Love: Introduction

Go into the woods. Go meditate or pray. What do you come up with? What is the meaning of life? What is the solution?

It all comes down to love, doesn't it? In the closet of your mind, burning with humanity, stricken with joy and pain, we all think of love. At our greatest moments, we know that love wins. Have you felt it?

"Love is a circle."

Me too.

The man on his death bed--him too.

Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha, Mother Teresa--them too.

Anyone who was ever for peace, social justice, sacrifice, virtue, righteousness--they have all preached love.

It's comically simple and cliche as the Beatles song All You Need Is Love. So simple that we forget and take it for granted. And come back to it.

Don’t be confused with words. Compassion, respect, care, sympathy, loving-kindness, forgiveness, sharing. It’s all love. Old Christians called it charity; the Enlightenment called it sympathy; now we use the word empathy. Love is just the word I use for all these things. For academic purposes there’s a reason to treat each word differently, but it’s important to remember it’s all the same sort of thing. It's the feeling you get when you look at your wife or kids. It's when you pass someone on the street and they nod (it still surprises me!). Love is when you decide to give blood or help an adult learn to read. I don’t have to tell you what love is.

In this book I treat love by its’ various targets in this particular order—self, family, friend, humanity, world, enemy—but of course this is artificial too. Love has no targets. The point of this book is to say that one love isn't better or worse than the others; it all hangs on each other and, in the end, becomes one. A person who loves humanity in spite of their family has a flawed character. Love cannot be mastered, it takes over your heart; you let it in. Einstein called it a “circle of compassion.” This book is a circle; a new chapter, the circle gets bigger.

Love is a historical force just like hate and greed are. People are historical forces. Emerson said "properly speaking, there is no history, only biography" and Carl Jung said "the essential thing is the life of the individual. This alone makes history" (quoted in The Beautiful Soul of John Woolman, front). We forget this. We forget that actual people in history made actual history. When a man named William Willberforce was born,  the slave trade existed. When that man died, it didn’t. Perhaps history is also driven by complex “historical forces”--natural, economic, or otherwise. Sure. But stop and read the very first sentence in John Woolman’s autobiography:

“I have often felt a motion of love to leave some hints in writing of my experience of the goodness of God…and before I was seven years old I began to be acquainted with the operations of divine love” (quoted in The Beautiful Soul of John Woolman, 13).

It is no wonder this man went on to dedicate his entire life to ending slavery, by literally walking around the country talking to slave-owners.

This book began when I embarked on a reading journey, a "love study" of sorts. Basically I read tons on the history and concept of love. I was getting married. From Aristotle to Buddha, Plato, Faulkner, Christ, Dante, Hobbes, Martin Luther King Jr. From philosophy to brain science, poetry to prose. The greatest people who have ever lived disagree on many things, I noticed. But they all agree on one thing: love is the greatest thing. Call it the universal law of wisdom. Paul said that "God is love" and Jesus made love the greatest commandment because love is the closest we can get to describing perfection--which is God, by definition. Even Jonathan Edwards, the stereotypical angry hellfire preacher, said this: "all Virtue...is resolved into Love to Being; and nothing is virtuous or beautiful in Spirits, any otherwise than as it is an exercise, or fruit, or manifestation, of this love" (quoted in Heroic Colonial Christians 40).

All good men and women on this earth share two things: love and wisdom. Wisdom is what happens when knowledge meets compassion. Aristotle said to contemplate virtue every day. He was right. Love swallows virtue. You can't just read it; you must think it and especially do it. If I was a better man, I would stop writing and start doing.

I make no arguments. They won’t work here. Love simply is; it enters your heart through inspiration. The philosopher Peter Singer argues that you should only keep twenty thousand dollars and donate the rest. Okay, sure. We find that interesting. But the fact that Peter Singer actually does it...now that’s an argument! Let’s throw logical fallacies out the window. “Truly speaking, it is not instruction, but provocation that I can receive from another soul,” way Emerson. This book inspires and provokes, or does nothing. If this book were an argument,  the argument would be nothing short of this: love is the only thing that can and will save the world from its many problems. Love is the only thing that can save you, me, us, them. This is the oldest truth - “as old as the hills” says Gandhi - still as true and powerful as ever.

Love is the only thing. We have tried other things. We tried religion, which helped a lot. Religious people treat their own very well. But religions clash and tons of people die. The Enlightenment gave us Reason, which helped a lot; but Reason can blow up buildings too (Ted Kaczynski). Philosophy and moral thinkers helped a lot. They gave us the virtue ethics of Aristotle, Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Mill’s greatest happiness principle, Rawls veil of ignorance. But philosophy will not make you write checks to Oxfam, or make you give blood or volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. None of this will make us get along.

Love never presents an argument, but it does suggest the greatest way to live this life.  This book inspires, or it does nothing.

Matt Smith
Kalamazoo, Michigan
2015

Why I'm not Unitarian Universalist

I'll start off by saying that I respect the Unitarian religion greatly, I am close with people who are Unitarian, and wish I could become one. If you read my blog, you would probably think I am Unitarian. As I've said, philosophically I'm a religious pluralist, which means that I think all religions are valid paths to the same Divinity. Unitarianism is a religion that accepts all faiths. When I first heard about it, I thought it was a perfect match. In fact, one of my heroes, Ralph Waldo Emerson, was a Unitarian minister. I own a two-volume set of his sermons. But I learned quickly that Emerson's religion doesn't exist anymore.

