Events in the past ten years suggest that there is but one issue on which Americans agree: it is the economy. The 2008 recession generated consensus and action. While the action was not universally supported, the need for action was accepted.
Contrast the obsession with fixing the economy with any other topic in American politics and I would assert that there is no consensus and consequently no action. Meanwhile we have a racist President who cannot even own up to racist statements he makes in front of witnesses. He lies continually and has a majority party backing him. Virtually no one in the Republican party defends the racism or the lying. Why? The "Economy" is good, and that is all that matters.
"Economy" is a difficult word. In Wikipedia, a reference statement is: 'The economy is defined as a social domain that emphasizes the practices, discourses, and material expressions associated with the production, use, and management of resources'.
Americans use various indicators to justify their opinion about the economy. Is the unemployment number low? Are interest rates low? Is inflation low? Then there is the stock market. In general, Americans accept a judgment that the economy is sound or good if these boxes are checked properly. Now we are even getting into the next tier of numbers. Are wages up? Are healthcare insurance premiums 'reasonable' (we are conditioned to expect that they will always increase)? Are taxes low?
Notice the absence of discussion about related topics, including national debt, social spending, infrastructure repair. Yes, there is some discussion about income inequality. In San Diego, the homeless problem is at an all time high, and there has been no progress on it, even though it has been highlighted for many years. Wild fires, water scarcity, affordable housing, immigration, opioid crisis, education, all are subordinate to 'the Economy.' The underlying ethos is that we cannot address any problems unless 'the Economy' is sound. But this ethos runs deeper. It is the belief that when the economy is sound, all problems will be solved. The 'invisible hand' of capitalism will solve problems through market mechanisms, through supply and demand.
We have likely always been this way, and I am only now acknowledging this reality. Each culture brings its own beliefs into practice. Our culture is that the all-mighty dollar will fix all things. More abstractly, the free market will fix all things.
A case can be made that there is no general approach for all problems. Certainly the scale of a problem is related to the scale of the solution that is needed.
Thursday, May 3, 2018
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Leadership and Succession Planning in Politics
Trump's disastrous presidency elicits yelps from the electorate about how such a debacle could have occurred. The excuses are numerous: the flawed opponent, Russian interference, fake news, social media targeting both voter encouragement and voter suppression. How about blaming Obama's leadership?
What, you say? President Obama was a great President and leader. He had a remarkable eight years without scandal, with high economic growth, withdrawal from two wars, the Paris Climate Accord, a TransPacific Trade agreement, DACA and healthcare reform. Even the size of the deficit was shrinking.
Yes, I agree with these achievements. But Trump's election put the whole legacy at high risk, including some that were not previously at risk. Immediately, the Supreme Court changed, with other appointments a heartbeat away with the aging other justices. All of the Executive branch is in complete reversal. And I blame Obama.
You see, a forgotten feature of leadership is succession planning. It is an activity that was part of my management training back in the early eighties, but it seems to have gone the way of the dodo. Leadership development is seen as an essential function to the long term health of the organization.
In US history, the first succession planning occurred without any codification, but it worked out well. The Secretary of State would likely be the individual best known to foreign nations, so when President Jefferson declined a third term, Secretary Madison succeeded. Likewise, Secretary Monroe, and Secretary John Quincy Adams. Perhaps the electoral college understood the importance of foreign nations understanding and accepting the fledgling US government in this habit. Andrew Jackson's ascendency broke that tradition, perhaps signaling the electorate's sense that internal expansion and conflict was a more relevant priority, therefore creating the desire for a strong military leader. But this is a side discussion for the present.
US politics is replete with aging fossils prioritizing their own aggrandizement over the long term success of the Republic. California has Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein who have been excellent leaders in their time. But it is clear that succession planning is not part of their leadership agenda, and where will that leave their legacy? In the case of Obama, he hired Hilary Clinton for Secretary of State, harkening back to the early days of the Republic. But he should have sensed that foreign affairs was not the arena most at risk.
Looking at the rest of Obama's cabinet, except for John Kerry, who had already lost a bid for Presidency, there is no obvious successor, though I wonder why Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke would not have been a good choice to groom for succession. Perhaps it was the feeling of entitlement that Hilary should be the successor that prevented effective mentoring. But a good organization looks to recruit new people and groom them for all levels of leadership.
