Popular Posts

Friday, November 29, 2019

WILLIAM DOYLE RUCKELSHAUS, 87, DIED NOVEMBER 27, 2019

 
 
In the early 1960s, when I was working for Nalco Chemical Company as a chemical sales engineer out of Indiana, being something of a perennial autodidact, I learned that the Broadripple Public Library in North Central Indianapolis had a GREAT BOOKS CLUB.   
 
The librarian on the phone said that they met on the first Thursday of every month.  I explained that I traveled a lot and couldn’t always make the meetings.  She assured me that would be all right.
 
I was late for my first meeting with the group already in a discussion of Plato’s REPUBLIC, and the merits of a “philosopher king” to run the state.
 
The chair person was a full faced young man with glasses, well-dressed in a three piece business suite with a melodious voice and open demeanor.  I noticed that all the other men were formerly attired as well as the women.  I came to the GREAT BOOKS session in jeans, sneakers, a sweatshirt and a sports jacket, my common attire when not working.  I imagined they came directly from work. 
 
Given my compulsive nature to assess a group, I had the feeling of accidentally interrupting a meeting of attorneys going over their billing hours. 
 
It was clear they were comfortable with each other if not also of a common cloth.  Their diction and choice of words were distinct suggesting an Ivy League education. 

I am a listener by nature and found the comments on the “Philosopher King” interesting if uninspiring.   
 
Then suddenly, well into the session, the chair person looked at the roster of attendees, then at me with a smile, and said, “Mr. Fisher is a chemical engineer with Nalco Chemical Company, and this is his first meeting with us.”  

I was about to correct him by saying, “I am in sales,” when he said, “Now, you have been listening to us for the better part of an hour, do you share our consensus of the wisdom of Plato’s “Philosopher King”? 
 
In an unfamiliar setting, one that is particularly intimidating, with a feeling of having entered the “high rent district” of the intellectual elite, I did what I tend to do when nervous, I stuttered.  “Not exactly.”
 
This created a spontaneous uproar of laughter. 
 
Unperturbed, the chair person put his hands together under his chin, looked at me pensively, then lifted his hand to restore quiet.  “Obviously, our newest member has some other thoughts.  We would like to hear them, yes?"  Heads nodded. 
 
What often happens once I break through my self-consciousness, thoughts roll out of my head as if they had been previously rehearsed as a soliloquy.  

I told the group I was an Irish Roman Catholic and had witnessed the “infallible philosopher king” in action with Pope Pius XII; that I had been part of a private military audience in Rome with the pope in 1957 as a US Navy white hat, only months before the pontiff's death. 
 
Pope Pius XII was known as an intellectual and, indeed, a philosopher, I said, but I had my reservations about him since he was Nuncio to Germany when Adolf Hitler came to power, showing an ambivalent attitude towards the Jews and the “Jewish Question” . . .  I wanted to say more about the Holocaust, but stopped practically in mid-sentence.
 
Sensing I had finished, the chair person beamed.   “When we next meet, we will continue this discussion on Plato’s REPUBLIC.  Perhaps Mr. Fisher has some thoughts on the current occupant in Rome, Pope John XXIII.  He then excused the group, came over to me, and shook my hand, “You have a definite point of view.  I like that.” 
 
Later, I learned William Doyle Ruckelshaus was a devout Catholic, a member of one of the most prominent families in Indianapolis, and currently a member of the family’s law firm.   

He was a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, and would become the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), subsequent to that acting Director of the FBI, then Deputy Attorney General of the United States.  It was in that latter role that he and his boss, Elliot Richardson, during the Watergate scandal, refused to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox at President Richard Nixon's request, choosing instead to resign.    
 
The event, October 20, 1973, was known as the “Saturday Night Massacre” with William Ruckelshaus coming out of the affair, now famous.  

In November 2015, President Barak Obama awarded Mr. Ruckelshaus with the “Presidential Medal of Freedom” at the White House for his lifelong service to the nation.
 
By the accident of circumstances, I met William Ruckelshaus as a young man.  I experienced his kindness and comfortable intelligence.  May his soul forever rest in peace.
 
  
 
 

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Happy American Thanksgiving to All!

We have been through a rough patch, but a lot of you have as well.  Blessings to you in your struggles.

It is now five months since my open heart surgery.  I am now sleeping normal, walking outside a mile most days, and doing simple exercises.  

The ulna nerve on my left hand hasn't come back yet, and so I am typing with two fingers on my left hand along with my functioning right hand.  

I still only eat twice a day, maintaining my weight at 190, or 36 pounds less than my normal weight.  My cardiologist wants me to stay at this weight for my heart. 

I'm reading a lot, writing some but no big projects at the moment.  

