"From Me to You" Series
November 22, 2024
Ultimate Weapon of Destruction
Weapons can be designed to destroy the physical body, the rational mind, or an individual’s will to choose. The spirit of choice can be seen as most significant in that it is uniquely human. While physical freedom to move about and the freedom to reason are necessary, as for human experience these two freedoms only serve to bring an individual to the threshold of making choices. From this perspective, the ultimate human achievement is finding integrity among one’s spiritual choices; and the ultimate weapon is that which can destroy one’s ability to develop integrity among one’s own spiritual choices.
Arguably, most individuals were taught as children to give up their will to choose. It began when parents taught them to judge in terms of right and wrong. As some psychologists would put it, they were taught an external locus of control (LOC) as distinct from an internal LOC.
Learning to be guided by others continued when schooling began—albeit, more refined. It is an approach where children are presented with contradictions as if they were not contradictions. What happens is that most children come to think that their lack of understanding is the result of their own deficiency. Consequently, they simply begin to repeat whatever the teacher has put forth. When they do, they are given praise and social recognition (even from their parents). On the other hand, for those who do not conform, they are publicly labeled as “failures”—and somewhat shunned. Over time, the child becomes alienated from his/her own sense of spiritual understanding and simply repeats what is provided. John Holt observed this process and described it in his best-selling book “How Children Fail” (see his summary section). It was his experience that once a child (about 5th grade) replaced internal understanding with what an authority instructs, the return to self-trust did not occur. For adults, there is the best selling 1984 by George Orwell. Here we have the idea of “double think” as a tool disabling an individual’s ability to think outside the box of government’s directives. And then there is the role of drugs. For decades, drugs have been used to help the child focus on what they are told. In Brave New World, Revisited, Aldus Huxley describes the practice of dispensing drugs (soma) by the government to make people happy and submissive.
Notably, just about everyone will have periods of rebellion. At about 15-years-old, many individuals begin to experience an interest in developing their own sense of integrity (internal LOC). Their choice of peers replaces parents when seeking advice. They may spend time alone and reflect on their sense of being an individual with the ability to makes choices. Notably, they may not realize the baggage they are carrying from earlier experiences. Every new thought is interpreted in a “best fit” to all previous sensory input. It is a tough slog to change old habits. As Hermann Hesse put it (Siddhartha, By the River), “I have had to experience so much stupidity, so many vices, so much error, so much nausea, disillusionment and sorrow, just in order to become a child again and begin anew.”
What’s God got to do with it? During those teenage quiet times when one’s focus is turned to a spiritual force, it would be common to share such experiences with one’s friends. Depending on one’s environment, individuals may be directed to professional religious leaders—or religious leaders may come looking for them. Consider that virtually all religious leaders will direct those seeking guidance to writings and prophets thought by them to be sacred or inspired by God. Notably, what happens is that what began as a personal, internal experience morphs into an external experience established by a group—that is, from an internal LOC to an external LOC. As with parents and public school teachers, religious leaders will claim knowledge of good and evil, and seek to guide everyone toward the good and away from the evil. Arguably, virtually all such religious guidance directs the individual away from a personal belief and relationship with God and towards rituals and doctrines formulated by others.
If human nature is to be taken into account, spiritual understanding can be found only by looking inward during those quiet times when one’s focus turns to a spiritual Force.
Anticipating the next posting in about 10-20 days with the topic: “Spirit of Christmas.”
November 6, 2024
Generations of Bullies
Any individual who says my will should prevail over your will is a bully; any group who says our will should prevail over your will is a bully. As for God, any individual who says my image of God should prevail over your image of God is a bully; and any group who says our image of God should prevail over your image of God is a bully.
We begin with nature and particularly human nature. As nature would have we it, each individual is the captain of his/her own ship. Our choices guide our course through life. Choices are neither physical nor rational. They are spiritual. Choices are what we can observe, while the individual experience of making a choice is spiritual in that it is unseen and private to the individual. Again, as nature would have it, no one is in a position to dictate spiritual choices over another.
Our sailing may be smooth, or not. There are storms that could sink us. There are pirates seeking their self-interests. Hopefully, there are others with whom we can interact and establish rules of the road to maximize every individual’s freedom to choose.
Pirates are bullies who seek to impose their will over others. They sail under different flags. Our P-R-C triad can serve to group them. Physically, they can be found on playgrounds and with local gangs where the will of the stronger prevail over the weaker. Rationally, bullies are found in schools where teachers dispense the truth to which every individual is to be subordinate or gets a failing grade. As for choice, these bullies can be found in churches, government agencies, and with authoritarian parents. They make spiritual choices to which those under their control are to be subordinate.
Some bullies dictate in the name of God. These bullies claim to know the will of God, and proclaim that those who do not obey the will of God—as they see it—will be punished. They preach the message that God is a bully—do His will (as they see it) or be punished. Citing books and prophets, these truth-givers have no limit to the deaths they can instigate. Historically, we have had battles between bullies, as in the 30-years war between Catholics and Protestants. Today’s conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza can be seen as driven by truth-givers acting in the name of God. [See boxed comment below]
Notably, bullies act outside the realm of human experience. We can be told by a bully that this book or this prophet reflects the will of God and requires our subordination. However, such a belief is not a belief in God, but a belief in the bully giving us a message.
Arguably, human nature requires a personal relationship between an individual and God for an individual to have a belief in God.
The leaders of both Israel and Gaza claim that the Almighty is on their side—Jewish God and Muslim Allah. In Russia, over 70% of the people identify as Russian Orthodox. Putin’s war with Ukraine has been spiritually justified by the Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Kirill. Kirill described as “God’s truth” that the people of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus share a common spiritual and national heritage and should be united as one people. From this point of view, Russia is not attacking a sovereign nation-state; it’s restoring the spiritual relationship between two countries.
Anticipating next posting in about 10-20 days with the topic: “Ultimate Weapon of Destruction”
October 22, 2024
The Story of Reuben
It’s a story from 1918. Reuben Granger, an older boy at Flanagan’s Home for Boys (now boys and girls), was carrying a younger boy, Howard Loomis. Howard, who had been abandoned by his mother, was disabled by polio, and wore heavy leg braces making it especially difficult for him to go up or down steps. One day, Father Flanagan noticed Reuben carrying Howard and asked Reuben if carrying Howard was hard. Reuben responded by saying, “He ain’t heavy, Father…he’s m’ brother.”
We can take note that even as a young man, Reuben could experience the spiritually of connecting with another person. They are not physical (biological) brothers, and they are not rational brothers linked by contract where disputes are resolved by strangers in courts of law. They are spiritual brothers linked by Reuben’s choosing to interact. Also, we can take note that Reuben could share his experience with another person and describe the experience as requiring less energy than otherwise expected.
We can see our spiritual brothers as those with whom we choose to interact. We need not be paid for our services, and we are not being directed to do so by convention or authority. Our acts exclusively reflect our self-interest. There may be times when our contributions are not appreciated by the recipients simply because they are immature as it is with children and some adults. Some donors prefer being anonymous without expectations of being recognized by a “thank-you” or “God bless you.” The actions of such contributors reflect their own sense of spiritual integrity and a private matter known only to them.
Here is another story. There was the time when a 7th grader, while mowing lawns for summer money, stepped back and reflected on his job before leaving. The yard had a 3-foot brick wall around it. The concrete mortar extended out about an inch. It was a popular style. There were no weed wackers (powered grass trimmers) in those days. The grass was trimmed with hand shears—a hard task for a youngster. He remembered a few blades of grass wedged against the concrete that he had left unclipped and considered going over and clipping them. “Who would know?” he questioned. Obviously no one would know or care. Even so, with hands still sore, he walked over and cut the few blades of grass. He would know, and he would do it just for himself. For years after that, he was guided by that sense of spiritual integrity.
As Shakespeare put it: “To thyne own self be true.” Many young people experience a moment of spiritual integrity, and a few find joy in using such experiences as a guiding light while traveling down life’s pathway.
Anticipating the next posting in about 10-20 days with the topic: “Generations of Bullies”
October 1, 2024
God—Historically a Remarkable Concept
- We can go straight to the point: Historically, some people claim to have a direct relationship with God, and that others can do the same. The relationship is one involving an interaction directly between the consciousness of God and the consciousness of the individual—as in spirit to spirit. All it takes is for an individual to turn his/her conscious focus to this Force called God. Every culture throughout recorded history has expressed such experiences in both their writings and art.
- Now for a little fill-in: As it is often reported, the experience is private and unique to each individual at a given moment in time. It is a unique interaction in that no one other than God can directly access an individual’s conscious experience, and this only happens when an individual chooses to turn his/her conscious focus to God. Some report a sense of presence, particularly when the noise and demands of the world are minimized. This may occur when alone in a forest setting or driving a car on a road with few other cars. Perhaps ironically, a similar sense of aloneness can be felt when in a noisy crowd as found in a Las Vegas casino or at a party where no one is communicating. In such settings, when one turns his/her own focus to that Force, ideas come that otherwise do not come. Additionally, connections among everyday experiences are seen in a way not seen otherwise. Working with others is enhanced when they are also seeking a relationship with God.
- Alternatively, for those who reject a personal relationship with God, some of whom create images of God and worship those images. Historically, the worship of images has been termed idolatry. That is, you create an image and then worship the image you have created. They form groups and select a leader who acts as mediator between God and the group. The bigger the group, the less one’s self awareness—lost in the crowd, so to speak. It is believed that God tells the leaders how to guide the flock of followers. Some leaders claim that they were called by God to take a leadership role on His behalf. To fulfill this role, God gave them knowledge of good and evil. Within this context, the responsibilities of leaders are both broad and intense. Claiming that God is on their side, some leaders will guide their group into taking over a competing group—peacefully if possible, and through war if necessary. And again, there are instances when a stronger or more established leader takes over another’s flock by creating a negative image of the competing leader so as to bring about his removal. Then, a new image is created to which the total flock can worship. Sometimes groups will be combined by rallying around the lowest common denominator or in the name of equality. In all of this, successful leaders become stronger and enforce a belief in top-down decision-making.
With a God-given ability to distinguish good from evil, leaders provide guidance regarding how to be good and avoid evil. One tradition contends that everyone is evil to some degree, and a sacrifice is required to off-set evil with something good. A blemish-free adult, child, or animal has been used for this purpose. Furthermore, when leaders judge a follower as good, it gives rise to a sense of self-righteousness in the follower along with an expectation of rewards. On the other hand, when the leader judges someone evil, it gives rise to a sense of sin and deserving of punishment along with increased subordination to the leader. To avoid punishment, leaders can provide a few words, if uttered, can save one from punishment. Additionally, leaders have the role of identifying writings that they claim are words from God. Then, in God’s name, the leader can interpret such writings and use them to guide the flock.
It can be observed that some leaders will modestly accept praise as when a day is set aside to honor them or when putting their names and images on buildings, monuments, and streets. While making a public showing of humility when accepting praise, notice will be taken of those who withhold such praise and they become targets for shunning and denigration.
- Returning to those who believe in a direct relationship between an individual and God: It has been described as a walk where today’s steps are guided by yesterday’s understanding. Over time, change can be seen as a maturational process as one’s own integrity expands to cover an increasing number of experiences. It’s all built on faith, given that an individual can’t know God or even know himself. What is knowable is the interaction between God and the individual. For many, it is significant that the spirit-to-spirit relationship can address the matter of death. Physical death creates a barrier to achieving meaning and purpose in life. In this regard, an ancient Greek idea, inspired by the Myth of Sisyphus, describes physical life as pushing a rock up a hill only for it to roll down at the time of death. However, while the physical body may physically die, the non-physical spirit could continue if the God of Nature simply chooses to establish another point of contact between the conscious spirit of God and the conscious spirit of the individual. Additionally, a sense of meaning and purpose could be achieved with a belief that the Force creating human nature has integrity, and it can be seen to follow that all human experience could be rationally integrated. There can be a deep sense of satisfaction when feeling one is living a life having integrity. For now, the relationship is just a matter of non-judgmentally sharing one’s experiences with God and letting God respond however He chooses. Said another way, “Let God be God and let me be me.”
- Closing: As human nature would have it, no person is in a position to judge another—or even one’s self, for that matter. They can make contracts such as “You don’t kill me and I won’t kill you” and let’s agree to all drive on the same side of the street. By extension, incarceration is for the protection of the citizenry and not reflecting a moral judgment calling for punishment. We take note that, arguably, advocating anything other than a direct relationship between God and an individual is outside the realm of human experience. While one can follow a leader, this reflects a belief in the leader and not a belief in God. And again, believing a book’s writings to be from God is not the same as a belief in God.
The belief in a direct and non-judgmental relationship between God and the individual has a long history: (a) The writer of Genesis (2:17) cautioned against claiming to have knowledge of good and evil. Even more to the point, doing so is the one act that separates the individual from having a relationship with God and leads to all other missteps. (b) An idea attributed to Jesus was not to judge (Luke 6:37), but to have a direct interaction as when you “go to your closet and turn your thoughts to God” (Matthew 6:6, KJV). (c) The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prioritizes individual rights when it comes to religion. As Virginia’s representative George Mason (1787) put it: “I’d rather cut off my hand than put it to signing a constitution without a bill of individual rights. More recently, the 1977 movie Star Wars immortalized the phrase “May the Force Be With You” [according to its creator, George Lucas, the phrase was lifted from a 1963 film by Arthur Lipsett]. “May the Force Be With You” can be seen as a salutation befitting those who believe in a personal relationship between God and the individual.
Anticipating the next posting in about 10-20 days with the topic: “The Story of Reuben”
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: RNC—Trump
In light of the relative perspective, I want to share with you my impression of the Republican National 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”
June 25, 2024
God as an Agnostic
Let’s agree that the painting says something about the painter, and the sculpture says something about the sculptor. If there is a God that created nature, and human nature in particularly, we can learn something about God by looking at man.
It is self-evident that the beginning of life was not the individual’s decision, and the time of its ending is not known or knowable (suicide is perhaps an exception). Additionally, it can be seen as self-evident that human experience is an individual matter. No other person can peek into my conscious experience, and neither can I peek into that of another.
Arguably, man lives life as an individual in a world of experience where “not knowing” is the primary directive. While choosing to live may be foundational, one’s life can end at any moment as a result of a slip and fall, heart attack or stroke, an auto accident by someone texting or being intoxicated, an earthquake or tornado, a bout of covid or when being ravaged by cancer, or a home break-in or leaky gas line. Examples could fill a book and still there would be more. Even the immediate future is uncertain, and the past is a matter of continuing re-interpretation.
Here’s the point. If a God created human life, it was done with the provision that “not knowing” was to be the human condition. “Not knowing” is the definition of the tem “agnostic.” “Not knowing” is to every human individual what the blank canvas is to the painter, and the quarried stone is to the sculptor. Any changes are the result of individual choice. It is in this way that the created says something about the creator.
From this perspective, the human condition is one where “not knowing” leads to choice, and choice and “not knowing” bring us to faith. Thus, the basic principle of achieving a fulfilled life is living by faith—each of us is painting our own self-portrait and sculpting our own sense of identity.
As the existentialist puts it: “Existence precedes essence.” As the theist may put it, an individual can choose to have a relationship with God without knowing or needing to know the characteristics of God separate from one’s personal relationship. Of all the ideas published over the last 4,000 years, this approach to living can be seen as being the most enduring and having the most integrity regarding human experience.
Since my teenage years I have studied such an approach. While these postings focus on a given topic, the general context when the parts are put together are set forth in God-Sex-Politics: It’s All Relative. The book is available with a free download on the first page of this website. In it, historical references are made to those who have shared their perspective that the way to a fulfilling life is based on each individual choosing and prioritizing their relationships. The names of those who stand out to me include: Jeremiah, with his prediction that every individual will personally come to know God; Socrates, with his position that the unanalyzed life is not worth living; Jesus, with his guidance for spending time with God by going to one’s closet and closing the door; and Learned Hand when he declared that “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help.” The idea of individual liberty has never been arrived at by a democratic majority or the voice of the crowd and its leaders. It has always been advocated by individuals and embraced as a matter of personal choice.
Anticipating next posting in 10-20 days with the topic: “Living Life One Step at a Time”
June 5, 2024
Integrity Lost-and-Found
Here are five distinct focus points:
1. Birth—On the Receiving End
From birth, the child receives care in the way of food and shelter. Add Harlow’s research, and there is the addition of tactual comfort. All are required for survival. From infancy, the newborn is gathering stimuli. The eyes look about and take notice of anything unusual, which is just about everything. Typically, there is bonding to a primary referent such as a parent or caregiver. Bonding is increased with interaction. It’s a stimulus-response connection. The infant smiles (perhaps reflexively) and the parent responds with eye contact. There was a New York study at a well-funded infant-care living facility. The study sought to understand how it was that some infants seemed to be doing better than others. The results identified that some infants were simply more approachable than others. They would smile at passing nurses, who would then pick them up and talk to them. Improved health led to more smiling and more smiling led to improved health. Nurses were then instructed to increase contact with the less engaging infants.
2. Losing One’s Integrity
Parents as Primary Referent. For most children, parents choose the environment in which the child is exposed. Arguably, if the parents survived in the environment, they would be in a position to pass on survival skills to their children. It’s the same with bears. However, the lessons from mamma bear are aimed toward independence; while the human mamma’s lessons are often aimed at dependence. Some parents convey an authoritarian message fostering dependence and subordination. We have seen it. The mother is walking with child in hand while intently looking forward or focusing on a smart phone. The child is trying to keep up while being pulled along as it were a dog on a leash. The child is learning that this is a physical world to which you fit in and that others are in control.
The child can try to exercise some influence by smiling or crying, but the dominant influences are those chosen by the parent. Additionally, parents provide an environment that teaches morals including acceptable behavior—what is good and bad, and right and wrong. I’ve heard some parents describe themselves as letting the child make up his/her own mind. However, there is an unspoken agenda when schedules are made that provide for no free time.
In the early formative years (about 5), most children are put under the control of teachers and preachers. The general message is that others know about a world of truths and goodness that exists independently of them and to which they are to submit or be admonished.
Teachers of Academics. Truth-giving teachers argue that “reason” is the guiding light for finding the pathway to a meaningful life. Some parents (often teachers themselves) will send their children to private schools where the worship of “reason” is unquestioned.
What we can observe during these early school years is that learning has stopped for many children. Holt, in his best selling book How Children Fail, describes what leads to a child’s reliance on others rather then on his/her own sense of personal integrity. The technique involves the use of presenting contradictions as if they had integrity. The child does not see through the ploy, and comes to believe that his/her lack of understanding is the result of his/her own deficiency. Self-trust is replaced by a trust in whatever the teacher has to say. Holt argued that by about the 4th Grade, many children become alienated from their own self-confidence, and they desire only to respond by giving the right answers as put forth by those in charge. By about the 5th Grade, Holt observed that this dependency appeared to be irreversible.
Applied to national politics, Huxley had made the same point earlier in his classic work, 1984. He used the phrase “double think” (which became known as “double speak”). When exposed to contradictions that are presented by authorities, people will follow such leaders and no longer recognize contradictions as unintelligible.
With the loss of personal integrity, there is a void. No problem. Children are directed to gain identity by competing and prevailing over others. From a spelling bee to a contact sport like football, you demonstrate that you are made of the right stuff by beating your competition. Getting above average grades does the same. Linking yourself to winners by attending a rally or by providing monetary support serves the same purpose. Some find it inspirational to watch a cock fight while rooting for their favorite contender. Winning is good, it creates heroes that are eulogized as models for others. Parents and teachers who help you become a winner will openly take some credit for your accomplishments.
Teachers of Morals: Telling others what they should choose to do with their lives is the job of these teachers of morals. Some say they are called by God and that God talks to them. They declare what God commands people to do under the threat of punishment in this life or in an afterlife. When children embrace particular moral instructions regarding good and evil, a fundamental barrier is erected between them and others who have been taught different beliefs.
Children taught that their government is under God, get the message that individual choices are insignificant. The role of the individual becomes that of being loyal to one’s country. Singing God Bless America is a good thing, as is pledging allegiance to one’s country. It follows that eradicating evil is one’s primary duty, and the government and moral teachers will point out who is the enemy. History is replete with stories of bloody wars which are described as establishing whose God is the more powerful—and made of the right stuff.