Simply put, I'm too Christian to be Unitarian but not Christian enough to be Christian.

Emerson's Unitarianism was rooted in Christianity while drawing on other religions as extra soul-food. Currently, the Unitarian church not only accepts all religious faiths, but anti-religious faiths too: atheism, agnosticism, whatever. How does that work? There is no single religious impulse or belief that binds them together. I've learned this from direct experience. I attended several Unitarian services, in Lansing and Kalamazoo. I personally asked the minister whether there were any beliefs that held them together. Belief in the Divine perhaps? Belief that there is something beyond the physical? The soul? No, she said. If there is anything that binds them together, "we believe in human experience," they share in it, she said (paraphrasing and, to be fair, she didn't have time for a full response. To be more fair, I respect this minister so much I had her officiate our wedding).

But besides "human experience," what really binds them together? It turns out that Unitarianism is an ethical-religio-political group of left-learning liberals (so am I...that's not my point). Politics, I think, is the glue that binds them. Conservative political ideas are their enemy, their "out-group." Still, they suffer from identity crisis. What does it mean to be Unitarian? After attending several sermons, I noticed a trend: they talked about themselves a lot. I don't blame them; so do other churches. And Unitarians are so damn nice that they are constantly worried about offending each other. Should we use the word "God" in this song? No, we can't! Stuff like that.

Having said all of this, I'm so glad that Unitarian Universalism exists. When I'm older, I'll probably become one. Like all churches, it's the kind of thing that you should get involved in to get the most out of it.

You are not your Brain: or, the problem with Reductionism

You are made up of atoms. That does not mean you are atoms. You have a brain. That does not mean you are your brain. Your thoughts are caused by patterns of neurons. That does not mean your thoughts are patterns of neurons. This mistake, "reductionism," or reductive thinking, reduces everything to its' component parts or causes. This mistake happens all the time, especially in the age of science. We have heard the mantra many times, usually with the pessimistic "nothing but" added on. We are nothing but apes, or brains, or emotions or whatever. But it's wrong and deceptive; it limits are thinking, reduces our consciousness, impoverishes our experience, and constricts our horizons.

Plato and Aristotle recognized that there are different meanings to the word is, am, are. For example when we say "I am atoms bouncing around in space," that's true. But it really means "I am composed of atoms bouncing around in space." See the difference? Don't confuse what you are with what you are made of.


Second, we confuse things with what causes them. For example some guy says to his wife: "My love for you is nothing more than chemical signals from my brain making me feel a certain way [or insert another scientific-sounding cause for emotions]." That's not right. Love, of course, has many fascinating causes, but love is something different and larger than what causes it. It's an experience beyond words. Faith too. Thunder is not lightening, yet lightening explains thunder.

We mistakenly reduce things into their properties too. God is love, said Paul. I agree. But that's presumably just one of God's properties, along with others. I am a father. I am smart. The philosopher Rene Descartes famously said "I think; therefore I am," by which he meant the property of thinking proves the existence of a thinking being. He was right. On the flip side, Immanuel Kant famously said that existence is not a property. He was right.

Which brings us to the is of identity. When I say "I am," it means I exist. Being, existence; that's fundamental. This is the more mysterious one. When God said "I am who I am," he meant it sorta like that; something like "I am the ground of all Being". Similarly, when we say we have a mind or soul, we mean the soul is our ground of being, our changeless self, our highest form of is. I am Matt, a unique person that exists through time, space, and maybe even beyond that.

So, in the end, I am many things and you are many things, big and small: a brain, a body, a consciousness, a personality, a mind and a soul; memories, dreams reflections. I consider the brain hugely important, most important. But before we start reducing things into their lowest parts, let's think. The problem with Reductionism is that, in its fever to explain things, it tries to explain things away; it confuses identity with causes, compositions, and properties. As Whitman said, "I contain multitudes: I am large."

Morality: Does it Depend on the Situation? (No)

When it comes to doing the right thing, we have all heard people say "it depends on the situation." I'm convinced that's false; it's a trap, it's a temptation to justify the wrong we are about to do.

You cheat on your wife. Do you tell her? Yes.
You lie on your resume. Is that okay? No.
You accidentally ran over the pet dog and killed it. Do you tell the owners? Yes. Do you tell your kids a different story? No.

Upon reflection, everyone agrees that lying, for example, is wrong in most situations. Honesty is the best policy. Of course we could make up silly little hypothetical scenarios where lying would be okay, and that would be jolly fun, and that's what freshmen philosophy majors are best at - but let's get real for a minute here. Moral decisions are made in real time, in real life, involving real people. When is lying actual okay?

How about never. Smoke that in your pipe, son. Let's think about the psychology of lying. It's not until people get into hot water that they consider lying to be a viable option. That should be an immediate hint: it's wrong, whispers the angel on our shoulder. But, when emotions are involved, we don't think right. "Well," we say, "in this situation, lying is okay because of x, y, and z." We calculate, add, subtract. But that's backwards. (1) We do something stupid. (2) Then we lie. (3) Then we justify. Coward! Your situation is not special. You are not more special than anyone else.

How about this: (1) we rationally conclude that lying is wrong. (2) We do something stupid. (3) We tell the truth. Even better: we don't do something stupid in the first place. Morality, after all, is good habits of thought followed by good habits of action. The goal of morality is to live such a virtue-filled life that vice has no place, no time, no situation to live in.

