My schedule this morning.  Arise read the scriptures and pray with Mari.  Read the scriptures on my own.  Prepare for exercise and exercise.  Recover from exercise shower and eat breakfast.  Clean up the kitchen and wash dishes.  Submit a revised proposed order relating to my last case.  Move laundry from the washer to the dryer and put bed clothes in the washer.  Do a batch of indexing Italian Birth Records.  Move clothes from the dryer to the laundry basket and place bed clothes in the dryer.  Take the bed clothes from the dryer and make bed.  Fold and put away clothes from the laundry basket.

Oh, one other thing: read an essay by an LDS woman about her marriage and family.  Now, that last item actually came earlier in the order of Things I Did Today and was prompted by a long chain of events that began last evening.  Mari and I met an attorney whose name and firm name sounded familiar.  I eventually figured out that a former partner of mine and I had met with a female associate from that firm.  I seemed to recall the woman's name.  This morning in an attempt to tie up what I viewed as a loose end, I googled the woman's name. 

Lo and behold there she was listed as an attorney.  She was no longer at the same firm, but I had confirmed that the night before.  She apparently was, however, a writer based on some of the links I saw.  One link was to an essay.

The point of the essay (aside from some linguistic showing off) seemed to be that after 20 years of marriage she realized she was not the only one in the marriage who had to make accommodations, her husband also made accommodations and she loved him.  She had been well aware of her own sacrifices (how in the world did I end up doing laundry and dishes?  Why does he get to go to work? Why does he have to be such an entrepreneur rather than have a regular job?), but after 20 years it finally occurred to her that perhaps her husband had made what he considered to be accommodations or sacrifices as well. 

Complaints surrounding the domestic tasks she ended up with were not the principal thrust of her essay (as I say that seemed to be "I guess I really do love my husband even though I am involved in this marriage that is not entirely to my liking") but she voiced those complaints nevertheless.  My own domestic activities this morning kept her complaints in my thoughts.

I was reminded of an essay I read a number of years ago by Theodore Dalrymple entitled "How-and How Not- to Love Mankind"  Dalrymple contrasts the lives and attitudes of two different Russians, Ivan Turgenev and Karl Marx, as means of illustrating two different approaches to thinking of mankind.  He illustrates that Turganev thought of mankind as individuals; he loved and cared for individuals and illustrated that concern in his writings.  Marx considered humanity en masse and claimed love for mankind only in undifferentiated masses.

Since my retirement, I have been very domestic (Mari remarked last evening that it was like having her own maid) and yet have not felt restricted, put upon or demeaned.  In my view the work I have done at home benefits my wife and daughters; it makes their lives easier.  To me that's enough.  Now, maybe I can afford that attitude because I have already spent 30 years out in the world "making a difference" and so have already been fulfilled.  Maybe I will feel differently in 3 or 4 years, but I don't think so. 

The reason Dalrymple's essay came to mind is that I think that the two different ways of loving mankind are everywhere in evidence.  Much of the desire to make a mark on the world is rooted in selfishness, wanting to demonstrate how important one is.  It characteristic of  one who views mankind as an undifferentiated mass to be pushed or pulled in certain directions for its own good regardless of how individuals might feel.  If one abhors certain kinds of work because it is not important enough, demeaning and unworthy that's pride and selfishness talking. 

It is also true that one can dislike certain kinds of work simply because it is boring and lacks any sort of mental challenge or is harmful to the person.  That is a differnt matter entirely.  But to want to be out "making a difference" solely for the sake of making such a difference smacks of self agrandizement. 

The Proof in the Pudding

As I noted, I wrote the previous post yesterday and consider the fact that I was somewhat reluctant to publish the post as evidence of the phenomenon I was describing.  The herd instinct is strong in humans and is a partial explanation for why the Lord has commanded us to form a church and meet together often.  It is why like minded people associate together.  Mutual reinforcement helps maintain a consistent world view.   It is very difficult to be a lone voice in the wilderness; I believe few have the strength to act as such a voice.  I certainly don't.

I suppose some would complain that such associations (some might call them echo chambers) lead to closed mindedness.  That certainly may be the case, but being open minded at all times and in all things is not in my view a virtue.  Keeping such an open mind leads to indecision and dithering.  After all if you are always waiting for the next idea to come round in case it may be more attractive you would never get out of bed. 

