Various Thoughts VIII

More food for thought.

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

Some conditions that we accept as normal are certainly diseases, even if we all don't feel so – and that includes the views of some who are affected. Take “gender dysphoria” as an example. It has an ICD (International Classification of Diseases) code as well as the American Psychiatric Associations DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) code. In fact some of the medical insurance companies consider it justification for surgery. It's likely that it results from an individual's DNA or a prenatal condition suffered by the mother. In any event, it's not the individual's fault. In fact “fault” is an inappropriate word. People with sicknesses merit understanding and forgiveness rather than blame.

Alcoholics have a disease. So do addicts of other materials – prescribed opioids are in the news nowadays. But somehow, although we're less understanding of them, we accept the concept. The law recognizes the nature of their problem and society seeks non-punitive way of addressing their problems. There are rehabilitation programs, often paid for by the government or covered by insurance companies. Such rehabilitation, of course, is costly, and expenses are paid for by all of us in the form of taxes and insurance premiums. That's not immediately apparent, and we press for greater assistance of the afflicted.

Voyeurs, rapists, and serial killers are also diseased, whether or not we're willing to admit it, but we're unlikely to cut them any slack. We're much more willing to pay for their punishment than to help them. Should we be more understanding or have we gone too far already?

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

Who's made in whose image? I've been wondering about it. It's a religious issue or, rather, it's many religious issues. Take Zeus, Achilles, Mars, Jupiter, Athena, and all of those folks. People created them, not the opposite. They had all the traits of good guys and bad guys – all the characteristics we had. They were made in “our” image.

Judaism, and, to an extent, its “spin-off” religious, says the opposite. G-d created us and gave us the Torah which documented that process and our early history. Christianity added Jesus, a human G-d figure, but the record that has been passed down was written by people who never knew Jesus, but were able to describe him based on what they heard. And Islam makes no claim of a new or additional deity – only of a prophet. So all their holy documents – all their understanding of G-d – was written by men based on the words of their prophet whose Koran was based on the Jewish bible and its Christian expansion. (I cannot comment on non-“western” religions because I know little about them.)

But what about the original – Judaism? While the Torah is attributed to G-d, it was written by one (or more according to some scholars) human, so even though G-d is asserting creation, and that man was made in His image, our only record of this claim is what we're told by another human being. And the various extrapolations and interpretations of His laws are also provided by our sages – more humans.

So who created whom? And in whose image?

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

Every now and then we read about a lawsuit that results in huge punitive damages which seem to us to be disproportionate to the injury but are clearly designed to affect the behavior of the defendant in the future. They are fines aimed at making a company with deep pockets think twice before letting its products or its actions harm more of our citizens.

Generally speaking, however, fines are awarded to the government – us – as punishment of offenders. Should punitive damages follow the same pattern? Government lawyers have more resources than private lawyers and their interest in, and work toward, a large punitive settlement, in the public interest, might increase the size of the damages. The plaintiff (and his attorney) are certainly entitled to remuneration for their costs and for damages done, as well as a (small) part of the punitive damages, but the public that was at risk is entitled to the largest part of the fine. Additionally, the recognition by well-funded defendants that they are facing a well-funded government force may result in case settlements at an early time.

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

Chew on the food (for thought) I've offered. More next time.

May 23, 2017

Day Of Unrest

“In the Beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form. … And the evening and the morning were the first day.”ⁱ

In the beginning the particle appeared. And, in accordance with the laws of physics, the Big Bang turned it into the universe that houses everything. Before that happened, time didn't exist. Nor did anything else.

“Who really knows, and who can swear, how creation came, when or where! Even gods came after creation’s day. Who really knows, who can truly say when and how did creation start? Did He do it? Or did He not? Only He, up there, knows, maybe; or perhaps, not even He.”ⁱⁱ

“There was something featureless yet complete, born before heaven and earth; Silent – amorphous – it stood alone and unchanging. We may regard it as the mother of heaven and earth. Not knowing its name, I style it the 'Way.' ... The Way gave birth to unity, Unity gave birth to duality, Duality gave birth to trinity, Trinity gave birth to the myriad creatures. The myriad creatures bear yin on their back and embrace yang in their bosoms. They neutralize these vapors and thereby achieve harmony.”ⁱⁱⁱ

*********************************

The first of these descriptions of the beginning comes from the King James Bible; the third from the Rig Veda, and describes a Hindu version; the fourth is from Daodejing – one of many Chinese cosmogonies. Around the world there are, of course, numerous other versions of the unknowable, the discussion of the origin of everything. They represent what is known as “Creation Myths”^iv and are matters of belief – no one really knows the facts.^v

Interestingly, the second version described above, the scientific view, seems just as mystical as the others. Notwithstanding any mathematical calculations and any theories of physics, it is as unprovable as any of them and just as reliant on belief^vi – in this case the beliefs of “rational” mathematicians and scientists.

But belief can have dangerous consequences.

An important part of the religious narrative, at least in the traditions that stem from the Jewish Bible,^vii is the concept that Creation took six days and G-d rested on the seventh. And He commanded us to rest on that day as well. That seventh day is usually termed Saturday and corresponds to the Sabbath^viii which is divinely ordained. The idea of a day of rest, though it has gained widespread acceptance, has not been viewed with favor universally.^ix

A few years ago^x I wrote an essay on the calendar. One of the points that it made was that “universal” calendars favored the elimination of the seven day week as he sole basis for construction of the “year.” Rather, they employ such a week for the purpose of general organization, but because a “perfect” year^xi is required – usually with 52 seven day weeks always beginning and usually beginning on Sunday – it's necessary to slip in one or more days that won't be counted. They're days off. And who can argue with an extra day or more of rest. But the extra day (or days) shifts the Sabbath each year, and that's unacceptable to those who observe it. Supporters of a universal calendar, however, demean those who favor a Sabbath. From their perspective, a day off is a useful and modern labor benefit; the Sabbath is a remnant of the outdated mythology of a bigot. (That perspective is, however, evidence of their own biases.)

Believers, though, have different views. Indeed, they often are bigots.

One instance involves some Jews who have difficulty tolerating the violation of the Sabbath^xii by other Jews. They may throw stones at the vehicles of those who drive on the day of rest, or simply castigate those whom they deem insufficiently observant. It's not an action, however, that is generally approved by others – even those who may agree concerning the specifics of the violations.

Of far greater concern, however, is the urge to impose the religious statutes of one religion on another, or to use the Sabbath for the purposes of incitement against those of other faiths. In medieval Rome, for example, especially when all the city's Jews were forced to live in a ghetto, those same Jews were required to listen to a Sunday Christian sermon which described their evils and the goodness of the Church. Following the sermon, the killing of the evil ones sometimes occurred – most notably on Easter to deal with those who, according to their teachings, had killed G-d, as if that were possible. It was an example of anti-semitism in a form that was sanctioned by Christianity, and was aimed at using the day of “rest” to intimidate, and sometimes to eliminate, those who did not share its views. (Regrettably it was a practice not limited to Rome.)

But, as the saying goes, “that was then ...” Unfortunately, things haven't changed. Or perhaps they've gotten worse. Anti-semitism flourishes. There's an opinion piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal entitled “Do Jews Have a Future in Europe?”^xiii The main (but not sole) source of the bias is “the violent threat of jihadists.” Although it is considered racist to say so, most of the violent episodes of which the media tell us daily involve Muslims. And it is sad to note that we frequently hear of similar violence instigated by a cleric who makes such action a focus of his Friday message to the faithful. It is not a surprise that the prayer service on that holy day is an important part of their indoctrination,^xiv for it is the time when the largest number of believers is there and eager to learn who is oppressing them and what they must do in response.

So how did everything begin? And when? I don't know. Was it a Divine Creation? Was it the logical result of scientific laws? Was there some other mechanism in play? The question is hard to resolve and will probably never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. But the secret of existence and the meaning of life should never be something that divides us. It should never be the excuse for depriving life of all meaning. And we should certainly not use a part of our observance as as tool whose purpose is to oppress others. Especially not on the day we consider most sacred.

“In the Beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.” But it was for us – all of us – to live with each other. Not only on the day of rest, but on the rest of the days.

