Aging Capriciously

Kentucky Music Week

19 Jun 2013 3 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: bardstown, bourbon, friends, heaven hill, jim beam, kentucky music week, my old kentucky home, SCN, stephen foster

Sorry about not doing any blogs last week. Karen decided that she would like to do Kentucky Music Week and I thought “why not?” We had the time and we had the money so we planned the trip and decided to camp out for six nights at My Old Kentucky Home State Park. Karen took the car each day to the Music Week site and I took a bicycle to go touring each day. The Music Week is really more of a music camp for adults, though there were several younger children there learning to play dulcimers, banjos, fiddles and a few other instruments. Karen is a dulcimer player and also is learning to play the banjo. She had five classes a day for five days and was excited about the prospect of “learning” all day and playing all evening. I was excited about the prospect of touring museums, monasteries, distilleries and Bardstown historic sites. If you are interested in seeing the pictures I took of the event and my adventures, go to my Facebook page and see my Kentucky Music Week album. I posted the pictures that I took in an album but somehow each of the individual pictures also was uploaded under “photos.” If anyone knows how to quickly delete 201 individual pictures from the photo section, please send me an email or comment to describe how. I want to leave the album but get rid of the individual pictures.

Each night, Karen came back to our campsite and I made supper. Sometimes I cooked over the fire pit but more often over our old but tried and true Coleman two burner stove. We had stuffed pork chops, catfish, tuna steaks, ribs, shrimp stir fry, and salmon on different nights. In the evening, were the music jams and we would generally go to a jam together. One night I went to the musical “Steven Foster” by myself. It was wonderful music and a great stage production. The last night of the week, we got together with folks at another campsite and we jammed until 2:30 AM. I could not believe that I stayed up so late. We shared a bottle of Evan Williams’s bourbon that I purchased at the Heaven Hill distillery and we ate a bunch of Pecan Turtles that I purchased at the Sisters of Charity Nazareth monastery.

I found a new use for an IPAD. I had brought mine along and fully intended to write a few blogs during the week. In truth, I was having too much fun touring etc. to be disciplined enough to sit down and type. However, I found that during a jam, musicians sometimes think of songs but cannot remember the tunes well enough to get started. So I went to my tent, took out the IPAD, typed in the camp WIFI password and lo and behold, the music players ( I listen and do not play) would think of a song to play. I would look it up on YouTube, play a few notes or bars and we would be off to the Camptown Races. The latter is one of the songs we jammed that last evening. It was also played during the Stephen Foster musical. I had many memories of the South as these old songs were played.

The Camptown ladies sing this song,
Doo-da, Doo-da
The Camptown racetrack’s five miles long
Oh, de doo-da day

Goin’ to run all night
Goin’ to run all day
I bet my money on a bob-tailed nag
Somebody bet on the gray

When I was young, I remember my mother singing or playing many of Stephen Foster’s songs. I was born in Fairfield, Alabama, just outside of Birmingham. We would go down “South” every few years to visit my mother’s parents on their farm. I remember walking the country roads which were then still dirt and gravel and going by farms with chickens, pigs, goats and cows. There were often disputes over whose chicken was eaten for supper each evening as chickens ran loose and were often “fair game” for the frying pan. The last time I remember seeing my grandfather, his was the last farm in the midst of a new suburban development that wanted his old farm demolished. However, he held some sort of a land grant or some other legal entity to the property and the city could not condemn or confiscate his land until he died. He still had many goats when he passed away but I never did learn what happened to them. He would often “pit barbecue” a goat when we came down to visit. I still remember how great they tasted. I also remember being chased around the barnyard by some of his “un-barbecued” goats.

Well, Karen would come back each evening and I would ask her “what did you learn today.” She was always excited to talk about her day. I thought that as the week progressed she might become more blasé or perhaps even bored with her routine of five classes each day and a special activities section. This was not the case. She loved each day and when the final day of classes came and went, she was ready for another week of classes. She loved every minute of the music week.

We would then turn to my exploits which I “showed” rather than “told’ Karen with the pictures you can see posted. Something I did “tell” about was the various people I met each day. From the retired military colonel “Mike” at the Civil War Museum, to the Director of Economic Development at Bardstown City Hall, to Peggy Jones at the SCN monastery, the most interesting part of each day was the people I ran into while on my travels. Each day brought new places to see and new people that I would meet. For me, the people that I met while out adventuring were the “icing” on the cake. Peggy Jones, the volunteer at the monastery is a 75 year old blogger who taught me some things about blogging that I did not know. You can go to her site at http://www.dayofthelily.blogspot.com/ ; Peggy uses the Day Lily as a theme for her site and she says it is because: “My namesake. Daylily, holds her head up high and gives her all for just one day.” Such a positive wonderful and beautiful attitude about life and what better way to depict it then with a flower! Everyone I met was friendly, helpful, interesting and often suggested new places to visit or sites to see. I learned something from everyone I met.

Well, all things had to end and it was finally time to come home. I am now seated in front of my computer in my Frederic home and getting ready to go out for a run. Next week, it is time for another biopsy at the Mayo Clinic but that sour note pales in light of the fact that summer seems to finally be here. It was cooler weather all over from Arizona to Wisconsin to Kentucky and some skeptics even wondered if we would have summer this year. Everyone noted that the weather was much colder than in previous years. As they say though, there is no place like home. I am glad we went on the trip but equally glad to be back. I love the little town up here and the people are so much fun. If there is a moral or Morel to be drawn from this blog, I am not sure what it is. I generally write something that I hope can inspire or excite or make a difference to the world. Perhaps you will find a hidden message here or perhaps not. If you do, send me a comment and tell me what you found. I am sure I will be as excited about it as you are.

