KAMALA HARRIS - WHY IS SHE LAUGHING?

 Many Conservatives, as well as others, have been critical of VP Harris’ laughter at, what certainly appears to be, inappropriate, if not bizarre times. I am, once again, merely positing a theory - one that I have not heard espoused by others.

Pseudobulbar Affect (PBA) is a condition that causes uncontrollable crying and/or laughing that happens suddenly and frequently. It can happen in people with a brain injury or certain neurologic conditions. . . .. Someone having a PBA laughing spell may laugh when they don’t feel amused or when they only feel a little bit amused. (PBAInfo.org)

This possibility may be considered relatively inconsequential, but for President Biden’s apparent cognitive decline.

An exploration of VP Harris’ health history, particularly with respect to neurological health, would appear prudent. One would be hard-pressed to conclude that the VP’s behavior is either appropriate or consistent with her putative concern regarding the plight of those oppressed (e.g., immigrants detained at our borders).

I would welcome input concerning this theory.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORALS & ETHICS?

 It is not uncommon for individuals to confuse morals with ethics. This is due at least in part to the fact that the derivation of these terms come from the French, Greek and Latin languages.

While the meanings of these terms do have similarities, there is a marked distinction in application amongst members of society.

At its root, what does the term “morals” mean? It is a reference to a person’s idea of that which shapes their surrounding environment, to include their belief system. It is these values that shape a person’s view of what constitutes right and wrong. It is the belief system, to a large degree, that guides an individual’s perceived notion of that which must be either right or wrong.

It is these morals that provide many of the ideas behind ethical systems. Herein lies much of the confusion.  In most instances, morals serve as the basis for ethics. It is obvious that morals are not always the guiding principle upon which one relies.

What constitutes a moral person? He or she is someone who desires to do that which is right. It is this moral impulse that frequently bespeaks  best intentions.

Morals are associated with or characterized by right behavior. They are also associated with or concerning either conduct or principles perceived as either good or bad. The Latin term “moralis” references a person’s behavior in society. We commonly see this term used in relationship to manners.

Societal mores takes into account that behavior which is accepted as appropriate, beneficial and permitted. A violation of conduct that satisfies the foregoing often results in opprobrium.

Synderesis refers to inborn knowledge of the primary principles of moral action —distinguished from syneidesis (the capacity to apply general principles to moral judgment).

Ethics is frequently discussed as though the term is a study of moral character. (See discussion infra.) However, such a description may lead to profound confusion, as well as legal conundra, if applied to situations in a cavalier manner.

The term “ethics” is derived from Old French etique “ethics, moral philosophy” from Late Latin “ethica,”, and from the Greek “ēthik.” These terms refer to character, particularly moral character. These terms reference “moral principles of a person or group.”

While they’re closely related concepts, morals refer mainly to guiding principles, and ethics refer to specific rules and actions, or behaviors.

A moral precept is an idea or opinion that’s driven by a desire to be good. An ethical code is a set of rules that defines allowable actions or correct behavior. Most frequently observed in professions (e.g., Law, Clergy).

What do we mean by the term “ethics”? Ethics are often distinguished from morals in that ethics  are intended to accomplish codified goals. For example, an attorney violates professional ethics if he or she discloses privileged information, irrespective of the consequences of a failure to disclose. Disclosure may clearly be the moral course of action, while at the same time being a gross ethical violation.

It is important to bear in mind that an ethical code doesn’t have to be even remotely moral. The ethical code need only be a set of rules individuals are required to follow. There are many professional organizations (e.g., American Bar Association, American Medical Association) that have created specific ethical codes for their respective fields. Those of you who are Seinfeld fans may recall that even Dry Cleaners have a code of ethics that prohibit them from wearing customers’ clothes.

These ethical codes have nothing to do with a firmly established set of beliefs. They are rules that are drafted by trade organizations to assist members in gaining confidence from those who retain members’ services, to demonstrate conduct that brings credit to the organization, and provides standardization in regulating violations of the ethical codes.

How do we determine that which is moral? This leads us into the question of whether a cosmic being (e.g., God) issues edicts from on-high that establishes that which is moral or is the determination that which arises organically? 

We may easily distinguish between the two by considering the following: (1) Society A is governed by a belief system that relies upon the Sixth Commandment - Thou shalt not kill - and concludes that to kill is immoral; and (2) Society B is governed by a belief system that relies upon the practice of killing one’s enemies and consuming their flesh to be imbued with greater courage and power.

