#147 / Another Commencement Speech

Pictured is the Monterey College of Law Class of 2013. Commencement exercises were held yesterday at Santa Catalina School, which is a pretty nice place to hang out on a beautiful day: 

Since I am the current Chairperson of the MCL Board of Trustees, I gave a speech. So did Dean Mitchel Winick, and so did the official commencement speaker, State Senator Bill Monning. Monning, by the way, is a former teacher at MCL, and all the teachers at MCL are of stellar quality (those who teach there do that not as a full time job, but as a way to enrich their own lives, and those of the students). 

Professor Stephen Wagner was honored by the students this year, and was presented with the Outstanding Faculty Award by graduate Christine Keyzers-Kelly. Wagner has also served on the MCL Board of Trustees, and is a former prosecutor who travelled statewide to assist local District Attorneys with complicated drunk driving cases, where a death had occurred. He also spoke to the graduates, after receiving his award.

All these speeches were good, and Bill Monning's speech, in particular, reminded graduates that the true aim and ambition of the law is justice. "Justice, justice thou shalt pursue" was his message, though not presented in Biblical terms.

For me, the highlight of the day was the Graduate Address presented by one of the graduating students, Isaí Ambrosio-Ramirez, who had been selected by the Class of 2013 to speak on its behalf. With amazing tact and sensitivity, and in an undramatic but powerful recitation, his speech celebrated and appreciated the unique gifts and contributions  of each and every student in the Class of 2013. He "named names," and made clear to all the families and friends gathered in the audience that these students had been successful because they brought their individual talents and gifts into a community, and that this Class of 2013, in its entirety, was indeed not simply a collection of individuals, but was a community in which individual contributions strengthened the whole. 

I have written recently of a commencement speech presented by Governor Brown at UC Berkeley, and of a commencement speech by Robert Reich, a respected educator and public servant. These were good speeches, but seemed aimed, mainly, at the graduates as individuals. In his speech, Isaí Ambrosio-Ramirez reminded everyone (though never saying so outright) that our work and efforts, making great individual demands upon us, are perfected through our connections with one another.

That's a message worth hearing. And remembering.

POSTSCRIPT: 

For someone looking for an extraordinary (and affordable) legal education, at what is truly an extraordinary law school, there is still time to enroll at MCL for the academic year that will start in August. Contact Dean of Admissions Wendy LaRiviere for more information. 

#146 / The Filter Bubble

Our contact with "reality" is ever more mediated by machines, and particularly by different types of computers. Most of us don't think about it much, or at all, but we are not, individually, the ones who program what we see, as we browse the internet to find information of importance. 

This article (click the link) addresses the issue, and was most recently updated on June 21, 2011, which makes the discussion in the article about two years old. It definitely helps illuminate some of the key questions. Eli Pariser's book, The Filter Bubble, mentioned in the article, provides a more extensive discussion. In fact, large corporations like Google, Facebook, Yahoo, or Microsoft (or name your favorite search engine) are deciding what "realities" we find when we search for information on the internet. We don't get everything, and we don't decide ourselves how our search results are filtered. 

Speaking for myself (and maybe for you), my initial contact with "reality" often does comes from an internet search. The fact that I am getting "steered" to certain information, and don't get pointed to all information on the topics I care about, does cause me some concern. Obviously, the "commercialization" of the internet search function is one issue, but my concerns are even greater when I consider the political implications of the "directed search."

A recent article (published on The Atlantic Cities website on May 17, 2013) notes that the Google Maps application is now, or shortly will be, configuring our access to the geographic and physical realities we search for on the same principle that search engines have been using vis a vis our information inquiries. Again, this does seem of concern, since we are now ever more frequently gaining access to the realities of our world by going to a search engine first. Instead of walking down a street, looking for a place to buy a bagel, we go where our cell phone directs us. All very helpful, but we might miss some things along the way!

I doubt I am about to give up using internet search. It's just too helpful and useful (filtered or not). Being aware that our search results are filtered, of course, can help offset the "steering" function that our search engines are providing. Realistically, however, that isn't much of a solution. 

Is there a solution?

In fact, probably not, and even before internet search it was true that our interaction with "reality" is always "mediated," or "filtered" by something - including, notably, by our socioeconomic status. We can, though, do two things that might be helpful: (1) Talk with, meet with, and interact with real people all the time (all kinds of people, and not just "friends," of the Facebook variety or otherwise). In addition (2), we can physically walk around this world of ours, and the Natural World that surrounds and sustains it. 

"Reality" is not found on the internet, but in the world of people and things that have physical presence.

If you are looking for a bagel shop, though, I wouldn't forego an internet search.

Image Credit: 
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100093155/the-filter-bubble-is-a-sinister-phenomenon-but-eli-parisers-alternative-sounds-even-worse/

#145 / The Outermost House

The Outermost House, by Henry Beston, chronicles "a year of life on the Great Beach of Cape Cod," to quote the book's subtitle. It is a book worth reading. The book has long been recognized as a "classic of American nature writing," to quote the book's back cover. 

Beston was born in 1888, and spent his year on the beach in 1926-1927. In his foreword to the 1949 edition of the book, Beston wrote the following: 

It is the privilege of the naturalist to concern himself with a world whose greater manifestations remain above and beyond the violences of men. Whatever comes to pass in our human world, there is not shadow of us cast upon the rising of the sun, no pause in the flowing of the winds or halt in the long rhythms of the breakers hastening ashore ... At the Coast Guard Station there are new activities and new faces, and the visitor will find there sons of the very men mentioned in this book. With such changes, however, the dune world is not concerned. In that hollow of space and brightness, in that ceaseless travail of wind and sand and ocean, the world one sees is still the world unharassed of man...

The Henry Beston Society has a map available, documenting "where Henry Beston’s famous beachside shanty was located when it was built in 1925, and where that location is today." Or, you can consult Google Maps, typing "Eastham, MA" into the search field. It seems, despite Beston's hopeful thoughts in 1949, that the things that we have done in our "human world" have, in fact, made changes in the natural world that do not allow us to believe that the World of Nature will endure, always, "unharassed of man."

The picture above is particularly poignant when it is compared against Beston's description of his walks inland from the coast. No expressways are mentioned. 

If you believe, as I do, that what we are doing in our "human world" is not only "harassing" the World of Nature, but is undermining the ability of the World of Nature to sustain and support our "human world" itself, then you can also consult the "timelapse" website that Google has recently released, showing human caused changes to Nature for the period from 1984 to 2012.

Read the book first. Then do that. This is an exercise that may convince you that there is not much time left. 

Image Credit: 
(1) http://www.muffyaldrich.com/2012/07/henry-bestons-outermost-house-cape-cod.html
(2) http://www.panoramio.com/photo/18687213

#144 / Go Bears

I liked Robert Reich's all-purpose commencement speech, which he presented online for widespread distribution. 

A commencement speech presented by Governor Jerry Brown, to political science graduates at UC Berkeley, was delivered in person. It actually makes much the same point: 

I am not saying that the big issues are going to be settled easily, that greenhouse gasses will soon be curbed or that inequality will be quickly reversed. 

But I do affirm, based on my experience, that people can exercise power wherever they are in society. Certainly not on every occasion but, at crucial moments, imaginative and bold people make a difference. 

You have studied political science. You have had the special privilege of being here on the Berkeley campus. 

As you leave today, never forget what the graduates before you did and what you can do when the moment calls on you. 

You have the intellect. Make sure you have the will. 

The grizzly bear is on our California flag. It portrays strength and determination. 

Take that with you. 

Go Bears!

Image Credit:
http://www.mymotherlode.com/news/local/2099953/Browns-Commencement-Address-at-UC-Berkeley.html

#143 / The Good Old Days

Here's a graduation speech, by Robert Reich, that is well worth reading! It's all about the "good old days" when I was graduating. According to Reich, those "good old days" aren't over yet:

The genius of America lies in its resilience and pragmatism. We believe in social progress because we were born into it. It is our national creed. 

Which is to say, I understand your cynicism. It looks pretty hopeless. 

But, believe me, it isn’t. 

Not if you pitch in.

Image Credit: 
http://www.nationofchange.org/triumph-progressivism-graduation-2013-and-1968-1368538846

#142 / Mother

On Mother's Day this year, I posted a picture of my mother on my Facebook page. I also posted a link to a movie, called Mother: Caring For 7 Billion.

I had a great mother!

The movie is pretty good, too. I recommend it.

#141 / The Projection Of Power

I am not a big fan of Henry Kissinger. It's personal. 

During one of my years at Stanford (1963), I ran the Stern Hall "Guest in Residence Program." We invited notable persons to come to campus, to deliver a major campus/community presentation, and then to live in Stern Hall for several days, making themselves available to lucky dorm residents. Henry Kissinger participated in the program, and I was the one who made all the arrangements. 

These arrangements included a contract, negotiated between Stanford and Dr. Kissinger's agency. Several days before he was due to show up, and after all the publicity had appeared, I heard from the great man that he was demanding travel expenses (not specified in the contract we had with him). We could take it or leave it. 

We took it. Right up the you know where. 

I did not appreciate Dr. Kissinger's negotiating style. However, remembering the incident, as the years went by, I fully understood how he liked to conduct diplomacy on behalf of myself and the other citizens and residents of the United States. He is, I gather, from a review of his book On China, a big fan of Mao Tse Tung, celebrating the Chinese leader's brand of power politics and excusing his excesses. Again, this is perfectly consistent with my own, personal, experience.

A recent article in The Wall Street Journal made me think again of Dr. Kissinger. The article extolled Dr. Kissinger's virtues, though the main point of the article was to excoriate President Obama, who apparently "doesn't have a foreign policy," at least in the eyes of The Wall Street Journal. Just for reference and possible future use, by the way, if you would like a quick connection to articles critical of our current President, just enter The Wall Street Journal's name into your browser search field. There isn't a day gone by that doesn't feature at least one article along those lines, and usually several.

Let me speak to the merits and substance of the article that drew my attention. Having a "foreign policy," in the Kissinger tradition, and in the way The Wall Street Journal would like to see it done, means being able to "project power" throughout the world. A friend of Dr. Kissinger (Robert Kaplan, published on the website of the Center for a New American Security) explains the concept in his April, 2013 article entitled, "In Defense of Henry Kissinger." Nations need to be able to compel others to do what they want them to do (by the projection of power). Who really benefits?

Currently, the wealth of the 400 most wealthy individual American citizens exceeds the wealth of the 180 million Americans who are the least wealthy. So claims Gar Alperovitz. 

American "projection of power" is impoverishing the world, and most Americans, and is making enemies everywhere. I am not a fan of that kind of "foreign policy," and it's way more than personal.

Image Credit:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324216004578480811652337252.html

#140 / Hack The Sky

Global warming and climate change are serious concerns, and both can be attributed to the actions of human beings. It is our own human actions that have caused, and that are continuing to cause, the global warming problems we face. What we are doing in "our world" is leading to adverse impacts in the World of Nature, upon which all life on Earth depends. Since the problems that have been generated in the World of Nature have been caused by human activity, the elimination of these problems requires that we change the human activity that has caused them.

Most obviously, we need to change what we are doing by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. This means, most basically, reducing our combustion of hydrocarbon fuels. Groups like 350.org are urging that human beings do just that, and undertake immediate steps to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. The State of California has enacted comprehensive legislation to achieve such greenhouse gas reductions (AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006"), which mandates that Californians take actions that will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels, by the year 2020. A plan to achieve those reductions is now in place, pursuant to the mandate of AB 32. Implementation efforts are just getting underway.

Meantime, some people have already given up on the idea that we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions enough to make a difference. They suggest a different approach; namely, to start "geoengineering" the planet. Click right here, if you would like to see some of the specifics they're suggesting. 

I am not convinced by the "geoengineering" concept. Here is the way I see it:

1. Global warming has been caused by human activities (most significantly by the burning of lots of hydrocarbon fuels). 
2. At the start, we didn't realize that our human activities could, in fact, undermine the integrity of the Natural World that supports all life, but.... 
3. Now we know. 
4. Since it has been our human actions that have caused the problem, we need to change those actions. In other words, we need to stop burning hydrocarbon fuels. 
5. Trying out some new way to put human beings in charge of the natural processes that "run" the World of Nature, and to assert that humans can, or should, take charge of the operations of the World of Nature, instead of conforming ourselves to the limits of that Natural World, is bound to get us into even deeper trouble. 

"Geoengineering" and "hacking the sky" aren't going to help us. The "Two Worlds Hypothesis" might. 

If we could start recognizing our ultimate dependence on the World of Nature that we didn't create, and remind ourselves, always, that anything is possible in the human world that we do create, we could get out of our current dilemma. 

And the first step? 

The first rule for getting out of a hole is to "stop digging."

Image Credit: 
http://www.earthisland.org/events/skyhack/

#139 / Upworthy

A video I saw recently, deemed "upworthy" by the website that bears that name, is a nineteen minute commentary by men and women who have seen Earth from space. 

It changes you, they said,

To see our Earth from space.

From where you watch, up there,

It seems a different kind of place.

A powerful new realization that our planet is both finite and fragile is a common theme. Also, that  the Earth is precious, rare, and unparalleled in all the creation visible from the highest point from which our human eyes have ever looked.

The Earth, said one astronaut, is "like this beautiful oasis out in the middle of nothingness; an oasis against the backdrop of infinity."

This beautiful but fragile world, singular in space, is what sustains everything we do; what we have done, and all our hopes. 

It is an "upworthy" video and an uplifting one. 

Recommended. 

Image Credit:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1133

#138 / Backyard Surfin'

Finding out what other people are thinking and doing is sometimes as easy as hitting that "Next Blog >>" button. That's how you can do it in the Blogger program, anyway, which is where this Two Worlds blog shows up. I have always found it worth my time to browse a bit.

I was browsing around about a week or so ago, and I found this blog. Imagine my surprise. That's my son, surfing in my own backyard. 

We didn't get that much water in Santa Cruz last winter, but when it does rain in Santa Cruz, an awful lot of water seems to end up on our  block, and specifically in our backyard. 

My son has had lots of other thoughts and adventures, too. His blog is a "Next Blog >>" worth looking into. 

And here is another picture, a kind of proof that this backyard surfin' comic strip does not come to you by virtue of Photoshop! This picture illustrates a rain in March, 2011. None of the water pictured was manufactured through desalination.

Image Credits: (1) http://www.wavejumper.org/WaveJumpers_Notebook/notes/Entries/2008/1/17_Surfing_in_my_backyard.html; 
(2) Gary Patton personal photo

#137 / What Then Must We Do?

I found this new book by Gar Alperovitz to be very engaging. Its informal style is probably what does it. I made lots of marginal notes as I read through its 160 pages (not counting the notes), and I ended up feeling like I was having a spirited conversation with an extremely well-informed and deeply concerned fellow citizen. 

What are we going to have to do to repair (or replace) our "crumbling American system?" We are going to have to do something, because our problems are not "self-correcting." 

Quite the opposite.

This book got me thinking - and thinking positively! I recommend it.

PS: Gar Alperovitz will speaking at Kresge College, on the UCSC Campus, on Thursday, May 30th. starting at 7:00. Sponsored by Transition Santa Cruz.   


Image Credit: 
http://whatthenmustwedo.org/

#136 / Utopia #4

I am reading a book by Gar Alperovitz (pictured above). It turns out that Alperovitz has the same kind of idea about "utopian thinking" that I do:

Not to be too academic, but it's worth mentioning that we are also talking about the sociology of knowledge and scholars like Karl Mannheim, an important mid-twentieth-century Hungarian who did most of his work in Germany and Britain. Mannheim held that the dominant ideology legitimated and helped defend the dominant class and dominant system. What he called "Utopia," on the other hand, represented a set of ideas posing a fundamental challenge to the dominant ideas. In Mannheim's world utopia was not, as we often think of it, as state that can never be reached; it was the emerging new direction.

Since I read Mannheim in my Social Thought and Institutions seminar, which focused on utopia, and since Alperovitz cites Mannheim as the foundation for his own ideas about utopia, I guess that there shouldn't be any surprise that I like Alperovitz' thinking. Utopia is, indeed, "an emerging new direction." And far from being a "state that can never be reached," it is an attainable goal (within our human world).

The Mannheim book I best remember is called Ideology and Utopia. It's still worth reading. Alperovitz' book is called What Then Must We Do?

Image Credit: 
http://twittweb.com/video+gar+alperovitz+s+-23198480

#135 / Utopia #3

I would like to be clear about my own personal thinking about utopia. While I very much reject the "techno-utopianism" discussed in my 2013 blog post #134, published yesterday, I do remain committed to the kind of "utopian" thinking that I have frequently advocated here, throughout the 1,237 blog postings I have made to date on this Two Worlds blog. 

My idea of "utopian" thinking is based on a realization that within the world that human beings  create anything is possible. We have the ability to make both our dreams and our nightmares "come true." If we can think it, we can do it (within our human world). 

"Utopian thinking," in this context, is the rejection of the apparent "reality" of what exists now, if we think of "reality" as immutable. Whatever exists now (in our human world) is subject to change. In our world, we create the realities, and if we can think it, we can do it (within our human world).

But the World of Nature we cannot change. It has its own, "natural" laws which cannot be "broken." On that world our own world is ultimately dependent. 

Utopian thinking, in other words, only works within the human world that we make. When our "utopianism" starts believing that human beings can escape the limits imposed by the World of Nature, and that we can defy its inevitabilities (like death, for instance), we are way off the track. 

Image Credit: 
http://vimeo.com/user3572559

#134 / Utopia #2

As reported earlier, I have placed a high value on "utopian" thinking since my undergraduate days, when I studied "Utopia" for two years as a participant in an Honors Program in Social Thought and Institutions. Given this background, I was interested in a recent article, published in Foreign Policy, that criticizes what the author calls "contemporary techno-utopianism." Foreign Policy, by the way, for those not acquainted with it, is  a web-based magazine that proposes "to explain how the world works," and in particular to explain "how the process of globalization is reshaping nations, institutions, and global cultures." If those topics sound interesting to you, you can "Follow" the magazine on Facebook, or sign up for a free newsletter. 

In fact, I found little to disagree with in "The Singularity of Fools," authored by David Rieff. His complaint is with the idea that there is some sort of "technological fix" for all the world's problems. Rieff cites a book by Evgeny Morozov (To Save Everything, Click Here), as providing an appropriate antidote for the temptations of "technological solutionism."

I agree with both Rieff and Morozov. "Technology" is a human creation, part of our "human world," and many of our most pressing problems stem not from the absence of human activity aimed at changing that world, but from a basic failure to understand that "our" world is in fact utterly dependent on the World of Nature, the realities of which we are attempting to defy. 

What really got me to look at "The Singularity of Fools," when a link for the article popped up on my computer screen, was the picture above. I immediately recognized the place, which I visited in February of 2010, while the "ship in the sky" casino (which is what is pictured) was still under construction. 

A 2010 picture of the casino is below. It's in Singapore. 

Our human "building projects," of all kinds, which include our "institutional" constructions, as well as physical ones, can often provide a glittering and brillant addition to our human world. 

In the end, however, we live ultimately in a world that we did not create, and the laws of that world are not subject to human modification, or to the transformations of human technology. We forget this at our peril. If we fail to conform our actions to the natural laws that govern the World of Nature, within which our own world is created, all the brillant lights of technology will not avail us, or save our world from its doom.

Image Credit: 
(1) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/29/the_singularity_of_fools
(2) Gary A. Patton. personal photo

#133 / Just Count To Three

I have been reading Help Thanks Wow, by Anne Lamott, who just spent a year on Match.com and lived to write about it. If you believe what she writes (and I do, though she does admit to lying from time to time), Lamott faces the standard and not so standard adversities of life with great aplomb, and with the assistance of three essential prayers:

Help

Thanks 

Wow!

I recommend the book - and, in fact, I have written about it before. I also recommend the methodology. I was most carried away by the Wow Chapter (and by the one that follows it):

In paintings, music, poetry, architecture, we feel the elusive energy that moves through us and the air and the ground all the time, that usually disperses and turns chaotic in our busy-ness and distractedness and moodiness ... For a short time, we see past all that is jumbled, mysterious, marvelous and ugly. Instead, we glimpse life, beauty, grief, or evil, love captured and truth held up to the light. Art makes it hard to ignore truth, that Life explodes and blooms, consumes, rots and radiates and slithers; that eternity really is in a blade of grass... We stand before Monet and Rothko and the Sphinx and Georgia O'Keeffe and are speechless, in awe. Awe is why we are here...

That's when we say, "Wow!"

There is one chapter past the Wow Chapter. Lamott quotes a poem written by Raymond Carver shortly before his death, and that is inscribed on Carver's tombstone: 

And did you get what 

you wanted from this life, even so? 

I did. 

And what did you want? 

To call myself beloved, to feel myself 

beloved on the earth

That's when we say, 

Amen.

References:
Help Thanks Wow, Pages 82-83; Page 99
Image Credit: 
http://www.faithvillage.com/article/b9281989c5e34bd1b0cc390d45b8b962/help_thanks_wow__anne_lamott_book_review

#132 / What's The Difference?

Here's a riddle for you: 

QUESTION:

What's the difference between you and God? 

ANSWER:

God never thinks he's you.

Reference: Help Thanks Wow, Pages 35-36
Image Credit: http://sjhannam.edublogs.org/

#131 / What I Can't Change

Anne Lamott, pictured, repeats what a friend once told her:  

The three things I cannot change are the past, the truth, and you. I hate this insight ... 

Reference: 

Help Thanks Wow, Page 31

Image Credit:
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ae/books/journey-to-faith-writer-anne-lamott-shares-her-life-lessons-this-weekend-382542/

#130 / Categorical Imperative With A Twist

Kant's categorical imperative is designed to be used when asking a question of oneself: What should I do? Or, more precisely, what is "right" or "moral" for me to do?

Kant's answer to that question, which is really an inquiry into morals, is this: You must "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." That is his purely philosophical formulation of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative has been enshrined in religious traditions as the "Golden Rule," and it is sometimes expressed in other ways, too. For instance, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have translated the categorical imperative into this advisory: "Eat your own dog food."

Frequently, when thinking about politics, we start thinking about what "other" persons should do. What should the Democrats do? What should the Republicans do? What should the President do? What should the City Council do? These questions, clearly, are perfectly appropriate. However, maybe it would make sense for us to apply a kind of "reverse twist" to the categorical imperative, as we ask these questions. In other words, if we have opinions about what the Republicans, or the Democrats, or the President, or the City Council should do, are we already doing those things ourselves? If not, maybe we should be posing those questions to ourselves, not others. Politics is not a spectator sport, and our democratic politics is particularly about what we are going to do, not about what others ought to do!

Image Credit: 
http://www.gamesradar.com/what-if-everyone-behaved-the-same-way-with-games/

#129 / Turf Thinking

Today, the California Coastal Commission is going to consider a proposal by the City of San Francisco to convert some existing soccer fields in Golden Gate Park from natural to artificial turf. Other changes are proposed, as well. You can read the staff report by clicking the link, if you are interested. 

An article published last week in the San Francisco Chronicle indicates that there is going to be some controversy about the staff recommendation, which is that the Commission reject the proposal to install artificial turf because (in the words of the article) it "violates the 'naturalistic landscape' of Golden Gate Park." 

Since I am always wary of human efforts to substitute human-created realities for the realities of the natural world (for instance, by installing plastic, artificial grass in place of real grass), my initial reaction to the staff recommendation is positive. Real nature, as opposed to artificial nature, should definitely be preferred in the Coastal Zone, in my opinion. In fact, I think the natural world should almost always be preferred over artificial substitutes anywhere!

The staff report doesn't, actually, base its recommendation on a philosophical preference for "natural" over "artificial" substitutes. In fact, the City's own Local Coastal Program requires that developments in Golden Gate Park "emphasize the naturalistic landscape qualities of the western end of the park for visitor use.” 

All the Coastal Commission staff is actually saying is that the City should follow its own guidelines!

Image Credit: 
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Report-opposes-Beach-Chalet-soccer-plan-4480846.php

#128 / New Tricks

I have written about the Catholic Worker before, and in one posting I specifically celebrated the Easy Essays of Peter Maurin. 

Let me once again recommend those Easy Essays. Let me recommend the Catholic Worker, too. It's only one penny per issue, but I encourage you to pay more. 

Last Wednesday, when I got my latest edition of the Catholic Worker, I was amazed to see that it was the 80th Anniversary Issue! It has a couple of those Easy Essays inside, and here is one I particularly like: 

The Age of Chaos

1. And we are now

   in the ago of chaos.

2. In an age of chaos

    people look for a new order.

3. What makes for chaos

    is lack of order.

4. Because people are

    becoming aware

    of this lack of order

    they would like to be able

    to create order

    out of chaos.

5. The time

    to create order

    out of chaos

    is now.

6. The germ of the present

    was in the past,

    and the germ of the future

    is in the present.

7. The thing to do

    is to give up old tricks

    and start to play

    new tricks.

Image Credit: 
http://thehost55.blogspot.com/2011/02/my-birthday-present-arrived.html

#127 / What I Won't Do

I have to say that I like this cartoon. It captures exactly the way that I, personally, tend to make decisions - and the way I think decisions should actually be made. 

Sometimes, the most important step in deciding what to do is the step of deciding what you "won't do." I recommend that approach. People should explore their "won't do it" parameters before deciding what they "will do." My partiality for the "won't do it" method of making decisions goes back to my draft resistance days, in the late 1960's. I decided that killing people was something that I just "wouldn't do." That certainly helped narrow down the range of choices facing me, vis a vis the draft. 

Deciding what you "won't do," before deciding what you are actually going to do, is also a good way to make public policy choices. For instance, the voters of Santa Cruz County decided, when they passed Measure J in 1978, that one thing they "wouldn't do" was to allow the conversion of commercially productive farmland to some other use. That "won't do it" decision has definitely shaped the kind of place in which we live - and I think in a good way. We have greenbelts and a strong agricultural industry because we made public policy decisions about what we "wouldn't do" at the outset.

This evening, Tuesday May 7, 2013, the Santa Cruz City Council and the Soquel Creek Water District Board of Directors are meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the Santa Cruz City Hall. They will be holding a kind of study session on a proposed desalination project in my home town. The "won't do it" approach should be considered as a possible way to structure the decision making process, at least in my opinion.

Ultimately, the voters of the City of Santa Cruz are going to decide whether or not to begin "manufacturing water" to deal with the long term water supply problems confronting Santa Cruz County. I think that's a fair description of the desalination option. An environmental impact review process, which will inform the decision, is just about to begin. Hopefully, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will fully explore genuine "alternatives" to the proposed desalination project. That's what the law requires, anyway: the consideration of genuine alternatives to the proposed project, not just alternative ways of carrying out the proposed project.

When I think about whether or not I am going to vote for desalination, it is going to be important to me whether or not there has been a full exploration of possible alternatives. I will be looking for evidence that our community has been given an opportunity  fully to consider alternative ways to deal with our water supply problems, and have not just looked into alternative ways to build a desalination plant. 

So far, the Santa Cruz City Council, reflecting the bias of its Water Director, has not really been willing to consider the alternatives. They think they "know" that desal is the only way to go. This is fairly understandable, since the City's Water Director plays a leadership role in a statewide, industry-funded group called CalDesal that describes its purpose this way:

CalDesal is the only advocacy group in California solely dedicated to advancing the use of desalination. Other organizations choose not to engage, or address desalination as part of broader policy platforms. CalDesal’s narrow focus allows for the most targeted, credible and persistent support for this important technology.

In order to make sure that genuine alternatives are in fact given full review, we should begin with a "won't do it" approach to our decision making process. Let's just suppose (and this would be a hypothetical or "heuristic" supposition at this point) that we make a community decision that we simply won't deal with our water supply problems by "manufacturing water." If we were to make that hypothetical, "I won't manufacture water" decision, as our starting point for the analysis of alternatives, then all that would be left would be a range of genuine alternatives to desalination. The community could focus on whether those genuine alternatives would be acceptable, and could fully evaluate their cost and environmental impact.

The "we won't do desal" proposition, of course (again, as a hypothesis) would really be just another way of saying that we might decide, as a community, to live within the limits of the natural world. 

Anyone who regularly reads this Two Worlds blog will immediately know that I think that living within the limits of our natural environment is definitely a "hypothesis" we should explore - at the very least. I am close to thinking it is one of the Commandments!

So, if the City and the Water District don't take the "I don't do desal" approach, at least as a hypothetical way fully to understand our genuine alternatives, and if they just study alternative ways of doing desal, then I, for one, am not going to be persuaded that we should make a commitment to desalination. 

Image Credit: 
http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/Great-Is-there-anything-you-won-t-do-for-money-Cartoon-Prints_i8640490_.htm

#126 / Humanism

The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, with its famous portrayal of God giving life to Man, is one of the great works of Renaissance Humanism. Man, we note, is equivalent in size to God. Thus humanism begins. 

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494), who was one of the early Renaissance humanists, described man's place in the Creation this way, speaking in God's voice as if he were putting words to Michelangelo's picture, which Michelangelo had yet to paint on the Sistine ceiling: 

We have set thee at the world's center that thou mayest from thence more easily observe whatever is in the world. We have made thee neither of heaven nor of earth, neither mortal nor immortal, so that with freedom of choice and with honor, as though the maker and molder of thyself, thou mayest fashion thyself in whatever shape thou shalt prefer. Thou shalt have the power to degenerate into the lower forms of life, which are brutish. Thou shalt have the power, out of thy soul's judgment, to be reborn into the higher forms, which are divine ...  

Whatever seeds each man cultivates will grow to maturity and bear in him their own fruit. If they be vegetative, he will be like a plant. If sensitive, he will become brutish. If rational, he will grow into a heavenly being. If intellectual, he will be an angel and the son of God. And if, happy in the lot of no created thing, he withdraws into the center of his own unity, his spirit, made one with God, in the solitary darkness of God, who is set above all things, shall surpass them all.

This quotation well states the primary assertion of the humanists, articulating the idea that it is Man himself who will determine all the aspects and conditions pertaining to his existence. We live in a world that we create.

In our times, it might well be thought that Michelangelo's depiction of The Creation of Adam is actually a picture in which the human figure gives thought, and thus life, to God. The portrayal of God and all his angels as existing within what is indubitably a drawing of a human brain might lead to that interpretation. 

By such a flip, or "swerve," has humanism has been transmogrified since Pico's time. It has become our modern creed. We, humans, are the Creators. We live in a world that we ourselves bring into being. Who can dispute this? Without doubt it is true.

But let us not forget an important thing that Pico said. Set above all things, surpassing them all, is the "solitary darkness of God." The human world that we create is not, in fact, the ultimate reality that sustains our life. Our human world is built upon, and within, and is dependent on, a world that we did not create.

To that world we must also pay attention.

[Source of quote: Ernst Cassirer, Paul Oskar Kristeller and John H. Randall, eds., The Renaissance Philosophy of Man (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 223-225.]

Image Credit:
http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/michelangelosbrain.html

#125 / Historical Responsibility

Query whether our judgment about historical responsibility is different from our judgment about legal responsibility, and whether a "but for" assignment of responsibility is appropriate in the context of judging historical events: 

History is written to satisfy not only the need for explanation, but also the desire to identify and assess contributions made by historical figures to changes of importance; to triumphs and disasters, and to human happiness or suffering. This assessment involves tracing "consequences," effects," or "results," and these are more frequently referred to than "causes" which has a primarily diagnostic or explanatory ring. In one sense of 'responsibility,' the historian determines the responsibility of human beings for certain types of change; and sometimes he does this with an eye to praising or blaming or passing other forms of moral judgment. But this need not be so; the historian, though concerned to trace the consequences of human action, need not be a moralist.  

               Causation In The Law, Hart and Honoré

Image Credit:

http://dailypano.yakohl.com/picture.php?photo=1338

#124 / Legal Responsibility

Everything that happens is part of a "natural and continuous" sequence of some kind. Does the doctor who saves a baby's life cause the death of a person killed by that baby, once the baby has grown up? 

If the baby grows up to be a killer, the doctor's work has actually played an important part in the continuous sequence of events that led to someone's death. "But for" the doctor's medical intervention, the victim would not have been killed.

Exonerating the doctor from any legal responsibility in this situation is an easy judgment to reach on the basis of common sense, but it is a bit harder to write down exactly when, why, or how legal responsibility should be assigned. 

The voir dire exhibit board, above, is what a judge might tell a jury about proximate cause. Strictly speaking, the death of the person killed in my hypothetical example would "not have occurred" without the doctor's work in saving the baby's life. The doctor's actions (a "cause in fact") are not considered to be the "proximate cause" of the death only because the doctor, using ordinary care, could not have foreseen the results of his medical intervention. 

Image Credit: 
http://www.dlstx.com/voir-dire-exhibit-board-proximate-cause/

#123 / What Did I Do?

Legal liability tends to be associated with a determination of causation. If there is no causation,  there is no liability. But how easy is it to determine who has caused what? 

Not as easy as you might think, at least where legal responsibility is at issue. 

The book illustrated, Causation In The Law, by H.L.A Hart and A.M. Honoré, is a philosophical examination of the concept of causation, with specific reference to this concept as it is used in the law. I have a much underlined copy of the 1959 First Edition, exactly as pictured here. It is one of my favorite books in the world. You can find the book in its original edition on sale (just click the link above), but you can also buy the book, dressed up in a more contemporary cover, with A.M. Honoré now being called "Tony." If you want to get into the philosophy without buying the book, there is an online synopsis of the issues in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I have been reflecting on what I might legitimately claim to have "done" during my life, at least to date, and concepts of causation are obviously relevant. That is what has brought me back to Hart and Honoré. For someone wanting to answer that "what did I [really] do?" question, this book is a good place to start.

Image Credit: 
http://www.bidorbuy.co.za/item/79034311/Causation_In_The_Law_By_H_L_A_Hart_A_M_Honore.html

#122 / Politics For Dummies

There actually is a book called Politics For Dummies. Of course, there is a "Dummies" book for almost every topic. Why should I have been surprised to find out that one of my own favorite topics has already been covered? I was hoping to write the book, but I guess I am too late. 

I haven't read Politics For Dummies, but I have done that "click to look inside" thing, on Amazon. Looks OK, but I still think I could have done a better job. 

There isn't any chapter on "Politics is How We Make Our World!"

Image Credit: 
http://themoderatevoice.com/180147/a-post-for-dummies/

#121 / Be The Change

I see "Be The Change" bumperstickers all around town. I see them in my neighborhood. Great sentiment! 

This bumpersticker wisdom originates, I think, from something Gandhi said: "Be the change you want to see in the world." Again, good advice! 

Considering his life and work, it is unlikely that Gandhi was trying to promote an individualistically oriented "be the change" methodology. Changing the world is not something you can do by yourself. Neither is Gandhi's advice based on the kind of wishful thinking advocated by The Secret. That book advises us (paraphrase from Wikipedia) that "positive thinking can create life-changing results such as increased wealth, health, and happiness." The way The Secret sees it, thinking those positive thoughts has an almost independent effectiveness, and will change the world pretty much along the lines of those great Glenn Miller lyrics, "Wishing Will Make It So." Listen to Frank Sinatra sing it. That should make a believer out of you!

I actually do have a lot of respect for The Power of Positive Thinking, both the concept and the Norman Vincent Peale book that Amazon calls a precursor to The Secret. My father brought me up that way. However, I do not much trust an individualistic or wishful thinking approach to changing the world. In the end, "positive thinking" and "being the change" as an individual activity are both necessary, but not sufficient.

Gandhi was one of the most effective political organizers in the history of humanity. He was not just a phrase maker. Our world is a collective work, and changing the world is not an individual activity.

It's political.