Divine Neutrality, Blog. Science, Philosophy

The Tick

May 1st, 2015

The Tick

Sadye 1996 August 1997

Perhaps it was a tick lodged in her skin; that tiny black spot on the left side of her neck. Perhaps it was only the crust on a healing skin wound. It’s hard to spot that devilish insect unless you inspect carefully. You get ticks playing in the woods and that’s what Sadye does. Play in the woods. A forest of trees and undergrowth surround us on all sides. Sadye is five years old. I’m her dad. At breakfast her mother noticed the dark fleck.

Sadye doesn’t want her mother poking around the skin of her neck. She runs away. She won’t hold still. She screams. It mounts into a tantrum ending in uncontrollable sobs. She is being violated. She has been unjustly accused of harboring ticks.

Her mother is distraught and anguished. She knows that if you don’t remove a tick within hours it can cause serious illness. Lyme disease. She pleads with her little girl. She only wants to look at it. She promises not to touch. Looking won’t hurt.

The rock of logic is too heavy a burden to bear. Sadye collapses into sobbing hysteria resisting this new attack with even greater determination. Her mother gives up. She retreats. Out of Sadye’s earshot she confides to me that she will inspect it at night while Sadye is asleep.

Later, I drive Sadye to her play school. She is in a happy mood. I say to her: “Tell me what you would do. You are in the middle of the street. A car is coming toward you. Would you run out of its path? Or would you stand there and cry because the car will hit you?”

“I’d run away,” is her response, enthusiastic about playing a game of questions and answers.

“Well,” I say, shamelessly exploiting her exuberance, “you get out of the way because the car can hurt you. You might be so badly hurt that you couldn’t run and play anymore. A tick can hurt you also. It can put you in the hospital as surely as a car can. You should get out of its way,” said I, pontificating mightily. “Let us remove the tick if it’s there. Crying won’t make it go away,”

“Dad”, interrupts Sadye, “when a car crashes the tow truck comes to take it away.” …

How weak mere reason is against the mightiness of drama.

Later that day I picked Sadye up from play school. In the car, after reporting on her time at play, Sadye says, “The tick is gone, Dad. I washed it off myself. With a wet tissue.”

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Privilege Wants

April 2nd, 2015

Peace is what the privileged want. The indignant want war.

Peace stepping stone
I consider myself privileged. Not because I am wealthy. I am not. Not because I have power to control others. I have no such power. I am privileged because I am not in pain, I am not disabled physically and I am not in financial need.

To be so blessed is privileged. And I want peace in order to preserve this good fortune and not lose this precious condition to the chaos of war. We who have the privilege of well being – we want peace.

Who wants war? Who are those motivated to do battle? Who can be mobilized into a fighting force? In what lies the motivations to fight? The motivation to join a battle unit.

Romance – to fight alongside comrades for a worthy cause.
Loyalty – to the leader as a matter of honor
Tradition – warrior father and brothers
Gain – remuneration, the spoils of war.
Anger – to wreak destruction on an unjust world.
Envy- to humiliate superiority
Retribution.
Vengeance.
Indignation for wrongs that must be righted.
Righteousness – to impose what is right.

The stepping stone’s words imply that peace is not a universal good. It benefits the privileged peaceful. But the indignant, seeing great wrongs in society, view war as good. They see it as necessary to oppose evil. Is it not a good to fight against wrong? Not everybody wants peace. There are always warriors among us. The poor and deprived need such champions.

Almost all the people of my acquiantance are, like myself, privileged. They report no pain, are physically functional and have sufficient finances to live in moderate well being. But, of these, many do not consider themselves privileged. Reactions to the stone inscription demonstrate it. They say,

“The ‘privileged’ don’t want peace. It’s the ‘privileged’ who want war. The rich and powerful finance and encourage war to protect their wealth and power. They take profit from conflict.”

These words reveal a mindset. Evidently they are not the words of someone who considers himself among the privileged. Whoever says such words considers himself a victim! The victim of those who are ‘privileged.’ Victims of oppression. Exactly from these emerge the indignant warriors among us. The ones ready to do battle to right wrongs. The ones who want war.

“Only the dead have seen the end of war,”

wrote George Santayana in his Soliloquies in England (1924)

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Is Good Evil?

March 7th, 2015

The Mechanics of Acquiring Political Power

distraction

Renowned books on how to attain or keep power are by Machievelli, (The Prince) by Sun Tzu (The Art of War) and by Saul Alinsky.  Alinsky (1909-1972) was an effective organizer and radical and he wrote the book, Rules for Radicals (1971) N.Y.  Over the years this has become scripture as a handbook on the mechanics for achieving power. Extremists and radicals of both the left and the right pay attention to its teachings.

Alinsky was dismayed by the unjust world in which he found himself. He writes:

“In this world laws are written for the lofty aim of ‘the common good’ and then acted out in life on the basis of the common greed. … It is a world not of angels but of angles where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles; a world where ‘good’ is a value dependent on whether we want it.”

His offers his handbook for action to achieve the fundamental ‘good’:

“.. our desire (is) to change (the world) into what we believe it should be.”

“In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment,…(so) man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life.”

The nobility and grandeur of his motivation is evident. Alinski’s words are stirring. His catalogue of evils resonate with us. We know its truth. His righteous indignation drives people to join him.

Ah, how sweet are the words of demagoguery.

Let us suppose that Alinsky managed to ‘seize power’. How would he ‘give it to the people’? How are the people, in fact, to wield power? How is the beautiful dream to be effected; if Alinsky had the chance to effect it?

Alinsky never tells us. He doesn’t address this ultimate and critical concern; how he would use power as no other before him has done – to produce ‘good’. His thrust is on getting power.

He spends pages in moral outrage enumerating the injustices he finds – the Vietnam war, “racist discriminatory culture”, strip mining for coal … And then moves on to his contribution: How to organize constituents into a force with which to be reckoned. How to build a base for power. The mechanics of acquiring power.

“To build a powerful organization takes time. It’s tedious but that’s the way the game is played..”

How to play and win at this game is what his activist devotees derive from Alinsky.

Significantly he writes in his chapter on means and ends.

“The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s ‘conscience is the virtue of observers and not agents of action’; in action one does not enjoy the luxury of a decision that is both consistent with one’s individual conscience and with the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation…. first rule; that one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.”

So here is the picture being painted: We live in a faulted world where all efforts to bring about a better world have, heretofore, failed. Nevertheless, Alinsky aims to bring it about by gaining power. Power can bring about the good world that “should be”. And the achievement of power must supersede concerns about scruple. When close to the battle-for-good, matters of ethics are a distant concern, says Alinsky in agreement with Goethe. In the pursuit of a great dream, doing evil in the service of good is permitted.

With precisely this outlook Lenin, in the Russian revolution of 1917, created the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat.’ Dictatorial rule. Proclaimed for the good of the people. In fact, it oppressed them. Noble goals, ignoble consequences.

Can ‘good’ be objective. Clearly, Alinsky thought so. But surely ‘the good’ is a subjective notion. We don’t know what ‘the good’ is. All we know is ‘what we want’. We call that ‘good’. This is precisely Alinsky’s complaint. He cannot abide the subjectivity of good. He wants to bring objective good about. And to do so he is willing to abide evil.

The symbiotic incompatibility between good and evil is the subject in this essay.

The picture is by Rudi Herzlmeier whose whimsical work I admire greatly. I wrote to him for permission to use this image but I never got an answer.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter