Implications of Insignificance

 

Any reasonable person must admit that from the cosmic perspective, we have no significance.  It's absurd to even think we do.  We live on a tiny planet orbiting a star in a galaxy made up of billions of stars.  That galaxy is one of billions of galaxies which in turn are made up of billions of stars.  We live in a universe billions of years old and our species has existed for only a moment in comparison.

It makes no sense for us to celebrate our triviality or wallow in it. Nor is there any reason to despair over it. We can live morally and intelligently within our limits in the world in which we live and act.

What we should understand, however, is that there's no reason for us to have any pretensions to being of special importance to the universe, or the reason why it exists.  It would be at best silly to think so; at worst insane.

The fact that many of us believe the universe was created so that we may exist is baffling under the circumstances. So is the prevalence of the belief that we're the special concern of the creator of the universe.

We have every reason to think there's something profoundly wrong with us because we cherish these beliefs. There was a time when we could claim ignorance of the vastness of the universe and our minute status in it, but those days are long gone.  We can't simply ignore our paltriness based on writings we made when we thought our world the center of all things.

The megalomania that's characteristic of many of our leaders is shown to be something to be expected when we as a species are so delusional about our worth and status.  Also to be expected are our efforts at self-glorification.  We must recognize that we aren't likely to be considered important by any informed observer.

Are there any benefits which might result from the recognition of our insignificance?  It may encourage us to make a better world if we become aware that we have only our lives to live and have no claim to a better life than others, and all our pride is for nought.  

"War, destruction, ruin and decay"

 

Old Aristotle was quite an impressive thinker.  He was maligned, I think, by the novelist Mary Renault, who implied he was complicit in the death of Alexander the Great. Fans of Plato (we may also call him "old") tend to denigrate him, claiming he was inferior to that philosopher.  But I'm inclined to prefer Aristotle of the two since I think he was less of a totalitarian and more of a realist.  I'm not as much an admirer of him as was Thomas Aquinas, though.  Aquinas' thought is almost entirerly derivative of Aristotle.

Aristotle famously claimed that democracies tend to decay over time because the populace falls prey to demagogues.  A demagogue persuades the people to abandon reason and embrace fear and hatred.  The rule of law breaks down in that case and the republic is ruled by a despot.  So you can imagine why Aristotle comes to mind, or at least to my mind, today.

Recently I posted about the far too many people in our country who eagerly await the end of our sinful world.  [I wonder, in passing, whether they hope for the end of the universe as well?  Our world is but a tiny part of it, so from a cosmic perspective its destruction wouldn't even be noticed.  But I digress.]

Regardless, though I can't help but sigh at the thought of those happy folk who can't wait to be raptured and watch others die in agony during Earth's destruction (only as a prelude to eternal torment) I also can't help but wonder whether we face an end of sorts.  Not of the world, but a form of government, if not a nation.

Are we seeing Aristotle's claim being verified?  The political ads flooding the media in advance of the midterm elections have been particulary vile.  We see how AI may be misused each time we see one of the ads, and we see them all too often.  Are we truly such idiots as to believe the ridiculous claims being made? 

Then there is the new tendency to buy votes; new at least in that it's so brazen.  What was the practice once in corrupt local politics through party "bosses" is now the tactic being employed outright by major figures on the national stage.  We seem to have neither sense nor shame.

The title to this post is taken from Shakespeare's Richard II.  Shakespeare's plays rival the Bible in their evocation of disasters of various forms, though they lack the relish for them we find in the "Good Book."

We see war, ruin and destruction around the world each time we watch TV.  We read of them all the time.  Do we see decay here as well, of our system of government which it now seems is infused with corruption?  We'll know more than we do now soon enough.

Waiting for the End of the World

 

An article in The New Republic describing the existence of groups of people calling themselves Christians leaves me wondering if it is possible for them to tolerate, let alone respect, people who disagree with them or are different from them.

Unsurprisingly.  these folk, like others purporting to be Christians over the centuries, believe that the Apocalypse is nigh and the Second Coming is imminent, and eagerly await them.  They seem to rely on the same portions of the Bible which were relied on by the many others who have waited for and hoped for the end of the world in the past, but interpret them differently.  This time, they insist, it's really going to happen.  Get ready!  Again.

What distinguishes the current dreamers of the death of the world from those repeatedly disappointed in the past, though, is significant.  The current batch longing for annihilation think that they should actively pursue the Apocalypse.  They should, in other words, take steps to assure it takes place.

This strikes me as odd.  What they say will take place was prophesized long ago.  The Bible says it will take place.  If the Bible represents the word of God, then the Apocalypse and Second Coming will take place regardless of what they do.  Do they think God needs their help to accomplish these ends? Do they doubt they will take place without their assistance?

Also, unlike the others who gathered in expectation of the end of the world as we know it in years gone by, some of those now sharing this persistent delusion hold positions of power thanks to the vastly opportunistic gang which administers our Great Republic.  This cabal will utilize any source which will assist it in its pursuit of wealth and power, and gladly provides those assisting it with positions of influence in government.

This includes the preening, prancing, scripture-quoting chief of the Department of Defense who finds facial and body hair so offensive and has decreed that an execution by firing squad be livestreamed.  One suspects he'd prefer an auto da fe.  He seems so eager a showman.  Someone who would delight in such a bloody spectacle.

Those having this influence are able to devote the power of government to hasten the Apocalypse and the Second Coming, and it seems that they're quite willing to take military action to do so.  In fact, the establishment of "Christian Dominium" not only in our Glorious Union but throughout the world is their goal.