Next episode: “Hermitage” – Alone by design or not.

i        King James Bible.

ii       Rig Veda 10.129.1-7, from Science and the World’s Religions, ed. Patrick McNamara and Wesley J. Wildman, 2012.

iii      Daodejing, Translation – Victor Mair, 1990.

iv      Labeling them as “myths” rather than “narratives” or “accounts” immediately tells the reader not to believe them. Notwithstanding the scientific explanation given, which human logic tells us is more believable than the other narratives, we do not – we cannot – choose between them on rational grounds.

v       Or even that our concept of “fact” makes any sense when considering cosmogony.

vi       Where did the particle come from Daddy? And the laws of physics? What's on the next block beyond the restaurant at the end of the universe?

vii      Although this is not the only view, it, and the works that originated from it, serves the largest number of individuals. I do not pretend there are not other understandings of time.

viii    Actually the Jewish Sabbath, from which the concept stems, begins, in accordance with the biblical description of each day beginning in the evening, just before sunset on Friday and continues until about an hour after sunset on Saturday, but for practical purposes it is usual to consider Saturday as the seventh day, removing complications that are confusing to some. Notwithstanding the Bible's decrees, there are those who sanctify the first or the sixth day of the week – or some other time – for holiness. For some, the day of rest is weekly – for others the schedule is different. But the concepts of rest and reflection are the rule.

ix       “ … even after the Romans had taken over the oriental seven-day week, … the Jews were accused of 'laziness.' So little was Sabbath understood and so much was it resented that many a Greek city, and once apparently a Roman emperor himself, prohibited its observance.” From “A Social and Religious History of the Jews,” volume 1 (second edition), by Salo Baron, Columbia University Press, 1952.

x        On January 14, 2011. I'm sure you remember. But just to remind you, it was entitled “Klutz or Kluznik.”

xi       It has to correspond to the solar year of 365 and a quarter (more or less) days.

xii       “Violation” relates to rules which may not be accepted by others who view themselves as observant.

xiii     WSJ, June 16, 2014. Essay by Simone Rodan-Benzaquen and Daniel Schwammenthal. (The paper also included an article on the abduction of three boys in Israel, raising the question of whether Jews are safe anywhere.)

xiv      The indoctrination is everywhere, especially in the schools and in the mosques where children are taught hatred and violence from the beginning.

I Cannot Tell A Lie

                                                                                                           

When I was young, admittedly a long time ago,ⁱ I learned all about the cherry tree and the other important lessons that Parson Weems taught. It is generally agreed that President Washington was among our most important leaders, if not the best – which is what many consider him. His accomplishments, and the precedents he set, were key to making the United States the world power that it now is. But as with all famous people, myths arise that become part of what we view a history. And sometimes the false memories we have seem more real than the facts. Sometimes the aura is more important than the reality.

This idea comes to mind as we remember the assassination of President John Kennedy, which we'll be commemorating in a few days. It happened fifty years ago, on November 22, 1963. There are well-documented historical chronicles of the events of that day, but conspiracy theories still persist. They're far more interesting than what can be determined from the facts of the case.

But that's not surprising, for John Kennedy was far more interesting than the President. He is remembered with awe, and even those born after his death “know” how good a President he was. I'm not sure that the future and history will be quite as generous though. For now, however, he is remembered with great affection. Whether or not he was a great President, and I don't think he was, he was a great leader. Because of his youth, good looks, and rhetorical talents, he was extraordinarily popular. He made us feel good and confidant as a nation. We all believed he would lead our nation to new heights. Our country would be stronger than ever and would solve the problems that were plaguing us. His speeches were inspirational sermons. We would have derided themⁱⁱ had they been offered in a house of prayer, but in the public square they buoyed our spirits and inspired us to save the world through various volunteer programs like the Peace Corpsⁱⁱⁱ and VISTA. They were important parts of the New Frontier. Our beloved leader presented a picture of America as we wanted to see it, and, because we were so eager to live out the dream he personified, we suspended disbelief. And that was the man who was murdered.

As President, however, he accomplished much less. If he scared off the Soviet Union during the “missile crisis,” he frightened us as well. And that crisis arose only after the badly executed Bay of Pigs “invasion” which was disastrous not only militarily, but in terms of public relations and international diplomacy. And he laid the groundwork for the war in Viet Nam that drove his successor from office.^iv And during his term little was actually done, notwithstanding the fanfare. Even his fame as a promoter of civil rights was undeserved. No major legislation on equal rights resulted from his Presidency and, while he was in the Senate, he voted against the bill offered in 1957 which was designed to ensure the right of Negroes^v to vote. Eventually, before he was shot he publicly supported the idea, but it took a long time, and outside pressures, for him to reach that point.^vi

He was a great President though. Appearances are sometimes more important than accomplishments and what President Kennedy said and how he looked made us feel good about being Americans.