If you keep an open mind about a truth once you have discovered it either you are not convinced it is a truth, you don't care about the truth or you don't believe in the concept of truth.  If something is true then it is appropriate to close your mind to alternatives different from that truth which by definition are not true.  This is seen as a radical stance I am sure, one which few would support because of rather obvious difficulties.

The key it seems to me is to be very sure that what you consider to be true is actually true, but once you have adopted that stance you can't look back.  It also seems to me that you need to be very careful about what you decide is true.  The extreme (but appropriate) stance towards truth cannot be taken about very many things.  Ideas of politics or science or other earthly pursuits rarely would merit being considered absolute unassailable truths.   

Another Day

Today was much better.  I think I may be getting accustomed to the idea that I don't have to be at work everyday and consequently don't need to feel anxious about not being there.  Today was the most relaxed I have been.

It was a beautiful day to be at home-blue sky, mid forties almost springlike out in the sun.  Some domestic chores aside I enjoyed practicing the piano, studying Spanish and doing some indexing of Italian birth records from the mid 1880's.  That last is slow going because the handwriting is difficult and my Italian very rusty.  I found it interesting that a number of children were reported as being born from a union with an unidentified woman.  My temporal chauvinism is showing I presume.  I thought frequent sexual immorality was a much more modern vice although I am not sure of the origin of that notion.

I suppose it is common to think that one's own era is one of degeneration from some kind of golden (or at least more golden) age.  It is hard to think objectively of the past, obscured as it tends to be by the glow of nostalgia.  Still even with that caveat, I can say without doubt that the acceptance (not to say glorification) of acts once considered beyond the pale has increased dramatically in my lifetime.

The rate of out of wedlock births, for example, stands at about 40% overall and is much higher among certain groups.  Such births are no longer an occasion of mourning or shame; the new acceptance (celebration in some groups) has seen to that.  And most people bid good riddance.  I admit to sympathy for that sentiment; I also cringe at depictions of the treatment of unwed mothers in years gone by.

On the other hand, I understand that children born to single parents are at much higher risk for negative life outcomes than those born to a man and woman married to each other.  Those higher risks will eventually manifest themselves in society at large in the form of decreased productivity as those children grow up.  And by productivity I refer not only to the economic inputs these children are capable of but also to contributions without any economic price tag--being a caring neighbor or a thoughtful citizen for example.

I wonder if the increased happiness (through greater acceptance) of single women is worth the price.  I for one don't relish a return to the shame, ostracism and denigration of the past (assuming it has been accurately portrayed).  Certainly the advocates of the new moral order would express outrage at the prospect of employing such tactics to place restraints on unwed parenthood. 

But that outrage itself is interesting because certainly practitioners of the new morality have not hesitated to employ shaming, ostracism and denigration to enforce their own moral vision (think of the Duck Dynasty or Chick Fil A controversies).  So the objection cannot be to the method, but must be to the set of values to which the method is applied.  Outrage at the use of shame, ostracism and denigration to attempt to reinforce traditional moral views must be based not on the mere use of such methods but on the kinds of behaviors to which such methods are applied.

I have the sense that the acceptance of unwed motherhood is seen by some to be a backlash against the use of shame, ostracism and denigration but as I have concluded that cannot be true.  So what was the origin of the acceptance of unwed motherhood?  It must have been a view that for whatever reason unwed motherhood was determined to be a condition to be supported.  But as to how that feeling came to be general and why that view was promoted, who can say with certainty?

As an explanatory note, I wrote this post yesterday, but did not post it until this morning.

Retirement

So, random thoughts indeed.  I have now officially retired from practicing law at a small law firm.  I am on my second week as of this cloudy and cold Monday Morning.  As I was making breakfast and thinking about life, I realized that I felt a bit different this morning than I did during the last week.  So I decided that I would record from time to time the process of moving from working (for money) full time to working (for the fun of it) part time.


I feel a bit different this morning because this past week I would find myself feeling very anxious and upset almost as if I worried about being at home when I should have been at work.  I felt as I did early in my career when I took any time off (even recognized holidays when everyone else was off as well).  My wife often commented that I couldn't seem to relax.  I thought last week as I was feeling anxious that it would probably take a month or two before that feeling went away.

