Art

Art is perhaps too complicated a topic to even attempt to discuss. I like to begin a discussion with a basic (if inadequate) definition. The complexity of discussing “art” stems from the fact that the very definition is complicated, controversial, and elusive. The Wikipedia entry on “art” gives a definition from Britannica Online, which I suppose is as good as any: “the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others”. Wikipedia also notes that philosopher Richard Wollheim describes the nature of art as “one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture”.

Questions regarding “What is art?” can become highly emotional, and are impossible to answer objectively. Like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. While I personally am more comfortable with using the term “art” to describe things like paintings and sculptures and music and literature, almost ANYTHING can be viewed as art, and I cannot objectively disagree with someone whose definition of art is different from mine.

At the same time, if we agree to label EVERYTHING as “art”, then the term loses all meaning and usefulness, just as if we were to label all colors shades of “blue”.

In the end, I suppose we must simply acknowledge that each of us has our own standards not only for what constitutes “art”, but also for what “art” we personally find appealing. I would be happier coming up with some objective judgement on what constitutes art, or at least some way to assure that those who were claiming something was “art” were at least sincerely representing their own view, but I know of no way to accomplish either of these goals.

Truth is complicated.

Capital Punishment

I am in favor of capital punishment , though I hasten to add that at the present time, there seem to be insurmountable problems with actually USING capital punishment.

Wikipedia defines capital punishment as “the infliction of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence”, which I suppose is as good a definition as any. In recent years, the entire idea of capital punishment has become increasingly controversial, and it has been abolished in many countries and individual US states.

People on both sides of the issue have an almost infinite number of reasons for their positions. Curiously, one of the reasons some Americans oppose capital punishment is that under our present system, it ends up costing much more to execute a convicted criminal than to keep them incarcerated for life.

For me, there are currently TWO good reasons NOT to use capital punishment. The most serious is the fact that our system does not do such a good job of determining guilt or innocence. When a person sentenced to prison is later determined to be innocent, they can be released (which does not make up for wrongly imprisoning them, but it’s better than keeping them in prison). When an executed person is later determined to be innocent, there is no solution. Still, in certain cases, this “guilt or innocence” problem can be overcome. In certain cases there is NO reasonable doubt about guilt.

The more insurmountable problem with capital punishment is harder to put into words. Basically, it is the idea that we need a more serious punishment to hold over the heads of lesser criminals to keep the less serious crimes from becoming more serious ones. For instance, I believe that rape should be a capital offense -- though there is still the problem of separating the innocent from the guilty. However, if the punishment for rape was the same as the punishment for murder, a rapist might conclude that they should go ahead and murder their victim, rather than risk the victim testifying against them.

It is this second problem that may be impossible to overcome. Even if we come up with ways to absolutely separate the guilty from the innocent, we will still need a way to prevent the “smaller” crimes from escalating. If not for this problem, I would favor capital punishment for a shocking variety of lesser crimes.

There is a third serious problem with my visions for capital punishment, but this problem applies to almost all crimes and punishments. Potential criminals must both understand what actions are considered illegal, and realize that they will truly face punishment. As an example, take “speeding”. Currently, most American drivers do not consider driving a few miles per hour over the posted limit to be “speeding”, or at least they do not believe they will be punished for driving a few miles per hour over the posted limit. Personally, I would like this to change, and have the posted speed limit be the ACTUAL “limit” -- the fastest that a person could drive while avoiding punishment. However, I realize that under our current system this would be unfair, since no one is AWARE that they risk punishment for driving 56 miles per hour when the posted “limit” is 55.

The same applies to capital punishment. IF we made shoplifting a capital offense, then people would have to be AWARE that shoplifting was a capital offense. By the way, I am NOT arguing that shoplifting should be a capital offense. However, if there was some way to solve these three problems, I would favor capital punishment for a wide variety of crimes -- many of them malicious rather than serious. For example, if someone deliberately throws a brick through your window, I would consider capital punishment -- IF there was some way to absolutely determine that they were guilty of intentionally doing this maliciously, AND there was some way to keep smaller crimes from escalating into larger ones, AND everyone was AWARE that brick-throwing was a capital offense.

I have not addressed any of the other objections to capital punishment. Basically, my belief is that we presently have too many people on earth, AND we are not very good at actually “rehabilitating” prisoners, and therefore capital punishment, though far from perfect, makes sense on a philosophical level. But I cannot overcome those two problems.

I am left in the awkward position of favoring capital punishment on a philosophical level, but opposing it in many cases unless we come up with a way to overcome those problems. By the way, I am basically okay with those few cases in which our society currently uses capital punishment, since I am fairly certain those particular people have actually been proven guilty.

Truth is complicated.

Exaggeration

I am often accused of exaggeration when attempting to accurately state my feelings. Even worse, sometimes people simply assume I am exaggerating, without stating their belief that I am exaggerating. This makes communication difficult.

If I feel quite strongly about something that you cannot imagine feeling strongly about, it is understandable that you might assume I am exaggerating. Unfortunately, this happens at the very moment I am trying to communicate the fact that I feel strongly about something that you cannot imagine feeling strongly about. The question becomes whether there is any way to effectively communicate these strong feelings that seem so totally outside of another person's perspective.

A true example: Ice cream is one of my favorite foods. Ice cream with peanuts is one of the worst substances I can imagine putting in my mouth. This is my opinion, and my preference, and it does not necessarily make sense, but it is truly the way that I feel. Generally, if you put peanuts on ice cream, and then attempt to remove them, some of the flavor remains behind, if not some of the actual peanuts, and I do not ever wish to consume ice cream that has ever had even a trace of contact with peanuts. I understand that my strong feelings on the subject of ice cream with peanuts are unusual and difficult to grasp, so when the situation arises, I try to make them clear. Here are a couple of true statements:
1) If you gave me a choice between consuming a dish of ice cream topped with a single peanut, or a dish of something commonly considered horrible, like animal excrement, there is a good chance I would choose the thing commonly considered horrible.
2) Even though ice cream is one of my favorite foods, if I became convinced that SOMETIME in the future my ice cream would in fact contain a peanut, I would seriously consider never consuming ice cream again, just to avoid the risk.
Anyone hearing or reading either or both of these statements can be forgiven for assuming that I am exaggerating, but I am NOT. I really, really, do not like ice cream with peanuts, and it doesn't help to "ignore them" or "scrape them off". I would rather just not eat ice cream that has been in any way contaminated with peanuts. Again, the question is whether there is any way of actually communicating these strong feelings, since most people will simply assume that I am exaggerating when I try to state my feelings.

The previous example may have been too inflammatory. Anyone reading this may simply be thinking, "This person is a wacko. NOBODY could dislike peanuts in ice cream THAT much." Of course, this illustrates my point. If someone expresses strong feelings that seem unusual and foreign to you, one of the easy, understandable routes is to assume that they are exaggerating. (Another route is to consider them to be a wacko.)

I have not addressed the fact that sometimes people truly do exaggerate. This leads to a "boy who cried wolf" phenomenon. Frequent exaggerations make people anticipate more exaggerations, even if one person is doing the exaggerating, and a completely separate person is attempting to accurately state a strong but unlikely belief.

In earlier postings I have pointed out that sometimes I can clearly see a problem, but cannot see any solution. This is one of those areas. It is a problem that people attempting to accurately express strong feelings are often believed to be exaggerating. I guess a partial solution would be to come right out and ASK whether a person is exaggerating in cases in which you are having trouble accepting their stated strength of emotion. This approach has various pitfalls, including the facts that the person might lie to you or to themselves, or that the person might be insulted by the question. Another partial solution is to do your best to accurately state your own strong feelings, without exaggeration. Still, the problem remains.

Truth is complicated.

Leonard Pitts

I first became aware of Leonard Pitts in the days immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Leonard Pitts is a syndicated columnist whose columns regularly appear in my local newspaper, though the byline indicates he works for the Miami Herald. I have never checked his biography, and I have no idea how long he has been writing columns, or how long his columns have appeared in my local newspaper, or how many of his columns I had read prior to Nine Eleven.

In those days, there were lots of people writing columns about Nine Eleven, but it seemed to me that Leonard Pitts’ columns were especially insightful, and among the best of anything I read regarding Nine Eleven. I became a regular reader of his columns.

Some day, perhaps I will run across one of those 2001 columns, or check the archives of my local newspaper to see whether at that time they were including a photo of Leonard Pitts with his column. In those early days, I had no particular awareness of his race or ethnicity, though from the name Leonard I assumed he was male. Over time, I found that he often wrote columns concerning race, and that he himself is Black. I would not be surprised to find that his columns had always featured his photo, but I did not notice or care about his race. He was insightful, and wrote eloquently.