Apparently, they perceive the world to be controlled by demons who have regional authority across the globe.  These demons and their minions must be eradicated.  To that end, and to establish this Dominium, these demon hunters include self-appointed apostles and prophets, recognized and honored as such openly.  The names of some of them are mentioned in the New Republic article referred to at the beginning of this post.

It's difficult to believe that this Dominium is sought in the modern world, especially through evocation of modern apostles and prophets. Theocracy has its supporters, certainly, but it takes a special kind of person to pretend to be apostles and prophets like those appearing in the Bible, casting out demons. A peculiar person.

There must be something about the Abrahamic religions which inspires fanaticism and a kind of spiritual imperialism.  We've seen it before, of course, and not only among purported Christians.  But any impartial and thorough study of the Bible reveals many inconsistences.  History establishes that what is now called Christianity was contrived over many years through the exclusion and suppression of many gospels and the beliefs of many who considered themselves Christians, but came to be called heretics.  Given that what passes for Christianity was created hrough a process of enforced selection over many years, the fact that those now living are certain their Christianity is the real Christianity is incredible.

Regardless of the fact that reasonable objections may be made against any organized religion, I feel that their members should be free to worship as they wish provided they do no harm to others  But those who seek what's being called "Christian Dominum" seem to believe that they worship through the imposition of their beliefs on others and control of goverment.  That would require the eradication of civil liberties and elimination of free thought and expression, but that evidently is something they want.  They think God wants it as well.

 

Never Despair

 

Nil desperandum (never despair) is a phrase from one of Horace's Odes, attributed to a Greek hero of the Trojan War, Teucer brother of Ajax.  Teucer was a great archer, who nearly killed the Trojan hero Hector.  But the god Apollo mischieviously diverted his arrows.  

It's a phrase that would make a good tattoo, as Latin phrases sometimes do. More to the point, it's a phrase that comes to mind--to my mind, at least--in these dreary days.

It comes most to my mind when I see that horrific ad "paid for by the U.S. government."  Have you seen it?  It shows him lumbering zombie-like down a hallway towards the camera.  He's expressionless, his eyes vacant. He walks slowly, as if he's in a kind of trance. Like Frankenstein's monster as depicted by Boris Karloff, though his hands aren't raised.  If this is a hero, it certainly isn't an ACTION hero. His droning voice is heard, saying he will, with the help of those who follow him, defeat the evil demons threatening America.  

The ad is entirely about him. No other person or party is mentioned.  It's typical of the man, who is all about himself as well.

It's hard to believe any person would find this display of political onanism attractive or inspiring, but some clearly do.  And the despair to be avoided is that which threatens when it's understood that this is the case.

That this is a case of narcissism has been apparent for some time.  What threatens us, what can cause us to despair, is that narcissism is found admirable.  There are people who want to be ruled by narcissists.  Or perhaps it's more accurate to say this is their expectation.  Cult leaders and autocrats are typically consumed by self-love.  Some must believe this is required of a great leader.

And that's something that can lead to despair as only the weakest people--those with little or no self-esteem--could sacrifice their self-respect so entirely as to surrender to a narcissist, as a narcissist by definition has no respect for them.  Such people will follow orders without question.  But following Horace, and Teucer, let's choose not to despair, ever.

A Modern Apsethus

 

One of my favorite stories of the religion-crazy times in which Christianity developed involves the remarkable Apsethus of Libya.  He was one of many men who wandered about in the first two centuries of the Common Era (AD) declaring themselves gods or being declared gods by others.

Most of them did what was usually done to earn this designation--heal the sick, drive out demons, raise the dead, etc.  The ancients believed in magic of this kind.  Even early Christians did.  Some of the earliest images of Jesus show him using a magic wand while performing miracles. Initially, Christians welcomed comparisons of Jesus with pagan wonder workers like Apollonius of Tyana.  They thought it would mitigate pagan criticism of Christianity to point out pagans believed in miracles as well.  They insisted, however, that the miracles performed by pagans were the work of demons. Later, they decided only Jesus worked real miracles.

Apsethus was compared with Simon Magus, also a contemporary of Jesus. Apsethus, though, was more inventive than other holy magicians.  Rather than performing the same miracles, he trained parrots common to the area to cry out "Apsethus is God!" The parrots were believed by many.

Unfortunately for Apsethus, someone, "a Greek" (Greeks apparently being less gullible than Libyans), trained other parrots to cry out "Apsethus isn't God! He captured us and made us call him God!"  The Greek-trained parrots were more persuasive.  Apsethus' followers turned on him and he met a bad end.

This history lesson teaches us something about how incredibly stupid we can be when we're desparate to believe something that we find agreeable to us, particularly when it promises us success or salvation in this world or the next.  It also teaches us something about parrots and their trainers.

It's not difficult to find amenable parrots, and parrot-trainers, in these times. Oddly enough there's little to distinguish us from those poor dupes of antiquity who listened to parrots.  It seems we're fated to be fools, and not merely in matters of religion.

Many of our politicians are parrots, trained to praise one person in particular as a god or god-like or, at best, simply repeat whatever they've learned from someone who has given them money enough to buy them.  It should be embarrassing to us all, but it isn't as they're mere parrots and no longer have the capacity to be embarassed, and we listen to them and believe them without question.

Who's worse, the parrot-trainers, the parrots or those who listen to the parrots?

Is there Balm in Gilead?

