The Source of Wisdom

It wasn't long ago – a few weeks ago (or a few days depending on whether you calculate from the day this was published or the day it was written) I wrote

I should point out that I'm right and you're wrong, but I'll deal with that issue at some time in the near future, and tell you how I know it.

And I'm going to deal with that issue here. But let me start with the words of others.

G-d said it. I believe it. It's true.

I saw that on a bumper sticker. That's certainly an answer. And it's an answer to virtually all questions. If you seek it, it is there.

But some may not be satisfied and ask for additional verification. They may wonder about the source.

How do I know? The Bible tells me so.

Those are among the lyrics of a song that was popular some years back. Simplistic, isn't it? But we all accept this kind of reasoning, even if we don't recognize that fact. We just find our gospel in different places.

I was reading a book recently, Alan Schwarz's A.D.H.D. Nation, and I was very impressed by it. It said so many things I knew to be true, about how we, as a nation, had taken a syndrome that involved a relatively small number of children and magnified it into a problem affecting three to six times the number of people who may have it. It's become fashionable – and an excuse for all sorts of failings. It provided a justification for taking drugs. And it involved all age groups.

In fact many of the books I read also confirm other views I have. The subject doesn't matter, but they're usually political. They clarify important issues and provide documentation of all the salient points that support my opinions. I'm in the avant-garde and the world is slowly catching up – at least I hope so. But I've always been ahead of my time.

The same is true of the newspapers and magazines I read. They're also among the enlightened, and their articles, opinions, and letters also parallel the views I hold. They substantiate all that I think and say (though admittedly I try to avoid actually speaking to others whenever I can). It's clear that others recognize the wisdom of all the views I hold.

Still, when I hear others speak (even if I don't speak, I listen) I usually find myself subjected to drivel and absurd ideas and thinking. Surely they'll learn, but they're not yet on the road to wisdom. What they say is almost as inane as what they read. I know that because they sometimes specify the newspaper from which they've gotten the nonsense. They treat the New York Times as if it were the source of the gospel. They believe everything that it deems fit to print. (How do I know? The New York Times tells me so.)

Will Rogers said, in a self-deprecating manner, “All I know is just what I read in the papers,” and he was a very smart man. But he continued, “and that's an alibi for my ignorance.” The ideas that he took from those papers (and I'm sure he wasn't talking about the paper I read) were nonsense, and, in his droll and “innocent” manner, he made that clear to his audience. So those who read those papers, and those who take seriously what they have to say and who repeat it, are speaking nonsense. The readers of those rags probably hold those perverted views anyway, and that's why they choose inferior media. Most of the media are ignorant. They don't agree with me. So most people are similarly ignorant. They reflect the nescient notions (no, I am not William Safire) that the media they follow advance.

It is reassuring to mention that the books I read and the media I absorb, reinforce the wisdom that I know to be reliable. As opposed to the misinformation swallowed by others, the sources I value are wise. They are perceptive and understanding of the meaning and implications of what they are reporting. And they can be relied on.

So if they agree with me, and they do, they prove my correctness – not that I ever doubted it. After all, I'm always right. And if you don't agree, you're wrong.

[If you consider this circular – or (incor)rectangular for that matter – reasoning, you're wrong.]

September 28, 2016.

But Who's Counting?

I'm getting old. I know that. It happens, and there's nothing I can do about it except lie back and enjoy it. Of course I never lie.

I've been thinking about the inevitable for a while now, but also about the time that precedes it – the process of getting older. In fact that's probably the reason I write these essays: to record my thoughts while I can still remember them. Not that anyone really cares apart from me. But it gives me the chance work out my ideas as they come to me, and, fortunately, that process continues.

There's an old joke: The second thing to go is your memory. I can't remember the first.

Actually – sadly – it's not a joke. One of the (many) costs of aging is memory loss – especially short-term memory.ⁱ Fortunately for me since it doesn't seem to be associated with any form of dementia so it's little more than a minor inconvenience. I have pen and paper in my pocket at most times and can note whatever crosses my mind, though there are times when I can't remember what I wanted to say about something I jotted down, or I can't read my own handwriting. That doesn't matter all that much, however, because I have more that I can work with than I can work with. Sooner or later I'll have the same thought that stymied me before and I'll write it down a little differently, and it will make sense when I go over my bits of paper. And, of course, I won't remember that I wrote it before. But who cares?

It's your problem too though. I've probably written all this before and I'm likely to do so again. Ditto with my essays. I know I repeat myself. Since I don't go back, however, it doesn't matter all that much. To me, at least. Even the subjects of my efforts are repetitious, although there are some variations that take place from time to time. For example, politicians are politicians, but they make different stupid errors every now and then, and I'm always eager to write about (someone else's) stupidity. Mostly, though, it's the same old thing. There's nothing new under the sun. (I know I've said that before, and King Solomon said it before me.) The more things remain the same, the more they remain the same. Same with my thoughts. I'm too old to change now.

There are additional costs to aging, but I won't go into them here. TMI. And I'll try to avoid them elsewhere as well. But I do want to mention some of the benefits – though if my (failing) memory serves me right I think I've done so before. 

And there are some positives. I'm loath to reject any offers of senior citizen discounts. But I've gotten to the point of buying (low-priced) items without comparison shopping to find the best price. Nor do I hesitate to throw out what I don't need. I certainly won't need it in the future. If my kids inherit a little less that's OK. They'll understand.

From an intellectual point of view, age brings wisdom – if I remember correctly. Of course the young don't necessarily appreciate that wisdom. Nor do they understand the more realistic views of older people (views which tend to be more conservative than theirs). Like most of the young they tend to be more idealistic and liberal. I know. I used to be an optimist like them. However people have cured me of that Pollyannaish prejudice. I know better now.

But from a more personal angle, I note that people are more solicitous. They're always asking me how I feel. (I suspect that it's simply courtesy, and they don't really care. It's more reasonable to assume they're surprised that I'm still alive.) Every now and then someone offers me a seat on the subway, or a chair when we're in a crowded room. (Unfortunately it's only occasional. It used to be more common. People are less courteous and considerate than when I was young. Respect for elders was more evident then. That I remember.) And, even though it only happens occasionally, someone will offer me help, including carrying something for me. I usually decline (it's called “denial”) but I do notice. In addition, if I leave others to take a nap, it's understood. Or if I leave a party early. I hate parties, so it's a good ploy.

Another advantage is that (apart from death) I have less fear of the future. I can be cantankerous (my usual attitude) or generally disagreeable without anyone fighting back and without anticipating any negative consequences. I can pretend I don't hear when I want to ignore someone. And I can be “too weak” to do what I don't want to do. No one will hold it against me.

And I have memories. Lots of them. My long-term memory remains despite all my complaints. So there are compensations. I'd rather be young, but that's not an option. You play the hand you have.

I   For example, I thought of something this morning that I wanted to “google,” but I can't     remember now what it was. Perhaps I'll think of it later.  I do remember, however, that I promised at some time in the past, to avoid these notes, so there probably won't be any more.  In the meantime, hard cheese.

If I Were A Rich Man

A certain kind of rich man afflicted with the symptoms of moral dandyism sooner or later comes to the conclusion that it isn't enough merely to make money. He feels obliged to hold views, to espouse causes and elect Presidents, to explain to a trembling world how and why the world went wrong. -Lewis H. Lapham, editor and writer.

Unfortunately, that's not the whole story. Too often he begins to believe that he actually knows something. Something beyond what it was that helped him make (or inherit) money. And others believe it, too. His self-delusion is shared by those yearning to be like him.

The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes! (From Fiddler on the Roof, lyrics by Sheldon Harnick)

That's the problem. If you're rich, people think you know something, and so do you. And if you're rich you can afford a platform from which to proclaim your message.

That's not the only platform of course. Friends, Romans and countrymen eagerly lend their ears to those whom they admire – very often stars in entertainment, or heroic athletes. For some reason we automatically attribute wisdom to those we idolize, even if for reasons completely unrelated to the issue in question.

What's in a name? Everything. People buy Air Jordans^®; they take beauty advice from super models, and political advice from movie stars. Sometimes a familiar name and an admired personality can attract followers. We're a wannabe society and we imitate those who are rich or beautiful or famous. Sometimes, though not very often, the famous are also wise. Ronald Reagan's popularity won him the governorship of California and, with the experience and platform that office gave him, he moved up to the Presidency, and did reasonably well for our country in that position. Most of the time, however, prominence or stardom is unassociated with good sense. (Think Sean Penn, Jane Fonda, and Dennis Rodman.)

And, while also often lacking good sense, the media control people's thinking on a wide variety of subjects. They have the broadest platform of all, and even though most people claim that they don't trust journalists and the press, their sources of information – right or wrong – sway voters. As do those with loud voices.