Jesus might have said something like this: You are only honest when the cost is low. Even sinners do that! Be honest when the cost is great. Then you will know sacrifice and forgiveness. Now live in honestly and truth: now you enter the Kingdom of God.

Lying Contradicts the Idea of Communication

Everyone deserves the truth, including yourself (we lie to ourselves perhaps most of all). The fundamental purpose of communication is to tell the truth, to share information. If you think about lying abstractly, you realize that it goes against the very core of human communication; it explodes the whole system. It's an exception to the rule which breaks the system. Immanuel Kant saw the absurdity in lying and all other irrational vices.  He had the brilliant, simple mind to see that morality involves a few, simple, rock-solid principles that should be followed: never lie, never cheat, never steal, never hurt people, etc. And the means do not justify the ends. Day-to-day morality doesn't have to be so complicated.  He simplified morality into a test: do not act on those principles that cannot be universalized for everyone. Everyone can't lie; therefore you can't lie. We are all legislators in the same moral community. Don't be the dick head with special interest groups writing your legislation and ruining our lives.

Now, I don't want to sound like morality is so simple all the time. But I do think it's simple most of the time, especially when it comes to negative morality (the "thou shalt not" stuff). However, sometimes we really do find ourselves in a moral predicament. Sometimes our values clash and compete with each other. Good luck!

2014: What I Learned from Books

“I cannot remember the books I've read any more than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me.” -Emerson

After a relatively weak reading year, I had to remind myself that life is more than reading books. Every year, I honestly feel guilty about not reading more, a goal I will never reach. But I remind myself that out of 100 books read, just a handful will stay with me, will shape who I am. Many fade; many forgotten.

Still, I have learned some stuff in 2014:

From The Pol Pot Regime I wanted to find out if Pol Pot was in fact an atheist and a hater of religion. He was. An educated man, a killer, a "kindly" man to some, he wanted to "wipe out religion" and wipe out the monks. Everything That is Bad for You is Good For You argued that pop culture, games, and modern TV is making us smarter, not dumber. I agreed. Nature's God reinforced my belief that our Founding Fathers did in fact love Jesus in their own way - albeit an unorthodox way, but a real way: the same way I love Jesus. The were Deists, not atheists. Reinventing Liberal Christianity challenged me directly. This book is aimed at liberals like me who call themselves 'Christian,' but don't go to church, don't like rituals, don't believe in many of the creeds, etc. This book argues that people like me should return to traditional religion while keeping our liberal mindset. I wish I could find such a church. Dog Whistle Politics was a fascinating look at how politicians use coded racial language to perpetuate racism, win elections, and destroy the middle class. In Keeping the Faith Without Religion, I read about a man trying desperately to keep a faith that had faded. Reading poetry, walking in the woods, and loving people are beautiful things: but is that faith? God in Proof told me the story of Anthony Flew, at one time the most famous atheist philosopher, who eventually became convinced that God "probably exists." Richard Dawkins, in true arrogant fashion, said this about the aging Flew: "He once was a great philosopher...It’s very sad." Moral Tribes is a book that will stay with me forever, teaching me that both Kant's morality (Deontology) and Bentham's morality (Utilitarianism) are correct. We should use Kant's morality for people we are close to, and Bentham's morality for people we are not. I've been waiting for this book to come along. With Einstein & Oppenheimer, I learned that Einstein learned detachment from Buddhism and took it to heart, and that selflessness is the center of morality. And that history is shaped by great people (which is a theory of history that I got from Emerson). Shores of Knowledge said that “Theology and science had achieved a mutually enhancing balance in Great Britain when Church of England leaders interpreted Newton’s laws of universal gravitation as proof of a God-ordained orderly system." The Cure in the Code taught me that, in some ways, drug companies are regulated in a way that is out of touch with current science (which was verified by my father-in-law who makes drugs). The Detroit School Busing Case was a very depressing book on race relations and how truly little we have come in terms of integration. I read The Mind of Jeremy Bentham in search of an atheist hero, and by gosh I think I found one. He was a courageous, forward-thinking, great man who wanted morality to be more rational and just. I also read another book on Bentham that showed how deeply political his ideas were; he was looking for big change, not small stuff. The Human Right to Health reinforced my idea that, although we may disagree on the foundation of rights, we pretty much all agree on the values themselves (in this case, the value of health and the importance of healthcare to live). The Life You Can Save taught me that, although biology has given us barriers when it comes to giving to charity, we need to transcend them. A People’s History of Poverty in America made me disgusted with the various ways we have not helped the poor. The Moral Molecule was another book that will stay with me forever, teaching me that oxyticin is the foundation of empathy and therefore morality, a blend of nature and nurture. 

Happy New Year!

matt

How I Learned that Racism is Real

The problem with racism is that it's not a problem. Correction: for many white people it's not. For various reasons, we never have to think about it, we are rarely confronted with it. Therefore it doesn't exist. But the other problem with racism is that it does exist. And it's still tearing our nation apart. Here's how I became convinced.

this book was my eureka moment

Growing up in a completely white Upper Peninsula, racism was as foreign as black people. We are as diverse as a hockey team.  Yet oddly, even though none of us actually knew a black person, judging by the way we talked, there was plenty of racism going on. The N-word was used frequently and jokingly - old people and young. In high school, black jokes were on the level of 'yo mamma' jokes and a favorite pass time. This is called demonizing the Other; hating what you don't understand. It's a dangerous form of 'passive' racism. Still, by the time I left for college, I didn't give it much thought. If someone asked me about racism, I may have said that racism was overcome by Martin Luther King or something textbook like that. Correction: I actually did know one black man in Menominee. I actually had hung out with him on several occasions, but partly because he bought us beer. Still, perhaps having this initial connection started everything for me.

