Elysian Eden

There are many stories of how ancient people once lived an idyllic existence in some sylvan setting, where life was peaceful, plentiful, and pleasant. Ahh... there's nothing like nostalgia for the good old days! The Judeo-Christian myth along this line is about our once residing in the pleasures of the Garden of Eden, before we were evicted by the almighty landlord. 

I have written before that there may well have been a historical setting for this garden of plenty: the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. Once upon a time—several thousand year ago—the area was green and fecund and provided the people with plentiful sustenance, but the garden became over-farmed, the soil became barren and the area was transformed into a desert. We weren't expelled from the garden—we trashed it and then moved on.

There are somewhat similar Elysian stories about what happens after we die—that the glories of heaven await the faithful, who will bask forever in its splendor. It would be sort of like going back to the Garden of Eden in spirit—after having endured this vexatious mortal existence.

The dualistic perspective of the Abrahamic peoples posits an exact opposite of heaven as a place of eternal residence: hell. You've got only two conflicting and exclusive permanent destines: paradise or perdition.

What I find interesting is that human descriptions of hell are far more detailed than heaven. Every religion seems to possess a meticulous account of hell—a dismal, tortuous place where torment is everlasting. For example, Dante's The Divine Comedy is an epic 13^th century poem describing an anguishing journey through the underworld. In contrast, heaven has only superficially been sketched by humans... streets of gold, the faithful reposing on clouds, or enjoying divine music, etc.

Why do humans put so much more attention to hell than heaven? I think it's possible that the story tellers (usually priests) wanted to frighten people into being good. Humans are very prone to wandering off the path of goodness and into the ditches of depravity. Most priests have found that, rather than paint heavenly scenes, the stronger prod is to scare the hell out of them.

If you think for a bit about heaven, however, doesn't it sound quite boring? If I were to laze around forever on cushy clouds, listen perpetually to any kind of music, or smile until my face cracked, I'd soon go berserk. What's more, it's the vicissitudes of life that really make it interesting. When things get too effortless, we become flabby and feeble. I would not want to go to the mythical heaven. Let me face affliction here and now, and be able to grow from it.

At the end of the day I don't fret over going to hell or look forward to heaven. I don't believe they really exist as our stories describe. It's our choice to live in heaven or hell (or a mixture), right here in this precious life. I think it makes more sense to put my attention to the here and now.

Phlox

 Wild phlox blooms. Click to enlarge.

Too Many Murders—Part 2

What is going on here? Why can't we Americans take any definitive action to curb the bloodshed? I believe it's definitely not an issue that can be dealt with by gun control laws. As soon as the topic of gun laws comes up, the opposing, polarized sides face off, entrench, and any chance of collaborating to stop the slaughter is stymied. Americans are unwilling to face the truth that our gun violence has roots so deep that passing a few restrictive laws will have little effect. Those who favor guns will simply chip away at the edges of the laws, in order to enfeeble them. That is what has happened in the abortion issue.

America's gun problem that leads to these mass murders can be viewed primarily as a failure of our society. It's not a single bad apple shooting people up or a mentally ill kid that leads to these deaths—it is literally a mentally-ill society that promotes the slaughter. We may ask how did that kid reach that state of mind, or why his parents seemed to be ignorant of his plans, or why was the school not made into an impenetrable fortress? These are shallow questions that miss the deeper truths: our conflictual society created that kid; it created ineffectual parents; it created a gun culture that is out of control. 

Until we face the truth that our society is fundamentally unhealthy, no amount of tweaking laws that nibble at the edge of symptoms will solve anything. We are not yet ready to admit the depth and breadth of our sickness—let alone conceive of the fundamental societal transformation that is required to make significant change.

A healthy society can make several basic changes to discourage this and other kinds of violence. By this I mean to imply that our societal violence is far wider than people killing each other with guns; it also encompasses racist violence, economic violence in the form of gross inequality, poor education, voting suppression, etc. In contrast, a healthy society possesses (1) a functional democracy, (2) a citizenry nurtured to be robust in mind and body, (3) free and effective education, (4) safety and security, and (5) equality, and other nurturing processes. The US falls far short in all of these areas.

I am not able to offer a simple, expeditious solution to our gun fetish—or these other problems of our society. The problem is complex and deep—the solutions are thus comprehensive and profound. Legislation cannot do it, as long as we are so divided and lack an effective democracy. We need to admit our problems and seek fundamental changes that will begin to offer some of the features of a healthy society listed above. Like an alcoholic who is in denial, however, we are not yet ready to change.

Too Many Murders—Part 1

I ordinarily avoid posting about current events or breaking news in society—preferring to stick to the natural world and to philosophical topics. There already is far too much dispute over society's problems, as people scream at each other over the yawning gap that separates them. Social media add their angry insults to the mix, while mainstream media offer their well-worn and cliched comments. Yet nothing changes.

I shy away from addressing current events—especially when they are tragic—because our first response to them is often knee-jerk and superficial in nature. It's easy to respond with an overly-emotional thought that one later regrets having had. In this posting and the next, however, I will express some thoughts about two recent examples of ongoing crises in US culture—thoughts that I have been pondering for a long time. The fact that these calamities are repetitive phenomena that have been recurring for decades sets them aside from current events or late-breaking news. They are concerns that many of us Americans have agonized over for several years—wondering if our country may finally have had enough travesty and will ultimately rise up to do something about it. The first crisis I will address here is gun violence. The following post will look at the harm that the Republican Party has inflicted on the country, for some four decades now.

Gun violence: let me first try to put this crisis into context, to understand it as a deep, chronic problem in the US. Viewed from the perspective of every other relatively stable society on Earth, the frequency of deaths by guns in America is astonishingly high, as is the number of guns in circulation. The recent elementary school massacre in Texas is the latest painful reminder of the legacy of American gun culture. 

It is worth noting, however, that the vast majority of gun deaths in the US are not due to someone entering a school with an assault rifle and committing mass murder, but are due to single killings and suicides with pistols. Nevertheless, every time a massacre occurs, it is usually perpetrated against harmless people and catches the attention of the whole nation and creates grief and anger among most people. The slaughters seems to be endless.

The outpouring of sorrow after a massacre is typically immediately followed by outrage that yet another mass murder of innocents has occurred, along with demands that something be done about it. New gun laws are called for, but the powerful coalitions that created the culture of guns quickly stifle any efforts to confront gun violence, as the nation settles back into other distractions—until the next massacre.

Some people push for stricter gun laws, while the opposite view promotes increased gun ownership in order to combat the shootings. Some point to the widespread gun culture and lack of controls, while others blame a massacre on a lone individual, an isolated bad apple, and even call for more guns to stop the killings. Some push for restrictive laws, while others block any such action. Decade after decade goes by, while the gun lobby prevents any meaningful legislation, and the mass killings (as well as individual deaths) continue, and even escalate.

Next time, part 2

Philosophy/Science Contrasts

I've written several blogs on the contrasts between science and philosophy. Having been educated in science and having pursued a career in it, I find it to be more understandable than philosophy. My logical scientific mind has often struggled to comprehend the imprecise nature of philosophical reasoning and debate.

Long after retirement, I have drifted away from science's demands for exactness and increasingly into philosophy's realm of fuzziness. I have come to appreciate philosophy and its search for knowledge. I have come to understand that science and philosophy really have very similar goals—as seen by their similar etymological roots. The word science stems from the Latin word scientia, which means “to know.” The word philosophy stems from the Greek word philosophia, which means “love of wisdom.” So they both are about knowledge, learning, logic, understanding, and truth.

I believe that there are, however, several distinct differences between science and philosophy—differences that sometimes can be very significant, especially in the manner in which adherents of each discipline pursue knowledge; in fact, differences that even can create antagonisms between them. A few of these disparities have spoken to me in recent years, as I've come to be more comfortable with the philosophical approach to gaining insight and wisdom. Here are five differences—not a complete list by any means, but the salient ones that I've encountered.

First, while science is precise, philosophy tends to be indistinct and often inexact. While science is quantitative, philosophy is qualitative. Scientists want repeatability and they use procedures that many others can follow, importantly to obtain the same results. A scientific theory does not become widely accepted until many different scientists follow comparable paths and come to the same conclusions. Philosophers, however, often take very different paths, come to different conclusions, and vehemently disagree with each other. They love to engage in seemingly endless disputes.

Second, science deals with “what is,” while philosophy often considers “what ought to be.” Morality often is a central part of philosophy, while science is amoral—though not at all immoral. Science studies Nature, which just is. So being right or wrong in a moral sense is irrelevant.

Third, science is structured such that, step by step, researchers relentlessly close in on a definitive answer. It often is a cooperative effort, as scientific teams work in concert to merge to a solution. Although philosophers also seek solutions, they often work individually and think in very different ways from each other, so they will sometimes come to a conclusion that is viewed as essentially false by fellow philosophers. Hence, the source of endless debates.

Fourth, while science addresses the whole cosmos—thus we have countless scientific disciplines—philosophy is focused on the human mind. To science the human mind is but the tiniest sliver of its domain. This is a primary reason why philosophy tends to be so subjective: it's the human mind studying the human mind. It's bound to be a bit parochial, opinionated, and even prejudiced.

Fifth, while science relentlessly progresses over time—gradually seeking answers and building its knowledge base—philosophy seems to be wrestling with the same questions today that it faced two to three millennia ago. Has philosophy not progressed as much? Do the questions posed by philosophers have no definitive answers? Are the questions so complex and vague that conclusive answers may never come? Are philosophers asking unanswerable questions?

There's a little truth in all these questions, but I suspect there's another possibility why philosophers continue to ponder many of the same questions, century after century. I think that a major factor of philosophy's apparent sluggishness is due to that unique quality it has: its attention to morality. Philosophers—like prophets—often offer messages to the masses that the people do not want to hear. Uncomfortable truths—like scientists’ global-warming message—can be clearly laid out, but people (especially political leaders) often refuse to listen. Thus, while humanity could progress and change for the better, the cost is often regarded as too high to pay. We'd rather bask in our existing laziness, than put hard work into positive and necessary change. 

A philosopher once said that philosophy is “the right way to think about things.” In that statement right there we can see a big contrast between science and philosophy: science doesn't give a hoot if our thinking is the right way or not—its truths are independent of the human mind's rightness of thinking.

Deer Directions

     Nearly four decades ago we migrated from a city life, to take up an existence in a rural setting. We acquired a parcel of land that was forested and cut a few trees, in order to make a clearing, where we built a home and planted various kinds of vegetation—a vegetable garden, some fruit trees, shrubs, and flowers.

    Most of these tasty and attractive plants were not indigenous to our new rural environs. In contrast, nature offers little in the way of edible food for humans, or showy blossoms. In our naïveté we chose plantings that we had liked in the city, without realizing that we'd be offering critters in the woods various new and delightful repasts. Numerous insects, rodents, and mammals were happy to see us move in and plant so many goodies for them. They had been subsisting on Nature's bland diet and were delighted to sample and savor our delectables.

What ensued was a few decades of either learning how to fend off the interlopers or realizing that several choices we had made were simply not going to survive their onslaughts. One crucial sanctuary we insisted on, however, was the vegetable garden. Its produce was critical to our way of life, so we built a sturdy, high fence around the vegetable garden, to ward off the larger critters (deer, foxes, opossums, rabbits) and learned how to allow some insects to partake of a modest portion of the veggies, but drew the line on the amount that they took. Since we chose not to use insecticides, this meant we had to find ways to discourage them by using companion plantings and frequent rotation of garden plants. My wife became adept at figuring out when a pest was just beginning its assault, and then hand picking and squishing the early invaders. Like the early bird, she nabbed the worms before they multiplied.

Plants outside the protection of  the garden fence were quite another issue. We could not fence the whole area, so we battled the invaders by attempting to select flowers, shrubs, and trees that we thought did not appeal to their appetite. By far the greatest problem invader has been deer. Once they discover your tasty plants, you have acquired them as permanent raiders. You may put out alarms or spray your plants with deer repellent, but these tenacious, hoofed plant grazers will sooner or later foil all your defenses and dine on your delectables. They drive our choices. 

I recently paused to gaze around our clearing—which is fabulously beautiful in the spring—and it occurred to me that most all of the plants I gazed upon have been selected over the years to be unappealing to deer tastes. They are not the choices of flowers, shrubs, and trees I began with—those are all gone. No, the choices of plants in today’s clearing have been literally directed by the deer. In fact, they seem to have been more in charge of landscaping selections than I. They've patiently guided me.