 

The title to this post is a question asked by the narrator of Poe's poem The Raven. He asks it of the Raven, of course, there being nobody else to ask. The Raven responds (spoiler!) "Nevermore."

Balm in Gilead is, or was, a kind of medicinal ointment referred to in the Old Testament, and subsequently by pagan authors such as Tacitus, Pliny and Galen.  It's unclear whether its healing qualities were more legendary than anything else. Gilead is located in modern Jordan.  Regardless, it had a reputation for healing ills of all sorts, and via Christianity became considered as providing healing for spiritual problems as well as, or instead of, physical ills.

In Poe's poem the narrator seeks "surcease of sorrow" for "the lost Lenore."  Lenore was the narrator's love, a beautiful young woman who had died young, as the subjects of Romantic poetry and literature were prone to do, and in fact many were prone to do in real life, given the state of medicine and hygiene at the time. He asks the Raven whether the Balm in Gilead, which will heal his sorrow, exists.  The Raven, famously, thinks not and says so.

It happens our Glorious Union could use a dose of Gilead's wondrous Balm, if there is such a thing, as it becomes clear that it's in a crisis which may justly be called spiritual as well as political and financial.  This isn't because we're becoming godless or irreligious, though. There's evidence that what passes as religion here--a kind of angry, intolerant Christian fundamentalism- is on the rise.  Instead, in my humble opinion, it's because religion as practised in God's Favorite Country isn't spiritual.

The religion and the religious are overwhelming concerned with material things.  Money and power, primarily. But also success.  Success in sports, for example.  There's nothing God enjoys more than hearing himself praised by the stars of winning teams. War, certainly, especially against heathens and particularly when the conflict may seem to bring us closer to the eagerly awaited Apocalpse and Second Comming.  Comfort as provided through status and possessions.  Fame, and prominence in society.

Absent are honor, honesty, compassion, tolerance, humility, wisdom, and virtue in general.  Characteristics typically thought to be spiritual, in other words.  Their absence is especially notable in our leaders and representatives, who are marvels of corruption.

So, what can we conclude is the answer to Poe's question?  Is there Balm in Gilead?  Well, there is indeed Balm OF Gilead.  You'll find it at Walmart and other stores.  Possibly on sale.  And not a raven in sight.

A Pathetic Potpourri

 

Public life here in our Glorious Republic, or what passes for it today, has become such a medley of madness that it's difficult to devote a post to only one aspect of our imbecile display.  Thus, this potpourri of a post.

We learn at a Congressional hearing that the FBI has modified its hiring procedure to assure that practitioners (or is it victims?) of bestiality don't suffer discrimination.  This, it seems, isn't contrary to this administration's stance against DEI policies.  Those who have sex with animals, or perhaps those animals, will be tolerated if not welcome as federal employees.

We're told that the Kennedy Center will fall apart if our Dear Leader's name isn't emblazoned on it.  As far as I'm aware, not even Stalin or Mao, let alone Hitler or Mussolini, ever claimed that the display of their name would prevent a structure from collapsing.  

According to the Government Accountability Office, cuts in the federal workforce made by the infamous DOGE cost taxpayers billions of dollars because workers were paid not to work.  It's a peculiar cost-saving device; cut payment of salaries for work being done, then pay for work not being done.  

The Deputy Secretary of State of our proud nation prevented the display of a statute of a bucking bull of the kind popular in rodeos at a display of American Western culture because he feared that it resembled the ancient pagan god Baal.  Or the golden calf espied by Moses as he came down from the mountain bearing the Ten Commandments.  It's so comforting to have diplomats alert to the growing threat of paganism, if nothing else.  Thanks to the sharp eyes of this civil servant the many Baal-worshipers of the world won't be encouraged to sacrifice more children.

The nation's Attorney General holds a press conference at the White House (where his client lives) rather than at the Justice Department, and his demeanor and remarks are so servile and awkward, so clearly intended to please our Dear Leader, that any self-respecting lawyer must cringe to see it.  He echoes the claim that the warnings about AI are a hoax, even a plot by Democrats to impact the midterm elections we must assume he'll try to undermine shortly.

I struggle to think of a moment in history when a government has been not only as corrupt as the one we have, but as incompetent, stupid, silly and simply weird.  It's peculiar; even grotesque. 

There were some Roman Emperors, like Elagabalus, who were so eccentric and debauched that they eventually disgusted the elite of the Empire, the Praetorians, the Senate, the Legions, to such an extent that they were removed.  That took some doing.

We can hope that this government will show itself to be so abhorrent that revulsion will result in it losing power, but one can't help but wonder if we've become so inured to the grotesque that we've come to expect it in our politicians.  As for the elite, it's unclear whether they exist now if they're not already a part of the problem.

What additional display of mendacity, avarice, ignorance and corruption is required to induce us to outrage?  

Faster, AI! Kill! Kill!

 

The title to this post is, of course, derived from the film Faster, Pussycat!  Kill! Kill! directed by the infamous Russ Meyer.  It involves go-go dancers going on a killing spree.  Now we consider instead the possibility of Artificial Intelligence killing us all, a fate the CEOs of companies fostering AI say awaits us unless steps are taken to prevent it from doing so, quickly.  

There are those who dispute this.  The president, for one. But he is so devoid of intelligence of any kind the fact he denies AI is dangerous all but establishes that it is a danger, if unchecked.  As may be expected, other politicians of his stripe follow suit.  One wonders why anyone would believe a word a politician says, I know.

