Money, health, love

Money is like health and love: an energy source that can help create an easier and more pleasant life.

You may have lots of money because you worked hard for it. You may also be in excellent shape because you work out. You might be well-loved because you worked sacrificially on behalf of others.

Then again, you may have lots of money because it was given to you. You may be in excellent shape because of good genes. You may be well-loved because of your charismatic personality without having done anything virtuous or admirable.

And, it's very possible that hard work won't lead to more money, or a better body, or the love of others.

You might deserve what you want, but not get it. Others may have what you want, without ever "earning" it.

You can resent them, or be happy for their good fortune.

What's the benefit of resentment? 

Do Twists of Fate Make A Difference?

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In 1969, Diane Keaton auditioned for Woody Allen's play Play It Again, Sam. The problem was, Allen was to be her romantic counterpart, and she was noticeably taller than he is. She did get the part, got a Tony nomination for it, and Hollywood came calling.

What if she didn't get the part? Would the world have changed?

Well, yes and no. Keaton was talented enough that she would have gotten another part in some other play, probably would have received a Tony nomination, and again Hollywood would have come calling. Maybe it would have happened one or two years later, and maybe she would have in other movies than the ones she did. Maybe she wouldn't have done so many Woody Allen films, but maybe she would have been in equally-good or better ones.

Life would have turned out a little different for Diane Keaton, and for Hollywood. But not too different.

The Golden Rule, Reformulated

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Humility also has political ramifications. Before saying "There ought to be a law!" against this or that supposedly harmful activity, a dose of humility is helpful:

• How do I know that a law will actually curb this behavior?
• I may find this behavior disgusting and unhealthy, but are the people engaged in it violating other people's rights?
• My intentions are good, because I will be saving people from this destructive behavior – but is it really merciful and compassionate to throw them in jail instead?

Generosity

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The universe is already generous to us, giving us life and energy without receiving anything in return. But since we are part of this universe, it only makes sense to emulate and reflect what Nature and Nature's God have given us. Generosity may be the one virtue that can save the world from collapse.

Awareness, Intuition, and The Call

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The "don't risk everything on one play" philosophy appeals to our very survival instincts. When in immediate danger, take the course to get out of it. When in a jam, buy time. Live for another day. When it's 4th-and-2 on your own 28, punt.

The "percentages" philosophy plays into our intellect. Our instincts may say the safest course is one way, but with knowledge and understanding, we see that there might be a better way. Sometimes the mind says "charge" when the instinct says "retreat." Sometimes the percentages say "go for it" and the instinct says punt. This manifests itself in a variety of situations. The fear of failure invites cautious action in a situation even when bold action will more likely bring success.

A Proposal

If your religion (that is, your belief system, whatever it is, that you would want everyone else to have) can't flourish in an anarchic society (that is, a society without other humans forcing you into doing things), then 1) Your religion is fake; 2) Your religion, even if it's the true one, is malevolent; or 3) YOU are malevolent. There may be other options. I'm just throwing this out there. Comments?

Ten Things

Ten things, July 18, 2009:

10. Tiger Misses the Cut at the British Open. Tiger is still relatively young. Every year he gets by with winning one major tournament, I think it's possible he'll surpass Jack Nicklaus's record of 18 major championships. Each year he wins two, I think it's probable. Each year he fails to win even one, we're reminded of how difficult this really is. This year, he has the PGA Championship left. Tiger is 33 and has to win five more majors to surpass Nicklaus. We can no longer take it for granted.

9. The best news about 59 year-old Tom Watson leading after three rounds of the British Open is that it suggests Tiger Woods could be in the mix in the majors for another 26 years at least.

8. Did you know: Aaron Burr saved Alexander Hamilton's life before he ended it.

7. Is it just me, or is Coldplay just bubblegum pop music for adults? There is absolutely nothing wrong with it; I really like this. It's just that I don't love music by today's 30- or 40-somethings as much as I do music performed by 20-somethings before I was born.

6. Did you know? The last story on November 22, 1963 CBS Morning News was a human-interest story about this group called The Beatles that had captivated Britain. Then, JFK was shot. After days of constant JFK Assassination coverage and to lighten the mood of the country, Walter Cronkite suggested re-airing the Beatles piece as the first non-JFK story on the CBS Evening News. So, The Beatles were the last story before the Assassination and the first story after it. Chicago DJ legend Dick Biondi had actually played the Beatles earlier in 1963, thinking they were the best thing since Elvis, but they never caught on on the merits of the music, they needed massive national propaganda that the likes of Walter Cronkite could provide. I'd provide links to this information, but I learned it all by listening to the radio many years ago.

