Status Change

I'm compulsive. But you know that. After all, I publish this series regularly and never miss a week. Every Sunday there is a new edition (unless I have to reschedule because of a holiday). I probably shouldn't say “new” since much of the material is recycled and reworked. I said it before and you've read it before. But it keeps me busy, and you can ignore it if you choose.

I've been working on a change, however. For a while. Today is September 6^th. I know that even though I'm writing it now it won't be published for a while and, you may not see it until after that. It doesn't change anything of course, but I thought I'd let you know what's happening.

Continuity is important to me. That includes my heritage, and the security of Israel. In a world that is more interested in pandering to countries with large populations and resources, and to a fashionable liberalism as camouflage for antisemitism (Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests – Lord Palmerston) there seems to be no great concern for right and wrong, only in what's good for them, what fits their biases, and what they think will benefit them.

Some of the same considerations apply in our own country. Our founders weren't perfect, but their originating documents provided a solid and well-thought-out basis for growth and for greatness. Some updating has been necessary through the years, but those changes that respected the aims of our founders have turned out to be beneficial. The times have changed and so have we. Thus some of the subsequent Constitutional amendments have helped us keep our principles up to date. Unfortunately, power grabs by the executive branch, and the personal opinions of unelected members of the judiciary – what they think should be, rather than what is justified by the law and the intent of those who wrote it – have altered our society and its ground rules well beyond what might have been anticipated. But that's not really what I want to write about.

Let me get to the point. I won't live forever, but I don't want this blog to die with me – at least not immediately. For the past several months I've been preparing extra essays and stockpiling them. More accurately, I've been scheduling them for publication long in the future. As of now (September) I'm into March of next year (actually I have one set for August, 2017) and my goal is to get to a point at which I'm a year ahead. That way the blog will continue for a year after my passing, or for a year after I stop writing these essays. It's my hope that they'll last at least for the eleven months when my children are saying Kaddish for me. [Kids, if you're reading this, feel free to reprint whatever seems worthy – if anything.] That's as much immortality as I can hope to get.

While I'm doing that, of course, I'll still keep my eyes and ears open for what I consider “wrong.” I've probably related this anecdote before, but if so it's worth repeating here (perhaps not exactly as I heard it, but as well as I can remember): When a writer was asked to write an Op-Ed for a newspaper he hesitated. “What will I write about?” he asked. Another writer responded. “Are there two things that you see in the news each week that make you angry?” To which the first writer said “Of course.” The next comment was predictable. “Write about them.”

There's a lot in this less-than-perfect world that makes me angry – even if I take great pains not to display my anger. I'll continue to write about those things and slip them in, between the scheduled posts. I won't solve the world's problems, but I'll feel better. And you should feel free to comment on what I write. Unless you disagree with me. In that case you're wrong, and I don't argue with people who disagree with me. (I think I've said that before, too.)

To let you know my plans I had to slip this essay in, moving one on Jewish Geography to February. You'll have to wait, if your interested. And if you're not interested it doesn't matter. But as of now you're up to date.

Time Out

There's nothing new under the sun. You know that. I've cited King Solomon on several occasions since the words were his, having appeared in Ecclesiastes (Kohelet), thousands of years ago. They probably weren't new then, but I don't propose to look into them any further. However old the idea, it is always true. “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

Every now and again I interrupt the egotistical publishing of my thoughts and embark on the even more egotistical exercise of evaluating the process of their writing. The usual result is that I am struck by the frequency of my own repetitions. My essays fall into three categories. The first of them is try to convince others of the truth of my own thoughts – thoughts that I know to be valid. (Since I know more than anyone else, I'm convinced that everyone would benefit from my wisdom.) They include my own political philosophy – relatively conservative – which glorifies the past while bemoaning the changes that have taken place over the years. I'm patriotic (chauvinistic?) and I admire greatly the contributions of the Founding Fathers. Such a stance is bound to be critical of those who promote change, and of the changes they have promoted. I also belittle modern technology (though composing this on my computer, I reject “smart” 'phones and similar devices) and modern culture.

I also castigate those people, nations, and organizations that substitute “pragmatic” for “honorable.” Surely they consider their views and their actions to be the appropriate ones to achieve their ends – and that may be the case – but they don't see “right” and “wrong” as relevant factors when deciding on the means. They either don't recognize, or don't care about their own biases.

The second category of my ramblings relates to those areas in which I am less certain. I originally described this effort as one that gave me the opportunity to work out ideas that were confusing to me or troubling – ideas that left me unsettled; ideas that had not gelled into “knowledge.” Most prominent among these were those relating to belief. Since belief is, virtually by definition, non-rational, there is no likelihood that I will ever reach a firm conclusion about it, since when I do it will cease to be “belief” and will become “knowledge.”