In college I took an African American Literature class, perhaps by accident. I read Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, Toni Morrison, and Zora Neale Hurston. The scales began to fall off my eyes. I began to experience the world as a black person in history. I became interested in Martin Luther King Jr. I fell in love with his teachings, his writings, his speeches, his life and martyrdom. I listened to the "Mountaintop" speech completely enthralled, emotional, heart pounding. But still, I was studying the past. I was only half way there. I had the historical context, but now I needed to start interpreting current events in the light of past events.

Then, I found myself watching the inauguration of Barack Obama in tears. It takes a lot for me to cry, but the historical, symbolic and real significance of the situation was overwhelming.

What really brought me to the precipice - my eureka moment, the tipping point - was reading the book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. This book is heavily based on facts and statistics, from an author who was skeptical to begin with. The statistics regarding black men and prisons blew my mind. It brought everything together. Other books followed. Racism is institutional, widespread, and debilitating for millions and millions of Americans every single day. It's no person's fault and it's every persons' fault. The truth had set me free and it didn't look good.

Now I witness events like Ferguson and Eric Garner and I understand. Racism is a complex thing, but once you understand it, you see it in the big places and in the small places. It's a disease that has many symptoms. The choking of Eric Garner without consequences is a symptom of a much larger problem. There is no doubt that we have made meaningful progress, but there is more to be done. I'm not going to talk about solutions here, but I will say this: white people and black people (and Muslim people and minorities) need to connect on a massive scale. We need to live together, work together, worship together, share power together. We never integrated.

Think About Death. It's Healthy.

Marcus Aurelius, wrote Meditations

Epictetus, the founder of Stoicism, said to "keep death and exile daily before thine eyes" and "it is not death or pain that is to be dreaded, but the fear of pain or death." Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Philosopher Stoic, picking up where he left off, said "think not disdainfully of death, but look on it with favor; for even death is one of the things that Nature wills."

Superior athletes practice visualization. They visualize the future in order to perform better when the moment comes. Guess what: that applies to life too.

Occasionally I find myself walking down the street in a somber, contemplative frame of mind. I think about the death of a loved one. What would I say at their funeral? What words would express how they lived and the love they gave to me? I'm filled with a bittersweet joy. Lately I've thought about my grandfather, father, and mother dying. I imagine myself at the funeral. I picture all the people there. I consider the emotions. It's funny how to consider death is to consider and appreciate life. I am left with a peaceful feeling. I could die at anytime, and that's okay. My grandfather could die at anytime, and that's okay. I love him just as much now as I will then, and that's it. What else can be said? To think about death as some horrible, impending doom is simply irrational.

I have always dealt well with tragedy. It's not because I have no emotions (I  really do). Stoicism embraces controlled emotions. My personality, biology, and probably the size of my amygdala all play a part at how I react to tragedy. But my philosophy and mind set play a large part too. When it comes to tragedy, I have already been there. I have been to the mountaintop. I am ready for it. I am not worried about it. This is the Stoic lifestyle. The Stoics were the perfect blend of self-reliance and faith, of philosophy and religion. They did everything they could to be the best person they could be - and left the rest to God, or the Gods, or Nature. Worry about the things that are in your control, and accept everything else with a graceful disposition.

Your mother will die someday. You will die someday. The only thing to fear is not living. And I think that's why we are scared of death.

Do Morals Come from the Will of God?

This is an old puzzle that comes from Plato's dialogue Euthyphro: if something is wrong simply because God says so, then morality sounds a little arbitrary. For example, what if God said murder was good?--would that make it good? (please don't say yes psycho). On the other hand, if something is good for independent reasons, independent from God's will, then morality sounds like it's...well, independent of God, which is presumably bad for religion (so some people think). Thus I'm in a pickle. For God fearing philosophers like me, I want both. I want morality to be connected to God in some way, but not in a way that leaves out tons of people.

Jeremy Bentham, the atheist Utilitarian philosopher, thought that morality rests upon an independent principle "apart" from God so to speak. That independent principle was this: good is maximizing happiness and minimizing pain. That's it. But he left room for God. He said that if God exists, then God would operate under this principle:

"The dictates of religion would coincide, in all cases, with those of utility, were the Being, who is the object of religion, universally supposed to be as benevolent as he is supposed to be wise and powerful...Unhappily, however, neither of these is the case...there seem to be but few...who are real believers in his benevolence...if they did, they would recognize that the dictates of religion could be neither more nor less than the dictates of utility: not a tittle different" (125).

In other words, God would be the best embodiment of utilitarian morality. However, people would not have to go through God (or the Bible) to get to morality. Anyone with half a brain can figure it out.

Kant, on the other hand, did believe in God, but he too thought that morality must not depend on God's will or the Bible, but instead on God's Reason (that is, reason, or rational thinking). Why? Because nobody really knows what God's will is; people disagree and that causes a lot problems. Morality, Kant says, must be reasonable, accessible to all, and quite simple: only act on those principles which can be universalized to all. Through this principle we get to the Golden Rule - never treat people as a means but as ends-in-themselves - and we get many of the 10 commandments.

