No One is talking about the Economy

Posted on by
Reply

2016 Presidential Election

It’s been a long, long campaign. Odd that neither party has a candidate who lifts the spirit of voters – with the exception of the hard core base for each candidate. For them, what their candidate says can do no wrong. It is a campaign without policy – especially economic policy. One candidate is full of character assassination; the other is full of detailed objectives not bound by policy. In each case, we’ll have to discover policy after one is elected President.

The press, too, has done a poor job. We should be used to it; they have done a bad job since Murrow, Huntley and Brinkley were news anchors. Unfortunately, the on-the-ground news journalists really would like to do a better job but they are constrained by bosses who want only news that brings viewer share. Not only should big money be removed from the politicians, it should be removed from news rooms as well.

Many voters the mariner has spoken with have placed their hopes on the Congressional races. It will take nothing short of collusion between voters to replace a decadent and bought Congress with a modern, statesmanlike one.

Lack of economic plans for the next ten years and beyond.

Neither Donald nor Hillary has had a sit-down with the American voter to discuss the realities of US economics. To quote economist Robert Gordon[1]:

“Even if innovation were to continue into the future at the rate of the two decades before 2007, the U.S. faces six headwinds that are in the process of dragging long-term growth to half or less of the 1.9 percent annual rate experienced between 1860 and 2007. These include demography, education, inequality, globalization, energy/environment, and the overhang of consumer and government debt. A provocative “exercise in subtraction” suggests that future growth in consumption per capita for the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution could fall below 0.5 percent per year for an extended period of decades.”

In a past post, the mariner took a thread of thought from Gordon’s paper published in August 2012, Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds. Gordon’s logic is a central pillar in the mariner’s economic perspectives. The topic in the post was whether rapid product versions were actually growth. In a recent interview on PBS’ News Hour, Robert touched on this thread, covering his entire presumption about future growth – the six headwinds.

Given the nation’s current state of affairs – especially an election offering a rich narcissist or a richer establishmentarian, Gordon’s concern about restoring an historically robust economy is real. To paraphrase Gordon, We invented cars – no more horse manure to clean in the streets; we invented electricity – no more drudgery for housewives and services; we invented air conditioning and heat – no more coal to shovel or sweaty homes; we invented airplanes – transforming travel; we invented Interstates – now everyone can travel coast to coast; we invented radio and computers and speed of light communication. What is the next “new” phenomenon that will change the world and provide huge numbers of jobs for generations?

This requirement for a new direction in the daily life of 300 million Americans is a stiff requirement. Already, the US has reported that ‘there are no more jobs.’ Unions are driven out of existence, salaries continue to drop precariously as a percentage of GDP, and oligarchy is entrenched in the American culture. Rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, from potholes to fiber optics, will not be a permanent reprieve.

Gregory Clark[2], an economist as well, challenges Gordon’s view by suggesting a computerized future is the new economic force. The mariner agrees with Gordon: Already we have invented computers; Gordon sees computers as a dividing force in economics – making the rich richer and the other 99% poorer.

Well, Donald and Hillary, what say ye?

[1] Robert Gordon is a renowned economist who has published many books and papers challenging many economic assumptions. Liberal in thought but conservative in assumptions, he is a leader in predicting future economic conditions.

[2] Gregory Clark, a professor of economics and department chair until 2013 at the University of California, Davis is most well known for his theory of economic history related to the change in behaviors that enabled the Industrial Revolution, discussed in his book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World.

A Farewell to Alms discusses the divide between rich and poor nations that came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution in terms of the evolution of particular behaviors originating in Britain. Prior to 1790, Clark asserts, man faced a Malthusian trap: new technology enabled greater productivity and more food, but was quickly gobbled up by higher populations. In Britain, however, as disease continually killed off poorer members of society, their positions in society were taken over by the sons of the wealthy, who were less violent, more literate, and more productive. This process of “downward social mobility” eventually enabled Britain to attain a rate of productivity that allowed it to break out of the Malthusian trap.

Ancient Mariner

On Being Human

Posted on by
Reply

While having a free breakfast at an Albuquerque motel, mariner and his wife watched TV. David B. Agus was a guest on the Kelly Ripa Show. Dr. Agus was speaking to a number of healthy habits most of us don’t pursue. One that caught the mariner’s ear was the Doctor’s promotion of walking as a preventative or deterrent for many disorders and discomforts about which we lazy humans have become vulnerable.

His entire solution is we don’t walk enough – not 15 minutes; not a half hour or hour; maybe 2 hours without stopping may do some good. [Health note: don’t start with these times; start very slowly, building steadily but within capacity]

The Doctor’s most salient and undeniable premise is that Homo sapiens, over our species’ 100,000-year evolution beyond four-footed and tree-swinging cousins[1], emerged as an ape that could walk and trot continuously all day without stopping except for a bit of water and a few nuts, plants and berries! The mariner looked into this a bit; it seems the Doctor is main stream among physiologists.