As I continued to read his columns, it seemed to me that most of his columns on racial issues were basically variations on the idea of “White people do not understand the Black experience, and will never understand the Black experience.” Fair enough. As a “white” person, I am in no position to argue. I am not saying Leonard Pitts is RIGHT about this, but I cannot figure out any way to know whether he is right or wrong. Perhaps I am not even understanding his point. Still, he seems to work on making this point over and over and over and over. I “get” the fact that I cannot ever “get it”, at least to the extent that I am capable of “getting” that point. Eventually I decided that I was not so fond of Leonard Pitts’ columns dealing with racial issues.

Still, I basically respected his opinions, and even when I disagreed with Leonard Pitts I found him to be intelligent and insightful. Gradually, this began to change. If I had unlimited time, and access to an army of experts, it would be interesting to go back and attempt to study how much of the change was in me, and how much of the change was in Leonard Pitts. People and their opinions evolve, so I am sure that we BOTH changed, though at this point I sincerely believe the change came more in his writing.

When it came to matters of politics, I began to view Leonard Pitts as automatically blaming George W. Bush and/or Republicans for most of our problems, and expressing a good deal of hatred for both. This may be related to my earlier dislike of his racial columns, in that now that we have a black President, I believe anyone who opposes him is almost automatically accused of being racist -- and Leonard Pitts is not above accusing those who disagree with President Obama of being racially motivated.

In my opinion, the truth is complicated. There is enough blame to go around for everyone. Each of us is partly to blame for our problems, and both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have had good and bad ideas and done good and bad things, and neither the Republican nor Democrat party is always right or wrong. This is not to say that some individuals or parties are MORE right or wrong or MORE to blame than other individuals or parties, especially with regard to certain issues, but the truth is complicated. Leonard Pitts seems to have lost sight of that idea.

In fact, there was one particular column -- almost two years ago -- where he seemed to be arguing precisely the opposite, and saying that the issues were clear-cut, and that Republicans were one hundred percent wrong and Democrats were one hundred percent right. At that point, he lost me. I decided that he had little to offer me now, and that life was too short to continue reading his columns. It is NOT that I disagree with him. I can learn a lot from those I disagree with, and regularly read columns by those I disagree with, and spend time with those I disagree with. It is that I have lost respect for his entire way of thinking.

Leonard Pitts’ columns still appear in our local newspaper, and sometimes I still start to read them, but I almost always regret it, and consider it a waste of precious time. I find it to be very sad, sort of like losing a trusted friend. Granted, a friend who has never heard of me.

Debatable

I suppose that EVERYTHING is considered debatable by someone, somewhere, under some circumstances … and perhaps everything IS debatable. (As I have previously stated, most dictionaries define “debatable” with phrases like "open to dispute" and "capable of being debated".) Still, in the interest of productive communication and civil discourse, it is useful to distinguish between those concepts that are totally “open to dispute” and those concepts which are generally agreed upon.

My mother and I have long held very different views on many topics, and tend to disagree frequently. Now elderly, she is increasingly confused, and struggles to comprehend the world around her. We continue to argue regularly, as we always have, but now the “arguments” are often over relatively un-debatable ideas like what day of the week it is, and whether it is morning or evening. (Granted, in the strictest sense, even these things are open for debate -- when it is morning at one location on earth, it is evening at another, and the precise day of the week varies in relation to your position relative to the international date line, but still …) I find myself wishing there was some way to convince her that SOME ideas are much less debatable than others. I would be happy to argue with her about politics, or religion, or recipes, or even fashion, but arguing about what school I attended, or what make of car I drive, seems like a horrible waste of time.

At one time, my arguments with my mother were based on differing views and differing values. Now they tend to be based on the fact that her brain is no longer functioning particularly well. This is a special case. However, there are often arguments that are just as groundless, and just as much of a waste of time.

As our society becomes increasingly polarized, people of differing views tend to automatically oppose each other, and be reluctant to agree on ANYTHING. I myself have fallen into the trap of refusing to acknowledge the truth of someone’s TRUE statement, simply because I profoundly disagreed with them on other issues. We seem to believe that agreeing with our opponent on ANY idea somehow weakens our own position. Or, perhaps we wish to portray those who disagree with us as ALWAYS wrong, and incapable of stating a truth.

A key to successful communication, and a key to resolving our differences, lies in finding ANYTHING, small or large, upon which we can agree -- though it is unfortunately true that our words of agreement MAY be twisted by those who disagree with us, in an attempt to strengthen their positions, and weaken ours. Still, our only hope is to limit debate to those ideas which are truly debatable, and agree on those that are not.

I find myself inwardly cheering when I encounter cases of people agreeing NOT to debate those ideas which are un-debatable. Here is an emotion-charged example: Shortly after the start of the Second Gulf War -- the war that led to the removal of Saddam Hussein from power -- I heard a program on National Public Radio featuring a number of experts on International Law. At the time, many citizens were stating that the war was illegal according to International Law. The experts featured on the radio program were unanimously deeply opposed to the war, but also unanimously of the opinion that, according to International Law, the war was completely legal. One or two even argued that International Law might be viewed as REQUIRING the war, as a means of upholding the terms that ended the earlier gulf war. This was a rare moment in modern life. A group of experts on law, all opposed to something, yet all agreeing it was legal. Obviously, this made a deep impression on me, as I vividly remember it from years ago.

(Please note that I am NOT an expert on International Law, and am simply accepting the opinions of THESE experts, which I found all the more credible since they ran contrary to their own values. Also note that I am NOT stating whether I myself favored or opposed the war.)

There is considerable overlap between the ideas of “debatable” and “reasonable” -- which I discussed in an earlier blog entry. I have already stated that our society would be better off if we all broadened our standards as to what we considered “reasonable”. At the same time, we would be better off if we NARROWED our standards as to what was considered “debatable” -- or at least were more willing to acknowledge those things that are basically NOT debatable.

Truth is complicated.

Discourse

I have opinions, some of them quite strong, about a wide variety of topics. I have never felt the need for my friends or family to share those opinions, possibly because I am generally acutely aware of the possibility that I might be WRONG. Many of my friends and family have opinions quite different from mine.

As I was growing up, I had one particular friend who had opinions pretty much opposite from me on most topics, yet we had very enjoyable, non-rancorous discussions on these topics. I look back on those discussions quite fondly. The thing that made our discussions so enjoyable, and possibly productive, was honesty, and the absence of "spin". Truth remains truth, whether one is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Marxist, Vegan, or Philatelist. When one of us made a good point, the other would acknowledge that it was a good point. When one of us had a glaring weakness in our position, we would both acknowledge that it was a glaring weakness. When there were facts beyond reasonable dispute, we would both acknowledge that they were facts beyond reasonable dispute.

These characteristics are absent from too many discussions today, especially discussions regarding politics. In politics, both parties commonly mask the truth, and do everything possible to avoid acknowledging that anyone from "the other side" can ever be right about ANYTHING. In fact, people are sometimes reluctant to voice an opinion on an idea before learning the source of that idea -- if it came from someone on "our side", then it can be labeled a good idea; if it came from someone on "the other side", then it must be labeled a bad idea, or at least ignored.

I have strong opinions about politics, but am sometimes reluctant to state them, for fear that those who disagree with me on any one statement will feel compelled to automatically discount my ideas on every statement that follows.

Another problem in discussions is jumping from one topic to another, in an effort to "win" the discussion. For example, if I criticize a particular politician, the politician's defender may respond by criticizing a completely different politician, rather than defending the politician to which I am referring. BOTH politicians may be worthy of criticism, but this approach does little to advance communication. We should both discuss either politician "A" or politician "B". There is little to be gained by one of us talking about apples while the other is talking about oranges.

Then there is the fact that even the best idea may have flaws, or the worst idea may have positive points. There is little to be gained by denying this. Truth is complicated. Few things in life are one hundred percent good or one hundred percent bad, and to argue otherwise impedes true communication, and casts suspicion upon ALL our statements and beliefs.

Finally, there is the fact that for some people, in some circumstances, the goal of discourse is "victory" rather than communication. While this may occasionally be necessary, I find it to be very sad, and I personally have little use for such discourse.

I am not sure I have stated anything here that I have not stated elsewhere in this blog. Truth is complicated.

