Archives for category: Trust

If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

John, 8:32

Bruno, Giordano Bruno, was speaking the truth.
Something we consider to be true…
Yet he ended his career as a definitely unfree person! At the hands of people who considered themselves to be disciples of Christ…

Something doesn’t add up!
Either at least some of the truth mentioned here isn’t actually true… or we’re dealing with altogether different truths!

The way I see it, Giordano Bruno had died because he was defending an absolute truth while his killers had never realized that the truth pronounced by Christ was relative.

Let me elaborate.

An absolute truth – there are many – is a piece of truth of the kind which will eventually trips over you.

‘Reckless driving will kill you’.
‘High water will knock down the levy’.
‘A red hot iron will brand a cow’.

Relative truth, which has many faces but is essentially one, depends on us.
According to Christ, those who follow his word – who remain his disciples – will know the truth. And will become free.

According to Christ, it is not possible for an individual to know the truth – nor become free – in an individual manner. To accomplish the feat, WE have to follow his word.

We have to ‘love’ each-other. To respect each-other!
To turn the other cheek…

For us to be able to get near the truth – near the many absolute truths that are there – we need to share whatever knowledge we have.
Keeping anything hidden from our brethren – not turning the other cheek for ‘inspection’ – means disrespect. Means distrust. Lack of love. Inability to be in communion with the rest. Incapacity – or unwillingness – to partake in the same piece of reality. To partake in the same piece of absolute truth.

This is why Christ, who was right, has been killed. By those who didn’t want to share freedom. Who wanted to keep freedom for their own use. Who wanted to restrict the freedom of others.
This is why Bruno, who was right, has been killed. By people who behaved exactly – and for the same reasons – like those who have killed Christ. Despite declaring themselves to be the disciples of Christ…

Truth and freedom are human concepts. Words.
Both need us, human action, to become reality.
Both need us, working in communion, to become practice!

Individual absolute truths are relative to us. Are relative to us noticing, formulating, sharing and validating each of them.
‘Relative truth’, the ‘only one’, is absolute. In the sense that the only absolute – and definitive – truth is the fact that we can learn, and become free, only in concert. Respectfully helping each-other.

Truth used to be based on reason.”
J.P.Moreland, Introduction to
Escape From Reason 2006
by Francis A. Schaeffer

Etymologically speaking, reason comes from ratio.
‘Reason’ in Latin but also having to do with ‘reckoning’.
With dividing the ‘big picture’ into easier to understandable slivers. Slivers meant to be analyzed and later assembled back into meaning. Into ‘truth’.

Currently we understand reason as “the intellectual faculty that adopts actions to ends“.

Now, which of the two reasons gives birth to the ‘genuine’ truth?

The analytical/synthetic one which attempts to develop reality into meaning or the one which defends and embellishes the already known truth? The revealed truth?

The whole thing depends on the “ends” of the reasoning agent?

Reason, hence truth, depends on the intention of the individual performing the act of reasoning?!?

Quite unreasonable, don’t you think?
Truth was supposed to be anchored in reality, right?!? Not on ‘intention’….

Truth as unhiddenness… is a concept developed by Heidegger.
Basically, this whole thing is about individuals being unable to discover nor formulate the ‘entire’ truth so a ‘bigger’ truth may be reached only through cooperation. Everybody ‘says’ – unhides – everything they know about a subject and that’s how the most complete truth available at that moment is ‘uncovered’.

‘But this means the Truth becomes fluid.
No longer ‘fixed’. Unreliable!’

I’m afraid you’re right!
Except for the ‘unreliable’ part.
As long as enough people do their part, and honestly speak up their minds, the most reliable truth knowable at any given moment will become apparent to everybody.
To everybody who cares to look for it!
To everybody who accepts that their reason, while imperfect, can and should contribute to the common effort to get closer to truth.
To everybody who accepts that other people’s reason, while imperfect, can and should be listened to in the common effort to get closer to truth.
To everybody who accepts to continue this effort knowing very well that no matter how hard they will try, people will never find the entire truth

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol.

The Supreme Court on Friday eliminated the constitutional right to obtain an abortion, casting aside 49 years of precedent that began with Roe v. Wade.
the decision permits states to implement far more restrictive abortion laws

I’m not going to discuss any of these ‘calls’.
In a normal world, it doesn’t matter who makes a decision. At which level.

In the present world, which is far from normal, something jumps at any open minded observer.

‘States are good enough when it comes to setting rules about when a woman might have – or rather not – an abortion but they shouldn’t be allowed to decide, individually, whether a would-be president has been involved in insurrection.’

I agree with the legal minded among my readers that there are sound arguments, legal-wise, for each of those decisions. Unfortunately, most people are ‘legal-blind’. Instead of delving into the obscure paragraphs which shed light into the nook and crannies of any judicial sentence they prefer to decide based on what they see at the first glance.
And what’s staring at us is the fact that the President of the USA is elected state-side. Each state sends a number of people to Washington with a clear mandate about who should be the next POTUS. Which means that candidates need to ‘win’ more delegates, not necessarily more individual votes from the general public. States play a critical role in this process.
Equally staring at us is the fact that ‘individual rights’ are defined and upheld at the federal level. States no longer have anything to say about an individual right as soon as a particular ‘something’ is assumed – at the federal level – to pertain to the realm of the ‘individual human rights’.

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law
if it acquires the political power to do so,
and will follow it by suppressing opposition,
subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young,
and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100.

Religion is the metaphusical ‘thing’ inside which people who hold a set of tenets to be true are able to build a community.

Religion is sociological phenomenon. Something belonging to the realm studied by those who try to understand how large number of people work together.

Religions – on the other hand – are ‘sets of tenets’ put in practice by various groups of people.
Sets of tenets which survive for as long as they continue to help the people who uphold them in their quest to survive as a group. As a community.

Religion cannot be ‘changed’.
Religion can be studied. May be better understood.
Like physics. You can’t ‘change’ physics! With what? With chemistry? Things don’t work like this. The only thing you may do about physics is to ‘deepen’ your knowledge about it.

Religions can, and sometimes have to, be changed.
By the very people who ‘use’ them to survive.

Since nobody can survive on their own, each and everyone of us needs to belong.
To a community.
To a religion, actually!

And what do people do when they realize survival is impossible in certain conditions?
Die or do something about it, right?

Now, which community can survive based on hate?
It doesn’t matter whether you are asked to hate somebody inside or outside your community.
Whether you hate individually or collectively.
Hating – or despising – somebody blinds you and exhausts you. Puts a huge burden on your back. Focuses your attention so tight that you are no longer able to notice the real dangers.
Those which actually make you less likely to survive.

And this is valid both for you as an individual and for you as a hating community.

‘A proposition needs more than ‘mere’ Logic
in order to be True.
It also needs to be epistemologically correct.’

Oscar Hoffman, 1930-2017

This morning (February 22, 2013, thanks FB) I had a very interesting discussion with my son.

Trying to ‘soften’ him up to my arguments I said: “I don’t understand how a person with such a command of logic as yourself is unwilling to accept that…”

I should have seen this coming:
“If you have such an admiration for MY logic why don’t YOU accept that…”
That very moment I recalled a lecture by Professor Oscar Hoffman: ‘A proposition needs more than ‘mere’ Logic…’

How do you translate that to a 13 years old?

“Look here. Being Logical is only the beginning. You cannot do anything without it but it isn’t enough just by itself. It’s only the formal side of Things”.
And that was the very moment when inspiration hit me:
“Let me give you an example. You have a lot of wooden pieces: spheres, cubes, pyramids, cylinders, cones..etc. and two boards with holes in them: circles, squares, triangles. Your task is to put each wooden piece through the corresponding hole but you must also follow a second rule: half the wooden pieces are made of red oak and they belong to the red board while the other half are made of birch and they belong to the blue board”.

“Let’s presume you have no idea about either geometry or kinds of wood. Using logic you might separate red oak from fir using the grain and then learn to thread various shapes each through the corresponding hole. But no amount of logic will ever enable you to associate the correct pile of wooden pieces to which colored board unless somebody tells you which pile is made of red oak and which pile is made of fir.
Savvy?”

I’m proud to report that he got the point!

Present day edit.
He remembers the discussion but neither of us can recall where it started!

Language is the tool we use to convey information.
To speak our minds…

The consequences of tool use – messages, in this case – depend on the yielder.
The consequences of shooting a gun depend mainly on the person aiming the gun.
The consequences of using language … depend on those who are at the both ends of the ‘barrel’.

Messages – consequences of language being used to put together batches of information with the intent of transmitting them to an audience – are interpreted as soon as they reach their ‘target’.
Meaning – what the receptor makes of a message, using the same languaging tools as those put to work by the emitter – depends mainly on the receptor. In fact, most of the times, there’s more information to be gleaned from a message than that intended to be conveyed by the person initiating the exchange.

The text attributed to Orwell is too simplistic and too misleading to had been penned by Orwell.
Hence Google…
There is no substantive evidence that George Orwell who died in 1950 made this remark. The earliest known matching statement appeared in a column in the Washington Times newspaper written by the film critic and essayist Richard Grenier in 1993

If interested in who said what and what Orwell thought about the subject… just click on the link above.
I’ll only add the reasons for which I know it to be a misleading affirmation.

The factual truth is that only dictators need to be guarded by rough men during their sleep. And during the rest of their lives…
We, the rest of ‘the people’, go to sleep at night knowing there’s only a very slim chance to be targeted by thieves. Yes, we know that the police will likely come to investigate after the fact. After the fact…
But we also know that we are less likely to fall prey to violence than those living in other countries because our societies work better than those which are more violent than ours.

Because our society works better, not because we employ more ‘rough men’ to guard us…
On the contrary!
The more violent a country, the more ‘popular’ the ‘rough men’ are. On both ‘sides of the isle’!

And the more violent a country, the less peacefully people sleep in that country…

We, the people

Imagine yourself living some 4000 years ago.

Yes, you who have enough spare time to read things like these and are open minded enough to continue.
Who don’t worry too much about what you’re going to eat tomorrow and who would like to figure out what life’s about. What’s the meaning of all this which is going on around you.

You who have just figured out you’re different from the rest of the animals.
That you’re able to think.
And that you’ll never make it alone.

That no matter how smart you are, you’ll never be able to pull it on your own.
That no matter how strong you are, now, you’ll always need to be helped by your brethren.

History doesn’t go anywhere.
It pesters us with lessons.
Until we figure out their meanings.
Or until there’s no one left.
No one left to be pestered!

Darwin 2.0

One of the recurrent lessons history is peppered with:
‘Imperia always fail. Sooner or later, eventually all imperial social arrangements end up in abject failure.
Empires as well as monopolies.’

And no, the Pharaonic empire didn’t last for 3000 years.
What happened there was 30 something successive empires. Read dynasties.
Whenever a dynasty lost its grip, its empire folded. Whenever a new dynasty took over, it presided over a new empire.
Same thing happened in modern France. Same territory, same population, same culture, 5 republics and two empires since 1789. The fact that the last three republics have been consecutive doesn’t merge them into a single one.

Europe has been the scene of a whole host of wars. Some of them worldwide wars.
Since the French Revolution, all empires which had attempted to subjugate their neighbors have failed.

Napoleon’s attempt had initiated the German ‘coming together’ and turned Russia’s attention back to Europe.
Napoleon the 3rd had helped Bismark to finalize Prussia’s taking over the rest of what we currently call Germany.
WWI was started by people who had no clue and put on hold by people who had no vision. Started by imperialistically thinking people who didn’t see any need to evaluate the consequences of their countries going to war and put on hold by (other) imperialistically thinking people who continued the well established tradition. Again, without any attempt to evaluate the consequences. Hence the vanquished - the only vanquished that was still standing at the end of the war, Germany – was presented with a hefty bill. And made to pay crippling war reparations. Which clumsy actions had prepared the scene for Hitler’s advent to power.
WWII – or, more exactly, WWI 2.0 – was ended by far wiser decision makers. Who had chosen to integrate the vanquished rather than deepening the trenches.
Although fought with ‘softer’ weapons, WWIII – also known as the Cold War – fits perfectly. It was also lost by the aggressor. Not as much won by those resisting as lost by the empire attempting to widen its grasp.