3. Stress from Integrity Lost
The search for individual integrity can be seen throughout life. There are the “terrible two’s” when the child discovers the word no. Then there are the preteen years where peers replace parents as a primary referent. This can be followed by the teen years when a sense of stability is sought with a best friend forever (BFF) commitment. As a young adult, stability may be sought by making a marriage contract with the provision “until death do us part.” Joining a group can be seen as providing security and identity—until it doesn’t.
Adulthood may be accompanied by a sense of realizing that nothing seems to bring a sense of fulfillment. Benefits from accumulating money and maintaining health by exercising and eating a balanced diet, fall short of being satisfying when once achieved. Compounding the sense of void are the disappointments regarding one’s expectations involving children, a significant other, and even one’s own spouse.
Many of the teachers and preachers now are seen as critically flawed. Distress can be compounded if the messages provided are seen as not only false, but that the purveyors knew (should have known) that their messages were critically flawed. Looking back, it began with the message of Santa Clause. This bold-face deception was designed to encourage the trusting child to be “nice” and not “naughty.” Over time, such deceptions became the norm, even though the actors were now dressed in suits and skirts. A smile becomes beguiling as does a hug and a kiss.
Furthermore, group leaders are exposed as committed only to maintaining the group, even at the expense of individuals When individuals realize that the group and its leader cannot be trusted, some will become cynical with a Don Quixote vision of seeing evil behind every short-coming; others turn on themselves and extinguish whatever light remains within them.
The road is wide that carries disappointment, but there is a road less traveled that has been described throughout the ages as leading to a sense of integrity and personal fulfillment—see “Daily Quotes” on this site.
4. Finding One’s Integrity
It begins with turning inward. As Swedish economist, diplomat, and Secretary-General of the United Nations Dag Hammarskjoid put it: “The longest journey is inward” (cited in Markings). And again, as Romana Anderson put it: “People spend a lifetime searching for happiness; looking for peace. They chase idle dreams, addictions, religions, even other people, hoping to fill the emptiness that plagues them. The irony is the only place they ever needed to search was within.”
When turning inward, at first there may be an uncomfortable sense of being alone. We observe that our experience is unique and momentary. We experience life for one moment and then we change. As for that uniqueness, when listening to a song, we understand that no one hears it exactly the same way we do. Perhaps it brings back memories unique to our generation. Our experience is necessarily private and different than what others are experiencing.
Then there is the sense that we are captain of our own ship. Taking control of our life requires realizing that we are capable of making choices. When something feels right both physically and rationally, we can act accordingly. While considering the suggestions of those with relevant experience, we do not rely on others for validation—whether they be recognized authorities, friends, or even a spouse. As captain, we come to understand that we are responsible for the decisions we make. As Theodore Parker put it: “I have done wrong things enough in my life, and do them now; I miss the mark, draw bow, and try again” (cited in William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience). With maturity, we learn to reflect before and after making serious choices. Many report that reflection is best done when alone and away from the crowd. We experience the joy and agony of being free to choose from what we see as alternatives available to us.
When we miss our mark, we experience tension. We learn to reduce this tension through some muscle system. The options for reducing tension are manifold, everything from laughing to crying. Some enjoy twirling a pencil between their fingers. Whatever!
A quote from Hermann Hesse (Siddhartha, By the River) may be comforting when first beginning to look inward: “I have had to experience so much stupidity, so many vices, so much error, so much nausea, disillusionment and sorrow, just in order to become a child again and begin anew.” Becoming a child again or “born again” as some put it, involves rediscovering our childhood sense of wonder.
For me it was remembering my childhood experiences in the Northwest on the shores of Puget Sound. It was about 1942 when I would watch crabs standing their ground as they braced on their hind quarters with their large pincher raised toward me. I was captivated with their sense of identity.
Those memories came back to me when reading a book by Rachel Carson. Carson, a marine biologist, was a well known author after publishing her best selling The Sea Around Us (1951) and Silent Spring (1962). In 1955, Carson began taking notes of her time with Roger, her 20-month old nephew. Long story short: She introduced Roger to Maine’s rocky shores, and marveled at the child’s inborn sense of wonder when experiencing everything from the “living music” of insects to sitting in a tide pool. As Rachel observed Roger, she became aware of her own childhood sense of wonderment. At 56 years old, Carson died from breast cancer in 1964. Her notes describing her time with Roger were published a year later titled The Sense of Wonder.
The point here is that we can begin building our world of personal integrity by rediscovering our childhood sense of wonder. Watching a child can be inspiring, a walk in the park can clear our minds of social demands, and reflecting on the time we spent playing with our dog taught the lesson that we are capable of caring. We took notice when giving a gift because we felt like it, and not because it was a holiday or birthday. In all of this our sense of void was being filled.
5. Networking
Power rules. To protect their individual interests, people form small groups. For the same reason, smaller groups become increasingly larger. Some groups can be seen as formed around biological heritage, while others are formed simply around shared interests. Individuals join and support existing groups that promise them benefits—physical-rational-choice. Groups can compete for dominance or unite for mutual benefits.
Notably, war enhances a group’s integrity by requiring complete allegiance to its leader. Leaders strengthen their positions by focusing the group’s attention on the threat posed by their adversary—whether real or imagined.
History can be seen to teach us that pushing back on your adversaries leads to the strengthening of both sides. The same dynamic can be seen in sports such as soccer. Virtue may only rarely become a contributing factor. Cain was killed by Abel; Socrates was put to death by the truth-givers of his day; Jesus was killed by his own religious leaders; Joan of Arc was burned alive by the very religious leaders she was said to be trying to save. Ironically, they later all came to be held in great reverence.
Again, power rules. If there is going to be peace, it requires a rational idea capable of unifying competing groups. Historically, humanity can be seen as searching for a group that is either powerful enough to subjugate all adversaries, or wise enough to find a common interest to which just about everyone would voluntarily embrace. As for the latter, self-interest has frequently been put forth as an idea that could bring about widespread support. A public policy of maximizing individual freedom can be seen as a good fit for maximizing self-interest. It has been put forth as a provision guaranteeing freedom of speech, press, and religion for every individual. Individually, we can join together in support of those who share our aspiration for a full and satisfying life that is one of our own choosing.
Anticipating the next posting in about 10-20 days with the topic: “God is an Agnostic”
May 10, 2024
Lessons from Science
Using our primary organizer of human experience (physical—rational—choice), science can be seen as a method for linking our physical and rational domains of experience. Modern-day science (since 1900) does not address the matter of choice. It can tell us how to get from point A to point B, but not whether we should go. That is, knowing how to put a man on the moon is not the same as actually choosing to go there. Science can serve humanity, but never be its master.
We will keep the limitations of science in the background while focusing on the contributions made by the scientific method for finding integrity within the physical and rational domains of human experience. The building blocks of science begin with facts defined as measurements that are publicly observable and repeatable. Facts are published in journals so that any individual could reproduce the method and make a personal observation of the measurements. Rather than authoritarian, science is accountable to every individual. Even one individual can challenge a fact, and modify its future use.
When I went to high school, we were taught as fact that human cells were made up of 24 pairs of chromosomes. That is, in 1921, Theophilus Painter had published his finding of 24 pairs of chromosomes. It had been taught as fact for 35 years. However, in 1955, an Indonesian born researcher in Belgium observed that there were only 23 pairs of chromosomes. As partners, Joe Hin Tjio and Albert Levan, had developed a new method for preparing the solution when isolating human chromosomes. Then, Joe Hin Tjio used the method for counting the number of human chromosomes. He counted 23 pairs rather than 24. In 1956, Joe Hin Tjio as author and Albert Levan as co-author published the findings. The method and findings were reproducible. In 1957, my college course had already changed the fact that human cells have 23 rather than 24 pairs of chromosomes. It is in this way, that the scientific method is self-correcting. What’s inspiring about science is that a non-PhD named Joe could publish his method and findings, and change our understanding of a 35-year-old fact. That’s awesome!
Science is a process: first inductive (parts to whole), then deductive (whole to parts), and then inductive again. Physically observed measurements (facts) are rationally combined into laws and theories. When you build a bridge, you do so in light of your understanding of the specific laws (stress) and general theories (gravity) applicable to bridges. If the bridge comes down during an earthquake, you have new facts with which to modify your theory, and you are then in a position to improve the rebuilding. It’s the same after an airplane crash. Some have likened the process to mountain climbing. After climbing to the top of a mountain, you are in a position to see an even higher mountain. Most people resist descending from the mountain they are on—even when they know of a higher mountain. As Nobel recipient physicist Max Planck put it: People don’t change, they simply die and a new generation grows up with different experiences.
Changes in science can occur without violence. While everyone is free to consider their own laws and theories, the facts must be self-evident to any inquirer. Laws and theories are tested only for rational integrity with respect to the physical facts. Scientists can actually come together for a conference—with minimal violence.
Science promotes an environment of individual freedom. While the crowd may find safety in the path most traveled, any individual can choose to take a path less traveled. The scientific literature is replete with examples of discoveries by individuals who went it alone—sometimes enduring ridicule and even shunning by influential members of the scientific community. Even when ridiculed and shunned by the crowd, the mature scientist can find solace in a sense of personal integrity.
Science demonstrates that all knowledge is relative to the individual perceiver. While many variables can be controlled, the scientist is always viewing nature through his/her senses. As eminent historians Will and Ariel Durant put it: “We must operate with partial knowledge, and be provisionally content with probabilities; in history, as in science and politics, relativity rules, and all formulas should be suspect.” (The Lessons of History, 1968, p. 13)
That’s it! We have (1) an alternative to authoritarian rule, (2) a process that matures over time, (3) change without violence, (4) a rational approach toward individual freedom, and (5) an understanding of how all human experience is relative. Taken together, the contributions of science made in the past are remarkable. Looking forward, modern-day science can light the way for any individual seeking understanding in how the physical world of personal experience can be rendered rationally intelligible.
As humans, we can be seen as well-positioned to address the domain of choice.
[For those interested in my perspective regarding the development of science, see below.]
Anticipating the next posting in about 10 days with the topic: “Integrity Lost and Found”
ADDENDUM: THE BIRTH AND GROWTH OF SCIENCE
Here is a bird’s-eye-view of my understanding of modern-day science. You can check out the degree of overlap with your own. I could go back to Adam and Eve or Alexander the Great, but I simply choose to begin in the early 1700s with a group called the British Empiricists.
They were interested in studying the philosophy of human experience. The early focus began by taking note that the human body is a sensory organ. Next, it followed that all human experience is the result of sensations. Then, it followed that we do not sense an external world as it exists externally, but as it exists after interacting with our individual sensory systems. Sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch are all the result of external stuff after being processed by an individual’s sensory organs; such as eyes, ears, tongue, and skin. (That’s a partial list.) Some of the names associated with British Empiricism included John Locke, George, Berkeley, and David Hume, The point made throughout is that all experience involves inseparable interactions between external stuff and an individual’s sensory system.
About 200 hundred years later, a group of philosophical types (math, logic, physics) began to study the philosophy of science. In about 1907, they began meeting in Viennese coffeehouses. First labeled logical positivists and later logical empiricists, the group became known as the Vienna Circle and, in about 1924, began meeting at the University of Vienna. Their initial inquiry was to ask: “What can we agree on?” The task was finding a consistent way of describing human experience. Asked another way, what characteristics are necessary to declare a statement to be self-evident?
The initial understanding was what they called facts. Facts came to be defined as having three necessary and sufficient characteristics. First, they are measurements; second, those measurements must be publicly observable; and third, the measurements must be repeatable. Next, facts are rationally combined to form theories—an intelligible way of combining the facts as they relate to the world of our personal experience. By replicating facts of our own choosing, we can bring about empirical results of our own choosing. By performing a given operation, we can save a life. Similarly, by reducing bacteria during an operation, we can increase the likelihood of achieving our desired experience. And again, our perception of things (theories) guides us to observations (facts) that get us where we choose to go.
Looking at the last 100 years (since 1900), here are a few names that can be associated with logical empiricism as it matured into modern-day science: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alfred Whitehead, Karl Popper, Alfred Ayer, Albert Einstein, Ernest Mach, Bertrand Russell, Rudolf Carnap, and Richard von Mises.
Have a nice day,
GFB
April 26, 2024
Madam President
Let’s agree that physical power rules when it comes to politics. Then, consider that groups are more powerful than individuals; and that groups are defined by their leaders. With leaders in place, we have top-down, authoritarian governance. Individuals are subordinate to the group hierarchy. Within this context, we can look at the connection between leadership and gender, and distinguish between authoritarian and interactive approaches.
Authoritarian Leadership
Male Authoritarian Leadership. This is the historically traditional model. In American history the names that come to mind include George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. Some well-known foreign male leaders include Germany’s Adolph Hitler, Russia’s Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini.
Female Authoritarian Leadership. When females are at the administrative helm, their method of operations can be seen as similar to when males hold the position. For some, U.K. Queen Victoria (1837-1901) stands out. Even as a figure-head in a constitutional monarchy, she had significant influence on government policy during a time of empire building. From 1762-1796, the ambitious Russian Catherine II (The Great) was known for expanding her empire in size and cultural standing—perhaps at the expense of dethroning her husband Peter III, exploiting the serfs, and confiscating church land. In my generation, U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) was celebrated as the first European prime minister. A little later, Europeans were focused on Germany’s first woman Chancellor, Angela Merkel (2005-2021), considered by some to have been the most powerful woman in the world. Queen Elizabeth II (1952-2022) was U.K.’s longest reigning British Monarch and had meetings with five popes and 14 U.S. presidents. On the world scene, some names that come to mind include Indira Gandhi, India’s first woman prime minister (1966-1977 and 1980 until assassinated in 1984); Golda Meir, Israel’s first female prime minister (1969-1974). And, then there was the charismatic and ruthless Egyptian Queen Cleopatra VII (51-30 BCE), who is perhaps best known by the Hollywood version of her rule
Male-Female Authoritarian Leadership. In 1980, Ronald Reagan appointed Jean Kirkpatrick to serve as U.S. representative to the United Nations, the first American woman to hold that position. In 2008, John McCain chose the minimally qualified Sarah Palin as his running mate. They lost to Barack Obama who had selected Joe Biden as his running mate. In 2020, Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris as his Vice President, the first woman and first black to hold the office.
An Early Application of Interactive Leadership
In 1787, the original U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) provided for the President and Vice President to be the top vote getters, respectively. This could be seen as a great idea if they could get along interactively, and give more citizens representation at the highest level of government. Well, two males could not work interactively, and in 1804 the XII Amendment to the Constitution provided that a presidential candidate would have a running mate who would become Vice President, and serve the successful presidential candidate.
And so, the efficiency of authoritarian governance was re-introduced. As the population grew, money increasingly became necessary, and power gravitated to parties with fund-raising capabilities. Eventually, people voted for parties not individuals. Similarly, party-power took control over Congress and the Supreme Court. Party-power progressively disenfranchised individuals. Whatever the group, party-power could take control by establishing compulsory unions for labor, schools, churches, and local governments. Individuals began to see themselves having either a group-identity or no identity at all.
A Unique Opportunity to Reconsider the Interactional Model
With the U.S. and its institutions at risk of succumbing to chaos, this may be a good time for citizens to re-think our approach to governance. Let’s look at the role of gender in politics.
To begin, consider that men and women are not only different, but that women differ with respect to their rational approaches to problem solving. Each is inclined toward a different mind-set. Additionally, consider that women are not particularly effective at emulating a male’s mind-set, and men are not particularly effective at emulating a woman’s mind-set. Said another way, men are at their most effective when interacting with a woman; and conversely, women are most effective when interacting with a man.
While two men or two women working together may require one to be the boss, consider that a man and a woman working as a team could effectively bring about the most favorable results. Each could contribute a somewhat different perspective when seeking to resolve problems.
Briefly stated, females are inclined to be all-inclusive, unconditionally accepting, flexible, quick to over-look minor inconsistencies, efficient at maintaining an already existing system, and prefer stability as in forever agreements.
Males can be seen as being conditional, making and maintaining the integrity of contracts as in commitments to the “rule of law.” You can hear them say “I am a man of my word.” They can at times seem almost obsessive in their support for the “letter of the law,” tradition, and ritual. They are sometimes labeled as “detail persons.” They love to consider every possible interpretation when writing laws. They work well in a military environment. As for finance, they will strive to see that expenses are covered by income—with a little set aside in reserve. Men are attracted to problem solving. When solved, they would prefer to move on to the next challenge.
Combined, a male and female could work interactively by bringing complementary skills to the table. As with the bee and flower, neither would be dominant over the other. Each would interact to bring about a better result than could be achieved by either alone, or where one is subordinate to the other.
How it would look
When interactively combined, the “whole” can be seen as greater than the “sum of the parts” as in the concept of Yin-Yang. Consider the following chart:
FEMALE | MALE |
Good at making peace Inclined to say “Yes” | Good at waging war Inclined to say “No.” |
Auto gas peddle Choice or results oriented | Auto break peddle Rational or process oriented |
Deductive whole-to-parts Planning travel itinerary | Inductive parts-to-whole Building a ship |
Encompass—as in a hug Positive magnetic charge | Penetrate—as with a fist Negative magnetic charge |
Computer Software Making a home | Computer Hardware Building a house |
We can see examples of interaction throughout nature. Personally, I find watching that bee-flower interaction awesome! Interaction is the supreme law of nature. For humans, things are always experienced as interactions with other things. And again, interaction can be seen as the core concept of “relative” thinking. There are no absolutes in human nature. “You can’t jump out of your skin to see how things look out there.”
Here is my best physical metaphor describing interaction: It is the relationship between the heart and brain. The heart will feed every cell of the body (female); the brain will set up an elaborate system of anti-bodies (male) to reject cells that lack integrity with the basic functioning of the body.
Returning to our focus on politics: If a male and female could find a way to interact as President and Vice President, they could serve as a governance model for every family in America. The whole world could see “what works” and “what does not work.”
Regarding our up-coming election, Joe Biden can be seen as using his brain as he destroys the heart. Donald Trump can be seen as using his heart as he destroys the brain. Said another way, Biden will rationally lead us along a path to self-destruction; Trump will emotionally lead us along a path to self-destruction.
As for a male-female pairing, which would make the best President? We can ask which would be best suited to work directly with the public, while having an inclination to seek out and promote the most inclusive course of action. As for Vice President, which would be best suited to guide the formulations of specific legal procedures to reflect the will of the citizenry, balance the budget, and work in the Senate with a long term perspective—a detail person? Sure, a female President and a male Vice President can be seen as the best combination.
Seeds Already Planted
First, we take note that the United States Bill of Rights provides the richest soil for individual and national prosperity. It places principles over power—individual freedom over authoritarianism.
Second, there is already an “undeclared” voting group. They can be seen as rejecting party subordination, and choosing to vote for individuals reflecting their personal preferences. They make up about 30% of the voters, or roughly about the same as either of the two major parties.
Third, there could be a focus on increasing the control in the House of Representatives with people who support the Bill of Rights as a priority—namely, that’s a matter of supporting policies maximizing individual freedom. House members having only a two-year tenure make this legislative branch closest and most responsive to the citizenry. As for our next president, we could retreat to the protection of our system of checks-and-balances. That is, we could try to keep any single party from gaining control over all three branches of government.
We may be saying “Madam President” in about 4½ years.
Expecting the next posting in about 10 days⃰ with the topic: “What’s God got to do with it?”
[ ⃰ At 86, my body can complain at any time and take a few days to settle down.]
April 9, 2024
Looking to Nature
Nature has been a resource for human inspiration throughout history. The lessons of Nature can be organized using our triad of human experience—physical-rational-choice.
PHYSICALLY: We have interacted with Nature throughout our lives. We took notice of the snow-capped mountains, rushing streams, and starry nights. Perhaps we went camping with a pup-tent. Looking like a plastic tube closable at both ends, it was an economical way to keep us dry and separated from crawling creatures. Whether it be a gray squirrel, blue bird, or brown bear; we could relate to the physical uniqueness of each of Nature’s residents. To avoid mental fatigue, we rationally grouped similar items and ignored their differences. However, there was pleasure in focusing occasionally on individual differences. There may even have been a sense of wonder as the individual parts of Nature’s inhabitants formed an awesome whole as with an eco-system. And, there was the afternoon we gained a time perspective while counting the rings on a tree which had been cut down to make way for a road. When driving down an interstate highway, we saw colored striations along the side of a mountain. We marveled at those deposits from millions of years ago.
