Various Ideas VII

I've given this series additional consideration, and I suspect that “Various Thoughts” would be a better title for it. I'll call it that in the future. There's not all that much difference between the words “ideas” and thoughts,” at least in the denotations, but there is one (of many) dissimilarity that suggests that “thoughts” may better characterize my goals as I “write” this.

“Idea” is an active word. It presents a situation which may benefit from action. “Thought,” on the other hand, is far more passive. It, too, refer to something crossing the mind, but ”feeling” is all that is is necessary. There's no need to act on some of these views – though you can if that's your wish.

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

My cancer antigen level is decreasing. It's been doing so for the last three months. It gives me hope. Perhaps this represents real improvement which will result in “cure,” or perhaps not, but in the meanwhile it is encouraging. In addition, my appetite is getting better, as is my capacity – not necessarily for a particular meal, but in toto. Those are additional causes for hope.

It's common for people to look for hope wherever they can find it – to find clues, auguries, or other signs that their optimism is well supported. They are likely to see these signs whether or not they are there. And to pick and choose the signs they find, selecting those most favorable to them.

The oracles of ancient Greece understood this and they pronounced their prophesies in terms that could be, in fact would be, interpreted to suit the wishes of the listener. The opposite of what was anticipated was at least as likely, but the listener wasn't interested in any possibility that was contrary to his interests. Seekers of hope chose to understand and believe what they wanted to.

Hope doesn't come with a guarantee. It's only an offshoot of denial, a well-established defense mechanism and it keeps us “up” when we might otherwise be “down.” When we have hope, negative possibilities seem less likely.

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

DNA perplexes me. Not so much the concept of transmission of data as the idea that somehow the particular genes manage to form organism for which they were designed. Take the human being for example (I'm more familiar with that than with Euglena for example). Eye color is clearly a feature that is determined by one or more genes, but each, as far as I know, controls the production of a certain chemical. How does that dictate the color of the eyes? And how does one (or more) chemicals determine the angle of the femoral neck? Or the shape of the stapes?

I can do my calculations about gene frequency, or the likelihood of a particular feature. It's simply and extension of what Mendel taught. But I'm completely unable to understand how the code is translated into structures. And I'll never know.

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

Why do people give charity? There are certainly those who see a need or an injustice and consider it their obligation to try to help, I suspect, however, that they're in the minority. I'd guess that more give out of a sense of guilt. And even more because of pressure, from their friends or from others.

There are also some who give in the expectation of honor they'll receive. I remember, from college days, plaques on buildings, classrooms, and even smaller items, like microscopes. It was important that we see the name of the person who had made the donation. And there may have been a tax advantage for them as well.

Some give willingly – even without being asked. Others not so. And many not at all. There is clearly a religious component to it. The religious give more often and in larger percentages of their earnings than the others. (It's a general rule and is not always correct. Maimonides listed the charitable in the order of their merit. The highest level often involved helping someone find employment so he could support himself and his family.)

And, surprisingly, the “lower classes” often give greater percentages of their income than the rich. That, of course, doesn't describe all of the rich. Many of them have joined together to attack the problems of poverty, disese, and the environment. And there are the wealthy of the past who have established foundations that are still helping those in need. But relative to income, they're in the minority.

Whatever the reasons, society would suffer if no charity were given. There will always be poor – in your community and around the world. And, to the degree possible, we should all help those in physical, educational, and spiritual need, wherever they are.