"Questionable" Musings

We all lose innocence, only it used to take some time. Perhaps from age five to twenty, and gradually. Today it seems the young have no innocence period. In some ways they know more about the world at eight than we did at eighteen, and that knowing came very quickly. No time to digest and no way to really appreciate what such worldly knowledge really means.

What will be the cost?

Much of Eastern spiritual thought and practice involves paradoxes. Not the everyday ones---you can’t be in two places at the same time. But those that carry a load of complexity and wisdom, resistant to simplistic “either/or” formulations. “Sometimes the only way to catch your breath is to lose it completely.” (Tyler Knott Gregson, poet)

What does this statement mean, metaphorically?

Wide-scale societal freedom (liberty) is a relatively recent development. Arising perhaps only in the last 150 years or so. It is embodied in the US Constitution: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The French revolution valued things similarly: Liberty, equality, fraternity. But there is a big difference---equality. Consider: “Freedom means inequality,” economically and otherwise.

Like it or not, what evidence makes that statement true? Societal implications?

David R. Loy (A New Buddhist Path) says: “The Greek experiment with democracy failed for the same reasons that our modern experiment with democracy is in danger of failing: unless social reconstruction is accompanied by personal reconstruction, democracy merely empowers the ego-self.”

What is “personal reconstruction,” and how is it related to solving social and cultural problems?

“The Road Not Taken,” by Robert Frost. Part of the second stanza seems to question why the traveler took one road and not the other.

“Though as for that the passing there 

Had worn them really about the same.”

Why the apparent ambiguity?

From Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Harvard commencement address: “The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It’s time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.”

A telling comment. These days we hear from the media, politicos, and activists a continuous cry for more rights for this person, that group.

Why no mention of obligations, responsibilities?

The “no-free-will” crowd says all our behaviors arise solely from the interaction of genes and environment. Stephen Cave (“The Atlantic” June 2016) says, “The contemporary scientific image of human behavior is one of neurons firing, causing other neurons to fire, causing our thoughts and deeds, in an unbroken chain that stretches back to our birth and beyond.” We do not make any choices consciously that have not already been made for us by neurons not under our control. Determinism will not die.

What sustains such a belief, especially among scientists who understand chaos and complexity?

We argue vociferously about whether there is a grand Truth (or more than one) or just our own individual truths, which may not be shared by others. That we all have our unique truths seems evident. A grand Truth applicable to all can be believed to exist but cannot be proven to exist. God, for example, or universe-wide oneness.

Notwithstanding, do all societies need one or more shared grand Truths to function properly?

Ansel Adams said, “There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a poor concept.” True of course regarding cameras, but also true as a metaphor. Reality is fluid and complex, with causes and effects unclear, and filled with unpredictable outcomes. Anxiety over this condition encourages some to construct illusory worlds, ones substituting for a too-challenging reality. Political partisans (any stripe) come to mind.

How is Adams’ statement applicable to partisans (really to anyone who lives even a partial illusory existence)?

From Victor Frankl, the Holocaust survivor and psychiatrist: “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space lies our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and freedom.” Few would disagree with this.

So why is there so much unhealthy interpersonal conflict, even among friends and relatives?

Perhaps the most interesting question of all: “Who do you think you are?”

Chinese Folk Poem: "The Human Route"

Much wisdom is lost because it is obscure or difficult. Often worse, it may be ambiguous or even apparently self-contradictory, not a condition favored in today's certainty-driven world. Contrarian thinking may be the only salvation when confronted with such wisdom, if any thinking at all will work.

Below is a poem I came across recently which entranced me (provenance uncertain). Its statements and questions got my blood going, the questions especially. But the last question is the big one. Who will take a stab at that gem, and what wisdom lieth therein?

Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed, that is human.
When you were born, where did you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud, which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud, which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like that.
But there is one thing that always remains clear.
It is pure and clear,
Not depending on life and death.

