These Are The Days My Friend

They'll end. So let's enjoy them now.

After all, the time will come when they're seen as the “good old days.” It always happens, but in retrospect we don't always agree. Such simple things as electricity and indoor plumbing haven't always existed. And certainly not jet flight, computers, and instant communications.

But we look back on the past with nostalgia and remember the “good times” that are no more. I suspect, however, that we wouldn't want to live as our grandparents did. We latch on to each new gimmick and fad and wonder how our ancestors lived without them – as they wondered about the survival of those who preceded them. Perhaps there are some improvements that could be made, but things have never been so good. And the same was true in each generation before ours. At least that's the perception.

Well, I'm not sure. Sometimes I think we're going too fast. And sometimes I think we're going in the wrong direction. And sometimes both. For example, we're at a point when we can send a space craft to meet up with an asteroid and land on it. After that it's expected that the craft will sample some of he asteroid's contents and return them to earth. Amazing! At the same time, however, the conditions for many of those now living on earth are terrible. For some there's not enough to eat while others lack a safe place to sleep at night, or even to walk during the day. We're devoting too much in tax dollars to answer the theoretical questions that scientists have, even though we know that those answers, which may be of interest to future generations, will have no effect on our lives. In our liberal and idealistic frame of mind, we are more interested in our perceived obligation to our great, great, grandchildren (should the world survive) than to our own children. We may mouth our interest in them, but our real fascination is for the unknown – for the next big thing.

We've developed social media, and the devices that bring it to us, while becoming more and more antisocial, preferring to text rather than talk. And we can now get almost any sort of food at any time of year, including everything we need to plate a gourmet meal for our families. In fact why bother preparing food for them? We can get a ready-made nutritious gourmet meal that we just have to pop into the oven or microwave, and free ourselves from the tedious burden of actually cooking for those we say we love.

I don't mean to suggest that before the rocket ship people had enough to eat and a safe place to live. But even if they weren't able to accomplish it, they gave thought to using our resources for the sake of improving the lives of their brothers and sisters. Of course we're doing that now, but our goals are far more speculative than they used to be. Our focus has changed from what's now, to what's to come.

I certainly don't believe that the electronic age is all bad. I'm a hermit and I enjoy the opportunity to do all my shopping without leaving the house. But I'm an anomaly. If society is to survive and flourish, people must interact with each other. Face to face. Not on a machine. The world's problems won't be solved by people gazing into their palms.

And there's a lot to be said for cooking dinner. It's an expression of love and concern for each other, not just of necessity. There is communion of more than our bodies when bread is broken and wine drunk. (Mary Francis Kennedy Fisher) That, of course, will require that people have the raw materials necessary for such an endeavor. But we could take more steps toward that goal now if we chose to do so.

Some day, perhaps, people will look back at today, and suggest that it was the ideal time. They'll be wrong. It is, sadly, and age when we've given up on the present and are more interested in moving to the future – whatever the cost. We don't need to provide for those around us. We're too busy avoiding them, and each other, as we look for an easier time for ourselves now, and a quicker path to tomorrow. This may also have been the attitude in the past, but people didn't have the tools that would permit them to act on their wishes. Now we do. (Though in times to come our descendants will take note of our primitive devices. They'll also wonder about our aversion to GMF, which is simply accelerated evolution, a concept in which we claim to believe.)

And we're devoting our resources to tomorrow as well, without always considering how they might be used to improve conditions for those here now, and for those soon to come. Tax dollars, which might aid those suffering at present, are being used to answer the speculations of scientists who look to others to support their muses and clarify their mental conjectures. Perhaps their ideas will aid future generations, but it those future generations who will have to pay for them. We have to go into debt to do so now, leaving some current problems unsolved as we make the great leap forward.

There's an old saying, Don't just do something. Stand there. It contains a lesson that we haven't learned yet, but we're far beyond it. There's no going back, as much as it might be desirable. Our only hope is that we can stop and think about the implications of what we are doing now.




September 7, 2016

A Different Drummer

I was born a couple of years before Pearl Harbor. I was the younger sibling. (Actually I was the younger brother. They didn't talk about siblings then.) My older brother became a Cub Scout soon after the war but that didn't last long. He didn't like it. As far as he was concerned it was too regimented. It may have been popular, but it wasn't for him. So he never became a Boy Scout, and neither did I.

