All The Answers

The first question that I asked in this series related to the similarity of multiplication tables and compulsives. It was a particularly apt inquiry for me since I have some qualities of one of them. I can also multiply. For the things I do there is one right way, and it's important to me that things be done the correct way every time.ⁱ That's the way it has to be if the results are to be “right” and if they are to be predictable. For me, predictability goes with absolutes,ⁱⁱ structure, lists, rules, consistency, and “right,” as components of my compulsiveness.

So I was pleased when I saw my son demandingⁱⁱⁱ that his children act in accordance with the practices they had learned. What others might view as regimentation was, in fact, education. It was a structure that guided the children in their daily activities. We were all on the same page. The children learned from their parents, who had learned from theirs. And so on.

It is from the lessons of the past that a child learns, and that's how we all learn, even as adults. Santayana is reputed to have said that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”^iv Everything cannot be trial and error, so we have education. And that leads us to the future. In order to stand on the shoulders of giants, we have to know where they're standing. We may want to think outside the box, but first we have to know what's in it. Our education, including multiplication tables, provides the structure on which we can build. Even if we don't want to reinvent the wheel, we have to know of its existence. No. Especially if we don't want to reinvent the wheel. First we must avoid duplicating the ways of the past. Then we can go from there and improvise.

The reality, though, is that few of us are innovators. We guide the future generation based on what we have learned, which is what we were taught by the generation prior to ours. Sure, some things are unpredictable; there have been new events, ideas, and creations that have appeared during our lifetimes and they'll be passed on. But it's the predictable on which we rely – and for good reason. As I've indicated: in order to live orderly lives, we need order. Structure. Predictability.^v We need to know what will result from our actions.

I've emphasized absolutes as our guideposts – completely reliable standards and knowledge. It's important to know^vi that it's right to offer help to an innocent person in need because of circumstances beyond his control; and it's wrong to steal money from the cup of a blind man.

Issues of right and wrong, however, are not the only ones we face. Every day we make decisions based on some certainties^vii and some things that are less than certain. If we cross a street when we see no cars coming, it's likely we'll get to the other side safely. But if we cross the street without looking, the outcome is less predictable. Looking both ways before crossing may be a habit, but performed consistently, as was drummed into us by our parents, it helps us to negotiate this life more safely. Perhaps there are many ways to accomplish the same end. But in the end, in the interest of avoiding “analysis paralysis,” we must have a way of responding to a situation or a question – preferably in line with some standards of behavior set for us, or that we have set for ourselves in accordance with the absolutes which we accept. If we are true to our absolutes and our standards, we come to the same conclusion every time: there is one best answer, one correct response, one immediate and intuitive response. And we realize as well that the best answer is often the simple one rather than a complex answer. We've been there before. Perhaps the current situation differs from those of the past. Still there are enough similarities to allow the extrapolation of ideas and the adoption of an approach that is consistent with our previous ones. We are predictable, and, while consistency is often disparaged,^viii it provides a starting point for future development.^ix Absolutes, principles, standards, consistency, and predictability furnish a structure – comprehensibility, an understandable position from which we can move forward.

It does not matter if society's standards are in law books, textbooks or the the holy books – in fact all may hold the wisdom on which we base our lives. Whether they come from multiplication tables or holy tablets they provide the guidelines which are our starting points. The important considerations are that we accept them and we share them. Even if they're wrong, they provide common ground for all of us. And we can only address them if we know what they are. Order, structure, and predictability deflect chaos. And when they are understood and any imperfections corrected, they are the basis for living lives we can understand, and the same properties form the basis for meaningful change and progress. And we all hope that the progress will allow us to answer the ultimate question.

According to “Hitchhiker Wiki,”^x “The Ultimate Question is the actual question behind the Ultimate Answer of Life, The Universe and Everything.” It took “Deep Thought,” a super compter, seven and a half million years, and logical and orderly algorithms, to answer the question,^xi but ultimately it succeeded. Sort of. It came up with the answer 42. Apparently the original programers had not fully defined the question and the “hero” pulled out some random letters from a bag to provide the question. They spelled: “What do you get if you multiply six by nine?”

"Six by nine. Forty two."

"That's it. That's all there is."

It is an answer that, like much in life, makes no sense.^xii The sad truth is that we know neither the questions nor the answers. Indeed, the answer to all of life's questions is not straightforward. Perhaps the “answer” is meaningless, which may itself have a message and meaning. So the sad truth is that the only way to make sense of our existence is, based on life's absolutes and by the use of common sense, to set our own rules – arbitrary, perhaps, but reproducible – and work with them. Every time.

