A Well-Deserved Reward

I just searched for the lyrics of a tune recorded by many artists in 1942. And I found them on line. I don't know how I would have discovered them otherwise since I didn't remember the name of the song. Remembering some of the words, I used Google^®, which is amazing. But I suspect that I would also have found what I sought using one of the other “search engines” instead.

Clearly the person who conceived of the concept, made it practicable, and found a way to display it to the rest of us, is a genius – both in computer skills and in his entrepreneurship. And he's (or she's – I didn't bother to Google^® it so I don't really know) helped us all. I assume he's been well rewarded and he deserves it. He's opened up a new world to us by providing a means of negotiating the information highway. By now he's probably in the “1%” (actually the 0.1%) and everybody hates him. Not what he did, but him. He's rich and we're not.

Not me. All I have for him is praise. He earned what he earned. And computer users (that's a lot of us) benefit directly from his work. He should be rich. He's enriched the rest of us. I'm especially happy that the service is free, even if I have to tolerate the ads.

I wonder if, whoever he is, he took “shortcuts” along the way – both in the development and in the implementation. If he did anything unethical or criminal, he should be punished appropriately, but that does not take away from his accomplishments. For those he should be rewarded. And the reward should be his, not one that is shared. He did it, and he should profit from it.

It's not a unique story. Creativity – originating something that no one thought of, or could figure out how to implement – is a rare commodity. And it's something that seems to be part of American DNA, which is why so many new ideas originate here. There are creative ideas in all fields, and we're all better for learning what they are and utilizing those that help us. There are ideas in all fields: new medicines and medical techniques have increased our life spans; new ideas in agriculture have made nutrition available to more people; and better mouse traps have made for both improves aesthetic and health situations.

But I want to focus on the ones whose primary purpose is to make a buck. Those are the ones that are most apparent to us and most likely to earn our anger. Even if the product is something we need and the originator has produced something that makes our life easier, we resent the fact that we have to shell out the money that makes him rich. He should be paying higher taxes. He should be helping the poor by supporting entitlement programs. He has taken advantage of the rest of us.

Such penalties of the creative, however, are counter productive. They are our way of convincing ourselves that there are others whose main aim is to take advantage of us. They are creating what we consider useless variations of already existing products – variations that we don't need. But we buy them anyway. We don't need them but the guy down the block has them and we don't want to be left behind. And, of course, we'll pay anything for something that makes us healthy.

We tolerate the developments that don't cost us money – like Google^®. We know that its developers are making lots of money from ads and fees – money that should be taxed and given to the needy – but we don't realize that our tax money is going into the same programs. So since the new tools that others develop are free and of value to us, we use them.

We don't realize that the use of economic penalties lessens the likelihood that creativity will continue. Creative people are like the rest of us – they want to earn (or “get” if they don't want to work) as much as they can, however they can. Thomas Edison didn't spend his 99% perspiration simply out of the goodness of his sweat glands. He expected, and received, a reward for it. And modern drug companies don't develop drugs that will lose them money. Perhaps they overcharge; perhaps they could get by with smaller profits, but we'd be less healthy as a society if we discouraged their development of new products. Suppose, for example, that drug companies, in fear of taxes, opted not to develop antibiotics. We'd all suffer.

That's not to suggest that there is no room for tax law review and change, but stifling the impulse to be creative, by taxing the rich to help the poor. is not the best idea. Let's start our search engines and look at the ways creativity has been encouraged around the world, and look as well at the policies that discouraged it. Lest we dissuade the creative from their activity, it's better to support their efforts to help us all. Society will get its cut even if taxes aren't raised.

Speculation

Perhaps I'm just being morbid, but (and I suspect I've said this already) I've been pondering the different scenarios that may follow death. I imagine that I'm not alone in these thoughts – that they're universal. People wonder about what's to come, and they always have.

One of the main themes of some of the religions is that death evens the playing field: good is rewarded and evil punished irrespective of apparent treatment during life, although there is a view that reward and punishment even occur in an earthly setting. And that a Divine power watched over us all and treated us fairly. But it was not always clear. While arguing the fate of Sodom, Abraham asked G-d, Shall the whole world's Judge not do justly? The issue of theodicy is ancient.

However its age doesn't make it any more sensible than it is otherwise.

Job knew he was right, but the author of the Book Job of didn't go so far as to say that G-d was wrong. Those who came to speak with him attributed the problem to him, clearly believing that G-d was always right, so Job must have been wrong if he was made to suffer. In the end, however, G-d makes it clear that He doesn't have to justify His acts to anyone. We don't understand and we can't. It's a mistake to try. It's not sensible.