Time for Questions:

Do we need adventures in our lives? Can we find adventures closer to home? Should we be more satisfied with the status quo? What’s the point of going anywhere? Why leave our front porch? Who needs to meet new people anyway? Or do we enrich our lives each day by new adventures and new friends?

Life is just beginning.

Gandhi’s Seventh Social Sin: Politics Without Principle

07 Jun 2013 18 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: Democrat, Fact, Gandhi, Government, Hypothesis, Politicians, Politics, Principle, Republican, Seventh Social Sin, Taxes

We need to start off this discussion of Gandhi’s Seventh Social sin with a review of the definition of the term “Principle.” There are many who would argue that politics today has too many principles. Each side whether Democrat or Republican is firmly ensconced in their philosophical party principles which leave no room for discussion never mind negotiation. A firm conviction that we cannot negotiate on “principle” has led us to some of the worst political situations we have seen in the long history of the USA. We have always had “party” politics and there have always been back-room negotiations and political logrolling but never in our history have we seen the type of standoffs that seem to characterize Washington politics today. Could these political standoffs be caused by rigid adherence to Party Principles? Is Gandhi off-base with his Seventh Social Sin? Do we need less principle in politics and not more? Let us look at what the term “Principle” means by reviewing three different definitions or perspectives.

Here are three different views of the term Principle:

A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. – Online Dictionary
A basic truth, law, or assumption – The Free Dictionary
A principle is something primary that helps in explaining phenomena. A principle can be some existing factor in nature (principles of nature and being, or it can be a logical proposition or judgment (principles of reason) that is a starting point of a valid argumentation. The principles of reason cannot be proven, since in order to prove anything you need to have a starting point, and a starting point is a principle. – http://www.hyoomik.com/phi205/arche.htm#arche2

Here are some examples for the third definition. These are: “Principles of Reason.” I add these so we can be more concrete in our discussion and less theoretical, if that is possible given the nature of the discussion. Nevertheless, perhaps these examples can help us think more clearly concerning the concept of principles.

The principle of non-contradiction: the same thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. The same proposition cannot be both true and false.
The principle of excluded middle: Either a thing is or it is not, there is no third possibility.
The principle of the reason of being. Every being has a reason of its existence either in itself or in something else.
The principle of finality: Every agent acts for an end.
The principle of causality: Every effect has a cause.
The principle of identity: Every being is that which it is. Each being is separated in its existence from other beings.

We have two issues raised by Gandhi’s Seventh Social sin that I think we must answer.

First, does politics really need principles? What purpose do they serve and why are they needed?

Second, can you have too many principles in politics and how do we determine if that is the case?

To answer the first set of questions, let us see what the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Non-Violence has to say about Gandhi’s interpretation of this sin:

Politics Without Principles: Gandhi said those who firmly believe in nonviolence should never stand for elections, but they should elect representatives who are willing to understand and practice the philosophy. Gandhi said an elected representative is one on whom you have bestowed your power of attorney. Such a person should be allowed to wield authority only as long as s/he enjoys your confidence. When politicians indulge in power games, they act without principles. To remain in power at all cost is unethical. Gandhi said when politicians (or anyone else, for that matter) give up the pursuit of Truth they, or in the case of parties, would be doomed. Partisan politics, lobbying, bribing, and other forms of malpractice that are so rampant in politics today is also unprincipled. Politics has earned the reputation of being dirty. It is so because we made it dirty. We create power groups to lobby for our cause and are willing to do anything to achieve our goals. Not many among human beings have learned how to resist temptation, so who is to blame for the mess we find ourselves in?

In this interpretation, Gandhi implies that the “Evil” of politics comes about because of the lack of ethics that characterizes much political gamesmanship. We would have to assume that the need for principles reflected by Gandhi’s ideas is connected to the need for a higher standard of behavior then what we most often see in our politicians. Thus, politicians are unprincipled and unethical if they engage in lobbying, power games and other manipulative endeavors. However, Gandhi does not clearly describe what an ethical political principle would be. We have to assume that most politics as practiced today would be considered as unprincipled by Gandhi. Yet he does not provide us with a clear set of ethical political principles. I conclude my answer to the question: Why are principles needed? as follows: To provide a clear ethical path for political behavior and to help guide politicians in their search for truth.

For the second set of questions (see above) we are dealing with a different issue. If we accept that some political principles (unknown what they are) may be needed, then we must ask if too many of these principles might indeed be injurious to the political process. I have already noted that we are frustrated today with politicians who are taking oaths to standby their party principles and thus gridlocking the entire political process. Does this mean, we already have too many principles or do we have too many of the wrong principles? To answer this question, let us take as an example a key principle that the Republican Party has stood for and see how our system of political ethics might be played out using this principle as a guide.

It is well known that many of our elected officials have taken an oath not to increase taxes under any conditions. The Norquist Pledge as it has been called was taken by “95% of Republican Congressional representatives.” Many would argue that this is a bedrock principle of the Republican Party. However, is it really a principle? Is it a fundamental truth? Looking at the three definitions for a principle that started this blog, does the Tax Pledge meet the requirements of a “Principle?” If so, what evidence is there to link truth to the assumed outcome that we expect to be attained by a rigid adherence to this principle? Will not increasing taxes always benefit the public good? Is it always best for the common people if taxes are decreased? Will we all benefit by having fewer taxes? A fundamental principle should have some fundamental truths or facts to support it otherwise what is the point of the principle? Either a principle is true or it is a hypothesis. If it is true, the results should be self-evident. If the principle is merely a hypothesis, than good logic suggests that we should not be too certain of its validity until more evidence exists to either prove or disprove the principle.

