On being Human

Anyone who reads this is, by all accounts, a human being. But then what are human beings? And I don’t just mean the physical attributes of the species Homo Sapiens, I ask what else is there, or should there be, to determine that a human being is truly “human”?

Of course there are the ultimate hypothetical questions – “Why are we here? Why us?” These I cannot answer. Obviously. So what I’ll do is remove some of what I would consider to be the negatives (not in any particular order of importance) from the “equation” that determines a true(?) human.

We are not here just to make money.

We are not here to kill each other.

We are not here to exploit or take unfair advantage of others.

We are not here to enslave others.

We are not here to force either men or women to adopt certain, exclusive, roles.

We are not here to be forced or coerced into believing any one particular belief, or political, system is the only correct one.

We are not here to pillage and destroy the only home we know – Planet Earth.

This narrows things down somewhat. While this may seem like a watered down version of the biblical Ten Commandments - it is not supposed to be. 

These “negatives” hone in on a favourite subject of mine – Ethics.

To avoid falling into the all to human trap, or mind set, of believing that ignoring any of the “negatives” will have few or no consequences, I ask just three questions:-

1.     Would you like it if you were caught up, as a victim, by any of the negatives?

2.     Why not treat everyone, yes everyone, as you would like to be treated?

3.     Furthermore, if everyone, yes EVERYONE, did what you are doing, or proposing to do, would the World be a better place?

If the answer to any of these questions is “No” (as I strongly suspect), then don’t do it.

Simple really!

In my understanding, to be “human”, in the truest sense of the word, is to be ethical. I do not believe there are any viable alternatives. 

Things that happen.

As always when I am writing I try to formulate what is in my mind. This, as anyone who has tried, is not always easy. A great deal depends on the state of my mind. Obviously.

The state of my mind is the big question. I think I am ok with that, but questions, possibly unanswerable questions keep cropping up. I know that I am still grieving, but I try not to mourn. Grieving is for me a very personal, private affair and giving “vent” to this in public, by mourning, is something I just could not and will not do.

I’ll talk about my late wife, Magucha, – yes. Whether that might be classified as mourning I’m not sure. She is still very “real” to me even though it is nearly three years since she died.

The thoughts that create questions in my mind are those, deep questions, relating to the meaning of Life (with a capital L) and what, actually, Life is. I mean is Life the result of the chance combination of molecules or bacteria? Are molecules alive? Are bacteria alive? And how can atoms (which are not considered to be alive) when in various combinations form a living organism? Can molecules, in whatever combination,  create Life, think or have emotions? 

It is inconceivable to me that all the love, emotional strength, energy, intelligence and humour, that made Magucha who she was,  her Life, have just vanished, disappeared – into what?

I have searched long and hard to try and find answers. There are none. There is still debate as to whether the Mind and the Brain are one and the same but no one, as far as I can find, has even come close to determining what Life is and how it comes about. 

So I am left with my quandary. I do however subscribe to the view that Life is a continuum. That there are germinations (births) and deaths and that this commenced when the Universe was formed and will cease – well – when it ceases.

Then there is the purpose of our, Human, lives. Things happen and it is up to each of us to learn from Life’s events and to become better people. To me, Human Life has a purpose; a higher purpose and it is up to us, individually, to find our purpose. 

And I do try.

As always I seek solace in poetry and this extract from a longer poem is as good an explanation as any.

Finis Exoptatus (a rough translation - “Desired End”)

Question not, but live and labour

   Till yon goal be won,

Helping every feeble neighbour,

   Seeking help from none;

Life is mostly froth and bubble,

   Two things stand like stone,

KINDNESS in another’s trouble,

   COURAGE in your own.

                                    Adam Lindsay Gordon

Born: October 19, 1833, Faial Island, Portugal

Died: June 24, 1870, Brighton, Victoria
Buried: Brighton Cemetery, Melbourne, Australia.

Memories or dreams?

It is very strange how memory works. I might be going about my daily chores when a scent, a sound, a picture or something I might read, will suddenly recall an event or something about our lives together. Me with Magucha. I know that it is getting on for three years since she died (I just can’t use the euphemism “passed away”. It seems like an avoidance – to hide something). Sometimes she seems closer than at other times – like a dream – drifting in and out. 