Then what is the one and clear thing?

 

What's Wrong With "No Borders"?

Nothing, other than the fact that it is for the most part unworkable.  

Ah, I bet that got your attention, and maybe none too pleasantly at that. Well, for those who are agitated, fret not. I am not going talk (at least right now) about country borders. But if I am not talking about country borders, what am I talking about? Let’s start at ground level---thee and me, and our need for healthy personal boundaries, a kind of border. 

Psychologists tell us that personal boundaries are critical to emotional health and quality relationships. They are the limits we set in relationships or interactions “…that allow us to protect ourselves from being manipulated by, or enmeshed with, emotionally needy others.” (John Stibbs. hiddenhurt.com.uk).  

People lacking healthy personal boundaries suffer, and cause others to suffer. Often weak in self worth, they attempt to fill the void inside either by allowing their own boundaries to collapse or by invading and diminishing those of others. Boundary invasions can also be carried out by people who have adequate self-esteem, but who insist on getting their way by any means necessary. Guilt trips are a classic boundary invasion trick, as are anger, a victim posture, ridicule, sulking, and the silent treatment, to name only a few of the most obvious. They are all disrespectful attempts to manipulate another person into doing something she does not want to do.  

An example of allowing boundaries to collapse occurs when parents cede control of the house to their children, who dictate to a large degree what they will eat, what they will watch on TV, whom they will play with, when they will go to bed, how long they will use their I-pads, etc. Failure of the parents to agree with the child may precipitate a fit at one level, or a house-rendering melt-down at another. By not establishing reasonable limits and enforcing those, the parents have placed themselves in a well-being deficit, and there is no easy way out. Bad outcomes for the parents and just as bad for the children, who learn that boundary invasion is a way to get what they want---a view of life they are very likely to carry into adulthood. 

But it is not only inadequate self-worth, or the desire to manipulate another, that contributes to ill-defined personal borders. Social media can dissolve boundaries as well. In a fine article from The Hedgehog Review, (“Uneasy in Digital Zion”), the authors address the loss of boundaries that people heavily connected are experiencing. “Among the interview participants, there was a vague sense that traditional boundaries and norms surrounding public discourse and privacy were shifting in ways they couldn’t understand.” One participant commented that she could get lost on Facebook or other such media. She “…wanted to see herself as an autonomous agent, able to use her digital technologies with purpose and control. But she consistently got lost, her attention dissolving as she was drawn into the endless stream of information on her Facebook newsfeed.” Another participant simply said, “There’s no boundaries, no boundaries.”  

This loss of borders in media access is due in part to the medium itself, demanding in its addictive attractiveness nearly constant attention. It is also due to the nature of personal interactions (friending, etc.) which are similarly demanding. My college students tell me that when receiving a text from a friend, no matter how unimportant, they must respond very quickly or face punishment. This is definitely a boundary issue. 

The above are just a few examples of how we can lose our own boundaries or invade those of others in interpersonal interactions. And as the pressures and uncertainties of everyday life increase, the more we push to get what we want at others’ expense. The structures, processes and relationships that once provided a sense of foundation or relative certainty (even if flawed) are mostly gone, leaving each person emotionally adrift and left to her own devices. Validation and support do not come from healthy sources, but from our insistence on getting what we want when we want it. We feel both frightened about not getting our desires met, and entitled to having them met, breeding a sense of desperation. Acting out through boundary invasion is a typical response. Unhealthy for the individuals as well as for the society. 

It is clear that all individuals need healthy emotional boundaries. But where else are borders needed? At any level of interpersonal interaction, no matter what the form. Families, groups, organizations, governments all need to have relatively clearly defined borders or their functioning is impaired. Such borders offer unique challenges, often different from what we as individuals experience.  

I will address these borders in another post.

 

There is a story about a man approaching the Buddha and asking him:

 

Are you a god?

No, said the Buddha.

Then, what are you?

I am awake. 

We all know what being awake in a normal sense means, but that is clearly not what the Buddha had in mind, which is complete freedom from illusion and attachment, a very important topic already dealt with by many wise and competent thinkers and writers. I want to talk about a particular illusion that interferes with our awakening on a daily basis---the illusion created by self-deception, which has two aspects to it. 

 

Freedom from illusions is a state we all want to achieve, at least those who are aware that they are living a life of illusions---a rare group if my experience is any judge. But getting to that state is very difficult and often takes a lifetime (or more than one). Of our many illusions, perhaps the most damaging is that involving the usually very positive stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, a topic I have addressed a number of times. The problem? Psychologists have shown that many of those stories are partially or even totally false, yet we believe them absolutely. Such a condition practically guarantees we will have trouble awakening from our illusory slumber. 

This condition is neatly put by Pema Chodron, a prolific American Buddhist nun. She says, “By weaving our opinions, prejudices, strategies, and emotions into a solid reality, we try to make a big deal out of ourselves….” Clearly, this attempt is doomed to failure. Try as we might, we cannot make a big deal of ourselves, but we can surely make ourselves emotionally and spiritually smaller in the effort. 

Because most of our stories are lodged firmly in the unconscious, we obviously have no access to them. Thus, when we act out a story element and receive a strange or obstructive response from another person, we can only blame the other person or the circumstances. It can’t be me, the unconscious “loudly” proclaims. One of my stories years ago was that I was objective, a view that I held with absolute certainty. Naturally, I resented it when others either disagreed outright or implied I was less than I thought. I had deluded myself, and others had caught me out, causing me suffering. But I rejected them and their views, blaming them for my suffering, allowing me to wallow a bit longer in my self-deception. I had mirrors all around me, and failed to take advantage of them---my damaging illusion persisted. 

The second big category of illusions deals with views we hold about the nature of the world. We take for real our opinions, beliefs, values, and positions to the point that they HAVE to be true or our world takes a nasty shaking. We have invested great emotion and commitment in this illusion, as we do with all of them. The mere thought that it might be erroneous is terrifying, at least unconsciously, which means that this great anxiety goes unrecognized and unacknowledged. We try to disguise the fear by telling ourselves that our views are absolutely correct, but in the end we will pay the price for this fraud. As economists are wont to say, there is no free lunch. 

As I have said a number of times, our political views are among the worst of these illusions. They are often held with monumental rigidity and gross (used in both senses of the word) levels of self-righteousness. But whether it’s political views, or any others, the prominent characteristic is a desire that insists the world be what we want it to be. We deceive ourselves by imagining that we can force the world to do our bidding---ensuring that our illusory views are perfect. Naturally, when it fails to comply, we are shocked, furious or depressed. We have failed to understand the nature and origin of our self-deceptions, and thus of our suffering. Because of this we likely to export our suffering to others, which will seriously compromise our relations with them. 

Underlying and making worse the challenge of our self-deceptions is that we are firmly attached to them, whatever their form. Most of us seeking personal development recognize that attachment is the bane of a balanced and wholesome existence. But we still expend huge amounts of psychic energy ignoring the evidence of reality and trying to maintain our fictions. We are often encouraged in this futile effort through associations with others who share our illusions, or who, tit for tat, allow us our illusions if we do the same for them---the great dance of “let’s pretend.” In this state, we and they live in a self-referencing, self-congratulatory and self-deceiving world that is the enemy of awakening.  