We're easily influenced. We may claim to be independent thinkers, but if we hear something often enough and loud enough we believe it. And if what we hear is something we already believe, if our biases are confirmed, we become deaf to counter-arguments, no matter how logical they may be. In a time of dissatisfaction, a populist with a loud voice becomes the spokesman for the disillusioned; and the means for advertising his opinion – money, notoriety, and a loud voice, for example – trump experience, tact, and wisdom. He thinks he has all the answers, and his followers believe him.

And it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong.
When you're rich, they think you really know!

Sheldon Harnick was as much a philosopher as a lyricist. And he was certainly a perceptive viewer of human nature. Hidden in his homily about the situation in eastern Europe so much earlier, he described a danger to American society; indeed, a reality about all societies. It is our assumption that those who succeed – or are believed to have succeeded – know everything, and that we know nothing. But some of those “successes” are the know-nothings. And if we can get beyond our own disillusionment, we can see that.

I Don't Know

                                                         
                                                                          

Yesterday was Yom Kippur. If you're unfamiliar with the holiday, it's the most important annual observance on the Jewish calendar. It's the Day of Judgment; the day of reckoning for us all; the day on which we are all judged regarding our behavior during the year that has just passed and our fate for the following year. Will we live or die?

On that day we fast, having neither food nor drink for about twenty-five hours. We focus on our shortcomings and our regret for them. We petition for forgiveness; we vow to try to eliminate our sinful behavior in the future.

Does it work? I don't know. It would be presumptuous of me to think that I have survived because I have led a virtuous life or that G-d has forgiven all my sins, but the reality is that I am still alive.ⁱ And it would be disrespectful of me to suggest that the lives of those who perished last year were less valuable than mine.

I don't know. But that's just fine. According to Avot,ⁱⁱ one of the tractates of the Talmud, “Regarding that which he [the wise man] has not learned, he says 'I have not learned this.'” And in Berachotⁱⁱⁱ it is written, “... a Master said: let thy tongue acquire the habit of saying 'I know not,' lest you be led to falsehoods.” There are many variations on this theme in the various cultures, but all point out that admitting ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.

There is a genre, which is usually concluded with a “one-liner,” that centers on a guru at the top of a mountain. He is usually asked about the meaning of life, or its secret. While his response is unlikely to shed any real light on the question, that is not important. More to the point, the guru does not know – though he will not say so.^iv What is significant, however, is that the question seems to matter to so many people. And it is one to which there is no certain answer. There are numerous uncertain ones – philosophers, amateur and professional – claim to know what it is, but they are fooling themselves.

It is a commonplace of those who are observant of one religion or another to confess that they are clueless. They will usually frame their views with an acknowledgment of the existence of a Creator followed by an admission that they do not, and cannot, know His Mind^v on the subject or why He did what He did. They don't know, and they acknowledge it. And they concede similar ignorance about a host of other issues – physical and metaphysical – that deal with existence and with the world around us.

There are many, however, who discount any value or validity for religion. To them, neither fate nor faith has any meaning. Scientific proof is the only thing that matters. Lacking it, any view represents superstition. They know what is verifiable, and are certain that, in the end, Man,^vi will understand everything. They are not willing to say “I do not know,” unless it is followed by the word “yet.” They adamantly favor a “big bang” over a “creation,” although it is difficult to be sure what the difference is. In both cases “something” derived from “nothing” which, is a scientific contradiction, but so be it. Their belief^vii makes them happy.

As for me, I'm comfortable with the idea that I don't know everything, as well as with the fact that I cannot do so and will never do so. I will be judged next Yom Kippur as I was yesterday. It is my responsibility to follow the rules of my religion – and it is a responsibility that I glory in taking.

Science will take care of itself.

Next episode: “A Perfect World” – Don't you just wish?

I       Or, at least, I hope I'll still be among the living when this is published. Since I'm writing this about a month in advance, I can't be sure.

ii       Chapter 5, Mishna 10.

iii      4a.

iv      Which raises questions about his wisdom – the mountaintop notwithstanding.

v       Both words are anthropomorphisms. No sexism is intended. Not even in the word “anthropomorphism.”

vi      No sexism is intended here either. Use whatever pronoun you like.

vii     Although they'll deny that belief has anything to do with it.