As the dismemberment of Obama's legacy continues, we may again learn the value of recruiting, mentoring, and planning for succession.
What, you say? President Obama was a great President and leader. He had a remarkable eight years without scandal, with high economic growth, withdrawal from two wars, the Paris Climate Accord, a TransPacific Trade agreement, DACA and healthcare reform. Even the size of the deficit was shrinking.
Yes, I agree with these achievements. But Trump's election put the whole legacy at high risk, including some that were not previously at risk. Immediately, the Supreme Court changed, with other appointments a heartbeat away with the aging other justices. All of the Executive branch is in complete reversal. And I blame Obama.
You see, a forgotten feature of leadership is succession planning. It is an activity that was part of my management training back in the early eighties, but it seems to have gone the way of the dodo. Leadership development is seen as an essential function to the long term health of the organization.
In US history, the first succession planning occurred without any codification, but it worked out well. The Secretary of State would likely be the individual best known to foreign nations, so when President Jefferson declined a third term, Secretary Madison succeeded. Likewise, Secretary Monroe, and Secretary John Quincy Adams. Perhaps the electoral college understood the importance of foreign nations understanding and accepting the fledgling US government in this habit. Andrew Jackson's ascendency broke that tradition, perhaps signaling the electorate's sense that internal expansion and conflict was a more relevant priority, therefore creating the desire for a strong military leader. But this is a side discussion for the present.
US politics is replete with aging fossils prioritizing their own aggrandizement over the long term success of the Republic. California has Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein who have been excellent leaders in their time. But it is clear that succession planning is not part of their leadership agenda, and where will that leave their legacy? In the case of Obama, he hired Hilary Clinton for Secretary of State, harkening back to the early days of the Republic. But he should have sensed that foreign affairs was not the arena most at risk.
Looking at the rest of Obama's cabinet, except for John Kerry, who had already lost a bid for Presidency, there is no obvious successor, though I wonder why Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke would not have been a good choice to groom for succession. Perhaps it was the feeling of entitlement that Hilary should be the successor that prevented effective mentoring. But a good organization looks to recruit new people and groom them for all levels of leadership.
As the dismemberment of Obama's legacy continues, we may again learn the value of recruiting, mentoring, and planning for succession.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
Easter Meditation 2018
Today's celebration of the Christian faith has sparked an insight for me about how to reconcile this country's sad state with its supposed Christian heritage. The insight is the focus on personal salvation. The individual is the main attribute of the United States in its foundation and in every dimension of government. The rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a profoundly inward looking motivation. Most Americans would accept the ideal of a society in which each person could pursue their passion and their own path, so long as the pursuit does not interfere with another's same rights.
My personal understanding about the Christian faith is that each individual is doomed unless the individual 'accepts Jesus as their personal savior,' and I believe many Christians would agree with some version of this assertion (whatever the interpretation of 'accepting Jesus'). The divergences begin as to the consequences of this canonical step, and I am persuaded that the philosophy of each person deciding for themselves is at the heart of the divergence.
The result is there is no consensus among Christians about what is required of them as a member of society. Even Jesus is quoted as 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's,' and "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."
An interpretation, especially in the context of the focus on the individual, could be that societal injustices and inequalities are matters of government and are of debatable concern to the Christian. The salvation of the individual soul is all that matters. Now, Christ also admonished 'Judge not, lest ye be judged.'
But the converted experiences a change. In the church of my parents, the death of Christ is to be reflected in the death of oneself. The baptism ritual is the setting aside of one's old sinful self, emerging as a new person possessed of the holy spirit. So far so good. Now, how does this new person act? Love thy neighbor as thyself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love the lord thy God, etc. There is quite a long list. Some are quite hard for the American: "Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
Here the diffusion, the confusion, and the digression begins. The Catholic observes certain rites in their tradition, the Baptist others. The Christian policeman may feel threatened and kill in self defense. The criminal may use their gains to feed and house the homeless. Soon the Christian circles back to conclude that it is improper to judge others. Worldly possessions are unimportant. Even the poor are 'blessed'. So economic issues are irrelevant to the individual with respect to salvation; if they are of no concern to God, why should they matter to you? And if they don't matter to you, why should you care how impoverished anyone else is? This conundrum explains the range of behavior among Christians.
As I write, I now wonder about the anti-abortion passion of Christians. Their rhetoric seems to focus on the killing of an infant, perhaps depriving that 'soul' of receiving Christ as a savior. I don't think it is a concern about the soul of the pregnant mother, or the doctor, who could be thought to be committing a mortal sin (in Catholic theology). After all, their sins are their own, and God will judge them. The strife around this issue is ultimately about the boundary between an individuals right to choose and societal duty to protect the defenseless. Again, if the concern about abortion is protection of the defenseless, it is inconsistent with the drop in concern once the baby born, and a complete absence beyond infancy.
This focus on the individual salvation, the cautioning about judging, the discounting of worldly things, and other features of Christianity in America are reinforced by the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The resulting ethos is an avoidance of defining life in relation to society. We are not obligated to each other in any way, save not interfering with another's interpretation of the pursuit of happiness.
Perhaps this is too harsh. One could argue that we all understand that the boundary between individual freedom and societal interest is the center of debate and conflict. The process of governing is, of course, all about this boundary. In other words, it is easily said and readily agreed that individuals should be free to govern themselves. It is the rest of existence that is difficult and requires our energies, because it is here that there is no consensus and much disagreement.
Now to add the obvious: The United States was founded on the principle and the assurance that there is no state religion. This indisputable feature allows for citizens of all faiths to participate in government. If there is no consensus in the domain of Christianity, there is surely less consensus in the domain of Christian, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Buddhism, and any other religion.
And so, the business of government drops back to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Our ongoing debate is the role of government and the limits to fulfilling these ideals.
My personal understanding about the Christian faith is that each individual is doomed unless the individual 'accepts Jesus as their personal savior,' and I believe many Christians would agree with some version of this assertion (whatever the interpretation of 'accepting Jesus'). The divergences begin as to the consequences of this canonical step, and I am persuaded that the philosophy of each person deciding for themselves is at the heart of the divergence.
The result is there is no consensus among Christians about what is required of them as a member of society. Even Jesus is quoted as 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's,' and "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."
An interpretation, especially in the context of the focus on the individual, could be that societal injustices and inequalities are matters of government and are of debatable concern to the Christian. The salvation of the individual soul is all that matters. Now, Christ also admonished 'Judge not, lest ye be judged.'
But the converted experiences a change. In the church of my parents, the death of Christ is to be reflected in the death of oneself. The baptism ritual is the setting aside of one's old sinful self, emerging as a new person possessed of the holy spirit. So far so good. Now, how does this new person act? Love thy neighbor as thyself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love the lord thy God, etc. There is quite a long list. Some are quite hard for the American: "Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
Here the diffusion, the confusion, and the digression begins. The Catholic observes certain rites in their tradition, the Baptist others. The Christian policeman may feel threatened and kill in self defense. The criminal may use their gains to feed and house the homeless. Soon the Christian circles back to conclude that it is improper to judge others. Worldly possessions are unimportant. Even the poor are 'blessed'. So economic issues are irrelevant to the individual with respect to salvation; if they are of no concern to God, why should they matter to you? And if they don't matter to you, why should you care how impoverished anyone else is? This conundrum explains the range of behavior among Christians.
As I write, I now wonder about the anti-abortion passion of Christians. Their rhetoric seems to focus on the killing of an infant, perhaps depriving that 'soul' of receiving Christ as a savior. I don't think it is a concern about the soul of the pregnant mother, or the doctor, who could be thought to be committing a mortal sin (in Catholic theology). After all, their sins are their own, and God will judge them. The strife around this issue is ultimately about the boundary between an individuals right to choose and societal duty to protect the defenseless. Again, if the concern about abortion is protection of the defenseless, it is inconsistent with the drop in concern once the baby born, and a complete absence beyond infancy.
