Square One

Square Oneⁱ

There's nothing new under the sun. So wrote King Solomon in Kohelet (Ecclesiastes). And there's part of King Solomon in all of us.ⁱⁱ Molecules travel, and so do ideas. But we are not always equipped to understand those ideas. In recent years there has been an interest in “Bible Codes,” words and phrases that can be “demonstrated” in the Bible if the text is subjected to computer analysis. Whether or not the patterns exist as more than chance occurrences – or whether or not they were inserted for our guidance – we are now equipped to “find” them. They were always there, but our ability to understand and interpret biblical texts has changed.

I hesitate to say that our ability has “improved” because that would suggest that we know more now than our forebears did, and there's no real justification for that idea. What has changed, however, is our outlook. And with it our language – denotation and connotation. Our understanding of “right” and “wrong,” which formerly were based on biblical ideals and strictures, is now governed by modern sociology and science. We have adopted the cant of “moral relativism” in place of holding on to any absolutes. Is that better? Is it more accurate?” That's hard to say, but it's different. Nonetheless, science is the background of our attempt to understand Rabbi Akiba's words.ⁱⁱⁱ We demand scientific proof of everything.^iv If we can't show a scientific basis for an idea, it is obviously false.^v

It all boils down to the longstanding conflict between knowledge and belief. Unfortunately the boundaries are a little blurred. But to try to understand a religious concept we're probably better off if we use belief as our touchstone. Belief is usually part of the vocabulary of the religious, the philosopher, or the magician, although the atheist also has a fixed set of beliefs – generally the opposite of the religious, though no easier to prove.^vi,vii In any event, for the purposes of this discussion, a religious vocabulary and references to religious texts make the most sense.

In order to decipher the Bible, the reader must make some important assumptions. He must, of course, accept it. If he does not do so, no argument based on it will seem reasonable. He must also accept the idea that the language used – and it is sometimes metaphor – is that which was most easily comprehended by the people at the time it was first read. So, for example, references to the farming and the harvesting of oil, and grain and wine – as are found in the fifth of the five books of Moses^viii – are better understood now as references to livelihood, however it is earned. At the time when the words were first used, farming was the major occupation of the listeners and made the most sense to them. Modernizing the text each time there is a change in our situation would lead to chaos, since everyone would have different ideas about the new wording. And it would be historically inaccurate. Better to discuss among ourselves the meaning of terminology that may not resonate with moderns. That discussion may lead to a more complete understanding and agreement.

But most important is a recognition that however hard we try, we cannot understand everything that occurs in this world or in others. For some the lack of knowledge is interpreted as a negation of the reality of what we don't understand, or at best a challenge. For others, there is a recognition that some things are beyond us and must be accepted as they are and according to the understanding provided for us by others. That is especially true in referring to the Bible. However religious philosophers may attempt to rationalize what is there, if it viewed as the word of G-d it must be accepted at face value.

“In the Beginning everything came about through a singularity.” Maybe. But most of us, including me, don't understand this concept. I've tried. I've read about the origin of the universe in several books on cosmology, but no matter how it's phrased, the concept of a “singularity” seems to me to be supernatural. It's certainly in opposition to what I was taught in high school physics which emphasized that everything comes from something. There's no free lunch. But with the idea of a “singularity” this concept appears to be contradicted. And gravity and the other “laws” of physics had to have an origin somewhere.

If, as seems to be the case with the cosmologists, we're stuck with the supernatural, though, “In the Beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth” makes as much sense as physics. Perhaps G-d created the singularity. That would be logical for a singular deity – the source of monotheism. And since the Bible speaks the language of Man, a complex physical explanation of the specific mechanisms of Creation doesn't seem to be in order. Man doesn't speak the language of G-d, and Man cannot understand His ways. Our values and His have nothing to do with each other. Job, believing he understood G-d's plan, tried to explain it to others, but was upbraided for believing that he was wise enough to fathom the Divine. “Can one who contends with the Almighty be arrogant?”^ix Job's attempts to comprehend what was beyond him were clearly misguided.

So an explanation of the compatibility of free will and foreknowledge may be interesting, but it is only a description of a possible mechanism for something we don't, and can't, understand. In fact, the two ideas may be irreconcilable or may have no relationship to each other.^x Only G-d knows.

This will surely be viewed as a “cop-out” by those who reject religion. But no more than that of those who use a term like “singularity” and believe that it is an explanation. I can accept the idea that there are some things Man doesn't, and will never know. That, of course, leaves us with Rabbi Akiba's words,^xi unexplained and apparently contradictory.

So what do we do with these two ideas? Where do we go from here? At the end of Kohelet Solomon said it best. “Fear G-d and keep His commandments, for that is a man's whole duty.”^xii It may not answer all our questions, but it's a plan.

