| The Middle Ground of Life - The Most Important of All |
The Other Level
I got to thinking about it just awhile ago, while absorbing the primary campaign
news, thinking about our "new culture", and reading about the last blog from a
major in Iraq - just ruminating about it all, and it occurred to me there is another
aspect of Middle Ground. I have touched on it elsewhere, but thought it might be
useful (for what, I can not say) to thrust it upon the waters for consideration here.
It might seem a little preachy, and I suppose it is; this is a shot of philosophy,
after all. But before we get mired in more mundane detail we might want to broaden
our horizons a bit. Rousseu once said "everything is related to politics" and in a
sense that is true, if one considers that there is a political facet in everything in life,
so if that is so, what is the Middle Ground of Life?
I got to thinking about it just awhile ago, while absorbing the primary campaign
news, thinking about our "new culture", and reading about the last blog from a
major in Iraq - just ruminating about it all, and it occurred to me there is another
aspect of Middle Ground. I have touched on it elsewhere, but thought it might be
useful (for what, I can not say) to thrust it upon the waters for consideration here.
It might seem a little preachy, and I suppose it is; this is a shot of philosophy,
after all. But before we get mired in more mundane detail we might want to broaden
our horizons a bit. Rousseu once said "everything is related to politics" and in a
sense that is true, if one considers that there is a political facet in everything in life,
so if that is so, what is the Middle Ground of Life?
Potpourri of Thoughts
1. The word empathy - putting one's self in another's
place before making judgment.
2. Temperance in all things - avoiding the extremes,
avoiding excess.
3. Respect is a Middle Ground related concept -
4. If properly tempered, experience rounds off rough
edges of immature passion. And the tempering?
Knowledge - real knowledge. Then, one might ask, what
is left without passion? A dried out husk? Reasonable
question; but it was not suggested that passion be
expunged, but rounded off. Passion, after all, must be
controlled, tempered, as all else.
5. Conceit - narcissism - arrogance - virtually preclude
taking the Middle Ground in life. Being always right
inevitably drives one from Middle Ground.
6. On the other hand relegating one's self to Middle
Ground also tends to preclude from brilliant success. The
doers in life are not the meek. So are meek and Middle
Ground synonymous? Or stated differently, does a Middle
Ground position preclude brilliant success? It might, and
the similarity of meek and Middle Ground warrants some
more thought.
1. The word empathy - putting one's self in another's
place before making judgment.
2. Temperance in all things - avoiding the extremes,
avoiding excess.
3. Respect is a Middle Ground related concept -
4. If properly tempered, experience rounds off rough
edges of immature passion. And the tempering?
Knowledge - real knowledge. Then, one might ask, what
is left without passion? A dried out husk? Reasonable
question; but it was not suggested that passion be
expunged, but rounded off. Passion, after all, must be
controlled, tempered, as all else.
5. Conceit - narcissism - arrogance - virtually preclude
taking the Middle Ground in life. Being always right
inevitably drives one from Middle Ground.
6. On the other hand relegating one's self to Middle
Ground also tends to preclude from brilliant success. The
doers in life are not the meek. So are meek and Middle
Ground synonymous? Or stated differently, does a Middle
Ground position preclude brilliant success? It might, and
the similarity of meek and Middle Ground warrants some
more thought.
Meek and The Middle Ground
Are they the same?
Certainly they can be. Certainly Middle Ground can be
an excuse for taking any action at all - and interesting
conundrum. At what point does virtue become vice? Or
perhaps more appropriately, at what point does virtue
become impotence. Turn the other cheek comes to mind.
This, I would contend, poses another Middle Ground
challenge; at each new level of a concept we are
challenged to understand the extremes it poses.
This, I might add, is one of the arguments against
taking the Middle Ground position, or, as is laid at the feet
of philosophers, it entails taking so many different
positions it is impossible to reach any conclusion.
Go back to empathy and respect. To understand a
person's position (empathy) does not entail embracing it.
Nor does respect entail an embrace.
Middle Ground is understanding, not necessarily
embracing. In fact the great challenge is to be able to
understand and still take action deemed appropriate or
necessary. There comes a time when some must suffer
so that others can go on; no decision in life can be greater
than making that determination when the responsibility to
do so has been laid on. Playing god is the way the
sufferers would describe it, and perhaps it is. It is
commonly called for in combat; when must the lives of
some be placed in jeopardy to attempt to save the lives of
others? Middle Ground is understanding enough to weigh
the options; decisions often drive one away from Middle
Ground, through necessity.
Nothing is simple, and Middle Ground is no more an
exception that are the simplicities of emotion. Nor should
it be an excuse for inaction demanded by principle.
Are they the same?
Certainly they can be. Certainly Middle Ground can be
an excuse for taking any action at all - and interesting
conundrum. At what point does virtue become vice? Or
perhaps more appropriately, at what point does virtue
become impotence. Turn the other cheek comes to mind.
This, I would contend, poses another Middle Ground
challenge; at each new level of a concept we are
challenged to understand the extremes it poses.
This, I might add, is one of the arguments against
taking the Middle Ground position, or, as is laid at the feet
of philosophers, it entails taking so many different
positions it is impossible to reach any conclusion.
Go back to empathy and respect. To understand a
person's position (empathy) does not entail embracing it.
Nor does respect entail an embrace.
Middle Ground is understanding, not necessarily
embracing. In fact the great challenge is to be able to
understand and still take action deemed appropriate or
necessary. There comes a time when some must suffer
so that others can go on; no decision in life can be greater
than making that determination when the responsibility to
do so has been laid on. Playing god is the way the
sufferers would describe it, and perhaps it is. It is
commonly called for in combat; when must the lives of
some be placed in jeopardy to attempt to save the lives of
others? Middle Ground is understanding enough to weigh
the options; decisions often drive one away from Middle
Ground, through necessity.
Nothing is simple, and Middle Ground is no more an
exception that are the simplicities of emotion. Nor should
it be an excuse for inaction demanded by principle.
Notice the difficulty imposed by generalities. What is principle?
What justifies action that endangers some for the benefit of others?
Where is that line between complacent surrender and arrogant
obstinacy?
These are things one must decide for one's self and causes
pursuing the Middle Ground to be both tenuous and challenging.
Life ain't simple and it will not reduce itself to simple formulas,
(despite many powerful thinkers having tried to do so) unless one is
driven by the emotions of ignorance - only then is it easy.
A large dollop of wisdom is very helpful. So is the ability to see
something with a bit of flexibility, realizing the difference between
taking a position and demanding that someone else must take the
same.
What justifies action that endangers some for the benefit of others?
Where is that line between complacent surrender and arrogant
obstinacy?
These are things one must decide for one's self and causes
pursuing the Middle Ground to be both tenuous and challenging.
Life ain't simple and it will not reduce itself to simple formulas,
(despite many powerful thinkers having tried to do so) unless one is
driven by the emotions of ignorance - only then is it easy.
A large dollop of wisdom is very helpful. So is the ability to see
something with a bit of flexibility, realizing the difference between
taking a position and demanding that someone else must take the
same.
It should be quite evident that I am a
quotation junky. Here is one I particularly like
from Anton Myrer (Once An Eagle):
"Read, think, disagree with everything, if you
like - but force your mind outward."
That, after all, is what we are all about here.
quotation junky. Here is one I particularly like
from Anton Myrer (Once An Eagle):
"Read, think, disagree with everything, if you
like - but force your mind outward."
That, after all, is what we are all about here.
BEWARE - BEWARE - BEWARE
Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle:
"A philosopher sees the earth as a large planet, traveling
through the heavens, covered with fools."
Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle:
"A philosopher sees the earth as a large planet, traveling
through the heavens, covered with fools."
Compromise
Compromise is another concept we think of in political context, but has far broader application. In a
sense all life is compromise; even the ruthlessly powerful face it - even they can't have everything for
themselves and are forced to compromise, if not on principle at least on priorities.
Being the way most of us are, sure of ourselves and opinionated - and emotionally committed, compromise
is not particularly palatable because we see it as giving up something. Well, in life one must almost always
give up something to achieve something because all just can't have everything they want. And not everyone
agrees as to what should be open for compromise - see "Compromise and Principles" in the section of
Perhaps that is the secret of effective compromise: knowing when and where it is
acceptable and appropriate, and where it isn't.
The greatest political compromise is between rights and order. But this has cultural application as well.
We all continually face compromise between what we want - and even expect - and what we realize we must
settle for. One of the beauties of the concept of cost - money - is that it forces compromise: what we want and
what we can afford always entail compromise (or did until credit cards - and even then it eventually does). But
then the rights/order compromise is continually in our faces on a day to day basis, and the old adage, your
rights end where my nose begins, expresses it succinctly.
In fact try this one on for size: compromise is a subset of responsibility. So is it any surprise that the youth
of today in our New Culture have trouble dealing with compromise when they are inadequately trained in
responsibility? Or more brutally, part of the not growing up we are observing shows the same disconnect.
Compromise - like kissing your sister, one wag suggested - has gotten a bad rap in our culture. It is
weakness, it is meekness (from above), it is wimpiness - because we say it is. Is that more influence of
propaganda? On the contrary, compromise is civilization; what odd twists we put to words, perhaps
because too many of us really don't understand their meanings - or subvert those meanings. How did we
slide back to ignorance?
Entertainment - fantasy - helps (notice how I keep hitting the same bases in different contexts - either
because that's the way it is or because that is my intellectual prejudice - take your choice). One never sees a
compromising action hero. Leaders in fantasy always know exactly what they need to do and do it in the face
of any and all opposition. Consider a real life compromise challenge. When the Germans occupied France
and imposed their control the French were faced with a compromise decision: go into the woods and fight, or
accept it and live with it. We are judgmental: fight fight fight. But what of the fifty year old family man with a
wife and four small children who ran a business in Paris? Close it down, and join a partisan group? Think
about it. Most of life is like that, and not like the fantasy scripts in which we wallow so deliciously.
There is, of course, much more; but that is enough for now.
Compromise is another concept we think of in political context, but has far broader application. In a
sense all life is compromise; even the ruthlessly powerful face it - even they can't have everything for
themselves and are forced to compromise, if not on principle at least on priorities.
Being the way most of us are, sure of ourselves and opinionated - and emotionally committed, compromise
is not particularly palatable because we see it as giving up something. Well, in life one must almost always
give up something to achieve something because all just can't have everything they want. And not everyone
agrees as to what should be open for compromise - see "Compromise and Principles" in the section of
Perhaps that is the secret of effective compromise: knowing when and where it is
acceptable and appropriate, and where it isn't.
The greatest political compromise is between rights and order. But this has cultural application as well.
We all continually face compromise between what we want - and even expect - and what we realize we must
settle for. One of the beauties of the concept of cost - money - is that it forces compromise: what we want and
what we can afford always entail compromise (or did until credit cards - and even then it eventually does). But
then the rights/order compromise is continually in our faces on a day to day basis, and the old adage, your
rights end where my nose begins, expresses it succinctly.
In fact try this one on for size: compromise is a subset of responsibility. So is it any surprise that the youth
of today in our New Culture have trouble dealing with compromise when they are inadequately trained in
responsibility? Or more brutally, part of the not growing up we are observing shows the same disconnect.
Compromise - like kissing your sister, one wag suggested - has gotten a bad rap in our culture. It is
weakness, it is meekness (from above), it is wimpiness - because we say it is. Is that more influence of
propaganda? On the contrary, compromise is civilization; what odd twists we put to words, perhaps
because too many of us really don't understand their meanings - or subvert those meanings. How did we
slide back to ignorance?
Entertainment - fantasy - helps (notice how I keep hitting the same bases in different contexts - either
because that's the way it is or because that is my intellectual prejudice - take your choice). One never sees a
compromising action hero. Leaders in fantasy always know exactly what they need to do and do it in the face
of any and all opposition. Consider a real life compromise challenge. When the Germans occupied France
and imposed their control the French were faced with a compromise decision: go into the woods and fight, or
accept it and live with it. We are judgmental: fight fight fight. But what of the fifty year old family man with a
wife and four small children who ran a business in Paris? Close it down, and join a partisan group? Think
about it. Most of life is like that, and not like the fantasy scripts in which we wallow so deliciously.
There is, of course, much more; but that is enough for now.
Emotionalism
It emerges from both ends of the spectrum. In my opinion it is
almost always couched in ignorance, and I need to explain that
rationale. Those who are emotional are emotional about
something, and that something is what they know and concentrate
their thinking upon. It is most often based on experience, however
narrow, or strongly held beliefs, now matter how unrealistic.
Specifically, what is known tends to be derived from someone or
something - or plural someones or somethings - that fueled the
emotion: it's not fair! What's not fair? It is the way it has to be!
Really? Whatever the experience pointed to that was not fair;
whatever the belief just has to be and to be otherwise is also not
fair.
Not fairs are easily found; they abound. There is much in our
lives, our world, that is not fair. Life is not fair. Often the not fairs
are seen in isolation; as a result, with possible causes lost in the
fog of the past. Poverty suggests a case in point. Some, not all,
poverty is self perpetuated Positive opportunities offered were
spurned; negative opportunities were embraced. Education is one
of the positives; drugs are one of the negatives. We all make
choices and some are bad. Yet some of the choices made were
not entirely within the control of the maker. Some lost educational
opportunities, for example, may have been due to family situations.