I watch my TV mysteries, NFL games, but don't follow the news, college football or the NBA or college basketball. 

BB is fine, continuously amazing and still my coach and inspiration.  

She is a doer, project manager, task completer, and has still not gotten used to the idea of being retired.  She,too, reads a lot, has her favorite TV programs, and likes to putz around.  Her sister and brother-in-law, and our daughter and her fiance will soon be here, and we are looking forward to that.  

We enjoyed the wedding of our grandson Taylor Fisher and his wife Chelsey who are now on their honeymoon in the Caribbean.  

BB says I danced with her six times with one fast dance.  I didn't keep track as I was worried about even making it to the wedding.  You don't take anything for granted with heart surgery.  

Wherever I am I carry a little notebook, scribbling my thoughts, even at a wedding of more than 100 attendees.  I mention this because I wrote a piece on Taylor's mother, my daughter, who was killed by a hit-and -run driver, and on Jennifer, our daughter whose career shows amazing perseverance.  

Chekhov, who was also an introvert, was given to this same inclination.  Well, I lost the notebook and it pains me.  These instant stories have been some of my best writing.  Oh, well!

Several of you are not Americans, and have your own Thanksgiving Day.  To that event and its purpose, I wish you well,

Jim

The Peripatetic Philosopher looks at hate!


WHY IS HATE SUCH A POWERFUL MOTIVATOR?

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.

© November 26, 2019


Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.

Horace Walpole (1717 – 1797), English writer








BACKGROUND: THE GENESIS OF IQ & COMMONALITY OF ITS CRIPPLING GENIUS

We humans jump on ideas that simplify our pressing dilemmas and meet the demands of our common sense. We have been doing this with some vigor over the past roughly 150 years. We apparently need to pigeonhole people into explanatory categories with mathematics and science to compensate for our confusion and exasperation when so many vicissitudes seem to be manifested when it comes to people as persons.

This appears especially true when it comes to intelligence. Sir Francis Galton, the British mathematician, and founder of statistics, was fascinated with eugenics, behavioral genetics and intelligence. His book “Hereditary Genius” (1865) focused on biological breeding and nature rather than on nurture and the cultural environment. He was especially captivated by the distribution graph popularly known as the “bell curve.”

Biometrics, or reducing people to numbers on a statistical curve has been with us ever since. American biometrician Charles Davenport (1866 – 1944) was persuaded in his research that certain ethnic groups suffered stereotypical moral failings leading to criminality and prostitution.

Americans Henry Goddard (1866 – 1957) and Lewis Terman (1877 – 1956) introduced the French “Binet” intelligent test into the United States where it became known as the “Stanford Binet” IQ test. IQ stands for Intelligent Quotient and is calculated thusly:

Mental Age divided by Chronological Age times 100 equals IQ.

[This was the standard test when I was in grammar school where it was first given to students. The hubris of the creators of this arbitrary and culturally dependent test was the assertion that IQ is unlikely to change in an individual's lifetime; that nature dominates decisively over nurture. I can remember classmates who used their poor test scores on IQ tests as an excuse for making little progress in life.]

Reducing people as persons to numbers, statistical or mathematical variables was something of a defense mechanism to deal with exploding population and all the concomitant problems associated with that from crowd psychology to the cataclysmic and incomprehensible explosion in personal, family and societal dysfunction.

It is not surprising that social engineering would shift to emotional intelligence.

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE – WHY IT CAN MATTER MORE THAN IQ

Science journalist Daniel Goleman (born 1946) erased the scarlet letter of shame across the forehead of many when he declared, “The emotional brain responds to an event more quickly than the thinking brain.”

No longer was IQ an obstacle to a mind who wished to have a career say in medicine who had been told his (or her) IQ was insufficient for such a task.

Goleman has launched a series of books including the 1995 title of this segment. He postulates five components as primary to Emotional Intelligence:

Self-awareness; Self-Regulation; Motivation; Empathy; and Social Skills.


SELF-AWARENESS

This is the ability to recognize and understand ones moods, motivations, and abilities. Also understanding the effects they have on others. Goleman says to achieve a state of complete self-awareness, an individual must be able to monitor their emotional state and identify their emotions. Traits that prove an individual as emotionally mature include: confidence, the ability to laugh at one’s self and their mistakes, and the awareness of how you are perceived by others.

Example: By reading the reaction of someone else, you know how you are perceived by them.


SELF-REGULATION

This is the ability to control ones impulses, the ability to think before you speak/react, and the ability to express yourself appropriately. Goleman defines emotional maturity in this component as being able to take responsibility for your actions, being able to adapt to change, and the ability to respond appropriately to other people’s irrational emotions or behavior.

