Welcome to the FSI Website
The purpose here is for any individual to have access to those historical and current ideas relating to individualism as a philosophy for living. The basic contention is that individual experience is the foundation upon which everything else is constructed. As suggested in the Descartes quote above, it all starts with the individual.
New—April 2021
For the last 20 years, I have been compiling my research notes on individualism. God-Sex-Politics: It’s All Relative puts forth the thesis that, over the last 4000 years, individual dignity has been built on a foundation of relative thinking.
The book can be purchased on Amazon.com. If you would like to read it now, you can download it without charge by clicking here:
Best wishes,
Gordon F. Brown
August 24, 2024
Extra-Special Posting: Bill Clinton
As I was outlining the next posting, I heard former President Clinton characterize the primary difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties. I thought he hit the nail on the head. I set the God posting aside, and let my mind run with this distinction. My reflections are organized into five focus points.
1. During Bill Clinton’s DNC presentation, he associated Trump’s focus on himself or “I” and Harris’s focus on “You.” That is an organizer that I see as useful in characterizing the two parties. I have appreciated Clinton’s leadership role in government politics. I agreed with his being characterized as a Democrat who commandeered the Republican agenda—balance the budget and provide incentives to reduce the welfare roles.
2. We can be seen as a nation divided between the “I’s” and the “You’s.” Hegel’s dialectic comes to my mind. Describing the maturation process, Hegel put forth the idea that a “thesis” comes into focus; this leads to the “antithesis”; and this leads to the “Synthesis” where the two positions give rise to an idea that accommodates both. Thousands of years earlier, a similar idea was put forth by the Yin-Yang concept where opposites are combined, such as dark and light.
The “I’s” and “You’s” can be seen as the thesis and antithesis, respectively, or the Yin and Yang. The task before Americans is to discover the synthesis before we destroy ourselves. As for the parties, each denigrates the other; and use the fear that something terrible will happen if the other party wins control.
3. Within the above context, here is one way to characterize Trump and Harris. Trump supports the significance of the “I” as a primary principle. Studies on human maturation can be seen to support maturation as beginning with self-interest or “I.” During maturation, the “I” expands to include others—family, friends, community, and nation. It takes some time, even several generations, to realize even small steps of maturation for a nation. An individual can mature much faster—or not. Arguably, Trump has mastered the “I” at the physical level of maturity; some see him as less clear in rational development. He seems unable to consistently articulate a rational philosophy so that others can work with him. When he criticized Harris for not being as “pretty as me,” he did not reflect a rationally mature political philosophy. His message can be seen as saying “I will do great things for you and for America.”
On the other hand, Harris can be seen as supporting the primacy of the “You’s” to the point of denigrating the significance of individuals, the “I’s.” Her message can be seen as saying that: “Your individual choices are not important. All individuals are to be subordinate to group welfare, and the group will take care of every individual.” Frequently repeated at the DNC was the message of unity—even to the point of suppressing free speech among party members.
4. Come November, America will choose. About half will be pleased and about half will be unhappy with the results. The difference can be seen as the “I’s” or First Amendment Americans versus the “You’s” or Section 8 Americans (U.S. Constitution).
5. Consider a long-range viewpoint. America’s maturity is to be found in a synthesis of the “You’s” and “I’s.” Survival and peace are to be found in common ground within human experience. Fear and hatred can beat your opponent, but only in the short-term. Americans seem to intuitively recognize this principle: Alternate by first giving power to one group and then the other—federally, state-wide, and locally. In a phrase, keep the checks-and-balances working until we mature enough as a nation to embrace the synthesis that removes hate and fear from the agenda. Arguably, the synthesis will be found in Nature and particularly in Human Nature. The Founders pointed the way. Our task is to increase our national integrity as we look to the future. We can be hopeful. The brain of an individual can find common cause between two hands, two eyes, and even two cortical hemispheres.
Returning to regular postings in about 10-20 days with the topic: “God, a Remarkable Concept”
August 16, 2024
Special Posting: Independent Voters
My thoughts on independent voters (independents) can be organized around three headings.
1. Independents have been described as voting one’s own conscience. And again, they vote on issues rather than party ideology. If combined, independents make up a voting group about as large as either of the two major parties. They are united by principle rather than group membership. They make choices using whatever information and experience they have accumulated up to the time of casting a ballot. As for conscience, human nature decrees that one’s conscience is always private, personal, and changing. Independents can be described as not being a cog in someone else’s wheel, but a creator of a cog that could give rise to a wheel.
Independent voters tend to support individuals who emphasize every individual’s freedom-to-choose. When it is time to vote, they vote as individuals for individuals, regardless of what groups may or may not support them. They can be contrasted with those who vote for groups and leave the decision-making up to the group’s leadership.
2. Independents can work best with others who cherish one’s individual freedom to choose above all else. However, joining with others who believe in freedom sets them against those who do not. Government agencies can teach the citizenry how to speak, but not what to speak; how to think, but not what to think. Self-determination describes the independent voter.
The voice of the crowd is only so much noise. A voice said to be representing a group, even if arrived at by democratic procedures, has little to do with actual living. Consider something as simple as selecting a shoe. The variables are numerous: length, width, degree of arch support, and intended activity (tennis, hiking, running, dancing, ballet, or working on a construction site). Cost and appearance may also come into play. A democratically-arrived-at vote would serve only as a distraction. Life is an experience that is unique to each individual.
Individuals can work interactively whenever and wherever common cause exists. Establishing a right to make contracts enables individuals the freedom to offer what they have in exchange for what another has to offer. The value of an offering may be related to the amount of training and expense required, as well as the dynamics of supply and demand. What may be a good fit one day may not be so the following day. Life is always lived in the present moment.
3. There have always been independents that set their top priority as one of being free to choose their own destiny and to grant the same to others. The opposition comes from those that want to form groups for the purpose of dominating others. Independents recognize the desire and impulse of others to control, and they seek to guard against any one group taking control. For freedom-loving independents, the antidote has been to create a system with checks-and-balances. The governance system for the United States puts forth a constitutional democracy providing for three separate and equal branches: An executive branch with term limits representing the will of the people (choice); a legislative branch that creates rules of behavior (physical) to maximize individual freedom; and a judicial branch designed to maximize integrity (rational) among the laws and thereby empowering the citizenry with judicial understanding for the purpose of holding responsible those at the reigns of government. As shown, the three branches parallel our physical-rational-choice triad of human experience.
The Founders of the United States were explicit. Individual freedom was set out in the Declaration of Independence (choice) as the role of government; the U.S. Constitution (physical) sets forth a mind-numbing system of checks-and-balances to insure that government would represent rather than rule over the citizenry; and a Bill of Rights (rational) that puts forth the essentials for prioritizing individual freedom.
Of interest to me is a movement in China that is gaining traction. It’s called the White Papers Movement. Groups of individuals have demonstrated in several countries declaring their support for the movement. The symbol of individual freedom in these demonstrations is an individual holding up a piece of blank white paper. The idea is that each person is demonstrating that he or she wants to write their own destiny, rather than the government prescribing its contents. They can be heard to argue that the Chinese constitution gives them the right to be free as individuals. Some may be sidetracked by focusing on the Communist Party or Xi Jinping. However, as in a game of soccer, attacking the other team only strengthens both sides. Arguably, the Party and Xi are not the issue. The issue has to do with dictatorship and the lack of free speech. China shows how democratic procedures can become a tool of dictators when free speech (association) is suppressed.
Individual freedom can be seen as having its roots in the concept of “tabula rasa”—which is often characterized as “blank slate.” As a philosophical idea, tabula rasa can be traced back to the Stoics (c. 300 BCE); while the phrase “tabula rasa” can be seen to have a Roman origin. John Locke made the concept central to his formulations of human experience, which was heavily relied upon by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. Curiously, Locke (c. 1689) used the term “white paper” to describe the blank slate upon which individuals are born, and upon which the individual or society writes one’s destiny.
Regarding the upcoming vote, Democrats and Republicans will vie for party leadership. Arguably, individual freedom is not assured whenever one party dominates governance. America’s strength is found in the interaction of two or more political parties acting as counter weights. Arguably, what America needs now is the shoring up of its system of checks-and-balances by resisting the impulse of any one party from controlling the nation. It’s the balance of powers that insures the freedom to choose for every American. Perhaps a majority of people would support individual freedom if the only alternative was seen as having others dictate to them.