5. When I was six years old and our family was on a long road trip, we played 20 Questions. I stumped the tribe, who was thinking I'd choose Bugs Bunny or Batman. The person I was thinking of was Walter Cronkite.

4. Third-best non-fiction movie of all time: Fog of War starring Robert McNamara; Second best: The Wizard of Oz; Best: The Matrix. I suppose the latter two are subjective: does "non-fiction" mean relation to historical "facts," or does "non-fiction" mean ultimate truth and reality?

3. Second-best non-fiction music video: The White Stripes, "Seven Nation Army" It's not what the lyrics say, it's how the song is constructed and how the video is made. You know, hypnotizing.

2. Best non-fiction music video: Elliot Smith, "Son of Sam" I just fear that all of us are as controlled as the protagonist that Smith portrays, whether we're conscious of it or not.

1. 30 Rock gets a record 22 Emmy nominations. Bring the head writer (Tina Fey) of a live comedy program (Saturday Night Live, in one of its better periods) to create, write, and star in a single-camera sitcom and what do you get? A sitcom that goes for the laugh in every single scene, regardless if it's toilet humor, farce, or satire. There have been many single-camera, non-laugh-track sitcoms. Some of them are brilliantly plotted (Arrested Development), some clever (Corner Gas), some charming (Everybody Hates Chris) but none are as energetic and relentless as 30 Rock. A sample of episodes is found here and the Kidney Now! finale is here. Frankly, I think the stunningly adorable Norah Jones - I say "adorable" because she has short hair; I'd says "gorgeous" if she still had long hair - deserves an Emmy just by the way she says "And only three of us are drunk."

Happiness and Suffering

Instead of my regularly-scheduled Thursday column, there is a special message this week from Discordian Pope Iacobus Rex at The Partial Observer: http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=3267

Meaningless Words and the Real Power of Intention

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer, where I borrow ideas from Robert Anton Wilson, A Course In Miracles, Wayne Dyer, Catholicism, Calvinism, and Frank Zappa.

How the World Works, or "Sosa Hits His Grand Slams in Bunches"

This past weekend in both college and pro football was somewhat ho-hum overall, with no great shocks to the polls or standings. But it did provide:

• the first tied game in six years with the Cincy-Philly 13-13 score;
• the first 11-10 score in the history of the NFL, strangely achieved on the last play of the game on a call that's controversial only because of the heavy gambling interest in pointspreads, not because it has an impact on the standings.
• Tennessee Titans achieving the relatively rare feat of going 10-0.
  

I'm not a betting man myself, but I will predict that one of the following three things will happen:

• there will be another tied game this year;
• there will be another 11-10 score this year or the next;
• Tennessee will go 16-0 this season, following up on New England's 16-0 season last year.

But I have this caveat: the more widely-read this post becomes, the less likely any of these events will happen, for the very reason that I'm predicting them. After all, the Great Pumpkin doesn't come when you expect him, but when you don't. The obscure blogger, or astrologist (think of Jeanne Dixon and JFK) who happens to call it right may gain some notoriety, but in the long run U2 was correct about still having not found what we're looking for. We usually find, instead, what we're not looking for, or what we're looking for finds us in unexpected ways.

By 1998, someone may have predicted that 10-year veteran slugger Sammy Sosa would have hit a Grand Slam for once in his life. But he never did, until one night in 1998. And then he did so again the very next night. A good friend of mine was watching, and dashed off an email to the broadcast booth that satirized a common sports cliche. I believe it was then-Cubs broadcaster Steve Stone who read from it: "Sammy hits his Grand Slams in bunches."

This is how the world works. The unlikely is drawn to the unlikely. No number sequences appear random; one can spot a pattern or disturbing repition if the sample is large enough or one looks hard enough. I say the NFL was overdue for its first 11-10 score, and overdue for another tied game. That neither came up for so long suggests that either may come up again sooner than expected. The same goes for an undefeated regular season.

Some months ago while driving I stumbled up Ozzy on a mainstream classic rock radio station. He has "Crazy Train" and, at most, one or two other songs in irregular rotation at such stations. I noted that I hadn't heard him in a long time. The next day, I scanned the dial to that same station again and heard Ozzy again. Had it been the Guess Who, I'd have thought nothing of it; they have 6-8 songs in heavy rotation everywhere in the country.

