Depression

A depressed mind scapegoats issues as the cause of depression. Our minds are perpetual problem-solvers and trouble-shooters, and so we always try to look for a reason. It is only natural to look for the cause of a problem and try to resolve it. But if the cause is in reality biochemical, then it is invisible and cannot be perceived by the mind. Thus we run the risk of mistaking visible things for being the cause of depression, when in reality, they are just things.

One key to alleviating depression, anger, shame, and other negative emotions, I think, is to accept that things do not matter. I suppose nothing matters ultimately. Things do not matter in the sense that they are not worth feeling unhappy about for any extended period of time.

I think high-achievers have difficulty finding happiness. They feel upset when things are not going their way, because they are used to ensuring that things go their way. They are used to working hard and experiencing success. Once one has tasted the sweet flavor of success, it is difficult to get used to the bitter dregs of failure.

Although some people are excellent problem-solvers, unfortunately, as one gets older, one encounters problems that are intractable and have no resolution. Such problems might as well be accepted as the normal state of being. Acceptance is freedom, freedom from care and worry. There is no sense in fighting a battle that has already been lost. One lives and tries to make the most of each situation. Happiness sometimes requires reducing expectations and accepting imperfection and impermanence. Happiness is about being satisfied with a "C" and not expecting an "A". Sometimes the "grading policy" is such that an "A" cannot be achieved. It is impossible to make an "A". Instead, a "C" is the best one can do. In such a scenario, one might as well be happy with the "C".

The reality is we are dust. From star-dust we derived and to dust we return. There is only so much an ordinary human being can do. We are feeble, limited, temporary creatures, dead and gone and forgotten. Impermanence seems self-evident yet is not often emphasized.

Many people believe that the individual consciousness is so important that the soul survives death and persists somehow. They do not know how, and so they employ abstract words to describe the process by which the soul lingers on after the body dies. Even the concept of the soul itself is rather abstract.

Socrates believed in the immortality of the soul, although he never defined the soul in an adequate manner for my satisfaction. His definition of the soul resembles DNA to me. He did not know about DNA or many other things to do with science, but I think he can be forgiven that. He found a belief in the afterlife to be a comforting thought, given that he was condemned to die. None of his arguments persuade me.

I think we are just aspects of the whole, and our individual consciousness is unimportant and will be unpreserved. Such a belief does not make me fear death any more than anyone else. I think the belief in immortality is a symptom of vanity. Humans are vain creatures. To my mind, we have no more right to a soul than a cat. What is special about a human, except that we have more agile brains?

Socrates Talked a Lot of Nonsense

I have trouble following Socrates. He talked a lot of nonsense. Not many of his arguments have the power to persuade. I am annoyed none of his followers ever spent the least effort at a refutation to any of his wild, rambling arguments. Nevertheless I like his story. The drama appeals to me--friends gathering about a condemned man to hear his last outpourings of what they perceive as wisdom. I think he was an ancestor to the modern mind. There would be many changes to his model in the course of history. I also have a certain regard for the intellectual integrity of Socrates. I think if Socrates knew then what we know now, his arguments would undergo vast revisions as he assimilated the knowledge and corrected his many errors.

Thanks for the Belly-Laugh

On November 30th, 2013, someone wrote a message on Usenet to express their opinion on cheating in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup.

"This is pathetic. If you're going to save scum, don't play."

It is amusing to imagine how the world would be ordered if a nerd-tyrant seized control of all living beings. I suppose I would be denied forever the privilege of playing Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup the very moment I attempted to run a script file that preserved my save files from deletion by the game. My punishment would be life without Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup. Somehow I'd manage. I suppose I'd play chess more often or perhaps Wesnoth or Lexulous.

The world has no lack of nerd-tyrants revealing how things would be ordered under their regime. I may be a bit of a nerd myself, but I flatter myself on being more democratic. I don't care so much how others order their affairs, as long as their behavior doesn't harm others. The idea of someone cheating on a game in the privacy of their own home does not send me into a lather nor cause frothing at the mouth.

Over on Craigslist, I posted a message in support of my favorite computer program, and people promptly wrote in to speculate on my sex life. They assessed my mental capacity as being subnormal, and then said that actually I must be a spammer, because the definition of "spammer" apparently has been expanded to include anyone that disagrees with one's viewpoint.

I stay away from online arenas that have such examples of incivility. They can be amusing, it is true, but the problem is that sometimes I am not in the mood to laugh. Sometimes I find myself tempted to respond in like manner, which is a regression to a more primitive state of mind, a juvenile state. I prefer to surround myself with examples of behavior I would like to emulate, rather than behavior I should never want to emulate. I find that I learn from example and that I profit from observing good examples. I like being around good people.

I think it would be dangerous to be a police officer. The danger from physical violence perhaps is not quite as great as the danger from spiritual violence. That is to say, having to deal with evil-doers for a long time offers many temptations and many bad examples, so that a person would require extraordinary resilience to avoid regressing, to avoid turning from good to evil.

Does the U.N. stand for "Uninformed Nincompoops"?

'The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) warned that [Uruguay's legalization of marijuana] would endanger young people and 'contribute to the earlier onset of addiction'."

That U.N. body does not understand the meaning of the word "addiction". Perhaps they should learn the meaning of words before using them. But that would be out of character. Since when do human beings learn the proper ways of using something before abusing it? The club, fire, the crossbow, and the gun are all examples of technologies that humans have developed and then misused for evil ends. Language is a form of technology, and the same things are done with all technologies. The motive is power over others and the incessant desire to control what others think and do.

I wonder how many in the U.N. are "addicted" to drinking tea? What if the governments of the world decide, based upon nothing, that tea is bad? Perhaps the tea-drinkers need to be placed in prison in order to learn not to drink tea. This is the same rationale that has been used to persecute cannabis consumers around the world. Prohibition of cannabis has no rhyme or reason.

INCB seems excessively concerned over a substance less harmful than alcohol, aspirin or coffee. Information about cannabis is widely available, and cannabis has been researched for longer than most pharmaceutical drugs in use today. The only possible conclusions to draw from the INCB's statement is that they are either lying for some hidden purpose or else ignorant. I doubt very much they are ignorant. I wonder, therefore, why they are lying? Do they expect people to believe their lies, and if so, who are these people, and why do they not educate themselves regarding the facts?

Uruguay's new law shows enlightenment and intelligence. It is the rest of the world that is barbaric and ignorant. The world is enthralled with the use of force. People will never be addicted to marijuana. There is nothing to worry about there. The very idea of addiction to marijuana is ludicrous. People will become addicted to violence. This is the real addiction. It is the tool of those who seek power over others.

The Exceptional Soul

Given the choice between recanting and death, Socrates chose death. Even after Socrates was condemned to die, many days later, his wealthy friends offered him the option of fleeing and being supported for the rest of his life in a foreign city. They begged him to do so with tears streaming from their eyes. He rejected their offer and chose death because he believed it was the right thing to do.

Socrates believed in righteousness.

It seems that others, given a similar option, take the opposite tact. Clinging even to the last few days that might remain in the feeble human form, such a soul abases itself, kneeling and grasping the tyrant's foot, begging for mercy and forgiveness, recanting all that was once held to be true and good.

Men in the style of Socrates are rare, while the other sort are common, yet it is Socrates we remember. Socrates was the exceptional soul.

Good Politicians

A good politician is one that can see when something isn't working and knocks it off. There are some good politicians. It's a mistake to paint them all with one brush.

Intellectual honesty is refreshing. One of my favorite quotes from the Bible is 1 Corinthians 13:12, "For now we see through a glass, darkly..." It is difficult to find the right path at every juncture. Sometimes one chooses the wrong path. I like someone who can look at a situation and not only realize they were mistaken, but admit it and change their position to reflect their new understanding. This is called "wishy-washiness" by the ignorant. There is no value in remaining on a sinking ship. In our time, we have seen a number of politicians come around on at least two issues, marijuana and gay marriage. That represents progress, albeit a slow pace of progress, when one considers how much time and effort for reform has been invested and for how many decades. In both cases, the laws, going back many generations into the past, have been absolutely bananas and haywire. They have not been working in the optimal manner. They were not based either upon reason or upon compassion. They were based upon prejudice and outdated and disproved notions. The laws were wrong and served evil, rather than good. In some states of the U.S., the politicians still cling to the old, wrong ways.