Next episode: “Nota Bene 6” – Your turn.

I        I haven't skinned any cats recently. And if I did I expect that I wouldn't vary my approach no matter how often I did it. In any event, you know my orientation by now.

ii       And you know which system of absolutes I favor. But that's not the point.

iii      “Demanding” is rather a strong word. Perhaps “expecting” is more descriptive of what I saw. His children knew the rules and followed them. No loud voices were necessary – only a soft-spoken correction of any deviation from the way things were done. The ground work, though, has to be the establishment of rules and a structure.

iv       The Life of Reason, 1905, Scribner's.  There were other versions as well, including one by Edmund Burke.

v        Don't you hate it when you arrive at an appointment on time – you do, don't you – and the other party comes late? But that's really predictable. Too many people don't feel bound by the rules. At least some of us respect our fellows and fulfill our obligations. We do our part in preventing chaos.

vi       And everyone should know. There's nothing cultural about it. It's absolute. You disagree? You're wrong.

vii      Actually nothing is absolutely certain. Even the multiplication tables have their limits and have to be used correctly. Seven times nine does not equal fifty-eight except in base eleven. But an apparent exception does not disprove an assumed rule. It may only indicate that a different rule should be used.

viii     For example, Emerson and his hobgoblin, of which I've spoken in the past.

ix       “We need consistency and predictability, and a sense of proper placement. We need these things before we can mold the world into what we know it can be.” – Allan Dare Pearce in “Hitler Burns Detroit” –2013, iUniverse.

x        http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Ultimate_Question

xi       It also required a sequel to the “Hitchhiker' Guide. “

xii      Actually it works in base 13. But Douglas Adams denied that he was aware of that when he wrote. The number was arbitrary with the intent that it be funny. In a way, that's a lot like life.

Incompatibility

Among the most important of absolutes – and you already know I reject the concept of moral relativismⁱ – are right and wrong. “Although it's not always obvious what is right,” as I said last week, “if we're not all on the same page, chaos will result.”

We want to teach our children what is the proper road to travel. We want them to do what is right.ⁱⁱ Every time.ⁱⁱⁱ We want to educate them to do so, but as we seek the proper educational approach for them we want to choose one that reinforces our own beliefs. And in the United States^iv there are two primary approaches that need to be considered – scientific and religious.^v Both present rules; both offer structure; some of the rules however, if not the absolutes, overlap, but their explanations of the underlying “realities” differ.

Because any exploration of “rules-based” behavior is based on the absolutes and the realities that dictate that behavior, it seems reasonable to spend a moment^vi on the competing points of view on those points of view and the principles that govern them. In the case of the scientific model, the one used in public education and a large number of private schools, it is assumed that the universe and its contents came about through natural and logical means and are value-free. Proponents present mathematical and other scientific proofs which, even though we may not understand them, demonstrate how we got to where we are.

If science, however, bases all of existence, on “what” and “how” rather than “why,” if only “is” and not “should” makes any sense, then if its adherents follow some system of right and wrong, and values, they are products of their various societies, developing independently, and differing from place to place. And there is nothing that makes one set of rules superior to another. The rules, even if they are the same as those of others who reject their origin, are based on society's choices. Man is the measure of all things.

Those whose reality is a religious one, however, generally accept the idea of an unprovable system of creation with an unchangeable set of absolutes that apply to everyone irrespective of the society in which they live. Certain acts are “wrong” no mater where they take place, and they cannot be justified by local custom. “Right” is right and “Wrong” is wrong. It is a perspective that many view as irrational.^vii

Incomprehensible equations may be fascinating to scientists and they may view them as scientific gospel, but they clarify nothing and provide no guide to living on this earth and with our fellow humans. A cosmology that proposes that matter created itself and that the Big Bang was the beginning of all existence (except for the laws of physics that have always existed) and predated the beginning of time and matter is not satisfying to everyone.

The use of the Big Bang and evolution as tools by an eternal Creator who guided the formation of the universe as we know it, and who provided us with guidelines for living in the environment He created, and among the people who dwell in it, makes more sense to them, although most adherents freely admit that they don't understand all its features.^viii To the scientific, this view makes no sense at all.

There are, presumably, many other possibilities, but these are the two most commonly voiced now. Admittedly, using “sense” as a criterion for evaluating the “irrational” has problems, but in this case, while both have problems, it seems to me the “irrational” makes more sense than the “rational.”