Example: If someone is screaming at you, you know that they are not always angry at you. You have the ability to understand they may be angry at a particular situation and feel they need to take it out on someone. You do not take this personally or react angry back.


MOTIVATION

This is having an interest in learning and self-improvement. It is having the strength to keep going when there are obstacles in life. It is setting goals and following through with them. Goleman would define an emotional mature individual in this category to have traits such as having initiative and the commitment to complete a task, and having perseverance in the face of adversity.

Example: One who chooses internal motivation driven goals instead of exterior motivation driven goals. Internal motivation driven goals are things such as earning a college degree or becoming a healthier person; things that show self-improvement. Exterior motivation driven goals are things that flaunt wealth or status. This is setting goals such as having the next newest and nicest car.

Example: If a student fails a class, they see this as an opportunity to learn and retake the class without self-doubt. They do not let failure get in the way of their goal. 

EMPATHY

This is the ability to understand other people’s emotions and reactions. Empathy can only be achieved if self-awareness is achieved. Goleman believes that one must be able to understand themselves before they can understand others. Emotional maturity in this category includes people having traits such as perception of others, being interested in other people’s worries and concerns, the ability to anticipate someone’s emotional response to a problem or situation, and the understanding of societies norms and why people act the way they do.

Example: Being able to understand and cope with someone else’s hardships or sadness. When you fully understand yourself and why you feel the things you feel, you can understand other peoples even if they are different than you.

SOCIAL SKILLS

This is the ability to pick up on jokes, sarcasm, and customer service, maintaining friendships and relationships, and finding common ground with others. Goleman states that emotional maturity in this component defines someone who has good communication skills, good time management, the ability to be a leader or manage a group of people, and the ability to resolve difficult situations or conflicts using negotiation or persuasion.

Example: Someone in a "boss" position usually has a good grasp on handling all different types of personalities. If two of their employees are having a conflict, they can find common ground and resolve the issue in a civilized and fair manner.


Journalist Goleman hit on a compelling theme stimulating the collective conscience of society just as Stephen Covey (1932 – 2012) did with “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” (1989), and as Ken Blanchard (born 1939) did with “The One Minute Manager” (1982).

The flaws in these rather simplistic solutions to complex behavioral and organizational problems indicate how readily we jump on the bandwagon to intuitive and deterministic paradigms.

The idea of emotional intelligence first appeared in a paper given by Columbia’s professors of psychology Joel Robert Davitz and psychiatrist Michael Beldoch in 1964. Daniel Goleman took it to another level with “Emotional Intelligence” (1995).

Mental health and leadership has been the focus of many studies assuming emotional intelligence (EI) as real intelligence. These studies show no causal relationships to those attributable to general intelligence and personality traits, seeing emotional intelligence rather as a construct.

People with high EQ’s (Emotional Quotient's) seem to have better mental health, job performance and leadership skills. In other words, they can process emotional information effectively and negotiate the social environment but the prospects for them belonging to the genius class appear slim as I next swing towards that muddy terrain where genius, and yes, often hate reside against suspect emotional intelligence.


PALPABLE HATE IN A CLIMATE OF GENIUS


As a consultant, I once had a client who was a genius as an engineer, and as a managerial vice president of a high tech facility developing brilliant strategies and imaginative tactics. His problem was a director who reported to him whom he saw as a nincompoop and incompetent.

He railed about this man all the time while I pointed out to him to no avail that the man was the CEO’s best friend and hunting and fishing partner. My client had a heart attack. When he returned, he was relieved of his former position while his nemesis’s continued to flourish unscathed for his ineptitude.

This little blog and my e-mail site often receive expressions of contempt if not hate for this or that individual. Ironically, it is often a national figure or celebrity who they do not know, and with whom they have no contact.

The source of their displeasure is the gossip provided by their favorite network news outlet. News sources are advertising dependent, with these networks religiously giving the slant to the stories reported that sponsors' expect and pay for, while the poor viewers, ignorant of the game being played on them, treat this information as the unvarnished truth.

Actress Marilyn Monroe says, “Success makes so many people hate you. I wish it wasn't that way. It would be wonderful to enjoy success without seeing envy in the eyes of those around you." Marilyn Monroe, who had very little formal education, shares this dilemma with one of the great geniuses of our era, Albert Einstein.

ALBERT EINSTEIN

In 1905, the Einstein published his epoch-making special relativity theory. He also wrote a paper revealing how Max Planck’s quanta was confirmed by experiments conducted by physicist Philip Lenard.

This is noteworthy as Einstein was always quick to given credit to others. Lenard was a scientist who became a Noble Laureate in Physics, but was destined to identify with the Nazis, and attempt to discredit Einstein’s proven theory of relativity out of jealousy and because he was a Jew.