The reason people want laws and obey laws without even being monitored or forced to do so is that they believe law to be a good thing. When contradictions are observed, then respect for the law sensibly decreases. That is why it is important to correct inequities in the law. Even a minor inequity is cause for concern. But when the law reaches deep into people's personal lives, then an urgency is assigned to the problem.

Laws must be crafted with great care. Laws can do great harm that is often unforeseen and unintended. Sometimes the harm is not appreciated until many years in the future when new information has come to light or the situation has changed. Change is the one constant. Everything changes. People, places, nations, culture, society, and even religion and our understanding of existence itself. There is no point in resisting change. To resist change is impossible, because our bodies are changing on their way to the grave. Instead, one flows with change, taking the good along with the bad.

The Futility of Lies

Truth is the best guide and the surest path to wisdom. Believing in things that are not so is a step into madness and error. If truth is on one's side, then one has already won. There is no contest. There is no need to prove anything to anyone. The other side has already lost. Truth prevails. Some think that there is a contest. They place their trust in contests. They are impressed by power.

If everyone who perceives the truth is condemned, and only those who believe in the lie are left, then the truth is still true, and the lie is still a lie. It is not possible to make something that is true, not true. If two multiplied by three is six, then the answer of six prevails, now, in the past, and for all time, no matter what anyone says or does about it. That is the charm of the truth. Truth is immune to interference from human beings. It cannot be destroyed or diminished. It is immutable and permanent in a world of impermanence and death.

Madness

Mental illness is the worst. Someone dear to my heart remains in this world, living, breathing, and talking, but they are not there, they are only a simulacrum. As was said of such people in times past, they are possessed by a demon. I came to visit a year ago, but my visit was unappreciated, and I don't think it did any good at all. One can be here and not be here, can see and yet not see, can hear and yet not hear. Such a person has left the community of living souls and become a mad hermit, isolated, alone, and lonely, oh, so desperately lonely that they commune with the dead, who are closer to them than the living. When last I visited, the black-and-white photographs of long-gone ancestors were of greater interest than anything I had to say, and when after many hours of listening I made clear I needed to adjourn for lunch, sour resentment was the result.

I wish to visit, but I think such an effort would be wasted and only for my own benefit, but I am not sure whether there is any benefit for myself. My memories are better than the present. I would only be perceived like a distant noise, and all that I said would be either unheard or misinterpreted, and my visit would soon be forgotten.

I am reminded of a coworker who had a mad woman living in his house, his aged mother, whose mind was irreparably gone. In the past, she had been kind, he said, but now, she was possessed by a demon and did everything possible to disrupt and distress. She would throw food at the walls, bang on the walls at night to wake people up, scream, moan, yell, and say hurtful things. He believed it was his moral duty to keep her in his house. He hated his brother for not showing gratitude for his sacrifice and not helping. I sympathized with him and thought him a good and decent man, but I was uncertain regarding the morality, because his mother had lost her wits beyond recovery, and made miserable the life of his entire family. I felt there was not only his mother's welfare to weigh, but also the welfare of his family and even of himself. Self-sacrifice appears noble and good, and it moves me, but can it also be a subtle form of selfishness? I think there is something known as the "martyr complex," wherein one may be too ready and eager to sacrifice, apparently, one's own interests. No sacrifice is free of cost. With each sacrifice, one reduces the capacity to support other good and worthy causes. To sacrifice for one cause is to say that it is worthier than other causes.

Cherish Mistakes

I like to recall past errors to rectify present behavior. In this manner, instead of being all negative and lamentable, a mistake can help to ensure positive results for the future. I cherish my mistakes, because they are effective teachers. Perhaps this is why, or so it is said, that certainty and idealism and their close relation, fanaticism, are more common among the young than the old. The young have not had time and opportunity yet to make their mistakes. They tend to see the choices before them as simple and straight-cut. With experience, new dimensions to situations and behavior become evident, and one grows more circumspect.