The logic of my argument so far seems to move me towards the suggestion that “Not allowing any tax increases” does not constitute a valid ethical principle. I see no evidence that the greater good is always served by this principle. Perhaps there are other party principles that might be less amenable to my critique since I simply selected one of the “principles” we hear most about and are most familiar with. No doubt “too many” of these so called “party” principles would wreak havoc with our political system. IN fact, we see this happening already. I suggest we should call these unsubstantiated or principles either as false principles or hypothetical principles. This would give more credibility to Gandhi’s Seventh Social sin. Unfortunately, it still does not answer the question as to what a set of Ethical Political Principles might look like. The following principles are one set that has some merit. It includes eight principles that were taken from a paper by John L. Perkins titled: Humanism and Morality.

Non-maleficence: Do not harm yourself or other people.
Beneficence: Help yourself and other people.
Autonomy: Allow rational individuals to make free and informed choices.
Justice: Treat people fairly: treat equals equally, unequal’s unequally.
Utility: Maximize the ratio of benefits to harm for all people.
Fidelity: Keep your promises and agreements
Honesty: Do not lie, defraud, deceive or mislead.
Privacy: Respect personal privacy and confidentiality.

You can see from looking at these principles that our problem is still not solved. Some of these principles conflict with others and life is still not simple. The Principle of Fidelity suggests that the Norquist Pledgers are doing the right thing. However, you may also notice that this principle may be in conflict with one or more other principles on our list. For instance, what if allowing a tax increase actually maximizes the ratio of benefits to all people? Thus, the principle of keeping your Norquist Oath is in direct opposition to a principle that says to do no harm to others. Very confusing! Alas, life is never simple and no moral or ethical code can be found that does not have both contradictions and complexities that make conduct difficult. This latter fact makes a strong case for holding any principle as a hypothesis and not allowing ourselves to be overly strident in its interpretation.

In conclusion, I must admit to finding this Seventh Sin of Gandhi’s to be a very difficult one to follow and to provide any kind of a prescription for. I discovered many authors who argued that an ethical or moral code for politicians is impossible and even counterproductive. I also found many who argued that the need for a moral code for politicians is as important as for any other field of endeavor. I lean towards trusting Gandhi in support of this Sin. He has proven to be wise and insightful in almost all of the beliefs that are associated with his life. Perhaps, I will see more clearly the argument for this Seventh Social Sin as I grow in wisdom. For now, I am content to accept that our politicians need:

Moral guidance and moral principles to conduct politics with.
The ability to search for truth as a fundamental principle underlying all other principles
The acceptance and recognition that they may be wrong and being too exclusive of other options is a recipe for ineffective government and politics.

Time for Questions:

What do you think? Do our politicians need a moral code or set of principles? Do they already have too many principles? How strongly should they adhere to their principles? Should they be willing to compromise on these principles? Is not allowing a tax increase really a principle? Should they stand firm on this principle regardless of the outcomes? When should we be willing to compromise our own principles?

Life is just beginning.

The Death of a Loved One.

04 Jun 2013 8 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: buddha, coping, death, dying, grief, happiness, Jesus, moving on, pain, sadness, sorrow, transportation, unhappiness

I have been asked to write a blog dealing with the death of a loved one. As I have grown older, I have suffered the loss of many a friend and relative. That is a price that we pay for living too long. There are other prices but perhaps none as steep as this one. A friend of mine has joked about my rather cavalier attitude towards death. She has summed up my comments as “Well, we are all going to die sometime.” I realize that my comment and attitude is not very consoling. However, for me it has been a convenient shortcut to simply acknowledging death and moving on. I have also noted that it seems hardly a week has gone by in my last twenty years that I have not witnessed the death of someone who has been a friend or relative. I doubt whether my life is much different than others unless I am a more astute observer of death or unless I am simply less caring.

I read the book “On Death and Dying” many years ago. The stages of grief that were identified as something we all go through upon the loss of a loved one are perhaps interesting and even useful but in some ways are very similar to my comment in that knowing the stages may not be very consoling. It is one thing to have an intellectual knowledge of death but an altogether different thing to have a personal emotional experience of death. For instance, despite all the deaths I have witnessed including my parents many friends and most of my relatives, I have never experienced the death of a life partner. I have gone through a divorce after 16 years but a divorce is not the same as death. True, it encompasses a degree of pain and loss and suffering but I cannot quite equate that with dealing with the loss of a close personal partner that one has lived with for most of their life. I think this would be a very different experience. Whether or not it was expected or unexpected would have some influence on how one dealt with it but maybe less than one would think. The aspect of “expectedness” is another intellectual concept which does not deal with the emotional relevance of death.

One day I was coming in to see Karen, my spouse who loves to sleep late. She is normally a very late sleeper and I am not usually too concerned when she sleeps in. However, it grew quite a bit later than usual and I decided to “peek” in to see how she was doing. When I looked at her prone body, she did not appear to be breathing. I immediately put my head to hers to see if I could detect any breath. I could not. My immediate reaction was to panic and shake her. I started crying. Suddenly she turned over and asked “What was wrong.” I was beyond relief. In that single moment of thinking she had passed away, I had experienced a degree of pain, sorrow, suffering and loss that I have never emotionally experienced before. Karen and I have been living together since 1989 and going together since 1983. I know that someday we will part and on an intellectual basis, I have accepted the inevitability of it. However, I suddenly found that I have not accepted the inevitability on a personal emotional basis and I wonder now if I ever will be able to.