Sure, there are also examples of those that rose above them, but
many were unable to do so. The point is those in the clutches of
emotion tend to see results and discount the steps that led up to
those results or they discount anything that lies outside of their
fixed beliefs.
The emotional extremes stress either a need for individual
responsibility and resourcefulness on the one hand, or need for
compassion and succor on the on the other. Each tends to
discount the other. Politically this can be seen in rights or order.
Emotionally it can be seen as arrogance or dependence. Who
speaks up for a balance between the two? Who wants to point to
the yes, buts? Propaganda doesn't work like that. Entertainment
doesn't work like that. Emotionalism doesn't work like that. We
would prefer to concentrate on the not fair, or not right. People
need to stand on their own; people need to be given assistance to
help them get by. Yes, on both counts - but tempered and with
great care.
A little knowledge helps too, particularly the knowledge of
unintended circumstances. But also of just how can what is
thought should be done to be done? Emotionalism doesn't give
adequate attention to such things. It is needed therefore it must be
done; don't bother me with how, just do it. Ignorance of what is
required to do it is the enabler of unbounded emotionalism. Just
do it.
In the middle there is reality.
It emerges from both ends of the spectrum. In my opinion it is
almost always couched in ignorance, and I need to explain that
rationale. Those who are emotional are emotional about
something, and that something is what they know and concentrate
their thinking upon. It is most often based on experience, however
narrow, or strongly held beliefs, now matter how unrealistic.
Specifically, what is known tends to be derived from someone or
something - or plural someones or somethings - that fueled the
emotion: it's not fair! What's not fair? It is the way it has to be!
Really? Whatever the experience pointed to that was not fair;
whatever the belief just has to be and to be otherwise is also not
fair.
Not fairs are easily found; they abound. There is much in our
lives, our world, that is not fair. Life is not fair. Often the not fairs
are seen in isolation; as a result, with possible causes lost in the
fog of the past. Poverty suggests a case in point. Some, not all,
poverty is self perpetuated Positive opportunities offered were
spurned; negative opportunities were embraced. Education is one
of the positives; drugs are one of the negatives. We all make
choices and some are bad. Yet some of the choices made were
not entirely within the control of the maker. Some lost educational
opportunities, for example, may have been due to family situations.
Sure, there are also examples of those that rose above them, but
many were unable to do so. The point is those in the clutches of
emotion tend to see results and discount the steps that led up to
those results or they discount anything that lies outside of their
fixed beliefs.
The emotional extremes stress either a need for individual
responsibility and resourcefulness on the one hand, or need for
compassion and succor on the on the other. Each tends to
discount the other. Politically this can be seen in rights or order.
Emotionally it can be seen as arrogance or dependence. Who
speaks up for a balance between the two? Who wants to point to
the yes, buts? Propaganda doesn't work like that. Entertainment
doesn't work like that. Emotionalism doesn't work like that. We
would prefer to concentrate on the not fair, or not right. People
need to stand on their own; people need to be given assistance to
help them get by. Yes, on both counts - but tempered and with
great care.
A little knowledge helps too, particularly the knowledge of
unintended circumstances. But also of just how can what is
thought should be done to be done? Emotionalism doesn't give
adequate attention to such things. It is needed therefore it must be
done; don't bother me with how, just do it. Ignorance of what is
required to do it is the enabler of unbounded emotionalism. Just
do it.
In the middle there is reality.
Middle Ground is not
relativism, it should not be
quid pro quo for personal
benefit,raising and
important challenge: It is
rational agreement based on
PRINCIPLE.
Danger to Middle
Ground arises from an
ignorant, self centered,
greedy majority bent on
destruction of the principles
of a minority for its
enrichment; Middle Ground
is more than majority, much
more. That is why it is so
difficult to pursue and even
more difficult to achieve.
relativism, it should not be
quid pro quo for personal
benefit,raising and
important challenge: It is
rational agreement based on
PRINCIPLE.
Danger to Middle
Ground arises from an
ignorant, self centered,
greedy majority bent on
destruction of the principles
of a minority for its
enrichment; Middle Ground
is more than majority, much
more. That is why it is so
difficult to pursue and even
more difficult to achieve.
A Dichotomy
A casual observer (assuming there was one) might see
the dichotomy I have wrought, and it offers a valuable lesson -
at least it has for me. My Middle Ground model began with the
political arena; moved to economics, logically and reasonably
enough; and then into the broader category of life, where it
runs into the rather serious difficulty of trying to deal with
principles. Middle Ground is compromise, but principles
resist compromise, for very good reason.
Yet "principles" are a sticky wicket within the human
panoply of thoughts and ideas: Honesty is a principle; is
socialism? I ran into a similar dilemma when I attempted to
extol honor. Honor is a fine principle, until it is discredited by
idiocy that changes something basically good to something
ridiculous. Most principles can be similarly debased when
expanded to mean something not intended by the original
meaning of the word. On the other hand that which one might
consider a principle not to be compromised may be
something to be eschewed by another: perhaps the issue of
pro life and pro choice is an example of that; but one might
even argue that faith in a supreme diety falls into this category.
Does this mean that I am wrong to try to expand the Middle
Ground into this arena? Yes and no. Clearly it has to be done
carefully - and probably selectively. For now let me suggest
this: the Middle Ground of life should require that we be open
minded and respectful of others' ideas and positions, and
when they do personally impact us, should not be contested.
In other words we should not attempt to imposed our wills
upon others when they offer no harm to us. That needs more
work. As I have said elsewhere, this is a work in process for
the purpose of thinking through the philosophy.
A casual observer (assuming there was one) might see
the dichotomy I have wrought, and it offers a valuable lesson -
at least it has for me. My Middle Ground model began with the
political arena; moved to economics, logically and reasonably
enough; and then into the broader category of life, where it
runs into the rather serious difficulty of trying to deal with
principles. Middle Ground is compromise, but principles
resist compromise, for very good reason.
Yet "principles" are a sticky wicket within the human
panoply of thoughts and ideas: Honesty is a principle; is
socialism? I ran into a similar dilemma when I attempted to
extol honor. Honor is a fine principle, until it is discredited by
idiocy that changes something basically good to something
ridiculous. Most principles can be similarly debased when
expanded to mean something not intended by the original
meaning of the word. On the other hand that which one might
consider a principle not to be compromised may be
something to be eschewed by another: perhaps the issue of
pro life and pro choice is an example of that; but one might
even argue that faith in a supreme diety falls into this category.