RATIONALLY: We saw change over time whether it was the seasons or when noticing a baby bear become a big papa bear. We saw birth and death with our family dog. We saw humming birds, some with long beaks and others with curved beaks. It may have been pointed out to us that these differences demonstrated evolutionary interactions between animals and plants. Particularly fascinating, as a child, was seeing the interaction between bee and flower demonstrating the invisible hand of self-interest. We marveled at the creative ways animals brought egg and sperm together foretelling the beginning of a new generation. We observed cooperation for species-survival as with birds in a flock, fish in a school, and wolves in a pack. We were touched when seeing the older taking care of the younger and teaching those skills necessary for survival. Sometimes smaller ideas would combine to form mega ideas, such as “checks and balances” and “natural selection.”
CHOICE: Here, we are in the exclusive realm of human nature. For sure, human experience is something more than simply physical and rational. Perhaps it was around 12 years old when we took notice of a sense of self-awareness. And, when we become aware of something, we spoke of it as being self-evident. We came to realize that there were others similar to ourselves in that they also seemed to have the capacity of self-awareness. However, based on one’s personal experience, what was self-evident to one person was rarely self-evident to anyone else. Individually, our worlds are private. We cannot see into another’s world of awareness, and neither can anyone else see into ours. Each individual’s world of awareness is always personal, unique, and changing.
With some thoughtful reflection, it became self-evident that we cannot know our own physical characteristics or that stuff external to us. However, we can know our interactions. In the 1800-1900s, this idea came to be known as “relativity” in both philosophy and science. That is, I can know the sense of the coldness of water relative to me, or the enjoyment relative to me when watching a sunset. Conversely, I know nothing of the “sunset” separate from my senses, and neither do I know anything about who or what “I am” separate from my senses (including retained past experience). Remove all sensation and we have what we call “nothing”—as when in a deep sleep.
Our awareness, all of it, is basically spiritual in its nature. Awareness is neither physical nor rational. Consciousness has no weight or dimension, and is known only to each individual. Human life, as Nature would have it, is an individual matter. Our point of control over our life is our rational awareness of alternatives from which we choose. We can choose some friends, some rational ideas, and some physical experiences over others. In this respect, our world of experience is of our own making.
Humans are at the top of Nature’s chain of command, followed by animals and then plants. Some combination of chemical-biological-mineral interactions makeup the foundation for all that is above. Every individual’s primary task is to establish mutually beneficial relationships with whomever he comes into contact.
Politically, we can see that man has formed groups around the lowest common denominator and exercised his capacity to act like animals. We choose to become like fish in an aquarium, plants in an arboretum, or animals in a zoo. That is, we leave our humanity (our ability to choose) to a leader to whom we pledge our loyalty. Think of Biden and Trump seeking to be our leaders by gesticulating images of strength. Whoever is given the leadership position, takes on the role similar to a lion over a pride. Dominance is determined by physical power. As with animals, power establishes who leads a group, and power establishes which group dominates over competing groups. And again, many species of animals practice infanticide, such as when an adult male lion kills the lion cubs of another to be replaced by his own. Humans acting like animals will enslave other groups, threaten to blow them up, or just blow them up.
We can observe humans behaving like humans. For them, it’s a matter of finding integrity with others who choose to behave like humans. Most notable, humans have the capacity to make contracts. Of course, given the definition of a contract, membership would have to be voluntary. It can be observed that contracts are effective only to the degree that integrity exists among the members (doing what they say they will do). Power still resides in groups, and groups committed to maximizing individual freedom can be distinguished from those whose leader dominates the group’s members just as the group seeks to dominate other groups.
It can be seen as self-evident that humans are equal spiritually, but never equal physically or rationally. Only in this context, would contracts provide for similar rights to all members of the group, and the power of the group would be to protect the freedom to make and enforce individual contracts. Freedom is a matter of being able to exercise one’s capacity to choose one’s own pursuit of happiness and fulfillment—that is, maximizing the freedom to choose for every individual. It’s a balancing act. Where does one’s freedom to act end and another’s begin? People have been looking for the answer throughout written history. One of the oldest approaches (500 BCE) was known as Taoism—finding harmony by bringing together apparent contrasts or Yin-Yang thought. Currently, we have the United States with: a Declaration of Independence stating that every individual is free to pursue his/her course in life coupled with the duty to remove any government unable or unwilling to provide such freedom; a Constitution providing that contracts between individuals are inviolate (Chief Justice John Marshal, 1819, Article 1, Section 10); and a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual freedom in religion and speech (choice of associations).
Maturity is a process for both individuals and nations. Laws are of little use if the citizenry of a nation has not matured to the point of making self-evident the individual freedom to choose for every human, and preventing any individual from denying another the same freedom.
Expecting the next posting in about 10 days with the topic: “Madam President”
March 28, 2024
Would Jesus be a Christian?
Easter is in the news. Millions of people will observe rituals dating back thousands of years, particularly if you include its pre-Christian history. Activities include rabbits and searching for Easter eggs. Rabbits signify the beginning of Spring and the hope for a bountiful offspring. As reported in the Old Testament, Jewish tradition held that a “Christ” would come and save them from their troubles. The Jewish leadership and their followers at the time of Jesus rejected Jesus as the Christ, and they successfully conspired to have him killed (Matt. 26:3). Jesus, as a Jew, rejected the Jewish leaders and their “crowd” of followers as not having a relationship with God. However, a few Jews believed that Jesus was the Christ and formed a group that became known as “Christians.” Then as now, thinking about one’s beliefs is an arduous task.
We have beliefs. They likely were received from our parents and others in our early environment. Perhaps we followed the rituals without thinking about them. At this time of year, we may hear the Christian story of Easter. The story has Jesus as the central figure—his death, his resurrection, and his spiritual connection with believers through faith. We can reasonably ask if the Christian story is consistent with statements attributed to Jesus.
From the record. For the reason that Jesus authored no writings, all accounts are from others. Some of these writers are thought to have had a personal relationship with Jesus. Others, such as Luke and Paul, had never met him, but wrote about what they had heard. The Christian Easter story can be seen to place the focus on Jesus’ death. As for the record, just before Jesus died, he said “It is finished.” This could mean that his role here on earth was finished. And again, at his last supper with disciples, he reportedly said to take bread and wine “in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). That again, could mean that he would not be available. In John 14:26, we have Jesus saying that, while he would be gone, God would send a Holy Spirit to remind them all of what Jesus had told them. Even more to this point of Jesus’ accessibility, the record has Jesus saying: “Where I go you cannot come…you will seek me, not find me, and die in your sin” (John 8:21). Thus, if Christian doctrine suggests any interaction between Jesus and the individual believer, the Christian doctrine can be seen as contrary to Jesus’ own words regarding having any relationship with him after his death.
Arguably, rather than his birth and death, it was Jesus’ message that mattered most to him. His message can be seen to declare that individuals can have a personal, one-on-one, interactive relationship with God. That is, a relationship that begins now and continues after one’s physical death. He provided numerous examples of what one may experience in such a relationship. As for a relationship with God, the keystone act is one of faith. It is described as when an individual turns his thoughts to God after entering alone in a closet or small room and closing the door (Matt. 6:6). [John Muir, renowned naturalist, spoke of getting alone at the top of a wilderness mountain as being with God.] Jesus spoke of an individual having a spiritual life with a spiritual God. He distinguished physical obligations to Caesar as distinct from a spiritual relationship with God (Mark 12:17).
In contrast to Jesus’ message, the Christian focus is on Jesus’ death with an emphasis on his physical suffering and his taking on the role of an Old Testament physical sacrifice. Easter services may reflect a physical emphasis, including freshly cut flowers and perhaps a few potted plants. Consider that these gifts of nature would rather be in their natural habitat where they could seed and carry forward the story of life. As for the Christians, forming a group, singing songs, having luncheons, and repeating words in unison can provide a powerful sense of belonging and group identity. As for the rabbits and Easter eggs, it’s hard to see how they contribute to a belief in a personal relationship with an accessible God.
Beliefs Belong to the Believer. Easter can be a day of remembrance regarding Jesus’ message of individuals turning to God. This can be seen in contrast to the message of many Christian leaders inviting individuals to join the group calling themselves Christians. It is the group’s leaders that will decide and declare the requirements for becoming a Christian and qualifying for being included in their fellowship. That is, the Christian leaders decide the substance of the beliefs held by the individual members. Perhaps it is of interest to note that the message of many Christian leaders can be seen as similar to the story in I Samuel 8:7. As reported, the people wanted to be guided by a physical king as their religious leader, and specifically rejected having a spiritual God personally guiding each individual. Judges 21:25 sets up the situation: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” As for today, Christian leaders can be characterized as saying that when you focus on the perfection of Jesus, you honor God and can become a Christian. In contrast, Jesus can be characterized as saying that when you look to God you honor my memory. You may remember that Jesus rebuked a man for calling him “good” (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19). Arguably, when you make Jesus perfect, he is neither the Jesus nor the messenger he claimed to be.
Easter can be a time of year where each of us could think about all of our beliefs and the role they play in our lives. And, we can take time to listen to others and hear how they manage their beliefs. Bottom line, our beliefs are our own. We chose them, we embrace them, and we maintain them. We may choose to think (analyze) or not about them. While a Christian belief about Easter may not reflect actual events, it does say something about a believer’s desire to identity with a group.
My target is about 10 days for posting the next topic titled “Looking to Nature”
March 16, 2024
Voting and Democracy
Given human nature, it can be seen as self evident that no individual is in a position to tell another individual the answer to a fulfilling and abundant life. However, individuals can share their experiences with each other. Also, individuals can observe what they do and what they think about, and take note as to how their actions add up. It’s a process where each step of one’s journey will be unique and private to that individual.
As for the upcoming elections, many will choose not to think about them. Only about 10-50% of those eligible choose to vote. Perhaps they are leaving it to destiny. They choose to be passive like a cork in the stream; or as if caught in a hurricane, earthquake, or war. Some experience helplessness and just wait for others to provide relief.