In the competitive climate of German physics, Einstein demonstrated maturity and emotional judgment throughout his life:

(1) With anti-Semitism rampant in Germany, he renounced his German citizenship and became stateless;

(2) Refused to sign a manifesto which claimed, “Were it not for German militarism, German civilization would long ago have been destroyed.” Such notables as Max Planck signed the document;

(3) He visited the battlefields of France after WWI, and commented: “We ought to bring all the students of Germany to this place, all the students of the world so that they can see how ugly war is.”

(4) He was among a handful of academics who had refused to sign the Fulda Manifesto supporting the view that German science be at the service of the Fatherland and the military; instead he became signatory to a counter-manifesto seeking to promote international peace in the form of organic unity in Europe;

(5) Fame came his way when an eclipse expedition in 1919 mounted in Brazil and the west coast of Africa proved his theory of relativity. Despite the acclaim, he disowned the notion that his theory was “revolutionary” choosing instead to see it as evolutionary stressing the foundation work of Newton and James Clark Maxwell;

(6) Solvay Congresses of 1921 and 1922 banned Germans from attending; when he was invited as an honorary non-German, he refused to attend as a gesture of solidarity with his German scientific colleagues;

(7) Always modest about his own skill set, pointing out that he was weak as a mathematician and humble about all the accolades sent his way.


Albert Einstein considered himself an outsider to his culture and time, despite being awarded the Nobel Prize and essentially replacing Newtonian physics that had dominated the discipline for 300 years.

As a matter of conscience, he renounced his Jewish faith and his German citizenship and for a time was stateless until he became a Swiss citizen.

Einstein demonstrated self-awareness, self-sensitivity, self-identity, and consummate empathy for others, as well as self-dignity for himself and other members of human society.

With Einstein, Intellectual Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence were in balance, a state not always demonstrated by his equally gifted colleagues, such as Nobel Laureates Philip Lenard (1862 – 1947) and Johannes Stark (1874 – 1957).

Individual genius and early brilliance in science are no guarantees of rational maturity and dispassionate objectivity especially when ideological notions take hold.

In the case of these two men, anti-Semitism colored their approach to life with a sick focus on a once cherished friend, Albert Einstein.

Personality and emotions are inseparable from the way we see ourselves whatever our profession.

For a scientist, no matter how ideal the work environment, how well-funded the research, or how independent and unobtrusive the oversight, there are no guarantee this will shape a mature, generous, socially engaged and empathetic balanced personality. 

Toxic hate flourishes anywhere, even in what may otherwise appear to be the most positive of circumstances.


PHILIP LENARD

Philip Lenard was a man of vitriolic and fanatical temperament with consummate zeal for research. He won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1905 at the age of 43. Despite his brilliance and success, he was a great hater of his peer group of scientists that included Wilhelm Konrad Rontgen (1845 – 1923) discoverer of X-rays, whom he claimed stole his research.

He made the same accusation of English physicist J. J. Thompson (1856 – 1940) for winning the Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect.

Lenard had general contempt for English science in general claiming Great Britain was an island race of self-seeking duplicitous tradesman. He was however respectful of Einstein until he was universally acclaimed for his theory of relativity.

After WWI, losing a son during the war to malnutrition, and then a small fortune after the war to inflation, Lenard blamed Jewish politicians. From that time forward, anti-Semitism became his featured view of his science and that of other scientists.

Historian Alan D. Beyerchen claims Lenard’s upbringing and romantic need to be led by a great figure was coupled with a sickening need to belong to something great as contributing factors to his conversion to and zeal for Nazism.


JOHANNES STARK

Johannes Stark was only in his early thirties when he discovered the Doppler Effect in ‘canal rays’ that became known as the ‘Stark Effect.’ He was awarded the 1919 Nobel Prize.

Likewise, in the early days he was impressed with Einstein. But when he failed to receive a valued academic appointment, his enmity was fixed on the Jewish cartel led by Einstein’s circle of Jewish friends in the scientific community.

Thwarted at every stage to control the German physics community, he became increasingly vitriolic to everything Jewish.  Once a Nazis, he became virulently hostile to Einstein when he won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921, awarded in 1922.

Stark released his venom against Einstein in his book “The Contemporary Crisis in German Physics” (1923), attacking Einstein’s methods of self-publicity; for the wild claims of his theories; while drawing parallels between social and political revolutions in Germany to justify his anti-Semitism.

German Nobel Laureate Max von Laue (1879 – 1960), winner of the prize for the diffraction of X-rays by crystals, wrote a long review of Stark’s book concluding:

“All in all, we would have wished that this book had remained unwritten, in the interest of science in general, of German science in particular, and not least of all in the interest of the author himself.”