I have to say I do not cry very much but I did that morning. I seldom cry at funerals but I cried at my Dad’s funeral, Sister Giovanni’s funeral and a few friends whose services touched me quite a bit. I have cried every time I have read or seen a production of the “Little Match Girl.” I have cried over the song “Sometimes I feel like a motherless child.” There is something that evokes sorrow in me that has more to do with loneliness than death. I have never seen any scales of loneliness related to the death of a loved one but I might assume that some correlation did exist. I have a 98 year old Aunt and God-Mother who is one of the most positive older people I know. She has lost two of her three sons and her husband of over 60 years. She continues to love life and other people. I asked her three years ago how she keeps such an attitude when she has seen almost all of her friends and loved ones pass away. Her reply was that she simply makes new friends. I am sure she loved her sons and husband as much as the next wife and mother but she simply chooses to move on. I contrast this with a comment that I heard about Thomas Jefferson who felt that at the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence he was no longer a part of this life. The following is a quote by Jefferson on aging:

1815 February 5. (to John Vaughn). “…nothing is more incumbent on the old, than to know when they should get out of the way, and relinquish to younger successors the honors they can no longer earn, and the duties they can no longer perform.”

I see a vast difference between Jefferson’s attitude on aging and my Aunt’s attitude (at least as reflected in this quote.) My Aunt has not gotten out of the way. She still performs duties and tasks to help others. Indeed, that Christmas when I was talking to her, she was leaving after dinner to serve meals to the elderly at an “Old Folks Home.” I jokingly asked her if she was not “Old” and she pensively replied “Why I guess I am, I just never think about it.” She lives in the present and maybe that is the elusive secret of happiness or satisfaction. Osho says that for too many of us the only thing that exists is the Past or Future. We are either so busy trying to recapture memories of “better” times or else we create possible futures that we hope will bring us “better memories” than we had. I have noticed that all of the great religious leaders have stressed the importance of living in the present. Jesus said:

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?” Matthew 6:25-34

Buddha noted: “Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.” I could give writings upon writings that speak of the need to live in the present but would this help you deal with the loss of a close personal partner? Good advice seldom deals with emotions. What then to say to anyone who suffers a loss of someone they have lived with, loved with and known for most of their lives? Perhaps nothing! Maybe this is just the time to be with this person. I would suspect that the feelings of loneliness would be almost overpowering. Is it any wonder so many people seem to die shortly after the death of a long term partner? What can you really say in the face of what this person is going through? Almost anything will sound cold or trite. Just feel for a second what this person must now be feeling.

Most of what we desire in life can summed up as: Fame, fortune or power. We strive to accomplish as much wealth, attention or power as we can. We think these three goals will bring us the happiness and security that we all seek. Deep down inside we are all insecure insignificant beings who feel that somehow money, fame or power will bring us the significance that assuages our sense of loneliness and inadequacy. But it never does. The nearest anything ever comes to doing this for us, short of an emotional and spiritual awakening is the love of a close personal partner.

I would not trade all the fans, all the Facebook friends, all the media glory, all the TV fame, all the money in the world or the highest office in the world for the love of my partner Karen who intimately knows me and cares about me. Karen brings me coffee, bandages my cuts, asks me how I am doing and what is wrong, cuddles with me for no reason, walks with me, consoles me when I am feeling inadequate, supports my stupidity, tolerates my quirks and even my sometimes meanness and poor dispositions. How many of the Rich and Famous have anyone in their lives like I do? Those of you who have or had had a long time personal partner or loved one know what I am talking about. How to lose such a partner and go on with life? I am sorry if I do not know the answer or the secret. Give up or trudge on? Can you make a difference for others? Can you help share the pain and help others deal with the pain you are now feeling? What can you leave the world after your partner leaves you?

If you have had a partner like I have, you have experienced the greatest gift in the world. That this gift will someday be taken away from you is inevitable. That it will cause you great pain and sorrow is perhaps also inevitable. In the end, we come back to the beginning. Life goes on. You were loved and you were needed. There are others who are not loved and who could benefit from your love. There are others who are not needed and who could benefit from being needed by you. The biggest gift we can ever give others is the gift of ourselves. When a gift has been taken away from us perhaps it is time for us to find a way to give a gift of ourselves.

Time for Questions:

What is your experience with death and dying? How have you handled the death of a loved one? How have you helped others who are going through this pain? What will you need when you lose your partner or a close loved one? Can you share any experiences with others who might benefit from your experience?

Life is just beginning.

Gandhi’s Sixth Social Sin: Worship Without Sacrifice

30 May 2013 40 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: agnostics, apple pie, atheists, buddha, buddhists, church, ethics, freedom, inquistion, Jesus, john persico, mom, muslims, religion, sacrifice, tyranny, wisdom

I find it surprising that I am writing about Gandhi and his ideas. Surprising in that while growing up I was as far from a non-violent philosophy as anyone could be. Sometimes it seemed like my whole life was violence, anger and fighting. I joined the military out of high school and hoped to kill as many “commies” as I could. I continued my violent ways for many years and to be honest I am still no pacifist. I would not turn the other cheek once if you hit me, never mind 40 times. I am still on the border line about capital punishment. One day I think Capital Punishment is terribly useless institution made even worse by its ineffectiveness at deterring crime. The next day I read of some horrendous crime that I feel can only be rectified by punishments that go well beyond the heinousness of legal murder. If Gandhi were my father, he would surely disown me.