Dr Agus goes on to say that our physiology is designed so precisely for walking that many early-brain functions don’t wake up until we’re walking. This includes hormones, enzymes, and organ and brain functions that work better when we’re walking. Intestines and circulation, lungs, richer blood (like sports doping?), control of mood swings, a shot of dopamine, faster response to sensate awareness, and like everyone in mariner’s family, walking while talking on the phone is virtually required. Mariner conjures that the walking manages the body and brain which makes talking without focus on anything else work better.

The Doctor’s focus on physical disorders included back trouble, curvature of spine and neck, balance, arthritis, pulmonary disorders and physical weakness, headaches, etc. Many of these discomforts are caused by not having strong muscles on the entire back nor a strong diaphragm. The stoop that develops in our upper backs as we sit through our fifties, sixties and beyond is entirely caused by bad posture, that is, not walking enough and sitting way too much. The muscles weaken and don’t support the spine. The mariner has noticed on talk shows that female guests make every effort to sit with an erect back; they look much more attractive. Males tend not to. If we sat as erect as the females whenever we sat, curvature will be less likely – and it may be conceivable that we could be more attractive as well.

Imbalance is caused by weak muscles in the legs. Walking a meaningful length of time each day will improve the rusty link between our brain where body control and balance occur and the smaller, more sensate muscles in the legs. As for the quads and hamstrings, add jumping and sprinting to your walk. Just go out in the field and pretend you are hairier, swifter, and can leap small sticks. Don’t stop until you come back.

More a sailor than a walker, mariner may have to acquire a walking hobby. How about treasure hunting with a magnetometer? Or he could return to one of his childhood pleasures: rock hunting. Perhaps Forest Gump knew a lot more than we thought he did!

– – – –

The day before yesterday was Earth Overshoot day. To remind readers, here is information about a foreboding yearly celebration:

Earth Overshoot Day 2016: August 8

As of today, we humans have used as much from nature in 2016 as our planet can renew in a whole year. Nothing will seem to change for many of us from this day to the next, but collectively we are draining Earth’s capacity to provide. Overshoot Day is a red light warning of trouble ahead — and it is flashing five days earlier than it did last year (Aug. 13); eleven days earlier than the year before (Aug.19).

Earth Overshoot Day is devised by Global Footprint Network, an international think tank that coordinates research, develops methodological standards and provides decision-makers with a menu of tools to help the human economy operate within Earth’s ecological limits.

End quote

As the overshoot day retreats earlier into the calendar year, the deficit of resources will be made up by denying others the right to their own individual resources. Those who can will steal from the fair share of others – eating off a starving man’s plate so to speak.

(A line of thought from Guru suggests that eventually capitalism will collapse because sharing of resources will be necessary if we are to remain humane. Otherwise violent and destructive cultures will hasten our extinction)

[1] The Wikipedia timeline begins at 4000 MYA with the appearance of the earliest life-forms and includes 10 MYA for when human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the gorillas.

The first anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) appear in Africa some time before 100kYA — they evolved from Homo heidelbergensis.

Ancient Mariner

Earth the Artist

Posted on by
1

Regularly, Amos holds forth lamenting the failures of the human species. It is his wont. But there are places on Planet Earth where the planet can still display its own beauty, timelessness and independent reality untarnished by humans. For those traveling the North American Southwest, many earthen displays are available.

The mariner traveled through the Southwest on his way to Los Angeles to attend his daughter’s wedding. Having experienced horrendous traffic, indescribable waste of Earth buried beneath 12-lane highways and interchanges large enough to be cattle ranches, and slowly dying roadside trees and other vegetation from fossil fuel waste, the mariner was sensitized to those moments when Earth’s timeless beauty was on display – beauty undisturbed for eons because there are scant resources for human consumption or destruction.

The first moment with Earth’s museum of art is the Glenwood Canyon in western Colorado on I-70. When highway contractors planned to bulldoze their way through this magnificent canyon, the public rose up in protest led by many environmental organizations and championed by John Denver. The highway planners were forced to redesign I-70 in such a way that the splendor of Glenwood Canyon was preserved as much as possible and wildlife was not disrupted in its natural behaviors. Granted, the canyon would be even more inspirational without the accoutrement of automobiles but still one can view the majesty that only Earth can produce.

It comes to mind that the canyon is one of the planet’s cathedrals. Glenwood Canyon is narrow with vertical cliffs rising far above the Colorado River. The mind senses an upward thrust to the heavens and beyond; the cliffs frame a portal to the Universe. As with all Earth’s displays, the human experience is one that makes us aware that we are not in charge as much as we think we are. 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons is in charge.

Traveling on toward Las Vegas, there is a relatively short canyon that will be missed unless one is looking for earthen inspiration. The Virgin Canyon displays the massive power of Earth. While Glenwood Canyon displays unity with the Universe, Virgin Canyon displays the no-nonsense nature of Planet Earth. The rock formations are huge, suggesting immovable strength. The formations suggest that we are not as strong as the planet by a long shot; the mariner was impressed in the same manner a muscle builder may impress – overwhelming flexes of strength and potential energy.