This focus on the individual salvation, the cautioning about judging, the discounting of worldly things, and other features of Christianity in America are reinforced by the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The resulting ethos is an avoidance of defining life in relation to society. We are not obligated to each other in any way, save not interfering with another's interpretation of the pursuit of happiness.
Perhaps this is too harsh. One could argue that we all understand that the boundary between individual freedom and societal interest is the center of debate and conflict. The process of governing is, of course, all about this boundary. In other words, it is easily said and readily agreed that individuals should be free to govern themselves. It is the rest of existence that is difficult and requires our energies, because it is here that there is no consensus and much disagreement.
Now to add the obvious: The United States was founded on the principle and the assurance that there is no state religion. This indisputable feature allows for citizens of all faiths to participate in government. If there is no consensus in the domain of Christianity, there is surely less consensus in the domain of Christian, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Buddhism, and any other religion.
And so, the business of government drops back to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Our ongoing debate is the role of government and the limits to fulfilling these ideals.
Sunday, November 26, 2017
Religion when everyone is a priest
I read today an editorial titled, "Is There an Evangelical Crisis?"NY Times 27Nov2017. The core of the essay concerns an apparent disconnect between the teachings of Christ and the ideals of the Trump-led Republicans. Certain evangelicals are described as an 'embattled and thriving' group of religious believers who are bound together by their simultaneous rejection of traditional religion and the secularization of society trending towards no religion. While leaders of the evangelical movement have trended towards Trump and his plutocracy, these evangelical members are abandoned orphans, having no institutions or leaders to host them.
One of my difficulties with religion in general and with Christianity in particular, especially Protestantism, is the scholastic dimension. In the wake of Martin Luther, parishioners were encouraged to have no priest intercede between God and their soul. This was followed by mass production of 'The Bible', translated into native tongues, to allow each person to read, pray, and commune with the Almighty. “Next to theology I give music the highest place of honor,” writes Luther. This sentiment conveys the sense of experiencing God through faith and without instruction. Righteousness is what you feel it to be, and no one can deny your own understanding of God's plan for you.
But if this religion by personal revelation dominates behavior, then scholasticism, (the derivation of meaning through study, logic, interpretation, debate, etc.) is relegated to the point of irrelevance. In this confusion, I think many people default to a rather primitive 'theology' of self. The simple logic is that
1) I am a human being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by my Declaration of Independence.
2) All policies that interfere with my progress towards my definition of 1) are to be opposed, irrespective of society as a whole.
3) While I accept that the government is necessary and is dictated by our Constitution, I should continue to grouse and otherwise fight towards maximizing my outcome with respect to item 1).
Sadly, my own philosophy is also conflicted. That is, I can understand intellectually that individuals are at once discrete and part of a whole. I can only understand my own experience (and even that understanding has limits), so I cannot dictate how others should behave. Yet I believe we should feel some collective responsibility, especially for community health, defense, and commerce. Without agreements on community matters, we are all imperiled and especially vulnerable to circumstances of birth and other random cruelties. I can have empathy for the helpless, and I can advocate for a society that strives to eliminate senseless suffering. Indeed, I can sacrifice towards this ideal, in the spirit of Matthew 25:40
Returning to the theme of this essay, the crisis in religion in America is a crisis inherent in the reformation, wherein each person becomes their own priest. Such an arrangement in the context of a religion makes each person an author of their own religion! There is nothing quite like self-righteousness as granted by the Creator of the Universe to empower selfishness, bigotry, and blind pursuit of personal wealth and advantage. But is a society better served having citizenry in a zombie-like state of adherence to strong leaders telling them what to do and how to think? Perhaps today's crisis is a stage towards a more just, stable, and peaceful world, where each person appreciates our dual responsibilities to ourselves and our community.
One of my difficulties with religion in general and with Christianity in particular, especially Protestantism, is the scholastic dimension. In the wake of Martin Luther, parishioners were encouraged to have no priest intercede between God and their soul. This was followed by mass production of 'The Bible', translated into native tongues, to allow each person to read, pray, and commune with the Almighty. “Next to theology I give music the highest place of honor,” writes Luther. This sentiment conveys the sense of experiencing God through faith and without instruction. Righteousness is what you feel it to be, and no one can deny your own understanding of God's plan for you.