This past Saturday, I heard Elton John do "Honky Cat" in its entirety on an oldies station, noting I hadn't heard that particular song in a while. Then I hit scan, and on the same ten-minute drive I encountered the intro to the same song on another station. I could have listened to almost all of it again by the time my drive was ended, if I was so inclined.

I'm convinced that life is full of these coincidences every moment of the day, and it's just that we don't have the information to be conscious of them, or we aren't conscious enough to recognize them.

For instance, a professional hitman named Chuck Harrelson once confessed to murdering JFK, then later recanted. He was married to the former Diane Lou Oswald at the time. The murder was pinned on one Lee Harvey Oswald, who, as we all know, was killed in custody. So, was Lee Harvey a relation of Diane Lou? Or did the somewhat obsure but not strange name, Oswald, suddenly appear twice at the same Presidential assassination scene by random chance?

My poor Google skills have yet to reveal an answer, having tried again today. But I say that if I hear of another tied game, 11-10 score, or undefeated season in the near future, I may well cut the Oswald angle some slack. Hey, Sosa hits Grand Slams in bunches, so perhaps Oswalds are associated with Presidential assassinations in bunches, at random. It would just be nice to know for sure.

Listening to your inner Bismarck

In his Taki article on George Kennan and the Discovery of Realism, Lee Congdon writes,

While conducting foreign policy, realists insist, a person acts under the authority of a standard of morality at some variance with that which governs his personal behavior. As an individual he may well choose to sacrifice his personal interest for some higher good—he may even obey the scriptural injunction to turn the other cheek. But insofar as he acts as the agent of others, of those whose welfare has been entrusted to him, he cannot, so to speak, turn a collective cheek. His duty is to defend their interests, not to sacrifice them to his own sense of right and wrong.

And their interests transcend not just the right and wrong of "universal morality," but also of honor and disgrace. Machiavelli quotes the Roman historian Livius, who describes what happened after the Roman Army fell into a trap, and was given the option of retreating in disgrace or fighting:

But the Legate Lentulus said [Machiavelli quoting Livius] "That for the purpose of saving the country no propositions ought to be rejected. The safety of Rome depended on that army, and he maintained that it ought to be saved at any price; that the defense of their country was always good, no matter whether effected by honorable or ignominious means. That if the army were saved, Rome would in time be able to wipe out that disgrace; but if the army were lost, even if they died most gloriously Rome and her liberties would also be lost."

The national interest trumps everything. And the national interest is national survival, the ability of the country to maintain its own laws and trade, immigration, and security policies without outside interference or domination.

Otto von Bismarck is regarded as the master statesman in this regard. In the late 19th century, he unified Germany under the Prussian monarch, turning it into the most prosperous and powerful country on the European continent. Even the blunders - acquiring Alsace-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian war, acquiring overseas colonies - were done against his better judgment at the behest of his boss, the Kaiser. The difference between good and bad statemen, whether monarchs, ministers, Presidents, or legislators, is that the bad seek "greatness" whereas the good are concerned only with the national interest.

[Note: Even if Bismarck made plenty of mistakes, and even if he's not the genius he's made out to be, from here on out I'm using Bismarck the myth as a metaphor.]

I wonder if the break between personal morality and realist statesmanship isn't a tad overrated. Granted, personal survival may not always be your "highest good." If you see a child swept up in the current, you may put the child's survival ahead of your own and attempt a rescue. And if you view the body as a temporary illusion you may well afford to "turn the other cheek."

But perhaps overall we would be better off if we each had a spiritual Machiavelli, our own inner Bismarck, giving us counsel. But let me make this clear: such a realist counsel is not to be used to achieve your wants and goals, crushing anyone who stands in the way. Rather, the inner Bismarck should be used to prevent our ego desires from spinning out of control. The inner Bismarck should be focused on your survival, your health.

I was told that a cousin of mine once remarked that he doesn't fear death (i.e., the afterlife), but he does fear dying. That's a good way of saying it. As animals, our instinct is to survive, to live. To avoid suffering when we can. That's what the inner Bismarck is for.