Driving through the Mohave Desert/Red Rock Canyon, Earth offers continuous entertainment as only large deserts can. If you like colors, Red Rock and the Painted Desert east on the way to Albuquerque are phenomenal; it is obvious the planet was in its bright color phase when these colorful, vast canvases were painted.

Returning from Los Angeles, the mariner and his wife did not stop at the Grand Canyon. The canyon is impossible to absorb all at once. There are the displays of color; observers remark they must be painted by humans but not so. Earth is the origin of all colors and will use whatever color fits its purpose. Further, the vast cut into the canyon by Earth’s own history – a history before time and with no assistance by H sapiens, makes one become aware that the Earth has been around a lot longer than humans; one is reminded that a shallow sea once covered the canyon long before it became a canyon.

There are other artworks in Earth’s museum that are not rock formations. The mariner is in awe of the planet’s oceans. Sitting still on silent rolling swells makes one aware that oceans will do what they will regardless of human intent. The oceans surrounding the planet speak of Earth’s independence and they cavort only with the Sun and Moon to create tides.

When we look at the Milky Way and the Solar system, Earth shares with us its own family of inanimate siblings, cousins and stars. If nothing else, viewing Earth’s family shrinks our species to its proper importance. In times gone by, we borrowed the Zodiac from space as an attempt to explain Earth’s place in human understanding. We continue to this day pondering the existence of gravity and the cause of dark matter. Earth already knows.

Ancient Mariner

 

Where is God?

Posted on by
Reply

The eloquence of Reader Fred in his reply to The Greatest Sin is Prejudice has sparked responses that reflect the same plight in others. The Christian faith, among many, has not answered the need of “secular” individuals who, despite the rejection of classic doctrines and Biblical mythology, still want a place in a divine world. Where is God?

Many theologians try to address this; Dominic Crosssan, Marcus Borg and Walter Brueggeman are three prominent writers. Marcus Borg in particular has focused on transferring Christian values to a new Christian paradigm not dependent as much on Biblical mythology.

In the last post, mariner referenced a YouTube site showing several videos central to Joseph Campbell’s interpretation of myths as a tool to explain something we cannot understand or a value important in our lives but difficult to describe. The importance of Campbell’s work is that it allows us to observe how other ages and cultures used myths as a means of having faith. Campbell’s insight places faith and belief in a more understandable light.

As secularists pursue faith and doctrine that is meaningful, they must be willing to accept new beliefs of divine forces that replace inadequate beliefs; new beliefs that provide an understanding of extra-human realities that, for the individual, are not subject to human interference.

Six thousand years before Christ, the earliest cultures had no scientific basis for anything. These cultures, most found around Western Turkey, believed that an obese woman, quite fecund like a queen bee, was the source of all creation and for centuries was the origin of human beings. Clearly, we today consider this belief to be in error. However, it was the story that explained creation; faith in it was strong and lasted millennia.

How did we travel from a fecund woman as the source of life to Adam and Eve, to sorcerer powers like separating the Red Sea and turning a snake into a stick, to the belief in a personal god that manages our lives, to Jesus, to the source of love and grace and to an amorphous, impersonal god as the source of creation? Millions of pages have been written about the changing of spiritual icons and the power behind a universe we still are discovering.

After Saint Augustine, the story of love and giving became accepted as the true, central principle of Christianity. All other stories expressed lesser, but still important virtues that were meaningful to many believers. However, true faith lies in the two great commandments. Today, love itself as the power of creation is becoming popular. Could a secularist believe love – in whatever form – is the power behind the universe? Love is a power that humans can use that somehow has the ability to ameliorate a situation. Is amelioration a form of creation? Once asked in an earlier post, is love the true measure of evolution rather than intellectuality? Further, is “God” constrained by anthropomorphic assumptions?

The natural adoption of meaningful theological principles is relatively easy. It may take time but the process is simple. Continue to search for overarching ideas that cannot be disturbed by human knowledge but are a dynamic influence in your life. Your ideas must support a reality that explains how the universe was created, how the universe works – including all elements of evolution, both stars and bacteria.

There are many social behaviors that leave open questions: Will computers be the ultimate evolution of humanity? Is Stephen Hawking right that Homo sapiens will be extinct within ten thousand years? Whatever your belief, it must encompass all potential events.

The Book of Revelation in the New Testament speaks of an Armageddon that will end all life save the righteous. Interestingly, the end indeed will be an Armageddon when the Sun begins to die. The theological question is: what is the definition of “righteous?”

Ancient Mariner

Donald

Posted on by
Reply

Chicken Little was hyper after Donald’s acceptance speech at the Republican Convention. The entire speech provided no solutions, no specific resolutions, only promises that Donald will do something. In later interviews with Donald Junior, it turns out that Donald doesn’t intend to oversee Federal Policy; that job, described as domestic and foreign policy, is Pence’s job.