Six months after the fiasco of Hitler’s abortive "1924 beer hall putsch,” Lenard and Stark published an article titled “The Hitler Spirit and Science,” comparing Hitler to the giants of the past in science, linking him with Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Faraday, and claiming Hitler as the genius of the Aryan race.


CONCLUSION

We only have to turn on our television or surf the Internet to see how pervasive hate is in the national dialogue and in the international culture.

Envy is promoted by wanting what someone else has that is desired for oneself; jealousy is the fear of losing what one already possesses. Both sides of this coin promote hatred.

In the early 20th century, there were scientists who were intellectually conservative who opposed relativity and quantum physics, not on the grounds of faulty science, but because it threatened and undermined their traditional intuitive mechanistic scientific traditions.

There were also those who envied and despised Einstein and his group because they saw the new science as a disruptive Jewish conspiracy designed to derail the world of conventional physics that had held sway for 300 years.

They also personally despised Einstein for his pacifist stand during WWI, his support of the democratic spirit of the Weimar Republic, and for his independent mind and judgment.

In the German physics community before WWII, many former Nobel Laureates shared the same anti-Semitic sentiments as Lenard and Stark, and were primed for the eminent domain of Nazi science without Jewish scientists.

In fact by the late 1930s, a quarter of the most esteemed and gifted physicists in Germany, who happened to be Jewish, were working in Great Britain, the United States and/or the Soviet Union. Some of these scientists were working on the Manhattan Project that would produce the first atomic bomb.

If this seems absurd, remember how petty most of us can be at times without genius. Absent Emotional Intelligence, juvenility is not only rampant but equally democratic with the moronic and genius occupying common ground.

One wonders if those with imagination and clout but little emotional maturity are driving civilization to the brink of disaster through their hubris, false pride, and contempt for others not of their ethnicity or nearly as gifted.

They appear to lack the perception to see the absurdity of their ways, while failing to appreciate the wisdom of Horace Walpole’s words:

Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.

*   *   *


Tuesday, November 19, 2019

COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?

Note: 

A reader who collects The Peripatetic Philosopher Missives suggests resubmitting this, "As you did Why Is Hate Such A Powerful Motivator?"  He mentions this in the context of the current contentious political climate of the presidential election in the midst of a pandemic.  "Some report," he offers, "think it could end in a bloodbath."  Although a bit melodramatic, this may provide some perspective as to how things can get out of hand.
JRF 



                                                  COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?


James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.

© November 18, 2019


When I was a boy in fourth grade at St. Patrick’s Catholic School in Clinton, Iowa, Sister Mary Helen allowed me to give the class a ten minute capsule of the latest news on the Western Front of World War Two.  

My information was limited to The Clinton Herald, but I surmised when I was much older that it was a way of getting the class into the afternoon session, and to control me, a constant talker and class interrupter.  Should I continue this behavior, I was cautioned by Sister, I would lose my ten minute window of reporting.  Her strategy worked. 

By high school, I was reading books checked out at the library that might be related to World War Two.  Ones such book was Sinclair Lewis’s “It Can’t Happen Here!” (1935). 

The book was a novel and a shocker on dictatorship and totalitarian rule in which people had no rights.  That thought sent shutters through me, the idea staying with me the rest of my life.  Such books did not interest my athletic friends, and there was no longer Sister Mary Helen to project my anxiety or question the relevance.  Books of some depth became furniture of my mind.

[I’ve always had a rather eclectic mind as well as an introverted personality, meaning I would read things stimulating to me while finding no one within my circle with whom to discuss them.  I’ve often thought Goethe was such a person with whom I could relate, but I don’t speak German and he died 100 years before I was born.]   

HITLER’S THIRTY DAYS TO POWER


Recently, I read the distinguished Yale professor Henry Ashby Turner, Jr.’s (1932 – 2008) book, “Hitler’s Thirty Days to Power: January 1933” (2003).  It reminded me of this earlier book mentioned above, as well as a recent e-mail I received from a reader, who writes:

This is a question with some malice aforethought: Have you ever read the US Constitution?  If yes, what responsibilities do you take from that understanding?


This is obviously a serious question, and although I once read the US Constitution, and have a copy nearby, I am not as familiar with it as I should be.  As this reader implies, there is no excuse.  Liberty is a very fragile right and wrought with danger.

Author Turner writes in “Hitler’s Thirty Days to Power":


On February 1 (1933) the parliament was dissolved.  On February 4, President von Hindenburg allowed the new chancellor (Hitler) to use presidential emergency powers to decree a law restricting freedom of press and assembly.

In March, a mysterious fire gutted the Reichstag building that enabled Hitler to take a giant step in the direction of absolute power.  Indeed, well before the Nazi leader assumed the powers of the presidency upon the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler was already the dictator of Germany. 