You are your own King, sovereign over your own body and property. Your will is the law. Now, if you are a self-loathing sort in an existential crisis, bad habits and sloth might overtake you because life is vanity and everything is meaningless. But if the course you're on is clearly toward illness and poverty, the inner Bismarck is there to say, "Your highness, my advice would be put aside the philosophical dilemmas for now because your survival and good health is always good. I would advise against buying that box of Ho-hos and save the money instead."

Others may be annoyed by the mannerisms of others, easily offended by even unintentional breaches of etiquette, ready to fight at any perceived insult. The inner Bismarck is there to say, "Your highness, I believe it is time to relax. What these other people do or say have no bearing on your self-interest. Worrying about them makes you feel bad inside, which is against your self-interest. Creating conflict is definitely against your self-interest."

Because emotional turmoil leads to ill health (and can already be felt physically in the heart or gut), the inner Bismarck is there to strategize and set priorities. If you have a variety of tasks to do, the inner Bismarck will tell you the order they should be done to diminish your stress level most rapidly.

Our emotional state often effects our thinking and judgment, leading us to bad decisions. The inner Bismarck forces one to ask, "What would a rational, outside observer looking after my own best interests do about this?" More often than not, he would cut through the confusion created by the ego and emotions, and point you in the right direction. Then it's just up to you to take the steps.

The Futility of Hope

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Almost everyone knows that something is terribly wrong. But the socialist looks at state-run capitalism, mistakes it for the "free market" and believes free marketeers are part of the "they" who are "winning." And free marketeers think the socialists, with their desires for more regulations and welfare, are on the side that's winning.

On a similar note, gay activists and the Religious Right see each other as a threat to civilization. The Right sees open immigration, mulitculturalism, and Islam as threats to our culture, and believe the Left is on the side that's winning because they've taken over the educational system. The Left thinks the Right is winning because of corporate greed and an expanding police state.

It seems to me, however, that over the past seven years we have had more of just about everything. More Politically Correct intolerance AND more religious intolerance. More problems (rightly or wrongly) attributed to "capitalism" AND more Big Government failures. More police-state surveillance AND more access to alternative viewpoints. More nation-destroying "multiculturalism" AND more goose-stepping "nationalism."

But, although the post-9-11 world may have taken everything to greater extremes, didn't we think many of the same things in the 1990's and 1980's? Do not many similar conflicts date back to the Founding? Or even to the Magna Charta and before?

Is the Good Society a Myth?

I suppose this could be said better, if profanity offends you. Nevertheless, ka1igu1a's post at Freedom Democrats hits the nail on the head:

I have a very simple, self-evident proposition. If voluntary exchange leads to tyranny, then the human condition, in terms of any conception of freedom, is royally f---ed. If you propose the State is necessary to serve as an equalizing force to balance out the strong(oppressor class) vs the weak(oppressed class), then it would be self-evident that this so-called Strong would naturally be the most adept at using the State to regain/retain it's advantage. Direct Democracy doesn't solve this problem. If the weak can be systematically duped in voluntary economic exchange, they can be just as easily be systematically duped with regards to their vote as political agents.

If voluntary exchange, meaning freedom, doesn't "work," then it is impossible for any organized human system to work, because they all favor the oppressor and disadvantage the oppressed.

It raises this question: is this problem a defect within the human individual, or is the sum of human society less than its parts?

If the former, then there is no "problem;" there is nothing nothing that "works" or "doesn't work," nothing good and nothing bad, nothing to be solved and, therefore, nothing to worry about or condemn. A secure, just, prosperous, and long-lasting civilization may be simply beyond our capability, and if so, it makes no more sense to fret about it than for it is for Fido to fret that no dog has ever written a great symphony. Humans are just too evil, or stupid, or both.

If, however, humans (or should I say, most non-oppressing humans) are good, but somehow form themselves into poorly-run societies, then there must be bad information that is fed into human minds and beliefs systems, that lead to faulty judgments. The very act of "changing my mind" about a particular issue proves the point. One day, I disinterestedly believe X will lead to a better society. X becomes public policy. Years later I conclude that X is bad and Y, not X, is what society needs. I am still partly responsible, through my support of it, of the bad things caused by X.

If, as an objective, disinterested observer, I concluded that X would be good and it turned out I was wrong, then it is not my ethics or virtue that is flawed; I am still "good." The flaw is, instead, in the thinking that "society" actually exists as a unit for moral judgment or sound policy. Society exists only as a concept to help us process news and information, but it has no objective existence. It is neither good nor bad, and it can not be improved.

