I have a shirt with this iconic photo of Ernesto Guevara de la Serna, more commonly known as “Che” Guevara. Why do I have it? I guess it has a lot of meaning for me. When people ask my last name, I say “Guevara” as in “Che Guevara”. In the United States, I get a lot of “who is that?” That seems to be a comment on the quality of education in the United States. And it is not a generational issue because my Millenial friends from the now ultra capitalist Russia know exactly who he is and what he stands for. According to anti-communist propaganda (e.g.: the CIA), this picture is a symbol of a murderer. To others who only know this photo as a pop icon, he was the idealistic doctor who wrote a diary about his motorcycle tour around South America. To me, this symbol means a mere human who, right or wrong, pursued his passion. And it is cool that my parents, one of whom is actually named Ernesto Guevara, chose the Anglicized version of as my middle name.
Stay Away from the Light
Jonah and the Whale
It’s not a message that I ever intend to convey in words. 2001 is a nonverbal experience; out of two hours and 19 minutes of film, there are only a little less than 40 minutes of dialog. I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and philosophic content. To convolute McLuhan, in 2001, the message is the medium. I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does; to “explain” a Beethoven symphony would be to emasculate it by erecting an artificial barrier between conception and appreciation. You’re free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film— and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level— but I don’t want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he’s missed the point…
It is been a long time since I have written on this blog, as I have been attempting to organize my thoughts on “an examined life” offline in the Scrivener writing app. I am likely waiting in vain for the right time to actually write. However, the recent San Bernardino mass shooting (Dec. 4, 2015) has generated much buzz on the web and social networks clamoring for “gun control.” The NYTimes even had a hysterical front page editorial claiming to be morally outraged. All just seems hysterical to me because: (1) I have thought long and hard on the topic; and (2) all the material I see are offensive to my academic training in the Socratic method.
I just started an enlightening book that covers Socrates and his method. “People must interrogate their most fundamental prejudices or they would live superficial, expedient lives. As he explained to the court that condemned him to death: ‘It is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living.'” Armstrong, Karen (2009-09-11). The Case for God (p. 62). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. (citing Plato, Apology 38a)(emphasis added). The Socratic method is essentially a civilized discourse (many times with myself) on all the different sides of a topic. Not merely parroting common arguments but deconstructing every argument until a few compelling conclusions are left. That, I submit, is the beginning of wisdom.
I have thought about human nature and politics since my childhood. I am sure my immigrant experience raised issues of power and its abuse in my young mind. My parents moved our family in 1979 to the United States from the Philippines under the Marcos dictatorship. American history, Political Science, and later Jurisprudence and Constitutional law were compelling subjects that helped motivate me through the rigors of college, law school, the bar exam, and law practice. I was also fortunate to experience some of these disciplines in “laboratory” settings in internships with the U.S. Senate, federal trial courts, and federal agencies. My points are nothing original. They are just my internal dialog from my lifetime experiences, academic training, and consideration of compelling compelling insights of others.
I think we can all agree that constructive political discourse ought to be based on honestly defined presuppositions, reasoning, and logic instead of unchecked biases and emotions. Ignorance is not an acceptable basis of important matters. Are you aware of and have you challenged your presuppositions of humanity, law, and politics? Have you examined your logic?
In the quote “power tends to corrupt, power corrupts absolutely”, I found a short statement that described my observations about society in general and political power specifically. Here is the statement in a wider context: “If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means.” Letter of Lord Acton (1877), http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html
My deductive reasoning from this presupposition is as follows:
1. Power Tends to Corrupt, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. Lord Acton’s view appears to be an obvious product of Renaissance, Enlightenment, and modern political/jurisprudential discourse such as Hobbes, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Kant, Mill, Paine, Hume, Rousseau, Bentham, Rawls, Hart, and Dworkin.
2. If corruption is undesirable, then absolute power is undesirable
3. A legal system (as defined by the U.S. Constitution) that checks and balances power between federal branches, federal versus state, and state versus individuals are desirable because they minimize absolute power and therefore corruption. These are based on John Locke’s theories that influenced early American political thinking.
4. The U.S. Constitution must be interpreted to accomplish its general purpose, namely to minimize power from being concentrated into one group over another and a person over another. Thus, the Constitution cannot be changed expressly with a mere democratic majority.