Everything else, irrespective of concept or format, falls into the third category. That applies, among other things, to subjects chosen because they interest me even if they're of no consequence to anyone else, pure fiction, and my personal blather. By now I suspect that you've accommodated yourself to all of these.

You may view today's message as an example of personal blather, but I consider it to be an update on the style of these essays. I have, in the past, relied on the use of footnotes to convey my thoughts. Sometimes these served to advise the reader of the source of a quotation or fact that I included; sometimes they served as a site for the presentation of an idea that didn't fit conveniently in the primary text. This kind of format seemed obvious to me since most of what I read is heavily-footnoted non-fiction, where it serves a useful purpose. I need time to consider what I have just read, and the footnote provides the “time-out” that caters to this need.

I recently read a non-fiction book, however, that eschewed such devices, and I found it to be delightful, and much easier to digest than my other “reads.” Clearly the nature of the subject material was receptive to such a presentation, and the author's ability to convey information interestingly had more to do with the success of the venture than the lack of footnotes, but it became clear to me that my future essays should lack such “aids”so I shall never use them again.ⁱ As it says in Pirke Avot, though the context is different, the “loss disappears in [the] gain.”

So when I return with the next episode, don't look for any help in identifying the source of my ideas – and I probably stole them anyway. Don't ask, and I won't tell. As for my other thoughts, you probably don't care.

Next episode: “All Men (And Women)” – And anyone who doesn't feel “himself” covered by those designations.

I        Never say “never.” There will be rare occasions when I might throw in a footnote because I feel I can't avoid it, but I'll try to limit those occurrences. You're on your own.

There, I Said It Again

I said it before and I said it again. Or at least that was the report I got back.ⁱ My wife read some of my old blogsⁱⁱ and informed me that I was repeating myself. And she was right.

If at all possible, as a rule, you'd be better off not doing so. “Don't repeat yourself. It's not only repetitive, it's redundant, and people have heard it before.”ⁱⁱⁱ Yes, that's what I said: “Don't repeat yourself. It's not only repetitive, it's redundant, and people have heard it before.”ⁱⁱⁱ

But I'll say it again anyway. It's all I can offer to answer the questions, “Why do I write a blog?” and “Why do they seem repetitious?”

The answer to the first question is difficult,^iv but the answer to the second question is easy: “Because they are.”

A little flip, perhaps, but let me explain. I write about the things that interest me, and they don't cease to interest me just because I've written about them. They don't magically disappear as issues, but there may be new facts or situations that bear on them and I may have new ideas about them, whether or not, as new information emerges.

But that's only part of the story. Another important aspect of the repetition is that I don't look back on what I've written before. I make notes and gather information on the subject, formulating an essay based on that material, but usually not including all of it. And I don't always erase the material I've used. I simply transfer it to an ever-enlarging file of ideas that may be usable in the future. So when the future comes I look for whatever I have on the subject and, regrettably, some of it has already been used. I don't remember what I included before, and I don't recall the name of the previous piece in which it appeared. Since I'm too lazy to read through all the old blogs, for all practical purposes it doesn't exist. And, since I have doubts about how many people, if any, actually read what I write, I don't worry much about it.

Another reason why I'm prone to draw a blank when it comes to old works, is that they're really future works. I write these long in advance – this one, for example, will go on line in about a month. And that makes it even more difficult to remember when and where the ideas previously appeared. By the time they actually appear it's longer since the previous discussion of the subject than it might seem. But anyone trying to read through them in an expeditious manner may read several months worth in a single sitting^v so that material I pondered over a long period gets microscoped back into what is viewed as a single piece, and thoughts that may have been developed long before get merged and compared as if they were part of the same essay. That's the bad news. The good news, however, is that someone actually looked at them.

The real question, though, is why I do it in the first place, and that's a little harder to explain. I know that I mentioned in the past that I use this activity as a method for clarifying my thoughts to myself.^vi It's often the case that I'm uncertain about the answer to a particular and question – not a fact question but one more subjective – and I use the computer keypad to outline the considerations on all sides. I don't always wind up with the revealed truth, but when I'm done I usually have a better understanding of the question. I've had the opportunity to question and poke holes in my own arguments without revealing their weaknesses to others. (I'm my own Devil's Advocate.^vii)

It's the others, by the way, who often raise the issues that trouble me. I recognize quickly that either they're wrong or I am, or maybe we both are (you're wrong too). Working through the intricacies, however, is a slow process for me. I wouldn't be very good in a debate. I'm slow in responding in speech, and debates are, too often, focused on winning, not clarifying an issue.^viii So I do better at writing than speaking. Writing provides me with the opportunity to consider my words carefully and be sure that the response, or the statement, is exactly what I want to say. I may need second or subsequent drafts to get things exactly the way I want them, because I find it better to choose and refine my words carefully^ix to say precisely what I want to say.