It shouldn't really be surprising. Scout groups have rules. They have to. We need rules – shared and agreed-upon guidelines. They're integral to doing things. They're part of the teaching process. And war and the military created a worldview of conformity, so the returning soldiers and sailors were oriented to the kind of order prized not only in the military but, as well, in the society to which they returned. They knew that there had to be someone in charge and theirs was not to reason why. They had the responsibility of doing as they were told – of following orders. (I don't mean to suggest that they followed the Nazi example and followed immoral orders. They were accountable as human beings – as we all are – to rebel at illegal demands, but short of that they maintained military discipline. [The Nazis were similarly accountable on an absolute basis, but their education told them “No”; that obedience was the highest value.])

Rules are good things. They maintain society, especially in those situations when a rapid and predictable response is mandatory. A ship must have a captain; there can be only one chief surgeon in an operating room; and, as all those who had so recently been engaged in battle knew, someone had to be in charge if they were to keep casualties down and to prevail.

And they all had to be well trained. They had to know what to do instinctively if they were to act quickly. They had to be educated to the most efficacious procedures whatever the circumstances. They weren't robots – those weren't to be in widespread use for many decades – however education and regimentation were basic to every citizen's performance.

But things change. Like unruly teen-agers who are breaking loose from parental control, society broke loose from rules and constraints. At times people's actions were nonviolent and constructive as, for example, in the peaceful demonstrations for equal rights. At times, however, this was not the case. It is hard to forget the flag burnings, the riots, and the college takeovers that followed the exhilaration and unity of the 1950s. Some of the changes were well thought-out and aimed at advancement, while others were simply expressions of the rejection of society's rules, and of rebellion. And for many, the idea of rebellion was so attractive that no reason for it was necessary. Their goal was to spurn society itself, to have their own way – even if that way was wrong, and even if they had no particular goal.

If disobedience was an end in itself, however, it was unlikely to have value. Fortunately there have been many who were estranged from societal norms but who benefited us all through their rejection of the status quo. Those who “pushed the envelope” and “thought outside of the box” (two expressions which, although they illustrate an important concept, are so hackneyed as to be remnants of the “old” thinking) showed their rejection of old ideas by creating new ones. “We've always done it that way” simply wasn't good enough if they had a better way. Nothing is gained by being conventional, by staying in style, especially when rejection is fashionable simply for its own sake.

Henry David Thoreau, a nineteenth century American philosopher, wrote “If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” It's obvious that there will be no new thoughts if everyone follows the same drummer. And those with new ideas are invariably looked on as “queer ducks.” New thinkers are invariably out of step with the old. However that's often because they are far ahead of the rest of us.

Of course new thoughts are not necessarily good (but neither are the old). Yet they are what move us all forward and, while we should examine them thoroughly, we should welcome them. Or, as composer John Cage put it, “I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones.” Creative people, like Cage, march to a different drummer. They have new and unconventional ideas. (I'm not sure I like Cage's, but I agree with his sentiment – if the “new ideas” are thought out.) There's a common sentiment expressed by the intellectually lazy: “Don't reinvent the wheel.” It makes sense unless the wheel is not the best solution to the problem. And that's often the case, although it may not be recognized. To a very great degree we're held back by conventional thinking, even though we all try to use our minds to solve the problems we face. But however we may feel about our individual singularity, we don't stray far from the pack. (“I'm unique, just like everybody else.”) The more things change …

Perhaps the problem is our wish for equality. Perhaps by teaching to the lowest common denominator in order that no child be left behind, we don't emphasize the value of that different drummer and the importance of independent thought. We speak of diversity but we reward conformity. We call it “peer pressure” but it is really the desire of society to understand and control all its members. It's easiest when their thoughts and their actions are predictable, and when their ideas don't change. It's hardest when they're all thinking for themselves in an unpredictable way.

Different strokes for different folks? No. Different drummers. It's the difference between variation on a theme and innovation.

Edison Was Wrong

Last week I quoted Thomas Edison: “None of my inventions came by accident. I see a worthwhile need to be met and I make trial after trial until it comes. What it boils down to is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.”

So far, so good.

However I learned later that the statement was made in a press conference in 1929,ⁱ and was a variant of a statement that he had made around 1902:ⁱⁱ

“Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.”

Whoa.

There's no question that Thomas Edison was bright and insightful.ⁱⁱⁱ And he was certainly hard working. Really hard working. But I'm not convinced he was a genius. Was he a great inventor? Yes. Was he a technological innovator? Yes. Was he a great spokesman and marketer? Unquestionably. But those qualities, by themselves, are not genius.