My opinion is in line with Kant. I do think that morals "come from God" simply because everything comes from God, by definition. But how do people access morality? That's the question. Where do we actually get it? What or who is the gatekeeper? Our parents? Yeah sure sometimes. Religion? Yeah, many times. But where does religion get it from? Like Kant, I think Reason (our minds) ought to the be ultimate judge of what's right and wrong. In the same way that human beings come from evolution and God, morality comes from Reason and God.

Of course empathy is a huge natural component as well. Empathy, when found in a compassionate, rational, and open-minded person - that's a beautiful thing.

Testosterone Sucks. Why are Men Needed?

Women are better than men. I hate to say it, but it's true. Look around dude. Historically, men have dominated women since the beginning, which still continues today. That's bad enough. But women outmatch men on just about every moral indicator: crime rates, rape, domestic violence, murder, ("murders by women are so rare that they don't even show up meaningfully in the crime statistics" p.78), ability to trust, giving, sharing, and empathy. Men are psychopaths, sociopaths, and serial killers. These are generalizations of course but they are true as such.

The explanation, according this this wonderful book by Paul Zak, is testosterone. It turns men into assholes, risk takers, sex fanatics, and punishers. To anyone who has entered a college bar, this should be no surprise. How many women hunters do you know? Predictable, as men get older they lose testosterone and get better.

Why Women are Better

Women not only have very low levels of testosterone, but they have an extra special hormone that promotes good behavior: Oxytocin. A multitasker, this hormone is released during sex, pregnancy, breast feeding, and whenever a person shows trust or goodwill. Oxytocin has been linked to many pro-social behaviors in many experiments (detailed in the book), mostly empathy and trust. Women are more empathetic, and empathy is the basis of all moral systems.

Why Men are Needed

The obvious answer is that men are needed to make babies (although with the advent of science that's probably not true anymore). But more interestingly, testosterone has a nice side-effect: justice. Ironically, testosterone-filled men are needed to keep society in check, to judge and to punish wrongdoers. Natural selection allowed testosterone to hang on for this very reason. We are the enforcers and punishers of a functioning society (and the risk takers). Women, pumped with oxytocin, are too damn nice to punish people. It's important to know that men do have oxyticin in smaller amounts, but the problem with that: testosterone actually cancels out oxyticin. So when testosterone levels are high, we actually enjoy punishing people for their transgressions, rather than cringing. Who shall throw the first stone?, said Jesus. Crack her fucking skull! shouted some dick.

The good news, of course, is that we can and do transcend these biological limitations. Too much testosterone must be kept in check, and the same goes with oxytocin (too much can lead to too much trust). It's about balance. With knowledge, critical self-reflection, and love we can become better. Love can be learned, and it comes naturally for most of us.

John Stewart is a modern Socrates

Socrates (not John Stewart)

Socrates lived in a time when people thought they knew a lot. Socrates realized that real truth was hard to find. His life was dedicated to finding it. He died for it. I like to call him the "Jesus of Truth" (whereas Jesus died for love, Socrates died for the right to seek the truth wherever it may lead). Although he was humble about it, he exposed people by simply asking them questions; questions which led to contradictions. At the end of his life, he was put to death for "corrupting the youth of Athens." He apparently asked too many questions.

In the same way that Socrates pointed out hypocrisy, The Daily Show exposes the awful hypocrisy, corruption, and stupidity of our entire political system. He spares no one: Republicans, Democrats, and the media itself (which has rightly been called the fourth branch of our government). While making fun of it, he actually covers the news. Unfortunately people my age probably get much of their news from this show.

The only thing bad I have to say about it: I'm thoroughly depressed and disgusted after watching a few shows. Mr. Stewart, finding little evidence for hope, leaves us with little hope. Perhaps our only hope is that the show itself will someday create real, honest political leaders.

Why Politics Makes me Sick

Money
Unless money is taken out of politics, and elections are paid for by our taxes (or something close to that), I honestly have little hope for a thriving democracy. This is a no-brainer. Not only are politicians bought and paid for by large corporations and individuals, but legislation is literally being written by rich people (that is, "think tanks").

War
War is morally, socially, and politically abhorrent. It is the worse. It destroys lives. It should be the final measure. It never is. I elected Obama on the hope that he would never go to war; I was wrong. Historically, war is how rich people to use poor people as political tools to fight political wars. We haven't had a so called "just war" since WWII (if such a war even exists: that's debatable).

Two Party System
A healthy democracy (no, representative republic) requires choices. We have two slightly different flavors. The American public are apathetic, sick, and tire. We have been voting for the "lesser of two evils" for decades now. We need more parties, multiple legitimate candidates, voted on based on the merits of their positions. We need debates that ask real questions and demand real answers. Stop the horrendously emotional propaganda and start debating. Publicly funded elections would solve this.

Media
Most people realize that the media is no longer news but entertainment. It's not only partisan, but it's Jerry Springer. Sure I like NPR, but sometimes in their zeal to not be so liberal they actually pander to absurd opinions. Sadly, the only news I trust is the Daily Show with John Stewart. The stakes are high. The Media has rightly been called the fourth branch of government (legislative, executive, judicial are the others). They are the ultimate "check and balance" on government power. Don't get my wrong: I think it's always been this way. In fact, I think technology gives us the tools to be more informed than ever before.

Income Inequality
This is destroying our nation and eliminating the middle class, but nobody wants to do anything about it. The rich want to be richer, and they have all the power. We will not get a progressive tax code anytime soon, and millions of people will continue to suffer under the cruel reality of generational poverty, joblessness, non-living wages, weak collective bargaining, part time work, inadequate health care, expensive child care, access to unhealthy food, under-funded and unbalanced school systems...all of this when the rich are getting richer and corporate profits rise.

Sexism
Women make up half of our nation but a small fraction of  people who write our laws. It's a shame. It's no wonder that some of our laws are blatantly sexist, like the new Michigan "rape insurance" law that literally brought Michigan women lawmakers to tears on the floor. Racism has a horrible and lasting history in American, but so does discrimination against women.

Does Marriage Require Conflict?

Love is hard, right? We've heard this a million times. I've even heard preachers say it. Wrong. After three years of marriage, I'm here to say that marriage can be almost entirely without conflict, without arguments, without sacrifice, without fighting. Full of love, intimacy, and all the good stuff.

I never thought it would be this easy, this graceful, this organic. Both Katie and I had our doubts from the beginning. Looked at objectively, we had some real compatibility issue (mostly religion, but others like music, art, social group, family upbringing). Frankly, she thought I was a little weird from the beginning, and vice versa. Yet, somehow despite that, as if living in some magical alternate universe, we have what I consider to be a perfect marriage - about as perfect as it gets. I enjoy every single day. Perhaps it's rare. Perhaps I'm blessed. So be it. Carl Jung once said that we exist in order to explain ourselves. Let me try.

Main Ingredients

Respect. Most importantly by far, we genuinely respect each other, morally and professionally. We are good people, we have empathy for others, and we both support the people in society who are the proverbial "least of these". Having similar ethics is crucial, even if those ethical systems have different foundations. This usually means similar politics as well. Yet we respect each other as independent, different people with different ideas. She has her goals, I have mine; we pursue them together.

Reading. This is our passion. This is how we first met. I was working security, she was at a book group discussing Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse at the library. This was one of my favorite books, so I began discussing it with the group, as I was kicking them out of the library. Reading promotes an intellectual life; a life of learning, growth and conversation.

Money. We don't need much, we don't want much, and our hobbies don't cost much. Thus, it's nothing to fight about. We both save money rather than spend it. We are fortunate to have jobs that we can actually live on.

If you are reading this and still looking for a partner, don't settle for anything less. If you are reading this and feel unsatisfied with your boyfriend or girlfriend, either fix it or say goodbye. If you are in a dangerous or violent marriage, leave out of respect for yourself. If you are in an unhappy marriage, try your very best to fix it before saying goodbye. You owe it to yourself and your partner. Marriage should be like living with a best friend. It's usually not, and that's very sad.

Meerkats, Interpretation, and God

Life of Pi is a popular book about a boy in a canoe with a tiger in the ocean. To my surprise, I loved it. This book is nothing less than a sophisticated, fair, and modern justification for faith in God.

We hear a story about a boy on a fantastic journey of survival, a story that is almost unbelievable - at one point they reach a living island full of meerkats. At the end of the story, the boy (now an old man) tells his story to another man (or two men...I can't remember the details). Anyway, he doesn't believe the story. So he tells the man a more realistic story: he leaves out the tiger and the meerkats. The skeptical man says: "which one is the true one?" The narrator replies: the choice is up to you which story you want to believe. I gave you my story. Then I gave you an alternate story. Both could be true. You cannot verify either. The choice is up to you.

Forget about the details of the plot; this is all a metaphor for life, for how we perceive the world, for how we interpret events. If you're wondering whether a boy really could survive with a tiger, or whether a meerkat island could actually exist, you're probably missing the point. If you think that religion is a bunch of silly made up stories just to make people feel good, you are also missing the point of the book. Everything that happens in your life, everything that happens in the world, is perceived and interpreted in so many ways.That's what the book is about. There is meaning behind events, and we provide that meaning. Unless you are a Nihilist, everyone gives meaning to life in some way. The meaning becomes reality, a part of the event. The fantastical story is clearly a reference to a theistic interpretation of life, while the alternate story is a reference to a non-theist interpretation of life. The philosophical point is this: we really don't know which one is correct, thus we choose. Given that, the author is suggesting that a religious interpretation is preferable.

I agree.

Billions and billions of years ago, our universe came into existence. That's a fact. But why? Why does anything exist at all? And what does the Big Bang mean, if anything? That's up for interpretation. Now apply this to all events, big and small. That's life; that's the human condition - we are meaning seeking animals, and that's okay. I choose to believe God is behind all events.

Did Job Teach God a Lesson?

William Blake portrays God speaking to Job in a whirlwind

The Book of Job is bizarre. It shows God making a bet with the devil, testing the faith of Job, and finally an epic scene where God basically yells at Job: how dare you question me mortal! Oddly, then God gives all Job's stuff back and sort of implicitly justifies him.

Some people think the lesson is simple: do not question the ways of God. When bad things happen to good people, trust God and never question His ways. He controls the universe, and you are a speck of dust.

True. But instead of God teaching us a lesson, Karl Jung (psychologist) believed that Job also taught God a lesson, a lesson that God could not teach Himself. The lesson was about moral perfection: that to be truly good, one must do the right thing in the face of horrible, unjust suffering. But God cannot suffer. One must have free will, something God might not have. For God to evolve, to become better, to become more loving, God confronts a morally perfect human (Job) and realizes that the limitations inherent in man are actually the most beautiful thing about us. What does God take away? Love, forgiveness, and sacrifice. Jesus, of course, will become for Christians the ultimate confirmation of the Book of Job: God becomes man in order to perfect love. The Trinity is complete.

Personally, this all makes some sense to me, even though this interpretation is controversial at best. (Quick interpretation tip inspired by Augustine: if an interpretation increases your love and understanding, it's probably right). Imagine God before the universe, before anything existed. God, all by himself, has limitations. God needs creation and creation needs God. Otherwise why would God create to begin with? Everything is a reflection of God and a part of God. Human beings are not all-knowing or all-powerful - we are not even close. But, because of free will, we have the potential to be perfectly good. Job and Jesus are good examples of that.

True Love is Freely Given
Here's another way to think about it. God could have designed the world in a purely rational way, where good people are blessed and bad people are punished. In a way that makes sense. But is that love? True love, unconditional love, is freely given. It looks beyond circumstances and just is. Perhaps the Book of Job is a justification for why God must allow good people to suffer: it's the only way to love freely, both the good and the bad.

Vegetarianism from a Hunter's Perspective

Shall I puff out my chest and say meat-eating is natural and noble? Shall I make fun of vegetarians, call them unrealistic, or try to poke holes in their position?

No. If a meat eater is honest with themselves, if we give it an iota of thought, we must admit that vegetarianism is a morally superior position. Simple as that. It's a no-brainer. One diet is based on killing animals, sentient creatures that suffer. The other diet is based on not killing animals. How much simpler can it be?

If anyone chooses vegetarianism for moral reasons - as my wife and my ex-girlfriend did - it's a beautiful thing. These people have the moral imagination and empathy to feel for animals, an advanced empathy, an enlarged amygdala perhaps. And that deserves praise from all of us. Moral vegetarianism comes in two flavors: (1) it's wrong to kill animals and/or (2) it's wrong to subject animals to suffering, an indictment of the meat industry. I have genuine respect for both positions. If my son Immanuel becomes a vegetarian, I would be glad for him. Other vegetarians may choose for different reasons: they don't like meat, or the culture, or they want to be healthier and could care less about animals. That's okay too, but I do think the moral position deserves the most praise.

Let's not get carried away. Vegetarians should not  judge - they should understand us and accept us as falling short of an ideal; after all, don't we all fall short of ideals? Judge not. As always, the best way to promote the cause is to simply be (lead by example; be the change you want to see in the world). The vegetarians I have known have been great examples for me. As for meat eaters judging vegetarians, now that's laughable! - but sadly happens all the time.

Meat eaters want to argue that it's natural. Yes, eating meat is "natural", normal, and prevalent, but that's not a good moral argument. (check out my blog on that). Explaining a behavior does not justify it, although it helps to put it in context. Human beings, looked at as an animal species alone, are indeed omnivores. Historically, we have always ate meat (when and if we could catch it), although I understand that a very small percentage of our diet was in fact meat (because it's hard to catch), and now we eat too much (from a health perspective). Free will, morality, and modern-day realities and luxury allow us to choose vegetarianism if we want. For most Americans, it's an open choice. One is better. I choose the worse one.

The fact that I hunt for my meat doesn't help my position very much. Everyone who eats meat must be comfortable with the fact that they are killing animals. They are complicit. I simply do it. I enjoy the total experience of hunting, but I do not enjoy killing a deer. I kill deer for the meat, which I take care of properly (well, as "proper" as I can). Some vegetarians - the ones who don't like the meat industry - think it's better that I kill my own meat and process it in a more humane way.

Morality makes demands on us. Some behaviors are required, others condemned, and others are merely permissible or allowed. Much like drinking beer in moderation is morally permissible, eating meat in moderation is morally permissible in my opinion. It's allowable. But such a lifestyle is certainly not on the same level as a vegetarian lifestyle. There is a better way, and I imagine that 100 years from now most people will have a plant-based diet. That's how morality works sometimes.

At 31, I've Learned One Thing

Truth and love, my friends, truth and love. Honesty and compassion. Self-reflection and empathy. I have searched the world over for wisdom, and that's what I find. Everything else bows before, supplements, and adds on. If you live your life according to these two principles, you will flourish. If you contemplate virtue daily, as Aristotle says, you will be a virtuous person. It's all very simple. If you love according to the teachings of Jesus (or others), you will have no enemies. If you forgive, you will live gracefully and peacefully. If you need little, you will be content. If you make the effort to understand people who are not like you, or who live far away, you will never hate. If you accept the things not in your control, you will never worry. If you replace bad habits with good ones, you will be healthy. If you read, you will be more empathetic. If you take the best parts of religion and leave out the worst, you will be left with meaning and purpose. If you give people the benefit of the doubt, that's how you treat yourself. If you seek the truth, you will not be ignorant (ignorance is not bliss; it's dangerous). If you seek answers, you will ask questions and solve problems.

A man cries; a man feels; a man faces a situation head on and overcomes it with understanding and compassion. A man is humble, admits when he's wrong, constantly finds weakness in himself, exposes himself before others do, works on his faults. There are many ways to be strong. The virtues of women and men are exactly the same. If you are hurt by someone, have the courage to swallow it up, take it in stride. You can handle your emotions. Either renew the friendship or walk away. Both are graceful.

I am gullible enough to believe that an enlightened love can solve not only our individual problems, but the world's problems: war, hunger, poverty. If the right people love enough, people that are intelligent enough to see the problems and compassionate enough to do something about it, then these problems would end. Or if powerful men would love. Love conquers greed. Big if. Love ought to be measured not be those close to you, but those far away. Even sinners love close.