My brother believed that life imitated chess and vice versa, and one of his reasons was that mistakes in chess are similar to mistakes in life due to their being the result of oversight.

Off topic: I find oversight an odd word. The primary meaning is an unintended mistake. The secondary meaning is watchful care or management. The implication seems to be that managers are clueless.

Old Books

I like old books. If the author is dead, that to me is a recommendation. If a book has survived its author and is still being sold, then it probably has merit.

I don't like most news magazines. Someone bought me a year's subscription to TIME, which is one of the worst, with many charts, graphs, numbers, and random facts, and little or nothing of any interest. I can consume a TIME magazine in about sixty seconds, and I always throw it in the wastebasket afterwards, because it is never worth saving.

I read Socrates just about every day. I don't mind reading the same passages. It is better to reread Socrates a thousand times than to read TIME magazine once. His ideas inspire reflection and relate to many things under the Sun. I find myself agreeing with Socrates more and more, but still I disagree with some of his most radical propositions, for instance that all bodily desires are to be ignored or minimized in sacrifice to the greater goal of philosophy. He conjures up this idea of the philosopher as a monastic scholar who eats simple food, say porridge and onions, just enough to survive, wears simple clothes, lives in poverty by choice, and finds no value in any of the nicer things in life, what ordinary men regard as pleasures. The philosopher instead looks forward to death, when he will be reunited with the gods and with spiritual beings and achieve his ultimate goal, which is acquisition of the truth. That to me seems rather unpleasant and extreme. I do think life has a purpose and so does pleasure. When available and morally acceptable, pleasure should be enjoyed rather than scorned. I don't share Socrates' dismissal of the senses, but he is correct in pointing out that the senses do mislead us when we are searching for truth, and that the most powerful deductive tools make use of pure reason. Indeed, I think that is how the astrophysicists go about things--by using mathematical theories.

Socrates is a dear old heart, cheerfully anticipating his death. At first I felt pity for Socrates and annoyance at the injustice of the Athenians in condemning their sincere and honest critic. But I am persuaded by Socrates to forgive his accusers. One can't help but envy such a civilized exit from this world--surrounded by loving and loyal friends--knowing the precise day and hour and manner of one's passing--feeling no pain at all. Upon reflection, his was the very best of all deaths. Many humans die in an abrupt manner, with their financial and social affairs in disarray, and even the rich and intelligent are not immune to this fate, as I have observed. Many humans die young, before their time, whereas Socrates died in his seventies. Many die in pain or alone or unloved, whereas Socrates suffered none of that. In the final analysis, one cannot pity him. His accusers are condemned by history, and Socrates is exonerated and immortalized.

I do not know if his individual consciousness still exists, but I rather doubt it. Socrates believed he would still be around, somewhere, in some shape or form. I just don't feel we humans are important or good or powerful enough to escape annihilation. Death seems final to me, and the finality seems just and equitable. Yet perhaps Socrates was right in one sense, if we are all a part of a whole. For if the universe is one, and I think it may be, and the astrophysicists say we all derive from star dust, then individual consciousness is beside the point, because there is one consciousness only, the greater one that transcends all, and our individuality is a kind of illusion.

Violence

I'm one of the lucky ones on this planet. Violence tends to be something I read about in the paper rather than experience in daily life. The last time I experienced violence was long ago in high school. Back then, I was a victim. I had an incompetent teacher in gym class who did not have a conscience. There were many hurts that I received because of him. When I was fourteen, I used to consider the possibility of vengeance. In our modern world, vengeance can be easily obtained and does not require any skill, training or even maturity. Vengeance has a point-and-click interface. It is too easy. That is why certain headlines one reads about are not that surprising or uncommon, although they are sad, yes, sad to me, even if I understand more than I want to understand. I did not consider my old gym teacher to have more importance than any other cockroach I might encounter. I didn't step on and crush him, because I did not want to get my shoe dirty. Clean shoes are more important to me than stepping on cockroaches. There will always be cockroaches. One has to live one's life and forge a life that is about more than just cockroaches.