But if this religion by personal revelation dominates behavior, then scholasticism, (the derivation of meaning through study, logic, interpretation, debate, etc.) is relegated to the point of irrelevance. In this confusion, I think many people default to a rather primitive 'theology' of self. The simple logic is that
1) I am a human being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by my Declaration of Independence.
2) All policies that interfere with my progress towards my definition of 1) are to be opposed, irrespective of society as a whole.
3) While I accept that the government is necessary and is dictated by our Constitution, I should continue to grouse and otherwise fight towards maximizing my outcome with respect to item 1).
Sadly, my own philosophy is also conflicted. That is, I can understand intellectually that individuals are at once discrete and part of a whole. I can only understand my own experience (and even that understanding has limits), so I cannot dictate how others should behave. Yet I believe we should feel some collective responsibility, especially for community health, defense, and commerce. Without agreements on community matters, we are all imperiled and especially vulnerable to circumstances of birth and other random cruelties. I can have empathy for the helpless, and I can advocate for a society that strives to eliminate senseless suffering. Indeed, I can sacrifice towards this ideal, in the spirit of Matthew 25:40
"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."But this is my personal religion. I cannot force others to accept that they should have empathy and concern for the less fortunate. I cannot force others to imagine that their own existence is advanced when their fellow citizens are free from hunger, homelessness, ignorance, and disease. I cannot make anyone accept that a threat to anyone's freedom is a threat to their own.
Returning to the theme of this essay, the crisis in religion in America is a crisis inherent in the reformation, wherein each person becomes their own priest. Such an arrangement in the context of a religion makes each person an author of their own religion! There is nothing quite like self-righteousness as granted by the Creator of the Universe to empower selfishness, bigotry, and blind pursuit of personal wealth and advantage. But is a society better served having citizenry in a zombie-like state of adherence to strong leaders telling them what to do and how to think? Perhaps today's crisis is a stage towards a more just, stable, and peaceful world, where each person appreciates our dual responsibilities to ourselves and our community.
Hammett Plantation and the Battle of Kettle Creek
My mother's mother, Roxanne Kathrine Jones (Hammett), (1905-1984), descended from Hammetts that were part of the American Revolutionary War in Georgia. I learned this from my cousin Karen Hammett Cook today. She has long pursued family history and she alerted me to this gem after I obtained what I believed to be new information on the Hopper branch of the Hammett lineage. Here is the sequence.
Mark Stidham: Fama Stidham (Jones) (1928-2013): Roxanne Jones (Hammett)(1905-1984): Americus (Mack) Christopher Hammett (1870-1923): John Robert Hammett (1820-1873): James Hammett (1797- after 1860). The connection with James Hammett who owned the track of land on which the Battle of Kettle creek was fought is not quite clear. In research on the internet, I found reference to a James Hammett, orphan of Edward Hammett, who was adopted by James Hammett. It could be that Edward had a son, James and a brother James. His son James could have had a son named James (born 1797), this one being the bona fide member of my particular Hammett branch and the one who married Elizabeth Brooker in Green County, Georgia in 1813.
The Hammetts at the Battle of Kettle Creek (February 14, 1775) included William Hammett and two Hammett brothers who were casualties according to one account reference . The accounts of the battle indicate more of skirmish. Its fame derives from the outcome that British loyalists were defeated by the Patriot militiamen at a time the British were counting on their "southern strategy" to win the war by recruiting loyalists. The British went on to control Charleston on May 17, 1780. Many more British victories came in the summer. But in October, Cornwallis stopped his advance toward North Carolina, falling back to South Carolina.
from http://www.hiddenancestors.com/wilkesga/narrative.htm
Mark Stidham: Fama Stidham (Jones) (1928-2013): Roxanne Jones (Hammett)(1905-1984): Americus (Mack) Christopher Hammett (1870-1923): John Robert Hammett (1820-1873): James Hammett (1797- after 1860). The connection with James Hammett who owned the track of land on which the Battle of Kettle creek was fought is not quite clear. In research on the internet, I found reference to a James Hammett, orphan of Edward Hammett, who was adopted by James Hammett. It could be that Edward had a son, James and a brother James. His son James could have had a son named James (born 1797), this one being the bona fide member of my particular Hammett branch and the one who married Elizabeth Brooker in Green County, Georgia in 1813.
The Hammetts at the Battle of Kettle Creek (February 14, 1775) included William Hammett and two Hammett brothers who were casualties according to one account reference . The accounts of the battle indicate more of skirmish. Its fame derives from the outcome that British loyalists were defeated by the Patriot militiamen at a time the British were counting on their "southern strategy" to win the war by recruiting loyalists. The British went on to control Charleston on May 17, 1780. Many more British victories came in the summer. But in October, Cornwallis stopped his advance toward North Carolina, falling back to South Carolina.
Hammett, James - The 450 acre plat surveyed for James Hammett is found in Plat Book G, page 176. The warrant for the survey was issued on December 22, 1783 by Benjamin Catching, Senior Justice, presiding at a Land Court held in Wilkes County. The survey was executed on January 14, 1784 by James Finley, D.S., and Samuel Creswell, C. Surveyor. The rectangular plat is bounded by Vacant on the east, Unknown on the north, Thomas Brown and Vacant on the west and Vacant on the south. Kettle Creek forms the property line on the southwest and south. A road is shown crossing Kettle Creek and entering the plat from the south. Soon after, the road forks and the eastern fork of the road is thought to have led to Karr’s Fort. This plat was the site of the Battle of Kettle Creek. Patriot forces coming from Karr’s Fort discovered the British near War Hill, located just south of the fork in the road. A skirmish ensued and the British, once their commanding officer was killed, were driven back to the south, down the road and across Kettle Creek.
from http://www.hiddenancestors.com/wilkesga/narrative.htm
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
The Passing of Robert Pirsig and thoughts on Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
I first read this when it was first published. I was a senior at UC Irvine having completed requirements for my BS in Biological Sciences, I loaded the year with enough chemistry courses to gain me a B.A. in Chemistry as well. I was working part time at Disneyland as a short order cook, and I had applied to graduate school.
In my junior year I had taken a 'Humanities Core' course that had broadened my way of thinking like nothing else before it. In the course, we were required to keep a journal, and I have kept that habit to this day. The combination of finding new ideas and recording personal thoughts was akin to opening a valve, accessing a stream of water that turned formerly idle turbines and nourished nascent regions of my mind. At this time, Pirsig's book appeared.
Here I record some of the ideas I recall from reading Zen.
Gumption Traps
Throughout the book, Pirsig describes the quest to maintain his motorcycle. In the quest he observes that the spirit required to pursue the various maintenance procedures needs encouragement. His son-in-law and daughter accompanying the main character and his young son are clueless about maintenance and actually disinterested in the activity. They connect mechanics to some kind of soul-killing devotion to technology and rationality, themes antithetical to their pursuit of artistry and spirituality. He argues that mechanics and technology are just as much a part of the spiritual. However, the performance of motorcycle maintenance requires a quiet mind, proper tools, instruction and a dedication to understanding. Such preconditions are susceptible to distraction, and these are termed 'gumption traps.' The character states that an organized and complete tool set, and a minimum of distraction helps him to bring the state of mind that can sustain concentration and attention. Also of help is frequent practice, which help deliver understanding as well as a subject with best chances of being maintained. The idea of 'gumption traps' itself helps me overcome inertia because it helps me put emotions and irrationality off to the side, leaving only the work to be done.
Language and Reality
Several aspects of my own philosophy came from discussions in the book about the relation of language to 'reality', however one wants to define it. One is the disdain some ancient philosophers had for the written word. Their inclination was to have a dialogue in order to understand. The written word was felt to be a substitute for memory. The insight I gleaned from this discussion is how readily our culture gravitates towards the written word as if it was somehow superior to experience or other forms of understanding. From a certain perspective, one could argue it is the medium of least fidelity! And yet, when the written word, prose or otherwise, attains a common understanding throughout cultures and generations, something magical is attained.
