The Charity System

People think a large part of their taxes go to helping the disadvantaged and the poor, they don’t. The majority of tax dollars come right back at you through government services like education and health care. It’s the charity system that provides most of what our less fortunate receive, plus a whole lot more. Shelters, food banks, and employment for those with disabilities all come from this block. So along with business and government, charity provides all the goods and services we see today.

Types

Canadian charities can be broken into five categories:

  • Education (universities and colleges)
  • Religious (every church, synagogue, and mosque)
  • Health (Cancer Foundations, Lung Associations, Heart and Stroke, Canadian Liver Foundation, Alzheimer Societies, etc.)
  • Benefits to the community (Boys and Girls Clubs, Crime Stoppers, Humane Society, John Howard Society, Rotary Club, Kiwanis, Special Olympics, Valley Zoo, etc.)
  • Welfare (Big Brothers and Big Sisters, homes for troubled youth, senior centres, food banks, Chrysalis, Edmonton Oilers Foundation, Telus Foundation, United Way of Alberta, etc.)

So they do a lot of stuff, primarily going where governments can’t go. And don’t forget our NGOs (non-gov organizations) like World Vision that work internationally.

Free market

Know it or not, charities operate within the free-market system. Why? Because governments don’t want to be fully involved. Here are some reasons:

  • Anyone can start a charity
    • Society doesn’t have to wait around for government to assess a need. And gov doesn’t have to approve or disapprove of any particular cause.
  • Charities raise most of their own funds
    • Government foundations help but the majority comes from individuals and business. So if a charity can’t convince people of its purpose, it folds.
  • Charities naturally close when their job is done
    • The government doesn’t want to be in the business of closing down perceived benevolent causes. It’s a political hot potato that would be in the papers every day.
  • Charity boards oversee quality and value
    • Again, quality and value are not the government’s responsibility. Each charity has its own board accountable for program performance and cost efficiencies.
  • Lots of free labour
    • Charities operate using tons of volunteers (including board members), which obviously are free. Governments could never get away with such a thing.

To avoid humongous costs and social liabilities, government gives way to its friend. Charity fills in cracks by going where governments can’t go and communities can’t operate without them. Simply put, along with business and the public sector, the charity system is a pillar of society.

Summary

Okay, okay, so where do they get the funding? Well, rather than pay all taxes rich people can direct some to various causes. Governments still need to pay bills, so it all can’t go here. But way up high, at the very, very top, senior officials have this whole thing worked out. And it’s good. The downside is that some people cheat. They’ll donate to their foundation, only to expense a trip to Hawaii to “assumedly” check out a rainforest. A little deceptive. That’s why charities get audited. (Momma didn’t raise no fools.)

Long story short, we have a good system. Business does this, government does that, and charities fill in the rest. There’s always the question of money being put to good use but that’s where the competitive side of the free market comes in. In the end, it all works. And in my opinion, just great.


Tribalism

Lots of talk these days about tribalism, even in places like Canada. Apparently we’ve changed over the past few years and can no longer communicate. Experts say we’re now different people and it’s all in the brain. What a crock. Here’s what’s happening: US cable news stations are stimulating a fight that makes them a whack of dough and there’s a demographic shift going on that’s bringing lots of new people into politics. Net result: inflamed rookies sitting at the table.

History

Over the years, US news agencies have played with their format. Initially, you got 30 minutes per day from a broadcaster who provided no clue as to how he or she voted. They were professionals. Then in the 80s, the industry adopted the 24/7 option, which worked great for royal weddings and natural disasters. Hello CNN.

Whenever there was a fire or a flood, CNN was there. And they’d stay for days. Half-hour news couldn’t compete and 24/7 cable did well. But this new style had its problems. As soon as the disasters ended, CNN would return to a handful of listeners. Back then viewer mentality was to watch 24-hour news for big events and then jump back to regular TV.

Fox entered the 24/7 scene during the mid-90s. They opted to specialize in political news. Right-wing to be exact. And they flourished. So much so that Microsoft and NBC combined to create an opposition station. So you had Fox News on the right, MSNBC on the left, and CNN in the middle. That was until recently. Today the people at CNN have moved into the one-sided business. They’ve joined MSNBC as the “Fox News of the left” and viewership and ratings now look like this:

Fox = MSNBC + CNN

Many wish they would have told us before making the switch but given the current situation, you can’t blame them. Too much money and the success of reality TV says you have to give the public what it wants. So the numbers at Fox now equal those of the other two combined and the market for bias-based news is expanding. As a result, the polarization everyone is talking about is being caused by the people doing the talking. (Funny, hey?)

Rookies

Now add in a bunch of rookies to the situation. Veteran political-watchers know all about format changes and are aware of WWF-style broadcasting. They checked out long ago. But whether it’s faster internet connections, educated boomers hitting the right age, access to information, the persona of Trump, or people getting smarter, a bunch of new folks are watching the news.

Certainly a positive if you take it as a social step forward (more people care) but nobody told newbies about the rules. As a result, this entertaining trash talk is yielding emotionally charged neighbours just itching to fight. So what’s needed is a basic understanding of how this whole thing works.

