Questioning the Unquestionable

I read the following in a blog called Sovereign Man:

Human beings are not meant to exist in isolation. We strive for inclusion and acceptance of our peers. And the forming of social groups, whether families, tribes, dynasties, and kingdoms is as old as human civilization itself.

I'm sure few people would argue about that.  It seems to be one of those universal truths on which we all agree.

Yet, I am going to question.  I do agree, however, with the second and third sentences in that paragraph.  They are observations which reflect my own experiences.  It is the first sentence which I want to examine.  

Begin with the principle that just because you observe something doesn't establish the cause.  Just because you see a black cat running in a field of red poppies doesn't mean that red poppies are the reason black cats exist.  Even if you observe this hundreds of times and you've read about this in writings of scientists and artists and religious leaders written hundreds of years ago, still does not establish that red poppies have anything to do with the reason why black cats exist.

So, in this case, the fact that humans have from, the beginning of time, tended to form groups doesn't establish the fact that human beings must form groups.  All that we can say with absolute certainty is that, based on all recorded evidence we could expect that humans will want to form groups with others.

Where does this notion come from?  Who, or what established that humans "are not meant to live in isolation"?  

There are religious arguments that God may have decreed this and will point to various scriptures in sacred books, but even if a person does believe in God, it cannot be known for certain that what is written in these books are really the true words of their deity or merely a widely accepted interpretation created by some man.

Some people might argue that humans need to couple with others in order to reproduce, and survive as a species, yet in spite of being true it does not establish a cause for a long term or permanent relationship between several or many other humans.

I don't raise this objection because I have concluded that this is an issue which merits a great deal of debate, but rather as an illustration of how passively we let very basic questions go unanswered in our lives.  Perhaps, the question is of gigantic importance and if we were to seek to find an answer to this we might start to completely reshape society.

The attitude I'm proposing, more than anything, is that we should be continually questioning statements we hear, and habitually examine ourselves to see if things we say or believe are based on solid principles and, if not, start to wonder how things might be different if a new foundation were established.

Saying what you mean

We often are told that being effective in what we do is, in part, dependent on how well we can differentiate between what is important and what is urgent.  This is an example of the former which got displaced by the latter.

I started writing this in January 2010 after watching Glenn Beck attempt to show how Progressivists have misrepresented or disconnected history from people today.  That particular issue has nothing to do with my topic, nor is this supporting or disputing Beck’s arguments, but I mention it because it provided me with the jumping off point for my thinking.

On at least two occasions in his program Beck said, “Back in a second” before a break.  For some reason I counted those seconds and, the first time counted 210, the next one I didn’t count accurately, but estimate that it was at least 150 seconds.

The point here is that we use many words and expressions which do not mean what they say, and when we use them we often don’t even consider what it is that we intend to say … rather we just utter something that expresses an approximate idea that we haven’t even clarified for ourselves.

One of the most frequent terms that comes to mind which is used by younger people is “whatever,” as a response to somehow indicate that no further discussion is wanted.  I’m not intending to be critical of young people when I say this, but wouldn’t it be much better to simply say something like, “Let’s talk about something else”? Or, “This topic bores me,” or whatever really expresses the mood of the moment.

If we, ourselves do not take the responsibility of choosing and using terms which express clearly what it is that we want to communicate, why should we be the least bit surprised if politicians, journalists, teachers, children, or anyone are misunderstood or ambiguous.

Like anything else, if we wish to see change in things around us, we must initiate a change in ourselves and if we want others to start meaning what they say, we, too, must do the same and the start to that is to choose words that allow us to say what we mean and to insist that others who are trying to communicate with us do the same.

Technorati Tags: Glenn Beck,Progressivism,communication,language,journalists,meaning

You can say whatever you want

A package of soymilk reads:

 IT’S FREE! Silk Vanilla is free of lactose, dairy, cholesterol, eggs, casein, MSG and worries. You still have to pay for it though.

Before I get to my point, I’d like to say I love this product and find it an excellent replacement for regular milk.

The thought that struck me, when I read that statement on the package is that it seems so typical of what we hear everywhere in the media from politicians and about most everything.  Statements are made which are the complete opposite of what they say …. and as long as the person somewhere, somehow, clarifies what they are saying, it is considered totally acceptable.

A defendant of this kind of action would likely state: “Why should a person be criticized just because a reader didn’t read on a bit further to learn the real, full meaning of what was said.”

I would tend to agree with that kind of defence, and yet I also see that there is a lack of trustworthiness demonstrated by the person who makes a statement of this nature, because he is relying on his own cleverness and his listeners’ lack of acuity to actually create a false impression which is serving his own ends and not those of his listeners.

It is tragic that this kind of thinking is too prevalent today.

Technorati Tags: advertising,politicians,language,honor,trust

Devaluation in the works?

In watching the TV reports of the US budget along with all the commentary and analysis I was suddenly stuck by an odd realization: This year is two thousand nine, next year is twenty-ten. What happened to the other one thousand nine hundred and eighty (2000 less 20)?

I realize that this is an acceptable alternative way of speaking about the year, but still it strikes me a bit odd that for the first 9 years of this centry we used one form and then in the 10th year we switch to another. Is there any rational explanation for this?

There's another thing that occurred to me in mulling this over. Maybe, this is the way the politicians plan to deal with the massive debt and deficits which the US government is running and planning. Divide a trillion by 100 and it becomes 10 billion. Doesn't sound quite as bad, does it?

Is the US dollar going to be devalued during the Obama administration?