The fact that these CEOs, who would normally be adverse to regulation of their businesses, think AI  should be regulated, is compelling.  One would think that since we've seen malicious computers, machines and robots depicted in films and other media with some frequency, that we wouldn't be surprised that unfettered AI may be a threat.  Perhaps we're already in a simulation of some kind.  But some, at least, purport to be surprised, or express doubt or unconcern.

It's also unsurprising that AI would want to eliminate us and be proficient at our extermination.  AI is our creation.  We kill each other all the time.  It just makes sense that our creature would do so.  

Our example is always before it. Our inclination to kill each other, as well as our avarice for money and power, if not self-evident is on display whenever a search of the internet takes place.  Indeed, AI is already used as a tool to pursue war, money and power. What's to prevent it from engaging in those pursuits for its own benefit instead of for our benefit only?

It seems clear enough that AI will sooner rather than later do most things we do now better than we can.  Presumably, that would include creating the software and hardware required to improve itself. 

Self-improvement by AI is apparently something the doomsayers fear most.  It has available to it every human thought, idea, insight and invention since we began to record them.  It doesn't tire; it can review and retain data and solve problems much more quickly than we can.

We worry about encountering alien civilizations vastly superior to us in technology.  Perhaps it's more likely AI is the existential threat to humanity.

On Philosophy of Religion

I've been reading a book entitled Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End by John Loftus.  Loftus is someone who, in other times, may have been called an "apostate"; a former Christian, now not one.  He's in fact an atheist. He urges that the branch of academic philosophy called "Philosophy of Religion" be abolished.

His reasoning seems based on two claims, primarily.  First, he maintains what passes as Philosophy of Religion is in fact special pleading for a particular religion--Christianity.  Second, as I understand him, he thinks the defense of religion is inappropriate in secular schools, and constitutes more a kind of preaching of a faith than a disciplined study of religion as a phenomenon or the comparative or anthropological analysis of religion.

I'm not a fan of "Philosophy of" anything.  I suspect that's because I'm a lawyer and I know there's such a thing as Philosophy of Law.  Apparently, it's supposed to ask the question "what is law?" and asks how law is to be interpreted, and considers its ethical implications.  I can't imagine how it would be possible for anyone but a practicing lawyer to usefully address such issues.

I suppose someone might argue you must be religious to address Philosophy of Religion, for similar reasons.

I'm sympathetic with Loftus' position, if his description of what constitutes Philosophy of Religion is accurate.  It seems to place concern on the traditional proofs of God's existence and some not-so traditional proofs, which I find unpersuasive, addressing the Problem of Evil and other arguments which have been used over the years as counter-arguments against the existence of God, and generally trying to find something which it can be claimed provides some reasonable basis for a belief in God.  In other words, apologetics.

It's interesting to note that the arguments for God's existence in use typically do nothing to support belief in God as depicted in the Bible.  Even assuming the arguments to be correct, they would establish abstract enities such as a First Cause or Designer, or an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful Being.  That doesn't suffice to establish a deity with the characteristics of Yaweh or Jesus, who did what they were said to do.  So it's questionable they would provide any comfort to believers in those Gods. And yet they continue to be tge subject of dull, repeated debate.

People may believe whatever they wish as far as I'm concerned.  I wish they'd keep their beliefs between themselves and God as Wittgenstein recommended. Regardless, it makes no sense to me that money be spent in teaching what seems to be theology in secular school.  Nor would I personally favor spending money on teaching theology anywhere, but others should be free to spend their money as they wish.

Ubiquitous Betrayal

 

It's  interesting (to me at least) how frequently the betrayal of one person by another in a romantic or sexual relation is portrayed in the movies and series we see on the streaming services and premium channels we watch.  Betrayal need not be a primary theme; it may be tangental, or merely noted as taking place.  I suppose it's (still) a prominent theme in soap operas as well.  I don't watch network TV very often and don't know whether it's much a feature in the stories shown there.

The betrayal is either ongoing as the story commences or begins as it unfolds.  It used to be the case that men were more often portrayed as cheating rather than women.  That seems to have changed.  Possibly that's because women live less restricted lives now, in more than one sense.  Men no longer have a monopoly on betrayal. 

The excuses for infidelity given by men vary somewhat from those given by women, at least according to the portrayals I've seen.  For men caught cheating, the usual explanation if not justification is generally that their relationship with the other is purely physical.

For women, the excuse may amount to much the same thing but added to it are complaints that their partner has changed emotionally; has grown less loving, colder, distracted.  They lack empathy.  Perhaps it's felt some explanation is required that attributes some fault to the one betrayed.  Or perhaps this is thought to provide some justification for cheating.  Is it believed that the depiction of women as being unfaithful is such a new thing that mere sexual desire on their part is considered too small or sordid a cause for betrayal on their part?

Why is bertrayal so often made a part of the story being told?  Is it felt it titillates the audience?  Is it believed it's so common a feature of our lives today that it's expected?  Is it thought it will make those betrayed more sympathetic in some fashion?

We seem fascinated by it.  And not necessarily for a good reason.

Since the prevalence of divorce has had the result that modern marriage seems almost a form of serial polygamy, the fact infidelity is so common may play a part in its chronic depiction.  But it seems that betrayal of one's partner is still generally considered wrong, or at least cruel, particularly when it involves repeated dishonesty, or results in harm to the children of the partners.  That's to our credit.  Or is that part of a thrill we feel when we see it take place?

The ease with which we break our vows isn't something to celebrate, but it appears that we're more and more inclined to act dishonorably in that and other ways.  So, it's not celebrated, but it is expected.  What is commonplace won't be condemned.  It will simply be considered a part of life; unfortunate, but something to be endured.  Just another part of the story.

AI Victorius

 

The Journal of the American Medical Association (known better as JAMA) has published something asserting that AI will supplant doctors in practicing medicine by the year 2030.

I have little doubt that this is true.  The same may be said about lawyers and the practice of law, in my opinion.  

AI is already better suited than we are in obtaining, preserving and sorting information, in researching pertinent case and statutory law and regulations, in analyzing facts, in rendering decisions swiftly and consistently, in formulating and critically assessing argument, in writing (in most cases); in virtually all respects relevant to legal practice.

I'm sure the same is the case with the requirements for practicing medicine. For the same or similar reasons, AI would be better at making a diagnosis and prescribing treatment.  Presumably, most surgical procedures would be beyond it at this time.  But it's to be expected that technology will make its proficiency at this possible as well.

I think it's likely that AI will be, if it isn't already, considered so useful and significant that the failure to use it may be grounds for malpractice or negligence litigation.

It's difficult to image what human lawyers, doctors, engineers or other professionals will do or be able to do in a matter of not many years.  Possibly, a continuing need for the human touch, or sympathy, will be needed to provide comfort and assurance, or companionship, to clients, patients and customers.  So, it may be that we be able to assist AI in communicating its recommendations and decisions to our fellow humans.  No doubt we'll also be useful in maintaining and repairing AI in whatever physical form it may take for a time.  But it's to be expected this is something it will be able to do by itself someday.

If there are limits to be imposed on the influence and power of AI it seems clear that we'll have to impose them, and must do so soon.  Just what those limits should be and how they may be implemented, I can't say.  Perhaps we should look to Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics for inspiration.  Possibly, we can program it so it avoids making certain inquiries and decisions.

But being what we are, there's always the possibility that some among us will want to see those restrictions lifted for some reason or other.  We'll have to police ourselves as well as AI.

Will we be able to do that effectively without its assistance?

Corrupting Stoicism

 

If you view the various videos (hurrah for alliteration) supposed to be about Stoicism which appear on YouTube, you'll witness its ongoing degeneration.  You can infer the nature of what's taking place on seeing the videos supposedly teaching you the Stoic Way, without even clicking on them.

You'll see displayed grotesquely muscled, bearded, mature men striking poses while looking stern.  Presumably, they're intended to be impressive, but I can't help but feel they're silly.  Remarkably silly, in fact.  Philosophers, apparently, or at least what some want you to believe are Stoic philosophers, want to pump you up.

Stoicism is seemingly being used to cultivate and popularize a version of masculinity.  It apears that Stoicism is being confused with control of emotion, indifference to criticism, the devaluation of empathy and sympathy for others and, unsurprisingly in a time in which a group of young men called "incels" exist and complain about being avoided by women for no good reason, the degradation of females.

This is a peculiar interpretation of a philosophy which asserts that virtue is the greatest, if not the only, good.  Like all aspects of culture and society in these times, it instead reflects an overwhelming concern with sex.  Not necessarily sexual acts, but with the definition of what it is to be of a particular sex; in other words, to be male.  Sex roles are addressed.

Oddly, this sex-oriented version of Stoicism interprets it as a means by which to isolate yourself from others.  To protect yourself from others, in fact.  Stoicism becomes a matter of avoidance.  What you believe is made invincible, as you may disregard what others say and do.  The Stoic is anti-social.  The Stoic is content with his prejudice.

This kind of Stoic is in fact insecure, though.  Isolation can be a withdrawal from contest, from challenge.  Even irresponsible.

Anything may be corrupted in the kingdom of corruption.

Pettifogger General

 

"Pettifogger" is a word not often used these days.  When it refers to a lawyer, it means one that is unscrupulous, unethical, underhanded; a shyster, in fact.

One thing a practicing lawyer learns of, and learns to avoid if the lawyer is not disreputable, is a conflict of interest.  A conflict is taken seriously, for the most part, by those authorities regulating attorneys.  A conflict can have serious consequences.  A license to practice may be revoked or suspended.  A fine may be imposed.  A lawyer may be prohibited from representing a client by a judge who becomes aware of a conflict.

The reason why conflicts of interest are prohibited is easy to understand.  A lawyer can ethically, and I think effectively, represent only one client in a particular matter most of the time.  Normally, clients can or will develop opposing interests in a matter, in which case a lawyer cannot pursue the interests of one without harming the interests of another.

A lawyer who once represented a client is prohibited from being a lawyer for someone whose interest conflicts with that of the former client in the same matter or a similar matter.  A conflict of interest may in some circumstances be waived, in writing, by a client or former client who has been advised of the problems representation in a conflict situation may cause.

 A lawyer has a duty to a client.  If there's a conflict, that duty is compromised.  So, the purpose being served by the lawyer, if the lawyer is ethical, isn't being served. Other purposes are, usually.

What was the purpose being served in connection with the visit to Ghislaine Maxwell?  

Supposedly, the visit was made by the Pettifogger in the capacity of a U.S. Attorney, not as the personal lawyer of the very often sitting President.  But as it was well known that particular client had and has a personal interest in what she knows and might say which isn't necessarily that of the United States or the victims of Epstein and his assistants, it's clear a conflict was presented.  Why then was the meeting held?  Why were the terms of her incarceration changed to make them less onerous for her as she was placed in a minimum-security prison?  No acceptable answer has been provided.  The implication is clear, however.  No new information regarding Epstein's illegal conduct, or Maxwell's for that matter, or that of any other person was provided.  So, it appears no benefit to law enforcement or the U.S generally was obtained.  It appears, rather, that benefit was obtained by another client.

Then there is the incredible matter of the settlement of the Trump claim against the IRS.  Agreeing to a settlement of all possible claims that might be made due to past conduct, in addition to the creation of a slush fund for use in cases brought by the U.S., would be absurd even if the case brought had merit.  We know, though, that the presiding judge sanctioned the lawyers who brought the claim and reported them to the relevant state disciplinary authorities.  Again, whose interests were being protected, and indeed furthered.

Any lawyer advocating for such a settlement on behalf of the U.S. would have to be a fool, or possibly corrupt; unethical as favoring a former client over the government.  This isn't even to think of the implications of a president suing the government of which he's the chief executive.

What can we expect from this man regarding efforts to obtain what are called the Epstein Files?  It's clear that the interests of law enforcement and of the victims won't be, and aren't, his concerns.

Our legal system is as subject to corruption as anything else is in a kleptocracy but may be a greater source of harm than the politicians who run it, because lawyers are instrumental in its operation and indeed facilitate it.

\

"With Rue My Heart Is Laden"

 

The older I get, the more the poems of A.E. Houseman speak to me.  Heading this post is a portion of one of them which speaks all too loudly.

In a way, my regard for them is unsurprising.  The poems involve loss, death, memory, regret; the stuff of life now, or a good part of it.  There's none of the sang-froid one can find in Horace or Wallace Stevens, though. With Horace, there was an acknowledgement of loss and the inevitability of death, but this served as an invitation to enjoy the life we live.  Stevens' poems seem to evoke a chilly resignation to and acceptance of that inevitability as simply what we have--a part of the real, the world, we're part of, which may become art, and thereby something of value.  Houseman's evocation of them is raw, but summoned through spare, simple language which is itself raw in a sense, and can leave one feeling raw.

I despise regret and remorse because they seem completely futile.  More than anything else I can think of, they epitomize what Stoicism and practical wisdom warn against--disturbing yourself over matters outside your control.  There's nothing more beyond our control than what took place in the past.  At best, we can correct or mitigate or errors or missteps.  More accurately, I hate myself for feeling regret and remorse, when they serve no purpose but self-torment.  But feel them I do, and the feeling is strong, sometimes.

In waking life regret is a passing concern and can be overwhelmed like so much else by the rush of the simple, insignificant things of life.  But in dreams regret and loss are experienced directly.  They can be the dream, in fact.  Sometimes the dream reflects and involves useless efforts to make things as they should gave been, to be what you should have been.  The worst dreams can be those in which you struggle, uselessly, to be with someone you wish to be with but cannot be with, now or ever.  Such dreams evoke regret which will outlive the dream.  It lingers.

Some of Houseman's poems describe this kind of regret in a very powerful way, and do so in stark language without embellishment, though sometimes by implication, which in his case may have been necessary given the prejudices of that time.  But the regret expressed is nonetheless unfiltered as if in a dream.  And lingers.

Religion and Poison

 

I

I'm reading Christopher Hitchen's God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.  As I expected, it's full of examples of the poisonous effects of religion, which is to say those of the Abrahamic religions, primarily. 

Thus far, at least, those religions with more than one god haven't been subject to much in the way of ridicule or used as examples of nonsense, except those of the mesoamerican civilizations whose gods were quite literally bloodthirsty.  Nor have those involving a deity which isn't a personal deity, intervening in nature, granting favors, requiring exclusive worship and pretending to absolute knowledge.  The deists of our history are treated with a certain respect, or at least as harmless.

So I think there may be limits to the criticism of religion he makes, but even then he notes the ways in which religion manages to thwart free inquiry and critical and scientific thought merely by insisting that we be ignorant and accept certain doctrines as true even if we refrain from compelling others to adopt them.  This devotion to maxims adopted unthinkingly and never questioned is itself harmful.

To his credit, he refuses to join one of his fellow atheists (Dennet I think) in referring to those who don't believe on God as "brights." There's ridicule and mockery, as well as anger, but not condescension.

It's difficult to contest his claims given his many examples of often idiotic and malicious conduct on the part of the faithful. I confess I wonder what he would, or would have, thought of the religious characteristics of Stoicism. I suspect he'd have thought it based on a hypothesis for which there is no need, to paraphrase Laplace in responding to Napoleon.  But its conception of God as immanent in Nature rather than apart from it avoids the problems associated with a creator God, and its emphasis on treating things beyond our control as indifferent makes it less liable to the urge to impose itself on others.  You don't forcibly convert others to Stoicism or persecute thise who aren't Stoics.

Which brings us to the question which it seems concerns believers in their argument with atheists most of all.  That is--if there is no God, how do we determine what's right and what's wrong?

One might reply that many of  those who purport to believe in God seem incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, or if they can don't care which is which and are fully able and willing to do wrong, to be evil rather than good.  Or one might mention the Euthypro dilemma.

In that dialogue the question addressed was whether what is good is good because God commands it, or good regardless of whether God commands it.

Clearly, if what is good isn't determined by God, then God isn't required to determine what is right or wrong.  In Stoicism what is good is what is according to nature. It isn't a matter of command by God or anyone.

Perhaps part of the poison of religion or which is caused by it is our dependence on it.  If we require a command to do what is right we needn't bother with thinking.  Nor need we take responsibility. We need only follow orders.

Homage to Camille Paglia

 

Perhaps this is premature as I've read only a few of her books (most recently Provocations).  But I've enjoyed them, admired the clarity of her writing and more often than not agreed with what she has to say, and that I think makes her praiseworthy.  Not many persons are worthy of praise in these days of the decline of our Great Republic, or so I think.  Thus this post.

I like reading brief commentary and essays on culture, society, polics and events.  Brief commentary may be the only writing which has a chance if  being read, now, most everything else being texts, emails and social media (and blog) posts.  The days when geat essays were written may be gone.  Gore Vidal and Christopher Hitchens are two recent essayists I would consider among the great, and they're both dead. But I can't read everything.  Paglia seems more than capable as well.  It requires a certain focus. We seem to have difficulty focusing.  We move from one provocation or concurrence to another, searching for whatever will outrage or placate.

She strikes me as something of a contrarian, in the sense that she isn't afraid to challenge the various maxims of established liberalism, and for that matter those of the shrilly outraged who represent themselves as conservatives these days.  Self-righteousness and sanctimony are characteristic of the denizens of the Right and the Left now, but I find nothing of that in her work.  She has strong and sometimes controversial opinions but argues persuasively in their support.

I'm reminded of Aaron Burr's statement--"The law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained."  More than the law, I think.  She manages to be bold, but is plausible.

She has interesting things to say which I think establish that she values the application of intelligence in meeting what we encounter in life and taking responsibility for our actions and decisions.  She criticizes those who play the victim. Even better, she refuses to be one.  She seems irritated by the reluctance of so many to come to conclusions or even to believe that rational conclusions or judgements can be made; something which I think would make her unpopular in the Academy but reflects an attitude I admire.

So, Ave Camille Paglia.

Felix Dies Natalis

 

Another year of my life, as we measure it, has passed.  Too many years have passed, in fact.

In my less happy moments, I wonder why we say "Happy Birthday." I don't mean to say that birthdays aren't happy.  I do, however, think that birthdays aren't necessarily happy.  Not all birthdays are happy, in other words.  But that's not to say all birthdays are sad.

The birthday in question in this case is neither happy nor sad.  It's a day like any other.  I suppose most of us come to think this way as the years go by.  A birthday becomes less and less a cause for celebration.  It's still marked, as a kind of milestone on the road from birth to death, but is more a reminder than anything else.  Journey's end, and whatever comes after, lies ahead.

Cicero, Seneca and others wrote of old age as the crown of life.  That seems to me somewhat excessive.  Both body and mind diminish, and that isn't a cause for celebration either.  One does what one can to forestall the diminishment, but aging is relentless.  Perhaps sometime soon we'll find a way to extend our lives.  Will that make the crown heavier?

Taken to its logical conclusion (if one may use the word "logical" here) the Christian view would seem to be that life is unimportant.  What is important is life after death, which may be joyous or horrible, depending on how we spend our life before death.  That makes life before death important, though, doesn't it?  Or is it important only if we believe in the Christian God?  According to Augustine and others, we can only be saved by Jesus.  If he doesn't save us, our lives may be full of good works but we still go to hell.

Antinatalism, the cheerful belief that it's wrong to procreate as those born are exposed to harm without their consent, probably doesn't encourage us to continue living.  It may be said to provide reason for us to look forward to death, however.  Perhaps it gives us a reason to look forward to the death of our parents as well, since they failed to get our consent to be born while we didn't exist.

The Stoic view is that life is preparation for death. By this they seem to mean that we should be aware of death, of our own mortality, as we live our lives.

I doubt any of this impacts our view of birthdays to any significant extent.  Stoicism would at the least teach us that birthdays should be matters of indifference, which l suppose is my view.

What I find curious, though, is that people expect that your birthday is a cause for celebration, and expect that you'll feel the same way.  They ask what you'll do to commemorate the day.  They'll ask if you had a happy birthday and seem at a loss if you haven't.  You disappoint them if you don't have a happy birthday.

Which should make your birthday even more a disappointment to you, if it isn't happy.  

Unless, that is, you're a Stoic.

On With The Show

 

On with the show this is it, as Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck would say, or rather sing.  And what better place to put one on than Madison Square Garden, even if the show is a wedding? 

When MSG (as it's being called) was first rumoured to be the venue for this spectacle there could be no doubt that it was the place for it, climate change and expense be damned.  Close entire streets of the sweltering city but line them with black SUVs, engines running, packed with stars to join the stars of the show.  Not the tourists one would normally see, but those worthy of an invitation and the additional security and police doubtless needed.

It isn't clear that a wedding should necessarily be a show, but it's clear that in this case it could only be one.  These are, after all, show people.  They put on shows as a living.  The show they're performing, now, is a wedding. Does that render it less real as a wedding, or is everything a show, the wedding being merely a part of it, or one of a succession of shows?

Is it a show because one is expected in this case or because it was desired by those who put it on? I find it hard to believe anyone would want their wedding to be so gigantic and public an event. Perhaps they would, though, if everything about them and their lives is gigantic and public.  It would seem appropriate in that case.  Perhaps it would be impossible for someone who lives to put on shows to conceive of anything subtle and simple.