President Lincoln was also a great President, but not one about whom our memories are completely accurate. One hundred fifty years ago, on November 19, 1863, President Lincoln delivered an address in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. It is undeniable that his stewardship during the Civil War was both critical in keeping our nation together, and it was certainly damaging to his health. It was a war that has come to be viewed as the battle to eliminate slavery. Lincoln is remembered as a foe of such involuntary servitude and as the man who freed the slaves.

The war, however, was only peripherally related to slavery. It was a fight to save Union. Slavery was a secondary issue. In Lincoln's words:

“If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”^vii

A few months later, on January 1, 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. But that proclamation didn't eliminate slavery. It freed slaves in states that were at war with the Union. It was a war tactic. “As a practical matter, at first the Proclamation could only be enforced to free those slaves who had already escaped to the Union side. However, millions more were freed as more areas of the South came under Union control. Lincoln pursued various plans to colonize free Blacks outside of the United States, but none of these had a major effect.”^viii It wasn't until 1864 that the President publicly endorsed the Thirteenth Amendment and the end of slavery, and it wasn't until after his death that it was ratified and put into effect.^ix

He was a great President. He was a hero. But ignoring history and turning him into a saint does nothing to change the past. 

This week we remember two great men. In both cases, however, we remember the myths rather than the truth. But if we're commemorating people and events related to civil rights and an end to slavery, we should know the truth. For it will set us all free.

Next episode: “Thanksginukkah” – Bring on the turducken.

I       But long after President Washington's administration.

ii      If we didn't sleep through them.

iii     Interestingly, President Kennedy didn't introduce the idea, which had been around for decades. In fact, Senator Humphrey had offered legislation to establish such a service while Kennedy was still in the Senate.

iv     Because of the unpopularity which his execution of the war engendered, President Johnson knew better than to run for reelection.

v      That was the term used at the time.

vi      See http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/the-day-president-kennedy-embraced-civil-rights-and-the-story-behind-it/276749/ for more detail.

vii     Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862.

viii    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

ix     December 6, 1865

In The Beginning

                                                                                 

Where do I start? It happened so long agoⁱ that I don't remember all the details, but I'll give it my best shot. And I hope that you'll forgive any minor errors I may make.

As I recall, it all began during their regular Thursday night poker game.ⁱⁱ It was dark out.ⁱⁱⁱ The doorbell rang and the Buddha answered it. It was the pizza delivery and the Domino's man was waiting outside for a tip. That fact, however, was annoying to the gods and Zeus struck him with lightning. It eliminated the tip problem, but the Prophet criticized him roundly for engaging in party tricks.

The pizzas were still there, however, and they were divided among the participants. Everyone had something (except for Moses, who wouldn't eat any of it) and their spirits were sated. They looked on the extra cheese, and it was good. There was a big crowd. In addition to those I've already mentioned, Jesus was there along with the rest of the Trinity (the Father and the godfather) as were Ra, Ahura Mazda, Jupiter, Ganesha, Confucius, Ometecuthli, and a host of other deities and dignitaries. Too many to count.

The game resumed after the snack. It was now light outside.^iv Everybody was a winner in the poker game. That was to be expected – there were certainly no losers among the gods and their representatives.

Once again the doorbell rang. This time, though, it was Brown. “I got a package for Monseigneur George Lemaitre, and I gotta' get a John Hancock.” Heracles sprung up. “I'll sign for it.” And he did. The UPS man was happy to get rid of the burden. “Oh, by the way, it fell out of the truck about a block away and I couldn't pick it up. “No problem. I'll get it.” But before the Titan could get to the package, the delivery man sped away.

A few minutes later Heracles reappeared, sweat dripping all over him. “It's not so easy. The package is small, but I can't move it.”

So Zeus sent for Atlas who arrived with a smirk on his face. “What can you expect from 97 pound weaklings. I guess none of you pussies is up to it.”

