I turned 70 today, and in a kind of a celebration, I will for this moment suspend my recent practice of avoiding posting my philosophical musings.
Why do I make the effort to express these perspectives? I received 12 years of a Catholic education, and consider myself a Christian. I seem to have been graced with a better-than-average mind, along with training and experiences that leave me with a sense of duty – and sometimes – the courage to share the product of that mind. I speak in support of a world that truly works for everyone; where government and corporate policies are consistent with the real Christian values as found in the context “Love One Another” and “WWJD”, and consistent with the fundamental Islamic context: “Live from a context of community”. All too often, real Christian values are inconsistent with values purported to be Christian found on conservative media. There was nothing conservative about Christ; there was nothing conservative about Mohammad. A world that works for everyone requires a high level of integrity (https://nereus.com).
I believe that most people, at their core, want the same thing – a world that works for everyone; though many with good intentions nevertheless give more power to their personal beliefs than to reality and its implications. I have written a critical analysis of a recent email that appeared on our group in an effort to demonstrate this.
Many years ago I was taught that, if you really want to understand and speak to a person, you listen not only to the words they say, but even more for the context they speak from.
As I have said before, Context Rules! People are creatures of habit, and there is no habit more controlling than the set of knowledge, experiences and judgements you have collected over your lifetime that sits in the background of your mind and, nearly all the time with little or no conscious analysis, dictates your reactions to the people and events around you. This is your context for living.
Personal responsibility is an important character trait for many people. It is for me. Personal responsibility begins between your own ears, with the ideas and information you allow to influence your choices; with how you allow yourself to react to information and events coming in to your awareness from outside. You and only you are wholly and completely responsible for – the cause in the matter of – everything you create within your own mind, including your reaction to external stimulus.
I was deeply saddened by this email, because the context I see that sits beneath the words gives rise to the very attitudes and actions that are destroying our democracy.
For example: “attempt to keep this mountain pure in the sense of we all moved up here to do what we want, not be governed by others.” And “Mountain folk who chose to leave society to live in the Wild West”
- These statements assert a single set of motives of the people who choose to live here. I am certain that most of the members of our community would have a far different set of reasons for being here, including an appreciation for the peace and quiet of mountain life, away from the hustle and bustle of the city; an appreciation for the wildlife that wanders through our community and of the relatively unspoiled nature that surrounds us; the sense of community itself; and many other motivations.
- We live in a world of immense diversity with unfathomably complex interrelationships. When your choices fail to acknowledge that, fail to recognize that this diversity is and has always been what makes all life adaptable in the face of the adversity, that diversity is the key trait that enables long term survival not only of our species but of all life, you are denying reality in a very fundamental way leading to socially destructive choices. Seeing and seeking any kind of ‘purity’ in any human society deeply foolish.
- People who live here have not left society. As long as other people are around, you live in society and you have a moral obligation to see that your choices take those around you into consideration for the betterment of our society as a whole.
- A high-functioning democracy seeks to serve all constituencies in a balanced way. It demands an intelligent, well informed electorate, willing to acknowledge the inevitable negative unintended consequences of policy and law and to act swiftly to improve it.
- Unfortunately, manipulative, low-integrity tactics have lead today to a government that has no intention to serve all constituencies in a balanced way; rather to further concentrate wealth and power for the benefit of the few. If you don’t see how this is happening, you’re not paying attention, or you’re allowing a steady diet of ‘red meat’ from the REAL fake news media to weaken your critical thinking skills and promote a tendency to react angrily.
Also, “If you are offended by a simple email, I just can’t understand why.”
- Admitting ignorance is a good start. Everyone is ignorant, one way or another.
- I found the subject emails to be blaming, threatening, angry and at times irrational – which can be expected from a context of anger, as anger short-circuits the mind’s ability to be rational. I am far from alone in this assessment. These were not ‘simple emails’.
- People’s choices often have undesirable unintended consequences. In a civilized society, you point out these unintended consequences factually, providing as whole-and-complete a description of what’s-so as you can, and in a way that seeks to find a better way going forward. The subject emails lacked this context.
Also, “Feel free to join, but not if you plan to push an HOA style agenda”
- In the phrase “HOA agenda” and “not be governed by others” I hear is a desire to pretend that you don’t live in society; that you don’t need to take the impact of your choices on others into consideration; that there is to some extent an underlying philosophy that “I get to do what I want and others have to put up with it.”
- What I hear in ‘don’t join if . . .’ is the deplorable attitude that ‘we know what we believe, don’t bother me with the facts’.
- Perhaps even more plainly, I hear something like “I don’t want to be bothered by hearing any perspective which conflicts with my view of the world.”
- Refusal to critically examine other perspectives, to accept facts that challenge your view of the world, has a name: willful ignorance. Nothing says ‘I don’t mind making stupid choices’ quite as clearly as willful ignorance.
Also, “Freedom of speech is the first constitutional right we were given. I don’t know about you, but We The People are free to speak our mind.”
- In protecting the right to free speech, James Madison – the primary author of the constitution’s bill of rights – was specifically protecting the right of individuals to voice any opinion without fear that the government would censure them.
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2018/10/31/the-1st-amendment-applies-to-government-companies-can-and-should-ban-hate-speech/#11bfe4162a29
- As described in the article linked above, the first amendment does not require private entities to provide a platform for speech deemed offensive or inconsistent with the values of the organization.
- What I hear in the statement quoted above is the belief that freedom of speech means that anything goes, that you are free to say anything you want – without regard for the impact of your words on other people. Mature, responsible adults understand that words impact others, understand that some verbal expressions have positive value in a social context, others do not. All speech is not created equal.
I know that this email group is not the proper place for extended discussion of these ideas. I will post this on a website I am developing – if you wish to comment or discuss these ideas, please use the comment system there for further discussion.
I also encourage you to follow me on social media, which you can find reflected here: