https://quotefancy.com/quote/988783/Wendell-Berry-The-earth-is-what-we-all-have-in-common
Category: Civility
Facing Our Political Situation: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?
BERTHE:
She climbs a tree
And scrapes her knee
Her dress has got a tear.
SOPHIA:
She waltzes on her way to mass
And whistles on the stair.
BERTHE:
And underneath her wimpole
She has curlers in her hair!
SOPHIA:
I ever hear her singing in the abbey.
BERTHE:
She’s always late for chapel,
MARGARETTA:
But her penitence is real.
BERTHE:
She’s always late for everything,
Except for every meal.
MOTHER ABBESS:
I hate to have to say it
But I very firmly feel
BERTHE AND SOPHIA:
Maria’s not an asset to the abbey!
MARGARETTA:
I’d like to say a word in her behalf.
Maria makes me laugh!
SOPHIA:
How do you solve a problem like Maria?
MOTHER ABBESS:
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
MARGARETTA:
How do you find a word that means Maria?
BERTHE:
A flibberti gibbet!
SOPHIA:
A willo’ the wisp!
MARGARETTA:
A clown!
MOTHER ABBESS:
Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her,
Many a thing she ought to understand.
MARGARETTA:
But how do you make her stay
And listen to all you say,
MOTHER ABBESS:
How do you keep a wave upon the sand?
MARGARETTA:
Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria?
MOTHER ABBESS:
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?
MARGARETTA:
When I’m with her I’m confused,
Out of focus and bemused,
And I never know exactly where I am.
SOPHIA:
Unpredictable as weather,
She’s as flighty as a feather,
MARGARETTA:
She’s a darling,
BERTHE:
She’s a demon,
MARGARETTA:
She’s a lamb.
SOPHIA:
She’d out-pester any pest,
Drive a hornet from his nest,
BERTHE:
She can throw a whirling dervish
Out of whirl.
MARGARETTA:
She is gentle,
She is wild,
SOPHIA:
She’s a riddle.
MARGARETTA:
She’s a child.
BERTHE:
She’s a headache!
MARGARETTA:
She’s an angel!
MOTHER ABBESS:
She’s a girl.
ALL NUNS:
How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you catch a clown and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means Maria?
A flibberti gibbet!
A willo’ the wisp!
A clown!
Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her,
Many a thing she ought to understand.
But how do you make her say,
And listen to all you say?
How do you keep a wave upon the sand?
Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?
Context
Our polarized political situation is just the tip of the iceberg. We have similar challenges with our communities, economics and philosophies. We have well-meaning groups of individuals with apparently incompatible views without obvious ways to build bridges. We are facing a self-reinforcing cycle of increasing polarization, threatening modern civilization.
I’ve been focusing on the “root causes” of our situation recently and concluded that there are 6 interacting features that must be understood and addressed.
- Radical individualism, which undermines “community” and self-awareness.
- Human nature. We are psychologically and morally imperfect. Largely analog creatures wrestling with a much more complex world of choices.
- Skepticism. We are good at criticizing, undermining and doubting. Not as good at problem solving, problem resolution, creativity, empathy and communication.
- Living in a Secular Age. The default, background, unchallenged Christian worldview is gone. Individuals know they must make conscious choices.
- Imperfect Myths. Religion, science, progress, romanticism, personal growth, libertarianism, populism, classic liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, postmodernism … None of the individual views or clusters of worldviews is fully adequate for many people.
- Insecurity. Science, technology, business, international trade, specialization, computers, communications, and information all grow and become more complex. We are insecure in our “selves”, our roles and our economic situations.
In each case, the simple “left versus right” analysis or viewpoints are inadequate, misleading and ineffective.
- Conservatives promote economic individualism. Liberals promote social and “human rights” individualism. We have jointly lost sight of the essential role played by community in all dimensions of life.
- Conservatives tend to emphasize the negative, limited, sinful nature of man while liberals focus on the goodness and potential. Scientists conclude that we are both. Politicians and analysts tend to use overly simple models of man when seeking to understand or improve our situation.
- Conservatives are skeptical about progress, change, risks and high ideals. Liberals are skeptical about power, wealth, interests, structure, and large organizations. Healthy skepticism has its place.
- Conservatives fight the coming of a “Secular Age” with no cultural consensus on important questions. Liberals tend to welcome continued change towards a purely secular, scientific world where religion and philosophy disappear. We seem to be “stuck” needing a hybrid situation.
- Conservatives tend to embrace “well-defined” philosophies, theologies and myths. Liberals tend to like more complex, dynamic, evolving, individually fine-tuned world views. Theologians, philosophers, politicians, scientists and real people have been unable to outline life paradigms that are “obviously true” to everyone. We have different views, and it looks like there is no single final answer that everyone welcomes.
6. Conservatives emphasize a return to a culture with fixed answers on all dimensions thereby eliminating the difficult questions and uncertainties. Liberals emphasize a larger role for the state to buffer the real and mental anxieties of the modern world. Rather than finding a blended approach, the two groups shout louder and louder. Conservative means to liberal ends? More choice and more government options?
Analysis
What do we see in common here? There is no simple solution that is going to be embraced by everyone. The moral, social, political world does not work like the science and business world. We don’t see cumulative progress and increasing consensus. We struggle to find new or revised solutions to our old and new challenges of living a good life within community.
We know more about reality today on each of these 6 dimensions. We can rule out some bad ideas. We better understand trade-offs. We understand where religious and political views inherently cause disagreements. Our challenge is to use this better understanding to find better solutions.
We appear to have many unavoidable trade-offs and paired perspectives. The individual and community. Individual choice and shared community understanding. Analog and spiritual nature. Nature, nurture, chance and other. Certainty and doubt. Idealism and pragmatism. Logic and stories. Individual and universal/eternal. Either/or vs. both/and. Win/lose or win/win.
We have a deep need for certainty, understanding and purpose. We tend to press this too far and expect too much. The progress of science, technology, business and practical areas is so great. Our personal experiences of getting what we want is so common. We are unwilling to accept messy, imperfect, complex, fuzzy answers to important questions. We embrace the general progress of society, politics, science, business, human rights, medicine … and conclude that everything works this way. We look at Newton, classical physics, the scientific method, the ancient Greek model of the atom/materialism and Plato’s ideal “forms” and conclude that a very well-defined world is our birthright.
It’s time for a “revolution of expectations”. We can work with existing philosophies, theologies, worldviews, politics and social institutions and make them more effective. We can learn to embrace paradigms/myths that are imperfect. We can adjust our views and institutions to better support us in this new world.
In general, we need to become more comfortable with “both/and” solutions without falling into the trap of radical skepticism, relativity and subjectivity. We must look more deeply at the scientific method, science and the philosophy of science and understand how they are also imperfectly certain. Even mathematics is not perfectly certain. This is OK. Our political, cultural, social and religious views don’t need to be perfectly certain. We can embrace Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” as a gift, an insight, an experience rather than a curse.
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?
It’s 1965. Maria means well. She can’t easily fit into a classical religious organization. She is too human, too dynamic, too modern. The cat is out of the bag. The horse is out of the barn. The genie is out of the bottle. “How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?” Like the sisters, we need to embrace the tension, complexity, mystery, and potential of individuals, organizations and life. The classical answers are inadequate to the modern (or postmodern) situation. We have to understand our situation. We need to embrace the positive features. We should be optimistic and idealistic. We must work together on practical changes to make life better at all levels. This is not easy or trivial. We want simple answers. We want “either/or” style certainty. We want definitive rules and laws. We are “all in this together”. We can make progress. We can have a society with enough in common to work together and enough individual freedom to largely make our own choices.
High Level Solutions Strategy
First, we need to recognize where we are. We’re truly stuck “on the horns of a dilemma”. The historical conservative options of Christendom, nationalism, theocracy, libertarianism, laissez faire capitalism and totalitarianism ignore 500 years of Western culture and society. The liberal options of secular humanism, communism, progress, scientific materialism, romanticism, environmentalism, globalism, existentialism and postmodernism have not found broad public support [because they don’t fully meet human needs].
We seem to be “stuck in the middle” with a “classical liberal” form of representative government, a mixed market plus government form of capitalism and a mixed form of nationalism plus some internationalism for trade, defense and global issues. Our challenge is to refine, communicate and optimize the options and choices within the broad range of options here in the “middle”. We need to collectively reject the extreme views, so they don’t influence our debates. We need to define the essential elements of our middle view, wrap them in a story and constantly promote them as the key to historical, current and future success. The American “founding fathers” stories need to be updated for current use.
We need to address the 6 root causes of our current polarization and anxiety. We need to overhaul our political system to reflect what we have learned in 250 years. A brief outline of what is needed for each of the 6 root causes follows.
1. Radical Individualism and Community
We need leaders on the left and right to recognize the need for both the individual and community dimensions of life. First, limit the “rights” of individuals from becoming super values or God. Second, recognize and promote the critical roles of various communities in raising children, forming citizens, building trust, supporting institutions, trade, education and living a great life.
Our political, legal, educational and institutional systems must effectively support this balanced “both/and” view. We need to find ways to encourage and support “community” without allowing groups to impinge on individual liberties. Political parties must become refocused on their end-goals rather than “perfect” policies and means. Democrats need to provide more room for churches to express their views when it does not impact others. They need to embrace religious programs that deliver on Democratic ends. Republicans need to pursue cost reduction and earned benefits as separate policies aside from the core question of tax rates and zero taxes. Republicans need to find ways to reconcile the individualism of commercial capitalism with the community dimension of religion, family and institutions.
We need to review our tax and legal codes to promote not-for-profit organizations, political participation, volunteering and civility. Within the broad umbrella of “Western Culture” we have much in common that can be used to find solutions with broad public support.
2. Human Nature
We need leading social scientists to prepare a curriculum that helps everyone to understand what we really known about human nature. The extreme philosophical and political views are not supported. It’s not simple nature or nurture. We’re not simply good or bad. We’re not purely materialistic creatures. Personal growth is essential and critical, but not the only thing. We are social and moral beings. We have limited abilities to be fully focused and fully rational. All of us. We need to embrace our natures, build upon them and use them to our fullest advantage. The challenges of living in modern society with so many important choices require this. This should not be a political issue. Everyone can benefit.
Personality dimensions, flexibility, self-awareness, problem solving, creativity, multiple intelligences, behavioral economics, counseling, leadership, management, mentoring, stages of development, education, evolutionary psychology, cognitive behavioral therapy, influence, communications. We have the knowledge. We must share it.
3. Skepticism
Skepticism is a self-made trap. President Lincoln said “most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be”. Individuals can choose to be happy, positive, optimistic. Keep a diary, volunteer, join a group, engage in a task, use your talents, believe in something, reject negativity, speak with a friend, have fun, speak with a counselor.
Try recommendations from the other 5 root causes. Find your communities. Build positive habits. Look at the long-run progress of civilization. Try one of the major religions or worldviews on for size. Refuse to be a victim.
Take control of your information diet. Social media. News media. Distinguish news from opinion. Choose high quality sources.
Choose hope over fear. Be self-confident. Dream.
4. Embrace the Secular Age
We need some help understanding our history. It’s often presented as a linear movement forward, all progress, renaissance, scientific revolution, enlightenment, modernity and then OUCH postmodernity.
By 1875, Nietzsche, Darwin, Marx and Freud had proven that “God is dead”. Somehow, we have managed to hold on for another 150 years. We need to teach real history in secondary school, college and continuing education. The history needs to include religion, philosophy and politics.
We have learned to be tolerant of “other” people, religions and nations. We have opportunities to improve, but Protestants and Catholics no longer fight wars against each other. We practice a basic common morality even as we fight about politics.
We need help dealing with uncertainty. See root cause 6 for solutions. It is human nature to crave certainty. But we get to define certainty. We can reject Euclidean geometry, Aristotelian logic, materialistic physics and self-proving mathematics. We can reject a perfection standard for religion, philosophy and worldviews. Reject the tyranny of “either/or”. “Science and religion” is supported by the best scholars. Uncertainty is not the same as pure subjectivity or relativity.
We need help moving from skepticism to idealism. We need a new concept of idealism that cannot be undercut by radical skepticism. Existentialism, pragmatism, postmodernism and logical positivism are inadequate.
Invest time learning about the major competing world views. Great courses, Ted talks, college courses, church classes. Choose one and engage with others. Live it. Share it. Challenge it. Apply a variant of “Pascal’s Wager”. If radical skepticism is true and there is nothing but meaninglessness, what must you do? If skepticism is wrong and you believed it, what did you lose?
5. Better Myths, Paradigms, Philosophies, Theologies
We need leaders, thinkers, believers and communicators to do a better job of describing their world views. Especially within the context of our skeptical, uncertain secular age. What claims do they make? Why? Time for real apologetics. How do they apply today? How do we face death? Find a purpose beyond ourselves? Be deeply affirmed? Live in community?
Skepticism has won its battle. We can no longer be certain in a way we once thought was our due. How do we think about assurances, confidence, probability, weights, multiple dimensions, history, clarity, beauty, consistency, levels of meaning, unexpected results, effectiveness, feelings, insights, intuitions and faith as replacements for certainty? As with science and the scientific method, we have lost “absolute certainty”. How do we replace this and still feel great?
We need education on the role of paradigms/myths in history, science and cultures. We need to see how things fit together. We need them to fit together to have a society. Men have considered many religions and philosophies. We have built effective institutions. We once believed that some myth or paradigm would solve everything for us, now, perfectly. We elevated this to become a new God. We cannot give up hope. We have to step back and see our true history and progress. We have the knowledge, teachers and tools to provide the needed context.
Our paradigms need to recognize where they are weak, somewhat inconsistent, inadequate, fuzzy, unavoidably irreducible. There is no meta-paradigm for evaluating the paradigms. No paradigm is self-validating.
6. Personal Security
The other 5 “root cause” solutions can help. You are a member of many supportive communities. Join other communities and support others. Note that we are imperfect, complex, mysterious and still fully adequate. Reject victimhood. Be positive and constructive. Embrace your strengths and talents. Replace “absolute certainty” with OK and “good enough”. Choose and live a worldview that supports you as a person.
Take control of your life. Simplify. Set reasonable goals. Under promise and overperform. Learn about psychology, life skills, personal finance, careers, and government programs. Note that people usually “find a way” and that we do make economic and leisure progress through time. Save, hold assets, use insurance, limit debt. Engage in the political process. Make your voice heard.
Adopt some practical stoicism. Lynn Anderson – “I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden”.
Summary
In order to solve our political problems, we need to face and solve the 6 underlying root causes. They are interconnected. They can be addressed mostly outside of the political process. This is cause for great hope and optimism.
6 Root Causes of Our Situation
.
https://www.roa.org/blogpost/1650035/500905/Commemorating-Victory-in-Europe-Day
Our political, economic, international and cultural worlds are all at risk of breaking down. How did we get here? 6 answers. No finger pointing.
I’ll be sharing general purpose and political solutions in the next 2 months.
Common Moral Values
https://www.sefiracreative.com/
Moral Shortcomings Are Noted Everywhere
Social conservatives have decried the decline of moral values since 1960.
Religious groups of all political views have done the same.
Robert Putnam has documented the loss of social capital in Bowling Alone, Our Kids, The Upswing and American Grace noting that morality, trust and institutions have declined at the same time.
Political scientists and pundits have noted the loss of civic virtue and wonder if a political system based on the “thin” virtues of “classical liberalism” can survive.
High schools, colleges and departments of education have begun to respond to the “crisis” but faced political challenges from both parties, educators and parents.
Corporations, universities, not for profits and military branches have attempted to define their core values as a way to build community, align resources and clarify direction. They note an absence of common values in their employees.
Personal growth advocates, even those emphasizing individual artistic expression, have increasingly noted that the community and spiritual dimensions of life are part of growth.
Big Disagreements
While social and political conservatives have pressed for moral reinforcements, both moderate and progressive liberals have pushed back on these efforts; wary of infringing on personal liberties and supporting community, cultural and institutional oppression. Economic conservatives and libertarians have not bemoaned the decline in community and shared values. Some “communitarian” philosophers and social scientists have begun to challenge the individualistic dogmas that have ruled universities since the Enlightenment. There is not a firm consensus that we need or can have on “shared values”. Many philosophers, theologians and social scientists are quite certain that this is a dead-end street.
Practically Speaking
A majority of citizens and leaders agree that the loss of a shared set of values is harming our country and society. We need to find some kind of solution. Promote religion. Educate students and adults. Conduct research. Create artistic vehicles for learning. Work together on teams. Join groups. Communicate better.
Let’s start by outlining the common moral values. We’ll ignore the experts. We’ll gloss over some inconsistencies. We won’t provide perfect definitions. We won’t outline an implementation strategy. We will provide a meaningful outline by combining the thoughts of some very different sources
Motivations
This is not a dead-end project. We live in “A Secular Age”. We’re not going to reach religious or political agreement on everything. Most people understand that we are forced to live together and that we have to “get along”. We have learned to be “tolerant” in most dimensions of life. We can learn to embrace a set of general moral principles that are self-evident. The principles cannot be proven or derived from core principles. They have to be “accepted”.
Individuals who learn these principles will do so for many reasons if they are presented well. They help the individual to live in a social world. Self-interest alone justifies developing these virtues, understanding and habits. These principles seem to be natural, widely seen across time, space and cultures. They may not be universal or “revealed” but they have proven their worth. Individuals are learning that extreme skepticism and subjectivity are inadequate. Every major worldview offers a set of moral principles like these. Individuals who strive to fulfill their potential understand that moral principles underlie “the good life”. These principles work together nicely in a logical, relatively succinct package.
Sources
Corporate “core values” experts trying to find the essences so they can be easily taught. Anthropologists looking for the most widely seen values. The evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Mid-century philosopher and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis claiming that all major civilizations share key ethical principles. Psychology Today advising us on how to best guide our behavior. The Boy Scout Oath. The Rotary 4-Way test.
Summary
Descriptions
https://rootedindecency.com/blog/values/4-core-values-shared.html
4 self-evident clusters of Respect, Responsibility, Honesty and Compassion. We know what these are. We know they are good and useful. We know that it requires work for children to learn them and for us to put them into practice consistently and effectively.
Another author calls out Fairness as a fifth cluster.
https://docket.acc.com/harness-power-5-core-moral-values
A group of Oxford anthropologists has surveyed the vast literature on cultures and identified 7 universal principles that are almost always evident and never contradicted. They begin to add some second-level definitions to the 5 clusters.
Respect is shown both by “deferring to superiors” and “respecting property”. Responsibility is shown by “helping your family”, “helping your group” and “being brave”. Fairness is exhibited by “dividing fairly” and “returning favors”. This group didn’t see honesty and compassion as universal values.
Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” introduced the world to a set of moral flavors that varied between traditional and modern (WEIRD) societies and between left and right politicians. His team has added some flavors that have some plausible origin in the development of men from hunter-gatherers through farming and cities. For Respect, Haidt agrees that property ownership rights matter and that respect for authority is critical to holding together communities. Without it, the free rider problem undermines groups. He also argues that “liberty” is the “flip side” of authority. Individuals inherently feel the need to defend their individuality against potentially oppressive authority.
Haidt emphasizes the importance of family, kinship, honor and loyalty in traditional societies. He argues that these values are just as valid as the modern care, fairness and equality trio. He provides 3 flavors of fairness, adding proportionality and equality to the basic idea. He also skips “honesty” and emphasizes “care” as the result of compassion. He adds “Purity” as a separate factor reflecting both biological and religious forms of cleanliness for early men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Man
In 1943, C.S. Lewis had experienced enough modern analytic philosophy, subjectivity and intellectual progress and fired back with “The Abolition of Man”. He argued that without an objective moral framework, Western civilization was doomed. The Nazi and communist threats mattered. But the breakdown of common culture, values and beliefs within democracy was an equal threat. Lewis argued that a roughly common moral framework and principles existed in every thriving culture. His “natural law” view was not widely embraced at the time.
Lewis’s 8 components of the Tao, or “the way” fit nicely into the 5 clusters. His “duties to parents, elders and ancestors” fits with Respect. He filled out Responsibility with family duties, kinship feelings and magnanimity which emphasized the bravery of making the right decisions. His “law of general beneficence” fills out Fairness. He outlines Veracity as critical to honesty and expands it with the “Law of Justice”. He fills the Compassion group with his Mercy.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-school-walls/202305/10-core-values-to-guide-behavior
A recent Psychology Today article takes a more “personal growth” oriented view. The Respect drawer is empty, although “authenticity” could be seen as a form of self-respect. Dr. Koehler adds resilience to the Responsibility core value and includes Fairness. She adds 3 others to the Honesty cluster after Integrity. A growing individual needs to value authenticity, open-mindedness and lifelong learning. We start to see why there are differences at the second level, but I don’t think they are too great. The author embraces compassion, adding empathy and gratitude to this section.
https://www.scouting.org/about/faq/question10/
The Scout Oath was drafted in 1908. A Respectful scout is Obedient, reverent and Courteous. A Responsible scout is Thrifty, Helpful, Loyal and Brave. An Honest scout is Trustworthy. A Compassionate scout is Kind, Friendly and Cheerful. A scout is Clean.
https://my.rotary.org/en/guiding-principles
The Rotary 4-Way test was drafted in 1932. It fits into 4 of the 5 main categories.
Summary
We have a nice head start on outlining a set of common moral principles that could be used for education, civics, personal growth and community building. The core ideas fit with traditional and modern societies, secular and religious views, left and right politics. The key, as with our political system, is to agree to work within a framework of practical application. We cannot and will not resolve deeply felt religious, philosophical and political views. But we can agree on what it takes to work together and live good lives together.
Dream the Impossible Dream
Especially in these challenging times we have to be idealistic and believe in possibilities.
Jim Nabors’ rendition of “The Impossible Dream” on the 1965 Gomer Pyle, USMC show is a great place to start. We’ve become too practical, skeptical, secular and cool to consider this or any similar view on life, derived from the classic 1615 novel Don Quixote. Enjoy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impossible_Dream_(The_Quest)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_La_Mancha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Nabors
Our Political Differences are NOT Going Away; And That’s OK
https://www.history.com/news/whose-vision-of-america-won-out-hamiltons-or-jeffersons
- Jonathan Haidt’s “moral foundations” appear to be deeply rooted in human evolution. Democrats mostly embrace care, fairness and equality. Republicans emphasize the broader menu of loyalty, authority, purity, proportionality, honor, liberty, and ownership. Policy differences are unavoidable.
2. Citizens have differing interests/views in all 4 broad domains of international relations, economics, politics and culture.
3. The basic left/liberal/progressive versus right/conservative/traditional divide has endured for 2 centuries.
4. Social scientists agree that some form of the psychological dimension of “openness” is an important driver of left versus right political views. Individuals who are more intuitive (N)/abstract/open on the second Meyers-Briggs dimension tend to take liberal views. Those with more concrete/specific/applied views tend to be conservatives. Similarly, those who are more Judging rather than Perceiving on the 4th dimension tend to be conservatives, seeing the world in an orderly, structured manner. Meyers-Briggs (T)hinkers tend to be conservative, and (F)eelers tend to be liberal, but this is a weaker statistical link.
https://personalityjunkie.com/08/personality-politics-liberals-conservatives-myers-briggs-big-five/
5. Philosophers and social scientists have worked intently for 2 centuries to find a “scientific”, objective, rational, modern view of how politics “ought” to be. Classical liberals, including Immanuel Kant and John Rawls, have proposed neutral, allegedly “value free” systems, but they have not been widely adopted.
6. Religious supporters have watched for a new “great awakening” or signs of the “end times” without success.
7. The progressive era of 1880-1920 overturned some of the political machines of the time and replaced them with scientific management style city managers and opposing political forces. “Good government” folks have since proposed and implemented city managers, commissions, outsourcing, sunset laws, zero based budgeting, process improvements and referendums but this has not removed politics from governing.
8. Philosophers have considered and combined pre-Socratic, Socratic, Neo-Platonian, Aristotelian, Augustinian, Aquinian, scholastic and modern views. They have discounted many views but not reached any true consensus on the important questions. We remain at a stalemate about the critical questions of the individual vs. community, objective vs. subjective reality, ideal/essential vs. existential/empirical world, natural and/or supernatural world, and a logical/designed vs. random/evolving world.
9. Philosophers and social scientists mostly agree that values, morality and character are inherently subjective. Some religious oriented people, philosophers and social scientists agree that a subset of core values is widely seen and shared, but this view has not gathered followers in the last half-century.
10. Classical liberals argue that the US system of democracy and representative government with “checks and balances” is fully adequate to guide society in making solid public choices. This group argues that the citizens can embrace the underlying required pluralistic political values without having to make further choices about broader cultural values. Conservatives and a growing number of moderates and liberals today complain that this approach offers a morality that is too “thin” to support a culture or a political system in the long run.
11. Perceived scarcity is not going to disappear soon, even with continued economic growth and 70 years’ worth of such predictions. Everyone remains interested in getting their fair share of the growing pie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society
12. Class interests have not been destroyed. If anything, the life experiences between the top 1%, 10%, 20% and the middle 60% or the bottom 20% have diverged even further apart in the last 75 years. Although we don’t discuss “class” as an organizing principle for politics in the US, it has grown to become more important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
13. Social scientists have a much better understanding of “human nature”. We are imperfect. We have personality preferences. We can flex and learn but only so much. Nature and nurture. Tremendous potential. Education and experience are insufficient to create “perfect” citizens who can easily overcome our inherent political differences.
Summary
Despite the great progress of Western Civilization, we do not have and are very unlikely to find a single solution to our political differences. As individuals we have deeply experienced, considered and felt views of how our community should best operate. They are mutually inconsistent. We can work together to resolve some differences and agree to compromise on others. The apparently valid and opposing views don’t have an obvious resolution. I recommend that we constructively work together to find reasonable, decent compromise solutions and at the same time accept our inability to find an ideal solution without allowing that to discourage us.
What’s the Root Cause of Our Problems?: Insecurity
We have lost control of our political system and confidence in our institutions. I offer some root cause reasons for this situation in a series of posts. Sixth and final post in the series.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-mostly-flat-police.aspx
In 1943, Abraham Maslow outlined a theory of human motivation that argued that some factors are so important that they must be “satisfied” in order for individuals to pursue other human needs. “Safety and security” was the second layer, just above meeting physiological needs. When I review my first five attempts to get at the “root cause” of our challenging current situation and my remaining list of important factors, I conclude that insecurity may be THE root cause. If we are truly insecure, we will do “whatever it takes” to find security.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
Let’s start at the highest level. Following the “progress” of the last 500 years, we are now expected to make important and consequential choices for ourselves in all areas of life: religion, politics, career, retirement, investing, insurance, health, recreation, leisure, marriage, parenting, sexuality, personal finance, consumption, travel, experiences, education, goals, personal expression, arts, branding, friends, community, communications, entertainment, media, social networks, privacy, tolerance, philosophy, clothing, transportation, food, hobbies, housing, banking, OMG! Today, we also have many more options within each category. We have better information and tools, but conflicting priority perspectives and uncertainty about how to find shortcuts. In total, we’re overwhelmed with no solution in sight [maybe AI]. This ongoing situation undercuts any basis for feeling deep security.
Science
Think of science as an expanding sphere or globe. The more we know, the more there is to add to our knowledge. By 1800, we had reached the limit of any man or woman “knowing everything”.
https://www.eoht.info/page/Last%20person%20to%20know%20everything
This does not trouble most people directly. Scientific advances since 1800 are estimated to have doubled every 15 years. That’s 15 more doublings or 32,768 times more knowledge since we first reached the limits of human understanding! Implicitly, this must trouble most people greatly. We are overwhelmed by a complex world that we cannot comprehend.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00903-w
So … science provides us with better understanding and tools. It provides structure and some certainty. It also provides unexpected uncertainty. Modern science bears little resemblance to Newtonian classical mechanics. It is all probability, complexity, and unavoidable uncertainty. About one-third of high school students complete a basic physics course. Perhaps 5% of Americans complete a single college physics course. We tend to think of the world in simple, materialist terms, but scientists since Einstein’s 1910 results do not support this world view. We want certainty, but scientists no longer provide it.
Global Level Threats
War, pandemics, plague, nuclear war, food shortages, water pollution, air pollution, food processing contamination, cancer, thalidomide, vaccines, hexavalent chromium, sarin gas, fluoride, extinctions, global warming, sea level rise, climate extremes, solar flares, electrical outages, runaway thermonuclear reactions, ozone layer thinning, acid rain, global government agencies, multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations. So many threats, highlighted by the media and various interest groups. Great uncertainty for all.
Economic Life
Economic scale grows. Specialization increases. Everyone must engage with the system. We all become cogs in the machine. We are dehumanized.
Economic stability is weak. Greater economic competition and change. International competition. Loss of large company support for employees. Increased technological changes and disruptions. Administrative, engineering, process and legal changes. Regulatory changes.
Corporate competition. Mergers & acquisitions. Outsourcing. Work automation and obsolescence. Job insecurity.
Weakened effective safety net from government.
Meritocracy focuses the minds of parents, children and adults on careers only. We worry.
Consolidation of income and wealth leading to further power consolidation through economic, social and political channels.
Increased financial leverage through availability of credit. More individuals have high fixed payment requirements and the risk of bankruptcy in hard times.
Capitalism continues to offer diverse goods and services to meet every need and desire. The commercial mindset pervades society.
Technological innovation offers an unlimited supply of new goods and services.
Personal Life
We have generally embraced Rousseau’s perspective on life. Each individual is born with infinite potential. Our job is to help each child achieve their potential and destiny, leveraging their talents. They have the capacity to “be, all that you can be”. Unfortunately, the individual needs to be validated by someone. They don’t have direct access to a transcendent religion or philosophy or community. Hence, they have to reach out to “society” for validation. They create a personal brand. They gain clicks. It is never enough. They are insecure.
Philosophy
We live in a secular age where all belief is insecure.
Skepticism rules.
Our attempts to find a single, clear, direct, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect solution beyond religion have failed. Nationalism, fascism, socialism, romanticism, pragmatism, rationalism, utilitarianism, unitarianism, Deism, communism, globalism, environmentalism, existentialism, postmodernism, conservatism, liberalism, neo-liberalism.
We have a great diversity of theological and experiential religious perspectives. This helps some and undermines faith for many others.
Western society has considered “progress” as a substitute for religion for 4 centuries. The economic, political, scientific, and communications advances provide a background for the belief that there is a “pattern” to history and it is inevitably heading in the right direction. The backlash in the 20th century has been strong based upon the world wars, Great Depression and the horrors of totalitarianism and technology.
We experienced some return to faith in progress in the post – WW II period and at the end of the Cold War. However, “the end of history” marked by the permanent victory of democracy, capitalism and globalism was very short-lived.
Politics
Our political parties are fluid. The civil rights act of 1964 shattered the Democratic party. The Vietnam War, riots, the counterculture and Kent State shootings reoriented the parties. By 1981 Reagan consolidated conservatives of national, Main Street, Wall Street, philosophy. libertarianism, religious, cultural, and international flavors to form a new enduring majority to replace the previous FDR majority. By 1994 Newt Gingrich installed an oppositional view against President Clinton. The polarization of politics grew from there. A black and white, right versus wrong, good versus evil view grew upon the singular yardstick of left versus right, conservative versus liberal. The mass media splintered into politicized pundits. Politicians embraced a world where perception is reality. The ends soon justified the means. A simple “red versus blue” perspective was promoted and adopted. Civility, trust, consensus, reason, fairness, tradition, and the American way declined. The 2008 mortgage debt meltdown created the populist “tea party”. The Republican party absorbed this populist group and revised its policies, accelerating towards populist and nationalist views with candidate Trump in 2016. Some citizens find security in their political party, but a vast majority decry the polarized situation.
Culture
The majority of cultures through time and around the world have been “traditional”. European civilization since 1700 is the outlier, deemed WEIRD by Johnathan Haidt. Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic. Traditional cultures emphasize group-oriented loyalty, authority and sanctity more than the individual-oriented care and fairness factors.
During the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, the common Christian cultural background allowed European and American societies to explore and embrace this individualistic dimension without abandoning the group-oriented values, traditions or Christianity. After WWII and especially after the countercultural 1960’s, the loose consensus on culture has been shattered. Many historical norms have been challenged or overturned in the areas of marriage, sexuality, gender, race, parenting, government authority, male authority, church authority, institutional authority, music, art, drugs, religious belief, history, tolerance, human rights, life, relativism, subjectivism and objective morality. The cultural changes were broad, deep and disorienting. They have been celebrated, accepted or opposed. Culture, religion and politics have become aligned in a secular versus religious, liberal versus conservative, traditional versus modern/postmodern way.
We have multiple cultures based on this major split, but also based upon age, social/professional class, and geography (rural/urban/suburban) (coastal, Midwest, Sunbelt). Some people find security in their smaller culture. Many are disoriented by the multiple options and the conflicts between the cultures. Modern media capabilities allow us to live in isolated ways or to engage in fighting to promote our culture and oppose other cultures.
The changes since WWII have reduced our participation in communities of all types while increasing our focus on the individual. Many people no longer have the support of meaningful community ties.
Summary
Modern man is surrounded by uncertainty as he is forced to make more decisions in more areas with more choices than ever before. Most of us try to ignore the surrounding forces and live our lives day to day as best as we can. We implicitly adopt some kind of philosophy of life. We stay busy. We pursue goals. We consider the changes in our worlds. But the underlying tensions make life difficult. Economic and personal striving are a cultural norm. Polarized politics is hard to avoid. It’s difficult to relax, center and fully engage in life. We treasurer peace and certainty. We’re still looking for answers that work well in a world filled with options and choices.
What’s The Root Cause of Our Problems?: Imperfect Myths
We have lost control of our political system and confidence in our institutions. I offer some root cause reasons for this situation in a series of posts. Fifth post in the series.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-mostly-flat-police.aspx
The modern world has largely solved the problems of science and economics. Our political and religious solutions compete to solve 4 big remaining human challenges.
- Facing death.
- Finding a purpose beyond self.
- Being affirmed.
- Living as a social being in community.
Secular Humanism / Personal Growth
- Be stoic, heroic, transcend through your worldly life. C-
- Link to humanity, universe, reach for excellence, find personal purpose. C
- Focus on this first, find support, promote yourself, find supporters. C-
- Link up with peers, communities of interest, demographic groups, limited liability. C
Populism / Common Man / Common Sense
- Ignore, stay busy, be stoic, accept, find a church, avoid it. C
- Focus on day to day, local experience, controllable, be good, craftsmanship. C+
- All are equal, victim, local commonality, work support, politics, reinforcing groups. B+
- Neighborhood, work, sports groups. Church and political groups. B
Authoritarianism / Nationalism / Traditionalism
- Ignore, stay busy, link to greater cause(s), embrace religion. B
- Link identity to nation, politics, church, culture, class, history. A-
- Reinforcing groups, against “others”, merge identity with group. B+
- Deepen ties to family, neighborhood, church, class, region, sports. B
Libertarianism / Free Market
- Stoicism, heroism, results, engaged, avoid. C
- Elevate self, hero, superman, freedom, liberty, choice principles. B
- Win, results, goods, status, competition, comparisons. B+
- Selected communities, political, career, neighbors. C-
Postmodernism
- Be stoic, heroic, overcome, transcend, engage. D
- Understand the world, oppose power, researching, criticizing, deconstructing. B
- Self-sufficient, knowledgeable, existential, aware, peer groups. D
- Artist, political, university, media, local communities. C
Religion
- Heaven, promises, theology, revelation, apologetics. B+
- Glorify God, love neighbor, golden rule, laws, spirit. A
- Created in God’s image, child of God, baptism, congregational support. B+
- Local congregation ties, ministries, activities, catholic church, ecumenicism. B
Summary
No major “solution” fully solves all of these 4 main challenges. The “science versus religion” split is deep. Some individuals combine multiple views to create a better solution. In “A Secular Age” individuals have to make choices about what to believe. They have to sort through conflicting views and information. They have to define and prioritize their goals. Without a dominant or obvious social choice, they have to determine how they will make such philosophical, political and religious choices, even if it is to not make a choice. We have an opportunity to reform our public schools and other institutions to help us make these choices and to embrace our neighbors who make different choices.
What’s The Root Cause of Our Problems?: Skepticism
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/oct/24/hemlock-cup-bettany-hughes-review
We have lost control of our political system and confidence in our institutions. I offer some root cause reasons for this situation in a series of posts. Fourth post in the series.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-mostly-flat-police.aspx
Positive Historical Ideals
Greek democracy, citizenship, virtue
Roman empire, law, stability, character, citizenship, the state
Christendom, stability, salvation, order, community, tradition
Renaissance, enlightenment, Protestant revolution, individual liberty, human rights, progress
Scientific revolution, understanding, technical control, economic progress
Classic liberal state, individual rights, liberty, freedom, fairness, justice
No era of human history has been perfect but “Western civilization” experienced net cumulative progress in its self-understanding, capabilities, confidence, positivity, justice and use of effective institutions for several centuries.
History Undermining Total Confidence in Any Single, Simple Cultural, Religious or Political Worldview
Natural disasters, plagues, wars, evil and oppression.
Religious conflicts, denominations, global religions, secular humanism, Deism, institutional failures.
Promise and obvious experienced shortcomings of utopian solutions such as socialism, communism, fascism, globalism, romanticism, environmentalism, and eugenics.
Rise of the modern nation state as an effective context for community, government, commerce, loyalty and security, followed by its totalitarian abuse, demonization of others and splintering into smaller geographic, religious and ethnic states.
The amazing, sustained progress of science and technology to “solve” all problems, followed by the realization that it cannot solve moral, political and social problems and that it creates many new ethical, commercial, and political challenges.
The sustained global economic progress driven by urbanization, industrialization, finance, administration, capitalism, government regulation and trade raising living standards, offering opportunity, improving health and reducing poverty, without reaching a clear consensus on how to capture the benefits of economic progress without being overwhelmed by the exploitative, unequal, monopolistic, political capture, environmental and cultural downsides.
The shock of the Great Depression and the 2 world wars to the popular, business and elite confidence that economic, social, global, military, political, educational, scientific and cultural progress was inevitable. The global successes of the post-war era and the collapse of the Soviet Union provided a very brief renewal in faith in progress and “the end of history”.
Philosophy worked very hard to keep up with the progress of science but has ultimately failed. Most of philosophy has been absorbed by science and social science. It provided some support for modern religion, science, arts and politics in the early modern period. It also offered deep skepticism about religion, objectivity, causality, and language. It didn’t solve “nature versus nurture”. It didn’t resolve idealism, essentialism, rationalism versus empiricism, pragmatism, existentialism. It provided us with several flavors of individualism, including Rousseau’s positive view of man outside of society. It served up Hegel’s historical/dynamic view, Marx’s insights and nonsense, Nietzsche’s replacement of God with Superman and the final retreat to logical positivism, materialism and postmodernism.
The expansion of individual rights has been a signature strength of the last 500 years. The true essential equality of individuals is broadly embraced. Race, gender, ethnicity, religion, class, social status, wealth, property, profession, sexuality, customs, appearance, and education are generally respected. Yet, we humans discriminate and prejudge upon such categories. Efforts by idealistic and minority groups to offset such shortcomings are hotly contested.
Major Options Today
Religious belief. The default secular worldview limits this approach to understanding the world and making important choices. Fundamentalist right to progressive left.
Personal growth. Design your life and your children’s lives to “be all that you can be”. You will have to look outside for validation of your progress. You may not find guidance by looking inward. You may find that you need community and links to eternity and the universe.
Libertarianism. Free market capitalism. Anti-government. Liberty. Freedom. Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises developed a positive version of this worldview. It is embraced by a large share of the Republican party today. It is fundamentally anti-community and anti-religion. It elevates a single dimension of philosophy and morality above all others: economic liberty.
Populism. The “little guy” is exploited by “the elites”. A victim perspective. Farmers, peasants, factory workers, and small business owners take this perspective. In our individualistic, opportunistic, competitive, meritocratic, commercial, secular world all people need to justify their progress. We all “know” that we are “above average”, like the inhabitants of Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon. If we don’t reach our goals, someone or something else must be to blame.
Authoritarianism. The world is too complex. We need a “great leader”.
Postmodernism. The powerful use every possible tool to oppress others. All minority groups are victims of the “ruling class”. Most modern philosophies, institutions and language are tools. Enlightened professors in the humanities and social sciences are waiting to lead the next revolution.
The Center Remains Missing
The Republican party has moved far right, embracing libertarianism, free markets, cultural conservatism and populism. The Democratic party and other cultural elites have been tempted by postmodernism, expected demographic trends and special interest groups. They have failed to provide a compelling mainstream alternative to the Republican party since Reagan and Gingrich. Socialists like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez win headlines. Democrats have consistently lost the framing battle, competing on shifting terms favorable to Republicans. They have failed to find a positive core message like opportunity, progress, pluralism, balance, rule of law, will of the people, decency, justice, reasonable fairness, shared winnings, sustained growth, win/win, security, or mutual interests.
I would also argue that a simple proposal to maintain the benefits of our historical political systems could be compelling and adequate for a supermajority of citizens and voters.
I return to Jonathan Haidt’s work on the moral foundations of politics and religion. The BIG change in human history is from a broad portfolio of factors in most historical and global societies to the WEIRD perspectives supported in part of the Western world: care, fairness and equality alone. “Liberals” now mostly ignore loyalty, authority, purity, proportionality, liberty, honor and ownership while “conservatives” wisely appeal to all of these moral flavors.
Summary
Western civilization has embraced rationality, science, and individualism. It has gone too far, forgetting about community and eternity/universality. Skepticism has grown as we have learned that no single, simple perspective is adequate to explain our world. There is now a risk that we reject all structured knowledge. There is also a risk that we embrace intuitive world views and leave rationality and criticism behind. The Republican party has managed to keep the various flavors of conservatism aligned in a far-right view. Democrats are unable to offer a compelling alternative to the general public.
What’s the Root Cause of Our Problems?: Our Secular Age
https://karsh.org/kurt-vonnegut-2/
The United States maintained a strong religious worldview among its people and its elites for generations longer than Europe. The U.S. saw a surge in religious belief, membership and participation as the baby boomers left behind WWII and the Great Depression and formed new families. The supermajority consensus allowed the country to be nominally secular but effectively Christian. Most individuals did not have to make religious choices. They followed their parents’ choices and adjusted their degree of engagement.
The mid-century counterculture, birth control, liberal theology, higher education experience, arts, music, jazz, women’s rights, war protests, civil rights, abortion rights, sexual revolution, films, globalization, rejection of authority, individual expression, riots, child rearing beliefs, therapeutic psychology, personal growth, commercialism, advertising, drugs, divorce laws, urbanization, anonymity, health, medicine, drive-ins, car access, mass media, common experiences, etc. provided and validated many new options for most life decisions, including religious beliefs and activities.
As Charles Taylor documented in his “A Secular Age”, the possibility of non-belief became possible, then plausible and then the default option among some highly educated people. The “none of the above” option spread throughout society. Religious belief became one choice among many. Each succeeding generation, allowed to choose, became less religious.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-majority-first-time.aspx
Societies, cultures and civilizations work best when citizens hold common beliefs unconsciously. When the default worldview is shared, “life is good”. Religious and philosophical beliefs matter greatly, even if most people don’t consciously address them. The breakdown of a shared worldview triggers several actions. Many “double down” on the historical choices, validating, refining, formalizing, justifying and supporting them. Others search for alternatives. Some look to modify their beliefs to preserve the past and address the new challenges or situation. Others simply “check out”.
We’re living in one of those transition periods. These responses to changes in religion and philosophy play out in all other areas of life: careers, family, interests, leisure, education, arts, community, volunteering, trust, confidence, interactions, dialogue, civics, politics, dress, socialization, health, communications, sports, games, participation, risk-taking, creativity, exploration, myths, history, commitments, lifestyles, experimentation, conformity, skepticism, certainty, ethnicity, nationalism, patriotism, language, the list continues.
https://genius.com/The-5th-dimension-aquarius-let-the-sunshine-in-lyrics
Everything becomes fluid and relative or fixed, static and fundamental. Some embrace change and possibilities. Others fight, fight, fight. “Things fall apart, the center cannot hold”. Ouch.
As much as we praise the individual and individual choice as the best expression of human experience, most people are not made for so many choices.
In the US this challenge is exacerbated by the availability of new options for religious belief. Many non-Christian options are available in my community. Is this an opportunity or a threat?
Humans have a strong preference for certainty. “Cognitive consistency” is essential. We look for evidence to confirm our beliefs and ignore conflicting evidence. Radical skepticism and serious relativism are quite unwelcome. We “know we are right”. Yet, we need to be validated by our neighbors and our peers. We need to live our lives based upon our habits. We simply can’t be pursuing the “5 why’s” technique every minute. We have lives to lead. As Jonathan Haidt says, the elephant leads, the rider occasionally influences the elephant.
Daniel Kahneman has the same insight. Our conscious mind simply cannot address everything “logically”. It must use shortcuts, habits and heuristics. It can only rationally address a very small portion of life.
We don’t know what to believe, if we’re honest with ourselves. Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” still applies but does not satisfy. Skepticism and subjectivism have undermined us. The “rational” Enlightenment and the advances of science have reinforced the expectation of certainty. A perfectly materialistic worldview is deemed possible and promoted by some. The philosophers rejected any supernatural belief, pursued positive, analytical philosophy, saw it was a dead-end, pursued existentialism, saw it was a dead-end, considered postmodernism, saw it was a dead-end.
The scientists continue to move ahead with their highly effective techniques. The philosophers of science and the “science and religion” experts have undermined any proof of materialism or scientism. Science cannot replace religion. They overlap. They work in different dimensions. Oh boy!
Scientists, mathematicians and philosophers have “proved” that we cannot have a deterministic description of the world supported by facts and logic. Ouch! Probability, mystery, uncertainty, perspectives, paradigms, infinities, dimensions, indeterminacy, descriptions, measures, fractal dimensions, imaginary numbers, duality, quantum uncertainty, and artificial intelligence.
We are grasping for a new form of certainty. It has not arrived. [Waiting for Godot?] Red and blue politics are trying to fill the gap, quite poorly. We’re looking for a religious, cultural or artistic break-through. Science alone is clearly inadequate.
We’re looking for a “both/and” solution. Yin/Yang. A toroidal field that supports nuclear fusion. Bittersweet. Sweet and sour. Some new version of Hegel’s thesis, antithesis, synthesis, repeat process. Some version of Hofstadter’s eternal golden braid. Practical/analog and mystical/eternal at the same time.
A double helix that provides a new 3-dimensional structure. A bootstrapping theory that creates life from chemicals. A mechanical or other “explanation” of consciousness.
This ultimate exhaustion of alternatives may lead us back to Christianity!
Good News 