He wasn't either. Zeus wasn't laughing any more, but he was still convinced he had the problem in hand. “It takes brains more than brawn. Archimedes once told me, ΠΑ ΒΩ ΚΑΙ ΧΑΡΙΣΤΙΩΝΙ ΤΑΝ ΓΑΝ ΚΙΝΗΣΩ ΠΑΣΑΝ.^v He'll show you how it's done. When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” So he sent for the man with the stick. But soon after the Eureka! man started he reported back, “The lever isn't long enough and I've got no good place to stand.”

They all stood around, arguing about a plan. Some suggested forgetting about the whole thing and getting back to the game, but there was a lot of sentiment that they mustn't give up. They couldn't admit that there was a task too difficult for them.

Meanwhile a Hand from above picked up the package and its contents – a speck that was barely visible – and blew on it. There was a large explosion, but it was silent momentarily. Then something started expanding at an alarming pace, and the sound along with it – a really big bang. And in only an instant,^vi there were stars all over the place.^vii Somewhere along the line life developed on earth, and possibly elsewhere, but it's hard to determine if this resulted from natural forces or if the Hand directed its appearance. There was plant life, animal life, and a few other types, but in the end it was the humans that ruled – at least among the life on earth.

The participants in the big bet poker game watched it all, each claiming that he deserved the credit for the whole thing. Royal flushes abounded. 

Absurd?

Of course. But all of it, or only a part? And what part? Both believers and non-believers claim to know all the answers. But do they? When did time begin? Where did the gods come from? For that matter, where did the speck originate? Our scientists tell us that all matter comes from preexisting matter, so if that scenario, or even part of it, is correct there must have been something earlier.

We'll never know. The whole thing is beyond rationality – at least the rationality built into us. The philosophers are all angle shooters – they may have showy flops and possibly even promising turns. But their rivers are polluted. Don't let them bluff you. You're on your own. 

 

In spades.

Next episode: “Boy Scouts Lite” – The new, improved America.

i       Thirteen or fourteen billion years ago, give or take.

ii      In retrospect, that's an anachronism. Thor hadn't yet consented to the use of his name for something as mundane as a day name. It must have happened at some other time. Wait. That can't be right. Time hadn't been invented yet.

iii     Of course it was dark. There was no sun.

iv     Mbombo's slices were a little ripe, and he ate too many of them, vomiting up the sun as a result.

v      “Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.”

 

vi      Or several billion years – whichever came second.

 

vii     Not just Elvis.

The Greater Of One Elvis

                                                                          

Several months ago I saw Elvis coming out of a music store. A guitar was slung over his shoulder, perhaps one he had just bought. The carrying case looked new. It was snowing out, but extending downward from his leather jacket and into the milky powder, I could see what looked like a white jump suit – with something that glittered embedded in the fabric, possibly sequins. He was headed in the direction of a drug store, but I lost sight of him before he entered.

He looked older than I remembered. But I know I looked older too. After all, it was over thirty-five years since he had left the public spotlight. As a matter of fact it was his seventy-eighth birthday, January 8, 2013.

Elvis never died.

Such is the power of belief. Although most people associate belief with religion, that is only one of numerous sources of belief. And some of the others have a stronger hold on the faithful than any religious tenet. Tell a child there is no Tooth Fairy, especially one who has just found money under his pillow, and there will only be expressions of disbelief – you might as well claim there is no Easter Bunny; confide to an adherent of homeopathy that he's wasting his money on water, and be prepared to be berated as a tool of the medical establishment; maintain that there are no UFOs, and someone who believes he was abducted by aliens will expound on your blindness and ignorance; and if you suggest that the Warren Commission got it right, that a lone gunman shot President Kennedy – if you question the idea that there were co-conspirators on a grassy knoll – you're likely to be considered as in denial of the obvious truth, the truth that “they” are withholding from you. And if you suggest to a militant atheist that there is a G-d, you had better be prepared for a diatribe on the evils of religion.

Virginia O'Hanlon knew there was a Santa Claus, even if she needed Francis Church and the New York Sun to confirm that obvious fact. Elwood Dowd, a friendly creature described by Mary Coyle Chase, had no doubt that he was accompanied by a six foot, three and a half inches tall rabbit, though some others (but not all) thought him crazy.ⁱ We're all familiar with the story that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and was quick to fess up to his transgression. While we may not accept Parson Weems's story as gospel, few question the Truth behind the story, and our first President is held in reverence by almost all Americans.