The weakness and fragmentation of German liberalism, the strength of militarism, and the susceptibility of part of the public to pseudo-scientific theories of race all played in what was to come.

DETERMINACY


Versions of Hitler’s rise to power have an unfortunate tendency to become deterministic.  This gives the impression that what happened was the inexorable product of great impersonal forces, that it was bound to happen, that there was no alternative.

Yet although such factors may have been necessary to the outcome, they were not sufficient.  They can help understand how the Third Reich became a possibility, but they cannot explain how it became a reality . . .


CONTINGENCY


An examination of events in January 1933 reveals the strong elements of contingency in the chain of events that brought Hitler to power.  The Third Reich is unquestionably a product of German history . . . the future dictator was rescued from failure by a series of unpredictable developments over which he had no control . . . actions of other people, for although impersonal forces may make events possible, people make events happen . . .

Germany during January 1933, was one of those frequent junctures in human affairs when the fates of many rested with a few . . . Compared with the role of these few men, Hitler’s role was reactive . . .

At a moment when the disposition of power in a great nation rested with this small group of individuals. Some of the most elementary of human sentiments – personal affinities and aversions, injured feelings, soured friendships, and desire for revenge – had profound political effect . . .

Luck – the most conspicuous of contingencies – was clearly on Hitler’s side . . . Hitler’s greatest stroke of luck lay in the personality quirks and other limitations of Kurt von Schleicher, the man who occupied the office he sought as January 1933 opened . . . He (Schleicher) compounded that liability by irreparably alienating an old friend . . .  the shallow devious Franz von Papen master of intrigue . . . He disastrously underrated Papen’s skill at that craft . . .

Schleicher reached, so to speak, his level of incompetence . . . Had Schleicher been more politically adept, Hitler need never have had a chance at the chancellorship . . . Had events taken a different turn in January 1933, Adolf Hitler would merit, at most, passing mention in histories of the 20th century instead of bulking large as one of its principal movers and shakers . . .   

The Weimar Republic would have been authoritarian, but not totalitarian; nationalistic, not racist; distasteful, not demonic . . . It might have suspended or curtailed political and civil rights, but it would not have abolished those rights altogether . . . It would not have made anti-Semitism a matter of government policy or embarked on a systematic program of genocide . . .

The Second World War with the horrors it brought – including the atomic bomb, which was produced out of fear that Hitler might be the first to obtain it – was no more inevitable than his rise to power . . . Without Hitler’s Third Reich and the war he unleashed on the world, many aspects of human affairs since January 1933 would have been quite different . . .

Humanity would be more innocence and optimistic than has been possible since “Hiroshima” . . . Only under the Cold War was the United States later drawn into the wars in Korea and Vietnam that involved no vital American interests . . .

Hitler’s regime would reveal that centuries of civilization had not diminished the capacity of Homo sapiens for profound evil and that modern technology and bureaucratic structures make possible unspeakable crimes of hitherto unimagined magnitude . . .

RESPONSIBILITY


If however determinism is rejected, the question of responsibility must be addressed . . . One level of responsibility – that of omission rather than commission – must be assigned to the defenders of the Weimar Republic. 

Without intending to do so, they helped to pave the way for Hitler’s triumph.  It was the unwillingness of republican politicians to place preservation of parliamentary rule above partisan interests that led the Reichstag to abdicate control over the government in 1930 . . .

A much larger measure of responsibility must be assigned to the millions of Germans who freely gave their votes to Hitler and his party . . .

In Mein Kampf and other Nazi utterances, the Nazis abundantly demonstrated their scorn for law and their readiness to employ force to crush those who dared to oppose them . . . Yet there is no evidence that Hindenburg, Schleicher or Papen ever read Hitler’s book Mein Kampf . . .

Nor did they request analyses of Nazism by competent experts in the high civil service … The resulting inquiries revealed a violent movement bent not only on imposing dictatorial rule on Germany but also on abolishing the rule of law and subjecting Jewish citizens to persecution …

Inept Schleicher bears the heavy historical burden of having lifted from well-deserved obscurity to political prominence the man who became his nemesis and Hitler’s savior, Franz von Papen . . .  In the case of Papen, guilt – responsible for a grave offense – applies. 

He was the key figure in steering a course of events toward the disastrous outcome, the person who more than anyone else caused what happened.  None of what occurred in January 1933 would have been possible in the absence of his quest for revenge against Schleicher and his hunger for a return to power . . .

Had Hindenburg held to his initial, intuitive mistrust of Hitler, Germany and much of the rest of the world would have been spared much misery and destruction.  

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE …


What is it they say, “The past is prologue to the future”? 