What disturbs Chicken Little is the fact that the entire speech sat on a foundation of authoritarianism. It’s Reaganism all over again but run with less voter input. Donald sees himself as a CEO, not the Executive Branch representing public policy. How close can a President get to dictatorship in a Republic?

The mariner feels the TV polls are not accurate. If cell phone users share the mariner’s habit of not answering calls that he doesn’t have in his directory, or not answering phone numbers on a land line with caller ID, any poll will not reflect the opinion of a large section of voters. The mariner does not listen to polls. He listens to Nate Silver, who has a stellar reputation collecting valuable information that affects betting odds. See:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=nate+silver+2016+presidential+predictions&qs=LS&pq=nate+silver&sk=LS1&sc=8-11&sp=3&cvid=187BAD3BDABD4840A57B41C4C8464FC6&FORM=QBLH&ghc=1

If the reader would like an analysis of how Donald may win, see from Nate’s website:

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/07/29/donald-trump-can-win-481404.html

Also, check out http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/feed/ probably what the reader wants to know in the first place. The article covers everything in the world of polls.

Finally, if you want to poke around in trends, see:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/features/

The point is this: This is a culture-changing election. It’s comparable to FDR, Kennedy, Johnson and Reagan. The voter is required to think beyond the news, beyond the political ads, beyond the water-cooler advice, and beyond the reader’s clique of friends. There is a lot at stake in this election that is not covered in news media. The reader has an obligation to think hard – not something the American citizen is often required to do in a general election.

REFERENCE SECTION

The mariner’s wife has contributed an excellent website that is focused on the spiritual side of life’s experiences – not spiritual in a religious doctrine sense but the website provides a rich collection of short essays about the fragile side of our species and how empathetic roles are important to our survival. For liberal arts readers, it is an excellent site. See:

http://www.onbeing.org/program/xavier-le-pichon-the-fragility-at-the-heart-of-humanity/transcript/8832#main_content

The Olympics is days away. This is an unusual Olympics fraught with Zika and Russian doping. Type ‘2016 Olympics’ into your search engine to catch up not only on the sport aspects but the politics and health issues.

Ancient Mariner

 

What is Empathy?

Posted on by
Reply

In the mariner’s last post, “The Greatest Sin is Prejudice,” it was suggested that the real measure of successful evolution was not intellectual prowess but empathy. The post prompted notable interest in the midst of confusion about the differences between sympathy, pathos, compassion, empathy, etc. It is important to understand empathy as a unique experience because the post suggests that empathy is a positive phenomenon capable of shaping evolution.

This post will focus on words that often are mistaken for empathy and a focused note about empathy as an evolutionary influence.

Aware – On the scale of emotional interaction, being aware of human behavior in others is more a result of the five senses behaving normally. At best, ‘sensitive’ may mean the same. For example, ‘I am aware that you are a democrat. Being aware of that opinion helps me adjust my sociability when interacting with you.’

Pathos – Often used to express ‘sympathy,’ it is not the same. Pathos is an intense response to a situation usually intensified by art or other imagery.

Pity – While pathos can be an intense response, it lacks personal engagement. Pity, on the other hand, suggests that you are aware that the person(s) do not deserve their difficulty; you have a perspective about the circumstances in which they find themselves but rarely stop to involve yourself in easing their plight unless they already have a bonded relationship with you.

Passion – The key to recognizing passion is that you are at the center of the emotion. Passion is a self-serving response which drives your focus to accomplish something that has captured your emotions. Examples are infatuation, personality tendencies, response to a perceived threat, perseverance to modify an important social situation, etc.

Sympathy – Surprisingly, rather than being focused primarily on one person, sympathy is an allegiance to a group ethic or morality. Sympathy means your reality is intertwined with values and experiences of others. Sympathy is the feeling that binds you to what is important to others – enabling you to experience the ebb and flow of group or individual values. Often used erroneously in place of pity, a closer synonym would be ‘loyalty.’

Compassion – A common expression among married couples of long standing is “Passion turns into compassion.” The meaning of the phrase represents the replacement of personal passion with a commitment to the wellbeing of the spouse, that is, your personal emotions become integrated with your spouse’s emotions such that neither stands alone. This same allegiance, when applied to social situations, means you and others experiencing that situation are bound to support the well being of others involved, engaging physically in real time response to achieve solutions. A popular distinction in literature follows the theme, “A warrior has passion; a hero has compassion.”

Empathy – Empathy obviously is derived from the same Greek root as pathos. Empathy carries the same intensity as pathos but has an added dimension: empathy also means the ability to infuse one’s understanding of another’s inner feelings so amazingly that it seems as if you could become that being. One becomes so obsessed with the other being’s gestalt that the two beings appear twin-like in behavior, motivation and awareness. This does not suggest magic or weird music; rather, you become so aware of the internal feelings and values of the other person that you can fully represent their gestalt.