And I want to say things. Even if no one reads them.^x After all, I know everything. I may have to spend time working it out, but the result is true. I know everything (I said that, didn't I?).

Speaking of working things out, however, brings me back to the initial issue: repetition. I've been too defensive. Everyone repeats himself: politicians, clergymen, mothers,^xi newspaper editors^xii and columnists,^xiii musicians,^xiv and everyone else. Especially educators. Repetition is one of the best tools they have for getting people to remember the lesson you're teaching.^xv

Finally let me repeat what it says in Ecclesiastes: “There's nothing new under the sun.” There are only a limited number of topics worth discussing, and it's likely that previously discussed material will be reevaluated. So even if my views have to be iterated,^xvi they merit your acceptance. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times …

Next episode: “The Trouble With Ernie” – And you thought no one was listening.

I         For that matter, I'm not sure I'm not repeating a previous blog. I'd have to read through all those published already and I don't have the patience for that. If you find this repetitious, skip it. If you know of an earlier blog in which I used this material, please let me know.

ii         She's one of the few people who's ever read them.

iii        Lemony Snicket

iv       I have some ideas which I'll get into below, but I'm not a psychiatrist.

v        That's what my wife did.

vi        I wrote that somewhere.

vii       Some consider me the Devil incarnate, but I'm not.

viii     Debates (and arguments) too often lead to “gotchas” rather than more meaningful responses.

ix       Although some oppose it, I favor use of a thesaurus. I'm not proud.

x         Although I'd prefer it if they do.

xi        How many times do I have to tell you the same thing?

xii       Frequently their subject involves the heinous position of the party that opposes the one they favor. The issue is less important than the message that their opponents are evil. And they repeat that same message day after day.

xiii     For the most part their message reflects the editor's view. That's why they were hired and have kept their jobs. As with the editors, the denigration of their targets is more important than the substance of the putative subject of the piece. Actually, it is the subject.

xiv      People like Mozart, Haydn, and Bach (and those are only examples of a much larger group) recycled (repeated) some of their own musical themes, and many have not hesitated to write variations on the works of others, or music based on songs or other sounds that they heard elsewhere. But I won't explore the question of plagiarism any further.

xv       As Goebbels said (in German), “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Of course teachers tell the truth, but its repetition also is important for putting it on the “hard drives” of their students.

xvi   Look it up. It probably doesn't mean what you think. Try http://www.thefreedictionary.com/iterated.

Intermezzo

 

It's now been four months since I started this blog and I suspect it's a reasonable time for an evaluation and, perhaps, a good time to supplement my original formulation with some additional thoughts.

First of all, there have been no comments. That's not much of surprise since no one is aware of the blog. I've been careful not to mention it to anyone. Which, of course, raises the question of why I'm bothering to do this. After all, what's the point of expressing my thoughts if no one is aware of what they are? Perhaps my answers to this question, and the existence of this intermezzo, are self-serving, but if no one will read them anyway it doesn't matter. It also gives me the opportunity to add some biographical information which probably won't interest anyone, but which I want a place to set down. Maybe after I'm dead someone will read it.

Let's go back a little. To my childhood. And my mother. Mothers. That's where everything begins, isn't it? And, as everyone knows (even if the idea is erroneous), they're to blame for whatever goes wrong. I was a smart kid. Knowledgeable about everything. But my mother, pleased though she was, complained that as bright as I was in all fields, I wasn't the best in anything.ⁱ (Actually, that wasn't completely true. I had the highest IQ in my class and probably even the school.ⁱⁱ And I did extremely well in the examinations for State Scholarships.ⁱⁱⁱ I had enough insight to know that I was an unusually bright child and I should take advantage of it because as an adult I'd continue to be smart but no one would kvell^iv over me.)