Next episode: “All The News That's Fit To Print” – And if you believe that ...

i      Continuation of last week's blog.

ii     The following, although written about Napoleon, applies equally to Solomon. Recycling, which we view as something new, has always existed. http://peterallport.com/molecules.htm

iii    See The Need To Know which appeared last week.

iv    Well not actually everything. If someone espouses some idea about alternative medicine or a particular social theory we're likely to accept it no questions asked.

v     Until gravity was demonstrated and proved mathematically, it did not exist.

vi    Such beliefs are usually based on a lack of scientific evidence. According to him, there is no G-d because the existence of G-d cannot be proved. Of course it cannot be disproved either and all that is left is a belief that there is no G-d. But the religious and the non-religious speak two different languages and neither can understand or accept the position of the other.

vii    Many scientists are among the religious believers, drawing a distinction between the knowledge of science and the belief of religion. Pascal's Wager is an example of a mathematician attempting to use his science to illustrate why he chooses to believe.

viii   See 11:13-17. Similar examples appear elsewhere, but this will serve as a suitable example.

ix    Tanach, The Stone Edition, Mesorah Publications, New York, 1996

x     They certainly are irreconcilable in our rational, “natural,” mindset.

xi    See previous blog.

xii    ibid.: Tanach, The Stone Edition.

The Need To Know

 

Suppose your stockbroker were right two-thirds of the time – twice as often as he was wrong. You'd make a profit. That's much better than you could do on your own. After all, just by guessing, by sheer luck, you could probably get it right half of the time. Then, however, you might only break even.

But even though you were already making a profit at sixty-seven percent, you might look for an adviser with a seventy-five percent success rate. And then even higher. It's not likely that you'd suspect your new advisor of “fixing” stock prices or controlling sales, or whatever it takes to pick a winner, but only that he was better educated, harder working and more adept at researching, possibly even possessed of better intuition than his predecessor, and would have a better chance of predicting what was going to happen. It doesn't take control to be able to anticipate the future, nor inside information, only skill and knowledge.

If someone had in his possession all the pertinent facts and could apply them to every conceivable situation, he would not need to control the future even if he might seem to know what was going to happen.

Rabbi Akiba said, “Everything is foreseen [by G-d] but freedom of choice is given.”ⁱ It seems to be a contradiction, but now that we know about DNA it all makes sense. For our DNA is the regulator of what we do. And the Giver of the DNA certainly understands where it will lead and what we will do. Our choices are predictable, but the foreknowledge of what we will choose does not imply control. Thus there is no contradiction between free will and foreknowledge. There is no predestination.

But every solution causes its own problems. Rabbi Akiba certainly didn't know anything about heredity, so he could not have based his view on that. I suspect that he, like all the rest of us, was aware that there was a lot more he did not know than what he did. But for him, there was no source better than the one he used – the Torah.ⁱⁱ Perhaps its pronouncements required interpretation, but their truth was not in question. It contained, after all, the words of G-d. The interpretation of those words, however, no matter how true they themselves might have been, often raised issues which required new understandings – new interpretations of the old. And so it is with heredity and with DNA.

The obvious difficulty is that the idea is based on the concept that G-d is the Creator of all beings, and it follows that He who gave the DNA controlled our future actions in doing so. And to the degree that our decisions are based on the milieu in which we live, and the people surrounding us – people whose actions also result from the DNA assigned to them – each of our actions and responses in this world created by G-d is really controlled and predictable.ⁱⁱⁱ So that makes the belief of Rabbi Akiba one that is difficult to understand. It's just as well that he was unaware of the science we have now. But if free will does not really exist, how can we justify a philosophy of reward and punishment?

Back to square one.^iv

 

Next episode: “Square One” – Another approach. But one that works only if you want it to.

i     Avot, 3:19. A section of the Jewish Talmud.

ii    The five books of Moses. The first section of the Bible.

iii    That's the nurture to go with the nature (DNA).

iv    Actually it's square zero. We're nowhere at the moment. “Square one” implies that we've started.

Blue Skies

Blue Skiesⁱ

I hate spring.

Actually it's beautiful. I know that. Crocuses are reaching for the sun and buds are starting to appear on the trees. Although winter is not completely gone, and some cold days remain, warm winds are starting to find their way by our faces, and the last vestiges of snow are disappearing. Gentle rains are starting to fall which aren't oppressive but rather welcome as relief from what we've been suffering. And in between the showers there are clear blue skies and, soon, the yellow-green leavesⁱⁱ that signal the rich green that is to follow.ⁱⁱⁱ

As the days lengthen the birds are returning and now they are singing. Some of them seem a little bulky, and it seems clear that a new generation will be appearing soon. That's the hallmark of the season. It's not just the prerogative of young men, nor their fancy – spring fever affects all of us, man and animal alike,^iv and we're all affected by the climate of rebirth.

But I hate spring.