So what is “right?” It comes back to the issues of predictability and chaos avoidance, as I mentioned above. To reach those goals, some absolutes, however they are derived, are necessary. There has to be predictability. It's mandatory. After all, there is only one answer to the “Ultimate Question” – the question that brings us the Ultimate Answer of Life, The Universe and Everything.^ix Don't panic. I'll get there and I'll tell you what to do. Every time.

Next episode: “All The Answers” – And my recommendations. A few new questions also.

I        I believe that there are certain principles by which we must all live, and what is absolute is absolute. Those who deny it are absolutely mistaken.

ii       At least most of us want that. “Right,” however is difficult to define. It's often simply what we do. If it's good enough for us it's good enough for our children.

iii      We all justify exceptions when it is convenient to do so, if only to excuse actions we, or those we favor, have taken. That doesn't make it right. The exception doesn't prove the rule. It only demonstrates our inability to follow it.

iv       Actually everywhere.

v        What the science advocates would label “rational” and “irrational.”

vi       I'll really spend the rest of this essay on that subject and return to the underlying issue next week.

vii      Or, at least, “non-rational.”

viii     There is no denying that different religions, and different strains within them, would have competing versions of the rules, but most would agree on the absolutes.

ix       Douglas Adams. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

42

How is a compulsive like a multiplication table?

No. That's not the first line of a joke. It's the first line of a discussion of several matters that came to mind this morning as my children were preparing theirs for school. [This particular essay will be the first in a multi-part series, but, for the moment, I'm not sure how long it will be. In all likelihood it will have two or three parts, but I can't be absolutely sure at this time. We'll both find out as I go along.]

I'm an observant Jew. But I admire ISIS and atheists. ISIS would strip me of my life and atheists of my beliefs. Yet I respect them both – at least in one particular way. I'm in awe of them. They have views which they hold very strongly. Members of ISIS would kill or die for them,ⁱ though I suspect that most atheists wouldn't go quite that far. But they don't hesitate to expound their views and when they talk – especially ISIS – the world listens. And in the United States, especially in legal settings, the atheists usually get their way. It's almost as if the Constitution prohibits religion.

Yet the Constitution and the Bible are very much alike. Both are filled with absolutes in the form of laws and standards. Both are subject to interpretation, and there is considerable disagreement about how to interpret those absolutes.ⁱⁱ But there are absolutes. There are rules. And in a world in which virtually anything goes, the discipline provided by rules, however you interpret them, and the structure they give to our lives helps us work our way through our quotidian struggles, is the factor that makes our lives more understandable.

On my refrigerator, held on by magnets, is an aging, typed list of assignments which were the responsibilities of my children as we prepared for the Sabbath. (They – the children – have families of their own now, but the document remains and serves as a checklist for me of chores that have to be done each week. I usually remember them all, but it's a good crutch.) There were other sets of rules distributed or posted that solved many problems before they occurred. I'm in agreement with those “experts” who favor structure for growing children; who believe that even though children seek independence, the existence of firm control is reassuring to them. I favor that view not because of the experts but because it makes sense, and my children responded to it. Order, structure, and predictability deflect chaos. They are the basis for living lives we can understand, and the same properties form the basis for meaningful change and progress.

But that approach isn't limited to parenting. In almost every profession there's a checklist that has to be followed by a practitioner so he can be sure he doesn't miss something. Take a pilot for example. There are certain things he must do every time, and every time he must do them in the same way. While that doesn't guarantee that every flight will be a safe one, it ensures that every precaution that can be taken has, in fact, been taken and the odds are better that there will be a successful outcome.

The same is true of the compulsive and the multiplication table. In both cases there is something that must be done the same way every time. There may or may not be a listing of precisely how – whether it's some particular act, as it might be for someone who's compulsive or, as with a multiplication table, the result of some specific act, but it should always be the same. People who straighten pictures, straighten pictures. Every one they see if that is possible. Multiply nine times eight and it will always be seventy-two. At least in base ten, which is the template usually used with children. Both compulsion and the multiplication table deal with some kind of absolute. It may be an absolute for a person or for everyone. But it is invariable. Gravity always brings things closer together. If it doesn't, it's not gravity.

Among the most important of absolutes – and I reject the concept of moral relativismⁱⁱⁱ – are right and wrong. Although it's not always obvious what is right, if we're not all on the same page, chaos will result.

Next episode: “Incompatibility” – Competing(?) absolutes.

I        They've made meaningless the entire concept of “mutually assured destruction” as a method for discouraging future conflict. They welcome destruction.

ii        There are many writers of commentaries on both. They deny that they are changing the contents – albeit there are many who would like to do so – and insist only that their interpretations of those contents clarify the meaning.

iii      At least within a given society for many of them. For others, however, there is only the belief that what is absolute is absolute.