Does this mean that I am wrong to try to expand the Middle
Ground into this arena? Yes and no. Clearly it has to be done
carefully - and probably selectively. For now let me suggest
this: the Middle Ground of life should require that we be open
minded and respectful of others' ideas and positions, and
when they do personally impact us, should not be contested.
In other words we should not attempt to imposed our wills
upon others when they offer no harm to us. That needs more
work. As I have said elsewhere, this is a work in process for
the purpose of thinking through the philosophy.
More Matters for Consideration
The Individual Middle Ground
Middle Ground, as I have chosen to attempt to try to
address it has mostly to do with dealing with the differences
among men, which is from whence comes the need for
compromise. When we cannot agree, and we want to
continue to get along, there must be compromise - the Middle
Ground between extreme positions, or even positions that are
not so extreme.
But thrusting the concept of compromise into the business
of life - one's personal life - expands the equation beyond what
was originally intended. Compromise applies to relationships
- that which is outside an individual; principles apply to what is
inside an individual. The concept of a Middle Ground
approach to life can only be understood when limited to that
which is outside, not what is inside. Perhaps this is where
relativism started - people started compromising principles to
conform with relationships.
I shall take the position that personal - individual -
principles should not be compromised, else the individual
destroys the individuality that makes him what he is.
Examined continually, yes; and altered when found wanting.
Inflexible principles can be highly debilitating. That's the
inside part; but no individual lives in isolation from his fellow
man, so there must be an interface between inside
(principles) and outside (relationships); this is where Middle
Ground applies, and, I would contend, it is at that interface
where so many problems among us - including in the political
and economic arenas - exist and fester. Politics and
economics are the broader environment in which we must
subsist; the applicable personal Middle Ground is the
interface we must fashion between the internal - our principles
- and the external environment. It is always a monumental
challenge.
Why? Because principles, particularly when
microscopically defined, tend not to be shared - at the
microscopic level. Take honesty, for example. Take politics:
we want to be told what we want to hear, else we will withhold
our vote, so politicians tell us what we want to hear, consistent
with whatever principles to which they adhere, to get our vote.
Where does honesty come in? Or the "little white lie," where
avoiding naked truth that can be hurtful is accepted. Even
honesty with self can be difficult. Principles are not quite as
hard and fast as we would wish them to be; so if individual
principles are so, what of the interface between the principles
of one and the principles of another?
I suggest we have all we can do to deal with our own
principles, the inconsistencies thereof and our inevitable
inability to adhere to them as we would wish to do, without
trying to thrust ourselves into the principles of others. That
brings us back to where we must view our Middle Ground of
Life: at the interface with relationships with others. Simply
stated, we owe it to ourselves to share our principles - views -
with others, but we do not have the right - individually - (we do
collectively, but that brings us back to politics and rule of law)
to attempt to impose our principles upon others. That's why
laws and governments are necessary - as well as
compromise - and respect. Personal Middle Ground is so
difficult (and problematical) because it requires us to develop
and adhere to principles while respecting those of others -
and dealing peacefully with the interface between them.
Oh, boy.
Middle Ground, as I have chosen to attempt to try to
address it has mostly to do with dealing with the differences
among men, which is from whence comes the need for
compromise. When we cannot agree, and we want to
continue to get along, there must be compromise - the Middle
Ground between extreme positions, or even positions that are
not so extreme.
But thrusting the concept of compromise into the business
of life - one's personal life - expands the equation beyond what
was originally intended. Compromise applies to relationships
- that which is outside an individual; principles apply to what is
inside an individual. The concept of a Middle Ground
approach to life can only be understood when limited to that
which is outside, not what is inside. Perhaps this is where
relativism started - people started compromising principles to
conform with relationships.
I shall take the position that personal - individual -
principles should not be compromised, else the individual
destroys the individuality that makes him what he is.
Examined continually, yes; and altered when found wanting.
Inflexible principles can be highly debilitating. That's the
inside part; but no individual lives in isolation from his fellow
man, so there must be an interface between inside
(principles) and outside (relationships); this is where Middle
Ground applies, and, I would contend, it is at that interface
where so many problems among us - including in the political
and economic arenas - exist and fester. Politics and
economics are the broader environment in which we must
subsist; the applicable personal Middle Ground is the
interface we must fashion between the internal - our principles
- and the external environment. It is always a monumental
challenge.
Why? Because principles, particularly when
microscopically defined, tend not to be shared - at the
microscopic level. Take honesty, for example. Take politics:
we want to be told what we want to hear, else we will withhold
our vote, so politicians tell us what we want to hear, consistent
with whatever principles to which they adhere, to get our vote.
Where does honesty come in? Or the "little white lie," where
avoiding naked truth that can be hurtful is accepted. Even
honesty with self can be difficult. Principles are not quite as
hard and fast as we would wish them to be; so if individual
principles are so, what of the interface between the principles
of one and the principles of another?
I suggest we have all we can do to deal with our own
principles, the inconsistencies thereof and our inevitable
inability to adhere to them as we would wish to do, without
trying to thrust ourselves into the principles of others. That
brings us back to where we must view our Middle Ground of
Life: at the interface with relationships with others. Simply
stated, we owe it to ourselves to share our principles - views -
with others, but we do not have the right - individually - (we do
collectively, but that brings us back to politics and rule of law)
to attempt to impose our principles upon others. That's why
laws and governments are necessary - as well as
compromise - and respect. Personal Middle Ground is so
difficult (and problematical) because it requires us to develop
and adhere to principles while respecting those of others -
and dealing peacefully with the interface between them.
Oh, boy.
| See below for different context; this is not as simple as it sounds. |
"Intellectual and respectful sharing of ideas
and principles is the essence of civilization -
and peaceful coexistence. We have a long
way to go. The path is clear - in theory; how
to negotiate it is anything but."
and principles is the essence of civilization -
and peaceful coexistence. We have a long
way to go. The path is clear - in theory; how
to negotiate it is anything but."
Pain and Suffering
The subject is broad.
Here is another Middle Ground for
consideration: pain versus discomfort - and
the middle ground between the two. We,
unfortunately in my opinion, have swung way
too far in the direction of pain: everything that
is not comfortable for us is deemed pain and
should be curable by a pill - even
unhappiness.
This is not a healthy outlook. Much "pain"
should be merely endured and treated as it
is - discomfort. Suck it up and endure. Or
better yet, accept as middle ground and
endure until it becomes unendurable
(individual tolerances, which have become
incredibly low, understood), and only then
pursue stronger options.
Much "pain" goes away when ignored.
The subject is broad.