A simplified example of not exercising empathy by choice is common among dog owners. Animal psychologists have determined the following:[1]

Dogs do not like to be hugged. They feel trapped and unable to escape if necessary.

Dogs are born to run. They are hunters very much like their wolf ancestors – even if it is a Shih Tzu. Life in a pocketbook or at the end of a chain or locked up in a house all day must be hard.

A great experiment (and something that will probably have your dog sighing with relief) is to try to spend a whole day not saying a word to your dog, but communicating only with your body. You’ll realize just how much you “talk” with your body without realizing it.

Most humans think that dogs like being patted on the head. The reality is that while many dogs will put up with this if it’s someone they know and trust, most dogs don’t enjoy it. You may notice that even the loving family dog might lean away slightly when you reach for her face to pet her. She’ll let you because you’re the boss, but she doesn’t like it.

Fortunately, over thousands of years of breeding, we have made dogs more empathetic than we are.

The future for the current environment and all its inhabitants is not bright. Homo sapiens has overrun the planet in a savage way and every day is driving species of every kind into extinction. Already humans consume more than the Earth can provide each year; the oceans show rates of depletion that suggest the oceans will be fished out by the end of this century. The Earth itself is slowly shifting to a warmer environment that in time will stress all living creatures.

The philosophical question is, how will whatever is still alive continue to exist? Futurists are suggesting competition between species and between ourselves will only hasten extinction. The opposite of conflict is empathy – living in close harmony with the best interest of any living thing as closely managed as we can. That may grant our biosphere a few more centuries.

Empathy is a parallel behavior to what religions have been espousing for 8,000 years: love and giving is the true key to survival. There will be no room for expensive idiosyncrasies, greed, or waste. Love and giving, i.e., empathy may be our best chance to evolve properly for the end of our age.

Ancient Mariner

[1] From Jaymi Heimbuck, http://www.mnn.com/family/pets/stories/11-things-humans-do-that-dogs-hate

The Greatest Sin is Prejudice

Posted on by
3

For Christians specifically but referenced similarly in virtually every religion, there are two Great Commandments in the New Testament. One is about loving your God and the other is about loving others. Insofar as they instruct humans, they are wise instructions. Written in Matthew some time before 99AD, the quote is:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

The mariner has pondered this quote ever since he was a young boy. There was something too neat, too overarching to be applicable to reality. It seemed too much like a plug-in. In recent decades, perhaps as long as a century, reality has pressed us with questions that seem not targeted on the wellbeing of humans but nevertheless incessantly grow more urgent.

The stories that supported the early Western religions, namely, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and also Buddhism, are not capable of supporting today’s boundaries of knowledge. The stories do not reconcile the reality or the confrontation that 21st century humans face. Today’s Christian advocates, clinging to the old beliefs, look in disdain at the “non-believers.” They call them “secularists.” Indeed the era of change is upon us. So many scientific breakthroughs; so many industries and conveniences. Today, right now, medicine can change our genetic code to cure vulnerabilities. “Who,” the secularists ask, “needs Adam, Eve, Cain, Able, magic swords, brothers surviving in a fiery oven or a flying Son of God?”

No longer do the myths from two thousand years ago hold relevance. There was a time early in the last century when apologists attempted to validate the myths by reinterpreting them as figures of speech or story telling devices not intended to be literal. Still, the theology was laid bare without meaning.

That the church liturgy has lost much of its sacredness is only one cause of dwindling attendance at religious institutions. Perhaps more important is that modern society has not begun to replace the mythic values that underlie faith and commitment. Modern society may not be able to accomplish a new value structure for humanity for some time. The entire planet is at a crossroads. Frontiers of science and technology have ripped through the time lines that would have helped us transition across eras; we are thrust unprepared into an alien society. The tearing of cultural meaning can be seen in politics, where values are jumbled if not missing altogether. In some ways we have met the devil and he is us. We wander in rudderless ignorance as we destroy Earth’s environment and fail to repair the prejudices that lead to war, gluttony, and ecological destruction.

There is no way to escape prejudicial attitudes without a myth greater than ourselves – larger than our alien computer culture. Without a sanctified value that is permanently valued more than any earthly phenomenon, we will drift into extinction leaving behind a planet covered in human trash – unable to present a transcendent achievement for the path of evolution.

Run all religious faiths together through a homogenizing process and two principles are common: love and giving. Each of these principles, in their purity, prevents prejudice; each prevents judgment; each promotes holistic unity on the scale of the universe.

With introspection, one realizes that love and giving are rich in mythic origin. Reorganizing our understanding of evolution, where does love and giving fit in? In evolutionary terms, only recently has empathy emerged in mammals. Empathy for nursing and raising suckled young was a great leap forward in brain awareness. We often think of man’s development of abstract problem solving as the core mark of progress in evolution but the simple ability to empathize permits family awareness, sharing, and cultural understanding. Without communal empathy, humanity’s great achievements could not have been accomplished.

Using empathy as the measure of evolution’s key objective suggests there may be a future in human evolution for something similar to the “single soul” element of pantheism: “God” is the universe. Therefore, each human is a part of God. Perhaps the Islamic definition of soul as an interactive awareness between all living things including plants is the goal. Including similar ideas across philosophy implies indirectly that empathy may be spread across more than the mammalian branch of creation.

Has religion, with its empathetic two great commandments, been struggling to correct the misconception that intellectual problem solving and invention are the primary goal of evolution? Is the new myth for love and giving derived from the universe itself? Is oneness through empathy with all things the path to eventual transformation?

Rome captured the western world and dictated from that time the focus of the church, government, cultural progress and economics. Has the west been too concerned with the physical, combative models learned from the Romans? Is it time to look to another emphasis to guide us?

Let’s practice empathy. It may be more transformative than we think.

Ancient Mariner

 

Darts

Posted on by
2

The mariner is embarrassed to live in the same state as Steve King (R-4th) because Iowan people actually chose him as a Federal Representative. Already identified by analysis of his work as the worst representative in Congress, Steve has stepped forward to block Harriet Tubman as the face on the $20 bill. The NY Daily News said:
“Republican Steve King had claimed that putting the abolitionist in place of President Andrew Jackson, most famous for the Trail of Tears, would be divisive.
He had attempted to block any attempt to change up currency by sneaking an amendment into a bill about Treasury Department funding, though the Republican-controlled Rules Committee shot down the measure Tuesday night.” (King has never had one piece of legislative language survive his Congressional Committee)
If only to rub salt in the whole “face on money” issue, we aren’t too good at selecting our premier statesmen and citizens. As mentioned above, Andrew Jackson was responsible for the “Trail of Tears.” PBS wrote:
“In 1838 and 1839, as part of Andrew Jackson’s Indian removal policy, the Cherokee nation was forced to give up its lands east of the Mississippi River and to migrate to an area in present-day Oklahoma. The Cherokee people called this journey the “Trail of Tears,” because of its devastating effects. The migrants faced hunger, disease, and exhaustion on the forced march. Over 4,000 out of 15,000 of the Cherokees died.”
Note that racism isn’t a harsh issue in white, plain state Iowa; Steve King’s career as a do-nothing Congressman was not at risk over this issue. To the mariner, this is one reason an aptitude test must be passed for those wishing to represent the citizenry.
Even Steve’s own Republican Representatives kicked this one out.
But to further impugn Steve, Huffington Post covered this gem:
For crying out loud, whether it was a good or bad thing to drag human beings across the ocean to serve as slaves is still, for some reason, a matter for debate. But somehow, perhaps incorrectly, I’d come to accept that America was pretty clear about the matter of pitting dogs against each other for amusement. Dogfighting equals terrible advocates for dogfighting equals reprehensible humans — I figured that this was, by now, axiomatic.
But, lo, here comes Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) with a bee in his bonnet over the Humane Society and its stance on animal torture. Various state measures have been enacted to limit “several horrific farming and food practices,” including Maryland’s prohibition against arsenic being added to chicken feed, which seems eminently reasonable, given the fact we are talking about, well, arsenic.
How does dogfighting get wrapped up into these deliberations? Well, as Scott Keyes reports today, King took a question at a “tele-townhall” about “his opposition to animal rights and recently introduced legislation that would undermine local standards preventing animal torture.” And part of King’s response declared it strange to be so concerned about dogfighting, when humans are allowed to step into a ring and fight for sport themselves.
KING: When the legislation that passed in the farm bill that says that it’s a federal crime to watch animals fight or to induce someone else to watch an animal fight, but it’s not a federal crime to induce somebody to watch people fighting, there’s something wrong with the priorities of people that think like that.
Keyes added in his column: “Manny Pacquiao chooses to step into the ring. Michael Vick’s dogs did not.”
Steve King is 67 years old. By the mariner’s standards, he should have met term limitations seven years ago. Steve has been serving in Congress since 2003 (13 years). Though he isn’t competent enough to cause harm, it might be nice to have a productive representative for the 4th District.
Ancient Mariner

Liberal Arts on Cable TV still exist.

Posted on by
Reply

For those who have not been exposed to liberal arts and to those frightened away by the word ‘liberal,’ let the mariner assure the reader that liberal arts means the study of humanity and is neither liberal nor conservative. It is open-minded – which may be frightening to any close-minded person conservative or liberal.

Many TV viewers are moving on to the new marketing format available through HULU, NETFLIX, HBO, SPORT networks and even social networks. The channels rich in liberal arts are not the reason for this move; rather it is less costly and provides more personal control over channel selection although not much. To be honest, most viewers consider liberal arts channels the ones they don’t want to pay for.

Still, there is a growing need for some percentage of the American population to understand that mental sophistication and insightful judgment are critical both to our enjoyment and to our future. Liberal arts sources grow scant and even unavailable as college after college drops liberal art majors and humanities requirements from its curriculum. It is a dangerous time for dismissing sophisticated thinking about humans and what may be important digressions from the powers of artificial intelligence.