Present Perfect – Now Is The Time

Tell me a little about your great-grandmothers on your mother's side.

That's alright. I can't either.

We all live in the present. My new great-granddaughter Amalya will live in the present. My ancestor, Shlah Hakodesh,ⁱ lived in his present. We pretend that it's not true of us – that we are working to prepare a better world for our children and grandchildren – but we're fooling ourselves.ⁱⁱ Did our ancestors prepare for us?ⁱⁱⁱ The real truth is that they were concerned with their own problems, and the reality is that we're thinking about ourselves, not our descendants.

It's true of all of us – we live “now.” But what that means is a little more confusing.

If I never knew my great-grandmothers, you can be certain that I can't tell you much about the time before I was born, apart from what's in history books and in cosmology texts. The eternity that preceded me is all but a blank slate, and the eternity that will follow me is even more so. We live between eternities.^iv With the help of “futurists” we can make some intelligent guesses about what is likely in the very near future, but that period, one that is disappearingly short, will have no ultimate significance and will fade into a similarly unknown past very quickly. The truth is that we cannot change the past^v nor know the future. So why bother?

In many ways – in almost all ways – we're like the “lower” animals. They, too, live in the present. They go about their lives as their instincts direct, with no consideration^vi of the past or the future. “Death” doesn't exist for them. Nor do previous generations.^vii At least not as far as we know. Those ideas – especially the concept of death – are burdens of which we alone are aware, and which we have to bear. In that respect, our ability to think and understand are psychologically harmful to us.

Why do we have this capability? What is its origin? The scientists who have described it and who study it are not certain how it came about, but the reality is that we have it. We are conscious of more than just the elements of survival, we're aware of the irrelevant features of our world – the optional ones that pique our interest or affect our emotions; we're capable of understanding, analyzing, and planning. And we know more. So those abilities extend far beyond what was available to our predecessors. Perhaps that's a good thing, but often it isn't. It should be, however we're too often controlled by our own desire to do what we've always done: to live now.

We have the opportunity and the ability, limited as it may be, to plan ahead. Unfortunately, instead of looking for the best answers, we often look for the fastest. We want immediate gratification and quick answers. We don't want to think. It's better to get all the information prepared for us. Whether it takes the form of fast food, Google, or Cliff's Notes, we can't wait. That's what makes us so susceptible to ready-made information – whether it's from the media, the “smart” phone, or grandma. And that's why we're always looking down, at the devices in our hands.^viii We're forever texting or using our latest “apps.” Part of the reason is that we can't tolerate solitude or silence. We live only in the present, but we protect ourselves from it. Any distraction will do.

Some believe they are doing otherwise. They're working to make the world better. Better, of course, means the way they want it to be. Too often they're satisfying their own egos without solving any of the real problems we face. They're spending much of their time arguing with other people who would make the world better by doing the opposite of what they propose. We allow current dogma to dictate the stands we take, even though, and especially because, we don't always understand the underlying issues. We believe the “party-line” ideas to be the best approach available now. If we, or our children have to change those ideas later because they don't work or if they're harmful, so be it. We want to believe that it's about the future, but the present, now, is the focus of our thinking. And we, not them, want to decide what that will be like.

You don't remember your great grandmothers? They didn't know you either. Whatever dreams they may have had about their descendants, they had neither the knowledge nor the conceit to think they could do so. And chances are they would have guessed wrong about the way the world would look, and who we are and what we need. As Yogi Berra said, “It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

So it makes sense to live now. It's hard enough to get things right for ourselves. Amalya will do very well without our help. And her great grandchildren without hers.

Next episode:  “42” – The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything.  (see The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams)

I        Author of “Shnei Luchot Habrit” hence Shlah. (Hakodesh means the holy one.) Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz was born in 1565 and died about 1630.

ii        If we really cared about them and their future we'd think twice before increasing the national debt that some generation in the future will have to deal with.

iii      For example, and it's only an example, what steps did our predecessors in the sixth century (BCE or CE – your choice) take to make our lives better? Did they even think about it?

iv       At least that's what the scientists say. But do they know any better than the rest of us?

v        As Big Brother would tell you, that's not really true. All you have to do is erase a few lines from the history books and you'll change the past. At least what people believe it to be.

vi        Of which we're aware.

vii       It's somewhat presumptuous of me to believe that animals can't think and plan, and that they have no knowledge comparable to ours, but that is the commonly held view. While evolution relies on efforts of the individual to ensure the longevity of the species, that is by instinct, not thought. We recognize our inability to converse with them, but that may be our weakness, not theirs.

viii     I was on the subway recently and all I saw in front of me were people looking down at their phones or their tablets. Actually that's an overstatement. Some were sitting with their eyes closed and their earbuds open. When I was young there was a lineup of open newspapers. It was the same phenomenon of distraction from reality, but at least it required more active participation.