Are we to merely speculate as to which, if either, Society A or Society B adheres to moral principles? Irrespective of how repugnant one finds the foregoing, in the absence of some universal principle of morality, I suspect that we are truly left with no alternative but to conclude that Society A’s and Society B’s conduct are equally moral in their respective milieu. 

To explore the matter further, let us look at the difference between deontological and consequentialist views regarding the issue under consideration.

Let us first consider Kant’s Deontology. Deontology is described as an ethical theory that relegates the distinction between right and wrong to a set of rules. Kant believed that ethical actions follow universal moral laws, such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat.” Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and perform their duties. The question naturally arises, “From whence cometh these universal moral laws?”

If one simply considers the basic premise of Deontology, it is simple to apply. People are, at least in theory, required to follow the rules and perform their duty. Such an approach appears to comport a supposed universal view regarding that which is or isn’t ethical. Kant said, “Two Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.”

The contrary view that judges actions by their results is referred to as Consequentialism. There is no consideration of costs and benefits in a Deontological analysis. The only consideration is whether the specified rules were followed.

There are numerous deficiencies in a Deontological analysis, not the least of which is that it can produce results that many people find not only unacceptable, but also repugnant.

Much confusion arose with respect to behavior deemed either moral or ethical during the so-called Enlightenment era. It was during this time that Nietzsche proclaimed, “God is dead.” Many agreed and were propelled into a morass of confusion regarding any universal perception of that which is either right or wrong.

Essentially three responses arose to address the mindset emanating from the Enlightenment era: (1) Social Contract Theory; (2) Utilitarianism; and (3) Kantian Ethics. I am reminded of the passage found in Romans 1:22, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

 

What is the Social Contract? It is a theory propounded by Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher. He argued that morality was essentially a set of rules that human beings agreed upon amongst themselves in order to make living with one another possible. Hobbes opined that if individuals didn’t implement these rules, life would be absolutely unbearable for those in societies devoid of such rules.

What is Utilitarianism? It was another attempt to give morality a non-religious foundation. Proponents of this theory were David Hume and Jeremy Bentham. This theory posits that pleasure and happiness have intrinsic value. It is assumed that happiness and pleasure are what we all want and are the primary goal toward which all actions are directed. That which is good is that which promotes the most happiness. That which is bad produces suffering. The primary duty of man, under this rubric, is to try to do things that increase the amount of happiness and reduce the amount of misery in the world. 

What is the Kantian Ethic?  In Kant’s view the basis for our sense of what is good or bad, right or wrong, is our awareness that human beings are free, rational agents who should be given their due respect. Of course, “the devil is in the details.”

Kant asserts, “The only thing that is unconditionally good is goodwill.” Kant states that goodwill is always good, irrespective of circumstances. Kant defaults to a description of goodwill as doing what is done because it is perceived as the duty of the individual performing the deed. In essence, Kant believed that goodwill is a result of a sense of moral obligation.

In conclusion, what is the difference between morals and ethics? As you can see, there is a great deal of confusion. However, if we accept the premise that ethical conduct is frequently established via codes for various entities, we may conclude that a violation of such codes of conduct would be the antithesis of ethics.

Regarding morals, it would appear that one’s view of a Universal principle, as opposed to an organic principle (i.e., arising from acceptable conduct as determined by selected societal members), would determine what constitutes moral conduct. The former being that which is necessary, the latter being that which is contingent.

 HISTORY OF LANGUAGE - ONE PERSPECTIVE

The history of language, of necessity, is not settled. There are numerous perspectives, contingent on the historians’ worldviews. It stands to reason that if the historian contends man evolved from lower life forms over billions of years, the evolution of language would likely vary substantially from the historian who contends that man emanated from man.

Language, simply stated, is a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols. Although current members of Congress and society assert that language, as well as gender, is fluid, there must be some degree of constancy to make sense of the sounds or conventional symbols upon which communicators rely.

In the absence of such conventions, we simply have gibberish. Violence is a result often seen when language becomes incomprehensible. Irrespective of our desire to be politically correct, we must agree on certain truths, obvious to most of us for eons, if we wish to establish society.

Did language evolve through random, mindless mutations  - conveying intelligence from one entity to another? Did language arise from transmission of data from a Supreme Intelligence, conveyed in such a way as to be readily understood? 

It should come as no surprise to learn that many views assert the former, but few the latter. I will be exploring this topic from the latter perspective. Furthermore, the focus here will be on language shared amongst humans, not other creatures. 

Naturally, there is ample evidence that other creatures have a language as a means to convey messages to one another. Such language may be conveyed by  movement, sounds, vibrations, expressions, mannerisms, etc. However, this exploration is better left to those who specialize in these specific areas.