But let us assume that some intrepid self-examiners see that part of being awake is appreciating that they have stories and opinions which are to some degree false, and that part of their lives are lived as illusions. This is a terrific realization, but more is needed. While vital to the self-discovery process, understanding is of little value if we do nothing with what we have uncovered. This is the often sad truth about attending seminars, reading books, listening to even high quality gurus---they are inputs, not outcomes. As wonderful as those activities can be, without the will to change, to dispossess ourselves of the illusions, we will merely have added yet another illusion to the unfortunate list. We have assumed that the activities are equivalent to the changes we want to see. And why not? It’s a hell of a lot less work than actually engaging ourselves around our challenged existence and practicing every day for years to work through our illusions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Defending

In previous posts I have mentioned a book that I like very much, a very inspiring one. It is The Second Book of the Tao, by Stephen Mitchell. There is a world or two of wisdom in it, and one of my favorite entries relates to the idea of no opposition.

When nothing is left to argue with

and there is nothing to oppose,

you will find yourself at peace

and in harmony with all things.”

These are the last four lines from a longer piece, about which I could easily write two or more posts, but in this one I want to talk only about these lines.

We interact with others constantly, and each of those interactions offers chances for things to go well or poorly. More often than we would like, we find ourselves enmeshed in a difficult, if not hostile, interaction. Serenity, assuming we had any to begin with, is gone in an instant. Harmony? Gone as well. Why? Because we have allowed ourselves to be captured by the trouble of the moment (opposition) and, embodying that trouble, respond in unhealthy ways. Such engagements are unpleasant because they are nearly always characterized by an “I-win, you-lose” posture, and frequently animated by the damaging needs to be right or to be certain (see last post). 

These engagements call to us to defend our own views and oppose the other’s. In our lucid moments, most of us will agree that this seldom produces anything of benefit, with the usual outcome being negative, with anger, resistance, denial, accusations and ad hominem attacks in abundance. Even if the parties are calm and composed, if the need to win or prevail characterizes the engagement, that calmness will go for nothing. 

What should I do with the following statement directed at me? “Your views on government intervention in the economy are crazy.” This person is pitching a hard ball, hoping I will try to hit it out of the park, precipitating an unpleasant free-for-all. He is ready and hoping for a battle royale. In full opposition mode, I try to overwhelm him with data, mis-representations, outright lies, emotional diatribes, anything to win. He, of course, does precisely the same. But what if there is nothing to defend, nothing to oppose. There is no hard ball and there is no hit. But there may be peace and harmony for both of us if I manage the conversation (myself) to mutual benefit. 

But what does “nothing to defend” mean? It means that, no matter how important the view is to me, I invest it with no emotion, nor do I have an exaggerated (or any) commitment to its correctness. I understand that it counts for nothing beyond my own mind. What is important at the moment is the interaction with another person who has different views. My important view does not dictate how I will respond to opposing views. The need to defend arises because I want to have a particular outcome, either to change someone or to punish them for having opposing views, goals which are sure to elicit unpleasant oppositional reactions.  

Can we be in harmony and contest another’s view. Sure, but everything depends on our attitude toward the view and our concern for the well being of the other person. If we are empty of the need to defend our view simply because we think it right or because it is ours, if we are empty of the need to change or punish the other person, our interactions will go well. With that emptiness we can inquire with and engage the other person in ways that do not make them wrong, but which lead to greater clarity, understanding and connection. Further, good friends can debate and argue with no emotional ill-effects when it is clear to both that it is the interaction that matters and not the outcome of the debate.  

With emptiness of the need to defend we interact with “opponents” in ways that are healthy and respectful for both, and which allow us to reach higher levels of harmony---needed more than ever in today’s contentious and unbalanced world.

 

The Problem With Certainty

What is the problem with certainty? None, some might say, and at one level I would agree. There can be only good in being certain that my wife loves me. Or at a mundane level, there can’t be anything wrong with being certain that my car will start in the morning, that the sun will shine, that most people have good intentions. Of course, for all of these there is a chance I am incorrect, and I cannot prove in any scientific sense that my certainty is warranted---due in part to the fact that the feeling of certainty is mostly subjective.

Certainty is relative for most things---we are certain to a degree. Naturally, each of us has one or two areas for which certainty is absolute, such as the deist’s complete acceptance that God exists or the atheist’s complete acceptance that God does not exist.