Repetition

I once heard a stand-up comic (unfortunately, I do not recall who it was) doing a very funny routine about the Disney “It’s a Small World” ride. On the actual ride, visitors are carried past animated figures representing children from all over the world, all singing the “It’s a Small World” song. The ride is offers no particular thrills; I would say it is intended to be pleasant or even joyful. The stand-up comic, since he was, after all, a stand-up comic, offered an alternate view, describing it as frightening and demonic, with all those animated children, “all completely different, yet ALL EXACTLY THE SAME.”

Anyone viewing the world philosophically often faces the paradox of things that are different, yet the same. Generally, it’s not so much the paradoxical nature of the things themselves, but instead of our point of view, or what we are choosing to focus on.

I had a group of friends who had a standing joke regarding the idea that there are only a very limited number of different personalities, and everyone you encounter has one of these personalities. I think the number was something like “seventeen”, but I don’t recall the precise number. While this was said as a joke, I believe there is a kernel of truth in the idea. I suspect the total number is far greater, but still finite. To clarify: I suspect if you had every person answer a large number of questions about themselves (say, a thousand questions) and then matched them up with other people who had answered all or most of the questions in the same way, then you could successfully predict how one person would respond to a situation by looking at the response of another who had provided the very same answers. This would be an interesting experiment. I suppose this idea is already being used by people like guidance counselors and criminal profilers. However, even if this idea is useful, it does not contradict the idea that everyone is unique.

Then there is the realm of ideas. My favorite college instructor, Marty Shichtman, liked to focus on the similarities between ideas. A discussion of “Beowulf” could include a discussion of “Star Wars”, or a discussion of Dante’s Inferno could lead to a discussion of The Wizard of Oz. These stories can also be considered “different, yet the same.”

I first encountered the idea that “There are no original thoughts” while in middle school. Some may debate this concept, but it seems to have merit. Anyone wishing to disprove it must somehow establish that a certain thought is indeed “original” -- and I do not know how this could ever be established. Central to the debate would be the question of what constitutes “original” and what constitutes “the same as previous thoughts.”

While I am mentioning ideas from school, I should also acknowledge my college professors Wilmuth and Marshall. They were discussing a certain author. (I know who the author was, but I am not going to give his name, to avoid potential slander.) One of the professors casually stated that although this author had written a number of books, ALL of the books “said the same thing.” They were not implying that the books were the same, word-for-word, but that all the books made the same basic points. Incidentally, they WERE of the opinion that the author could have just as well stopped with a single book that made all his relevant points.

When I began this blog, I acknowledged that I was not necessarily going to write anything truly original. I also acknowledged that I would feel free to “plagiarize” myself (if such a thing is even possible). Now, as I continue to write entry after entry, I find myself worrying about repetition, and questioning whether the things I am writing are “different” or “all exactly the same.”

I believe there is truth in both points of view. It is logical that key ideas that are particularly important to someone will show up again and again in their writing. It is also logical that they may see subtle, crucial differences in approaching these same basic ideas from different angles, or slightly different forms of the same basic ideas. I ask that anyone reading any of these ideas bear with me, and realize that:
1) If I seem to be writing the same ideas over and over, it may be because I consider those ideas to be really important, and worthy of repetition, and
2) Rather than just dismiss something as “the same”, there might be value in looking for “the difference.”

Truth is complicated.

Global Warming

Yesterday I read an online article stating that Texas Governor Rick Perry, who recently added his name to those seeking the Republican Presidential nomination, had expressed doubts about Global Warming. The article, by Dina Cappiello, went on to say, “But Perry's opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet.”

Like many controversial issues, Global Warming is complicated by the fact that there are thoughtful, rational, intelligent people, looking at the same data, who end up on both sides of the issue. The fact that many, especially on one side of the issue, try to insist that “the debate is over” makes me lean toward the opposite side of the issue.

The “issue” of Global Warming actually involves at least four separate-but-related questions:
1) Is global warming occurring?
2) Is global warming a bad thing?
3) Do the activities of humans have a significant effect on global warming?
4) IF global warming is occurring, AND if it is a bad thing, is there anything humans can do to significantly change the situation?

The answers to each of these questions have a dramatic impact on the other questions. However, I do not believe ANY of these four questions have been adequately answered. Number two is the least scientific of the four questions, and therefore is the hardest to answer objectively. I accept the idea that significant global warming would cause a rise in ocean levels, which would in turn lead to flooding of coastal areas -- and since these coastal areas are often densely populated by humans, perhaps this can be labeled a “bad thing” since cities would be lost and people would be driven from their homes. However, if this loss of homes were offset by, for instance, an increase in the world’s food supply, or even an increase in the amount of habitable land on earth (as regions like Siberia and Greenland became more temperate), then perhaps global warming would not be a clear-cut “bad thing”.

Global warming has become highly politicized, which interferes with finding honest, objective answers to the various questions. It has been established that on at least one occasion proponents of one side of the issue deliberately falsified data to support their position. I would not be surprised to learn that proponents of both sides had done this, and probably more than once. We SHOULD attempt to answer factual issues factually -- though the “facts” of global warming are complicated by various factors, including the slow time scale of global climate trends.

When a scientific issue become so politicized that it interferes with the scientific study of the issue, we should all be ashamed.

Truth is complicated.

Karate Kid

Though it has been many years since I saw it, I enjoyed the original version of the movie “The Karate Kid”.

SPOILER ALERT: What I am about to write gives away elements of the movie that would be better experienced by viewing the movie without reading about them first. I will do my best to avoid revealing the plot of the movie, or even many details, but I cannot proceed without giving certain things away.

Many of the things I enjoy about the movie involve a student and a teacher. The student, who wishes to acquire a set of physical skills, often disagrees with the teacher, who insists on imparting wisdom along with the physical skills.

Early in their relationship, the teacher orders the student to perform various repetitive tasks, seemingly unrelated to the student’s education. Later, we learn that each of the repetitive tasks was chosen specifically to help the student acquire the physical skills he was seeking.

This brings up the crucial point that I LOVE about the movie. The student, since he IS the “student”, does not clearly comprehend WHAT it is that he needs to learn, or how to learn it. This is a central point of great teacher/student relationships. IF the teacher knows things that the student does NOT know, then this gives the teacher extra insights that the student does not possess. For a student to assume that THEY know the things they need to learn, and the best way to learn them, contradicts the entire teacher/student notion.

I hasten to admit that I am speaking in philosophical, ideal terms, and the truth of the “real world” is more complicated. In the real world, teachers are not always wiser or more insightful than the students, and sometimes they do NOT know what it is that the student needs to learn, or the best way for the student to learn them. Still, a wise student should not rule out the possibility that the teacher possesses this extra insight.

I will close with one of my favorite quotes, not because it is particularly relevant, but because it is one of my favorite quotes -- sometimes identified as a Buddhist proverb:

“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.”

Truth is complicated.

Activism

"Activism" is one of those terms that is commonly used but controversial to define. Several online sources cite the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (2000) -- "The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause."

It is an interesting area of fiction to speculate what would have happened if some detail of the past were to be changed. What if the other side had won a war? What if someone who died had lived longer, or what if someone had died earlier than they did? These might be "big" changes, but changing any slight detail might result in a completely different world. There are science fiction stories that deal with the subject of beings traveling back in time, and changing their own futures.

I may seem to have strayed off topic -- I started off discussing activism, then jumped to the idea of changing the future by changing the past. My point is that no one can ever accurately state what WOULD have happened if things had happened differently than precisely the way they DID happen. This leads to the idea that I cannot prove or adequately support my current beliefs on activism.

Still, my current opinion is that activism often, or usually, produces the opposite of desired results. That is, I believe that anti-war protesters often lengthen wars, pro-environmental activists often lead to increased environmental destruction, and activists fighting for social change often delay or prevent their desired change. As I have already acknowledged, without being able to go back and forth in time and change variables, there is no way to prove or disprove this idea.

Even if it is true that activism usually produces the opposite of the desired results, this is not to say activism is totally wrong or bad. There may be a valid role in simply giving the activists an outlet for their strong feelings, the need to "do SOMETHING". Still, I would ask the activist whether he or she is truly certain that their actions will serve to further their goals, or whether they may just be fulfilling their own need to take some sort of direct action.

There are some interesting, if sometimes questionable, overlaps between physics and human interaction. A well-known principle of physics states that "Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction." While we may debate whether this is strictly true in all circumstances, there are certainly cases in which it seems to apply to human interaction. I personally have encountered situations in which I had no strong opinions on a topic until I encountered a person who held strong opinions -- and I ended up feeling strongly that the person was WRONG. The person succeeded in changing me from having no opinion to having a strong opinion, but it was opposite of their desired result.