 

Nota Bene 5

Time for my monthly data dump. Here are some more ideas that I put aside for later use that, now that I'm facing reality, I'll never have a chance to develop. I think of things I want to say faster than I can say them, and I don't want to increase the rate at which I publish my blogs,ⁱ so I leave it to you. Let me know if you use anything.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Martyrs – Last week (from when this was written, not from when it appears) 148 university students were killed in Kenya. They were murdered for no other reason than they were Christian. They were martyred by Muslims from Somalia.

Muslim groups, on the other hand, declare any of their coreligionists who dies in one of his group's actions a martyr. The designation applies even if the individual soldier is killed while acting as a suicide bomber in the midst of killing as many enemies as possible. (An enemy is anyone who disagrees with the killer in terms of religion or politics.) Other martyrs are Muslim children forced to be in the line of fire when actual soldiers are fighting.

Who is a martyr? Does anyone who dies as a result of religious wars qualify? The concept and the term require clarification.

If you can't stand the humidity, get out of the shwitz.^iv – The paraphrase of Harry Truman brings up visions of politicians playing “hardball.” We're faced with images of competition and, even moreso, by the ability to ignore sensitivity: both by the one who deals out the “humidity” and the one at whom it is aimed. If either of them lacks a “thick skin,” he'd better look for another line of work.^v

Dealing with pressure is an important part of almost any enterprise. The ability is vital not just in politics, but in competitive sports, business, and school. In fact it's critical wherever there's a deadline.^vi In addition, I sometimes think that there's always competition, whenever two people are interacting there's an urge to do better than the other – or at least to one-up him. There's no easy way to deal with life's pressures. Or is there?

Religious rights and discrimination – The brouhaha over the religious rights act in Indiana and the federal law on which it's based can't be viewed as any more than an extension of our decision to outlaw “hate speech.” I've expressed my reservations about that policy many times (see especially “Boy Scouts Lite” – August 25, 2013).

It's worth exploring where religious rights trump laws against discrimination and the reverse. Does the government have the option and authority to dictate what people believe and how they will put their beliefs into action? Does it have the right to prohibit “discrimination” of citizens, or do individuals have leave to act in an offensive manner? Does rite make right? I've weighed in on the subject before and I'd be interested in the views of others. Feel free to speak your mind. As long as you don't harm me physically, I can take what you dish out. At least I think I can.^vii

Peace and war – I'm against peace. I'm sick and tired of it – at least as expressed by its voluble advocates who accuse those who might not mindlessly fall in line with their beliefs of being war-mongers. I'm dismayed by those who propose it. It's not that I favor war. I'm opposed to that as well. But, sadly, there are those who use their power to impose their views on others looking for a “cause,” and rely on the immature and those who advocate “peace at any price” to intimidate their opponents. They employ those who follow their teachings as “useful idiots.”^viii Their shills are so caught up in the rhetoric and the slogans that they don't stop to analyze what they're repeating. It's a form of populism – the form that allows a demagogue to frame the conversation and then fill in the picture himself. Actually, it's fanaticism. Eric Hoffer wrote about the phenomenon,^ix and I cannot rid myself of the fear that he was right and thought will ultimately give way to charisma. Who knows how it will play out?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's nothing very original here, but these are issue that have been on my mind. I'm sure I'm not the only one bothered by them, but there are other things on my mind as well and, for the moment, they take precedence.

Next episode: "Present Perfect – Now Is The Time" – Now is the time.

I        Lest I lose the one or two readers I have.

ii       It seems so recently.

iii      Freud and Oedipus are not to be denied.

iv       Steam room.

v        Not just the receiver, because the roles will be reversed soon enough.

vi       It's not my problem. I write these essays long in advance, and I'm a hermit and retired. So I don't have to watch my back.

vii      The Little Engine That Could is the story most associated with this statement but, according to what I've read, it first appeared in 1902 in a journal, and was penned by an unknown author. There were many tellings of the tale, but the most famous had, on its title page, “Retold by Watty Piper from The Pony Engine by Mabel C. Bragg's copyrighted by George H. Doran and Co." [Watty Piper was the pen name of Arnold Munk, owner of Platt & Munk.]

viii     The term was coined by Vladimir Lenin. He employed many of them to popularize his teachings.

ix       The True Believer, 1951.