Certainty is the feeling that some things, events or even ideas, usually having some importance, are predictable or stable to a level that prohibits the rise of anxiety. This certainty offers support that everyone needs to some degree, each of us differently. For most people, the sensation that things are flying apart, are uncontrollable, that there is nothing to hold onto, induces fear and anxiety, often at extreme levels. Some uncertainty exists in all societies, but once it reaches an undefined level for an individual or for the general population (different for each person/society), societal unrest arises.

Thus, some level of certainty is needed for a society, family, or individual to function well. Such certainty is usually provided by various formal and informal structures, including governmental, civic and religious ones; by rules, standards, conventions, and moral strictures; and by individuals with some generally acknowledged authority. That group includes police, teachers, parents, priests/rabbis, the military, various experts, etc. We rely on all of these to some extent to give solidity and consistency to our lives. We know we can count on them to provide firmness to our existence.

But if certainty is part of how we live, and indeed that we need some degrees of it, what is the problem? There are two aspects, one societal and one individual, and the two are intimately connected.

At the societal level, the 60’s rebellion against authority led gradually to the degradation or elimination of structures, etc., that gave us solidity, and overall societal wellbeing suffered. Most dramatically this showed up in the loss of the sense that we had something we could hang onto, and which we could count on being there. I fully accept that many of these strictures, rules, etc., needed to be thrown out, especially those dealing with the repression of women and homo-phobia, for just two examples. Unfortunately, in proponents’ enthusiasm to dismantle authority of nearly any type, the baby was thrown out with the bath water. Little was left to give solidity to people’s lives, resulting in considerable anxiety and fear.

As social forces undermined even healthy authority and sources of certainty, individuals tried to instill stability in their lives by less healthy methods, one of which, going under the guise of free expression, is the powerful and often narcissistic emphasis on “me” first. Unfortunately, parents and some teachers aided and abetted this trend by emphasizing that self-esteem could be promoted in children by constantly telling them they are special, a view now solidly disproven. These efforts had the further effect of promoting the idea that moral relativism rules---I do exactly what I want to do, and no one can tell me differently. If you are offended, or even harmed, by my behavior, tough on you.

These efforts arose in part at least because of the vacuum of healthy certainty. They superficially appear to give the person license to do whatever he chooses. There are to be no repercussions or personal responsibility for his acts, and he can believe such actions will provide solidity to his world---an unfortunate failed view. Since these unhealthy methods do not work, anxiety and fear remain or increase, precipitating the endless search for anything that will fill the vacuum, that will provide the certainty so desperately desired. Paradoxically, taking responsibility for one’s acts was one of the important stabilizing elements in times past, something that gave both meaning and structure to one’s life.

Young people, teens especially, are in need of healthy stability systems, but finding few, they resort to looking for certainty in unhelpful places. For some youth, the need to find stability somewhere is so strong that getting a social media “like” is vital. But like all such efforts, it is unsatisfying because it is subject to whim, and temporary because it lacks any forms of permanence.

The latest vehicle for obtaining a sense of solidness in life affects young and old alike---“If there is no helpful societal certainty around me, all it takes is for me to be certain and all will be well.” The healthy desire for a normal level of certainty going unsatisfied has led to an exaggerated need for certainty in life in general and in interpersonal interactions in particular.

A high need for certainty breeds absolutism of thought and action---such folks (certaintists) MUST be right. Those who disagree are not only wrong on all counts, but they are likely to be seen as evil as well, and the topic is irrelevant---it could be anything. This augurs ill for quality and respectful interactions as the certaintist sees all disagreement as zero-sum, and his desperate need for certainty compels him to do whatever is necessary to win, no matter how unpleasant.