We've always tried to make sense of the unknown. We've always tried to explain it. But however logical our explanations, whatever our interpretations of the understandings we have received, they're either wrong or, at best, incomplete and problematic. Mythology, religion philosophy – all are attempts at explanations of what we don't understand. But they're all found to be faulty by subsequent evaluators and interpreters. They're really our speculations, our guesses, our theories about what lies ahead.

Perhaps we're trying too hard. We don't understand, and we're foolish when we try to do so. We are using human concepts to try to understand the Divine. Whatever we hypothesize is bound to be wrong. It's an oversimplification of an unknown. We don't even have the language, let alone the ideas needed for us to understand.

According to scientists, there are countless dimensions. They've determined this from mathematical calculations. What does that mean? I, and virtually everyone else, don't know, however people accept this unintuitive judgment, even though many won't accept the idea that there may be a spiritual or religious dimension. Einstein has taught us that our understanding of time is erroneous, and everyone concurs with his formulation, whether or not they comprehend it. We argue endlessly about evolution and “creationism,” yet we know that sooner or later new theories will be presented, and some of the old will be discarded. For now, science and reason are our benchmarks, even if we don't fathom what they are telling us.

What's the problem? We're human. And the languages we use as well as our ideas are human. We have no idea if our words and out formulations would make any sense in a world other than the one we're in. Any scenarios we propose for an “afterlife” are based on human ideas and there is no reason to believe that they make any sense. All our speculations are meaningless. We do not understand G-d (Viktor Frankel, in The Doctor and the Soul notes that, in relation to a Creator, For thousands of years [the Creator] has been called G-d, so this term will have to do irrespective of other preferences by some) and any theories we have are irrational. [Please note that words, as used here and hereafter – not in the “hereafter” – whether referring to right and wrong, rationality, or whatever, are to be understood as referring to human understandings, and, therefore, have meaning only in this world.] Put otherwise it means that any ruminations, any rational ideas about what happens after death, however appealing they may be, are irrational.

That's not entirely true. Though I reject rationality, there is one lesson that I have learned from the rationalists, and it is that there must be some Divine or extra-rational force. They've taught me that there's no such thing as a free lunch. You don't get something for nothing – every result has a cause. And you don't get something from nothing. So if there is a Universe, some force must have created it. Even if someone believes that the laws of physics permit mass to be formed from “nothing” [and stay out of the way if it happens again] those laws had to come from somewhere.

But if any attempt at visualizing what happens in the next world is irrational, that is not the case regarding our responsibilities in this one. Even if we cannot define G-d and our relationship to Him, we can try to define our obligations to our fellows. The same Einstein who ruminated on celestial matters said Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile. Our ultimate fate may be unknowable, but our knowledge of right and wrong – and this is all but universal – tells us that we must feed the poor and help the needy. Whether or not we'll be rewarded for our concern for others is irrelevant. There's no speculation on this score.

December 22, 2016

From Your Mouth

You probably know that I've been sick. I don't hide it, and I don't hide from it. What is, is.

One of the results of my malady is a biweekly visit to the clinic for chemotherapy, and I leave with a bottle of poison attached to me by a tube. I carry the bottle around for a couple of days before it is disconnected. The carrying is in a pouch attached to a belt, and I'm nervous that something I do will cause everything to fall apart. It probably won't, but I remain nervous. I usually don't leave the house during the two days I'm receiving the medication, though I must admit the side-effects are milder than I anticipated. (I had some nerve damage from a previous drug, but that's been discontinued, and I'm scheduled to receive treatment for those effects.)

But, in the words of W. C. Fields, “I digress.” What I really want to note is that because of the treatment I won't be saying Kaddish for my mother on her yahrzeit in a few days. That requires a minyan and I'll be staying home. (For those who don't understand, that means I won't be saying the prayer for the dead which is ordinarily recited on the anniversary of someone's passing. For that, according to the laws of Judaism, I need a group of ten men, which would require a trip to synagogue. Since that would take place during the time I stay home, I'll miss it this year.) The purpose of the prayer is to elevate the soul of the deceased, and I regret missing the opportunity to do so.

Yesterday I brought in to synagogue the name of a friend who is ill. I'll recite my own prayers for her health, but a more formal prayer is offered by the synagogue for the recovery of those who are sick, and I wanted her to have this as well. So I submitted her name.