Here is another Middle Ground for
consideration: pain versus discomfort - and
the middle ground between the two. We,
unfortunately in my opinion, have swung way
too far in the direction of pain: everything that
is not comfortable for us is deemed pain and
should be curable by a pill - even
unhappiness.
This is not a healthy outlook. Much "pain"
should be merely endured and treated as it
is - discomfort. Suck it up and endure. Or
better yet, accept as middle ground and
endure until it becomes unendurable
(individual tolerances, which have become
incredibly low, understood), and only then
pursue stronger options.
Much "pain" goes away when ignored.
CONSIDER-------
Compromise - and Principles
Ludwig Erhard (1897 - 1977): "A compromise is the art of dividing a
cake in such a way that everyone believes he has the biggest piece."
Henry Clay (1777 - 1852): "All legislation, all government, all society is
founded upon the principle of mutual concession, politeness, comity,
courtesy; upon these everything is based...Let him who elevates
himself above humanity , above its weaknesses, its infirmities, its
wants, its necessities, say, if he pleases, I will never compromise; but
let no one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain
compromise."
Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982): "The spread of evil is the symptom of a
vacuum ; wherever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of
those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic
principles."
Charles Sumner (1811 - 1874): "From the beginning of our history the
country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that
human rights have been abandoned. I insist that this shall cease. The
country needs repose after all its trials; it deserves repose. And repose
can only be found in everlasting principles."
Compromise - and Principles
Ludwig Erhard (1897 - 1977): "A compromise is the art of dividing a
cake in such a way that everyone believes he has the biggest piece."
Henry Clay (1777 - 1852): "All legislation, all government, all society is
founded upon the principle of mutual concession, politeness, comity,
courtesy; upon these everything is based...Let him who elevates
himself above humanity , above its weaknesses, its infirmities, its
wants, its necessities, say, if he pleases, I will never compromise; but
let no one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain
compromise."
Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982): "The spread of evil is the symptom of a
vacuum ; wherever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of
those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic
principles."
Charles Sumner (1811 - 1874): "From the beginning of our history the
country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that
human rights have been abandoned. I insist that this shall cease. The
country needs repose after all its trials; it deserves repose. And repose
can only be found in everlasting principles."
It does get complicated, doesn't it?
Some of it is words with different
meanings to different people, but more
of it is different experiences and different
perspectives.
When to hold to principles and when
to compromise depends on the
principles involved. And the situation?
In personal life and in public life the
challenge is different - but not entirely.
No man is an island, so even personal
principles require compromising when
one lives with others - and deals with
them emotionally day in and day out.
Many of our cultural problems today,
including family deterioration, derive
from inability to compromise
"principles." And perhaps that is a word
meaning. Perhaps "principles" is too
broad a word. Does one compromise
the principle of honesty when dealing
with a friend or mate? Consider the
brutal honesty that hurts or destroys.
One might note that every time I make
a statement I find it necessary to
question it and try to explain it a different
way, not entirely successfully. Let me
move on before I fall into a philosophical
discussion in which I drown.
Some of it is words with different
meanings to different people, but more
of it is different experiences and different
perspectives.
When to hold to principles and when
to compromise depends on the
principles involved. And the situation?
In personal life and in public life the
challenge is different - but not entirely.
No man is an island, so even personal
principles require compromising when
one lives with others - and deals with
them emotionally day in and day out.
Many of our cultural problems today,
including family deterioration, derive
from inability to compromise
"principles." And perhaps that is a word
meaning. Perhaps "principles" is too
broad a word. Does one compromise
the principle of honesty when dealing
with a friend or mate? Consider the
brutal honesty that hurts or destroys.
One might note that every time I make
a statement I find it necessary to
question it and try to explain it a different
way, not entirely successfully. Let me
move on before I fall into a philosophical
discussion in which I drown.
Nor would I be the first:
Compromise - and Principles
Ludwig Erhard (1897 - 1977): "A compromise is the art of dividing a cake in such a way that
everyone believes he has the biggest piece."
Henry Clay (1777 - 1852): "All legislation, all government, all society is founded upon the
principle of mutual concession, politeness, comity, courtesy; upon these everything is
based...Let him who elevates himself above humanity , above its weaknesses, its
infirmities, its wants, its necessities, say, if he pleases, I will never compromise; but let no
one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain compromise."
Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982): "The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum ; wherever evil
wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be
no compromise on basic principles."
Charles Sumner (1811 - 1874): "From the beginning of our history the country has been
afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights have been abandoned. I
insist that this shall cease. The country needs repose after all its trials; it deserves repose.
And repose can only be found in everlasting principles."
Compromise - and Principles
Ludwig Erhard (1897 - 1977): "A compromise is the art of dividing a cake in such a way that
everyone believes he has the biggest piece."
Henry Clay (1777 - 1852): "All legislation, all government, all society is founded upon the
principle of mutual concession, politeness, comity, courtesy; upon these everything is
based...Let him who elevates himself above humanity , above its weaknesses, its
infirmities, its wants, its necessities, say, if he pleases, I will never compromise; but let no
one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain compromise."
Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982): "The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum ; wherever evil
wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be
no compromise on basic principles."
Charles Sumner (1811 - 1874): "From the beginning of our history the country has been
afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights have been abandoned. I
insist that this shall cease. The country needs repose after all its trials; it deserves repose.
And repose can only be found in everlasting principles."
Ah yes, but who is to say whether another is
experiencing pain or discomfort? May not
one man's discomfort be another's pain?
And one's middle ground of endurance
another's quadrant of unendurable? Who is
to say?
And wherein lies tolerance and
understanding - of another's position?
experiencing pain or discomfort? May not
one man's discomfort be another's pain?
And one's middle ground of endurance
another's quadrant of unendurable? Who is
to say?
And wherein lies tolerance and
understanding - of another's position?
Sharing principles. Now that is something for consideration. Sharing
principles. But what of two with conflicting principles each wishes to
share?
principles. But what of two with conflicting principles each wishes to
share?
Differences Among People
We are not all the same; why do some want to insist that we should be? All kinds of reasons, I
suppose, but we really are all different, in many, many ways. And we never tire of coming up with
new ways of viewing the differences: physical, mental, moral, interests, desires, passions, patience,
ambitions, and on and on, even as some blithely insist on our equality in all ways. One might
conclude, though not politically correctly, that there are some, perhaps many, that would like to drag
all the rest down to their unchallenging standards.