Unfortunately for the certaintist, even if he prevails over an “opponent,” he accomplishes nothing beneficial. Besides ruining relationships, he is trying to fill an inner emptiness with external elements---an impossibility, as youths discover in trying to fill an inner void with social media “likes.” Fear and anxiety continue, no matter what.

Excessive certainty is about removing ideas and actions from consideration. The stronger the certainty, the fewer avenues of existence, thought or action that are acceptable to a person. This challenges the life of a certaintist because having few options for response to differing situations is hugely detrimental for personal well-being.

The political landscape in recent decades has mirrored the great increase in the need for certainty at all cost. As people desperately look for ever-more certainty in all the wrong ways, the divide between left and right has grown, and along with it anger, judgmentalism, and overt hostility. Many in each party view those in the other party with total dismay and disgust. I do not know if the political and the need-for-certainty changes are causally linked, correlated, or unrelated. But my sense is they are connected in some way. As people’s options for dealing with the world diminish, they adopt a simplistic either/or world view, reflecting a resort to excessive certainty. Those with differing views represent a huge threat to well-being in the partisan’s eyes, which would account for the fear of, distaste for, and trashing of the “other.”

The dramatic need for absolute certainty means great difficulty in recreating, if along different lines than in the past, a more unified and healthy set of national values, behaviors, and structures. The excessive need for certainty is a separator. It divides people and causes the society to fragment. Because we lost some of the healthy elements that offered a sense of solidity and continuity in the past, we are indeed fragmenting, driven by an ethic of “every person for himself” and “every group for itself.” Naturally, the fragmentation is enhanced by the vicious denunciations of the “other” as like-feeling (it is not thinking at all) people coalesce around intense dislike if not outright hate. And contrary to much popular, but deeply erroneous opinion, one party does not have a monopoly on the hate of opponents.

Lastly, as healthy certainty dissolves, and the sense of being lost surfaces, people’s needs for control increase. Like the other false steps in trying to obtain more healthy certainty, increasing one’s control efforts usually back fires. Other people, including family, friends, or neighbors dislike being manipulated by pressure, victimhood, or guilt trips, all techniques controllers use easily and often. And those who disagree, who are on the receiving end of the most force, find such efforts to be particularly irritating. Attempting to increase control is akin to the Buddhist concept of clutching, much as a drowning man desperately tries to grab the water. He can save himself only by letting go, just as letting go is the only way to find healthy certainty.

Completeness or Incompleteness

Do we live in a world of completeness or incompleteness? Most folks intuitively sense that incompleteness is far more prominent than completeness. Is there anything that is complete, static, unmoving? Probably only very rare things like God and aspects of mathematics, and even those are simply accepted as complete without proof. Everything else is changing, including the mountains whose intensely gradual movement is invisible to us.

Just as we would not refer to a complete mountain, we cannot refer to a complete human being, even though some people assert that spiritual exercises or belief in a supreme being, or even science, can bring this about. Perhaps. But the number of such people, assuming their condition is even verifiable, is vanishingly small.

Of course we can talk about “completions” in a simple sense, such as when we finish a budget, a round of golf, a prayer, a vacation trip, a book, a meditation or often best of all, a drink. But my interest is not in such completions. It is in the Incompleteness Theorems proposed by the great Austrian mathematician, Kurt Godel, and the application of those to our lives.

Both theorems deal with highly complex mathematics. The first Theorem says that all logical systems are likely to have inherent flaws because they are based on unprovable assumptions. The second Theorem says that seeing a system from the inside may indicate that it is consistent and whole. And it may be, but we cannot determine that without going outside the system. The key insight is that internal flaws are not visible from inside any system.

So what? you might say. That’s all about highly sophisticated math and it has no relevance for everyday life. At one level that is certainly true. At another, I think not. Deepak Chopra, in the fine book, War of the Worldviews, says “If I boldly take this out of the realm of numbers, Godel is saying that unprovable things are woven into our explanation of reality.”