The Council Of Wise Folks

The Council Of Wise Folks

(and the counsel of wise folksⁱ)

The President's Cabinet, consisting of the heads of the various agencies, is designed as a group of authorities for him, to advise him on areas about which he might not be as knowledgeable as he would like. Its members, however, are often chosen for political reasons, or because of the contributions they have already made to his election, or for future help they may offer. Expertise in the area for which they are chosen, necessary as it might be, is a less important consideration. They will follow his lead politically, or they will lose their positions.ⁱⁱ He may also have a separate group of unofficial advisors, however they, too, are aligned with him politically and their advice parallels his instincts, though it may be better informed.ⁱⁱⁱ

Some countries follow this model but others don't. In some cases – and this is often the situation when there is a plethora of political parties catering to a variety of interests – the advising council will consist of representatives of all the parties that participate in the government, since it would be impossible for any single party to gain a majority. The smörgåsbord of proposals that such a body provides is all but useless to the head of government. Each of its members is likely to pander to his own constituency, and unity is impossible. Policies may be cobbled in order to keep the government standing until the next election, but logic and consistency are often lacking.

To deal with this situation, therefore, as an addition to the presidential cabinet,^iv there could be a non-elected Council that would offer analyses and recommendations on a small number of subjects for dissemination to the public and politicians for guidance. The Council would have only moral authority, but it could set the tone for other organizations such as government panels and bureaucratic boards. ^v

Let me begin the discussion with the following highly arbitrary suggestions:

1. The Council should report to the President and to the American People.
2. It should consist of 101 members – the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a representative of the opposing major party (ie opposing that of the Speaker), and 98 other members (7 X 14),
3. The members should represent seven Working Groups^vi (listed below) and each Group should discuss issues that fall in its purview:^vii perhaps the court system, and the death penalty would be subjects for discussion by the Law working Group, defense by Security, minority rights by Citizen needs, etc.

                                                                          a. Law

                                                                          b. Science

                                                                          c. Economics

                                                                          d. Citizen needs

                                                                          e. Security

                                                                          f. Foreign affairs

                                                                          g. Domestic affairs

4. Some issues might be raised by several different Groups (eg jobs might be discussed by the Economics Group, by Citizen needs, and by the Group on Domestic affairs – either simultaneously or at different times), and each might consider a different aspect of the problem. Unless there is a good reason to do so, however, there should be a waiting period before an issue can be re-discussed since the initial airing might result in legislation and that legislation should have a chance to take effect before it is challenged or changed.
5. The working Groups and the Council could call whatever additional experts they needed to clarify issues about which individual members were unclear.
6. The individual working Groups having met separately to discuss issues of importance to them, should then report, with majority and minority reports, to the entire Council which could then discuss the issue and prepare reports and suggestions.
7. Council suggestions should be timely and straightforward, and not require myriad regulations to effectuate them. The suggestions should be understandable to the public and, if any regulations are needed, their nature should be explained to the voters. Ideally the Council would, at a later date, report to the public the nature of subsequent legislation and regulation so that citizens would have the chance to decide if their wishes were being honored.

One of the more difficult aspects of the system would relate to the formation of the Groups and Council. How would members be chosen? It would probably be best if experts in particular areas were chosen by their peers. Examples might be the choice of members of the Law Working Group by the boards of the three largest legal associations,^viii or the decision on membership on the Science Working Group by members of the boards of the various science associations.^ix

The membership of Working Groups that dealt primarily with political issues (like Foreign affairs or Domestic affairs) would be chosen, in equal numbers, by political conservatives and liberals, each choosing from a panel offered by the opposing side. Because the membership would be limited, it would be difficult to select a Group that was representative of the entire population in terms of race, religion, sex, socio-economic groupings, etc. So be it. However, those individuals or groups who wanted their voices heard could submit documents and “Friend of the Council” briefs (with a maximum length and possibly with a copy of its mission statement so voters would understand any biases of the group) which would be published along with the decisions. Since the Working Groups would have no authority, and since all reports would be public, an even number of members (in this instance fourteen) is reasonable, and since each would choose the other's representatives a relatively middle-of-the-road Group would result, making decisions easier. The membership periods would be overlapping^x and for a single fixed term (eg fourteen years), to allow for changing views while members would not be forced to decide based on political pressures. Ideally, the members would not be in politics and would have no constituencies. The chair would rotate.