So whether or not human beings are themselves good or bad (or evil), "society" will always be unsatisfactory because it will never achieve our hopes and ideals for us. Perhaps, the only chance for greater security, justice, and prosperity for everyone is to not even try to seek it for everyone, but for everyone to seek it for themselves and others whom they love. And whether or not voluntary exchange will "work" in terms of society, it is bound to be the best available option for individuals looking after their own interests. As ka1igu1a indicates, there is no other alternative.

Disappointments, Harms, and Crimes

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[D]isappointment is the emotional suffering that results when two wills collide at an emotional level, where one fails to live up to the others expectations. Harm is the suffering caused when two bodies collide at a physical level, usually unintentionally, but with one at fault who must compensate the other. Crime is what happens when two wills collide at the "ownership" or "rights" level, that is, when one tries to take something that belongs to someone else.

Much of the confusion in our society is that we can't tell the difference between the three.

The Prisoner's Dilemma, the Market Dilemma, and the State

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In real life, neither honest nor dishonest people can discern right from wrong, because government over-spending causes inflation and speculation, and government planning and regulations cause confusion. When the government exerts force on on an individual, we can't expect that individual to be honest or dishonest, or to be good or bad. All we can expect that individual to do is to do what he can to protect his wealth and stay out of trouble. When the laws and regulations are too confusing for lawyers and the taxes too complicated for accountants, and when government controls everything from charity to forest management, we can't expect individuals to "do the right thing." Everywhere they turn, the State will be there to punish them severely for even honest mistakes.

Rights and Wrongs

[UPDATE: My apologies for not including the link earlier.]

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

If we have the sense to agree that we can't use force against a person who does nothing illegal and commits no act of aggression, how then can we say that it is proper to make once-legal activitiy illegal? If no one was wronged yesterday, how are they wronged today? If there were no victims yesterday in a mutually-consenting relationship or exchange, how would passing a law create a victim today in identical relationships and exchanges?

The Golden Rule and the Three Laws

I recently saw the 2004 film I Robot. It's set in 2035 with human-shaped robots filling various service roles for humans. Although apparently not given a"soul," they are given judgment, which means they have to be able to learn and grow, or "evolve." They are also programmed with the The Three Laws of Robotics, which figure prominently in the plot:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

A robot, then, is probably better able to protect human life than humans themselves can, because doing so is literally hard-wired in their nature. Humans, being organic life, must overcome the survival instinct. And, being social creatures, humans inherit religious beliefs that inspire an existential fear of death as well. So, saving others at the cost of one's own life is harder for us. But the Laws apply in a servant-master relationship, whereas in a relationship of equals, that is, among human beings, the Golden Rule would be sufficient.

The State likes the Golden Rule - when private citizens deal with each other. But its view of humans viz-a-viz The State is similar to the Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A human being may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm - except on orders of the State.
2. A human being ought to obey orders given to it by people in positions of authority except where such orders would conflict with the First Law, and no order by authority figures in civil society can supercede orders given by the State.
3. A human being must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

For example, Humans will agree that a youth should obey his father, but not obey orders to rob a bank. And that he should obey his coach, but disregard orders to deliberately injure someone on the opposing team.

But we also think a human being must obey orders given by the government, even where such orders conflict with the Golden Rule and inflict harm. Indeed, if you fail to support the deliberate infliction of harm on fellow human beings to achieve certain governmental ends, then you deserve to be vilified if not arrested.

Why do we think this way?

Perhaps it is because we, like the central computer in I, Robot, have "evolved" to see the "meaning" or intent of the laws, to see the "big picture" that examines the ends of humanity in general rather than the rights of individuals. In order to keep human beings physically safe and economically secure, we must tax them, regulate their property, and provide them with "services" they supposedly can't provide for themselves. And to preserve the lives of the many, we must spy on people, control their movements, and even sacrifice the lives of some.

But that's putting the cart before the horse. Laws emanating from the Golden Rule will protect our lives as individuals. And that is the point. Not saving the greatest number of humans. Not to make some suffer for others to prosper, not to make some die that others live. Not pre-]emptive attacks or restrictions to rid us of some perceived threat. Indeed, this is the opposite of the Golden Rule: if it is permissible for the State to harm one innocent person, why is it not permissible for the State to harm you?