So let’s go for another categorization, three types of people: those who are driven to achieve, those
that are comfortable living off others’ achievements, and all those in between – plotting as a normal
distribution of course. I read recently in a promotional presentation that there are two ingredients that
yield success: talent and passion. Recall also when it was popular to say that success was 2%
inspiration and 98% perspiration. But then that begs a question: what is success? Materialism
comes quickly to mind, exploitation of it and flaunting of it – in a word, money. Money is success; is it
really? I was about to suggest that among my first type above, those who are driven to achieve, it is
not, but that generalization isn’t true either. Among many it is; but among some others, which is why
they also achieve success – exercising their talent and passion – it is not; although sometimes even
among them, money is the way in which success is demonstrated. Passion for what? Passion for
money or passion for doing something meaningful and important – to him or her who has the
passion? Or both? Sometimes we don’t even know ourselves what drives us, if, that is, we are
driven at all.
Does it matter? It does, because in a society, community or culture in which we all live together
peacefully (or as peacefully as human nature will allow), accommodations need to be made, and
interestingly that’s one of the ways in which cultures are different – the accommodations; not all are
in agreement either within a culture or across cultures, nor will they ever be, which is why there is a
critical (albeit forlorn) need for accommodation. So how do we deal with the fact that some have
more talent and passion than others, and thus contribute more (and earn more)? Or that some
insist on contributing nothing, and living off the rest? For this is perhaps the most profound
difference with which we must deal – all of us, and how the all other category chooses to view it and
react. The Communist precept was to each according to his needs and from each according to his
abilities; such a lovely thought, albeit either naïve or stupid, because of the above differences. Most
that can achieve only do so when there is incentive; whereas many who would struggle to achieve
are content to live off the rest. And those in between? They are the real key to broader community or
cultural success; if incentive is damped out those that could be achievers tend to reduce their efforts,
particularly when risk is entailed; and if needs are met for all, the efforts of many cease altogether.
Why make the effort?
Philosophically this concept is neither difficult to understand or accept, but practically it is most
difficult to deal with in practice, again for a number of reasons. One is envy; many resent achievers
reaping the rewards of their achievement, particularly if we think the fruits of their achievement are
excessive. That’s on the one end; on the other is compassion: few of us care to observe and accept
destitution and poverty, particularly if it is undeserved, and accept the need to extend a helping hand,
however we can. So we strive – naturally – to find a Middle Ground, and that requires that some be
taken from those who can afford to provide it to distribute to those in need of it, at least to provide a
helping hand – preferably voluntarily. Complicating that is the legitimate role government needs to
assume, the responsibility of deciding how much to take and how much to give – from and to whom
to pay for common services, the extent of which it must also determine - someone must contribute to
paying for them; who and how? The means, of course, is taxation, and taxes are developed in ways
that make it all possible. The conundrum is obvious, and exacerbated by democratically elected
representatives, who make their decisions not only based on what is best for their constituency and
their community, but what will gain them the most votes and either launch them into or retain them in
power. That completes and endless circle, because it can lead to a similar end as communism
does, if exercised carelessly: it discourages some from working harder and encourages others to do
less.
Dictatorships and monarchies are not immune to the conundrum because despite “total control”,
they are still both influenced and threatened by public opinion in the form of popularity or unrest;
dictatorships, monarchies and even democratically elected oligarchies are not by definition without
compassion; the pressure is just less – considerably less. Basically humans are pack animals and
need each other, as pack animals do, and living together in harmony constitutes human Middle
Ground. We are all aware of how poor our success rate has been, and wish that it could be
improved, and there is little mystery why it is so: we are concerned for our own self-preservation; we
are selfish; and we want to achieve the best we can, for ourselves, in the manner in which we wish it
to be – with our own definition of the rules.
I have found throughout my life time that I like individual people who share my interests, or seem to,
and who are friendly, helpful and cooperative. I have also found that when their self-interest is
evidenced, and clashes either with mine or takes a form that I find repugnant, that liking wanes. I
have also found that when masses of people are stirred by emotional propaganda they can be
vicious, dangerous and beyond the control of reason. So the same person can be kind, thoughtful,
generous and open-minded in one circumstance and hateful, stubborn and even brutal in another.
Our culture never tires of dissecting the motives of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cambodia and
Central Africa, all the while sanctimoniously assuring ourselves the same could never occur in ours;
but of course it could, and sometimes does, if with less intensity because of our built in controls.
For most of us, however, the challenge lies at a much more humble level: the personal level.
Sadly, the results are similar; we like people who like us and agree with us, mistrust those that don’t,
and actively dislike those that oppose us; and this occurs many times a day at many different levels
of intensity, and for different periods of time, from momentary to forever. It is also the basis for
personal relationships. Since we are all different, no two of us will be always and forever congruent
in our likes, dislikes, desires and objectives; we will find areas where we disagree and will find
personality traits with which we clash. And they may crop up at any time in the relationship, because
sometimes the manifestation of traits grows, and as we become who we are ultimately to be, we
change. The secret to successful relationships is to understand the differences, accepting them at
the beginning, or recognizing that they are show stoppers, and avoid the relationship – or keep it on a
non-personal basis. When serious differences appear once a relationship is under way they are
best jointly examined and compromised, if that is possible. Considering our (American) divorce rate
that apparently is more difficult to do than it might have been in the past, probably due mainly to the
growth of selfish expectations within our modern society. But if 50% are unable to achieve success,
that still leaves 50% who somehow do.
Once it was said that marriage, one of our most important relationships, required 50-50 effort; now
it is more hopeful to say that each must give 100% even as we know that can never be. Simply
stated, both parties to a relationship have to want to make it work, and in marriages and friendships
there is the advantage that each party at least presumably begins from that position. In domestic
politics that is increasingly not the case; in international relations it is even less likely to be the case.
So we hope for the lions to lie down with the lambs? John Dunn tells us that Mr. Madison (Federalist
#10) suggested that “faction cannot be eliminated except by eliminating liberty itself. Its latent
causes are ‘sown in the nature of man’, in the variations in human faculties, the contrast in the
ownership of property, and the consequent divisions of society into different interests and parties.” I
would suggest that even when liberty is eliminated, faction continues to exist; it truly is the nature of
man.
Differences, differences, differences; they are everywhere. They develop because each of us has
different experiences loaded on top of different capabilities, different beliefs and different interests
(link to essay). The greater the differences in experiences, the greater the gap in understanding and
the more difficult is an amicable relationship – between people and between nations and cultures.
Professor Huntington writes of growing fault lines between cultures, but are we not experiencing
similar fault lines within cultures? In fact, one might observe that diversity brings cultural fault lines
within our culture; could that be part of the growing fissure in the American culture? But then with a
growing number of intercultural marriages the same could be occurring on the personal level, could
it not? The answer, it has been suggested, is more diversity; I find that difficult to accept, or even, for
that matter, to comprehend.