For an accounting of Liberal Arts in past posts, use the search box to recover posts containing the term liberal arts.

In this post, the mariner will point out a number of broadcast and cable TV channels that give generous time to thoughtful programming across the spectrum of insight, education and art. Cultural events are available as specials, for example, “The Kennedy Center Honors” is primarily entertainment but the program’s tone acknowledges cultural style and cultural significance – artificial intelligence unnecessary. News specials appear regularly on all the broadcast channels: ‘Special Reports’ programming typically focuses on important events more deeply and insightfully; Frontline on PBS always is on the frontline…; calendar specials – recent broadcasts were informative about Jackie Robinson and Martin Luther King; another was about the mindset of the founding fathers. There is a bit of burden on the reader to peruse broadcast listings and promotions to identify thoughtful presentations about any subject. Even CNN and MSNBC broadcast good ones once in awhile.

Of notable contribution to liberal arts is PBS. Viewed in collaboration with PBS on line, a veritable library of liberal arts topics is available from Pushkin to Pythagoras to Emerson. Add NPR on the radio and all programming is treated as serious, personal and event oriented. Did you say goodbye to Garrison Keillor and A Prairie Home Companion? President Obama did with an on-the-air telephone call.

BBCHD and BBCAHD contribute a good amount of broadcast time to humanities programming. On Saturdays there is a series of programs that are enjoyable yet targeted around topics one would think have little of consequence. Try Studio-1 and Brilliant Ideas.

CSPAN1 and 2 are rich in humanity programs. The library of videos on line has tens of thousands of programs. Not all are based on book reviews with authors; they include interviews with world leaders, US politicians, government actions and human interest in all the humanities. One never knows when a particular author interview may spark enough interest to buy or borrow the book at the library. Mariner can attest to dozens of interviews that led to further research.

Discounting Fox channels because they reinforce close-mindedness with their already close-minded audience, there is little left to represent humanity’s political ideology. Two liberal channels, LINK and FSTV, present material close to the positions of Bernie Sanders but their material frequently is out of date and may not match current reality. Still, liberal figures whose ideas represent mainstream socialism appear in their broadcasting; examples are Chomsky and Ralph Nader plus activists and personalities participating in current activity. Mariner watches occasionally to keep his ship’s keel in line. (If all the reader does is watch news on TV, one will be led quickly away from reality. Humanities is not a strength of news media.)

Then there is the champion of free information on any subject one can imagine. Unlike TV, which feeds the viewer a pre-researched topic, the viewer can know everything plus more if the viewer does all the research about a topic of personally determined interest. Mariner has said in the past that Wikipedia is a playground for liberal arts.

The point is this: Every element of our species that we hold dear is vulnerable to displacement by the digital takeover of “big data.” Computers already have learning algorithms that teach them to form their own functional solutions to computer-determined needs; give computers access to all there is to know about you, your environment, your motivations and the patterns of human behavior, and the computers will live your life for you and do the work that once needed you. Humans will be displaced to the point that economic rules will collapse and humans will have no way to produce income. Only the enrichment of liberal arts in the minds of leaders will have any chance to divert pure digital solutions from displacing humanity. Chicken Little, Amos and the Guru all agree on this outcome. Further, you can find television programs and books already describing this future. Even Stephen Hawking feels computers will dislodge the human species  as humans give up human functionality. Care to consult a digital psychologist for counseling? That function already exists.

– – – –

There are two ‘third party’ options for the 2016 election: The Libertarian Party and the Green Party. The libertarian party promotes a harmful, draconian view of government that would destroy today’s culture; it allows only military, printing money and international relations as Federal functions. There is no room for anything else. All other matters are left to the fifty states. The other party, the green party, has Jill Stein running for President. The Green Party is left-center but notably more progressive. The political platform can be read at http://www.gp.org/four_pillars_10_kv . If the two major candidates don’t fit the bill for you, check out the Green Party manifesto. The mariner personally does not recommend Donald.

REFERENCE SECTION

The latest Atlantic Magazine has a good lead article, “How American Politics Went Insane.” Check out the September issue or read it on line at

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/

Even more insightful is to watch “The Greeks” on PBS TONIGHT (Tuesday, July 05, 2016). Everyone will recognize the similarity of American history to Greece’s path to democracy.

Ancient Mariner

Humans are not Creators, they are Stuff

Posted on by
2

It is wise to listen, not to me but to the Word, and to confess that all things are one.

Alas, Heraclitus was not a theist for he also said:

This Universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any god or man, but it always has been, is, and will be an ever-living fire, kindling itself by regular measures and going out by Heraclitus smallregular measures.

Heraclitus, who lived from 535-475 BC in Ephesus Iona (Turkey), predates Socrates and Plato by a century and was not part of the mainline Greek philosophical revolution although he was commonly quoted by many later Greek thinkers and shows up as a quote in books about other philosophers.