Returning to regular postings in about 10-20 days with the topic: “God, a Remarkable Concept”
August 1, 2024
Special Posting: DNC—Biden-Harris
With Biden stepping aside, the Party’s presidential candidate will be announced at the Democratic National Convention in about three weeks. Kamala Harris is rapidly gaining support. Looking forward, I would like to (1) share my thoughts with respect to the Democratic Party’s themes over the last 100 years, (2) get a special posting out on the Independents, and (3) get back to my posting on God. As for my first objective, here are three key characteristics of the Democratic Party, followed by three counterpoints.
- Democrats have a rational emphasis. In contrast to the Republican focus on physical power, the Democrats can be seen as focusing on the power of rational ideas. Biden gave a rational basis for his stepping aside as being what was best for “party and country”—two powerful ideas. Additionally, Party rhetoric is typically peppered with claims of knowing the “truth” (borrowed from math), and doing what’s “right” and “good” (borrowed from organized religion). Math can be seen as perhaps the greatest example of rational organizations. As for governance, through reason, a top-to-bottom organization (or chain of command) can be seen to describe the Democrats’ rational approach to governance. Loyalty to the Party is important.
- Equality is a guiding principle. As in math, a rational political system is built on a basic unit. One plus one equals two; and one person plus one more person equals two persons. Whether math or politics, every unit is equal to every other unit. “Everyone is equal”—so they say. Equal pay for equal work has the enchanting ring of rational truth about it. The idea of wealth distribution can be seen as a good thing. As a general guideline: bring down those with more and raise up those with less. “Fair” means equal, and equal means fair. As a political policy, assist the underrepresented such as women and minorities. The idea of equality can be a rational basis for supporting a policy of same-sex marriage. And again, equality can be seen as the basis for being all-inclusive with open borders.
- Democratic procedures are a good fit when the idea of equality reins. Just as 2 is twice as large as 1, so it follows that whatever significance you attribute to 1 is doubled when there are 2. Thus, in a democracy, groups exercise power over individuals, and larger groups exercise power over smaller groups. It can be seen to follow that individual choice is of the least significance. Concern about one’s own benefit is selfish, and that’s a bad thing. Democratic procedures can be used by organized religions when picking their group’s leader. Claiming that God is on your side gives a tone of moral righteousness to a political view. As in organized religions, if the leader is chosen by a democratic vote, the religion can be seen as a good fit with democratically ruled political organizations. The Democratic Party can be seen as expounding and embracing democratic procedures. Their often stated claim that “no one is above the law,” reflects the belief that individuals are subordinate to the laws created by government. This top-down governance can be seen in compulsory labor unions. Such unions can be seen as a good-fit for Democrats.
COUNTERPOINTS:
(1) A rational emphasis is more mature (covers more experience) than a physical emphasis. As for knowing what is “right” and “good,” such value statements can be seen as outside the realm of human experience. That is, they are concepts existing only in an individual’s conscious awareness. An idea, such as the sound of one hand clapping, can be spoken but has no meaning except that uniquely experienced by an individual at a given moment in time. Ideas can, but need not, have any physical counterpart.
(2) Equality can be seen to be in contrast with individual freedom. Governance with an aim of equality nullifies what it means to be human—individual choice means there will be differences. Arguably, people can be seen as spiritually equal, but no observation can support equality in either the physical or rational domains. Even an individual does not remain the same from moment to moment. Equality is a purely rational concept, existing only in the mind of an individual. While 10 individuals plus 10 individuals can rationally be defined as 20 individuals, there is no physical description of an individual of which 20 exist. Only individuals can be said to exist physically, rationally, and in matters of choice; groups of individuals (2 or more), exist only rationally in the mind of an individual. To be human is to be an individual that reflects one’s own choices from moment to moment.