Gandhi is one of those heroic icons who cannot be ignored. Whether you believe in his ideas or not, you cannot deny that he tried to live according to his beliefs. More important was that he lived to help others have a better life. Everything Gandhi did paid evidence to his ideology that humans could be better than they were. I know many people who think that educators, psychologists, social workers and other “human service” workers are just a waste of taxpayer money. These same people are continually on the front line for more prisons and more military hardware. It is evident to such people that humans can not improve and thus the only betterment of humanity lies in more weapons, more police, more military and more guns. Gandhi would have professed the exact opposite and worked to create a world that was non-violent and where disputes could be resolved by civil discourse.

Years ago, I dropped my belief in God and in religions. I came to the conclusion that the first did not exist and the second was evil. It seemed to me that much of the misery on the earth came from one or the other of the major religions. The crusades, the inquisition, the Protestant Catholic wars, the wars against “Pagans” all showed me conclusively that religions did more harm than good. When I joined the military, I would not speak to any clergy and when they came around; I always avoided them. I was even rude to them at times as I regarded them as hypocrites. My first wife and I did not practice any religion together but I did bring my daughter around to several different religious venues as I wanted to at least expose her to them. My second marriage was to a more deeply religious woman who practices her faith regularly by participating in church affairs and helping out at many church functions. I often kid her about some of these events but I have come to a different point in my life regarding their benefit to the world. I am somewhat less judgmental about religions and people then I was in my younger days.

What does this mean for me about religions and how I regard them today? I can say with sincerity that I still see much evil that comes out of religion, not to mention its ongoing hypocrisy (for instance where were all the churches and ministers when we invaded Iraq both the first and second times?). However, I also see many good things that they now do, from supporting health care for poor people to championing efforts to feed people both domestically and abroad. There are many other examples of good things that are done by churches and religious leaders. So what does Gandhi mean by “Worship without Sacrifice?” Is Gandhi against organized religion? Here is the description from the Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence that summarizes Gandhi’s ideas in respect to his Sixth Social Sin:

“Worship without Sacrifice: One person’s faith is another person’s fantasy because religion has been reduced to meaningless rituals practiced mindlessly. Temples, churches, synagogues, mosques and those entrusted with the duty of interpreting religion to lay people seek to control through fear of hell, damnation, and purgatory. In the name of God they have spawned more hate and violence than any government. True religion is based on spirituality, love, compassion, understanding, and appreciation of each other whatever our beliefs may be — Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics or whatever. Gandhi believed whatever labels we put on our faith; ultimately all of us worship Truth because Truth is God. Superficially we may be very devout believers and make a tremendous public show of our worship, but if that belief, understanding, compassion, love and appreciation is not translated into our lives, prayers will have no meaning. True worship demands sacrifice not just in terms of the number of times a day we say our prayers but in how sincere we are in translating those prayers into life styles. In the 1930’s many Christian and Muslim clergy flocked into India to convert the millions who were oppressed as untouchables. The Christian clergy stood on street corners loudly denouncing Hinduism and proclaiming the virtues of Christianity. Months went by without a single convert accepting the offer. Frustrated, one priest asked Grandfather: After all the oppression and discrimination that the ‘untouchables’ suffer under Hinduism, why is it they do not accept our offer of a better life under Christianity? Grandfather replied: When you stop telling them how good Christianity is and start living it, you will find more converts than you can cope with. These words of wisdom apply to all religions of the world. We want to shout from roof-tops the virtues of our beliefs and not translate them into our lives.”

Gandhi’s words remind me of a comment by Sitting Bull. When asked what he thought of Christianity he replied: “From what I have read it is an admirable religion, however I do not see any white people practicing it.” From a Native American perspective, the only thing the conquerors religions offered was a destruction of their habitats and lifestyles. Witness the coming of the Spanish to the “New World” and the systematic destruction of the culture and religions that already existed by the Spanish military and their allied missionaries. The genocidal destruction of indigenous peoples throughout the world is full of pompous and pretentious efforts to “convert” and save them from their evil ways. In reality, religion only provided an expedient excuse to separate them from their lands and gold. We have in much of the history of organized religion a clear example of what Gandhi meant by Worship without Sacrifice.

Perhaps surprising to some though, true Christianity is firm that Worship without Sacrifice is worthless:

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and be well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.”

James 2:14-26- New International Version

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son for his religious beliefs. This is Worship with Sacrifice. Going to church on Sunday or simply reading the Bible is Worship without Sacrifice. When Jesus said that the two most important Commandments were Love God and Love Everyone, he meant you had to practice your faith by helping others who were less fortunate. This has made it very difficult for most of humankind to be his followers in deed as well as in professed belief. It is far easier to say “I am a Christian, then to “Sell your belongings and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” It is much easier to pray, worship, and read the Bible than to actually practice what Jesus was saying. Think for a minute what it would mean if all would be Christians really practiced the “Love Everyone Commandment? A short list of the consequences of this would mean:

No religious wars
No Jihads
No terrorism
No murders
No rapes
No assaults
NO WARS PERIOD

Can you imagine a world without these problems? This is the world we would have if everyone practiced their religions by deeds and not just words. However, this would require sacrifice and too many people are not really willing to sacrifice for their religion, for Jesus or for God. Sacrifice means giving up something to help others, not giving up something to gain something for you. Those who blow up their bodies to attain paradise with 40 vestal virgins are not sacrificing for others; they are simply trying to take a shortcut to attain what other greedy people already have. Any religion that terrorizes others in the name of “whoever” or “whatever” is evil regardless of what it calls itself. This raises the question that might be phased as “What is the purpose of religion.” Searching the web it is easy to find that many have condemned organized religion because of the atrocities associated with it. Great thinkers from Plato to Thomas Jefferson to Bertrand Russell have had little good to say about religions. However, I like the following comment from WaheguruNet regarding what positive role religion could and indeed should play in society:

“Religion has and continues to impact almost every aspect of human civilization in both positive and negative ways. The great spiritual masters from all traditions have taught that we need to adopt and develop higher qualities of love, mercy, generosity, kindness and so on. These higher qualities are a natural byproduct of developing a deeper connection with our spiritual nature and so in this respect religion can be thought of as a vehicle to support our spiritual development and our re-connection with divinity. In this way, human beings will be better at working together to create a better and more harmonious world.”