But there is certainly more to our fracturing culture than that. Opportunity certainly contributes: new
ideas, mobility to move away from extended family, vocational opportunities, and perhaps even the
increased opportunity to fail – and to have to deal with it. Certainly our lives have become more
complex as our expectations have expanded – more expectations, more opportunity for differences in
opinion, and more pressure for passion – leading to ever more impassioned differences in outlook,
and expectations. Middle Ground is shifting all around us; it is changing families, it is changing
political outlook, and it is changing the way we see the world, all, I would contend, primarily because
of changing expectations. Compromise is much more difficult to achieve when expectations are
opposed; it will be even more difficult to achieve as the competition for the objects of our expectation
grows, as it will as resources are used up – not only oil and other commodities, but something as
simple as water at a national and international level, but similarly at the personal level.
In all of this our understanding of each other increases only incrementally. This is true across
cultures, within cultures and between and among individuals, despite increases in knowledge and
communications. The challenge is greater than it has ever been, and will increase. No wonder we
are sliding into embrace of fantasy at an ever increasing velocity; rather than addressing the problem
we prefer to avoid it. Is that not what most of the lure of drugs is all about? To mask the
disappointment of unmet expectations? And is not the slide to paternalism – statism – much the
same? Do we understand the unrealism of fantasy – fantasy of entertainment, fantasy of drugs, and
fantasy of big government paternalism? For if we do not, how can we possibly find the Middle
Ground upon which to build the only stability that can save us from ourselves. The founders of our
culture gave it a shot, the last best chance, it has been called, and we are slowly turning our backs
upon it, at our peril.
Middle Ground is more than political compromise, although as several have so succinctly told us,
everything is politics – and I like to add, all politics is ultimately economics – at every level. Middle
Ground is the only stability that can exist, and it’s moving, ever more rapidly – in different directions,
as differences pull us apart. Differences will not go away; we will just have to learn to deal with them
– at all levels of our existence – or suffer the consequences.
We are not all the same; why do some want to insist that we should be? All kinds of reasons, I
suppose, but we really are all different, in many, many ways. And we never tire of coming up with
new ways of viewing the differences: physical, mental, moral, interests, desires, passions, patience,
ambitions, and on and on, even as some blithely insist on our equality in all ways. One might
conclude, though not politically correctly, that there are some, perhaps many, that would like to drag
all the rest down to their unchallenging standards.
So let’s go for another categorization, three types of people: those who are driven to achieve, those
that are comfortable living off others’ achievements, and all those in between – plotting as a normal
distribution of course. I read recently in a promotional presentation that there are two ingredients that
yield success: talent and passion. Recall also when it was popular to say that success was 2%
inspiration and 98% perspiration. But then that begs a question: what is success? Materialism
comes quickly to mind, exploitation of it and flaunting of it – in a word, money. Money is success; is it
really? I was about to suggest that among my first type above, those who are driven to achieve, it is
not, but that generalization isn’t true either. Among many it is; but among some others, which is why
they also achieve success – exercising their talent and passion – it is not; although sometimes even
among them, money is the way in which success is demonstrated. Passion for what? Passion for
money or passion for doing something meaningful and important – to him or her who has the
passion? Or both? Sometimes we don’t even know ourselves what drives us, if, that is, we are
driven at all.
Does it matter? It does, because in a society, community or culture in which we all live together
peacefully (or as peacefully as human nature will allow), accommodations need to be made, and
interestingly that’s one of the ways in which cultures are different – the accommodations; not all are
in agreement either within a culture or across cultures, nor will they ever be, which is why there is a
critical (albeit forlorn) need for accommodation. So how do we deal with the fact that some have
more talent and passion than others, and thus contribute more (and earn more)? Or that some
insist on contributing nothing, and living off the rest? For this is perhaps the most profound
difference with which we must deal – all of us, and how the all other category chooses to view it and
react. The Communist precept was to each according to his needs and from each according to his
abilities; such a lovely thought, albeit either naïve or stupid, because of the above differences. Most
that can achieve only do so when there is incentive; whereas many who would struggle to achieve
are content to live off the rest. And those in between? They are the real key to broader community or
cultural success; if incentive is damped out those that could be achievers tend to reduce their efforts,
particularly when risk is entailed; and if needs are met for all, the efforts of many cease altogether.
Why make the effort?
Philosophically this concept is neither difficult to understand or accept, but practically it is most
difficult to deal with in practice, again for a number of reasons. One is envy; many resent achievers
reaping the rewards of their achievement, particularly if we think the fruits of their achievement are
excessive. That’s on the one end; on the other is compassion: few of us care to observe and accept
destitution and poverty, particularly if it is undeserved, and accept the need to extend a helping hand,
however we can. So we strive – naturally – to find a Middle Ground, and that requires that some be
taken from those who can afford to provide it to distribute to those in need of it, at least to provide a
helping hand – preferably voluntarily. Complicating that is the legitimate role government needs to
assume, the responsibility of deciding how much to take and how much to give – from and to whom
to pay for common services, the extent of which it must also determine - someone must contribute to
paying for them; who and how? The means, of course, is taxation, and taxes are developed in ways
that make it all possible. The conundrum is obvious, and exacerbated by democratically elected
representatives, who make their decisions not only based on what is best for their constituency and
their community, but what will gain them the most votes and either launch them into or retain them in
power. That completes and endless circle, because it can lead to a similar end as communism
does, if exercised carelessly: it discourages some from working harder and encourages others to do
less.
Dictatorships and monarchies are not immune to the conundrum because despite “total control”,
they are still both influenced and threatened by public opinion in the form of popularity or unrest;
dictatorships, monarchies and even democratically elected oligarchies are not by definition without
compassion; the pressure is just less – considerably less. Basically humans are pack animals and
need each other, as pack animals do, and living together in harmony constitutes human Middle
Ground. We are all aware of how poor our success rate has been, and wish that it could be
improved, and there is little mystery why it is so: we are concerned for our own self-preservation; we
are selfish; and we want to achieve the best we can, for ourselves, in the manner in which we wish it
to be – with our own definition of the rules.
I have found throughout my life time that I like individual people who share my interests, or seem to,
and who are friendly, helpful and cooperative. I have also found that when their self-interest is
evidenced, and clashes either with mine or takes a form that I find repugnant, that liking wanes. I
have also found that when masses of people are stirred by emotional propaganda they can be
vicious, dangerous and beyond the control of reason. So the same person can be kind, thoughtful,
generous and open-minded in one circumstance and hateful, stubborn and even brutal in another.
Our culture never tires of dissecting the motives of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cambodia and
Central Africa, all the while sanctimoniously assuring ourselves the same could never occur in ours;
but of course it could, and sometimes does, if with less intensity because of our built in controls.