Every nation has its sagas; every civilization its heroes. Where would we all be if we lacked a faith in our heritage? And if some of that heritage, questionable as it may be in fact, turns into our “history,” all the better. The same is true for both verifiable facts and for beliefs. And those who accept as fact some things that we doubt, deserve our respect and appreciation. After all, maybe they're right. It is easy to dismiss what they say with the view that they live by the maxim “I believe because it is absurd”ⁱⁱ – the leap of faithⁱⁱⁱ – but there are many things that seem absurd but are true. For example, you can turn lead into gold, and you don't require a Philosopher's Stone, only radiation. At present it may not be worthwhile financially, but it is possible. And there are many other ideas of science^iv that seemed bizarre at the time and were rejected, but are now recognized to be basic facts.^v

The principal rule is that it is unwise to be too quick to condemn the ideas of another – however you may question them.^vi Belief is a powerful force, both personally and internationally. It's the basis for most of the world's contention, whether the beliefs are religious or political.^vii And the ideas you condemn may be true.

After all, Elvis is still alive, even if you choose^viii not to believe it.

Next episode: “Bette And Beyond” – The Davis philosophy.

i      Dowd, that is. All children have imaginary friends. Fortunately we don't all grow up and cast off those we love.

ii     “Credo quia absurdum” – Tertullian, from De Carne Christi

Crucifixus est Die Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;

et mortuus est Dei Filius, porsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;

et sepultus resurrexit, certum est; quia impossibile.

                                                                   De Carne Christi V, 4 ( cited by Wikipedia)

It's interesting that the quotation is, itself, a paraphrase of the text, and doesn't actually appear in the wording cited. Nonetheless, the idea that a belief is, by definition, irrational cannot be faulted. Were it provable it would become fact rather than belief. And some beliefs are, indeed, likely to be factual, even if not yet proved.

iii     Attributed to Kierkegaard although he apparently never used the term.

iv     And science fiction.

v      Of course there were also basic and accepted scientific concepts in the past that were later found to be nonsense. Science is often seen as the rationalist's answer to religion but in many respects it's just another religion, even if it claims otherwise.

vi     Some of the are, to be sure, nonsense, but that can be established without your help.

vii    Despite the claim of atheists, religion is not the cause of most deaths in war, nor are religious people. Hitler and Stalin caused far more deaths than occurred during the Crusades or in other religious wars. And tyrants who are hungry for power or wealth have no regard for others – especially when they have no belief in any kind of punishment for their actions.

viii   Wrongly.

"Reality" And Belief

                                                                                       

I just received from a friend a three-disc set containing a series hosted by one of Fox News's reporters, and describing “a political movement that, against all odds, changed the world.” The set appears to be about six hours in length and is entitled “The Right, All Along.” Hosted by a reporter who is a self-proclaimed Conservative,ⁱ and featuring the views and “... the stories of William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Robert Bork, Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush and many others,” the content is predictable. In an era of neatly packaged propaganda, this series is to be admired for the forthright way in which it proclaims its perspective in its title, and it has some appeal to me because I favor some of the positions what I'm certain it espouses. (I don't anticipate any objectivity, however, even though FOX claims to be “Fair and Balanced.” While I like FOX, it is fair and balanced only in the sense that it provides some balance to other media news sources whose biases are toward the left. It's like the Wall Street Journal, which provides balance when the New York Times is in the scale's other pan.)

But I shall not watch it.

I shall not watch it because I've spent too much of my time on books and videos that purport to demonstrate the unarguable validity of one belief system or another.ⁱⁱ Each viewpoint is defended as supported by some famous Nobel Prize winners, movie stars, athletes, and other personalities who, without any credentials to do so, vehemently advocate the views expressed, often unquestioningly.ⁱⁱⁱ Works like the one sent me clearly outline the position they wish me to adopt, in a manner painted as objective and clear. They don't require me to think. Indeed, they generally discourage thought. Often the position is claimed to be scientifically based – although the science is usually “cherry-picked,” self-serving, and credited to famous individuals – however the motives of those individuals are often in question, and their prejudices make the outcomes predictable. After reading and watching several of these I have come to recognize the genre^iv without wasting my time on other specific examples. I have better things to do.