5. Firearms are the basic projection of power (see Hobbes and Machiavelli’s observations); therefore, arms must not be concentrated in or monopolized any party or institution. Otherwise, abuse of power ,and therefore corruption, becomes more endemic in a society. I agree with Locke’s prescription of a divided government over Hobbes’ argument for a monarchy. Some small, homogenous societies may be more ethically advanced where this does not apply, but I am yet to see a large, diverse society that can be trusted with concentrated power.
Supporters of gun control generally do not address these deeper political theories. Rather, they rely on the inductive reasoning – more restrictions of firearms probably reduces gun-related deaths. All this is based on statistics that are inherently subject to confirmation bias with disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities (e.g.: societal problems particular to a country). And such arguments generally presume that government and people will meet their assigned responsibilities under the social contract. This seems to be a very naive view of human nature and institutions. I also take issue with judges, politicians, and journalists who have never fired, used, or trained with the weapons they want to ban. Have you tried to actually defend yourself in a certified training course using live ammunition?
Today is “Good Friday” for Christians of every stripes – nominal, literal, liberal, Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Orthodox. I knew early on as a child growing up the Catholic faith that this day is to remember the brutal torture and execution of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, the obvious question, which I did not get then and still wrestle with to this day, is why is it “Good”? In my early teens, I got the simple “born again” answer, “because Jesus saved you with his death.” What? Why did I need to be saved? How? Just like the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament. Huh?
Much has been written from each and every theological and rational angle on these questions, and I have read much and forgotten even more. The essence of my childhood faith (the crucification and following resurrection) is still a mystery to me. But one question has been answered, I think, with a common tool lawyers use called “Incorporation by Reference“.
If Jesus was the Son of God and was God, perfect in always, complete trust in God the Father, why did he cry out “My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?” With incorporation of Psalm 22 by reference, it finally made sense:
22 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I find no rest.
3 Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises of Israel.
4 In you our fathers trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried and were rescued;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
8 “He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
What does a man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?
A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains forever.
The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens to the place where it rises.
The wind blows to the south
and goes around to the north;
around and around goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.
All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.
All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.
“I always try to write on the principle of the iceberg. There is seven-eighths of it under water for every part that shows. Anything you know you can eliminate and it only strengthens your iceberg. It is the part that doesn’t show.” – Ernest Hemingway 1958
A few weeks ago, I met with a group of fathers, one of who pointed out that we seem to learn more from our children than what we think they learn from us. This weekend was a prime example. I was helping my daughter with her Honor’s English essay on Ernest Hemingway’s “Iceberg” writing style.
I have been wrestling with the true purpose and definition of “myths”. Of course, there is that common definition that a “myth” is a story that is not true. I have always intuited that this is an incorrect shallow definition. Joseph Campbell is famous for his works on myths. While his work has been insightful, it has not provided me with any clarity. Since I was first conscious enough to understand what I was reading, my intuition has told me that underneath myths and fairly tales lies the truth. Hemingway, known for his simplicity and minimalism, has given me the simple explanation for questions I have asked my entire life.
I was at my neighborhood Starbucks meeting for the first time a fellow academic from my local church to explore possibilities of forming a “small group”, “book club”, or whatever they are called these days on topics I raise in this blog. As I have posted in the past, I am interested in studying people’s daily use of words. Lo and behold, ordering my favorite drink “grande single shot blended with whip mocha”. Now I have learned this term from a San Francisco Starbucks almost 20 years ago, apparently this is the correct terminology from the original Seattle Pike Place Starbucks. I have used my terminology in Seattle and it worked. But I guess the barrista this morning either has not learned the mother Starbucks tongue and maybe there is a local Starbucks dialect developing in the outskirts of the Bay Area. I got a puzzled “HUH”? “Mocha frapuccino?” OK, I had to quickly shift my brain to everyday Northern Californian English to translate mother Starbucks as I learned it: “I want a large HOT mocha, with a 50/50 mix of full fat and non fat milk, only one shot of espresso instead of the default two, and whipped cream”. Suffice to say, this was a perfect segue to discuss words, meaning, language, and how we know what we know.