For most of us, however, the challenge lies at a much more humble level: the personal level.
Sadly, the results are similar; we like people who like us and agree with us, mistrust those that don’t,
and actively dislike those that oppose us; and this occurs many times a day at many different levels
of intensity, and for different periods of time, from momentary to forever. It is also the basis for
personal relationships. Since we are all different, no two of us will be always and forever congruent
in our likes, dislikes, desires and objectives; we will find areas where we disagree and will find
personality traits with which we clash. And they may crop up at any time in the relationship, because
sometimes the manifestation of traits grows, and as we become who we are ultimately to be, we
change. The secret to successful relationships is to understand the differences, accepting them at
the beginning, or recognizing that they are show stoppers, and avoid the relationship – or keep it on a
non-personal basis. When serious differences appear once a relationship is under way they are
best jointly examined and compromised, if that is possible. Considering our (American) divorce rate
that apparently is more difficult to do than it might have been in the past, probably due mainly to the
growth of selfish expectations within our modern society. But if 50% are unable to achieve success,
that still leaves 50% who somehow do.
Once it was said that marriage, one of our most important relationships, required 50-50 effort; now
it is more hopeful to say that each must give 100% even as we know that can never be. Simply
stated, both parties to a relationship have to want to make it work, and in marriages and friendships
there is the advantage that each party at least presumably begins from that position. In domestic
politics that is increasingly not the case; in international relations it is even less likely to be the case.
So we hope for the lions to lie down with the lambs? John Dunn tells us that Mr. Madison (Federalist
#10) suggested that “faction cannot be eliminated except by eliminating liberty itself. Its latent
causes are ‘sown in the nature of man’, in the variations in human faculties, the contrast in the
ownership of property, and the consequent divisions of society into different interests and parties.” I
would suggest that even when liberty is eliminated, faction continues to exist; it truly is the nature of
man.
Differences, differences, differences; they are everywhere. They develop because each of us has
different experiences loaded on top of different capabilities, different beliefs and different interests
(link to essay). The greater the differences in experiences, the greater the gap in understanding and
the more difficult is an amicable relationship – between people and between nations and cultures.
Professor Huntington writes of growing fault lines between cultures, but are we not experiencing
similar fault lines within cultures? In fact, one might observe that diversity brings cultural fault lines
within our culture; could that be part of the growing fissure in the American culture? But then with a
growing number of intercultural marriages the same could be occurring on the personal level, could
it not? The answer, it has been suggested, is more diversity; I find that difficult to accept, or even, for
that matter, to comprehend.
But there is certainly more to our fracturing culture than that. Opportunity certainly contributes: new
ideas, mobility to move away from extended family, vocational opportunities, and perhaps even the
increased opportunity to fail – and to have to deal with it. Certainly our lives have become more
complex as our expectations have expanded – more expectations, more opportunity for differences in
opinion, and more pressure for passion – leading to ever more impassioned differences in outlook,
and expectations. Middle Ground is shifting all around us; it is changing families, it is changing
political outlook, and it is changing the way we see the world, all, I would contend, primarily because
of changing expectations. Compromise is much more difficult to achieve when expectations are
opposed; it will be even more difficult to achieve as the competition for the objects of our expectation
grows, as it will as resources are used up – not only oil and other commodities, but something as
simple as water at a national and international level, but similarly at the personal level.
In all of this our understanding of each other increases only incrementally. This is true across
cultures, within cultures and between and among individuals, despite increases in knowledge and
communications. The challenge is greater than it has ever been, and will increase. No wonder we
are sliding into embrace of fantasy at an ever increasing velocity; rather than addressing the problem
we prefer to avoid it. Is that not what most of the lure of drugs is all about? To mask the
disappointment of unmet expectations? And is not the slide to paternalism – statism – much the
same? Do we understand the unrealism of fantasy – fantasy of entertainment, fantasy of drugs, and
fantasy of big government paternalism? For if we do not, how can we possibly find the Middle
Ground upon which to build the only stability that can save us from ourselves. The founders of our
culture gave it a shot, the last best chance, it has been called, and we are slowly turning our backs
upon it, at our peril.
Middle Ground is more than political compromise, although as several have so succinctly told us,
everything is politics – and I like to add, all politics is ultimately economics – at every level. Middle
Ground is the only stability that can exist, and it’s moving, ever more rapidly – in different directions,
as differences pull us apart. Differences will not go away; we will just have to learn to deal with them
– at all levels of our existence – or suffer the consequences.
What if Middle Ground is shifting? To the
left for example? What when a majority all
piles over to one side of the boat - the port
side?
The challenge looms
left for example? What when a majority all
piles over to one side of the boat - the port
side?
The challenge looms
Cultural Consideration - Marriage
The major underlying problem in our
culture is the disintegration of families. And
why are families disintegrating? Because
self-absorption and expectation precludes it.
Neither party is able to accept a compromise
between his or her position and that of the
other.
And we wonder why we have political
problems in dealing with differences. Or
problems with any other kind of relationship.
Each of us wants it his or her way, and if it
doesn't work out that way, it's over. That is
unrealistic - impossible in fact. But that's the
way it is for almost half our population.
Worse yet, is most immediately enter another
relationship and approach it the same way.
It has been said that insanity is doing the
same thing over and over and expecting
different results. Our world, our culture, is
approaching insanity.
The major underlying problem in our
culture is the disintegration of families. And
why are families disintegrating? Because
self-absorption and expectation precludes it.
Neither party is able to accept a compromise
between his or her position and that of the
other.
And we wonder why we have political
problems in dealing with differences. Or
problems with any other kind of relationship.
Each of us wants it his or her way, and if it
doesn't work out that way, it's over. That is
unrealistic - impossible in fact. But that's the
way it is for almost half our population.
Worse yet, is most immediately enter another
relationship and approach it the same way.
It has been said that insanity is doing the
same thing over and over and expecting
different results. Our world, our culture, is
approaching insanity.
The same, of course, is amply
represented in our broader aspect. Much
has been tried - and failed. So we try it again,
because we are smarter? Probably more
likely because we are too ignorant of the
history of it to know that it was tried and failed.
Middle ground requires many things:
patience, respect, knowledge and the ability
to think about it and weigh it - all things that
are woefully short today within our culture.
Nor, of course, are we alone; most are far
worse than we; most don't even try.
represented in our broader aspect. Much
has been tried - and failed. So we try it again,
because we are smarter? Probably more
likely because we are too ignorant of the
history of it to know that it was tried and failed.
Middle ground requires many things:
patience, respect, knowledge and the ability
to think about it and weigh it - all things that
are woefully short today within our culture.
Nor, of course, are we alone; most are far
worse than we; most don't even try.