franklin’s Tower

    Truth is not limited to be found only in the Bhagavad Gita, or in the Bible, or any other sacred text, or even in Grateful Dead lyrics.

    Truth is found when the seedling erupts from the soil, then it doesn’t matter if you thought you were planting corn. If you planted tomatoes, tomatoes grow for harvest. The truth of what was planted becomes evident.

    In life, it doesn’t matter what you tell yourself to justify the seeds you sow and the actions you take, the harvest, when it comes, will show plainly what you actually planted.