Various Ideas VII

I've given this series additional consideration, and I suspect that “Various Thoughts” would be a better title for it. I'll call it that in the future. There's not all that much difference between the words “ideas” and thoughts,” at least in the denotations, but there is one (of many) dissimilarity that suggests that “thoughts” may better characterize my goals as I “write” this.

“Idea” is an active word. It presents a situation which may benefit from action. “Thought,” on the other hand, is far more passive. It, too, refer to something crossing the mind, but ”feeling” is all that is is necessary. There's no need to act on some of these views – though you can if that's your wish.

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

My cancer antigen level is decreasing. It's been doing so for the last three months. It gives me hope. Perhaps this represents real improvement which will result in “cure,” or perhaps not, but in the meanwhile it is encouraging. In addition, my appetite is getting better, as is my capacity – not necessarily for a particular meal, but in toto. Those are additional causes for hope.

It's common for people to look for hope wherever they can find it – to find clues, auguries, or other signs that their optimism is well supported. They are likely to see these signs whether or not they are there. And to pick and choose the signs they find, selecting those most favorable to them.

The oracles of ancient Greece understood this and they pronounced their prophesies in terms that could be, in fact would be, interpreted to suit the wishes of the listener. The opposite of what was anticipated was at least as likely, but the listener wasn't interested in any possibility that was contrary to his interests. Seekers of hope chose to understand and believe what they wanted to.

Hope doesn't come with a guarantee. It's only an offshoot of denial, a well-established defense mechanism and it keeps us “up” when we might otherwise be “down.” When we have hope, negative possibilities seem less likely.

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

DNA perplexes me. Not so much the concept of transmission of data as the idea that somehow the particular genes manage to form organism for which they were designed. Take the human being for example (I'm more familiar with that than with Euglena for example). Eye color is clearly a feature that is determined by one or more genes, but each, as far as I know, controls the production of a certain chemical. How does that dictate the color of the eyes? And how does one (or more) chemicals determine the angle of the femoral neck? Or the shape of the stapes?

I can do my calculations about gene frequency, or the likelihood of a particular feature. It's simply and extension of what Mendel taught. But I'm completely unable to understand how the code is translated into structures. And I'll never know.

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

Why do people give charity? There are certainly those who see a need or an injustice and consider it their obligation to try to help, I suspect, however, that they're in the minority. I'd guess that more give out of a sense of guilt. And even more because of pressure, from their friends or from others.

There are also some who give in the expectation of honor they'll receive. I remember, from college days, plaques on buildings, classrooms, and even smaller items, like microscopes. It was important that we see the name of the person who had made the donation. And there may have been a tax advantage for them as well.

Some give willingly – even without being asked. Others not so. And many not at all. There is clearly a religious component to it. The religious give more often and in larger percentages of their earnings than the others. (It's a general rule and is not always correct. Maimonides listed the charitable in the order of their merit. The highest level often involved helping someone find employment so he could support himself and his family.)

And, surprisingly, the “lower classes” often give greater percentages of their income than the rich. That, of course, doesn't describe all of the rich. Many of them have joined together to attack the problems of poverty, disese, and the environment. And there are the wealthy of the past who have established foundations that are still helping those in need. But relative to income, they're in the minority.

Whatever the reasons, society would suffer if no charity were given. There will always be poor – in your community and around the world. And, to the degree possible, we should all help those in physical, educational, and spiritual need, wherever they are.

Guess Again

We're all competitive. It's our nature. Nature. Evolution. Survival. Why do you think we're called the human “race?” It's because we're always racing against each other.ⁱ Our goal is to win.

We don't want to keep up with the Joneses, we want them to try to keep up with us. And fail. We all want to be ahead of the curve. Listen to a conversation sometime, on almost any subject, and someone will be bragging about how he thought of something or did something or said something before any of the others in the group. Or elsewhere.

Or even that he's funnier. Do you remember “Can You Top This?” It was a program mostly in the 1940's in which participants vied for the funniest joke. We're forever trying to top everyone else in one way or another. We're always looking for the edge and we're always looking for a way to exploit it.