Part of the reason for feeling as I do is attributable to the way in which my retirement came about.  This last year although I had pretty much decided that I would stop working, I was very busy at work.  I did not take any vacation and I worked some on just about every holiday.  When I made the decision to retire and made the announcement, I was working for the most part on a big case that was set to go to trial in the middle of January. While I did not consider myself all that important to the effort, I had been working on the matter for over four years and did have some institutional knowledge others may not have had.  Consequently, I agreed to stay on and see the case through trial.
 After my announcement, I divested myself of all other matters on which I was working and transferred responsibility for all other clients except for the one with the large case.  I also began clearing out my office.   As a result by the middle of December, I was pretty much ready to leave at the conclusion of the litigation.  I worked hard in December and as these things are wont to do, the case settled on Friday January 3.  I left in the middle of the afternoon and have only been back for about half an hour to take down my pictures and remove my computer.

I have compared that experience to running into a wall at 60 mph; one minute you are zooming full tilt and the next  you have come to a complete stop.  No matter how uncomfortable you have found the journey, such an abrupt deceleration is uncomfortable.

So last week I spent somewhat at loose ends.  I did some  housework, practiced the piano went to the store etc, but was not very comfortable in my own skin.  Today it feels a bit better.   We'll see how it goes.  Maybe I will even have the inclination (I certainly have the time) to finish some of the other blog posts I have started..

Giving

I visit a few blogs on a regular basis.  I quite enjoy the links and thoughtful posts at Maggie's Farm.  I don't always agree with the opinions expressed on those pages,  but the topics are thought provoking.  I recall reading a post or two in which one of the contributors discussed charitable giving.  I don't recall the entirety of the post or the details.  I do recall that the author had observed that charitable efforts often went awry; that the relief provided often seemed to be ineffective except as a salve to the consciences of the givers.  The aid is frequently wasted and is often unappreciated.  The effects are temporary.  Lasting changes rarely result.  As I recall the author concluded that one is better off not giving. 

The conclusion did not sit well with me.  I give a fair amount of my resources  away, mostly to my church, but also anonymously to individuals I think might be in need.  On the other hand I have noticed some of the same problems the author of the post identified myself.  I don't think the solution is not to give.  I think the problem rather is taking the time to match the gift to the need.  If one's object is heap glory on one's self, the gift will be public, explicitly associated with the giver and a gift whose value is most widely recognized.  In most cases this means the gift will be monetary; everyone knows the value of a dollar.  This is likely to be true even for gifts of a less public nature.  The gift is still likely to be of a nature easily recognizable to others or in fact to the giver.  I think another motivating factor is ease.  Ease also favors some kind of monetary donation.  It is easier after all to give money than time or thought.  

We can give and avoid these issues, but it takes time, effort and thought.  It also takes a large measure of humility; we must remove our ego and focus on the other person's need. Easy to say; very difficult to do.

I started thinking about this topic last night when at dinner with my wife and some friends we were discussing our children.  The husband of the couple we were with described  an interaction with one of his adult sons.  The father and son had made a deal, the father would pay for rent while the son was away at school, but the son needed to find a way to pay for food.  The son had turned down several job opportunities as being beneath him ("I just don't do that," I believe was the quote).  Now the son had arrived at a point where he did not have any food and wanted his dad to help  him out.  The father described a very difficult conversation in which he told his son that they had a deal and the son needed to figure out what he was going to do.  His son cried, his wife cried and he felt awful, but he also felt that he had done what he needed to.  

Weeks later, his son found a job.  He was happier than he had been before.  His outlook was more positive as he discovered the merits of being able to sustain himself.  What looked very little like a gift and more like a punishment turned out to be an act of charity that might change his son's life.  In that case giving money, which almost everyone would call a charitable gift, would have been no such thing. 

On the other hand we have given money to people of our acquaintance who have been temporarily out of work.  We knew these folks and knew that they were doing all they could to find employment, but simply did not have enough to tide them over until they were able to do so.  I like to think that in such a case giving money was appropriate; the gift helped them in a way that another type of gift could not.

The most valuable gifts we can give are gifts of the first type, that is gifts in which we give our time, talents, energy, knowledge and experience to others.  But that is also why such gifts are rarely given.  It takes time, thought and effort to give those gifts; money is so much easier and recognizable.  The world today needs more giving not less, but it needs more true gifts and fewer gifts of convenience and self congratulation.  

