Law, Logic, and Human Nature

  I recently sat in on Superior Court proceedings in Carroll County. In the three hours that I observed, I was overwhelmed with the sadness and desperation of the defendants. It struck me once more how much of human suffering is the result of ego, emotion, and appetites. I observed cases involving back child support, property foreclosure, and violence over a girl between a current and an ex boy friend. While the cases themselves were very different, at least on the surface, they were similar in their root causes. All of the defendants (and in some cases the plaintiffs as well) were in their situations because of a lack of self control.
  The defendant in the child support case was behind in payments over fifty thousand dollars. He had tried to hide assets by deeding over his house to his current spouse. The judge was not impressed, and the gentleman was sent to jail on the spot for being in contempt of court. Needless to say, he had a very different lunch that day than he had expected. The case of violence involving relationships was caused by the three people involved challenging one another through (anti?) social media and through direct physical conflicts that resulted in some minor injuries and temporary incarceration of one of the three people involved. While the plaintiff and the defendant both had lawyers, the plaintiff really had no case. Her text messages, Facebook taunts, and direct witness testimony showed her lack of a legal case. Ironically, she had one leg in a cast, so she really didn't have much of a leg to stand on! And finally, the foreclosure case involved a man representing himself. He also had no case, because he did not know who actually owned the mortgage on his property. His request was rejected, and he was given a short time to remove himself and his belongings from the property.
  All three cases showed how much people cause their own "quiet desperation," to use Thoreau's term. If any of the people involved had had enough rationality to control their emotions and appetites, they would not have even been in court that day and would doubtless have had happier lives overall.
  I guess the bottom line is, if your life is a train wreck, you can blame the engineer of the train. And you can see the person by looking in the mirror.
  If I were a judge, I am afraid I would have a drinking problem. I cannot imagine having to listen to such tales of desolation and desperation day after day, and having to pronounce  sentence on such unfortunate people. Self control is the essence of serenity in human life.

Law, Logic, and Human Nature

The blind men and the elephant

The Blind men and the elephant is an ancient story, probably from early Hinduism. I thought this story might make a point with all of the continuing controversy on CFA. First of all, let me say that I am a Zen Buddhist, and as such I don't oppose any religious group for their beliefs. I do oppose treating anyone with anything less than compassion and understanding. I also do not think that I have a lock on the truth on any topic. (By the way, a shout-out to Leigh O'Farrell, my very talented former student who made the elephant depicted above!)
  The story goes like this: There were five blind men who were blind from birth. They kept hearing the word "elephant" and did not know what it meant. They got someone to bring an elephant so they could touch it and understand the word. They agreed that each one would touch a different part and then get together to discuss the experience. The first one touched the trunk; the second touched the ear; the third touched the leg; the fourth touched the side; and the last one touched the tail.
 The first man said, "The Elephant is like a great snake with a mouth on one end."  The second man said, "No, the elephant is like a great fan moving in the air." The third said, "No, the elephant is like a tree trunk." The fourth said, "The elephant is like a tree trunk." And the last blind man said, "No. The elephant is like a rope with a tassel on one end (and it doesn't smell very good!)."
 Of course, all of them were all correct (at least in part). The picture above has a quote that I used to say in class after telling this story. "I am only one blind man, and the world is a very large elephant." We all perceive the world around us in very different ways. Our perceptions are controlled by our cultures, our religious beliefs, our educations, etc. And each of us tends to believe our own view is the correct view. But the universe (and our world) is a very large, complicated place. Many of the world's controversies are the result of our inability to accept other people's right to their ideas, attitudes, beliefs, and, yes, gender orientations. We are all right, and we are all wrong. And based on our human limitations in this suffering world, we are all doing the best we can with what we have. So enjoy your view of the elephant, but know that it is not the only view.

Truth, Justice, and a Chicken Sandwich

Truth, Justice, and a Chicken Sandwich

               I have been following the controversy about the comments made by Truett Cathey with interest.

He, of course, is the founder of ChikFilA, and as such he is a prominent figure in this country. He is known for his strong Christian values, and as a result he does not open his stores on Sunday.  He supports the communities in which his stores are located by employing many young people and by giving money to their schools. He also gives many scholarships to deserving high school students who otherwise may not have the opportunity to attend college. All of this is merely background information here, and probably not necessary for most readers.

               Mr. Cathey recently spoke out about his personal moral beliefs about the institution of marriage, saying that he supports the traditional Christian belief that marriage is between one man and woman, and therefore he is against gay marriage. This stand has caused a huge controversy that has aroused the ire of both sides of the issue.

               My comments here will not be to support or to attack either side of the issue. My concern is  over the manner in which both sides have expressed their opinions as those expressions represent a far deeper issue.

               As I observed in an earlier blog, many of the world’s problems are the result of our clinging to our sense of ego, emotion, and appetites. In this particular issue, the overwhelming expression of emotion on both sides leaves very little room for a rational discourse on the issues at hand.

               I just watched the 1968 film 2001: Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick’s film treatment of Arthur C. Clarke’s novel. The novel and the film depict the development of the human race (or evolution to use the hot-button term). The opening of the film depicts two groups of hominids competing for food and water. In one scene they face off against one another over a puddle of water which both groups want. The members of both groups scream at one another, gesturing wildly, rolling in the dirt, and attempting to intimidate the members of the other group. Eventually, one group (as the result of an extraterrestrial object that stimulates their brains through a monolith) develops the ability to use large bones as weapons. That group then attacks members of the other group. What follows is apparently the first example of genocide as the one group is eliminated as inferior.

               That scene reminds me of the two groups who are either side of the chicken-sandwich controversy. The possibility of rational discourse in supplanted by the irrational rants. People  rely on emotion rather than intellect to express the feelings of each group. Neither side is willing to listen to the opinions of the other side or to give any credence to their stance. Mr. Cathey, of course, has a constitutional right to express his ideas. That fact has been indicated repeatedly. The other side of the issue has the same right. I am reminded of an oft-quoted statement by Voltaire: “I could not disagree more with your opinion, but I would die for your right to express it.”

               The issue represents a far more profound problem in the world overall. Whether the issue is one of politics, religion, economics, or social concerns, too often people resort to emotion rather to intellect to express their feelings. Those emotional expressions become increasingly heated, and in some cases lead to violence. Most of the wars (include the present conflicts) are the result of overheated emotions. Both sides are unwilling to listen to the other. Each side believes “In order for me to be right, the other side has to be wrong.” Such absolutes make any resolution of issues impossible. Each group demonizes the other. We see that attitude in the Middle Eastern conflicts. Western attitudes tend to depict Muslims as radical extremists incapable of rationality (“The only way to stop them is to kill them.”). And apparently, some of the Muslim groups have similar feelings. With both sides screaming and gesticulating at one another like hominids over a water hole, no rational conclusion is possible.

               The human race is capable of rational, calm discussions of issues. People do have a right to their beliefs, opinions, and feelings. But those rights extend to both sides of any issue. Until we can come to that acceptance, people will continue to feel anger, disrespect, and hatred for others.  In our world the weapons may be IED’s or thermonuclear devices instead of sticks or bones. (I saw a bumper sticker that said, “War does not prove who’s right, only who’s left.”) Killing one group may lead to the annihilation of the race.

               I want to close with another film reference (Anyone who knows me knows that I refer to movies frequently because they tend to reflect our culture’s opinions and attitudes). In The Empire Strikes Back, when Luke asks Yoda how he will recognize the Dark Side, Yoda tells him, “You will know when your mind is calm, at peace, passive.” He also warns Luke against hatred and anger because they lead to the Dark Side. It seems to me that those are wise words that all of us could take to heart. The Bible says, “A soft voice turneth away wrath.” Perhaps we should speak more quietly to one another, listen to one another, and respect one another. And then we can have a chicken sandwich for lunch without turning it into a moral issue.