Right now, for example, I'm in the middle of a book by Elie Wiesel entitled“legends of our time.”^v The blurb on the back cover states “a new mythology is being made in our time. For men to comprehend events of world-shaking impact, a mythology is required...” The stories present unanswered – and perhaps unanswerable – questions that require the readers to consider the questions themselves, and the moral implications of the different approaches presented by the situations depicted. The outlines are there, but no attempt is made to dictate the decision.

A couple of decades ago, when I was writing a book featuring fanciful and unlikely Jewish ritual objects, my younger son, Daniel (now a Rabbi and teacher), suggested something he called “Tefillin The Blanks.” Tefillin are boxes worn on the arm and head during the morning service. The boxes contain parchments on which one of the major precepts of the Jewish religion is written, and my son's idea was that the parchments should only have the outlines of the words, with the user given the opportunity to participate by filling in the blank spaces. That would also offer the chance to consider, and to fill in mentally, the ideas that the letters and words represented. And the different users would have divergent understandings of the meaning of the verses, because the thoughts would not be predigested and indefeasible, but open to each individual's personal “take” on the idea. It was not a catechism, but the starting point for thought.

One of the earliest literary forms was the myth. It was designed^vi to provide answers for the questions everyone had about the world around them. It did not matter that they invoked extranatural solutions. All that counted was that they offered solutions. Legends, sagas, and folk tales were the outgrowth of mythology. And when answers were desperately sought, they provided the path to certainty. Some put religion in the same category, and while “myth” is a loaded word, religious faith may also provide the comfort of unqualified certainty when questions abound. Should the answers of the different systems compete, it's worth remembering that all of them may contain some element that is right – at least if they are reached after all the possibilities were considered. But error is likely when someone adopts the point of view that his beliefs are the Truth, while everyone else's are mythology, and wrong.^vii

That's what propaganda is all about – ready-made and obvious answers. And anyone who rejects those answers is being misled. I recently heard someone say something to the effect that he always seeks the truth, but fears those who have it. It is often the case that the question is more powerful than the answer. It is our responsibility to fill in the outlines ourselves, rather than to accept the certain positions of others – however professionally they're presented. No one should do it for us. No one can.

 

Next episode: “Whatever It Takes” – The end justifies the means.

i       “[D]uring 2006 [Brit] Hume said, 'Sure, I'm a conservative, no doubt about it.'” – Wikipedia.

ii      Only my belief system is valid. It's not unarguably so, however, because there are fools who will argue about anything.

iii     How some entertainment stars became experts on politics and society – aside from the reality that they proclaimed themselves so, and gave money to (and speeches favoring) some political candidate – is beyond me.

iv      Sometimes you can judge a book by its cover.

v       1970, Avon Books.

vi     “Designed” is a strong word and suggests intent. Perhaps that's overstating the situation, at least in terms of conscious intent. But even if there was no such plan, it was at least unconscious, and folk explanations of the unfathomable are what resulted.

vii     Ignore note #2 (ii) for the moment.

There She Is, Myth America

American history is draped in mythology. The drapings are, of course, a mixture of red, white and blue, but the mythology, itself, is pure white.ⁱ Whether Parson Weems or a modern text, the history is intermixed with unprovable – often invented – stories that add to the image of a great nation – a nation with a glorious mission – one with a Manifest Destiny. And, daily, the myths increase.

That shouldn't come as a great surprise. All societies remember their pasts with a luster that often exceeds reality, but one that answers the great inevitable questions in a way that both engages and honors us and our forebears.

Few history books will mention, for example, that George Washington was a poor generalⁱⁱ or that Alexander Hamilton was probably a British agent.ⁱⁱⁱ Most will gloss over the fact that although Thomas Jefferson was a strong advocate against slavery, he was, himself, a slave owner. My intent is to deal with what actually happened – at least to the extent that we can so long after the events – not to belittle our Founding Fathers. Their greatness is undeniable. The documents upon which they founded this nation,^iv and the nation which has developed following the outline they put in place, are of unmistakable brilliance. Both are masterful products of their time, and those who fashioned them must not be judged by us. They acted, too, in accordance with the principles of their times, and they not only did the best they could, but they did a superb job.

But that's the point. They, and the founding documents, were products of their time. And we live in different times. Sooner or later those documents will have to be reviewed and revised to reflect the times in which we live.