You will notice that in this purpose there is nothing mentioned about doom and destruction or about going to hell and suffering for the rest of your life or about your neighbor who is a hypocrite and unlike you is destined for fire and brimstone. The purpose of religion is to help us become better people. To help us find our connection to our inner spirit and to help guide us in living a more just and moral life. This purpose must be followed by actions and deeds as well as pious readings and professed beliefs. There is no room Gandhi’s religion or Jesus’s religion for bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, hatred, intolerance and destruction of others or their belief systems.

Time for Questions:

What can we do to practice good deeds as well as good thoughts? What sacrifices are you willing to make to help others? Are we making a true sacrifice by telling others how hard we worked and that they can be what we are if they only try? Should we simply tell others to pull themselves up by their boot straps? Are all people really created equal in the sense that everyone has an equal chance at health and happiness? Can we help make it so by sharing what we have with others?

Life is just beginning.

Gandhi’s Fifth Social Sin: Science without Humanity

20 May 2013 51 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized

According to some theories, humans first interpreted the world in terms of magic and superstition. It was believed that gods and sorcery determined and predicted whatever happened in the world. The Bible of course, states that a single God created the world but in many other cultures multiple gods were deemed responsible for creating, organizing and virtually running the world. After many centuries, humans started explaining the world and why things ran based on a new concept called Religion. Religious beliefs supplanted magic as an explanation for why things happened. If you were good, good things happened to you and if you were bad, bad things happened to you. Priests had the power of life and death over their constituents. Witness the crucifixion of Jesus Christ wherein the Pharisees basically took the matter out of Pilate’s hands and had Jesus condemned to death. Religion ruled for many centuries until what we call the “Enlightenment” Age when philosophy started to replace religion as a new way to explain why things happened. According to Wikipedia:

Originating about 1650 to 1700, the Enlightenment was sparked by philosophers Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), John Locke (1632–1704), Pierre Bayle (1647–1706), physicist Isaac Newton (1643–1727),^[2] and philosopher Voltaire (1694–1778). Ruling princes often endorsed and fostered figures and even attempted to apply their ideas of government in what was known as enlightened absolutism. The Scientific Revolution is closely tied to the Enlightenment, as its discoveries overturned many traditional concepts and introduced new perspectives on nature and man’s place within it.

Philosophers attempted to use reason and logic to explain the world and why things happened. Superstition, magic and religion were now deemed as “unreasonable” since their explanations of the world were not based on sound principles of logic and thought. Philosophers began to supplant priests as having the explanations for what made the world work as it did. Many of the theories during the Enlightenment drew upon the ideas of Plato and Aristotle who proceeded this era by nearly 2000 years. It should not be thought that magic and religion were totally discounted as explanations of the world. It is more accurate to say that they were “dethroned” as being the best way to explain the world. People today still rely on magic and religious beliefs as explanations for why and how the world works.

Moving along, it did not take many years for philosophy to be replaced by science as an even better way of explaining the world. As with each new way of explaining the world, there was overlap with the previous method. Philosophy and religion had much in common as did the scientific method and philosophy. However, there were some major differences. Whereas philosophy relied on logic and thought, the scientific method uses strict empirical evidence for determining truth and links causality to repeatable demonstrations of events that can be witnessed by even an unbiased observer. In science there is no room for subjectivity, biases or opinions. The Scientific Method is defined as:

A method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it.

In the 21^st Century, the new King to explain how and why the world works the way it does is science. The majority of the population has shifted from accepting explanations of reality given by priests, philosophers and witch doctors to explanations given by doctors, scientists and “expert” witnesses. Each of these latter groups base their expertise (Or so they say) on the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method gives them credibility and is accepted in our courts today as the most credible method for establishing the validity and reliability of evidence from blood tests, to fingerprints to DNA tests. Of course, good old opinions and biases still show up in our courts but basically, we deem the Justice method to be a method that relies on science to prove the guilt or innocence of any suspects and not voodoo, religion or magic. So what does Gandhi mean by Science without Humanity?

“This is science used to discover increasingly more gruesome weapons of destruction that threaten to eventually wipe out humanity. The NRA says guns don’t kill people, people kill people. What they do not say is that if people didn’t have guns they wouldn’t have the capacity to kill as quickly or as easily. If hunting can be considered a sport, it is the most insensitive and dehumanizing sport on earth. How can killing animals bring fun and excitement to anyone? This is pleasure without conscience. When we cease to care for any life, we cease to respect all life. No other species on earth has wrought more destruction than man. Materialism has made us possessive. The more we possess the more we need to protect and so the more ruthless we become. As punishment, we will kill if someone steals to buy bread. We feel violated. But we will not bother our heads to find out why, in times of plenty, people have to live in hunger. In order to protect and secure our homes, our neighborhoods, our countries from attacks, we use science to discover frightening weapons of destruction. The debate over the use of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a question that falls under this category. War is sometimes inevitable only because we are such ardent nationalists that we quickly label ourselves by our country of origin, by gender, by the color of our skin, by the language we speak, by the religion we practice, by the town or the state we come from and so on. The labels dehumanize us, and we become mere objects. Not too long ago even wars were fought according to rules, regulations, ethics and some semblance of morality. Then Hitler changed the rules because of his monumental hate and the rest of us followed suit. Now we can obliterate cities and inhabitants by pressing a button and not be affected by the destruction because we don’t see it.”