But there was no single subject that interested me much more than any other. I was (am^v) more interested in the relationships between things – associations which may not be obvious^vi – than in anything itself. And it was not important that others understood or shared my views. If I knew I was right, that was enough. Nonetheless, I was shy and in need of the approval of others – others whom I would not antagonize by expressing views that would be seen as at odds with whatever was acceptable thought. So I did whatever was necessary to get along.^vii

Like most people, I worked for a living. Unlike most, however, I did very well, achieving leadership positions in different institutions. As in my childhood, I was quite good in what I did. But when I got home I tried not to take my work there. I didn't always succeed in this, and there were times when I continued or completed tasks at home that were begun in my office. But I also started a wide range of projects which had no relation to my profession. They were explorations of whatever struck my fancy at a particular time. And completion was not a necessary component. If I was satisfied that I had worked out the problems, I was happy to dump the production in a drawer and go on to something else. The ideas were mine (and only mine, which was what I preferred^viii) and it wasn't relevant if they weren't finished and no one else saw them.^ix That was how I wanted it. I was satisfied with the result. So the drawer filled. I decided I'd deal with those half-completed projects after I retired.

That day finally came.^x It couldn't come soon enough. Leaving the job was liberating. Work was fun, but workplace politics had been oppressive.^xi I enjoyed certain aspects of my activities^xii but I had had enough. And there was the drawer. I had plenty to do and finally had the time to do it.^xiii

Much of what I had filed remains there. I realize now that it was the process, not the material, that gave me the greatest pleasure, and that process is one that continues. I enjoy exploring ideas and problems as I think of them,^xiv irrespective of the subject. Which is where the blog comes in. I still have no need for others to read what I have to say,^xv but the blog gives me the discipline I needed to work out and to complete the project. That should make my wife happy. Or, at least, it would if she knew about it.

But not my mother. I still prefer to investigate a wide variety of subjects^xvi than to limit myself to one. No matter how good I might be at it. I'll never be the best at anything, but I don't really care.

Next episode: “Intermezzo 2” – The saga continues.

i     Peggy Lee's way of expressing the syndrome was, “I know a little bit about a lot of things, but I don't know enough about you.”

ii    In those days they put a lot of stock in IQs.

iii    They were based on merit then, not need.

iv    See OED (Third Edition) if you're unfamiliar with the word.

v    I don't remember my thoughts of sixty years ago that well (I'll be discussing memory shortly – if I remember to do so) and I may be back-projecting subsequent attitudes, but my current SOP seems to correlate well with what I remember of the past.

vi    For example, and it is only an example, it seems to me that some political philosophies my be related to infantile feelings of connectedness with the rest of the world which is, in the infantile view, part of the self. Liberal thought is, in many ways, a remnant of this stage of development – but I'll expand on that issue another time.

vii    I have since learned to express my opinions in letters to the editor. Sometimes they're published, but even if that isn't the case I've had a chance to vent.

viii   Privacy “seeks to erect an unbreachable wall of dignity and reserve against the entire world. The free man is the private man, the man who still keeps some of his thoughts and judgments to himself, who feels no over-riding compulsion to share everything of value with others, not even those he loves and trusts.” Clinton Rossiter, “The Pattern of Liberty,” in M. R. Kovnitz and Clinton Rossiter (eds), Aspects of Liberty, 1958, Ithaca, New York.

ix    My wife knew about them and chided me for not finishing anything, even though I didn't care if they weren't completed in the usual sense.

x    In fact, it's still here. Retirement is more fun than work. It doesn't pay as well but the trade-off is worth it.

xi    A friend once took me to task for being “inflexible.” What he meant was that I wouldn't acquiesce to the view of a superior (in rank) if I knew him to be wrong. I wasn't cut out for politics.

xii    One of my functions was as a teacher, and the interaction with my students (doctors) was very rewarding and a lot of fun.

xiii   People have told me that they'll never retire. After all, what would they do? They never took the time to prepare.

xiv    Most important thoughts come to mind when I can't write them down. (Have you ever noticed that?) I'm in the shower, or I don't have paper handy, or something else is standing in my way. So I forget a lot of things including my best ideas. That may not be completely true, but I prefer admitting to a loss of memory than to a loss of creativity. Losing some memory – mostly for particular words – seems to go with the territory. I have a deal with my wife. She provides the words I forget and I fill in what she can't remember. So far it's worked, but the time will come when we both forget the same things.

xv    Actually I'm ambivalent on this point. I think I'd enjoy (favorable) feedback on what I write, but it's up to the reader to discover the blog. He won't ask, though, and I won't tell.

xvi    And I'm an expert on none of them. It's exhilarating to be able to shoot my mouth off without regard to facts. I avoid naming names so I have no concern about libel and, as far as I know, free speech reigns. In any case, with no readers, there shouldn't be any problems. If someone should, however, come across my blog and be offended, so be it.