Impulses occur to many people, sometimes primitive impulses. I wonder whether it is so that everyone has thought of killing someone else at some point in time. Maybe that is not true of everyone. I have met many people in my life who seem exceptionally good. I think they have more goodness in them than I do. I am in awe of them and think they are holy, so I want to do things for them. I cannot say that they have ever thought of harming anyone else. I am not sure.

Certainly by listening to the lyrics of popular songs, watching television shows and reading books, it is clear that the thought of doing violence unto others is not uncommon in the general population. Some people lack sufficient impulse control. They would not make good chess players. They do not pause to consider all of the consequences of their actions. What good fortune I have, because I have good impulse control. But not everybody does.

I'm reminded of my good fortune in living a life free of violence whenever I read about the situations in the Middle East or Africa or read about the deeds of desperate criminals. For me, local crime hits home in a way that the conflict in Syria cannot. Where local crime is concerned, I know the city, I know the streets, I may have met some of the victim(s) before, and I may have even heard the sirens or moved my car aside in order to let emergency vehicles pass.

Some people are natural criminals. That is, they were born that way and don't seem very capable of doing anything else. Or maybe they are capable of doing something else, but we have not discovered the secret yet to directing their energies into more productive lines of behavior. It is too much to ask of society, at this point, to expect it to find the perfect answer for everybody. Society has many problems that remain unsolved. Those who create new problems are put away, either in prison or the cemetery. Even if a violent criminal is successful at one or more heists, I would not envy such a person. They are bound to get caught eventually, because law enforcement is the most advanced it has ever been. The money and manpower available to law enforcement in the U.S. is staggering. Any person, whether criminal or not, would have the odds stacked against him at the very outset of any endeavor that aroused the slightest suspicion.

Last night, I thought to myself how lucky I am compared to the criminal I read about in the local newspaper, who has been apprehended and is facing a sentence of well over a hundred years. Yet I suppose even he is luckier than some, because he did not kill or hurt anyone, though not for lack of trying. His was an old-fashioned crime that reminded me of the movies I used to watch in the 1970s. He was in a car chase from the police and fired a gun many times. Fortunately, he missed. But that will be attributed only to his being a poor shot. I don't think that he will get out of prison until he is very old, if ever. I cannot say that I have any sympathy for him, although I do feel pity.

From the documentaries I have watched, it seems to me that the worst thing about prison is not violence, but mere boredom, the monotony and irritation of seeing the same faces, the same clothes, the same building every day, all year around, possibly for life. I think prisoners resort to violence due to boredom. I suppose the only escape from boredom in prison would be found in reading books, if the warden is kind enough to permit well-written books, but it seems many prisoners are not that keen on reading.

Beyond the near-certain prospect of consequences for a crime, there is the even more important philosophical aspect to consider. The thought of harming others is repugnant to anyone with a philosophical viewpoint. I think conscience can prove an even greater consequence than law in such cases, at least for those individuals with a fully functioning conscience. I have met individuals that seemed to lack a conscience, or their conscience, such as it was, seemed tattered and ineffective. That is why I say that some people seem like natural criminals, because they don't really care about the consequences to other people of their actions. They only care about their own welfare. They do not perceive the connectedness between people, the network that joins us all together. Even in the lyrics of some popular songs, especially rap songs, I perceive this viewpoint. I think people who listen to such music are reinforcing a tendency that they were born with. They are trying to reduce the influence of their conscience, because they feel morality is a weakness, rather than a strength, and that to be evil is to be strong. I see the same philosophy, if it can be called a philosophy, and I suppose it can, in Putin, the strongman in Russia. He, too, believes that might is right, and that to be evil is to be strong. I don't think that such a viewpoint merits a response. The rebuttals are self-evident. China is no better. Both China and Russia are case examples of kleptocracies, or government by thieves.

Fear

I occasionally worry about potentialities like heart disease and stroke. I think fear is something that comes and goes as life progresses. I remember when I was going to school, there was much fear, because of schoolyard bullies. In the last two years of high school, there was no fear. In college, I was fearless. The only thing to fear were things that were relatively easy to prevent, such as car accidents or AIDS. I didn't drink and drive, and appreciated the virtues of condoms and abstinence, the two methods to prevent the spread of AIDS. As one gets older, one contracts various medical conditions like obesity or arthritis or lower back pain that, while minor, are a reminder of the greater problems that lie ahead. Looking ahead, there is certainly a lot to be afraid of, such as senility, stroke, heart disease, loss of brain function, incontinence, and the list goes on.

I think what I fear most is an undignified end. The best death is instantaneous, without long, lingering pain and suffering, and planned, rather than abrupt. The problem with untimely death is that things may be left undone that should have been done, like setting a will in order or doing things for people. I remember helping others care for an elderly, very ill lady about a year ago. She expressed great fear. I think she was afraid of losing control, either of body or of mind or both, and of death, which represents loss of control and loss of identity. I think that she had been strong once. It is difficult to maintain a philosophical pose when death is so near, in the room so to speak, hovering over one's shoulder. I think it is only natural to feel fear. And there is nothing wrong with fear either. Fear has a purpose, too. Fear often keeps us alive by restraining our actions.

Reading biographies of people can be a comfort, because there is the observation that others, even the great and the powerful, and geniuses with fantastic powers of intellect, have passed through the same transitions brought on by age. I have often thought that Shakespeare was shortchanged in the longevity department. Add Chopin and Mozart to that list. It seems that in our rapidly progressing technological world, each generation is luckier than the previous one, because advances in medicine continue to expand and improve the human condition. I wonder, though, whether society will be able to maintain this progress in the face of daunting challenges, such as climate change and economic instability. I don't feel like the Republicans in Congress have any answers. They seem to create new problems rather than solving old ones. It seems to me that there are not enough jobs anymore, due to the automation of so many tasks that used to provide employment to millions. Of course the Republicans don't care about that and wouldn't know what to do about it even if they did care. Education will decline, crime will increase, and politics should turn nastier. The idle and impoverished millions around the world will become fodder for revolutionary sentiment at some point or another, if history offers any guidance in the matter. Whether social unrest takes on a right-wing or left-wing banner is hardly important. I hope for continued stability at least during my lifetime and in my region of the world.

The Power of Kindness

Some people underestimate the power of kindness and of saying "Yes." In reality there are not many things that definitely have to go one's way. There is room for compromise on just about everything except what an individual regards as basic needs. Kindness has many rewards. Some people are so surprised at being met half-way that they will go out of their way to repay the kind gesture with even greater kindness, so that kindness begins to escalate between people--a virtuous, rather than a vicious cycle. Good people set up virtuous cycles in their lives that generate goodwill, happiness, safety and security.

Twitter is a Bad Idea

I don't use Twitter, because I think the length limitation is a bad idea. It is one reason that the media has made note of a very small number of college professors. Confined to just a sentence or two, these men resort to primitive emotional rhetoric that wounds. One does not wish to wound with words, but rather to woo or at least promote understanding. Of all people, a college professor should understand that. I find it hard to believe that some of these Twitter feeds came from educated men. I believe those college professors that have posted horrible things must suffer from Asperger's Syndrome. They do not understand how to make other people understand, a severe limitation for an educator.

Being a college professor is a very privileged position indeed, coveted by many, but requires a delicate balancing act. One is an educator, but also an entertainer and a politician as well. If a college professor suffers from Asperger's Syndrome, then he should not use Twitter, and if he uses the Internet in other ways, he should be careful and take reasonable precautions that his words will not come back to haunt him.

I do not know whether a college professor should be fired for posting something on Twitter. The highly educated man that has limited social intelligence is to be pitied, because his is a life of hard work and little recognition. How many friends does such a man have? People will use his work, indeed they may steal his work, but he will not be remembered. Only those with social intelligence are remembered. If an apology is tendered, perhaps the administrators should allow the possibility that the educator can be further educated. Surely there are worse offences than posting a line of text that is in poor taste.

But of course, Twitter is a bad idea for everybody. Why should one wish to post little quips which then get recorded until the end of time for all posterity? Is it always so easy to express oneself in just a few sentences?

I think the desire for attention is pernicious. The only thing about celebrity that is remotely desirable is wealth.

About Jesus

I read an interesting article today concerning five myths about Jesus. I have to admit I believed some of the myths. For instance, although I've heard the title "Jesus of Nazareth," I assumed he was born in Bethlehem. The author underlines one of the greatest problems with the Gospels, accuracy. If the Gospels cannot be trusted as to which town Jesus was born in or the manner of his burial, then transforming water into wine is very much in doubt.

Dennis Rodman

Rodman is a lightning rod, now that he's gone to North Korea and declared he's BFF's with the North Korean tyrant. As a target, he is too easy, and for a while I declined to blog about the issue, but it bothers me. I used to watch Braves baseball and used to root for Dennis Rodman when he was part of their team.

That the tyrant uses Rodman at certain moments as a distraction is clear. Recently, the tyrant murdered his ex-girlfriend and her friends, out of mere pique, and sent their families to prison camps. Just a few days after that story broke in the media, Rodman was invited to North Korea, and of course he accepted.

Rodman, for his part, seeks to use the tyrant to promote various business deals. Looking at his picture in the media, wearing a silver hat and sunglasses and sucking on a cigar, I am reminded of the "thug lifestyle" espoused by so many rappers, an ideology devoid of ethics or loyalty that justifies the pursuit of money and power at any price. What a boring and pointless existence to lead. I think that if I had been a fan of Rodman, I would no longer be one after he cozied up to the dictator. Such sycophancy is evil and casts a long, dark shadow over everything Rodman has ever done or ever will do. A thousand years from now, any chapter on the life of Rodman must include a section on his dealings with the bloody tyrant, the callousness shown to the tyrant's innocent victims, and the praise that Rodman lavished upon the violent dictatorship, all of which Rodman did of his own free will, even while being a millionaire and living in a free country. Rodman has marred his legacy forever.

There is a comparison to be made between Eric Snowden and Dennis Rodman, their contrasting motivations and possible outcomes, the benefits and drawbacks of wickedness versus acts of conscience. Some men do a selfless act for what they deem to be the greater good, even at considerable risk to themselves. Other men do a wicked deed for selfish gain at little or no risk to themselves. Is there an unseen advantage to selfless acts of good? Is there a God watching in the sky with a ledger, taking account of all the good deeds and evil ones and weighing them for later judgment of the soul? Perhaps that extravagant fantasy cannot hold water in the popular consciousness, but still there may be subtle and difficult to understand advantages of good. What is the purpose of life? What is the value of existence? Maybe being a catalyst for positive change is its own reward. Maybe the advantage accrues not to the individual, but to current and later generations. Good people may view themselves as expendable, and take comfort in the good works that they do and the good effects that are achieved by their sacrifices.

Socrates and the Afterlife

Like many Greeks, Socrates believed in the afterlife, that is, that our individual consciousness will survive death, invisibly entering a realm outside of this world for a time before cycling back into a new human body. That must have been a great comfort to him while he was under sentence of death. I think he saw himself as a servant of the gods (my text says "God," but as his people were polytheist, I think the translator took liberties). He expected a reward of some kind or at least a better life after death, poor fellow. The belief has abiding appeal. There are many still today that do what they do because they think their reward will be great in Paradise. And it can be argued that in some cases this seems to be a beneficial illusion. That all illusions are harmful is a difficult argument with an uncertain outcome.

I can't say Socrates feels cheated now that he knows he was wrong, because he doesn't know anything, any more. He is ended. I don't accept the notion that individual consciousness survives death. I don't feel individual consciousness is all that special or deserving of preservation; it's just a complicated, beautiful machine, wondrous in its powers but temporal, fading and dying like a flower never to be seen again in this world. Beautiful things are created anew and destroyed all the time, everywhere. There is really no need in the scheme of things for human beings to be immortal. Reaching the top of the food chain has led to hubris among our people.