“Jefferson also believed – uniquely – that this world belongs, solely, to the present generation. Hence, every twenty years or so, new laws should be promulgated at a constitutional convention. A grown man he noted in his best biblical parable style, should not be forced to wear a boy's jacket.”^v

Jefferson's view was acknowledged in what eventually was termed Federalist Paper number 49, although James Madison, who wrote that “letter,”^vi opposed constitutional conventions. And Jefferson was not alone in believing that the Constitution – the script for the great American drama – which we have come to revere, would have to be brought up to date periodically. There were many who recognized that a perfect document was not achievable at that, or any time, and that amendments would be required periodically.

The United States is one of the greatest countries on earth.^vii It is strong, rich, and the kind of place to which people from around the globe want to go. Some risk their lives to do so. And it exists because those who founded it endowed it with a governing document that was unique – one that has served as a model for other nations since then. But the mythology surrounding the founding itself and the documents employed to do so, as well as the virtue and wisdom of the founders, clouds the fact that however great they may have been, however far they may have been ahead of their time, they were fallible human beings of the eighteenth century. They were products of that age, but their time was not the twenty-first century in which we live.^viii Jefferson was right. “A grown man … should not be forced to wear a boy's jacket.”

The two major political parties have created their own “realities,” or, more accurately, their own mythologies. They have expressed exaggerated views of their own virtues and, very much in evidence at election times, frightening characterizations of the evils of their opponents. And the parties tend to become even more confrontational following election. The three branches of government, like the political parties, compete rather than cooperate. Each works hard to increase its own influence, leaving the mythical “We the People” out of the loop. Although our Constitution provides for a form of democracy, the reality is that the “representative” democracy our founders gave us is not representative of anyone but the politicians themselves. Having promised us solutions to all the problems we face, our representatives, once in office, focus on the next election rather than on our needs. The Executive branch of our government claims to lead, but its members are more likely to say what poll-takers tell them will sell, and after election they go on to assert their power and act as they see fit. And those of our Judiciary, who may never face an election, are free to follow their own views, irrespective of the wishes of the people they are supposed to serve.

The ability to review the mythology, however, and, if necessary, to change it, is built into our system.

Article IV

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

The Constitution, which we sometimes view as sacred, provides for measured changes. No more should be necessary since its authors saw it as the answer to our country's problems and a solid basis for an infinite future of liberty.

But it was written illegally. The convention from which it emerged had been asked to amend the inadequate Articles of Confederation – not to write a new document. And we are as free as they to rewrite the Constitution rather than amend it if there are enough changes that need to be made, and if individual amendments will either not accomplish our wishes or will, because of their large numbers, either take too long or prove too burdensome to accomplish. It may take historical revisionists to correct our mythology, but a united citizenry – one fed up with current bickering and manipulation of the system to suit the needs of those who are supposed to work for us – has the ability, at least in theory, to invent our own future and the mythology that surrounds it. Whether we have the will to do so, though, is a different question. Probably not, because it's easier to live by the rules of an imagined past.

Next episode: “Gossip” – Some words to the wise guys.

i     The word refers to the purity of the story only, not to the harsh realities of our history. No defense of “racial purity” is intended. Indeed, it shouldn't be overlooked that racial politics spawned a separate mythology designed to justify the indefensible practice of slavery.

ii    Fortunately he was a patriot. He was honest and politically savvy even if he was a poor soldier.

iii    Recognizing the greatness of the work he did in establishing this country, we can only assume that he believed a close association with Great Britain would be beneficial to our survival. Whatever other motives he may have had, and notwithstanding disagreements we have had – and even a war – we have found our alliance with England to be mutually beneficial. In Hamilton's time, moreover, the (American) colonies had many supporters in the British government. England, to a degree, was just as happy to be rid of the colonies which had become a major financial burden, detracting from her hostilities with France.

iv    Primarily the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The efforts of James Madison in writing the latter document are also noteworthy.

v     From Inventing a Nation by Gore Vidal, 2003, Yale University Press, New Haven & London. Page 14.

vi    The Federalist Papers originally appeared as newspaper letters signed by “Publius,” but written by Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay.

vii    Some will take issue with this assessment, and that is understandable. They cannot, however, argue with the specific qualifications I mention in the next few sentences.

viii   In this electronic age – one never foreseen by eighteenth century politicians – both the tools and the rules have changed. See Constitution 3.0, by Rosen and Wittes (eds), Brookings Institution Press, 2011.