(3) Making democracy primary over individual freedom would require changing the U.S. Constitution if integrity is to be maintained. The 1st Amendment makes individual freedom primary over group rights. As implemented, the Constitutional provision for criminal trials by a jury of one’s peers from one’s community, places individual understanding over any wide-spread consensus. The Declaration of Independence describes individuals as having the right to the “Pursuit of Happiness”; and, every individual has the “duty to throw off such Government” that fails in its duty to secure an individual citizen’s right to pursue freedom. Democratic procedures are rationally powerful, but are not consistent with either American law or its traditions.
Conclusion: Democrats embrace a rational approach to governance. In contrast, Republicans embrace a physical approach to governance. Granted, a rational approach is more mature than a physical approach. Arguably, it would be more mature to embrace a rational approach that can be combined with a physical approach while maintaining integrity. As for combining the physical and rational, the scientific method can be seen as man’s greatest achievement.
Best wishes,
Gordon
July 18, 2024 – 3:30 PM PDT
Special Posting: NRC—Trump
In light of the relative perspective, I want to share with you my impression of the National Republican Convention’s first day. Five points stood out.
- There was a call for “unity”
- The call is under the umbrella of “God and Country”
- It’s a war and we must “fight” in order to win
- “America First” is our priority
- Loyalty to our leader is required
It’s hard for me to reconcile these points with a relative perspective. Taken in order:
First, when individuals have common ground, there is a sense of unity. However, with a call for unity, it can easily morph into an intolerance for differences.
Second, it is easy to say that God and country are on your side. However, there is no way to certify a claim. Historically, many have said that winning demonstrates that God and country are on their side. As for the United States of America, God and country are an individual determination as codified in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson described his position as “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God…” (Baptist Association committee, January 1, 1802); and again, Jefferson authored the constitutional phrase that “legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
Third, a fight can provide a winner. However, offensive fighting has always been the mark of the bully, not the mark of a liberty-loving people.
Fourth, prioritizing America first sounds great. However, it suggests that the welfare of other countries is less important to you than your own. This approach can be observed to fail when applied to relationships between individuals or countries.
Fifth, loyalty to a leader does create power. However, there are any number of examples where what is gained by the sword is eventually taken away by the sword.
Conclusion: For 1st Amendment Americans, individual freedom is the foundation upon which peace and prosperity are built. The five points cited above can be seen as describing what freedom is not. Arguably, one can avoid judging good and evil by saying that these five points simply reflect an immature approach to governance. Perhaps the Party is playing to what they think will resonate with most Americans.
Have a nice day,
Gordon
July 15, 2024
Living Life One Step at a Time
Looking at history’s pool of ideas, we can see that some of those ideas can be combined while maintaining a sense of integrity. Organized into 5 steps, these ideas can be put into a sequence that can be seen as maximizing the big challenge of establishing individual integrity. Here we go.
Step 1: We are spiritual. Conscious awareness is most evident during a quiet time when external stimuli are minimized. Self-evident is that one’s own conscious awareness is personal and private. It is in this sense that life can be seen as an individual activity. The only function of consciousness is to provide the ability to make choices. Animals can do all the rest; and sometimes better, as when it involves running fast or tracking a scent.
Human biology and physiology validate the idea that we do not look out of our eyes, but only perceive a world after being picked up by our sensory system and processed by our nervous system. The only world anyone can know is his/her own world of conscious awareness in the present moment. Life is a dynamic process, and maturity is increased one step at a time.
Step 2: We choose relationships. We can see others as having experiences similar to our own to the degree we assume that their conscious experience includes a similar sensory system and background experience. Our choice of relationship generally began with parents, then peers, then authorities, and then self-governing. Choice of relationship takes us from having less control to having more control. With maturity, we may find that it is the spiritual relationship itself that is primary. Doing something together takes priority over the activity itself. In all of this, we can see ourselves making what we call choices. Self-evident is that our choices give rise to a sense of self-determination.
Step 3: Maximizing integrity can be seen as being hardwired in our physiology—physically, rationally, and among our choices (spiritually). Whatever we choose to focus on, our sensory system will try to maximize integrity. Conversely, we can identify our priorities by taking notice of where we choose to spend our time and to that which we turn our focus. Whether that be a friend or idea, we will seek to find integrity among our interactions. That is, we discover our priorities by looking at where we spend our time. If we spend our time accumulating money, we can then see that physical acquisitions are our priority. If we spend our time researching ideas, then rational considerations are our priority. Most basically, we choose where we put our focus. Thus, in all of this, we are hardwired to maximize integrity. Insight into our current priorities provides us knowledge of our guidance system for making future choices. Our priorities will continue to serve as our guidance system until we choose to change them.