And it's always been that way. Among “wild”ⁱⁱ species it started with the need to eat, and the battles for food – whether that meant vegetable species growing naturally or other species which were, themselves, the desired objects. That was the Law of the Jungle. Kill or be killed; dog eat dog. In addition there was an impulse to protect territory which also involved competition and battles. And, of course, there were always confrontations regarding the choice of sexual partners. Our weapons might have been vocal, visual, or physical, but the need to mate, and the instinct to choose the most worthy partner, prompted dangerous, and often fatal, rivalries to occur.ⁱⁱⁱ

Not much has changed in millions of years, although some of the motives for combat are now illegal. Territory, food (and other resources including money), and sex remain among the most important “justifications,” but our fellow humans have added a few more reasons, including wrath, envy, and some of the other deadly sins – especially pride. Once they've attained the position they want in the pack, and obtained the prizes they sought, the “lower animals” are done. They're not afflicted with most of the emotional issues we have, so they don't feel the need to display the various conceits that plague us. They don't have to prove that they're smarter, more devious, better connected, and otherwise more worthy than those with whom they interact. But some of us are certainly^iv (or consider ourselves) are naturally better than the others, and we demonstrate it in any way we can. Even apart from war and other forms of mayhem and megalomania.

Superiority may be physiognomic, and for that we've developed beauty contests; it may be athletic and highly valued by sports promoters; it may be intellectual with its manifestations demonstrated on tests and in spelling bees, or in chess matches; it may be commercial with the prize going to the most gifted entrepreneur. You get the idea. The early bird may be satisfied with the worm, but we want praise in addition to the worm. Thus the competition. It's important to us to get the recognition that goes with the achievement itself. That's what the Guinness Book is all about. Most of the “records” are inane and result from self-promotion by some fool who makes the largest mud-pie, or eats the most Brussels sprouts. And there will, of course, be other fools who set out to break that record, or create a new one. Unlike the “lower” animals, people seek fifteen minutes of fame even if that entails the most perverted forms of reality or the most perverted “reality” shows. As Art Linkletter said, “People Are Funny.”^v

Those are some of the formal competitions which we have established, but our practice of feigned superiority extends well beyond that and into our thought, speech, and actions. Consider the back-seat driver, or the Monday morning quarterback, or even the kibbitzer at a card game. They all know better than the one they criticize. And after the fact they do especially well. It's that 20/20 hindsight thing. Second-guessers are always right. Even when they're wrong. Indeed, being wrong can be turned to competitive advantage. “If your way – which wasn't very good – was helpful^vi (and it wasn't all that helpful) imagine how much my way would have accomplished.”

Among the contests, though, is one that we're not likely to imagine, but it's one that is quite illustrative of our thinking. It's linguistic. Guess what it is? That's the challenge. To guess. And that's what the other person is always doing: guessing. His ideas are always offered without information and without analysis. That's the way the other guy works. And that's why you're superior to him. He guesses, but you think. His focus is on guessing and second-guessing. They're designed to show off his knowledge both before and after the fact. His approach is to show off. His goal is prestige, and his tactic is one-upmanship.

But you're better than that. You think. You analyze. You prefer the wisdom of of reasoned consideration to the sophistry of debates. And if you have second thoughts, you can demonstrate how you arrived at them with irrefutable logic. They're not second-guesses, they're reasoned thoughts.^vii It makes sense to reconsider your position when appropriate, and that's what you do. Perhaps you shoulda' said something else, but you're wise enough to offer your revised view in a calm, thoughtful, reasoned manner.

You don't need to second-guess. That's for the other guy. You've got a better gimmick. And everyone around will recognize that your approach is superior to his. That was your goal, wasn't it? You win.

Next episode: “Who Wants To Know?” – Would you like to be my friend?

I        Actually the terms, as applied to the contest of speed and the origin of physical characteristics, have different roots but both, in their own ways, bespeak competition. In fact, among humans, the struggle between races often rises well above the levels of opposition experienced anywhere else. A “running” battle exists between what we consider races.

ii       Many would include humans in this group.

iii     Even plants strive with each other for space, water, sunlight, nutrients, and success in spreading (including attracting organisms that will aid in pollination). That's what evolution is all about. If you don't believe in evolution ignore this note, but the competition still exists.

iv      Me, for example. If you disagree, you're wrong.

v       The show was actually created by John Guedel.

vi      And if “your way” hadn't accomplished all you declared it would, you can be sure that you'd hear “I told you so.” You can't win against a second-guesser.

vii     Thoughts are always preferable to guesses. Thoughts are the tools of the wise; guesses the hatchets of fools.