One of my favorite quotes has always been the comment by Max Born that the development of space travel was “A triumph of intellect but a tragic failure of reason.” This same comment has been applied to many scientific triumphs from the atom bomb to the development of Fracking to remove oil and natural gas. We have become so enamored or perhaps so ensnared by the power of the scientific method that we often suspend our criticism of its developments or products. We mindlessly accept that science knows better than we do. Each new development of ever more lethal weapons is uncritically accepted since they will “save” lives and shorten the length of the “new” war we want to wage. We have harnessed the power of science to create machines and products that are almost unlimited in their capacities to destroy. We accept these in the name of science which cannot be questioned.

On a more personal basis, we allow science and scientists and anyone claiming a link to the scientific method to explain and control our bodies. We need a new hip replacement, we need this heart surgery, we need this knee replacement, we need this cancer treatment, we need this pill, we need this procedure, and we need this diet. We are willing to accept anything the “experts” tell us because we have no desire or ability to challenge the scientific method. We are so blinded by the obfuscations of the new witch doctors that we don’t see the shell game they are playing on us. It is a game that relies on our complete credibility of their methods and their expertise. We suspend all thought processes when in the sphere of these marvelous scientists who seem to be able to explain everything from how long it took to create the universe to how long it will take us to recover from our surgery. We forget a very important factor in this process.

Science never did and never will have a heart. It has no humanity. The scientific method does not use any system of ethics or morality to determine its direction and goals. The pure scientist is an automaton who will work for a Roosevelt or a Hitler. The doctor that you so thoroughly rely on for your procedures and prescriptions is as motivated by his/her financial interests as by an interest in your health and well-being. If this latter fact were not enough to give you pause, consider the infatuation that doctors and scientists often have with their own products. The new knee implant, the new pacemaker, the new hip socket, the new medication are all designed to last forever and to cure whatever you have. But then again, maybe not! Are we forgetting the side effects in our rush to take this pill or allow this operation? Do we really need a new knee or hip or should we really lose a hundred or so pounds? Do we really need to be on these pills or should we simply change our diets or exercise more? What does humanity have to do with this?

Humanity is the moral compass that we need must guide our efforts and work. What do we mean by humanity? Here are a set of definitions for humanity:

Humanity

The quality of being human; the peculiar nature of man, by which he is distinguished from other beings.
Mankind collectively; the human race.
The quality of being humane; the kind feelings, dispositions, and sympathies of man; especially, a disposition to relieve persons or animals in distress, and to treat all creatures with kindness and tenderness.
Mental cultivation; liberal education; instruction in classical and polite literature.
The branches of polite or elegant learning; as language, rhetoric, poetry, and the ancient classics; belles-letters.

We must act and live as human beings and not as animals. To produce something without a moral compass might be legitimate in light of the fact that objects often have multiple and even ambiguous uses. However, to use anything without a moral compass whether it is a gun, bomb or surgical procedure is simply evil. It is evil because it can result in destruction that has no redeeming value. When we act without a moral compass, we act out of greed, anger, vengeance, jealousy, or simply mindlessness. We act as animals and not as human beings. Actions based on such motives and allied with scientifically designed weapons and procedures can only bring destruction to us and the world. Gandhi had the foresight to see this fact in 1925 long before atom bombs, guided missiles and laser weapons were developed. Just as commerce without morality is evil, science without humanity is evil. That is why Gandhi labeled it a social sin.

Time for Questions:

Do you believe that science is the best method for solving the world’s problems? How much of the scientific method do you understand? Do you rely on others to explain science to you? Do you value the benefits of science? What would you change about science and how it is often interpreted? How can we improve our understanding of the world? Is there any room for magic and religion?

Life is just beginning.

Sin and Evil

17 May 2013 10 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: Catholic school, Devil, Evil, God, good, goodness, Mass murderers, serial killers, Sin, spree killers

I hope you will excuse the apparent redundancy in the title of this blog. I had started it as Sin and the Serial Killer but then decided it would be Sin and the Mass Killer. I wanted to include spree, serial and mass murderers in this treatise on sin and evil. The title, Sin, Serial Killers, Spree Killers and Mass Murderers: Why are they Evil?, just seemed too long. Actually, if you think Sin and Evil are redundant, I can assure you they are not the same.

When I was a young boy going to a Catholic School called Mount St. Francis, I learned that there were two types of sin: Venial and Mortal. A Mortal sin (if un-confessed at death) would earn you a one way ticket straight to hell. No stops along the way. A Venial sin would get you into a place called Purgatory. If I remember correctly, Purgatory was a lot like hell, you did not get to see God and it was awfully hot. However, a ticket to Purgatory could eventually be exchanged for a ticket to heaven. You merely had to sit in Purgatory for some length of time and then you would be allowed to change your place of residence.