However, whether acknowledged or not, those at the reins of government are players. Their decisions affect everyone’s well-being. The power of taxation has the power to destroy. Declaring war can result in injury or death to sons, fathers, and friends. A claim of ownership is always under the shadow of eminent domain. Medical care is controlled by a government-arranged cabal; and the legal establishment defines the boundaries and expressions of our freedom with the dictum that “no one is above the law.”
For those who decide to become engaged, voting is said to provide citizen participation in choosing who is at the reins of government. Arguably, there is just one premise that can be seen to underlie every other choice on the ballot. It has to do with the role between the individual and government. It’s a binary decision. Do the citizens serve those at the reins of government, or do those at the reins of government serve to maximize the rights of the individual citizens? For every citizen voting, this is a fork in the road. A sense of personal integrity will drive each of us to lean one way or the other.
Power rules! Individuals form groups to dominate other groups, or to protect their freedom as individuals. The U.S. Constitution as amended can be instructional. The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) was a big deal for the Founders. James Mason, the representative from Virginia, famously said that he would rather cut off his hand than use it to sign the Constitution without a Bill of [individual] Rights. The Constitution without a Bill of Rights could easily morph into a country where democracy is paramount. With a Bill of Rights, America is not about democracy, it is about individual freedom. It can be observed that the word “democracy” or its various forms are not to be found in the United States Constitution or its amendments.
Arguably, the Bill of Rights preempts any Constitutional provision to the contrary. Individual rights reign supreme in America so long as the Bill of Rights remains intact and the “rule of law” prevails.
If looking to find where democratic procedures are primary, they can be found in the Constitution of China. We take note that in a democracy there is nothing more powerful than the largest group; the corollary is that the individual is the least powerful. China’s constitution can be seen as reflecting a democratic approach to governance. In contrast, America’s Bill of Rights reflects an individual freedom approach to governance. The two approaches could be combined, but one would have to take priority over the other. Either democracy restricts individual freedom; or individual freedom restricts the application of democracy. To alternate between the two can be seen to default into a bureaucracy.
Interpretation and enforcement of a constitution are another matter. The constitutions of both America and China do not present irreconcilable differences. China’s constitutional democracy is not a problem. The problem is that the constitutional democracy of China is run by dictators. By simply defining the terms, we have the following point of view: Democracy requires an informed citizenry; and an informed citizenry requires freedom of speech and association. Dictators prohibit freedom of speech and association. In doing so, dictatorships can be seen to morph into top-down authoritarian governances. It can be seen that authoritarian dictatorships and individual freedom are irreconcilable.
Returning to the upcoming 2024 elections, every voter will be asked to choose between various candidates. Most attention will be around the office of president. Less attention will be directed to one’s local city council offices. Some candidates openly favor strong centralized governance while minimizing individual freedom; others openly favor maximizing individual freedom and looked to central government only as a last resort—as in border protection and the coinage of money. Both presidential candidates can be seen as favoring centralizing control into the hands of a strong president.
Trump can be heard to proclaim that he is the best person for the job. He can be described as physically oriented with the following leanings: As a bully he will ridicule the physical appearance of opponents, rather than addressing their ideas. He seeks contests of will with other bullies who are heads of government—Putin, Xi, Kim. Becoming president will give him the power to achieve great physical benefits for his supporters, while putting to shame those who oppose him. He lacks a rational philosophy making it difficult for others to work with him.
Rather than principled, Trump requires that one’s loyalty must be to him personally. As for policies, he will trade the individual religious liberty of some for personal political gain.
Biden can be heard to proclaim that voting for him makes him the best person. It’s a rational approach. He will do what is right for America. In the name of equality, he will appeal to the lowest common denominator—the love of money. As our leader, he will guide our government so as to solve every problem. He will reduce or eliminate crime, poverty, mental illness, and the federal budget. However, as put forth by Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, his words mean whatever he says they mean. When running for Vice President, he was asked how important a belief in God was to him. He said that as a Catholic, his belief in God meant everything to him. As for his actions, his open declaration of a women’s right to an abortion reflects what he thinks of the Pope and Catholicism. And again, President Biden swore an oath to uphold the laws of the country. Knowing that federal law prohibits making decisions based on race or gender, Biden defiantly declared that his nominee for Supreme Court Justice would be a black female.
What does the individual voter do? Citizens who support the primacy of individual freedom can take some comfort in the words of Frank Herbert: “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.” [Sounds less clinical if the word “immature” replaces “pathological” and “corruptible.”]
Voters have an existential choice. While each vote has a minimal effect, it will affect each individual’s sense of integrity. Human nature decrees that each of us are required to live with ourself, and personal integrity is primary. There may be a light at the end of the tunnel. A growing number of citizens are registered as “undeclared.” Rather than being subordinate to any group, they choose to make individual choices from the options available. This group has grown to be about equal in number to the major parties—Democrats and Republicans. And again, perhaps Adam Smith would suggest we look at the “invisible hand of self interest.” Almost from the beginning, the citizenry has alternated from one party to another. As a variation, they have given control of the House and/or Senate to the party opposing the president. More than any other design, the idea of “balance of powers” is the protector of individual liberty.
Expecting the next posting in about 10 days with the topic: “Would Jesus Be a Christian?”
March 3, 2024
God Bless the Sinner
There is no image of God other than the one you imagine. To worship that image, and to require others to do the same, is simple idolatry.
Man is born into sin, meaning that any effort toward a chosen goal will result in “missing the mark.” Notably, the word “sin” can be seen as being derived from the Old Testament Hebrew chatta’ah and the New Testament Greek hamartia—both having the meaning of “missing the mark.” As it was used in archery, it did not connote either good or evil, but simply a description or observation of what happened. It was feedback.
Whether the goal be physical, rational, or a matter of choice; one’s initial efforts will result in “missing the mark.” With practice and focus, one will likely get closer to the mark. We can find encouragement in remembering that “today’s errors are tomorrow’s wisdom.” You will never be perfect, but you may get very close to your mark over time. Granted, if we really want to hit the mark, make the task easy; and if we want to try the impossible, put the target far away. Most people choose a goal that, if achieved, provides a sense of achievement. If one’s goal is achieved frequently, an individual will voluntarily set the goal further away. The over-riding objective is to achieve that sense of achievement. Missing the mark is a means to an end. Each of us is a “work in progress.” In professional basketball, a 48% success rate is exceptional, as it was with the legendary Kobe Bryant. In professional baseball, a 40% hit rate is exceptional, as it was with Hall of Famer Jackie Robinson. They all sinned, or missed the mark, most of the time. Babe Ruth was known for his number of homeruns; he was less known for his record number of strikeouts.
For sure, there are those who will interpret “sin” differently than “missing the mark.” However, one can find it curious that the writer of the Creation Story in Genesis, Chapter 1, identifies these people as committing the only act that separates man from God. The act is that of judging things in terms of good and evil. Or, as the writer put it: “eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” It’s a metaphor, a rational idea rather than a physical observation. As an idea, it is in the spiritual or metaphysical realm of experience. Look as one may, a physical tree of knowledge will not be found. As for its meaning, some readily grasp the idea of not judging evil; however, they stumble when it comes to not judging anything as good.
On the other hand, self-inspired individuals judge everything and everyone in terms of good and evil. They say it is righteous to do good, and sinful to do evil. They tell people that eternal punishment awaits them if they do not follow the leadership of the self righteous. These zealots say that people who sin are under the control of an evil but unseen force. With determination they encourage teaching right from wrong so that others can join the ranks of the self righteous. They frequently add that giving money to them is the same as giving money to God and God’s work. The real story here is how it is that so many people follow them without engaging in a critical analysis.
God loves and blesses the sinner and chooses to have a relationship with him/her. As for those who judge in terms of good and evil, “from dust they came and from dust they will go”—or, so says the writer of Genesis. Now, that is an interesting story!
Expecting the next posting in about 10 days with the topic: “Choosing a President”
February 22, 2024
The Road to Integrity
In the previous posting it was argued that, while an unanalyzed life is not worth living, an analyzed life may be worth living. The act of analyzing can be seen as involving an interaction between parts and a whole. It’s like adding up some numbers and getting a sum. Integrity is the degree to which the individual numbers are rationally consistent with the sum. It can be seen regarding a life worth living that integrity is the goal and it is achieved through the act of analyzing.
As for the road to integrity, looking over the research and writings on this topic, some ideas can be seen as having more integrity than others. Here is what I have picked up with respect to the psychological and philosophical research pertaining to the search for integrity leading to a life worth living.
The focus is on our physical actions. When analyzed, taking note of our actions can give rise to a picture reflecting the degree of coherence among the parts. That picture reflects one’s philosophy at the time. Curiously, the strongest arguments favor that it is the analysis of our actions that give rise to our philosophy. As one person put it, “Our actions give rise to our philosophy, rather then our philosophy giving rise to our actions.” Said another way, “our existence precedes our essence.”
Consider that the greatest rational task for every individual is that of maximizing personal integrity. It’s reported to be hard work and requiring lots of perseverance. Furthermore, it’s a process evolving over time. For sure, achieving any level of integrity is a process of seeing things come together, come apart, and then come together again. As Msg. John J. Sullivan put it: “All except the shallowest living involves tearing up one rough draft after another.”
As individuals, our journey toward integrity begins when we take notice of which experiences we choose over others. That’s analysis! When looking at our choices made during the day (during a quiet time), we can discover a hierarchy of preferences. The more mature referent is that which covers the greater number of experiences. Over time, some referents can be seen to maintain a priority over others. With additional maturity, one may come to see that a single referent is consistently chosen over all others—a primary referent. Ideally, such a referent would cover all our current experiences and put every experience into alignment with every other experience.
We take notice that analyzing our actions is a rational activity and within the realm of our conscious experience. That is, the process is spiritual in nature. Consciousness, itself, has no physical properties such as weight or dimensions. That of which we are aware may be described as having physical dimensions, but consciousness itself does not—as with a “blank mind.” Such analytic thinking is a rational process existing only in the conscious experience of an individual.
