Virtuous Circles

by Gary Berg-Cross

Thanksgiving is certainly family and togetherness time that is an opportunity for a bit of reflection on values and internalities as grand as gratitude and as considered as kindness.  It is a time to graciously take what we have with gratitude rather than to take good things for granted. And as Richard Dawkins suggest it is a nice opportunity to “teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.”

It seems a bit odd, though that the day after Thanksgiving much is taken for granted and some may be grateful that the local Box Store opens early to allow the externality of charitable shopping that pre-ritualizes the winter present season of gifting.  

Our market system has found a way to take some inward feelings of kindness and the generous impulse to give more than we have and expresses these as ritualized, wrapped presents.  It’s probably not the largely solitary behavior without expression of thanks that William Arthur Ward was thinking of when he said:

“Feeling gratitude and not expressing it is like wrapping a present and not giving it.

Nor is it the connection that Henry Van Dyke made between the kindness-gratitude-thanksgiving trilogy when he hypothesized that:

Gratitude is the inward feeling of kindness received. Thankfulness is the natural impulse to express that feeling. Thanksgiving is the following of that impulse.

Family and friends set around the table are a nice way to spark action on feelings received kindness. It affords an opportunity to rekindle each

others kindness flames and reflect on those who in the past have contributed to our kindness flames. Such virtuous circles can parent many good things and well on the wise path to the Confucian practice that:

To practice five things under all circumstances constitutes perfect virtue; these five are gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness.

All the more reason then in today’s times to think a bit more broadly and inclusively about thoughtful generosity reflecting kin kindness. To paraphrase Tom Stoppard, the generosity between kin can apply not only

to our extended family but inclusively to our neighbors, our village and globally beyond. After all we are the beneficiaries of exceptional American resources and its people's historical, collective generosity. With a global view we can hope, if not expect, some inclusive generosity like immigration reform and the virtuous fires it sparks for those who were not born here but seek its kindness.

There is overwhelming evidence that the higher the level of self-esteem, the more likely one will be to treat others with respect, kindness, and generosity.

Nathaniel Branden

The Appeal to Common Sense

By Gary Berg-Cross

Everyone appeals to common sense. President Obama recently used it:

“The idea to shut down the government at a time when the economy is gaining some traction ... I am assuming that they will not take that path… I have confidence that common sense in the end will prevail.”

I’m not so sure he’s right there that sound judgment will prevail.

You hear in the debate over Immigration (A plea for common sense and compassion in the immigration debate) where the common sense appeal to is one of a humanitarian and, ultimately, moral basis in distinction to economic, social and enforcement aspects of the issue.

I might agree with that priority, but this argument is not that common. common sense is a term with philosophical origins, which is today commonly used to refer to a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably accepted by nearly all people without any need for debate. A practical example these wet summer days is if it looks like rain take an umbrella when you go out.

This comes out of our everyday world of seemingly direct perception and experience of getting wet.  Common sense evokes the idea of practical world and easy, harmonized knowledge and reasoning we can use to plan our day.

There is idea of a reasoning independent of particular training and experience and hence shared by us all.  Or perhaps we might say that just the common life experience of growing up in the world gives us the base to reason from.  It’s not an idea that holds up well under examination given the appeals to it we see used widely.  

The trouble is that common sense appeals often seen to be about values that immediate perception and involving basic knowledge acquired from age 2-8. .

All too often the topic is something we might or should agree on and don’t. In these cases common sense gets argued for secondary things, not the primary ones and that is an important debating point.  Such hidden agendas are technically way beyond a topic of 8 year olds. The argument in the previously cited article is for an immigration bill that “upholds values Americans cherish—hard work, opportunity and compassion.” 

Sounds great but values are much more abstract than immediate and a subject for well informed and reasoned debate with agreed upon facts. Consider the reasoning applied to the recent Farm Bill:

Today we have crops that are more resilient to extreme weather and disease, meaning that the livelihood of my family is less tied to the whims of Mother Nature. In fact, about 90 percent of corn and soybeans have been improved with biotechnology today. By producing a higher yield, these crops allow me to do more with less and help meet the growing food needs of our world.

Any technology that helps me and my family earn a little bit more for each hard-fought acre we farm is a welcome advancement. But not everyone chooses to see the benefit of these technologies for America’s families.

It’s a simple, linear type argument but not everyone would agree with the chain of reasoning because our knowledge, experience and reasoning differ:

·         less tied to nature’s whims is good (does nature really have whims?)

·         Biotech improves crop yield (or does it reduce pest damage if we use it with,,,?)