For example, most secular humanists believe that God does not exist, but cannot prove it. Religious people believe firmly in God’s existence, but also cannot prove it. Each accepts his own belief as complete, while seeing the other’s belief as not just incomplete, but dead wrong into the bargain. For each the world is workable in his terms, seeing and acting as he does with an insider’s view. But neither can escape the limits imposed by his own system of thought and belief, and this is often a source of often great animosity between the two.

Although the unprovable assumptions are the root from which many of our personal and societal problems grow, it is not always they that cause the trouble in our relations with others. It is that we accept them and their legitimacy at face value, if we are aware of them at all. And this acceptance is accompanied by a great emotional force, a large hindrance to seeing outside our own systems of belief and thought.

Leonard Mlodinow, the other author with Chopra of War of the Worldviews, gives a fine example of contrasting but workable world views. Imagine a goldfish in round bowl. As it looks out of the bowl, an object moving on a straight path is perceived to be moving in a curved path. An observer outside the bowl sees the object’s linear movement and does not see the curved movement. Contrasting views, but they work within each world.

Human society is not so fortunate. Differences in world views would not be the personal or societal problems they are if people holding them did not interact. But we engage constantly with people whose views we do not share or whose behavior we do not like. We have an insider’s view of our own beliefs and thus cannot subject them to a rigorous critique. And we have an outsider’s view of the other’s beliefs and imagine we can subject them to such a critique. But the challenge is that our assumptions and biases usually preclude us from making a fair analysis.

From the last post I repeat George Friedman’s prescient comment from his fine book, Flashpoints, “There is always a price, and nothing is more dangerous than not knowing what the price is, except perhaps not wanting to know.” One of those prices occurs in failing to appreciate the natural incompleteness of one’s views and positions, leading to absolutism of thought and action, anathema to a healthy person, group or society.

A particularly damaging view arising from absolutism is perfectionism, a belief that humans and their systems are perfectible. We can totally solve societal conflict, we can ensure that no one’s feelings will ever be hurt, we can eliminate poverty, we can guarantee total social success by electing only people from my party, we can make everyone equal with enough money and government effort---these are all examples of perfectionism, mainly from the political realm. While admirable in intent, these views are unworkable because those holding them fail utterly to understand the lessons of human history and what we know of human psychology.

Perfectionism obviously implies completeness, that there are definitive Answers to complex societal problems and differences, instead of approximations of answers. Godel confirms that there is no such thing as a perfect or complete system, no matter what humans think or want. This should give us pause in our thinking, and certainly in our acting. Incompleteness is a fact of existence, and may well be the one that matters most in human relations.

The belief that there are Answers that totally resolve an issue is demonstrated by people who think and accept at absolute face value that their ideas are both correct and workable. Their efforts will produce the complete outcome they have in mind, and there will not be any unintended consequences. Further, and much more dangerous, such folks have an unshakable belief in the moral rightness and purity of their thoughts, beliefs and motives---completeness personified in them. Naturally, this absolutism means that people with a different perspective cannot be tolerated, and must be demeaned if not crushed.

There are two ways of looking at completeness. The first may be clear from comments above. It says that humans can be complete (are perfectible) and can have complete views and produce complete systems and positive outcomes, without flaws. Thus, it falls prey to Godel’s Incompleteness Theories---internal flaws very likely exist everywhere and are invisible within the system. Because such folks hold their views and motives in perfect regard, seeing outside the self-contained system is virtually impossible. Why look outside a system or set of views that is accepted at face value as being complete? This perspective has the obvious unintended and undesirable outcome of adding to personal conflict and societal disturbance instead of reducing them, all of which is deniable by those locked in their own system.

The other version is more realistic and more useful in that it accepts both Godel’s Theories and the inherently flawed nature of humanity in the sense that Kant did: “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” This does not literally mean that humans cannot produce anything good. It means that our all-too-human predilections, such as unconscious biases, excessive personal needs, and irrationality often get in our way. This view respects the idea that troubling societal problems are not completely solvable, but may be amenable to approximations of improvement---we progress fitfully.