People find themselves trying out many different referents in search of a primary referent. These include money, family, or a concept of God. If it is a concept of God as creator, this may be seen as particularly interesting for the reason that it is the only referent that aims to cover all human experience. The recent Super Bowl contest had an advertisement perhaps advancing the idea of washing the feet of others as a primary referent. The idea was connected to the name of “Jesus.” Consider that washing the feet of others is an interesting idea. The act is to prepare the recipient for a journey taken by him/her alone. There may be a lesson here for us. If you do what you can to prepare others for their journey, they may be inclined to do what they can to prepare you for your journey. Helping to prepare another for his/her journey may be welcomed, but it is still the individual that makes the journey. Fair enough. However, to attribute the act of “washing the feet” of others to Jesus leaves out the critical context. According to the record, Jesus spent 30 years before “his time had come.” During these 30 years, he “grew in stature and wisdom” and he “debated” his interests with others. Only after this time did he spend 3 years presenting his message—the message of how to achieve a more “abundant life.” As with any teacher, the role is one of preparing others for their life’s journey. Washing the feet of his followers was a symbolic gesture making the point that Jesus wanted “to serve, rather than being served.”
In closing this communication from me to you, consider that seeing a life with integrity provides a sense of personal identity—the “I am.” The life worth living is where an individual rationally analyzes his/her choices as a way of maximizing integrity, and then he/she chooses to develop and maintain a life that maximizes integrity as a top priority. A sense of integrity can act as a compass providing feedback as to when the individual is on or off course with his/her chosen goals. Watching the players on both teams during the Super Bowl game, we saw individuals who seemingly had chosen to make playing football their primary referent during this time in their lives. Arguably, for each one of us, life is lived in a Super Bowl and our performance will reflect our current choice of primary referent.
Expecting the next posting in about 10 days with the topic: “God Bless the Sinner”
February 17, 2024
The Unanalyzed Life
Socrates famously said, “The unanalyzed life is not worth living.” Here is one way to interpret his meaning.
The initial focus is on what to avoid—life is not worth living unless it is analyzed. The other side of the coin is that an analyzed life may be worth living. No guarantee is offered, but there is no chance of living a worth-while life without analyzing it. That is, analysis is a necessary but not sufficient provision for a life worth living.
We can ask, “Who is in a position to analyze one’s life?” Intuition suggests that it is the individual. How does analysis begin? Analysis can be seen as the act of mentally pulling back and looking to see how individual actions fit together—parts to wholes. The whole can be to simply come up with an idea that rationally integrates all the parts. Alternatively, the whole can be to find those parts that bring you to a desired goal. Socrates can be seen as saying that this process leads to the life worth living.
The idea, of pulling back and checking to see if one’s steps are taking them were they want to go, has been repeated throughout written history. The earliest notation I know of is in the Story of Creation (Genesis 1:10). God had performed some specific acts, and then he pulled back and said “it was good.” By my count, it was 5 times that God performed some specific acts, and then he pulled back and said “it was good.” On the 6th time, God completed the tasks and said “it was very good.” I don’t know the mind of God, but man can be seen to think this way, including the writer of Genesis. Philosophically, this type of thinking—going from part to whole and back to part—has been called an analysis and is described as going inductively from parts to whole and deductively from whole to parts. Sometimes the whole is referred to as the “big picture” as distinguished from the individual parts giving rise to it. This past week, I balanced the Foundation’s annual finance statements. After 4 days I was exhausted, but I had worked it out. A couple of unusual end-of-year entries were difficult to find. I felt elated when the balance sheet accounted for every individual transaction during the year. I pulled back and said, “that is good.” When I get this commentary posted, I will say “that is very good.”
There are many instances where individuals take time to pull back and check how the parts are lining up against the whole. It’s not a time of rest or meditation. It is a time of active mental accounting on how one’s individual actions are lining up together for the purpose maximizing our integrity or that of achieving our chosen goal. It’s a common practice. After a game, football players review the game tape and analyze each movement of each player to improve future performance. Modern-day scientists analyze how the facts can be organized into a coherent statement or theory. For them, the ideal is to find a “unified field theory” that accounts for every individual observation.
Getting alone and turning our thoughts inward is when and where analysis takes place. Socrates seems to be strongly recommending an analyzed life. Jesus reportedly said to “go into your closet and close the door.” Shakespeare reminds us that integrity is a personal matter with his “To thine own self be true.”
It serves us well to remember that we do not begin from scratch. We were born with our physical attributes into an environment chosen by others. The task facing every individual is to establish integrity with what we already have and strive to maintain that integrity as we journey forward.
Expecting the next posting in about a week with the topic: “The Road to Integrity”
February 3, 2024
It’s All About Integrity
If life is all about choice, what is the basis for choice? That has been described as the existential dilemma. The human experience involves making choices without having any basis for doing so. As Franz Kafka (c. 1915) put it, freedom to choose places us in space, like a giant bug with no place to plant our feet.
As an adult, choice gives rise to all else. Notably, choice is always an individual matter. There will be alternative jobs available, educational alternatives from which to choose, different individuals with whom to spend time, and different ideas upon which to focus.
We can choose to ask a friend or confidant for his/her guidance. Some individuals will tell us what to do even without our asking. There are teachers and preachers who declare themselves to be truth-givers. Their simple and immediate answers to every question can provide a sense of relief. However, since the answers from truth-givers are frequently different, we will choose our favorite teachers and preachers in order to maintain our integrity. Alternatively, we have a default system. We can choose to rely on chance events to determine our course of action. Like a bobbing cork in a stream, we can choose to just go with the flow. A variation on this option is to turn to fortune tellers looking into crystal balls, psychics reading Tarot cards, or astrologers searching for meaning in the stars. In all such attempts, the individual is subordinate to pre-existing truths, stated as “essence precedes existence” (Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas).
Voila! When individual choice is primary, everything is turned upside down. As Jean-Paul Sartre put it: “existence precedes essence.” Sartre (French philosopher and author, c. 1945) is considered by some to be the leading exponent of existentialism, and advocating the primacy of conscious experience and the individual. From this perspective, it can be seen that physical existence gives rise to individual choices, and our choices give rise to our essence (who we are as individuals). The two views (“essence precedes existence” and “existence precedes essence”) can be seen rationally as mutually exclusive. An individual must choose, if personal integrity is to be maintained.
Maintaining integrity can be seen as critically important to physical and rational (mental) health. It is as if we are “hard wired” to strive for maximizing integrity—physically, rationally, and regarding our choices. Furthermore, it’s a dynamic process that is undergoing continuous change. Each day’s physical experiences give rise to new rational alternatives, which give rise to new choices, and which in turn give rise to new experiences. Additionally, our physiology requires that we seek out stimulation. If a stimulus is repeated, we habituate and it is no longer a stimulus. Thus, we return to seeking out new stimuli. Lack of stimuli, or stimulus deprivation, can interfere with an individual’s ability to perform even elementary tasks.
Notable, is that we seek out integrity only within our individually perceived experiences. We may go out of our way to engage in events that provide manageable amounts of stimulation where we can grow (assimilate) and mature (accommodate). Conversely, we may avoid situations that are over-stimulating (hyperactive) or under-stimulating (boredom). Historically, maintaining just the right amount of stimulation has been referred to as the “golden mean” and “everything in moderation.” Whether it’s soup or friends, we want it just right—not too hot and not too cold.
Expecting the next posting in about a week, titled “The Unanalyzed Life”
January 23, 2024
It’s All a Matter of Choice
Here is a point of view using the story format. It was a long time ago, during my early development. As I was walking down the pathway of my life’s journey, I come across a sign post with road signs pointing in two opposite directions. One sign points to the City of Truth and another pointing to the City of Choice. I have a choice to make. Others are standing around sharing their interests.
Inquiring about the City of Truth, I am told that it is governed by absolute truths to which everyone is subordinate. The truths are based on universal laws of nature, and they govern everything. There are leaders, identified by their elegant robes and adornments, informing the citizenry about good and evil. With the knowledge of good and evil thus provided, every citizen is required to choose thoughts and actions that are good and reject those that are evil. The leaders are said to know the mind of God, where God is defined as the embodiment of truth. Some leaders identify certain writings as sacred and reflecting the mind of God when properly interpreted by the leaders. Every citizen takes a vow to humble himself or herself and submit to the guidance of the leaders. In making the vow, they are saved from the ravages of evil in this world and are given the promise of admittance into an eternal afterlife in heaven with God.
Inquiring about the City of Choice, I am told that it is governed by individual conscience. There’s lots of arguing and debate over where to draw the line establishing where one person’s jurisdiction ends and another’s begins. Notable, while arguing, the participants seem to have the ability of listening without judging. They have a game of football where, after spending three hours knocking each other down, they give each other a hug. The game of boxing has the same dynamics, but takes less time. Thousands of spectators come to watch such events as if they knew that the process reflects how opposition can bring people closer. The over-riding idea is that every individual is striving to be the captain of his or her own destiny. That’s hard work and hearing how others are managing is helpful. However, to compound the difficulty, each individual is engaged in a process of maturation. Lacking knowledge of an unchanging truth, individual choices are always made on the basis of an individual’s past experience—one’s conscience, so to speak. Frequently expressed is the existential frustration that today’s choices cannot be made with the benefit of tomorrow’s experience.
I pause to gather my thoughts, and notice a third road sign on the sign post. It points to a city between the other two. It’s called the City of Inclusion. Everyone is welcome! It is governed by the principle of “the greatest good for the largest number of individuals.” Sacred is the “democratic” process. This makes the individual least significant, and it’s best to use the word “we” rather than “I”. Everyone has the “duty and honor” to serve the will of the majority.
Easily seen is that some pathways leading from the sign post are traveled more than others. The path to the City of Inclusion is traveled the most; next is the path going to the City of Truth; and the path least traveled is that going to the City of Choice.
On a clear day, it can be seen that the pathway to the City of Inclusion is a gradual slope downward taking little effort throughout the whole trip. Leaving, however, is all uphill. The pathway to the City of Truth has a gradual rise followed by a downward slope. Once in the City, leaving requires a considerable initial effort. The pathway to the City of Choice is a steady and gradual rise. Leaving is easy at any time.
Listening to those who have visited the three cities say that the City of Inclusion has an army of bureaucrats informing the citizenry of their duty and the sacred honor they have in serving the will of the majority. It’s an awesome task to draw and redraw the lines guiding the steps of every citizen in order to maximize the benefit to the whole of society. The bureaucrats have leaders, and the largest of crowds gather to participate in honoring them.