Such sentiments are not restricted to my religion. How often has someone who is going through a difficult situation said “Pray for me?” It doesn't matter what we believe. We seek the support of those we love, and of others too. And we offer it as well. Even to those who are no longer with us. We're told by our sages that our prayers are valuable to those in need, and, by this means, we help those whom we love. Can we do otherwise?

But I wonder about the validity of this teaching. And I wonder whether my prayers have any effect. I'm not questioning my religion itself, or that of others, but I still have questions regarding the usefulness of the practice. It seems to me that ultimate rewards and punishments are based on the actions, good and bad, of the individual involved, not whether others try to use their influence to improve conditions for others, alive or dead. The most evil of people will sometimes influence others to love them, and, by doing so, inspire prayers when they seem to be appropriate.

Have those prayers any effect? (Especially if they don't really reflect the reality of the virtues of the subject?) Can the words of humans change G-d's decisions? Are such decisions reflective of predetermined actions? Do the wishes of the living affect the treatment of the dead?

The question, however, is much bigger. Its repercussions extend far beyond our wishes for those who are suffering, or for those whose suffering is over. The question involves us, and for most of us our own well-being is of greater consequence than that of anyone else. Of course there are exceptions, but the rule remains.

The issue relates to prayer in general. Has it any value? Do human words affect people's standing in the “eyes” of G-d? We believe that G-d knows our thoughts, so our words are not only unnecessary, but poor reflections of our intentions. Indeed, we also believe that G-d knows our intent before we do. Which makes our mouthing (or thinking) of our hopes and wishes, of our intents and desires, our praises and thanks, of little value.

Formal prayer is more for our own psychological benefit than for any improvement in our condition or that of others. And when we pray in the presence of others during a formal service, we display a discipline and a determination to ourselves as well as to others. Perhaps there is free will rather than (in addition to?) predetermination, and perhaps our words and our actions do matter. Perhaps that discipline, and those words and actions, are aimed at helping others. Surely G-d would reward that, even if He knew in advance that it would happen. Perhaps the reward would be our own satisfaction at having done what is right. Perhaps, our prayers for those who are no longer with us actually have a positive effect, as we hope the prayers for us of those who follow will have.

Or perhaps they, and all other prayers, only benefit us. I don't know, but, G-d willing, I'll say Kaddish for my mother next year.

May 2, 2017

Nota Bene – Not

It's over. Though not really a surprise, there has been no response to previous editions of Nota Bene. Since their purpose was to cajole readers into doing my work for me – to elaborate and dissect topics for which I didn't have time – I've clearly failed in the attempt. Of course it should have been expected. Absent readership there was no reason to anticipate any reaction or reply. I'll have to think for myself. And burden Blogspot with my efforts. So I'll write more than has been on my schedule thus far.

Today's effort will focus on Jihad and martyrdom. Most westerners don't really understand this concept, nor the rewards of being a shahid.

According to a hadith, martyrs are rewarded with 72 virgins. The Qur'an promises hourisⁱ for all men who enter Jannah,ⁱⁱ but the number is not specified, and there is a greater reward for those “who fight in the way of Allah (jihad) and get killed.”ⁱⁱⁱ “[A]and there are also hasan (good) hadith which refer to 72 virgins as one of the 'seven blessings from Allah' to the martyr. This has lead [sic] to the 72 virgins concept being widely used as a way to entice other Muslims into carrying out 'martyrdom operations' for Islam.”^iv

But, as Al Jolson said, “you ain't heard nothing yet.” “It is quoted by Ibn Kathir, in his Qur'anic Commentary, the Tafsir ibn Kathir, and they are graphically described by Qur'anic commentator and polymath, al-Suyuti (died 1505), who, echoing a hasan hadith Ibn Majah, wrote that the perpetual virgins will all 'have appetizing vaginas,' and that the 'penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal.'”^v I ain't making this stuff up. Martyrdom is certainly tempting – even for those with ED, which, apparently, it cures.

Lest it be thought, however, that Jannah is for men only, or that Islam is sexist,^vi “The women have something even better. Their husband becomes the guy that they wanted him to be here.”^vii,^viii That seems to be the case whether or not they want him to be here.