In my first attempt at blogging, I focused on my professional focus on “marketing and communications law”, specifically trademarks and copyrights. I guess it was just a matter of time that I posted on a brand (Disclaimer: the above famous mark is owned by Starbucks and nothing in this blog is meant to imply any association between me and the Starbucks organization). This is a perfect opportunity to post a photo I took at The Met. “Hey, I wonder if this is where Starbucks got its logo?” My fair use of the logo above is meant solely to comment on my visit today and compare with a sculpture that looks like the logo.
French Impressionist Edgar Degas is attributed to have said,
In art truth is suggested by false means.
I finished all 5 seasons of Breaking Bad last week. By Degas’ definition, Breaking Bad and my other favorite TV series, The Sopranos, is ART. There is much to say about these two series, and I did not intend to mention these except that tonight is the second time this week I read a reference to the poem Ozmandias (first, after watching Breaking Bad’s eponymous episode last week). Whether running into this poem twice in a week is by Providence or by an increased probability of running into this poem by watching or reading truth seeking works, I am encouraged to share it:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said—“ Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that the sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
—Percy Bysshe Shelley, Ozymandias
Since I started this blog quoting the Gospel of John, I might as well segue into this inquiry with the beginning of John:
In the beginning was the Word… John 1:1 (ESV)
I quote this not for its philosophical or theological meanings at this time but instead for the common Merriam-Webster American English dictionary meaning of “word”, namely, “a sound or combination of sounds that has a meaning and is spoken or written.” See M-W.com. Yes, I understand the original verse was most likely written in Koine Greek, and the original Koine Greek word for “Word”, Logos, means much more than common “words.” However, I like the verse’s apparent implication that “words” are important bases to begin. I am aiming for as much clarity as I can muster in this inquiry; thus, for the sake of clarity, I will begin, like many of the statutory laws and contracts I read everyday, by defining the meanings of words most material to this inquiry. For the sake of a cohesive inquiry, I will primarily rely on the online version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (“M-W.com”) because it is easily accessible from all my electronic devices, it is ubiquitous, and I relied on its earlier hard copy versions to learn American English since grammar school. I am sure the substantive reasons for choosing M-W.com or another dictionary are broad and interesting subjects of inquiry, but I will save those for someone else or for a later date.
Let’s begin my defining “definition” with a painting I viewed last month at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.
This is my second attempt at blogging. I had a professional blog on legal issues, particularly trademark and copyrights, before social networking became ubiquitous. I am back to blogging because I admittedly cannot keep my comments brief. Once I start posting on a point, I always ask the question whether I am conveying what I mean to convey correctly. I guess social networking sites like Facebook (“FB”) or Twitter, by their very nature, are probably not a good venue for me.
So I will continue my previous rants on FB here. On November 1, 2013, I posted on FB:
“Feeling Philosophical this Friday: We use language to understand and communicate truth. Language evolves, morphs, and is extremely personal; therefore, by its nature, it is relative and imperfect. But this does not mean that the underlying truth it seeks to describe is imperfect, changeable, or relative.”
Why did I write this? It comes partially out of my frustration from the sloppy misuse and outright abuse of language in old and new media and even in day to day conversations. Granted, I know that there are people who are very skilled at manipulating language to convince others that what is false is true. Maybe I have not completely succumb to cynicism? I generally believe most people want to speak and hear the truth. In rereading my November post, I realized that I assumed all my FB friends know and agree on the meaning of truth. But is that really true? OK, I am getting circular, but I do not know of anyway to avoid that here. Somewhere in my memory, I recall a question by a famous historical figure: “What is truth?” While I can certainly pretend to be well versed on the scriptures of my professed faith, I have to admit I relied on Google and found this:
33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” 37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” John 18 (ESV)
But I can rely on memory who said “the truth shall set you free”! (Also in the Gospel According to John).
John 18:33-18 is an apt passage to begin this inquiry in many levels. It appears to be a classic use of the Socratic Method, which is the primary method of my professional training. I also appreciate the symbolism of a secular Greco-Roman authority (Pilate) meets transcendent Hebrew God-man (Jesus). It’s also a cross-road (pun intended) where Western European thought and culture began.