Heraclitus appeals to the mariner because he established the principle that the law of the Universe is the only law and all things that exist in the Universe must obey the same law. Too often the creative genius of H. sapiens is attributed to itself when in the broader view it is, as Heraclitus suggested, a child playing with blocks.

It is difficult for humans to associate with the Universe. The Universe has no recognizable goals. The Universe does not show responsiveness, preference, appreciation, personality, possessiveness, vengeance, favoritism, or kindness. There is only astronomical stuff, chemical stuff, unending space and two unending energy resources: time and gravity – immeasurable time, pervasive gravity and all the space the Universe needs. These eternally present things are called Universe stuff. It isn’t easy to talk with the Universe over a breakfast muffin and coffee; trying to get the Universe’s attention by discovering how to fly to the stars with the Universe’s own stuff doesn’t score, either – less than a spit in the Milky Way.

Before we begin dissecting how humans fit into Earth’s stuff, it will be easier to have a consolidating word for all Earth’s detailed activity, cause and effect, and interactions between elements of Earth’s environment: let’s call it all “stuff.” Specialized stuff. For example, anything created, altered or thought about by humans is “human stuff;” things like orbit changes, volcanoes, earthquakes, geologic ages, atmospheres and magnetic fields are “Earth stuff.” There’s also environmental stuff that includes weather, living things, gold, diamonds, sulfur, critical stuff like water, oxygen and other stuff as may be required.

From a few miles in space, human stuff right now looks very much like a colony of disturbed ants long resident under a large rock. Like the ants, humans are racing about blindly, trying to conjure what is going on; what shall we do? Experiencing reality like an ant but on a human scale, consider the following:

Environment stuff is increasingly unstable – some unstable because of human stuff but most because of Earth stuff. Observant, thinking humans acknowledge that Earth’s surface stuff is growing warmer. Even indifferent humans acknowledge that humans have accelerated warming with excessive release of Carbon into Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. As Heraclitus suggested above, if you do not expect the unexpected, you will not recognize it when it arrives. Such is the case with carbon pollution, which arrived unnoticed and unexpected shortly after the Civil War.

The use of the word “stuff” is an important tool; viewing the Universe on the scale of normal human cognition quickly exaggerates the importance of human stuff. It isn’t really important at all – except to humans. Similar to ants, reality is greatly distorted by personal experience. Brazilian farmers continue to deforest the Amazon rain forest despite the suggestion that removing the forest will change environment stuff. The farmers’ reality is distorted by personal gain; they are incapable of expecting severe changes in their weather so the true scale of their reality is much like an ant’s. On the scale of Universe stuff, ants and humans are closely related.

Humans keep track of mathematical versions of stuff. An arctic fox may have a sense that it is unusually cold but it seems not to care that not only is it unusually cold, it is minus 120 degrees Fahrenheit cold – now that’s cold! Humans mathematically track a lot of phenomena about other stuff; that’s how humans know the environment is growing warmer on Earth’s surface.

A reputable scientist wrote an article in Atlantic Magazine about a year ago. He was ridiculing humans’ plan to reverse climate change: “They think they will fix the problem in a lifetime or two. What they can’t see is the scale of global warming. It may take the Earth 30 thousand years to reset its global environment!” Many scientists agree and also believe that the Earth will enter a long ice age at that time. Each set of stuff has its own scale of size and time. We forget how small human stuff is when compared to environment stuff and Earth stuff. A simple example is we count our lifespan in years; environment stuff easily can count lifespan in centuries, i.e., how many years does it take for the Fertile Crescent to come and go through a desert cycle? Earth counts lifespan in eras; an era has two or three cycles called periods – the length of time during which rock formations appear, e.g., the Rocky Mountains.

If human stuff is messing around with Earth stuff, the results may take so much time they never will be known. On the other hand, looking down the scale of different stuff, say solar system stuff messes with environment stuff, things can change rapidly. Remember the meteor that helped wipe out the dinosaurs? That meteor may have been floating around the solar system’s inventory of asteroids for billions of years then POP! If we had been alive at the time, we could have watched the entire global environment change within a week.

Mariner can hear the reader complain, “What’s all this stuff about? What’s the point?” This always happens when Guru is allowed in the room. What it’s all about is that the twenty-first century confronts humans in a new and unpredictable way. Like the ants, Earth stuff is changing our reality: our comfortable rock has been lifted to expose new, larger issues that force H. sapiens to realize it is not as much in charge as it thought. Further, time is short enough to be relevant to our psyche. Stephen Hawking is confident H. sapiens will be extinct within ten thousand years. Our line of ascendency began nearly 90 million years ago as a simple primate. We’ve only 10,000 years left to come to terms with the relative value of our messy human stuff as a part of Universe stuff. One example: Are we a benevolent species or a predatory one?

“This Universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any god or man, but it always has been, is, and will be an ever-living fire, kindling itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures.”

POST SCRIPT

Mariner’s in-laws, nine cousin families strong, are celebrating their eighth quinquennial this week. Posts may be scant during that time.

Ancient Mariner