I love winter. Not so much the weather, which I find to be more than I can bear.^v And certainly not the sentence of house arrest brought on by the short days. Cabin fever is a real ailment, and I suffer from it as much as others. The season is cold and dark, and even the house seems cold. Tempers are on edge because of the confinement. No one wants to go out, but no one wants to have to stay in either.

But I love winter for one important reason. It holds the promise of spring. The days are starting to get longer and there is hope and anticipation about. It will all end soon, but not a moment too soon.

And then it actually ends. Spring comes. And the moment is too soon. The time for which we've all been waiting – the promise we prayed would be kept – has come, and there is a letdown. Soon, with the coming of summer, the trees will be full and all we'll have ahead of us is the deterioration of nature heralding winter. Sure, there will be a bright and clear autumn, but however glorious it may be, it will carry with it the inevitability of the coming season. I love winter, but only because of the expectations it brings. Otherwise I hate the season and I hate anticipating it.

And so when spring comes, as warm and welcome as it may be, we have lost the chance to yearn; we can no longer wait for it, with all the excitement that comes with anticipation. It will be over soon, at least until next year – but who can think that far ahead.

Next episode: "The Need To Know" – Bull from the bears.

i     With apologies to Irving Berlin.

ii    I like the willows best.

iii    All my perceptions assume the Northern Hemisphere, but I also know that my melancholy would be just as severe – though offset by six months – if I lived in the Southern Hemisphere.

iv    Yes. I'm aware that we're animals. But the cliché expresses the idea so well.

v    When I was younger, and better able to tolerate the cold, it wasn't so bad; when shoveling snow wasn't the ordeal it is now, I gloried in the change of seasons and winter was a big part of it. And when playing, or, later, playing with my children and making snow angels, it was almost enjoyable.

Bowerman, Fixx and the Mexican Cartel

 

We are, perhaps, the healthiest people who ever existed. It's hard to drive safely because of the joggers in the road. Bill Bowerman's Jogging, in 1966 (you know him – he was the founder of Nike), started the craze and Jim Fixx's The Complete Book of Running, in 1977,ⁱ turned it into a national obsession. And there's more. Sales of all kinds of health supplements are at record levels and the use of “alternative” medicine to provide more health options has mushroomed in recent decades. There's no doubt about it. America is health conscious.

It's interesting that “good health,” like thinness, has become a fad.ⁱⁱ What's more striking is that the decision was entirely that of the individuals involved. No laws or regulations drove the movement, although the quest for the fountain of youth, better health and lower insurance rates certainly contributed to it. And, with insurance picking up the tab to a degree, we now badger our doctors for “uppers” and “downers” to add to our good feelings. All we need is a prescription (which is not too difficult to get) and what we're doing is perfectly okay. In fact, it's part of our national culture.

For a variety of political and economic reasonsⁱⁱⁱ the Federal government has chosen to limit involvement in all of these issues and, for the most part, to ignore more than token regulation of tobacco and alcohol. But simultaneously, for example, while collecting taxes on these items (since they are accepted parts of our lives and economy) they require warnings, either for everyone with tobacco, or for pregnant women with alcohol.^iv Governmental attitudes on a variety of issues are schizophrenic.

It's easy to simplify – to try to boil down complex issues to a manageable size. But those who do so are accused of missing nuances, of missing the forest and focusing on individual trees. As H. L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

Their opponents – the opponents of simplification – see them as oversimplifying, and they, consequently, having a contrary approach, are seen as complicating the questions – of creating forests where they don't exist. That leaves us with two opposed formulations. When questioned about his smoking habits, Freud, who always managed to find a(n unconscious) sexual meaning for every act,^v is reputed to have said, “Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.” Cigars stink, but I tend to favor Freud's simplistic approach in this respect – especially when contrary arguments are complex and hypothetical. So I'll oversimplify, and boil down a complex issue: the legalization of narcotics.

First of all, let's get the obvious out of the way: by and large narcotics are harmful – especially when taken without a valid medical indication.^vi That is not a point of contention. But that is only a small part of the problem. Of greater significance, at least in my mind, is the cost to our society of the illegal drug culture. I am aware that many volumes have been written on the subject covering all aspects of the problem, aspects much more complex than I am stating, but, as I said, I prefer to oversimplify because I think that many of the arguments on the subject are anecdotal and emotional, and center on theoretical questions rather than facts.^vii So I'll exhibit my own biases, and focus on the points I consider important even though I know that I am omitting many issues of contention.

One of those points – a very basic one for me – is that people are responsible for their own choices, and blaming them on society is too easy and disingenuous at best. Addicts typically^viii are young and are risk-takers. In fact, to a degree, we live in a society of risk-takers. Some satisfy their appetites for pleasure with fatty foods, some with cigarettes, some with sex, others with alcohol or drugs. Drawing the line at the last of these is a moral or political judgment. But where does personal choice come in. “Choice” is a catchword of modern life, indicating that the government has no right to interfere in an individual's life. It's the mantra of the pro-abortion movement. As time goes by, though, real choices are narrowed and there is an increase in the involvement the government^ix takes in setting “standards” for us.