This is especially a problem when using "direct, often confrontational action". Many onlookers will be repelled simply by the fact that the action is direct and confrontational, regardless of the merits of the cause. Sadly, this can hinder communication, leading to an ever-widening gulf between two positions that might not have been that far apart to begin with.

A clear example involves some of the actions taken by the animal-advocacy group, PETA. Please note that I am stating neither my support for nor my opposition to PETA's agenda. In fact I have profoundly mixed feelings regarding PETA, due at least partly to their tactics. For instance, there have been occasions when young people were subjected to a "pie in the face" for appearing to promote an industry that PETA was opposed to, such as a "pork queen". Publicly assaulting a high school girl on the stage at a county fair MAY make the local or even national news, but I question whether it will advance PETA's agenda of having fewer people consume pork -- AND I submit that it may engender sympathy for the girl and lead to LESS sympathy for the cause of animal rights.

While I can offer instances that seem to support my belief that activism often or usually produces the opposite of the desired results, I repeat that I cannot prove this idea, and I do not believe it can ever be proven or dis-proven.

Activists, almost by definition, have strong feelings about the causes in which they are active, and would probably view my opinion with strong hostility. If an activist wished to engage me in a debate, they might cite instances in which high-profile activism seemed to advance the activists goals. For example, there have been some famous strikes that are credited with leading to changes sought by the strikers. I have two responses. First, I am willing to stipulate that SOMETIMES activism might be effective in accomplishing the activists goal (though I am not convinced). Secondly, I have questions about "the big picture". Activism may win the battle but lose or at least delay winning the war. An example is "women's suffrage". Without activism, it might have taken longer for American women to have gained the right to vote. Without activism, American women might have more quickly gained equal status in the workplace. I realize that these statements may be viewed as highly inflammatory.

Then there is the matter of degree, or the question of what each person calls "activism". One person may consider it to be "activism" to refuse to eat a certain species of fish, while another might scoff at calling this "activism", and instead insist on physically attacking the fishing boats. The person who physically attacks the fishing boats may accomplish more in both directions, both attracting people to their cause and repelling them from it.

Perhaps I am not giving enough credit to the idea of "doing SOMETHING". Perhaps it is more important for the activist to take some sort of action than for the activist to further their stated goal. I suspect that there are times when this is absolutely the case. After all, at the end of the day, you have to live with your opinion of yourself, and you can probably never know for certain whether you are truly furthering your own stated goals.

Truth is complicated.

Minority Rules

I have previously written that Democracy is often summed up with the two-word mantra, “Majority Rules” -- a vote has been or will be taken, and all will have to abide by the outcome of the vote, the expression of the will of the majority of voters. The majority will “rule” or reign supreme. I also wrote that the real challenge for the USA (which I now realize is a “republic” rather than a “democracy”) is protecting the minority from the unbridled expression of the will of the majority.

Recently, the world has been swept with news of protests and demonstrations. Abroad, notable demonstrations have taken place in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia, along with various other countries. In the United States, the most publicized demonstrations have taken place in Wisconsin and Ohio. In the United States, demonstrators are to a certain extent protected by Federal law -- though there are still limits as to what is allowed. In the rest of the world, some of these demonstrators have been killed.

With demonstrations, protests, and similar gatherings, there is no way to clearly know whether you are dealing with the “majority” or the “minority” -- though probably MOST demonstrations and protests, at least in the USA, involve less than half the population, or even less than half the voting population, so in some sense would be considered the “minority”. SOMETIMES there are demonstrations and protests by people specifically opposed to the outcome of a vote that has already taken place. In this case, I would say the protesters almost certainly must be labeled the “minority” (unless there are allegations of actual fraud in the vote).

In the case of people demonstrating against the outcome of a fair, valid vote that has already taken place, the demonstrators (the “minority”) can be viewed as seeking to impose THEIR will upon the “majority”, who have already voted against the demonstrators. This is complicated and troubling.

One problem lies with the fact that demonstrators often seem to believe their passion and/or their numbers and/or their volume are an indication of the correctness of their position. I see little evidence that this is true. This is not to say that loud, passionate demonstrators are incorrect -- I just fail to see any relationship between passion and “correctness” or “goodness”. Passionately-supported ideas are not necessarily “good” ideas, just as the majority is not necessarily “right”.

Still, to a certain extent, our society defines “right” and “wrong”, at least in terms of political issues, according to the will of the majority, within the limits of protecting the minority. Whatever or whomever wins the election is “right”. If I had it in my power to secretly change the results of an election, so that all of the candidates and issues favored by ME prevailed, this would be “wrong” -- no matter HOW convinced I was that my candidates and issues were better than the OTHER candidates. (In fact, this would be an interesting personality question: “If you had it in your power to secretly change the outcome of a vote, WOULD you change it?”)

We COULD change our entire system, with questions decided by an old-fashioned “applause meter”. The candidate who gets the loudest applause “wins” the election. In a way, this is what demonstrators are advocating. It is also, in a way, the opposite of our current system, in which theoretically the quietest, weakest, poorest person has exactly the same number of votes as the loudest, strongest, richest person. (Granted, this is THEORETICAL. The loud and the strong and the rich already have greater power in making decisions in our country.)

I must emphasize that this is a complicated topic, and each situation is unique. The “majority” is not necessarily truly right. Demonstrations and protests are not always geared toward subverting the will of the majority. Often their relationship to the will of the majority is unclear, and, sometimes, they serve a valuable function. Still, there is often an element of “might makes right”, which is precisely what some demonstrators claim to be arguing AGAINST.

Truth is complicated.

Majority Rules

Far too often, Democracy is summed up with the two-word mantra, “Majority Rules” -- meaning that a vote has been or will be taken, and all will have to abide by the outcome of the vote, the expression of the will of the majority of voters. The majority will “rule” or reign supreme.

At first glance, the phrase “Majority Rules” is not a blatantly inaccurate description of how Democracy works. Theoretically, it is the majority who elects representatives -- “elected officials” -- and often it is the majority of elected officials who pass laws, among other things.

However, the real challenge of Democracy is NOT how to determine the will of the majority (via voting), but how to protect the minority from the unbridled expression of that will. If we were truly governed only by the doctrine of “Majority Rules”, then the majority could rule over the minority in any way it wished. Laws could be passed dictating that the minority had to serve the majority as slaves, or laws could be passed that the minority shall be killed. After all, “Majority Rules.” These examples may seem extreme, but they are the logical outcome of unlimited rule of the majority.

Another example: If “Majority Rules” then the Majority can vote to take money from the Minority. Just as absurd as enslaving or killing the minority. Oh ... wait a minute ... Lots of politicians, and possibly some actual voters, talk about raising taxes on “the rich”. Since “the rich” are NOT the majority, if we (the majority) WANT to take away their money, we should be able to. Majority Rules.

This is a complicated issue. In a way, most laws involve the majority imposing their will on the minority, such as the anti-jaywalkers imposing their will on the jaywalkers. In fact, the law routinely specifies that the majority can take money from jaywalkers, in the form of “fines”. Generally, however, the majority cannot take ALL of a jaywalker’s money, nor can the majority have jaywalkers killed. I honestly don’t know precisely what prevents the majority from having jaywalkers killed, or taking all their money. Somehow, something is limiting the majority.

It is my understanding that the government of the United States of America has various procedures and rules designed to limit the rule of the majority. Interestingly, some of these rules are vehemently opposed and sometimes even ridiculed.

Presidential Elections involve the “Electoral College”. Since American Presidents are elected by a vote of the “Electoral College” rather than by a direct vote of the people, it is possible for a candidate to win a majority of the popular vote but lose at the Electoral College level. The Electoral College serves to partially equalize the influence of fifty different states. Since most of the population is concentrated in a relatively few states, voters from those states -- the “majority” -- could impose their will (“rule”) over the voters from less-populous states, if only we did not have the Electoral College.

The United States Senate allows “filibusters” in which a minority of Senators can effectively block the majority of Senators. This is the entire POINT of filibusters. As a consequence, Senators from the majority often attempt the have the filibuster rules changed, so that they can “rule”.

I suppose our clearest protection from the Rule of the Majority is found in the Constitution. Even if the majority of voters pass a law, if a court decides that the law is unconstitutional, then the law is voided. In recent years there have been various high-profile cases in which courts decided that the will of the majority was in conflict with the Constitution, including things like gun control. I suppose the Constitution is one of the factors that keeps jaywalkers from being executed.