Step 4: We join with others after recognizing that physical power rules as a self-evident observation. Protection, education, and cooperation in common causes are only some of the benefits when individuals are able to work together.
Having a common language is essential when working together. It begins with learning to listen to the point of understanding an idea when presented by another. This is followed by the skill of presenting an idea in such a way as to be understood by another. The greater the listening skill, so will it be with the clarity of one’s speech. Carelessness in speech can be seen as accompanied with a similar level of carelessness in listening. Interpreters can help up to a point, but whoever chooses and monitors the interpreters (media) has power over both parties.
Step 5: We seek to find stability in a world of change. It’s a daunting task. All experiences from birth to death seem to involve change—physically, rationally, and in matters of choice. Stability could be established using a primary referent around which all other choices would be prioritized under it. Such a primary referent would provide a basis for rationally guiding our other choices, including what is embraced and what is excluded.
Change in the primary referent generally would be minor if at all. Given the dynamics of that hardwired integrity, any change in the primary referent may require changing the status and significance of every other experience upon which it was established. It has been likened to being “born again”—reorganizing and prioritizing one’s behavior and thinking. However, depending on the breadth of coverage by the choice of primary referent, a change in circumstances may require addressing a change as when a spouse dies, health or financial setbacks occur, or when a sense of having an “empty nest” takes center stage as children leave and begin their own lives. Such reorganization or being “born again” has been likened to reorganizing the contents of a filing cabinet after one’s interests have changed.
Perhaps the most stable relationships are those grounded in spiritual rather than physical or rational beliefs. For example, a couple may describe themselves as “soul mates.” Their sense of being together continues even after physical and rational considerations change. The house can burn down, and they are prepared to rebuild and do it together. And again, when one’s belief changes, they will talk it through until they find common ground upon which they can build.
Choosing a primary referent can be seen as the most significant choice made during an individual’s lifetime.
Next posting in about 10-20 days with the topic: “God—Historically a Remarkable Concept”
Milton Friedman
You are invited to look over “A Conversation with Milton Friedman.” This one-year, email dialogue between FSI Founder, Gordon F. Brown, and the noted recipient of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences focuses on linking a philosophy of individualism and the theory of free-market economics.
Ray Bradbury
New to this site is A Conversation with Ray Bradbury with Gordon Brown that began in 2007. Ray Bradbury (1920-2012) is a well-known and prolific American author of short stories and fiction with themes consistent with a philosophy of individualism–notably, Farhrenheit 451. [Posted on June 18, 2012]
Brown’s Perspectives and Commentaries
Visit “Brown’s Perspectives and Commentaries” for essays and reflections on a variety of topics related to individualism. Recent additions include:
* US-China Policy–Posted March 12, 2012, this commentary is an aside to my primary focus of writing a treatise that provides a bird’s eye view of individualism as a philosophy based on a relative perspective of reality. When shopping at Trader Joe’s, a casual comment to another customer about the virtues of organic bananas resulted in his mentioning that he was going to China. With China now on my mind, I decided to post on this website some of my thoughts where I consider US-China policy to be a part of a natural maturational process involving induction and deduction. As for putting this commentary on the website, I took note that although we do no advertising, there are over 2000 hits per month with China being a respectable second to US hits.
* Tiger’s Titantic –This commentary, posted December 20, 2009, on Mr. Wood’s current situation is viewed from a relative perspective and takes note of our newsletter in 2002, which can be seen as predicting a significant aspect of this episode.
*Herbert Hoover‘s American Individualism –This commentary, posted October 2008, explores the implications of Hoover’s philosophy of individualism.
“Relativity” is a term we frequently associate with individualism. Our use of the term simply refers to relationships as the basic dynamic underlying human experience. We have provided a link to a series of “Relatively Speaking” newsletters spanning over 25 years.
This is an active site with weekly additions and up-dates. Feel free to leave your comments using our Feedback link.