It's hard to define what a genius is. It certainly can't be defined by IQ, although perhaps the level of intelligence can.^iv But not all bright people are geniuses. Neither can the tag be assigned based on accomplishment. While a genius will usually accomplish great things, that is not invariably the case.^v And, indeed, as I hinted above, great accomplishments may result from a high degree of intelligence accompanied by hard work,^vi but more is needed to be a genius. There is vision in the face of darkness. And the ability to bring light in that darkness – to make others aware of what you have discovered.

An innovator recognizes a need and, by his intelligence and effort, fills it. Edison was such a man. The average individual, may not recognize a problem, but when he does, having accepted its presence, he will either ignore it or give up. One who is bright will find a way to work around it. Only an Edison will devise a real solution for the problem so others will not have to face it or work around it.

But those problems are apparent to most people, whether or not the solutions are. We all see and recognize the areas that need work. There are many disciplines, however, in which we lack comprehension, and we may not be cognizant of our ignorance, or what it is about which we are ignorant. There has to be vision and the ability to provide the light to eliminate that darkness. It takes a genius to see what is invisible to the rest of us, and to recognize the solution when we aren't even aware of the problem; it takes a genius to see the mistakes of the past – a Galileo to confirm and “publicize” the sun's centrality, an Einstein to recognize that Newtonian concepts could not account for all the universe's phenomena. And it took an Abraham to declare the concept of a single G-D and a Moses to promote it.

But these were not popular positions and, to one degree or another, their proponents suffered for them. Since Einstein conceived of his Theories of Relativity, others have tried to poke holes in them. Galileo risked excommunication and death for his beliefs, Abraham had to flee his homeland and Moses was threatened by both Pharaoh and the Israelites for his words and actions. (And, while the idea of monotheism has received approval by billions, those who promoted it, who were to be a “light to the nations,”^vii have been persecuted ever since.) Bringing light in the face of darkness is not an easy task for physicist or philosopher.

How can we recognize genius, or a genius? Most of us can't. We're told by experts that someone is a genius and we have to accept it at face value, since, based on our own intelligence and the education we've received, we can't begin to understand ideas so far beyond us.^viii But we can sometimes recognize the kind of person who is capable of such brilliance.

The average individual, however bright, is not aware that he is in an envelope. He accepts the view that there is no point in “reinventing the wheel.” Those in front of him are blocking his vision if he sees them at all. The innovator is ready to “push the envelope.” He identifies problems with the wheel and devises remedies. He stands “on the shoulders of giants.”

The genius, however, has his mind on bigger things – on matters well past the perceptions of others. He recognizes the errors of the past – errors that the rest of us accept with reverence. He sees visions of physical, artistic, and philosophical realities which are beyond our imagining. He has torn up the envelope and discarded the wheel in the recognition of questions which require completely different solutions.^ix He is the giant on whose shoulders future generations will stand – future generations that will build on the ideas which he has tried to reveal to an unprepared public.

There have certainly been many geniuses who, lacking the tools available to later generations, recognized problems but were unable to solve them. They were viewed as eccentrics and malcontents. It is troubling to know that their gifts have been lost to us. They were ahead of their times. We are the poorer for it.

And there have been geniuses whose insights were too troubling for the establishment to tolerate. Socrates found that out. But, as Socrates demonstrated, from his perspective the views of others are irrelevant.^x

An innovator solves problems and is hailed for it. His work is recognized quickly, even if it is not fully understood by all. Most people aren't interested in carburetor construction as long as the car starts. But a genius often causes problems. He denies what everyone knows, and for that, at least initially, he is vilified. If he is recognized at all. But his sweat has nothing to do with it.

 

Next episode: “Enough Already” – Things have gotten out of hand.

 

i     See Wikiquote.

ii    Reported in Harper's Monthly in 1932 as having been said “ sometime around 1902.”

iii    Or, as Yogi would put it, he was “smarter than the average bear.”

iv    Not everyone will agree with this statement, viewing the tests as biased or otherwise imperfect. This is not the place to debate that issue. Whatever the imperfections, if any, IQ tests have shown themselves to be very helpful in sorting out different levels of intelligence among individuals.

v      A brilliant insight that is not pursued may lead nowhere. Its originator will certainly not be known for it. The genius of the idea will remain unknown as will its possessor, the genius.

vi     As with Edison.

vii    Isaiah, 42:6 and 49:6.

viii   And we resent someone smarter than ourselves. It's like elementary school. No one likes the smart kid. Let's beat him up.

ix    The wheel is not the answer to all problems. Something that most of us don't appreciate.

x     One might argue that Galileo fell down here. Or perhaps, knowing that ultimately he would win out, that his ideas would someday be accepted by everyone, he chose the path of discretion. Whatever his decision about his life, he certainly didn't change his view of the universe.