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.

__________________?

Have you ever wondered what your offspring would be like if you had married someone else?ⁱ What would theyⁱⁱ look like? Would their intelligence be different? And what about personality? Chances are there wouldn't be that much of a difference. You'd probably have chosen a mate with some similarities to the one you did – physical, intellectual and personality ones – and that means the children wouldn't be all that much different from what you have. Your parenting techniques would probably be much like the ones you used or are using now, so nurture, like nature, wouldn't vary all that much from what's currently the case. Of course you'll never know. If that had been the case you'd have other offspring and there would be no one available for the comparison with them.

But there would be one major difference – _____________ [fill in with your children's namesⁱⁱⁱ] wouldn't exist. The ones you love dearly, simply wouldn't be there. And you'd never know the difference.^iv Nor would they. Not existing, how could they know the opportunity lost to them? And whatever impact they would have had on the world won't come about, but no one will ever be aware of that. And their children – the images of your beloved sons and daughters – will never be known to you. That, though, is life. Or, more to the point, that isn't life. And, of course, there's always the possibility that you might never have existed.

Abortion is like that – the child^v lost will never be known by us, nor ever self-aware. But there's one important difference, because no other would be born in his place. The first situation – a different child because one of the parents is different – represents a kind of zero-sum exercise, even if the gain and loss can't be compared because they won't both exist. In the case of abortion, it's all loss. It's not zero-sum, but all negative. The starting point – the fetus – will never mature into a human. It will be ablated before it is fully developed. Almost the same as contraception, except that the latter is more passive than active.^vi Almost the same, but not quite. There's no need to destroy what never existed. In that way, it's more zero-sum than negative.

What is the meaning of life? That's what it all comes down to, even if I have no idea what is the answer to the question. I don't even know what the question is.^vii It is clearly a matter of concern to the general population though. Just as the question of abortion^viii troubles society, so does the use of capital punishment in American society.^ix And there are numerous vegetarians and their “extremists,” vegans. Where they all stand on the treatment of bacterial infections, which require the killing of bacteria, I don't know. Perhaps, because they consider vegetables fair game, this doesn't bother them.^x,xi But what about killing tapeworms? And even if they believe the use of leather should be proscribed, what's the status of wool? Is there a single answer to the question of life or do individuals and society have to draw their own lines?

I don't recall the invention of fire. Nor do I remember Socrates, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, or Woodrow Wilson. I hadn't been born. I didn't exist. Suppose you never existed. Of course you wouldn't be aware of it. Nor would you be aware that you weren't aware. Nor would you be. You would certainly have no memory of those past events I mentioned. Or anything else. But, unaware, you wouldn't care.

That's all philosophy. The good thing about being a philosopher is that you can ask unanswerable questions and, if you come up with any kind of a system to account for the problems you raise, you can use terminology so arcane that it won't be understood. The only person who can come close is the clergyman. His questions, however, even if answered by unprovable assertions, are usually followed by an understandable explanation – but one that often ends with a declaration of faith.

So what's the point? There are no answers. The “ultimate question” will always be around and no one will be able to answer it. All we can do is imagine. And as you're considering questions of life and death – as you're formulating a position on the issues raised here – imagine, for example, that _____________ had never been born.

Next episode: “There She Is, Myth America?” – A conventional solution to an unconverniotnal problem.

i     Read on even if you're not married. The points are the same.

ii     For a single child make the appropriate pronoun substitution here and in later references.

iii     Or, if you have no children, the name or names of whoever is dear to you.

iv     You'd love whoever was there and not give any thought to what might have been.

v     Make substitution(s) here if needed. This is the last time I'll mention it. From now on you're on your own.

vi     Intra-uterine devices (IUDs) are abortifacients, not contraceptives.

vii    For Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything was 42. I guess that's as good as anything, even if the saga's computer had decided that the question was to find the product of nine and six. By the way, it words in base thirteen – however neither Adams nor the computer was working with this base.

viii   Viewed by the courts as an issue of privacy.

ix    Ignoring the question of whether mistakes may be made, there is a real argument about whether it is ever justified to take a life. Some pacifists don't even consider that war justifies such action. And self-defense is not an adequate reason. Life was given by G-d and only he is justified in taking it away. In the final chapter of Samuel II (24:14) David says: “... let us fall into the hand of the Lord for his mercies are great; don't let me fall into the hand of man.”

x    Some claim that vegetables are sensate and we should feel their pain.

xi    I'd view that as a facetious question except that I know that pacifists might not consider “self-defense” as a satisfactory reason for killing, and that some religious believers may prefer to leave all healing in G-d's “hands.”