All this reminds me of the reasons why I like poetry and why it has been used by troubadours and wandering minstrels down the centuries is that the cadence, the rhythm, matches that of music and the beat of the human heart – about sixty beats a minute. Before written language was invented, Hindus used the rhythm to help them remember verses of the Bhagavad Gita and other epic tales. Similarly the Greeks had wandering minstrels who would entertain people with tales of Olympus and the Gods who lived there. These stories were later collated by Homer and many other writers. 

This poem – and I know it may pull at the heart-strings – but I don’t care, it resonates for me - only because I grieve. This reminds me of Magucha and the love we shared.  It is all about memories. 

When tomorrow starts without me.

When tomorrow starts without me, I will not be here to see,
That the sun will rise and find your eyes; filled with tears for me,
But please know you're always in my heart, and I will forever love you,
And know, each time you think of me, I will be missing you too.

When tomorrow starts without me, I need you to understand,
That an angel came, he called my name and took me by the hand.
He told me it was time to go up to heaven far above,
And that I have to leave behind all those I dearly love.

When tomorrow starts without me, I know that you will cry,
For all my life I’d always thought that I would never die.
I had so much life ahead of me; I had so much to do,
It seems almost impossible that I was leaving you.

When tomorrow starts without me, I think of the good days, and the bad,
I thought of all our fights, next to all the fun we had.
If I could have stayed, just for a little while,
I would say I'd always be here, and then I'd make you smile.

When tomorrow starts without me, I'll realise that this could never be,
As all that would be left of me, is frozen in memories.
Then I thought of all the beautiful things that I would miss tomorrow,
I thought of you and when I did my heart was filled with sorrow.

When tomorrow starts without me I will walk through heaven’s gate,
I will feel at home even without my soul mate.
I know this is what I wanted, deep down within my bones,
And God looked down and smiled at me from his great golden throne.

When tomorrow starts without me I see everything He promised me,

“Today your life on earth is past, and now you can be free.”
“I promise no tomorrow as today will always last,
And since it's all the same you will not be longing for the past.”

So when tomorrow starts without me don’t think we’re far apart,
For every time you think of me I’m right here in your heart.

Attributed to David Romano. 

Without all this ado!

It can be fun reading books – to me anyway! One never knows what really astute, amusing, sad or genuinely interesting gems one will find.

Here is one that caught my attention. Written by Thomas Traherne (1632? – 1674) and recorded in his “Centuries of Meditations.”

"It is storied of that prince (Pyrrhus, King of Epirus), that having conceived a purpose to invade Italy, he sent for Cineas, a philosopher and the King’s friend: to whom he communicated his design, and desired his counsel. Cineas asked him to what purpose he invaded Italy? He said, to conquer it. And what will you do when you have conquered it? Go into France, said the King, and conquer that. And what will you do when you have conquered France? Conquer Germany. And what then? said the philosopher. Conquer Spain. I perceive, said Cinceas, you mean to conquer all the World. What will you do when you have conquered all? Why then, said the King, we will return, and enjoy ourselves at quiet in our own land. So you may now, said the philosopher, without all this ado."

So true! And applies to not only ambitious Kings and leaders of countries, but, I think, to all leaders of businesses as well.

Gyges

Somehow I keep returning to a topic that has interested me for many years. That of the “link” between cause and effect; or, you reap what you sow; or, more colloquially, what goes around comes around.

This is more accurately stated in what is, I believe, a Spanish proverb, “Take what you want from life,” says God. “Take it, and pay.”

It is a common human failing for people, particularly those in high office, to assume that they can control events. But then we all like to imagine that we can, and have, control over our lives. This hubris is always, always, fraught and always, always, results in unforeseen consequences, good, bad or indifferent.

Because the “effects” are not always immediately apparent, this is something we tend to ignore, forget or consider of little importance.

What follows is an old tale, from ancient Greece, that is I think as relevant today as it ever was. 

In ancient Lydia (now part of Western Turkey facing the Aegean Sea across from Greece) about 3 000 years ago there was a king called Candaules. This king was greatly in love with his wife. In fact obsessively so – he thought she was the most beautiful woman in the world. 

Now Candaules had had a favourite bodyguard called Gyges with whom Candaules was in the habit of sharing is inner-most thoughts. Candaules suspected that Gyges, while having to agree with him, didn’t really believe what he said about his wife. So he proposed that Gyges hide himself in their bedroom so that he could see her naked and thereby affirm that the queen was, indeed, the most beautiful woman in the world. There would be moments when Gyges could slip away undetected.

Gyges was horrified at this proposal and feared for the consequences if the queen saw him. Candaules persisted with his plan and so it eventuated. The queen, however, did see Gyges as he slipped away but made no comment. She knew, immediately, that this was the work of her husband and determined to make him pay for the outrage and her humiliation of being seen naked by another man. 

The next day she called the unsuspecting Gyges and told him what she suspected and that someone had to pay for what he did. Her proposal was that either he, Gyges, would be killed there and then, or he was to kill Candaules, marry her, and so become king himself.

Dumbfounded by being found out and by the queen’s proposal Gyges decided to live and with the queen’s connivance, killed Candaules and so became king of Lydia.

The populace was stunned and outraged at such a violent change in leadership. They agreed, however to consult the Oracle of Delphi. If she agreed then Gyges would be king.

And so it was, with the warning prediction that retribution would be visited upon the fifth generation of Gyges’ descendants. Over the years this was forgotten. The prediction was however fulfilled when the fourth descendant was killed and the Lydians defeated, when they were attacked by the Persians under Cyrus the Great.

Hubris seems always to invite Nemesis, the Goddess of retribution and undeserved good fortune and who is implacable in her pursuit of tracking every wrong back to its doer. 

Whatever course of action is started must be completed, no matter how long it takes. 

“Take what you want from Life,” says God. “Take it, and pay”. 

Indeed!

The Scapegoat – and why we use it.

Amended: October 25, 2018.

This ancient form of “displacement” activity is still very prevalent today. And it is really very simple. It is a form of aggression used to relieve frustration (in a person, a group, or society in general) that is usually directed at a weaker person (or group) that is unable to retaliate – and can thus be easily blamed for causing the frustration.

The scapegoat is usually distinct, easily identifiable and “different” from the more dominant person or group thus justifying the aggression and prejudice – “they are not us” – and so - “it is their fault!”

An intense frustration directed at some individual or group (which cannot be easily assuaged) gives rise to what is known as a “Frustration – Aggression - Displacement Hypothesis” and thus a Scapegoat is found.

We all, each one of us, thinks or believes, that we are “good” – no one believes, deep down, that they are “bad”. So if any untoward event causes us to look in the “mirror” as it were, and we see ourselves unfavourbly reflected in the face or eyes of another, we may be shocked or dismayed at what we see. This will often give rise to denial – “that’s not me!” 

We therefor blame the “scapegoat”. And more often than not there is extreme violence applied to the scapegoat – sometimes death. 

Many examples of “scapegoating” are recorded in history – the Bible is a good source. Two tragic, unfortunate but classic, more recent, scapegoat examples were the racial aggression (extrajudicial action that led to the lynching of African Americans) in the Southern States of the USA. As the price of cotton fell and the slaves were freed (causing frustration as economic opportunities for the white people were reduced) the African Americans (all either former slaves or descended from slaves) were blamed and the numbers of lynching increased as the economy in the Southern States tanked (prejudice and displaced aggression). 

The other was the anti-Semitism, the prejudice, aggression and extreme measures directed at the Jews in Nazi Germany in the period leading up to the Second World War. In this case the Jews were targeted and blamed, by Hitler, for the economic and political crisis that arose after Germany suffered the humiliation of firstly losing the First World War and then being forced to pay massive reparations as determined by the 1920 Treaty of Versailles. Again, an example of frustration leading to displaced aggression against a weaker group.

The Jews were in no position to retaliate and six million were killed, just as the African Americans had no recourse against the Ku Klux Klan and the judicial system applying at that time. It is believed that about 3500 African Americans were lynched.  

Now, today, it is Mexican “drug addicts, rapists and undocumented immigrants swarming across the border” between Mexico and the USA. 

Now, today, it is Islamic fundamentalists not willing to integrate and trying to subject Europe to Sharia Law, also taking jobs from hard working Christian Europeans. 

Now, today, it is “illegal boat people” and “asylum seekers” still trying to flood into Australia. 

Now, today, it is “criminal elements” within the ethnic minority Muslim Rohingya causing problems in Buddhist Myanmar. 

Now, today, it is immigrants causing violent crimes, taking jobs and causing the funding problems with the UK’s National Health Services.

Now today we have the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince authorising(?) the murder and dismembering of Jamal Khashoggi  in Turkey (he was a  journalist who wrote for the Washington Post and who annoyed the Prince). Khashoggi exposed corruption and the Saudi involvement in the "war" in Yemen. And this was in the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul, no less. 

They too have no recourse - none of them.

The scapegoat is always chosen because it is easy to victimize without fear of retaliation.

As the Nazi Hermann Goering ominously warned the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial (1946): “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

The Seal of Confession and "weasel words".

Few things get up my nose and arouse my ire like injustice and people, or organisations, using “weasel words” to try and escape scrutiny and to try and maintain their authority! It is almost as if their only “crime” was to be caught! Doesn’t seem to matter what they did.

In relation to the recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuses, the Catholic Church used their response to argue, 

“.. that children would be less safe if mandatory reporting of confessions was required.

A perpetrator or victim might be less likely to raise abuse in confession if confidence in the sacramental seal was undermined,” the response said.

So an opportunity would be lost to encourage a perpetrator to self-report to civil authorities or victims to seek safety," it said.

And then Archbishop Coleridge went on to compare the “sacramental seal of confession” to client-lawyer privilege and journalistic protection of sources. 

Less safe! And “protection” similar to client-lawyer privilege! To protect a paedophile Catholic in a House of God! And then to claim that an abused child would be less safe! Words fail me – I’m staggered that anyone, anyone, would make such a claim. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Weasel words indeed! It seems at all costs protect the “Sacred” institution of the Catholic Church!!!

In relation to the Church’s response, mentioned above, I repeat here something I wrote sometime ago – that I think it is worth repeating.

The Confessional:

As I understand it, this requirement was originally imposed in the Middle Ages, at least in part, by church leaders who expected priests to interrogate penitents and learn if they might be heretics. 

Confession and the authority to grant absolution also greatly enhanced the power of the priest. With sins absolved, the believer would gain heaven. Without absolution, death could bring the spiritual pain of purgatory or the eternal damnation of hell.

It would appear that from the very beginnings of the confessional, practices varied widely among both priests and laypeople. Some clergy emphasized compassion and forgiveness and faithfully kept secret what they heard. Others exploited their power and the information captured during the sacrament. The 11th-century monk Peter Damian (1007 – 1072) famously excoriated clerics for the sexual abuse of minors, which often began with the penitent-confessor relationship. In the later Middle Ages, apparently criminality among confessors was widespread and entrenched. Much of the criminality involved sexual assaults and priestly transgressions against the church's sexual mores (later adopted as a rule or canon).

So, what’s new? There is nothing “sacred” about the “seal” of confession – quite the reverse. At best a priest should be acting only as a counselor for a troubled parishioner, someone to talk openly with – not hide behind a screen. To me – hiding behind a screen while confessing, to God presumably, is hypocritical in the extreme. I mean where is God in all this? Is God only “up there?”; or only in a “house of God”; or, as I strongly suspect “everywhere”! If God is everywhere there is no place to hide – least of all behind a screen! 

Furthermore does a “sinner” require absolution from a priest – also possibly a “sinner” himself - to “return to God”? Please!! 

The Catholic Church has no claim to any “moral authority” while it hides behind its so-called inviolable “laws of the Church”. They are nothing of the sort.

It’s high time they realised that this is the 21 Century – after the birth of the man they profess to worship – the man of peace, the man of love!