Socrates went around questioning people and tripping them up in logical arguments. He seems to have been a show-off and had no shortage of enemies. I don't find his arguments very persuasive, although he does raise good points. In the ancient world, I'm sure his arguments seemed strong, because there wasn't modern science or modern education around to refute them. He probably was a good speaker and a natural extrovert, to get so many followers. Although he disclaimed a desire for power or influence, I think his strongest desire was to appear wise and witty before these young men and to keep them interested. I think pride and his desire for attention and flattery were his downfall. He made political and social mistakes, apparently, because his enemies succeeded in persuading the citizens of Athens to condemn him to death. The sentence was surely unjust, which makes Socrates a martyr for freedom, specifically freedom of inquiry and perhaps freedom of speech.

The thought of science prolonging human life forever is not necessarily a comforting idea. The first people to consume the pills that grant immortality will probably be the worst people. They will seize the technology for their own and want a monopoly upon it, just as people seek sole possession of other treasures and powers.

Let It Be

Emotions are a kind of short-circuit in the brain, a way of bypassing the usual logical reasoning process. I do think that people are logical, in general. I do not believe that humans are inherently irrational. But an emotion such as love, for instance, causes someone to overlook faults in the beloved. Perhaps that can be a good thing. Certainly it is for the beloved. I think logical reasoning has a lot going for it, though. Fear and anger are other ways of short-circuiting reason. These seem like primitive emotions. I dislike them in me when I sense them. There is something distasteful about fear or anger over things that may not really matter, actually, such as having someone hang up on you in the middle of a phone conversation, or receiving an insult. I would prefer to feel nothing at all, especially when the emotions are not necessary in our safe modern life. Perhaps in barbaric lands, fear and anger are useful to rouse a human to "fight or flight" in order to overcome an adversary. But in the civilized world, just how helpful are these emotions? Probably not that much on a day-to-day basis.

The way I learned to deal with these things is to let them be, but don't let them in the driver's seat. The trick is to refrain from any decision or speech while "under the influence" of an emotion, although surely there are exceptions when decisions are called for. One of my favorite lines from the Bible (or is it Shakespeare?) is "This, too, shall pass."

Everyone is going to feel some kind of emotion sometime, as it is a human trait. We are animals after all, curious and funny critters. Sometimes I observe that an animal such as the chimpanzee seems ridiculous in appearance or behavior, but then the thought occurs that perhaps I, too, seem ridiculous, if viewed from the perspective of an intelligent extraterrestrial. I find that as I get older, I do laugh at myself sometimes, and I don't always feel like I'm right. When I was young, in my teens, I almost always thought I was right. Then in my twenties, a little less, but usually I felt I was right. Now, sometimes I'm not so sure, and I listen more to other opinions and keep an open mind. I've observed that even the wisest people get things wrong sometimes, and often they get things part-right and part-wrong. Insufficient information and miscommunication are common problems.

Reform the Olympics

In part due to the possibility of cheating through the use of performance-enhancing drugs, but also for philosophical reasons, I think that the Olympics should be changed to be non-competitive. Each nation should contribute its best athletes, but the focus should change from defeating other nations to working with other nations to give the world the best, the most entertaining show. Nations should work together rather than competing against one another. If nations do not learn to work together, then our species will have a difficult time coping with climate change and the existence of weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, biological and chemical. I think the Olympics could be a learning experience. What the human race needs to learn most of all is cooperation. The idea of oneness has not yet permeated into the thought processes of very many people. I hear, read and see "us versus them" everywhere. What we need to be hearing is "us," and no "them," because we really are just alone on this fragile little planet, surrounded by dead planets. We have not found life anywhere else. And if we ever do find some form of life, in our continuing explorations of outer space, it is not likely to help us in an intelligent fashion. I think cooperation is key, and that the way to bring cooperation about is to practice it.

Lucky

I feel lucky in comparison to all the people one reads about in the media that are in difficult circumstances. However, reading history certainly offers perspective. I think that even as bad as the modern age gets, in many ways, or at least in most areas, things are better. When one compares, for instance, the British Navy of 1812 and the British Navy of 2013, I think there is a fine example. Flogging is done away with, and seamen are treated to a fairer trial, and nutrition and living conditions are over the top better. Our ancestors could not have dreamed of air conditioning or for that matter effective and easy indoor heating.