In this view, each success is a struggle against our own “crookedness,” which pushes us into the damaging perfectionist view, so comforting and so wrong. Each success, whether societal or personal, arises because we have, for the moment at least, escaped the prison and falseness of our internal consistency, possible only by seeing our views from outside.

We move toward completeness to the degree that we give up the idea of completeness, of perfection, and act to constantly uncover our desire to see everything from within the framework of our systems of thought, belief and emotion---what might be termed in Eastern thought as incomplete completeness. The Zen cat waits for no one.

The Road to Character

This title comes directly from that of David Brooks’ most recent book, a series of mini-biographies of people who Brooks believes embody the elusive personal quality of character. Specifically, Brooks is referring to moral character, evidenced by those who, “…possess the self-effacing virtues of people who are inclined to be useful but don’t need to prove anything to the world: humility, restraint, reticence, temperance, respect, and soft self-discipline.” These traits all deserve attention, but I will talk mainly about humility, which is a vital foundation.

These traits indicate a person who has come to terms with the world as it is, and has often (as in Brooks' examples) gone through torment and emerged a better person from the "...struggle to deepen the soul."  Brooks quotes Thomas Merton: “Souls are like athletes that need opponents worthy of them, if they are to be tried and extended and pushed to the full use of their powers.” We have seen such people, although rarely. They show great emotional balance, and an inner cohesion and integration---they act with complete integrity. There is a strong sense that they will not be easily damaged by adverse circumstances, and can be relied upon in the worst of moments.

I was struck by the fact that those portrayed were not superheroes, nor did they embody all the characteristics mentioned above. Even though they accomplished much, they had flaws. Nonetheless, they all demonstrated great inner strength, most often under conditions of extreme stress or in arduous effort that lasted for years or decades. Life’s challenges brought out the best in them, and others benefitted.

Talking about humility in the recent past, Brooks says, “…there was a moral ecology…encouraging people to be more skeptical of their desires, more aware of their own weaknesses, more intent on combating the flaws in their own natures and turning weakness into strength. People in this tradition, I thought, are less likely to feel that every thought, feeling, and achievement should be immediately shared with the world at large.”

James K. A. Smith reviews the book in the Fall, 2015 edition of “The Hedgehog Review.” According to Smith, “Those eager to read The Road to Character are likely already receptive to its argument, whereas those who inhabit the moral ecology of self-expression and so-called authenticity are also most comfortable with ironic distance and haughty confidence in their own righteousness. Brooks’ argument cuts to the root of this: There’s no character without discipline. There’s no discipline without submission. And there’s no submission without something beyond me.”

So, character requires discipline and submission to something greater than oneself. In today’s environment, discipline, submission, and self-effacement are not at all popular. Rather, the ethic is self-promotion and seeing oneself as the center of the universe---the opposite of humility. In his research, Brooks looked at this ethic and commented, “The self-effacing person is soothing and gracious, while the self-promoting person is fragile and jarring. Humility is freedom from the need to prove you are superior all the time,…”

We can see the “fragile and jarring” aspect in many people as they desperately, and futilely, try to fill an inner void with external applications. The self-promoter cannot attend to the well-being of others because he is so stressed trying to find a place for himself in life. He does not understand how the world works, and thus wastes energy and time trying to create a reality that cannot exist, running roughshod over others in his need.

Unlike the self-promoter and those with a “haughty confidence in their own righteousness,” people who focus on themselves, the humble person focuses on her obligations to others, near or far, rather than on her rights. There is a constant refrain these days about rights, at all levels and aspects of society, from families to universities to corporations. But there is hardly a whisper about our obligations to others, a view that is clearly and regrettably in bad odor. Focusing on rights divides us, while focusing on obligations unifies us.

The path to character runs right through humility.