Way back then, and even today, I had a hard time trying to figure out what were Venial Sins and what were Mortal sins. Perhaps this is why I rejected the catechism of Catholicism and eventually all of organized religion. The nuances and intricacies of getting to heaven or hell were beyond my cognitive capacities. For instance, one of my great pleasures “Masturbation” was good for a ticket to hell. I cannot tell you how many tickets I earned to hell while deriving great pleasure from this pastime. I still cannot understand why something that hurts no one, including myself and is actually a great deal of fun would be deemed a Mortal sin. Neither can I give you an example of a Venial sin since I think I never committed any. Somehow all of my sins at the time were Mortal: Disobeying my parents, taking the Lord’s name in vain and having sex without marriage. I was good for at least 50 Hail Marys’ at every confession I went to.

So since we cannot define sin, can we say that there is no sin? Assuredly you would answer NO! Sin is Evil. If so, then we must define evil. If we say that evil is committing a sin, then we really are being redundant. Perhaps looking at some definitions of evil might help us with this problem. Here are some various definitions of evil:

Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.
According to the Bible evil becomes a reality in the very beginning with the first couple. Sin produces evil. Gen 2:9, the tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Although the Bible meaning of evil includes the idea of sinfulness or wickedness in many cases, it also has a broader meaning that is commonly used. In this broader meaning, evil refers to those things that are generally thought of as bad or undesirable; or as the dictionary says, “causing pain or trouble.” This would include things such as wars or disease and this is the kind of evil referred to in Isaiah 45:7.

I think you can easily see that the common definitions of sin and evil are not very helpful on a day to day basis. It could be argued quite easily that one person’s sin is another person’s good. Or that sin and evil are simply social conventions defined by majority thought. Wars and disease are part of the normal fabric of life and when were any political leaders ever consigned to hell because they declared war? It seems like a rather good idea but I don’t see it happening anytime soon.

I suppose you are expecting me then to make a case (perhaps already started) that there is no such thing as sin or perhaps even evil? Actually, I want to argue the opposite. The older and I hope wiser I have become the more I see that Sin and Evil actually do exist. Sin and Evil are behaviors that create havoc and devastation in the world.

My path to this conclusion lay in my thinking about mass murderers. Much of the general public are fascinated by the subject of serial killers. It would seem that at least ½ of the novels on the best seller list have serial killers as their theme. We are intrigued and perplexed by trying to understand why anyone would commit the crimes (a legal term as I use it and not to be confused necessarily with sin or evil) that these individuals do. If anything could be generally agreed on as evil by most people, it would be these types of murders, including; spree, serial and mass type executions done by individuals and not sanctioned by state or governmental authority. So we do have at least one area that we can agree on as evil. Perhaps a definition of evil as applied to such killers would be: “The taking of random innocent lives by unknown assailants for no apparent purpose.” But then are these killers also sinners? Again, you would readily answer yes to this question, but why? Where in the Bible does it condemn mass killings as sinful? The Old Testament is full of mass killings perpetrated for gain and convenience. What sets the mass murderer apart from the murders perpetuated by one society against another society? Is there any difference?

I think the answer is yes. If you look at the motivation of the mass murderers, people like Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer and many others you will find some common purposes. Wikipedia defines the “motives” of serial killers as:

The motives of serial killers are generally placed into four categories: visionary, mission-oriented, hedonistic and power or control; however, the motives of any given killer may display considerable overlap among these categories. Wikipedia

What does not emerge from this typology is the rather obvious fact that in each case, the perpetrator has destroyed something and created nothing. All mass murderers destroy and leave nothing of any value for the world. They gain their joy from the act of destruction. Whether they torture their victims or kill them all in mass with a bomb, mass murderers derive their pleasure at the moment of destruction. Everything else connected with their heinous crimes are prelude and postscript. Nothing gives the mass killer more pleasure than their ability to destroy and their anticipation of destruction. The literature is full of examples of impotent murderers who were able to achieve potency only at the point of the actual murder of their victims. This has been true in mass killings as well as individual killings.

If Evil is the destruction of life, then Sin is the arrogation of the power to destroy life by an individual. It has often been claimed that there is a Yin and Yang in the world and that Good is the opposite of Evil. Or that the Devil represents Sin and Evil and God represents Virtue and Goodness. I believe this is wrong. It is a false dichotomy. The mass killer wants to be like God. God is the ultimate power. The Devil cannot stand up to God. In the madness of the mass killer, they want to experience the power of God. However, there is a grave difference between the power of God and the power of the Devil. The Devil only has the power to destroy. God has the power to both create and destroy. But the destruction of the Devil and the destruction of God are not the same. The destruction that God creates is a cosmic destruction that is part of the cycle of life. God’s destruction perpetuates creation by allowing a continuous cycle of birth and rebirth throughout the universe. The Devil’s destruction creates nothing except evil. The mass killer destroys but never creates. On a more limited scale, vandals are evil because they destroy without creating anything.

To conclude then, I would define Sin as the taking of power to destroy by an individual without the responsibility to create. Evil is destruction without the creation of value. Someone who destroys something may be guilty of both being Sinful and Evil. The mass murderer wants to be like God and to experience the power of God but in the end fails. Humans can never have the power to create life except where some life did not first exist. The definition of God is one who can give life and can also take it away. I know not whether there is a God as defined by organized religion but there is a power in the universe which perpetuates a creative cycle of birth and rebirth or creation and destruction. There are also those people who have more in common with the Devil since they only destroy. This is the evil of the mass murderer and any who would be God without the responsibility to create as well as to destroy.

Time for Questions:

What do you think Evil is? Do you think the Devil really exists? What is Goodness? Can humans be both good and evil? When does anything become pure evil? Do we really need a God in the world? Why or Why not? What role does God play in your life? What role does the Devil play?

Life is just beginning.