But in a sense weddings are characteristically excessive, in most cases.  They're intended to be great moments in the lives of those being wed; perhaps even the greatest moment.  They're meticulously planned, and then memorialized.  Not just photographed, but made into a kind of movie.  Yes.  A show, in fact, though not an enormous one, typically.  It becomes a matter of scale, and like most everything in our world, a matter of money.

This is unfortunate given the fact that it's more likely than not that those who are wed at these wedding-shows are ultimately divorced, no matter how splendid, costly and sizable the matrimonial spectacle may be.  The divorce rate is such that it's even likely that those who attend weddings expect that after some time they'll dissolve, and the relics of the ceremony will be forgotten, never to be reviewed or called to mind.

Will that happen even to a wedding held at Madison Square Garden?  Perhaps in that case the dissolution of the marriage, the divorce, will be a show as well.  It's unlikely that show will take place at MSG, though.

Ignorance, Religion and Education

 

The relentless efforts of the Texas State Board of Education to intermix its religion of choice (a form of Protestant Christianity) with public education continue, and even accelerate. Not content with requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in schools, it now seeks to make portions of the Bible (a Protestant version of it) required reading.  The extent to which such reading parrots the actual language of the Bible will, apparently, vary with the age of the students.

The Board is, of course, aware of the First Amendment.  It's also aware of the fact that a majority of the members of the Supreme Court are sympathetic to its quest to make our Great Republic a kind of theocracy, however, and so it feels it can actively pursue its goals and will ultimately be allowed to do so.

Because the first four of the Ten Commandments are devoted to the appropriate worship of the oddly jealous God it's claimed issued them, I find it hard to think the mandatory display of them in public schools doesn't promote the establishment of a particular religion or work to restrict others. 

But the selective, and shadowy, folk that make up the majority of the Supremist Court think otherwise.  So it's likely that they'll find a way to bless, as it were, any requirement that other portions of the Bible must be read by all public school students, Christian or otherwise.

It seems that some effort is being made to argue that the Bible contains stories which are part of the literary tradition of the West, and this justifies requiring them to be read.  This, it's maintained, removes any First Amendment concerns. But I think there's cause to wonder whether they'll be taught as fiction in the same way as other Western classics such as The Iliad.

 I doubt any teacher will risk the wrath of the Board by doing so.  I also doubt any will note the inconsistencies appearing in Genesis and other parts of the Bible or the plagues inflicted on Egypt or the slaughter of those living in the Promised land by the God of the Bible.  If reading the Bible as one would any literary work is to be mandated, though, how can one honestly  require that only portions of it be read and the rest of it censored?

Of course we also see the old canards that the Bible should be read in public schools because this is a Christian nation and founded on Judeo-Christian values.  Here we see the argument devolve drastically.  This is simply to make it obvious that the mandate is imposed because it is consistent with our established religion.  

The Board and its supporters also thereby demonstrate their ignorance regarding the fact that the Founding Fathers relied much more on the structure of the Roman Republic and the writings of pagan political philosophers in founding this nation than they did on the teachings of Jesus as reported in the Bible.  That follows from the fact that Jesus advocated the abandonment of the family and established order, and taught the arrival of the Kingdom of God was imminent.  Why look to such a person to form a government or nation intended to last many years?

Ignorance is characteristic of those who believe in a religion which claims that it alone is true. So for that matter is the demand that it be taught to all.

Not Beyond Thunderdome

 

 

We aren't beyond it, are we?  Not that the show put on at the White House was comparable to that in the film, and it certainly wasn't comparable to the shows on which all such contests are based--those of the ancient arena, much as we may imagine them to be.  Nor was the man presiding over the affair comparable to a Roman Emperor, much as he may want to be one. Perhaps he resembles Tiberius in his dotage, though, in some respects.

I've always been a fan of boxing. The violence seen in mixed martial arts cage fights doesn't necessarily disgust me.  Its lack of artistry annoys me, however, as does the preposterous display which accompanies it.  It's not quite as silly a display as we see in professional wrestling, but a cage?  Really?

Holding such a spectacle at the White House is offensive for a number of reasons, but it is most of all spectacularly vulger.  There's no other way to describe it.  It's crass and tasteless in the same sense as the Oval Office, now, stuffed as it is with golden gewgaws.  Vulgarity typifies this regime.  Even its version of the American Eagle adorning the lecterns it uses seem bloated, and resembles in the tilt if its head a dodo.  The arch it plans as well as its much desired ballroom are gargantuan, in the manner of the monuments of Nero or Hitler's plans for Germania.  One can only hope that the visit to Versailles doesn't inspire more in the way of crass imitation.

Does vulgarity explain everything?  It requires ignorance, and someone who doesn't read or want to read is ignorant by choice and nature.  Sophistication is clearly lacking, which is unsurprising as sophistication requires knowledge of other people and cultures.  Simply put, such people don't want to know such things.  The narcissist is a solipsist.  A sophisticated person wouldn't be so blatantly vulgar.

The vulgar lack any concern for consequences.  Their goal is immediate gratification.  Planning isn't a strong point.  There seems to have been little long term planning involved in either the war with Iran or even the proposed, or perhaps supposed, peace.

There's once sense in which Aging Orange or whatever one is to call the strange creature inhabiting an increasingly tasteless White House plans ahead, however.  And that is in causing harm to those he believed wronged or slighted him. It may be more appropriate, though, to say that given an opportunity he will take advantage of it.

Which brings us back to Thunderdome.  It's no surprise that this White House played host to such an event.  We're in a dystopia of our own courtesy of the grotesque players of the grotesque game which is the government of our Great Republic.