Though it is a complicated issue, I am personally much more comfortable with Majority Rule when it involves answering some specific question that needs to be answered. For example, when two or more candidates are vying for an office, it makes perfect sense to decide via a vote of the people. I am much less comfortable with the majority deciding on rules that everyone must live by, such as “no jaywalking” or “Eat three servings of vegetables every day.” The issue of what I eat every day is NOT a question that needs to be addressed by a vote of the people, whereas the question of who shall serve as President of the United States IS a question that needs to be addressed.

I am a big fan of Democracy, but not so much of the phrase “Majority Rules”. It’s far too easy to forget about protecting the minority from the will of the majority. Perhaps a better phrase would be “Majority decides questions that need to be decided, while protecting the minority” -- but that does not roll off the tongue very well.

Truth is complicated.

LATER: At the sister site to this blog, truthiscomplicated.wordpress.com, the blogger jonolan (from “Reflections From A Murky Pond” at blog.jonolan.net) has correctly and succinctly commented that America was created as a Republic rather than a Democracy, for the reasons stated above. The entry above will continue to be valid if future readers substitute the phrase “our American systems of government” anytime the word “Democracy” appears.

I am grateful to jonolan for pointing this out, and recommend his blog!

Anyone and Everyone

It is all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the people around us -- indeed, people EVERYWHERE -- share our perspective and our circumstances. Sometimes we are actually taught or encouraged to think along these lines.

In the community where I live, most people assume that everyone they deal with on a daily basis has a home, a car, a telephone (land line and/or cellular), television (generally cable), at least one bank account, and a certain amount of money available for charities and gifts. We have heard that there are “homeless” people, but in general we have no contact with “those” people. We have also heard of people who have no cars, but these people probably have some specific reason for giving up their car -- perhaps an elderly person that no longer drives. There may BE people without televisions, but they must be eccentric. Everyone has a telephone, everyone has at least one bank account, unless perhaps they are between bank accounts, and everyone has money available for charities and gifts, but some people are too cheap to part with their money.

This is just the perception. The truth, though many would find it hard to believe, is that in addition to homeless people, there are plenty of people without cars, televisions, telephones, bank accounts, or a penny to spare, and most people probably encounter such people in their day-to-day activities -- though many people would argue vehemently with me about this.

Continuing rapid “advances” in technology, and the increasing prevalence of this technology in our daily lives, provides more examples of this phenomenon. We are well on our way to believing that “everyone” has a Facebook page, and a cell phone that not only serves as a telephone but also includes a camera and provides access to the Internet. (I place the word “advances” in quotation marks because it seems to me that “advances” implies something positive, an improvement, and at this point I am unconvinced that Facebook and web-enabled camera phones are a positive development.)

Anytime we start generalizing about other people, whether it be in regard to what they believe, what they possess or have access to, what they desire, or what they can afford, we are probably making a mistake. Everyone is unique, and often in ways we cannot begin to imagine.

Often we are encouraged to think of others as essentially like ourselves. Even “the Golden Rule” (which I am NOT a fan of) specifies in its most common form that we should treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated (rather than the way that THEY would like to be treated). I suppose there is something positive about this way of thinking.

On the negative side, thinking of others as essentially like ourselves imbues them with the same priorities and the same resources that we have, and tends to hold them to the same standards that WE consider appropriate, with the same definitions of “right” and “wrong”.

Just as we are incapable of seeing ANYTHING with absolute clarity, most of what we see as intrinsically and obviously "right" or "wrong" or "proper" or "improper" is just a product of the values and priorities we have somehow acquired throughout our lives, and there is nothing intrinsic or obvious about it. For example, most present-day Americans would state that a green, well-mowed, dandelion-free lawn was "better" and even "prettier" than an unkempt yard full of dandelions. Objectively, a yard full of dandelions is probably "prettier", but we have been taught since childhood that dandelions are "weeds" rather than "flowers". I honestly find an un-mowed yard to be more attractive than a mowed one, but I have been accused of lying about this by those who believe that a well-mowed yard is clearly "better", and that everyone KNOWS a well-mowed yard is clearly better.

This is one of those ideas that we cannot overcome, closely related to the idea that we cannot be truly objective, and everything is filtered through our own perception. What is especially troubling is many people's inability to perceive/accept the idea that their values and priorities are simply their own values and priorities, and not innately correct. As with my lawn-mowing example, many people seem incapable of accepting that people could truly embrace alternate beliefs, and accuse those who disagree with them of lying or being mentally flawed.

On a related note, this concept of “group agreement” seems important to many people. When I argue with my mother -- which we do frequently -- it is always important to her to stress not only that I am wrong and that she is right, but also that EVERYONE agrees with her position, and NO ONE agrees with my position. I once told her, “Even if a nation-wide poll found that most people agreed with ME, you would still insist that EVERYONE agreed with YOU.”

She replied, “That’s not true! A nation-wide poll would never find that most people agreed with YOU!” While this true example may seem humorous or extreme, many people view the world in basically this same way: “Everyone agrees with me, and views the world the same way that I view it, and anyone who does not is peculiar, or lying about their true opinion and view.” This is compounded not only by the fact that people have a natural tendency to surround themselves with others who share their views, but also by the fact that we tend to BELIEVE we are surrounded by others who share our views -- thus reinforcing them -- even when we are NOT, and when everyone is actually unique.

Truth is complicated.

Misrepresentation

I originally wrote most of the following post over two years ago. I have been reluctant to post it for several reasons. For one thing, it is critical of President Obama. Many people are really bothered by ANY sort of criticism of President Obama, so much so that they do not really pay attention to what you have to say, and quit paying attention to anything you say after that. For another thing, it deals with the fact that anyone who voices criticism of President Obama risks being labeled a "racist". This was already apparent during the Presidential campaign, and became even worse after President Obama was elected. I had HOPED it would go away after the election, but it hasn't. That's yet another reason NOT to post this -- it deals with the 2008 Presidential election, and that was quite awhile ago. Sadly, this all still seems relevant, so here it is:

I did not vote for President Obama, but I considered it. Many of my friends, and most of my relatives, were supporters of Obama's Presidential Campaign, some of them vehemently. In the end, there was one single factor that decided the question of whether or not I would vote for Obama for President: On multiple occasions -- perhaps "routinely" -- he misrepresented the beliefs and positions of his opponents.

For me, this is a fatal flaw in a person who seeks to be the President of the United States, especially at a time when the citizens of the United States are highly polarized and deeply divided on a number of difficult issues. Under those circumstances, the best hope for uniting and moving forward lies in honest and sincere communication, and an attempt to understand our differences, rather than blatantly misrepresenting them.

There are those who would argue that misrepresenting your opposition's beliefs is simply how the game of politics is currently played, and perhaps they are right. Certainly all sides are guilty of this sin, as are most, but not all, candidates. Regardless, it remains a fact that I did not vote for President Obama primarily for that reason.

I was thinking about all this the other day as I repeatedly heard the assertion that those who now oppose President Obama are motivated primarily by racial considerations. I must acknowledge that at least officially, these charges do not come from President Obama himself. It is SUPPORTERS of President Obama who claim that those who oppose him object primarily to his race rather than his ideas or his actions. Still, in a sense, we have come full circle. I did not vote for Obama because he misrepresented the beliefs of those who opposed him, and now I am one of those whose beliefs are being misrepresented by those who support him. Rather than listen to any of my actual positions, or any of the reasons I oppose President Obama, I am simply characterized as a "racist".

It is one thing to disagree with someone's concerns. It is quite another to deny that they even HAVE concerns. What hope is there for a society where we cannot even acknowledge that those who have opposing views HAVE opposing views?

Anabolic Steroids

In the late 1980s, at a medical conference, I attended a profound lecture on the use of anabolic steroids to increase muscle mass and improve athletic performance. The speaker was strongly opposed to this use of steroids, and supported his opposition with a variety of scientific facts, especially regarding negative effects on the user's health, both short-term and long-term.

The most memorable part of the lecture, though, was the speaker's attack on the medical community in general, for assertions that anabolic steroids do NOT increase muscle mass and improve athletic performance. The speaker took the position that although the negative effects of steroids for athletes far outweigh the positive, and they should never be used in this manner, to state that they are ineffective for this purpose is totally untrue. When you CLAIM that anabolic steroids will NOT increase muscle mass and improve athletic performance, then you lose all credibility, and there is no reason for anyone to listen to anything ELSE you have to say about anabolic steroids, or, for that matter, any other topic.