Birthdays haunt me in a way. What have I accomplished? Considering my potential, not much. Like most people, I had plans and ambitions. I wanted to write a book. I wanted to join Habitat for Humanity. Like so many dreaming men, I wanted to do something grand, something of abstract significance. Yet, the proper question to ask is this: do I have any hatred in my heart? No. Are there any relationships in my life that need patching up? No. I feel love for everyone, and perhaps they feel the same. I have a loving marriage, and the greatest gift of all - Immanuel, who has intensified my love, emotionally and conceptually.

When we are all in our casket, the measuring stick will be love. We all know that. Was I an honest person? And how much did I love? And that's it.

Aaron Miller: a horrible blend of religion and politics

Michigan had a primary election yesterday. Aaron Miller was one of the Republican winners (that means he could become a state lawmaker depending on the November election). Before I rant about Aaron Miller, to be fair, I am only critiquing one thing that he said. I did browse his website, which I found laughable, but I know little about him as a person. Anyway, he said this to the Kalamazoo Gazette in a questionnaire:

"Gas taxes need to go toward funding roads 100%."

Okay, he sounds reasonable, right? Wrong:

"My belief in Jesus Christ directs all my other beliefs. Therefore, I'm pro-life, for personal responsibility, for fiscal responsibility, and for freedom. That's why I'm a member of the Republican Party."

Translation:

"I call myself Christian, and when I read the Gospels, which I clearly don't understand, Jesus had political beliefs, and they were Republican. I hate abortion so much that it should be illegal regardless of rape, regardless of the consequences to poor people. In fact we should have a Constitutional Amendment that applies personhood to the bundle of cells after conception. Let's eliminate Planned Parenthood because they are associated with abortion. Personal responsibility = I think black people are lazy and dependent on the government. We should not only stop giving them food stamps and unemployment, but we should insult their intelligence by paternalistically telling them to pull themselves up from their bootstraps and transcend all the enormous impossible forces bearing down on them (and Affirmative Action is "discrimination"). We should let Detroit rot - no "bail outs" - and let's take away hard working peoples' pensions (and let's stop having pensions because, you know, they are so outdated). Fiscal responsibility = cut social programs for poor people and, instead, liberate "job creators" from taxes and regulations; that will fix poverty. Freedom: I'm very skeptical of Muslim/Arab/Terrorists and other anti-American things, I am pro-war in the name of spreading "freedom" because, you know, freedom is not free support our troops. It's amazing how Jesus preached about all of these things."

I only slightly exaggerated. Words like "personal responsibility" and "fiscal responsibility" are loaded terms. They are coded. They have a hint of positivity - who doesn't like freedom and fiscal responsibility? - but, in effect, they are mostly negative. We know what they mean.

The politics of Jesus?
Since Jesus identified his ministry as apolitical ("give to Caesar what is Caesars"), it's nearly impossible to tell what he would think about modern day political matters, especially the political issues that Mr. Aaron Miller cares so deeply about. He certainly didn't talk about abortion, getting people off welfare, government spending, and freedom as defined by America. One thing we can say with confidence: Jesus would be anti-war. By speculating, you could perhaps make the argument that Jesus would have been pro-life, meaning he would not want pregnancies to be terminated. Other than that, we must stick to what Jesus taught in the Gospels--love, forgiveness, non-violence, and non-judgment. That Jesus is way beyond the democrat/republican spectrum.

Book Review: the Cure in the Code

http://www.kpl.gov/blog/Default.aspx?id=15032396027&blogid=1766

I will just add this: good, interesting book, but I don't think he makes a great case for deregulating the drug industry. A valid case could be made for bulking up the FDA, improving it so drugs can be safe and faster.

Book Review: Dog Whistle Politics

http://www.kpl.gov/blog/Default.aspx?id=15032395980&blogid=1766

We all want Small Government

from Hobbes book Leviathan

Republicans are the so called "small government" party. That's untrue. The reality, in my opinion, is that we all want small, or big, government, depending on what parts of the government we are talking about. When it comes to the war part of the government ("defense"), Republicans are big government all the way (and, to a lesser extent,  Democrats too). When it comes to helping poor people, generally Democrats are big government, Republicans small government, and Tea Party no government (which I think is race based, but that's another issue). In other worlds, "small government" is not an accurate way to describe a political party.

I think that we all understand the general problem with government over time; namely, it gets bigger, it grows like a leviathan. It's a rolling stone that does grow moss. If you looked at the current United States Code Annotated, the set of all federal laws on the books now, it spans over 50 feet (much of that includes notes about court cases but still). The Code of Federal Regulations (written by the various executive agencies like EPA), is another 50 feet.When library patrons walk into the law library I work at, they are usually astounded at the sheer volume. If you looked at the same set 50 years ago, I'm willing to bet it would be significantly smaller (I've noticed this trend with Michigan law...I've seen that as the decades grow, the volumes grow). Now, I'm not saying this is the worst thing ever, I'm just saying that, at some point, it does become a problem. Politically, it's very hard to slash government; it's not a sexy thing to do. Thus we have a big government. Democrats are concerned too. What to do about it?

I will add just a few ideas. First, budgets reflect priorities. Let's stop funding wars, which cost billions. Let's slash the Defense down to a reasonable level. Let's make large corporations actually pay their taxes, and let's go back to a more progressive income tax code  for the super rich. With all those savings and all that revenue, let's invest in education (I believe a lack in education is what causes larger problems like poverty, in part).

What parts of the government do you want smaller? 

What parts do you want bigger?