Of Matter and Intelligence

           I had an interesting, and probably stupid, thought yesterday as I was sitting in the Temple.  I work currently at the recommend desk and have a chance each week to work at the recommend desk in the Baptistry.  The Baptistry is on the whole much less busy than the rest of the Temple which affords me the chance to engage in scripture reading and contemplation.  I thought yesterday about the nature of matter and energy and intelligence. 

            I have always thought that the scriptures support the idea of intelligence existing at all levels of material organization from the highest levels of animal life, man, to the lowest levels of organization we have discovered in the search for fundamental particles.  I have the impression that my supposition arose out of a couple of verses in the Book of Mormon in Helaman where Helaman discusses the weaknesses of men with a very unusual and curious comparison.  Helman emphasizes the nothingness of the children of men because “they are less than the dust of the earth.  For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God.”  Hel. 12:7-8  He then moves higher on the organizational level, noting the obedience of hills, mountain, and the earth itself.  Helaman contrasts men who in Helaman’s words “set at naught [God’s] counsels, and…will not that he should be their guide,” Id. at 6, but rather are “quick to hearken unto the words of the evil one, and to set their hearts upon the vain things of the world,” Id. at 4, with the dust, hills, mountains and earth that all respond to God’s voice.
 

I have reasoned that the comparison Helaman makes is completely meaningless unless the dust of the earth has some choice in the matter.  If the dust is simply acting as it must at God’s command, it cannot be described as having any superior virtue to man, nor can man be reasonably compared unfavorably to the dust.  If the dust is without any ability to act in a different manner, a comparison with man’s actions lacks any meaning because the difference between man and dust is fundamental-one has a choice, the other does not. 

This view is reinforced somewhat by Jacob’s observation about the strength of the faith that he and his people developed.  Jacob states that their faith had increased to the point that it became “unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.”  Jacob 4:6.  Jacob chose to describe their power as faith sufficient to cause trees, mountains and waves to obey their commands; he does not describe their faith as the power to make the trees, mountains and waves to move.

It is also reinforced by a couple of other scriptures.  In Moses, the earth is described as having a voice and expressing itself.  “And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?  And when Enoch heard the earth mourn, he wept, and cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, wilt thou not have compassion upon the earth? Wilt thou not bless the children of Noah?”  Moses 7:48-49 

Moreover, the Lord has described the earth in terms that suggest some level of intelligence and will: “the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law—Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it.”  D&C 88:25-26.   Finally, the creation of the garden of Eden is described in the same manner:   “And I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed.  And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul.”  Moses 3:8-9.

 Now, I don’t subscribe to the fanatical environmental gaia hypothesis which places everything in nature off limits and posits that the earth would be a better place without any humans because the Lord has specifically told us that “all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; [y]ea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.”  D&C 59:18-19.  The Lord, however, has placed some limits on our actions.  We are to use all things which come of the earth “with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.”  Id. at 20.  These limits are open to interpretation, but I don’t think those limits can reasonably be seen as forbidding Man’s use of the things of the earth to improve his condition. 

I recognize that difficulties exist with the matter/intelligence hypothesis.  For example, how do all the levels of intelligence interact?  If each atom, or part of an atom, has some intelligence, how does that intelligence interact or become part of the intelligence of rocks, trees, waves, plants, animals or humans?  I have no idea, but I am for myself willing to suspend thinking about those issues to think about other implications of my supposition. 

So what?  Of what import is the notion that matter at the most fundamental level has some form of intelligence?   That will be the subject of a future post.  

Suspended in The Air

 Today I am traveling.  Left the house at 5:00 a.m. to catch a 7:30 flight to Kalamazoo (I love saying that name) via Detroit.  I like to travel.  And by that I don't just mean arriving at a destination; I like the act of traveling.  Something about the journey suspends my sense of time and place.  I feel as I imagine a quantum probability wave would feel (if it could feel-talk about anthropomorphizing!) before it collapses.  Anything is possible.  Maybe it is the isolation of being out of touch with the usual sources of information (telephone, mass media, email, internet), but I suspect not.  I have had the same feeling when I fly with access to the internet and email.  Whatever the reason I really enjoy the sense of unlimited possibilities that unfortunately evaporates once I have arrived-even when it is a nice place like Kalamazoo.