A completely different consideration is the “drug trade” and its costs. Among the costs, in addition to the money spent on the drugs themselves, is the criminal behavior which they engender. That behavior consists of illegal acts^x to get money to support the addicts' habits and the need of addicts to involve others in order to pay for their own drugs. Because of the illegality of the use, it is risky for the addict to seek education and rehabilitation. That's not a risk worth taking. Besides, a large part of the other risk and the tragedy is imposed on innocent individuals who, themselves, have nothing to do with the drugs. It's a matter of being in the way of those who do.

The money, however, is a big consideration. Billions are made selling narcotics, and the beneficiaries do not hesitate to use that money for illegal purposes, including the elimination of competitors and the bribing of police and public officials so as to make sale easier and more profitable. In addition to American profiteers there are many in other countries, and while we are sending money abroad to fight the drug trade, far more is available to those who sell it. By our purchases, we encourage the poor in other countries to raise and sell the plants from which drugs are made^xi There was a time when our allies would help us in the battle, but we can no longer depend on the good will of other governments (which are now thumbing their noses at America) to control coca and marijuana crops, or to let us do so.

Other costs include crime fighting – also in the billions. Those costs include the use of law enforcement to apprehend the traffickers and the users, to protect uninvolved citizens, and to support prisons. There is also the cost to society of the addicts themselves. Prohibition leads to the avoidance of rehabilitation and continued reliance on others to provide support – some willingly and others not so. If that money were saved by legalization of drugs, however, it could be used for education^xii and rehabilitation, and for job creation to satisfy those who attribute drug use to the lack of employment. If drugs were made available inexpensively and legally by non-profit organizations^xiii and the gains taken out of drug sales, it's likely that much of the crime related to the narcotics trade would disappear.

But one of the best reasons to end the war on drugs is that we're losing. There are occasional news articles on the location of imported drugs and the apprehension of drug lords,^xiv but the trade persists and is increasing. We gave up on the prohibition of alcohol for a variety of reasons including the general disregard for the law. Perhaps it's time to reconsider the prohibition of “illegal drugs.” Perhaps we should not legalize everything at once – the legalization of medical marijuana is a good start – but it is my view that legalization, in addition to being a wise decision, is inevitable. And whatever regulations we leave in place^xv should be aimed at providing facilities for the treatment of those afflicted.

We pride ourselves on our health – at least some of us do – and drugs will remain dangerous, but the dangers to the non-users will be minimized, and more funds will be available for treatment of users who will have less concern in seeking help. What do we have to lose?

Next episode: “Blue Skies” – Coming soon to your neighborhood.

i      Until then he'd been involved in writing puzzle books like Games for the Super-Intelligent.

ii    I have to admit (full disclosure and all that sort of thing) that I view much of this as harebrained hokum. Fixx died of a heart attack at 52; many of the supplements have been shown to be useless or harmful; and the alternative therapies – which themselves are often are harmless or useless – may delay the use of established treatments, often to a time when they may no longer be effective. But my view of this buncombe is irrelevant. More important – and the point at issue – is that good health seems to be an American fixation.

iii    Including payments by lobbyists to politicians.

iv    Indeed, that proscription has, on occasion, led to the refusal to serve wine to a pregnant woman.

v     Making complex something that appears simple.

vi    A prescription, in and of itself, is not a valid indication. Sadly, unprincipled physicians will sometimes sell them.

vii    There is no question that many will disagree with me. Unfortunately there are many ways to interpret the “facts” which, like statistics, may be misused. I'm sure that if I misuse them no one will see.

viii    But certainly not invariably.

ix    Sometimes “government” is simply a middle-level bureaucrat “regulating” his own biases by dint of legislation which gives wide latitude for regulation.

x     Including robbery and murder.

xi    By and large the poor make very little on the trade. The big profits go to the traffickers.

xii    The argument may be made that legalization will be interpreted as sanction of addiction and the general public, as well as the addict, must be made aware that the decision to legalize is in the interests of treating a horrible disease. It should be clear, as it is with cigarettes and alcohol, that use is dangerous and should be avoided, but if that is not the case then treatment should be sought.

xiii   Better a non-profit organization than the government which might be tempted to turn it into a revenue source.

xiv   These items are news because they are exciting, but they relate to a small minority of the drug shipments, most of which get through without problems. Were that not the case, people would not take the risks.

xv    Regulations which should be in the purview of the states, not the federal government. The Constitution leaves to the states the regulation of issues not specifically covered there, and drug enforcement is not covered.