Agenda would perforce be limited, like that of the Supreme Court, and would have to be decided on by the individual Groups, although the Council could develop a procedure for referring specific issues to Groups for discussion. Perhaps there would be subgroups to review easier issues, as Jethro suggested to Moses.^xi A report (a listing including the sponsor) on private bills and pork-barrel projects should be issued regularly. It would not require discussion or debate, only disclosure. Publicizing the issue should be all that is necessary.^xii Voters would probably consider that useful. Other reports, those requiring discussion, would, ideally, be by consensus, since the Group would be relatively knowledgeable, middle-of-the-road, and free of political and constituent pressures. Nonetheless, minority reports could be issued as well. Transparency would be important and the public should have access to discussions as well as decisions. (Perhaps the public should even be made aware of its ability to amend the constitution outside of Article 5 which only presents one permissible way but doesn't exclude others. This, however, would probably frighten public officials, and cause them to nix the whole idea.)

What might be achieved? Congressional committees hold interminable hearings. Council discussions would be briefer and less political. There might be money savings resulting from the outside pressure and the opportunity of shorten or eliminate Congressional hearings. Legislation would probably be quicker. Lobbying may decrease – at least that which results in pork barrel projects which are expensive but not valuable to the public at large. Moreover, the Council, by publicizing those parts of legislative actions which seem to be intended to benefit small numbers at the expense of many – or at least bringing them to light – might have a positive effect on corruption.

It is virtually certain that such a Group (or subgroups if there are lower-level panels) will be viewed as increasing governmental cost and bureaucracy. It is similarly certain that their reports will be “spun” by those with an interest in doing so. That's the way democracy works. It is to be hoped that the general public will see through such criticisms and attempts to distort the reports. The low esteem of politicians would probably mean that the Council reports would have greater credibility than any political distortions of them. They certainly can't be worse than what we have now – either in Congress or in the President's Cabinet.

[NB: This is the first of a series of undetermined length and of irregular publication, that will deal with American Democracy and with the way our government runs. However wise and virtuous the Founding Fathers may have been, times change, and not all situations were considered by them. Nor was there a recognition that our size and status in the world might affect our choices. They left room for amending the Constitution, however, and it may be useful to discuss some of the changes that have taken place since the eighteenth century with an “eye” on modernizing our system of government.]

Next episode: “Taxing And Voting” – What could be more taxing?

i     Not wise guys nor biblical wise men.

ii    The President will praise the individual and laud the great job he's done, bemoaning the resignation, which was necessary, of course, “for personal reasons.” Those reasons, however, are related to the fact that the President would otherwise have fired the person now “resigning.”

iii    Although these individuals lack formal official standing, they usually have more influence on government decisions than the Cabinet members.

iv     Cabinet secretaries will still be necessary as administrative heads of the various departments, and for interaction with foreign officials having similar mandates.

v     The Council would not replace, but would supplement the Cabinet. It would have no legal standing, but would report quickly, and its reports would be known to be apolitical. Thus they would influence voters and, secondarily, those who wanted to be (re)elected.

vi    There is nothing sacred about the number seven or the total of about 101. Nor about the nature of the particular working Groups. The only purpose of presenting the list and numbers is to start the discussion.

vii    Issues might be brought to a working Group's attention by a small number, perhaps three of the fourteen, with discussion initiated by a larger number, say five, and then, after discussion, taken to the Council for further discussion by those interested in the topic but not in the working Group. The Council would then issue prompt reports on the subject. Issues would not be linked to legislation, although legislation might follow. They would simply require a large enough number of individuals who would want to discuss them.

viii   Which might change from time to time.

ix    This is left in an ambiguous state because it serves no purpose to prescribe the organizations that would pick Group and Council members at this time. The decision regarding the method of choice would be left to a committee of board members of scientific societies (or economic societies or whatever) designated by the Chief Justice, House Speaker, and minority party representative. Any committee would understand that if it could not choose members by a date certain – a week, for example – the three of them would choose the members.

x     For example there might be two appointed every two years. See the United States Constitution for an example of the method (see the second paragraph of Article 1, Section 3, ignoring references to resignations and replacements.)

xi    Exodus, Chapter 18, verses 19-22. Obviously there would be changes relating to size, and to the fact that the Council would be dealing with secular, not religious, issues.

xii    One way of achieving this goal would be to list all the organizations – including Congress – that are exceptions to whatever law is passed, and to list all local projects and their costs for the voters to see.