What we currently have on our hands, WWIV, is a ‘pinnacle’.
Putin attempting to revive Russia’s ‘old glory’ and the reaction of the ‘free world’ are a case study. And a horrible remake. Mistakes already made since the French Revolution have been reenacted as if never happened.
The aggressor failed to realize that at some point his actions will beget a reaction. That even if that reaction will be late, it will surely come about.
The ‘good guys’ have forgotten – never really cared to understand? – the lessons of WWI and WWII. No real attempt to integrate post communist Russia into the democratic fold had been made. Not in an organized manner, anyway. Everybody was happy that ‘history had finally reached its end’ and Russia was left to its own devices. Even worse, it was treated as a no-man’s land. Mutatis mutandis, post-communist Russia had been treated just as South America and Africa had been treated after they had been discovered by the Europeans.
Even worse, the ‘good guys’ have forgotten – or had never understood – that a bully has to be stopped early. And that the easiest way to stop a bully is to encourage his ‘sycophants’ to free themselves from his influence. And to help, in earnest, those who are bullied to overcome their plight.

Now, almost two years after the aggression organized by Putin against Ukraine has become ‘hot’, there still are people who consider Ukraine should negotiate. Should accept the inevitable.
Other consider that helping Ukraine is ‘money down the drain’. That there’s no way for Ukraine to win.

The way I see this, we’re back in 1942.
Nazi troops were controlling most of Europe and most of North-Africa. But the signs were already there.
Russia, nor Britain, didn’t collapse under the onslaught. The nazis had been driven out from Moscow’s suburbs and Leningrad remained out of reach.
From there on… Hitler kept making stupid moves. Until the Third Reich crumbled under its own weight. Helped by the Allied bombardments.
And let’s not forget the huge amount of western weapons and munitions shipped by Russia’s then allies to Murmansk. Nor those hauled using the Iranian railway.

Now.
Will we relearn the lessons which are readily available to us?
The lessons we should have already learned?
What’s keeping us?
Does anybody still think Putin, or any other dictator, will ever stop?
Tired of waiting? Be glad Ukraine isn’t.
Be glad Ukraine isn’t tired of fighting!


What happened to our capacity to compromise?
When did life become nothing but a zero sum game?

Our capacity to compromise – in the good sense of the word – has diminished when religion – the thing which keeps us together – has been split into religions.

And it completely drained out when we’ve become too confident in our ability to think things over.

We’re so confident now that our solution/decision is not only better than any other but the only one possible that we’re no longer capable of considering a compromise.

While religion taught us to respect and trust each-other, religions have split us into factions.
Our intellectual arrogance has done the rest.

Your previous actions that were done in error now have consequences.
Karma.

My father has cancer. And an eye problem.
The cancer is being treated in a public hospital while the eye problem is taken care of at a private facility.
In the last couple of days we have visited them both.

Besides the obvious differences there’s a huge, and overpowering, ‘common ground’.
The money problem.

No, not the money you have to fork out if you want to be treated in a private facility.
The fact that money has been elevated to goal status.

Functionally speaking, health-care is a ‘social function’. By helping each member to remain healthy, the society – as a whole – preserves it’s overall health. It preserves it’s functionality. It’s ability to survive and to thrive.
By helping my father with his medical conditions, the society makes it possible for me and my family to remain productive. Instead of taking care of him – which we can’t do properly – we can continue to do what we’re good at.

And no, the subject of this post is not ‘who should pay for health care’.
There is no ‘free’ anything so everything has to be paid, one way or another.
The problem is the fact that money becoming the main goal has consequences.

Instead of trying to maintain the well being of the population – in an economically sensible manner – the health industry is focused on making profit.
Instead of trying to maintain the well being of the population – in an economically sensible manner – the public health system is focused on being ‘thrifty’.
The consequences are similar. Overworked doctors, crowded waiting rooms, impatient personnel, long waiting hours, irritation… And no spare capacity to cover ‘mass emergencies’!

Unfortunately, things go way deeper than this.

Do you remember what else ‘surfaced’ in the winter of 2020?

Put two and two together and it becomes a lot easier to understand how and why a huge number of people ended up believing that COVID-19 was a scam.
A scam concocted by Big Pharma to convince us to buy their products…

In retrospect, what happened doesn’t make much sense, does it?
So many people who had died because so many of us didn’t have enough trust in masks and vaccines…
So many of us were convinced that we were being played! For money…

Because it had already happened!

“These consumers were getting a raw deal. They were being exposed to Mylan’s price increases and excluded from the market forces that might cushion them. They were getting ripped off. And it’s no wonder they got angry.”