Both gender and language are “fluid,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said while discussing “gender inclusivity in the Spanish language,” defending the use of the terms “Latinx” and “Latine.” Researchers tell us there are more than 7,000 languages extant. Does such fluidity exist throughout this spectrum? Do we accept this premise to the extent that cultures around the world would agree? Sadly, most don’t even bother to consider the consequences of such views. They merely accept them as true because they comport with an unwillingness to accept “facts” as they are encountered.

John Locke said “Language is the great bond that holds society together.” Language is the common conduit whereby knowledge is conveyed from one man and one generation to another. It accomplishes this crucial task by enabling us to record our own thoughts and to communicate with others.

Etymologically, communication, the vehicle employed in the use of language, is intended to mean “common to all.” Interestingly, “common” is that which belongs to all, owned or used jointly, general, of a public nature or character. If that is the case, who determines how “fluid” language may be?

In Lewis Carroll’s “Through The Looking Glass,” Humpty Dumpty states, in a rather scornful tone, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” To which Alice replies, “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Humpty Dumpty replies, “The question is, which is to be master — that’s all.”

It does appear as though we have traveled “Through The Looking Glass.” Have we reached a point in society where language has become essentially unmoored from any semblance of rational thought?

During Senate Confirmation Hearings for a Supreme Court nominee, the nominee was asked if she could define what a woman is. The nominee responded that she couldn’t - stating she wasn’t a biologist. This transpired simultaneously with both the President and this nominee asserting that the nomination of the first Black woman to the Supreme Court was such a momentous occasion.

W. H. Auden, in “The Dyer’s Hand,” stated, “There is one evil... which should never be passed over in silence but be continually publicly attacked, and that is the corruption of the language.” 

There are many recent changes in the way words are used and corrupting the language. This corruption is leading to the corruption of civilization itself. 

Okay. Let’s return to the topic. What are the first words, for which we have a record, in history. Those who deny the Judeo-Christian account would obviously disagree. However, there appears to be substantial acceptance that the first words recorded quote God saying; “Yehi ohr” (“Let there be light.”). 

Subsequently, we find God speaking to Adam. The manner in which this exchange occurred is not disclosed. We then learn of Eve’s creation and references to communication she had with Adam. We also have an account of Eve communicating with Satan.

Clearly, we have documentation, the origin of which may be disputed, of information being exchanged between individuals from the Garden of Eden forward. There is no recorded account of difficulty in interpreting the language, irrespective of what it was, until the following account, “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech . . .. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:1-7).

The manner in which words are used is extremely important. In spite of our best efforts, the words we use are often not understood in the manner intended. (For verification of this, ask any spouse who has been married for several years.) 

As an attorney, I have encountered numerous instances in which obfuscation was intentionally employed to take unfair advantage in a situation. If parties to a discussion do not mean what they say, it is impossible to have a meaningful dialog. A break down in communication will customarily lead to estrangement. It is said that when dialog ceases war commences.

How do we distinguish between dialect and language? Very poorly!

 Dialect is defined as a specific kind of language spoken by a defined group or region. Cultural influences impact the language spoken, contingent on societal constraints. Language is the means by which members of a specific culture communicate with each other. It is this communication  that bonds specific cultures together as a family - of sorts.

There are more than 300 languages in China. Mandarin is by far the most commonly spoken. Naturally, the number is quite varied, contingent on how you contrast language and dialect. It is quite interesting that both Chinese and Japanese languages share characters. The Chinese characters are referred to as “Hanzi.” The Japanese characters are referred to as “Kanji.” Although there are similarities, caution must be exercised to avoid insulting the listener.

As stated, the focus here is on a Judeo-Christian perspective regarding the history of language. It appears that whether one adopts a view of language evolving from lower life forms to man or that human language emanated from the Garden of Eden, the multiplicity of languages remains mysterious.

Linguists, by and large, purport that all human languages originated from one human language. Is it reasonable to assert that all these languages arose as dialects of that initial language? If the answer is yes, how do we account for the myriad extant dialects/languages? 

Interestingly, although there many differences, there are also many similarities. Even more interesting is the fact these variations often followed geographic isolation. The commonality of language closely related to regions to which individuals migrated. 

It seems strange that so many languages have arisen in Europe. Although, once again, there are many similarities, there are also marked distinctions.

If, as linguists tell us, one language, on average, disappears every 2 weeks, in what way is that consistent with a simply naturalistic process?  Why would mutations in language be waning? The contrary would appear to be the more likely result.

Certainly, one may suggest that this is the natural consequence of advancements in technology. However, this claim is a bit hollow when we observe that most industrialized nations cling bitterly to that identity created by a common language.

While there are those who reference the Bible as indicating that there were two distinct miraculous events: the original creation of Adam as a talking and understanding being; and the subsequent division of humanity into language groups as a judgment on the rebellion of the descendants of Noah, this view appears to ignore the purpose for which God subsequently took action to stem-the-tide on man attempting to usurp His throne. (See discussion infra.)

In summary, the Judeo-Christian account, once again, is clearly articulated in Genesis 11:1-9:

“1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

“3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

“5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

“8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel —because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.”

Prior to the account provided, we are told the whole world spoke the same language, i.e., there was one common speech for all people. In their hubris, the inhabitants intended to build a city with a tower that would reach up to heaven, ostensibly to usurp God’s dominion over them.

The term “Babel” is derived from the root meaning “to confuse” when God observed these efforts, He confused their language. This resulted in a balkanization, of sorts. When the inhabitants began speaking in many different languages, they were no longer able to understand one another. 

Although we are forced to speculate, it would appear that groups, not single individuals, began to utter phrases understood by discrete groups. It was these  discrete groups that splintered off into various tribes and scattered all across the face of the earth.

There is no doubt that many will dispute this view. However, I would contend that is at least as plausible, if not more so, than that espoused by secularists.

Is Adam Schiff an Idiot?

Adam Schiff claims that 50,000 Americans are dead because President Trump was not removed from office. Having recently read Steven Levitsky's "How Democracies Die," I would encourage readers to carefully consider the propriety of their use of the term "idiot."

I realize that the term no longer necessarily implies deficiency in mental ability/intelligence. However, when we refer to individuals as "idiots," implying stupidity or a lack of "common" sense, I would suggest that we proceed with caution.

Steven Levitsky is a Harvard professor. Adam Schiff is a graduate of Stanford and Harvard Law School. I suspect that Levitsky's hypocritical attacks on Conservatives, while turning a blind-eye toward the very same, if not worse, tactics undertaken by Liberals, is neither idiotic nor stupid.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt Adam Schiff's bizarre assertion regarding deaths attributable to Trump's administration is either idiotic or stupid.

These individuals are engaging in ideological warfare. University students are deluged with propagandistic material in virtually every class taken. We need to wake up to the serious issues confronting us and realize these individuals aren't idiots. They fully intend to usurp our freedoms and create a dystopian global society with which we either align ourselves or suffer the consequences.

If you would like more information regarding various thought processes, I have recently written an article addressing the issue of "Whatever-Happened-to-Common-Sense?"

Mind Tyranny: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?

If you are like me, you often find yourself saying, "That doesn't make any sense. I just can't understand how that conclusion was reached."

"Belief is not an idea the mind possesses, it is an idea that possesses the mind." (Robert Oxton Bolt) One of the most pressing issues to consider is, "Does  'thought' exist?" Rene Descartes proclaimed, "I think. Therefore, I am." (Cogito, ergo sum) Is it prudent to question his conclusion? Perhaps it is not only prudent, but necessary.

In discussing various aspects of mind tyranny, we should begin to evaluate ways in which to think cogently, to achieve clarity of thought, heretofore abandoned in most of society. Thinking is the cognitive activities incorporated to: (1) process information; (2) solve problems; (3) make decisions; and (4) create new ideas. We utilize thinking skills when we attempt to make sense of myriad experiences. We, at least in theory, draw upon thinking to organize information, integrate that information via connections to formulate questions. Thinking is also useful if we wish to either make plans or decide on a particular course of action.

As is universally the case, propaganda is supported more frequently by slogans than by logic or facts. "Things have different qualities, and the soul different inclinations; for nothing is simple which is presented to the soul, and the soul never presents itself simply to any object. Hence it comes that we weep and laugh at the same thing." (Blaise Pascal)

How do we locate the "mind tyrants"? Listen for the loudest and most strident voices. They frequently present the most impassioned pleas and outrageous claims. Mind tyrants are those who try to shape your thoughts and impose values. Tyranny of the mind does not come from the top down, presented as imperial commands. Mind tyrants attempt to force upon us ideologies that seek to coerce and control us.

"Only the courageous will survive tyranny. The others deserve to live in chains." (Prof. Mike Adams UNC - Chapel Hill) Sadly, most don't realize that they are living "in chains". We grow up in various enclaves, we adopt various societal practices/customs, and assume that is just the way things are and should be.

In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye's refrain throughout is, "Tradition!" Irrespective of our recognition, it is tradition that is at the root of almost all of our thoughts, actions, and beliefs.

In future articles, we will attempt to establish a framework that enables us to move beyond this  stricture.

Mind Tyranny: What is Truth?

Do you find yourself wondering, "What, if anything, do I really know?" If yes, then you and I will be able to take this journey together. If no, then you are likely deceiving yourself into thinking that you have answers to questions about which you have given little reflection.

In the account often referred to as Jesting Pilate, we find the following exchange: "Jesus answered, 'For . . . I have come into the world . . . to bear witness to the truth. . ..' Pilate said to him, 'What is truth?'" (Quid est veritas?)

Ted Williams said, "If you don't think too good, don't think too much." Most of us, unfortunately, "don't think too good." (sic.) We assume that our thinking is predicated on our cognitive processes. However, very frequently, our thoughts are not our own.

Propaganda is information, especially of either a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular cause or point of view. Are we being educated or propagandized? Albert Einstein defined education as "what remains after one has forgotten everything one has learned in school.

It is very important that we have some knowledge of the motivation behind the "professor" of information/knowledge that is conveyed. Are they attempting to inform, convince or persuade?  Perhaps, they are intentionally attempting to deceive.

Some individuals appear to have no interest in what they are saying. However, it may be imprudent to conclude that they are not lying. As Blaise Pascal said, "Some people lie for the mere sake of lying."

If you are like me, you are finding it increasingly difficult to find reporting that is not tinged with bias. Years ago, while serving on the faculty of a graduate university, I was assigned to the Research Department.  Although never fully successful, researchers learn to seek equipoise (i.e., neutrality in the results derived from the research conducted).

This is often very difficult to attain if there are strong vested interests in the outcome. I vividly recall one research project that I initiated, at which time, another faculty member stated, "It's been nice knowing you, Tom."

When I first decided to discuss this topic, I thought that we might be able to address the issue relatively easily. However, there is much more that we must discuss to do the topic justice.

Have you ever wondered whether truth is viewed the same, irrespective of where on the planet it is being discussed? Research has revealed that Westerners place more emphasis on individual rights. Easterners appear to place more emphasis on social responsibility.

If you wish to explore this further, join me in future posts.

Mind Tyranny: Fact or Fiction?

Have you ever wondered why individuals raised in the same home, with the same caregivers, and virtually identical environmental stimuli develop such disparate interpretations of the world in which they live? Undoubtedly, as individuals, we have a myriad of genetic and biological influences in our lives. We are also susceptible to various stressors that are unique to the lives we lead.

However, to what extent may the lens through which we view our lives be contingent upon the aforementioned factors? Why do we process data so differently? We often hear terms such as, "Science says . . .." In reality, Science speaks via the interpretation of data by scientists. These scientists interpret data, albeit unintentionally (in the vast majority of cases), encumbered by their biases, prejudices, lack of sufficient data/knowledge, etc.

To ask the question stated in our title, assumes there exists congruity in the use of the term "mind." This is an assumption that is readily challenged.

There are researchers that assert that mind does not exist, certainly not the conscious mind. Others assert that mind is nothing more than neuronal activity emanating from the brain. Others assert that mind is spatially limited to neither the brain nor the body.

For the purpose of this discussion, we must assume that mind does exist. Tyranny is defined as a situation in which someone or something controls how you are able to live, think and act in an unfair way.

Is the mind being impacted by tyranny? In considering this question, we must first determine whether, if tyranny is extant, is it being imposed altruistically, selfishly, sadistically, out of necessity, etc.

"For I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." (This quote appears under the dome of the Jefferson Memorial in D.C.)

You should permit no one to force their opinions on you. If we avoid that pitfall, we are capable of seeing more clearly and addressing issues more efficiently and comprehensively.

We frequently parrot the talking points reflecting our partisanship. When we do so, we cease to participate in society as we should. We surrender a great deal of our personal freedoms when we either allow others to think for us or adopt their views uncritically. The only tyranny which exists is tyranny of the mind - a tyranny to which we slothfully surrender. 

Avoidance requires diligence, perspicacity, and a steadfast demand for truth. Freedom cannot exist in the absence of truth. (The existence of "truth" will be discussed elsewhere.)

Victor Emil Frankl was an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist as well as a Holocaust survivor. Frankl stated, "Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way."

It appears self-evident that "mind tyranny" is a fact. Obviously, much remains to be discussed regarding who and what are responsible for such impositions.