·         Result more food crops that the world needs (cost/benefit analysis please)

·         It helps my family so it is good (what about damaging other families with pesticide food?)

All too often we get the inverse labeled as “common sense”. There is, for example, a common sense show http://thecommonsenseshow.com/. It is a little disconcerting to see some of its topics:

•  the communist inspired practice of paying an income tax. 
•  The Invasion of Sharia Law with a claim:

o   Sharia law, illegal immigration and the free trade agreements are designed by the globalists to subvert the Constitution and to undermine the national identity

We should be progressing in better and better common sense.  Some blame education for the lack of it. I think the reasons go deeper and include an anti-intellectual culture attitude which dis-respects reflection and encourages a divisive acceptance of shallowness.

Let’s talk about Something Else: Teachable Moments and Unreachable Minds

By Gary Berg-Cross

In the abstract, casual moment it’s sometimes hard to get average folks to talk about topics like secular humanism, natural ethics and the like.  Sure these are important topics, but in the normal flow of things they can be a heavy lift and off putting.  But since it is important we should understand natural opportunities for such topics in the context of larger issues that ARE on the agenda to be discussed.

Following the Newtown shootings there has been justified focus on the topic of gun safety and why such things happen. There has been just a bit of discussion of non-religious views of the situation and the grief. It is what some call a “A teachable moment” – a term used widely in discussing learning and education, as a time when learning a particular topic, task or idea becomes possible or easiest for situational or developmental reasons. The concept is ancient with common sense predecessors like interest, motivation and ripeness. But it was popularized (and became perhaps too much of a buzz phrase) by Robert Havighurst in his 1952 book, Human Development and Education. The concept is also widely applied to therapy as an observation that some interventions are only successful when the “time is right” and the patient ready and open to consider something new. Religious messages often jump into these debates, witness the influence on healthcare discussions.

Of course there are other factors needed such as having the right teacher/therapist/parent/leader at a teachable moment.  A good teacher is someone not only able to communicate knowledge, but one who is a credible source also and one able to hold individual/group attention that goes along with learning.   So in the gun discussion good communicators identify where they are coming from, such as, “my perspective is as a gun owner.”  Of, course this is an easier category to understand than saying “my perspective is as a secular humanist,” so in a teachable moment we have to be ready with some back up, non-threatening explanation that includes the idea that I don’t have to be in the gun-owning tribe or with the religion belief crowd to have a say on a topic of interest like the ethics of guns. That’s probably even more difficult for people coming from the New Atheist tribe, but it is something we need to get accepted as part of the discussion of things.

As we enter a time when immigration, climate change, lowered defense spending and stimulating job growth will be big topics along with gun safety it seems appropriate to consider whether we have reachable minds.  Is the national thinking cap and cultural climate receptive and ready for freethinker’s perspectives? Can we help make it so?

A start is to work for acceptance of freethinkers as part of the conversation. Perhaps attention will be distracted and go elsewhere or sideways. We’ll see if people are interested, but it is likely to be a difficult task. In ‘Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam’ Nick Turse bemoans the fact that there was no public interest in Vietnam war crimes allegations. The public mind was largely closed and  unreachable. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre were aired, but stirred only a very brief public outrage before subsiding into indifference as talk moved on to more acceptable topics. The Winter Soldier hearings, which Vietnam veterans like now Senator Kerry participated in, were largely ignored and the testifiers treated with disgust. As John Tirman noted in a WAPO review of Turse’s book:

Turse has the journalist’s faith that exposure will result in justice, but in the case of war, there’s little evidence that the public wants to know more about atrocities, much less act upon them. British scholar Kendrick Oliver made this argument brilliantly in his book on My Lai, showing how reactions to revealed atrocities follow a pattern that ultimately leads to a rally-round-the-troops phenomenon. One could contend that war, by its very nature — and not just in Vietnam and Cambodia, but in Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan — similarly leads to indifference to civilian suffering or even to blaming the victims.

This is the type of reaction freethinkers face all the time.  Revealing that one's thinking is flimsy and biased can lead to people digging in and rallying round their comfortable and unchallenged beliefs. It’s in part the problem of minds being closed by a drive towards loyalty, stability, respect for authority and group cohesiveness along with purity of thought.  Perhaps we’ve learned a bit of lesson, but still what is needed are teaching moments with the right voices ready to take up the issues.

 

Images

Chuck Hagel: http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2012/12/18/chuck-hagel-as-a-teachable-moment/

Teachable Moment: http://findability.org/archives/000629.php

Good without God moment: http://generationatheist.blogspot.com/2011/08/teachable-moment-by-shannon-b.html