Let me hasten to point out that I do not know enough about the subject of anabolic steroids to know whether the lecturer was right or wrong about their use, but his point about telling an untruth remains profound, and applies to many areas of life.

I suspect this phenomenon is more common that anyone will ever know. When people feel strongly about something, they embrace those aspects of it which favor their position, while denying those aspects that do not support their position. Or, someone feels strongly about something, for reasons they do not fully understand, and then embraces "facts" to support their strong feelings. This is totally understandable, but it is equally understandable that the use of untruths and/or denial of truths often weakens your position rather than strengthens it.

Some of the best-known examples come from childhood. Many a child has been told that their face will "stick" in a certain position, or that they will "go blind" from engaging in certain activities that their parents find unseemly. When the child realizes that their face will NOT stick, and that certain activities will NOT make them go blind, then it casts doubt upon everything else that their parents tell them (though I have no idea how damaging the effects might be).

In the world of grown-ups, an easy place to look for examples is with local "nuisance ordinances" and neighborhood rules. Growing up in Iowa, one of the main ways we made mischief during the Halloween season was to throw hand-fulls of field corn at the neighbors' windows, which, while a common activity at Halloween in my neighborhood, would have the effect of startling them. To this day, I maintain that "corning", as it was called, though possibly annoying, is essentially harmless and wholesome, especially when compared with other pranks. About the time I was growing too old to participate anyway, city officials spread word that "corning" must be stopped for reasons of community health -- the corn brought rats, and rats brought disease. Until I see some sort of scientific research, I will continue to doubt that rats and disease were ever a significant consequence of "corning". "Corning" was a common child's prank in our community, and some people didn't like it, so they came up with a reason to stop it.

Actually, the whole rodent/disease argument is invoked for a wide array of rules and pressures. You must keep your lawn well-mowed, or you will attract rodents and disease. You must keep your porch clutter-free, or you will attract rodents and disease. You must not have dishes of cat food outside, for you will attract rodents and disease (the idea that the attracted CATS will cut down on the "rodents and disease" is conveniently overlooked).

Some people reading this might say, "Wait a minute! An un-mowed lawn DOES attract rodents and disease!" This brings up a new point. This is one of those cases in which the precise truth of the situation is NOT all-important. I personally doubt that an un-mowed lawn attracts enough rodents and disease to support the case for requiring people to mow their lawns, and I am unaware of any data to support such an assertion, other than the fact that some people have claimed that it is true. While I may be completely wrong, if you go making this claim, and I believe that it is untrue, then I am less likely to believe anything ELSE you have to say, even if you have other valid reasons for requiring people to mow their lawns -- regardless of whether or not the "rodents and disease" claim is actually true.

Before I stray even further into my hatred of "nuisance ordinances", let me return to the original point: Even if your intentions are noble, and you are on the correct side of an issue, the use of untruths or denial of truths weakens your argument rather than strengthens it, and may negate all the factual information that supports your position. IF you have facts to support your position, state them. If some facts contradict your position, admit it. If your position is mostly just your opinion, or based mostly on an unproven "gut feeling," ACKNOWLEDGE that your position is your opinion, and cannot at the moment be "proven". This will not WEAKEN your argument. If anything, it will strengthen it.

Truth is complicated.

SOMETHING

One of the most unfortunate, dangerous, destructive forces in humanity is the impulse to do or say SOMETHING … anything. At many critical moments, both large and small, the only good option, and the very best thing, is to do or say NOTHING. We humans tend to have a problem with that. I doubt that anyone is totally immune to this urge, but it is especially notable with people in authority, and leadership positions.

This morning, the news is filled with historic developments on the opposite side of the world from the United States. Expert after expert is being interviewed on television and radio. To their credit, they all admit that there is no way of knowing how the situation will unfold, or how things will turn out, or whether the historic changes will end up being a good thing or a bad thing for the world in general. Actually, the various experts seem to agree on only one thing -- that there is nothing positive the American government or American leadership can do or say at this moment, and it is important for the American President NOT to make any official statements. So now they have announced that in a few minutes the American President will give a speech to address the unfolding situation.

I am not giving the specifics of what is happening, and I probably never will, and I will wait some time before I actually post this, because the specifics are both arguable and unimportant. I am horrified that the President is about to make an official speech, but not at all surprised. It is what Presidents do, and it is what everyone does, and if the President did NOT make a speech, there are those who would criticize him for his “inaction”. In fact, perhaps a large part of the blame for this unfortunate tendency lies with ALL of us, who regularly criticize the LACK or action, or the LACK of words, failing to acknowledge that inaction is sometimes/often the very best thing that can occur.

Any specific situation is arguable. Perhaps in this precise situation, making a speech is NOT the wrong thing for the President to do … but this does not change my overall point. SOMETIMES the very best course of action is no action at all, but we are all hesitant to “do nothing”.

This problem is not limited to global politics. Every day, each of us encounters situations in which our best course is to say and do nothing at all. Fortunately, many of these situations go un-noticed, and we DO in fact say and do nothing. IF we had some sort of narrator jumping out at us asking, “What do you do NOW?” we would probably be more inclined to do SOMETHING -- anything -- and THAT would be the wrong course of action.

I suspect part of this is a cultural bias. I suspect there are other cultures that more highly value the idea of doing nothing -- just as some musicians place more value on silence, while others focus on the sound interrupting the silence. Actually, I guess probably it is a “yin and yang” thing -- though I am not the best one to discuss the principles of yin and yang.

Hmmm. I have arrived at a point where the discussion could lead into fruitful areas of Chinese philosophy, but at the same time, I realize I am not particularly well-qualified to continue. This is a perfect moment for me to follow my own advice, and say and do nothing more.

Truth is complicated.

Strength of Emotion

(This is the most difficult blog entry I have attempted to write. The subject is just TOO complicated, with too many possible directions and angles to pursue.)

It's hard to overstate the importance of our emotions -- the way we "feel." Though we can never escape our basic physiological needs -- things like oxygen, water, a tolerable temperature range, and a certain amount of nutrition -- it is our feelings that actually determine our quality of life. The saying, "Money can't buy happiness" may sound trite, but it is absolutely true. One person may have wealth and power, but be miserable, while another may be impoverished and powerless, but happy. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we all seek happiness.

Happiness gets complicated because each person may have different standards for happiness. Some thrive on challenges, and would not be happy lounging on a beach with all their basic needs provided for them, while others might consider the beach life to be paradise. Whatever makes you happy, makes you happy. We all want happiness, but differ in what makes us happy.

As in many other areas of life, our natural tendency to view others from our own perspective can cause problems. Just as we can never know how another person thinks, we can never know how they feel, or the strength of their feelings. The key point is that everyone is different. At the same time, it is inevitable that most people view others from within their own frame of reference, and tend to judge others by their own personal standards. We use our own standards to decide whether another person's feelings are valid, and how strong those feelings are. While a case can be made for judging the validity, or justification, of feelings, this is not necessarily relevant, and is especially not necessarily related to the strength of those feelings, which defies our own understanding. The fact that someone’s feelings do not meet our own criteria for validity does not necessarily make them any less valid, and certainly not any less intense, regardless of validity.

As an example, consider hunger. For reasons unknown, I generally do not feel much hunger. Especially if I am occupied with other activities, and not in particular "eating" situations, I can easily go twenty-four hours or more without eating, and without particularly noticing the fact that I have not eaten. Other people might feel hungry if they go four hours without eating. In this particular case, I am aware that I am unusual, and if someone complains to me that they have not eaten in twelve hours, and feel hungry, I try not to be critical of them -- though I cannot truly relate to their discomfort. Whether or not a person SHOULD feel hungry is irrelevant, and the strength of their hunger cannot be estimated by someone else’s hunger in the same situation.

Especially in conflicts, each side tends to believe that they have some special perspective, circumstance, or knowledge that makes THEIR emotions stronger and more valid than those of their opposition. One side's emotions may indeed be more valid than the other's, but this determination requires either divine knowledge or a complicated set of completely subjective value judgements. Furthermore, the STRENGTH of emotion is not necessarily related to the validity, and can probably be truly assessed ONLY by divine knowledge.

Our emotions do not necessarily "make sense", especially in regard to their strength. We may feel quite strongly about something that seems unimportant to others, and that even we ourselves would not have expected to feel strongly about. Our emotions sometimes defy our own understanding, and are largely outside of our own control, though this is sometimes debated. It may be possible to modify our feelings to a certain degree in certain situations -- for example, there are those who believe that forcing yourself to smile may ease depression, or that by closely examining feelings we can bring them under control -- but to a certain extent our feelings are just "there".

Assessing the strength of another's emotion is impossible, yet we regularly make decisions based at least partly upon our perceptions of the feelings of others. We continually must judge whether and to what extent our own emotions conflict with the emotions of others, and what path to choose between conflicting emotions. Often, we are unaware that we are making these judgements and decisions. Other times, we agonize over difficult choices involving complicated sets of overlapping priorities and conflicting emotions. In each case, we end up deciding whether to place our own emotions ahead of our perceptions of the emotions of others -- and this involves assessments of the justification, appropriateness, and strength of all the emotions involved. Naturally, we are more likely to defer to the feelings of others if we consider those feelings to be justified, appropriate, and strong.

Life gets more complicated when we consider the feelings of others to be un-justified and/or inappropriate. THEN what do we do? Especially when those feelings are quite strong. Some of the most problematic issues on earth involve conflicts between groups of people with opposing feelings who consider the feelings of their opponents to be un-justified and/or inappropriate. There are also times when we might consider opposing feelings to be justified, appropriate, and understandable ... yet still we are unwilling or unable to modify our actions based on those feelings which conflict with our own.

We constantly face issues regarding feelings, and not just with controversial, emotion-charged issues. Every interaction we have with another person involves weighing our own feelings and priorities against our perception of their feelings and priorities. For example, if you encounter an acquaintance walking down the street, your decision on whether or not to greet them, and how to greet them, will depend on a complicated variety of factors including your feelings and their feelings. If you are in a hurry, you might prefer to skip a greeting altogether, and you might consider pretending not to notice them -- but you might fear "hurting their feelings" and decide the only way to keep YOURSELF from feeling bad is to stop for a chat. You actually may go through this same decision process even when encountering a complete stranger, though in either case you may not be AWARE that you are going through this decision process.

The issue of awareness is deeply ingrained in the issue of feelings. Feelings can range from overwhelming to unnoticeable. Science teaches us that things like the color of paint used in a room can modify our feelings, but we are not necessarily AWARE of the calming effect of a certain color, or even of the fact that we have grown calmer since entering the room. Or we may not be aware that we are nicer to a co-worker who on some level reminds us of a long-ago friend, and distrusting of a co-worker who on some level reminds us of a long-ago enemy. At the same time, when we are overwhelmed by our own feelings, we may become blind to the feelings of others, or largely unaware that others even HAVE feelings.

Then there is the issue of "hurt feelings," which is really just a part of everything that has been discussed already. An extra problem with "hurt feelings" is the implication that INTENT was involved. When our feelings get hurt, on some level, whether we are aware of it or not, we tend to believe we have been the victim of a deliberate attack on our emotional well-being. On a more logical level, this is clearly not necessarily true. A special case is when we feel victimized for having been ignored or neglected, and consider THIS to be a deliberate attack on our emotional well-being.

"Hurt feelings" can become a significant factor in our day-to-day interactions with others. The whole area of "hurt feelings" is a dangerous minefield. Arguing that you did not INTENTIONALLY hurt another person's feelings can cause even MORE hurt feelings, just as being unaware of the fact that someone believes you have hurt their feelings can also cause more hurt feelings ("How could you be so oblivious to my feelings?").

A person suffering from "hurt feelings" MAY have been the victim of a deliberate emotional attack, or they may be simply the victim of their own emotional perspective, or there may be a combination of factors, including conflict between various peoples' feelings. There is often great emotional trauma associated with attempts to balance the conflicting feelings of several individuals, such as a person torn between the feelings of their parent and their spouse, or a person placed in the middle of a battle between two of their friends. Needless to say, these are often "no-win" situations -- though each of the people involved, focusing on their OWN feelings, may see the situation as very straightforward, with themselves as the "victim". And, perhaps each person IS the victim. Besides, even feelings that are totally unjustified can be life-shatteringly painful.

Sometimes it seems sensible to make decisions based mostly on perceived strength of emotion. If I slightly prefer one restaurant, while a friend strongly prefers another, I will probably never insist on us going to my preferred restaurant, no matter how many times we visit the other restaurant. I suppose one could argue that this is not "fair", and that we should occasionally bow to MY preference. Or one could even argue that the perceived strength of emotion is irrelevant, and both restaurants should be patronized equally. I disagree. If the choice of the restaurant is of great importance to my friend, and little importance to me, then why should we not defer to the friend's preference?

In fact, I suspect this would be a better world if we all tried to pay a little more attention to the strong feelings of others, especially when we ourselves do NOT have strong feelings about the topic. I am NOT advocating that we automatically defer to whomever shouts the loudest. People have very strong feelings on an infinite number of topics, and you cannot please everyone, nor should you try. Still, ignoring someone's strong emotion is like ignoring someone's tears -- if you cannot help, perhaps you can at least offer them some slight comfort.

Sometimes, though, you can offer them no comfort, and the most you can do is silently and privately hope that they can find their own inner peace, while realizing you cannot comprehend their emotion, nor its strength.

Truth is complicated.

Dennis Moore

In an earlier blog entry I mentioned the British comedy troupe "Monty Python's Flying Circus", and the indelible effect they have left upon my thinking.

One of their sketches that often comes into my mind involves the (fictional?) highwayman Dennis Moore. (As far as I have been able to determine, there was no actual historical highwayman named Dennis Moore.) Like Robin Hood, Dennis Moore robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. One of the sources of humor in Monty Python's Dennis Moore is that he always robbed from the SAME rich, and gave to the SAME poor ... with the result that eventually the poor became wealthy, while the rich were left destitute. Even then, Dennis Moore continued to attempt to rob the same rich people, who by now had nothing left for him to rob, while the formerly-poor people now lived in luxury, yet still awaited more loot from Dennis Moore.

When someone finally points out the error of Dennis Moore's ways, he responds, "Wait a tic ... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought." In the final scene, he "robs" another coach, but this time he simply has everyone reveal their valuables, and he attempts to redistribute them more evenly among the coach occupants.

The thing that makes me think of this sketch so often is the fact that LOTS of things are trickier than people think, and sometimes real life offers examples that are practically as laughable as Monty Python. Often an action has unintended -- yet in retrospect, totally predictable -- consequences, such as cutting down a tree and having it fall and crush something.

I doubt that the Monty Python folks were attempting to make a direct political statement, but many of the things that are trickier than you think actually involve government attempts to redistribute wealth. Raising taxes often reduces government revenue, while decreasing taxes often increases it. Attempts to take money from "the rich" often end up hurting "the poor" more than "the rich" (for example, anything that decreases corporate profits can lead to lay-offs).

Another thing that is trickier than you think is the relationship between various life forms in an ecosystem. Stereotypically, but also truly, if you eliminate the cats, the mouse population may explode. On the other hand, if you specifically ADD cats, to get rid of the mice, you may also get rid of the birds. There are many examples around the world of a plant or animal being introduced to an area where it is not native, or a plant or animal being eliminated from an area where it IS native, often with disastrous results.

A few years ago National Public Radio did a series on worldwide efforts to end child labor. It turns out that often, attempts to stop child labor in places like factories results in the child and their family being devastated by the loss of income generated by the formerly-laboring child. The child and their family may simply starve to death, or be driven into even worse circumstances than the original child labor, such as sexual slavery. Granted, this example is not particularly funny.

If you watch your own life, you will find examples of things being trickier than you thought. Hopefully, at least some of them will be funny.

Truth is complicated.

Terminology

As I have stated elsewhere, words are not clear. It is hard enough to communicate when both sides of a conversation are trying to be clear. If either or both sides deliberately use words to make things less clear, then communication becomes nearly impossible.

When people are advocating for or opposing a particular belief, position, or approach to a problem, there is a natural, understandable, and, in my opinion, highly objectionable tendency to manipulate language and terminology in a way that favors your own point of view. This is an inflammatory subject. The issues involved are often controversial and emotionally charged, and some people feel they must advance their opinions and crush the opposition using any means available, while others simply see their manipulative terminology as accurate and objective. Worst of all, many see THEIR terminology as accurate and honest, while the terminology of their opposition is inaccurate and deceptive.