Germany is in the eye of the storm here.  Yet, for the first three decades of the 20th century, Germany held the premier position for science in the world.  German scientists were the most accomplished and honored in their fields, winning the lion’s share of Nobel Prizes. 

But in 1933 came Hitler.  German scientists who were Jewish were dismissed from their positions in laboratories and universities with the Nazi ideology coming to dominate Germany’s science communities.  Some German scientists enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis, most acquiesced arguing that science was outside politics and morality.  By the end of the Second World War few scientists much less educators and philosophers remained untainted by a regime bent on genocide and conquest. 

Scientists are no different from other human beings caught in complex moral dilemmas.  While scientists claim their research and analyses are value free, and that science is culturally and morally neutral, they have created weapons and technology that can destroy human civilization. 

A clear example of this is German scientist Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) of V-1 and V-2 rocket fame.  He was involved in the building of missiles that bombarded London during World War Two, only for this scientist, who used slave labor during the war, to survive Germany's defeat and have a second career in the United States. He became one of the darlings of the Space and Manhattan Project; the latter scientists being the creators of the first atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan in August 1945.  

After the war, when the United States was courting him, von Braun remarked that he didn’t care if he worked for Uncle Joe or Uncle Sam “all I really wanted was an uncle who was rich.” 

Could this irresponsible and calloused profile of scientific leadership also exist in other realms of society such as politics and government, business and industry, academics and the intellectual communities? 

If so, concomitant disaster is just around the corner.  How we think is how we behave.  Alas, it could happen here or in any other constitutionally conceived democratic nation.  It is something to think about.   

                                *     *     *  

Monday, November 18, 2019

A PROPER SCOLDING FROM MY MENTOR

MY MENTOR WRITES

Sire:

Your legacy will never include your potential contribution to society until you haul out from the world below your mentor line to the world that exists above said mentor line. I, for one, would like to know what your creative and insightful mind can produce up there.

This is the same choice I had to make some years ago. Going up where no man has gone before changed my life for the much better. It hurts to watch you spending all this precious time incessantly banging yourself against the mentor line. Of course it's your choice.

MY RESPONSE

Sir William,

While I know you are right, I have a weakness for an audience, and whenever I venture to the edge, I look back and no one is there.

We are few who have your wisdom much less your capacity to exist in "Nowhere Land."

Jim

IN A LARGER CONTEXT

Dear Reader,

Just let us say this is not about me, but about you. 

Let us imagine you have something to say to the rest of us, indeed, to the rest of the world and are afraid you might offend someone, or prove short of the mark -- in this case -- your mentor.

We all have someone we look up to -- a parent, a friend, a colleague, an author -- somebody.

Suppose we stay within our narrow confines; don't venture beyond the walls within us crying to be expressed, until one day, now old with waning energy. we put the idea out of our mind and coast to oblivion. 

I've often wondered how many reading me are of such a mind.  Jacques Barzun was 93 when he published his magnum opus, "Dawn to Decadence" (2000).

Nowhere Man in Nowhere Land

Writing involves simply putting one word in front of another, then reading them out loud back to yourself, then possibly unscrambling them to say more precisely what you mean to say.

If you do,  I salute you for the effort wherever you may live and in whatever language you are most comfortable on this small planet.

Then you are mentoring "the god within" to show its face.  You have found purchase in "Nowhere Land."

To that end, I wish you well.

*     *     *





Sunday, November 17, 2019

THE PERIPATETIC PHILOSOPHER PONDERS:


THE NATURE OF IDEAS 
TO WHOM DO THEY BELONG?

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.
© November 16, 2019

A friend sent me the piece that follows, which is wrapped around the ideas I created in THE TABOO AGAINST BEING YOUR OWN BEST FRIEND (1996).  My friend's piece has a religious flavor that my writing attempts to avoid, but the integrity of the piece otherwise is quite consistent with my views. 



“Honey,” I said to my wife, BB, in frustration, “he is a world famous author in which his books or those he has ghost written have sold in the millions.  Why couldn’t he give the source of his piece and me a little plug who is relatively unknown by mentioning my name?”

BB came around the computer and placed her arm around my shoulder, “Jim, don’t you realize you set yourself up for being taken for granted?” 

“But I copyright all my material as I publish,” I responded weakly and apologetically.

“Yes, you do," she admitted, "but how much do you think that changes the course of the wind?”

“Little.”

“No, the answer is zero, nada, not a mite.”

“When I’m gone, you’ll not allow that to happen, am I right?”

“You better believe it, buster!”  She said as she left me with a smile on her face. 


MY FRIEND WROTE:

Fair-Weather Friends
Who really cares about you and me?