A second aspect concerns an analogy he makes about reality and comprehension (measurement, recording) as a train, with the leading edge being 'reality' and the rest of the train being the record of the reality. I need to reread this to recapture this thought, but it seems intuitive that we often mistake the sensing of an event as the event itself. I find it useful to keep this in mind, especially when we are trying to understand events. Of interest here are famous case studies of the fallibility of eye witnesses that have failed to alter our esteem for such evidence.
Both of these aspects along with a host of others describe my philosophy or belief that every individual creates their own 'reality', and all of these creations are simply mental reconstructions. They must be so! This philosophy does not deny that there is a kind of reality independent of experience. Rather, it denies that one can talk about it or write about it or even think about it except by analogy. And language is often itself at the root of misunderstanding between people because it such an imperfect representation of reality.
For me, the consequence of accepting these fundamental limitations is to become less judgmental in a way. It also allows or even demands respect for each individual in their struggle to understand. Perhaps I am too smug in my belief in this way, and I often forget this understanding when I become exorcised about this action or that calamity of the day. When I am at my most centered, I feel some peace, a release from a struggle, while I become more excited about the admittedly pointless attempt at perfect understanding. It is a little bit like accepting the certainty of one's mortality; the fear leaves and somewhat paradoxically, you become emboldened to experience as much as you can.
In my junior year I had taken a 'Humanities Core' course that had broadened my way of thinking like nothing else before it. In the course, we were required to keep a journal, and I have kept that habit to this day. The combination of finding new ideas and recording personal thoughts was akin to opening a valve, accessing a stream of water that turned formerly idle turbines and nourished nascent regions of my mind. At this time, Pirsig's book appeared.
Here I record some of the ideas I recall from reading Zen.
Gumption Traps
Throughout the book, Pirsig describes the quest to maintain his motorcycle. In the quest he observes that the spirit required to pursue the various maintenance procedures needs encouragement. His son-in-law and daughter accompanying the main character and his young son are clueless about maintenance and actually disinterested in the activity. They connect mechanics to some kind of soul-killing devotion to technology and rationality, themes antithetical to their pursuit of artistry and spirituality. He argues that mechanics and technology are just as much a part of the spiritual. However, the performance of motorcycle maintenance requires a quiet mind, proper tools, instruction and a dedication to understanding. Such preconditions are susceptible to distraction, and these are termed 'gumption traps.' The character states that an organized and complete tool set, and a minimum of distraction helps him to bring the state of mind that can sustain concentration and attention. Also of help is frequent practice, which help deliver understanding as well as a subject with best chances of being maintained. The idea of 'gumption traps' itself helps me overcome inertia because it helps me put emotions and irrationality off to the side, leaving only the work to be done.
Language and Reality
Several aspects of my own philosophy came from discussions in the book about the relation of language to 'reality', however one wants to define it. One is the disdain some ancient philosophers had for the written word. Their inclination was to have a dialogue in order to understand. The written word was felt to be a substitute for memory. The insight I gleaned from this discussion is how readily our culture gravitates towards the written word as if it was somehow superior to experience or other forms of understanding. From a certain perspective, one could argue it is the medium of least fidelity! And yet, when the written word, prose or otherwise, attains a common understanding throughout cultures and generations, something magical is attained.
A second aspect concerns an analogy he makes about reality and comprehension (measurement, recording) as a train, with the leading edge being 'reality' and the rest of the train being the record of the reality. I need to reread this to recapture this thought, but it seems intuitive that we often mistake the sensing of an event as the event itself. I find it useful to keep this in mind, especially when we are trying to understand events. Of interest here are famous case studies of the fallibility of eye witnesses that have failed to alter our esteem for such evidence.
Both of these aspects along with a host of others describe my philosophy or belief that every individual creates their own 'reality', and all of these creations are simply mental reconstructions. They must be so! This philosophy does not deny that there is a kind of reality independent of experience. Rather, it denies that one can talk about it or write about it or even think about it except by analogy. And language is often itself at the root of misunderstanding between people because it such an imperfect representation of reality.