Reports regarding the City of Truth describe huge churches with magnificent arches that create high ceilings as if reaching to heaven. In the past, these magnificent structures were primarily used by the religious leaders and their followers. While still magnificent and awe-inspiring, they are now mostly visited by tourists. In order to encourage tourist trade, government taxation supports their maintenance. Additional support comes from church membership dues which are required for admission to an afterlife in heaven. In contrast, other areas have numerous churches, each with its own leader and group of followers. These smaller structures can be found on almost every street corner and sometimes in shopping centers. I notice that all of the churches in the City of Truth have a common building block. They proclaim absolute truths to which everyone is subordinate under penalty of punishment. The City of Truth does endure times of instability. Given that there can be only one truth-giver, when differences do occur, the contenders along with their followers have wars to establish who is really telling the truth.
People returning from the City of Choice describe it as having a “Bill of Rights” that guarantees every individual the freedom to choose his or her own pathway while being careful not to infringe on the rights of others to do the same. They place a very high value on privacy. They talk of a personal walk with God throughout the day. There is also talk of a sense of presence when they are alone in a natural setting. Some speak of “going into a closet and closing the door.” They describe themselves as basically spiritual, and their relationship with God is from spirit to spirit.
At the end of the day, I can see that every individual makes a choice as to his or her next step in his or her life’s journey. The choice can be seen as existential in that it establishes the nature of an individual’s human existence.
Expecting the next posting in about a week, titled “It’s All About Integrity.”
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
January 14, 2024
Finding Our Way Home
Our home is where we reside. In its entirety, it is what we call our conscious awareness. From this perspective, we are only aware of that of which we are aware; conversely, we are not aware of anything outside our awareness. This is our home in the most fundamental sense. We have a body, a sensory system that only receives information. [Some refer to the “mind-body problem” and debate how they interact with each other.] Clearly, we do not look outwards sensing an external world, but only sense a world after it has been processed by our sensory system and relayed to our world of conscious awareness. What we experience is a world created by the exclusive characteristics of our conscious awareness.
Making this point, we have two quotes from The Universe and Dr. Einstein, circa pages 114 and 116, respectively. As Hegel put it, “Pure Being and Nothing are the same”; and as Whitehead put it when referring to scientific knowledge, “For while telling nothing of the true ‘nature’ of things, it nevertheless succeeds in defining their relationships and depicting the events in which they are involved.” While our world of conscious awareness is a world created by our senses, it is reasonable to believe that there is some energy existing external to us with which our senses are interacting. However, we are not aware of that energy’s characteristics—we are only aware of our interaction (or “event”) with it in terms of the characteristics of our conscious awareness.
Yes, it is common to think we are looking out of our eyes and seeing an external world as it exists external to us, and to which we are subordinate. However, we will never find our home by thinking we are looking outward. It’s a challenge. Our world is private, personal, and always changing. We can relate to others to the degree we have similar sensory systems and similar past experiences. However, in some respects, our world of experience will always be different from that of any other individual. Notably, we can get along with each other when we grant to others the individual freedom we require to be ourselves.
For some, the beginning point of self understanding is to distinguish between three types of personal experiences: physical, rational, and those involving choices [or what traditionally has been called “spiritual”]. This triad has been cited throughout recorded history as a primary organizing tool for describing human experience. Each of us can be seen to identify some of our experiences as physical events; to this, we add our rational ideas; and then we put them together into a philosophy so as to maximize our sense of integrity. Finally, we choose those experiences that we bring home and make them our own.
A critical point is to recognize that all 3 experiences are within the realm of our consciousness experience. Conscious thought gives rise to our physical and rational experiences—not the other way around. Our basic freedom is that of choosing where to place our focus. What we focus on gives rise to our world of personal experience.
While we can focus on physically traveling to new and exciting places, we may find that this quickly becomes exhausting. We can read and listen to an endless supply of rational ideas, only to find that some ideas are contradictory. This bring us to our next type of experience, namely that of choice. We choose some physical locations and some ideas over others. As the integrity among our choices increases, we may find that place of rest called “home”—at least for a while. We are always in the process of maintaining the integrity of our home for the reason that we are always changing physically, rationally, and in regard to our choices.
Change can reflect maturation. As children, our physical and rational exposures are controlled by our caregivers. As teenagers, we slowly break away and explore new physical and rational experiences. If we live through this and become adults, we begin to choose which physical and rational experiences we will embrace as our own. A house will become a home as we choose our physical furniture and some rational ideas from writings. To this we choose that music and those works of art that nurture our sense of identity. While maintaining our unique identity at a given moment in time, we develop a spiritual family with those with whom we share our personal experiences. There is no judging among such friends—only sharing.
My target is about a week for posting the next topic titled “It’s All a Matter of Choice.”
January 8, 2024
Strength of the Nation
What do we identify as the core strength of our nation? Learned Hand (esteemed U.S. Federal Appellate Judge and judicial philosopher) put it this way: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help” (Spirit of Liberty, 1952). [Book, p. 156]. This sounds like freedom resides within the hearts of individuals rather than in group consensus.
Only individuals have hearts. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was seen as the Court’s leading liberal, yet she revered Learned Hand during her 27 years on the U.S Supreme Court. She frequently cited Learned Hand, and specifically the above quote, as what she embraced as a guiding light before and during her tenure on the Court.
Her long time friend and fellow Court colleague, Antonin Scalia, was seen as the Court’s leading conservative. Arguably, it was a core belief in the primary significance of individual freedom that brought this liberal and conservative together during their long-time personal friendship.
Playing out now in the media and the courts is the January 6, 2021 Capitol break-in. Many liberals and some conservatives believe that liberty is primarily found in group consensus as reflected in the democratic functions of government, and so the break-in can reasonably be seen as an act of insurrection and rebellion against the United States. On the other hand, there are independents and others who see the break-in as simply an attack on a building and a disruption of government procedures. That is, as with Learned Hand, they believe that freedom is in the hearts of individuals, and therefore there was no threat to American liberty.
Another place where individual versus group consensus is playing out has to do with compulsory unions versus individual freedom to work. The mega-cities of New York and Los Angeles can be seen as embracing the idea of group consensus, while the 22 states with right-to-work laws can be seen as embracing the primacy of individual freedom in the market place. Curiously, polling can be seen to find that most individuals favor individual freedom while political leaders often favor group-rights legislation.
The distinction between the primacy of individual or group rights was a big deal at the founding of the original Constitution. George Mason, major contributor to the Virginia Declaration of Rights and one of three Founding Fathers refusing to sign the Constitution, reportedly said he would rather cut his right hand off than to use it to sign the Constitution without a guarantee of individual rights. The original Constitution can be seen as primarily consistent with subordinating individual rights to group consensus (democracy); while the Bill of Rights can be seen as subordinating group consensus (democracy) to individual rights.
Whether involving friends, neighbors, or a nation; as individuals, on what foundation do we begin to build our philosophy for living? For those favoring the primacy of individual freedom, it all begins with spending time alone, looking inward, and seeking personal integrity. Only then is anyone in a position to join with others having the same priority. These individuals never give up their core belief in the sovereignty of every individual.
My target is about a week for posting the next topic titled “Finding Our Way Home.”
January 1, 2024
State of the Nation
We are a nation divided. Some groups call themselves Democrats, Republicans, Independents, or non-participants. Today our leaders are different from the Founding Fathers. While the Founders pledged their lives and fortunes, today’s leaders pledge the lives and fortunes of others.
In three steps, we can trace our nation’s division to a critical decision made individually and collectively by the citizenry. First, we begin with the notion that each of us was born as an individual. You can’t jump into my consciousness and neither can I into yours. Additionally, I can’t “jump out of my skin” to see what the world looks like out there. Second, between the ages of about 12 to 15, we became aware of our own individual sense of consciousness, our ability to choose between different courses of action, and that there were others having the same capacity. Third, that throughout the day we are engaged in choosing whether our individual conscience or group consensus will take priority.
Along with their own levels of maturity, Trump and Biden can be seen to represent the competing “individualism versus group consensus” alternatives. Trump says “I trust myself and I expect every other individual to do the same. Let’s sit down and negotiate.” Biden says that “the group consensus rules and takes priority over individual conscience. Make me your leader, and I will do what is right for everyone—trust me.”
For many years, the American citizenry has increasingly come to rely on the nation’s leaders to meet their essential needs—safety, health care, education, entertainment. Cities more than rural areas require centralized leadership to function, and will support leaders that are guided primarily by group-consensus. In contrast, Trump supporters, including entrepreneurs and family businesses, will be attracted to his individualistic themes even while harboring concerns over his apparent emotional immaturity.
As a nation, we have bickering (a) between groups seeking dominance and (b) within groups over leadership. Increasingly, the individual is becoming lost in the crowd.
Who will prevail? Groups can always dominate individuals at the physical level. Individuals can always be spiritual winners so long as they remain true to themselves. The “ace in the hole” for the individualist is that human nature establishes individual consciousness as primary in human experience. You are only aware of those things of which you are aware. As for now, the U.S. Bill of Rights reflects this self-evident principle of individual primacy.
Here’s the bottom line: Every decision we make during the day can be seen as based on a primary determination of choosing between (a) relying spiritually on our own conscience, or (b) relying on a rationally contrived group consensus. These are forks in the road that we come across several times each day as we advance along our life’s journey.
My target is about a week for posting the next topic titled “Strength of the Nation.”
UPDATE: December 27, 2023
Greetings to all of you!
We have over 15,000 hits per month. This comes to over 200,000 hits annually. On December 26th, I turned 86 years of age—I am in my sunset years. While still exploring and integrating new experiences, I am now spending more time looking back at those pathways in my life’s journey that were constructive and those that led to dead ends.
As I look forward to the new year, my interest is in sharing those experiences with each of you. I see my communications as personal from me to each of you. They represent who I am at the time of writing, and who you are at the time of reading. Each of you reading these passages will form your own private and personal interpretation. It’s a unique interaction between what I write and what each of you experience. The communication is spiritual in that it is from my conscious experience to the conscious experience of each of you. Consciousness has generally been defined as spiritual in that it has no physical properties—neither weight, mass, dimensions, nor location.
The first topic in the “From Me to You” Series is set for posting in about a week titled “The State of the Nation.”
Gordon