            As delightful, mostly fair fall weather continues today, I am reminded of the interview in Utah Valley Magazine with popular singer-songwriter David Archuleta. Here I quote parts of it:    

            In the industry you are told to get a good body and then to go shirtless. The darker and edgier you are, the more you appeal to both guys and girls. People who are part of your tribe like to test you. They say, “Are you still part of us? Do you really belong? Because you are also in this other tribe now.” When you are in the limelight, people feel that they have a right to judge you. They expect you to be perfect. But I have struggles, and if I have a dip or make a mistake it’s like I let people down. But are those people holding themselves to those same standards?

            Before I went to LA, a couple of brothers and their dad invited me to go back packing in the Unitas. There I talked to God, and He basically said, “Stay close to me. Be honest. Be good. Be kind.” He didn’t say, “Sing this song. Win people over.” It was simply, “Pray and read scripture every morning. Do the things that will help you have the Spirit.”

            So I read scripture every morning for 15 minutes. I need something to keep me steady. God is consistent when everybody and everything else isn’t.”

            People are always judging you, telling you what kind of person to be. You’re introduced to a cut-throat industry where you think people are your friends. Suddenly they aren’t. This includes people in the industry but also your friends and family. They think they need to humble you, so they start saying you aren’t that great. And I’m thinking, “I don’t need that from you right now. I need comfort and support.” It’s an amazing experience, but it’s also very isolating and lonely.

            My dad was the one who stood up for me when I was tempted to be a ‘yes’ man. He didn’t care what the Idol people thought of him, so he would tell them I wasn’t going to sing certain songs. When you have convictions you annoy people, but you also get respect. My dad would say, “David, have you listened to those lyrics?” And I would say, “Dad, it’s fine. I don’t want to get on their bad side once again. They already hate you, Dad. Don’t mess things up.” And he would say, “David, those lyrics aren’t who you are.” At times I was annoyed with my dad, and he can be intense. But he saved me. My dad cared what I stood for. Now I want to make more room in this industry for people who want to stay true to who they are.”

            In this interview, David reveals that he had many false friends, fair-weather friends, but only a few true friends—a couple of brothers and their dad, his dad, ultimately God, and eventually himself, as he learned to be his own best friend.   

Be your Own Best Friend

            One of my best friends wrote and sent me this today about being our own best friends:

           We are all authors of our own life story, heroes of our own novels. Our life is sacred, unique, scripted high drama, played out before an audience of one, with but one actor on stage.

Since American society cannot accept deviation from its arbitrary norm, it must be the individual who is wrong. The individual is meant to feel self-contempt for being out of step with the expected. The only safe haven is to be your own best friend by asking: How do I feel about myself, not as I am supposed to be, but as I am? How comfortable am I in my own skin? Am I in control of my own Life? Is my day from sun up to sundown an attempt to please others because that is what is expected of me? Or do I go against the grain and assert myself as I am? Do I take the risks that ensure my integrity, my authenticity? Or do I play it safe and accept self-hating as my inevitable baggage? My challenge is not to keep my freedom but to win it by realizing the human person within myself, by being my own best friend.

Often, we do to our children what has been done to us. We put a monkey on their backs that was put on ours. We create the same self-doubt in them that was created in us. We blame ourselves while growing up by second-guessing what we should and should not do, spending little time to understand why we desired what we actually did. It is a monkey circus we play on ourselves. Like a spinning top, our life can spin out of control and come to rest exactly where it started without interruption or insight, denying us the freedom to experience life to the fullest. Or we can become obsessively concerned with always looking over our shoulders to see if someone is watching or chasing us—more interested in success than in living, more interested in what other people consider important than what we enjoy. People can take the clothes off your back, the roof over your head, the food off your table, the money in your pocket, but they can’t take away what you put between your ears. All any man needs to live is a place to throw his hat, a roof over his head, three meals a day, and the rest is gravy. If you’re into gravy, and measure who you are by how much gravy you have, you’ll never stop running because you’ll never have enough.

The hardest thing is to like ourselves. We hear a lot about self-love and how damaging it can be, but we never hear much about liking ourselves as we are (self-acceptance). This is not accepting ourselves as we should be, but as we are, not as others choose to see us, but as we see ourselves, not in arbitrary standards such as success and failure, but as our own best friend. To have a friend you must be a friend, starting with yourself. As we come to our journey’s end we must realize we come in alone and leave alone, and that the portrait we paint can be either like Oscar Wilde’s Dorian Gray or it can be an honest reflection of a life well lived.

Summer Soldier and Sunshine Patriot?

In thinking about fair-weather friends, I’m reminded of what Thomas Paine said regarding the American Revolution: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange if so celestial an article as Freedom (and true friends) should not be highly rated.”

* * *