The only thing not covered in what I've read is the supernal reward that children get for strapping on suicide belts. It's possible that the may get sexual pleasure as well – even if in their innocence they have no idea what that means. They certainly receive the reward of Jannah as do all other believers, but I suspect that all birth defects and deformities, and any other diseases are cured, and any unhappiness of their childhood is replaced by celestial rapture.^ix

Although it dates back to the Qur'an, the concept is one that has only entered our consciousness in recent years, having received a great deal of attention as a result of the struggles of noble Palestinian Authority and Hamas members to end the need to endure life next to those who are not believers in Islam. It's a demonstration of the truth they don't have to endure life at all. And if they end the lives of those non-believers, so much the better. Of course those people won't get any virgins. Why should they? They certainly don't deserve any.

But all of the believers who perish in the conflict are martyrs. It isn't a requirement that they sought martyrdom or even died willingly. Even human shields can be martyrs. They are certainly seen as such but their fellows, and are mourned by the United Nations and most of its members. So they get sex objects and cure of their ailments. Candy, parades, and street namings are additional trappings and rewards for the dedication they have shown. And payments for their families. What could be better?

But the best part is the bestowal of virgins. It's to die for.

Next episode: “Ethics” – The wisdom of the ages.

I        While there are several translations of “houri,” the meaning in this instance is understood to be “virgin.”

ii       Heaven or Paradise. And the only men who enter are believers.

iii      From WikiIslam, “The Online Resource on Islam.”

iv       Ibid.

v        This important teaching can also be found in WikiIslam. Google^® it. You'll learn a lot – all authentic.

vi       Jannah forfend. The last thing anyone could accuse Islam of is sexism. Women have the same rights and opportunities as men and homosexuality, along with other so-called “sexual dysphorias,” is accepted without hesitation. Presumably there are appropriate treats for all LGBT martyrs (although I'm not sure what it is for transgenders).

vii     I suspect he meant “there” rather than “here,” but I could be wrong. I don't know where he was when he was when he wrote about the joys of Jannah.

viii     Sheik Yusuf Estes provides this valuable information in Just Ask Islam. Like WikiIslam, it's online.

ix       Or is that from another religion?

The Need To Know

 

Suppose your stockbroker were right two-thirds of the time – twice as often as he was wrong. You'd make a profit. That's much better than you could do on your own. After all, just by guessing, by sheer luck, you could probably get it right half of the time. Then, however, you might only break even.

But even though you were already making a profit at sixty-seven percent, you might look for an adviser with a seventy-five percent success rate. And then even higher. It's not likely that you'd suspect your new advisor of “fixing” stock prices or controlling sales, or whatever it takes to pick a winner, but only that he was better educated, harder working and more adept at researching, possibly even possessed of better intuition than his predecessor, and would have a better chance of predicting what was going to happen. It doesn't take control to be able to anticipate the future, nor inside information, only skill and knowledge.

If someone had in his possession all the pertinent facts and could apply them to every conceivable situation, he would not need to control the future even if he might seem to know what was going to happen.

Rabbi Akiba said, “Everything is foreseen [by G-d] but freedom of choice is given.”ⁱ It seems to be a contradiction, but now that we know about DNA it all makes sense. For our DNA is the regulator of what we do. And the Giver of the DNA certainly understands where it will lead and what we will do. Our choices are predictable, but the foreknowledge of what we will choose does not imply control. Thus there is no contradiction between free will and foreknowledge. There is no predestination.

But every solution causes its own problems. Rabbi Akiba certainly didn't know anything about heredity, so he could not have based his view on that. I suspect that he, like all the rest of us, was aware that there was a lot more he did not know than what he did. But for him, there was no source better than the one he used – the Torah.ⁱⁱ Perhaps its pronouncements required interpretation, but their truth was not in question. It contained, after all, the words of G-d. The interpretation of those words, however, no matter how true they themselves might have been, often raised issues which required new understandings – new interpretations of the old. And so it is with heredity and with DNA.

The obvious difficulty is that the idea is based on the concept that G-d is the Creator of all beings, and it follows that He who gave the DNA controlled our future actions in doing so. And to the degree that our decisions are based on the milieu in which we live, and the people surrounding us – people whose actions also result from the DNA assigned to them – each of our actions and responses in this world created by G-d is really controlled and predictable.ⁱⁱⁱ So that makes the belief of Rabbi Akiba one that is difficult to understand. It's just as well that he was unaware of the science we have now. But if free will does not really exist, how can we justify a philosophy of reward and punishment?

Back to square one.^iv

 

Next episode: “Square One” – Another approach. But one that works only if you want it to.

i     Avot, 3:19. A section of the Jewish Talmud.

ii    The five books of Moses. The first section of the Bible.

iii    That's the nurture to go with the nature (DNA).

iv    Actually it's square zero. We're nowhere at the moment. “Square one” implies that we've started.