The very best example, but also one of the most dangerous and emotional, involves the debate over legalized abortion. Rather than having one side called "anti-abortion" and another side called "pro-abortion", we have "pro-life" and "pro-choice". I initially viewed both of these terms with equal scorn. Although I have been politically active pretty much my entire life, I only recently have learned to instantly associate the term "pro-life" with "anti-abortion"; I used to have to stop and ponder the issue every time I encountered the term. I have, over time, come to accept the somewhat distracting term "pro-choice" since it is fundamentally honest. The pro-choice side does not advocate that ALL pregnancies end in abortion -- they simply argue for legalized choice.

"Pro-life", for me, represents the very worst kind of manipulative terminology. It is fine for those who oppose legal abortion to believe that THEY are "pro" life while those who oppose them are "anti" life, but those who favor legalized abortion may also consider themselves to be "pro" life. Much of this controversial issue comes down to a question of what constitutes a human life, and what therefore constitutes murder. For one side in this highly controversial, emotional issue to claim the title "pro-life" is akin to one side deciding to call itself the "right" side and their opposition the "wrong" side. This may accurately represent THEIR belief, but does nothing to enhance or clarify communication between the opposing sides and for those undecided on the issue. By the way, PLEASE note that I am not stating my own personal opinion on the issue of abortion. If YOU believe that I am, it is because you are viewing my words through the distorting lens of your own perception.

Another more insidious case of manipulating terminology is the term "Palestinian". On its face, "Palestinian" would mean "of Palestine", but it has now come to specifically exclude Israel and Jewish Israeli citizens. The TRUTH, though it has been hidden and almost lost at the present time, is that Yasser Arafat and other Arab leaders who opposed the existence of Israel made a conscious decision to adopt the term "Palestinian" for themselves, to further their own agenda. This has been highly effective. It seems completely reasonable to argue that "the Palestinian people" have been displaced by Israel, and are now worthy of their own special consideration. Again, I am not stating an opinion on this emotional issue. I am simply stating that Israelis are just as entitled to claim the label "Palestinian" as are those who oppose the nation of Israel.

It's interesting to note that by citing these two prominent examples of manipulating terminology, I have potentially angered those on both the political "left" and the political "right". People from a wide variety of political persuasions manipulate terminology to further their own agendas and attack the agendas of their opponents. In both of these examples, "Pro-life" and "Palestinian", the terms could just as well be applied to those with opposing views -- but the current "Pro-lifers" and the current "Palestinians" do not see it that way. For them, it is obvious that THEY are the only ones who are truly "Pro-life" or "Palestinian".

There are countless examples of this use of words, and sometimes it becomes a question of where one draws the line between honest terminology and manipulative terminology. Those who oppose the idea of an "inheritance tax" often choose to call it a "death tax". In a sense, it IS a tax on death -- though those who favor inheritance tax argue that the term "death tax" is misleading and inflammatory. I truly HAVE no opinion on this issue.

Those who employ the technique of manipulating terminology to suit their own ends generally push ME in the opposite direction. If they are willing to engage in behavior that I view as essentially dishonest, then I am suspicious about whatever position they are advocating. This does NOT mean their position is WRONG, but it does make me suspicious.

Truth is complicated.

Affected versus Effected

This is not a blog about grammar. In various previous entries, I have mentioned the fact that I place communication above grammatical rules or “correctness”, and sometimes consciously disregard both grammatical rules and correctness.

I should perhaps also acknowledge that I am far from perfect, and while some of my “mistakes” are intentional, many of my grammatical mistakes are totally unintentional, and do nothing to enhance communication. I believe I may have already mentioned that I tend to misuse the word “several” (which I grew up believing included as few as “two”).

One of the most common grammatical difficulties in the English language is confusing “affected” and “effected”, and it is something that I personally struggle with. There are many web pages devoted to this problem, and there is no point in my attempting to deal with it in detail here, since I myself still find the subject confusing.

A few general rules: Affect is most often a verb, while effect is most often a noun (though there are certainly exceptions). Affect, in its verb form, usually means “to impact”, while effect deals with a result. A good tip is that affect generally deals with something pre-existing, while effect can bring something into existence.

The POINT of this brief discussion is to acknowledge that I have difficulty with this topic, and to apologize for the times when I am sure I will make mistakes in this blog.

Truth is complicated.

Counterintuitive

I enjoy anything being counterintuitive -- which the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines as "contrary to what one would intuitively expect." I even like the WORD "counterintuitive" -- I like the sound, and I like the way it feels coming out of my mouth.

I suppose part of the reason counterintuitive things give me pleasure is that they illustrate the idea that "Truth is complicated." Sometimes if you want to go left, you have to turn right. On the surface, this just sounds wrong -- but truth is complicated.

I once heard a phrase on television that really stuck with me. Someone said: "This is an example of the 'it stands to reason' school of thought." The person went on to illustrate that the particular idea was not true, although it DID "stand to reason."

Though I have never heard this term since, it is amazing how many times people use the concept -- how many times people use "it stands to reason" to support an idea which is actually not correct. Just because an idea SEEMS to "make sense," or seems to be supported by other ideas which are correct, does not necessarily make that idea true and correct.

Counterintuitive ideas are the opposite end of the spectrum. Counterintuitive ideas do NOT "stand to reason." They do NOT seem to make sense, yet they are true and correct. I LOVE that. Truth is complicated.

Twelve Days

This time of year puts me somewhat at odds with my neighbors.

My feelings about Christmas are complicated. On the one hand, I am fully aware that our current “Christmas” celebration is a conglomeration of various midwinter celebrations, dating back from before the time of Christ, and that historians and biblical scholars doubt that the actual birthday of Jesus was anywhere near December 25. On the other hand, I see no harm, and some benefit, in celebrating what has become a “traditional” Christmas.

With these underlying beliefs, I have little sympathy for those at either extreme of what has been referred to as “The War on Christmas”. The fact is that in our current society, Christmas is not an exclusively religious holiday … and when you get right down to it, it probably has NEVER been an exclusively religious holiday. Still, I see no harm in public nativity scenes, or in school children singing traditional carols about the birth of Jesus. When I was in school, we sang songs from various religions and cultures. If YOU choose to be offended by Christmas displays, then that is YOUR choice. At the same time, if YOU argue that the Christmas season is exclusively about the Christian religion, then you are historically inaccurate.

Perhaps too many of my beliefs about Christmas come from my two favorite recurring Christmas TV specials, “A Charlie Brown Christmas” and “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”, often broadcast back-to-back in days gone by. Interestingly, while both preach against commercialization and materialism, the Grinch story carefully avoids any mention of the birth of Jesus, while one of the highlights of the Charlie Brown tale is a recitation straight from the Bible. These two views do not have to be in opposition to each other. In my humble opinion, Christmas can and should be a season of joy, peace, and goodwill, with or without any specific religious underpinnings.

In practice, Christmas has become the most important shopping season of the year, crucial to many businesses. While I do not begrudge peoples’ need to make a living, or the tradition of exchanging gifts, the focus on shopping does interfere somewhat with experiencing a time of peace and love. There is also the problem of Christmas travel, and the preparation for that travel. For many of us, Christmas has become a stressed, frenzied period, with little time for peace and goodwill.

With the emphasis on Christmas as a commercial event, Christmas Day, or even Christmas Eve, marks the end of the Christmas season. After that, Christmas items are moved to “clearance” displays, Christmas decorations are removed, and Christmas music is no longer played. It is not uncommon to see Christmas trees disposed of ON Christmas Day. Many of my favorite public Christmas displays are taken down on the day after Christmas. At the latest, displays remain up through New Years Day, since the two celebrations, Christmas and New Year’s, have become intertwined in our culture.

My personal partial solution to the problems of a harried Christmas is to return to the old idea of celebrating the Twelve Days of Christmas. Marketers would have you believe that this phrase refers to the twelve days leading up to Christmas, but in fact the tradition refers to the twelve days BEGINNING with Christmas. Since the emphasis on “last-minute” shopping is over, during the “Twelve Days” I am free to concentrate on the non-material aspects of Christmas -- a season of joy, peace, goodwill, and whatever other traditional “Christmas” concepts that come to mind.

This approach is not without obstacles. Many people are hurrying to get back to “normal”. The Christmas decorations are gone or vanishing, only a few of us are still playing Christmas music, and people tend to be a bit puzzled when I am still wishing them a “Merry Christmas” on January 6 -- the traditional “end” of the Christmas Season. I suspect that my neighbors view the fact that my Christmas decorations are still up and lit as more of a sign of laziness than a deeply-held spiritual conviction … which in turn makes me feel somewhat militant, which is the opposite of the feeling I am striving for.

Truth is complicated.

Merry Christmas, everyone!