It is no wonder that the State we rely on to "protect" us kills many times more people than criminals do. We rely on the State to fight poverty, when it has, through tax, land, and labor policies, inflicted more poverty and misery than any other institution throughout history. We rely on the government to fight pollution, but it is the biggest polluter. Without considering the individual as the primary unit in society, the State has literally no sense of proportion.

How Adam and Eve Messed Up

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Obviously, the Tree made Adam and Eve aware of the concept of Good and Evil, but not the content of what is good and evil. Otherwise, the utterly moronic idea that nakedness was evil would not have entered their heads. No wonder they were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Now thinking in terms of good and evil, but not knowing what is good and what is evil, they would have mismanaged the place. They were incompetent.

Thousands of years later, we still don't seem to have much of an idea about good and evil. Sure, some will say that there are indeed moral absolutes that everyone besides psychopaths agree on, such as murder. But even that is debatable: some religions teach or imply that murdering non-believers is permissible. Not even child rape and violence against women are condemned universally, and theft and fraud against foreigners or second-class citizens has been permitted in many cultures. Nor can we even say that human moral consciousness is "evolving." After all, unprovoked warfare - such as U.S. aggression against Serbia and Iraq in the last nine years - goes unpunished, torture is making a comeback, and the global economy is based on usury and inflation.

Is Happiness Possible?

What I was driving at in The Root of All Evil is how ideas distort our perceptions of things. Creating the category "Good or Evil" is one such distortion, and has the effect of making us feel bad about the world and ourselves. Similar categories are Peace or Conflict, Freedom or Oppression, Justice or Injustice. The conditions of Peace, Justice, and Freedom in their ideal form are never satisfactorily attained.

For example, "peace" between two nations could mean absence of violent conflict, but ideally it means reconciliation and friendship. "Justice" could mean making the victim whole again, but ideally it means no undeserving person ever gets a bad break. "Freedom" could be the absence of aggression, but ideally also means freedom from want, superstition, and prejudice. Thus, a materialistic, self-centered society where there is some degree of external tension and domestic wealth inequality, will never be "truly free" or "truly at peace" or "truly just." Nothing is ever Good Enough. If ideas like Justice, Freedom, and Peace become ideals, they can never be attained. Focusing on the discrepancy between the real and the ideal provokes frustration, anger, and sadness.

That's why I ask if Happiness is even possible. To create the standard and dwell on it, is to prevent its attainment. That's not to say that some habits and some bursts of enlightenment or revelation won't lead to being happier, i.e., feeling better than they previously did, but the Happiness itself remains elusive. This is even more true if one's own happiness depends on other people's actions. To say "I'll be happy when the war ends" is just as errant as to say "I'll be happy if I get a million dollars." There will always be something lacking for those who think they're unhappy and strive to be happy.

I wonder what would happen if the category "Happiness" didn't exist in our minds. How would we interpret past experiences - both what we did, and what was done to us? How would we view the future? How would we face the present?

My guess is that we would retain memories of "bad" experiences in which we experienced physical pain and learn about danger. It is less likely that we would remember instances in which our egos were bruised, for what is the ego, but an internal judge telling us whether we're happy or unhappy? Also, it is less likely we would dwell on the Glory Days as a standard by which we fall short now.

Nor would we worry about the future, because if we're unable to think in terms of happiness and unhappiness, we wouldn't have anything to worry about.

Most likely, we would spend our times doing what we like, without dwelling on its Meaning.

Perhaps that would make us less than Fully Human - which is yet another idea. Perhaps creating abstract ideas from human relationships, and then internalizing them into yet more ideas like happiness and ego, is our very Purpose in Life. If this is true, however, it can't be said that finding "Happiness" or discovering "the Good" is even possible; all we are capable of is falling short of those standards. Ultimately, if not having these ideas and meanings means we're not Fully Human, then the ultimate end of being Human is to fall short of the standards we've created. That is, our ultimate end is to suffer.

The Way

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The Way also gives advice for rulers. In essence, it is the same message: leave people alone, leave things alone. Even let one's enemies alone because, as they try to force things, they will self-destruct. There have been subsequent historical examples of this. For instance, the Russians beat Napoleon because they refused to fight his armies head-to-head. The Tao offers plenty of sound advice for absolute monarchs. Indeed, in Chinese culture, the Emperor was viewed as the center around which the country revolved. If he just remained in the "center," and kept his own palace in order, the country would run smoothly. The more the Emperor interfered with the country, the more likely it would break down.