For me, the consequence of accepting these fundamental limitations is to become less judgmental in a way. It also allows or even demands respect for each individual in their struggle to understand. Perhaps I am too smug in my belief in this way, and I often forget this understanding when I become exorcised about this action or that calamity of the day. When I am at my most centered, I feel some peace, a release from a struggle, while I become more excited about the admittedly pointless attempt at perfect understanding. It is a little bit like accepting the certainty of one's mortality; the fear leaves and somewhat paradoxically, you become emboldened to experience as much as you can.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
The I-M253 Y-Chromosome Haplogroup
Some years ago, I supplied a tissue sample to the Timen Stiddem Society. The sample was analyzed to ascertain the haplogroup for the Y-chromosome. Y-chromosomes are inherited only by males from their fathers; it is the sex-determining factor, males having one X-chromosome from the mothers and one Y-chromosome from the father. Females, in contrast, have two X-chromosomes, one from the mother and the other from the father.
The Y-chromosome has relatively few transcribed genes. One estimate holds that the human Y-chromosome as lost 1,393 of its original 1,438 genes. As such, it hosts the highest rates of mutation, because deleterious effects are rare. In addition, most of the chromosome cannot recombine with the X-chromosome. This non-recombining region of the chromosome ('NRY') is sequenced in terms of single nucleotide polymorphisms to trace direct paternal lines. There are 37 regions that can be differentiated by pattern of SNPs falls into a limited number of groups.
My sample grouped with the I-M253 haplogroup. This group is described in the Wikipedia link:
The origin of the I-M253 pattern has been estimated to have occurred 3,470 - 5,070 years ago. Using 4,000 years as a round number and an average generation time of 25 years, one can estimate that this is 160 generations since 2,000 BCE.
The Y-chromosome has relatively few transcribed genes. One estimate holds that the human Y-chromosome as lost 1,393 of its original 1,438 genes. As such, it hosts the highest rates of mutation, because deleterious effects are rare. In addition, most of the chromosome cannot recombine with the X-chromosome. This non-recombining region of the chromosome ('NRY') is sequenced in terms of single nucleotide polymorphisms to trace direct paternal lines. There are 37 regions that can be differentiated by pattern of SNPs falls into a limited number of groups.
My sample grouped with the I-M253 haplogroup. This group is described in the Wikipedia link:
In the Timen Stidham project, the I-M253 group is the most frequent among those who have participated. However, my genealogy research does not yet support this connection.In human genetics, Haplogroup I-M253 is a Y chromosome haplogroup which occurs at greatest frequency in Fenno-Scandia. The mutations identified with Haplogroup I-M253 (Y-DNA) are M253, M307, P30, and P40. These are known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). It is a subclade of Haplogroup I. Before a reclassification in 2008,[2] the group was known as Haplogroup I1a.The group displays a very clear frequency gradient, with a peak of approximately 40 percent among the populations of western Finland and more than 50 percent in the province of Satakunta,[3] and around 38 percent in Sweden as a whole, with a peak of 52 percent in Västra Götaland County in central Sweden.[4]
The origin of the I-M253 pattern has been estimated to have occurred 3,470 - 5,070 years ago. Using 4,000 years as a round number and an average generation time of 25 years, one can estimate that this is 160 generations since 2,000 BCE.
Famous people in the I-M253 haplogroup include Birger Jarl, one of Sweden's greatest medieval statesman, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, Leo Tolstoy, Calvin Coolidge, Warren Buffett, and Jimmy Buffett.
These relationships should be considered in the context of the calculated 160 generations since the haplogroup emerged. Think of eight generations back, 200 years, the time of Alexander Hamilton. We would go this number of generations back times 20 to arrive at a the original I-M253. Clearly, the haplogroup has little relevance in accounting for anything in my own life history.
Another context would be the distance to the human 'Adam'. He and 'Eve' are estimated to have lived 200,000 to 300,000 years ago. Using the 25 year generation time, there have been 8,000 - 12,000 generations since our species separated into its current configuration. I believe there is a timeline showing the estimates of the start of each haplogroup, but I don't know them off hand. Using the letters in order, 'I' would be number 9, perhaps indicating a haplogroup emerging every 20,000 years. This estimation tracks well with literature numbers. Put into another perspective, the origin of the I-M253 haplogroup occurred around the time of the separation of the Jewish and the Arab tribes. Call me Ishmael!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)