Amplify the monster

In the one-sided world, you don’t just casually pick on the other guy. You really let ‘em have it. For example, president Obama wasn’t the son of a Kenyan father, he was a Muslim terrorist who’d sell out the country at the drop of a hat. And billionaire Donald isn’t a businessman with a few economic ideas, he’s a racist slut. That’s how we do it.

Pollsters long ago discovered that toe in observers react strongly to emotion, so they amplify the monster. Cable news is all about brightening the demon so you see only the worst side. And then they jack it up by pounding and pounding, over and over. None of this is reasonable. No serious follower gives any of this credit but it sure is entertaining. And beyond the regular duty of promoting advertisers, WWF is currently upsetting the nation. Rookies don’t yet know how to view bias from both sides, leading to exaggerated beliefs and nasty fights.

And not everyday battles where you walk away thinking me only stupid. Now you’re questioning my ethics. Why? Because the continued pounding permeates your skin and you actually start to believe this stuff. So guess what happens? You tell someone. But if they’re watching the opposite station, you’re starting a fight. The type that cuts deep.

Real News

This demonizing of leaders is readership gold and the American media has never made so much money. Just think, when have you consumed so much news? And lots of nice people are being roped in. But as always, it’s a step towards progress. If you’re interested in US politics, here’s a recommendation:

  • PBS – a little left, but you can deal with it. Try Brooks & Shields on Friday nights. David is a nice republican who writes for the New York Times and Mark is a classic (but realistic) democrat.
  • Firing Line – also on PBS, is an old conservative show re-imagined by Margaret Hoover. Margaret’s husband is a lefty and the show is well done.
  • Face the Nation – CBS’s Sunday morning entry. I find it better than NBC’s Meet the Press and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. The lady is very professional and remains emotionally uninvolved.
  • C-SPAN – the granddaddy of them all. This station has proper interviews with real politicians and is what every news organization watches to get their information.
  • And if you really like to read, try Real Clear Politics. It simply lists articles from all over the web, alternating between positive and negative views. Like a neutral player.

Plus don’t forget our Canadian outlets. Can-news is the best news and most providers are top notch. They’re also worthy of your support (i.e., take out a subscription). From the National Post (mostly right), to the Globe and Mail (little right), to CTV’s 24-hour news channel, you always get reliable information. And heck, even the CBC is good (though a little left).

Summary

Canadians are now talking in secrets, like Americans do. And this inability to discuss politics is a violation of intimacy. Not a good thing among friends. The US system is different and that’s why it’s interesting. Down there they argue before passing legislation and representatives often exercise independent vote. Our system goes like this: government decides what it will pass and members vote as they’re told. Efficient yet boring.

Another big word these days is populism. Every election is said to be the result of it. Another term that’s ridiculous. Real populism is when the market changes and providers adapt. Like when we started drinking water, Coke offered Dasani instead. Same goes for the news. When people say enough of this one-sided, reality TV journalism, organizations will react. And when that day comes, the programs and stations listed above will flourish. Buy stock.

PsD

PsD stands for psychological disposition and it’s the latest thing to rock the opinion world. For generations people believed that reason alone led to mutual understanding. That as we put information together, we naturally came to the same conclusion. But what they forgot is we’re emotional beings with strong associations to our human side.

The old paradigm looked like this, where opinion was simply a combination of what you felt, what you’ve experienced, what you’ve been taught, and what you’ve figured out for yourself (usually by putting pieces together from the first three).

Plato, among others, believed if we just kept talking we’d end up in the same place. That as we better understood each other’s position, we’d eventually all agree. And if you think of it, this is how we interact at work. While on the job, we mostly tune into logic. So when faced with a problem, everyone gets together to add information to the pile until we devise a sensible solution. But later, when you get home, things don’t operate like that because then we enter the world of emotions.

Think of a super-Christian or a militant vegetarian, are they using reason as the basis for their view? How about someone discussing a divorce? Or look at modern politics. Many of us hold strong emotions that cloud our understanding. So much so that some leaders could raise the Titanic with the band still playing and a large percentage of us would never grant credit. Something is going on here.

PsD

Because of emotion, the paradigm now looks like this:

When you add in emotion, a new prong emerges that influences our thoughts. PsD is this fifth element. So it’s not that you don’t understand, it’s that you can’t.

Due to psychological factors underpinning our values, when it comes to certain topics, we just can’t see things the same way. And when it’s impossible to agree, there’s no sense having an argument. Experts now use the term tribalism to define what’s going on but that’s not it. We’re no more tribal today than we were twenty years ago. We’ve just tuned into different sensors.

Caped avengers

Advertisers know all about PsD and have been using it for years. Our emotions are influenced on a daily basis to attract us toward products. Political parties and charities do the same thing. Lots of organizations know how to twist your heart. But most of us can decipher these sorts of messages because we’ve seen them before. What’s disturbing is what we don’t know. For example, how is it that emotion can override reason?

Anonymous studies show there are three sources: fear, status, and the need to be an avenger. Fear is common and everyone knows it. They scare us into believing things like Y2K and we run around like chickens without heads. Status is becoming popular since how else can you stand out in a crowd of 2200 Facebook friends. (Answering the question “who am I?” these days isn’t easy. Some take a stab at anything so families have words to write on their tombstones.) But it’s the last one that’s most interesting and also very deep.

In the Viennese school of psychotherapy, Adler, Freud, and Frankl devised three motivations to life: power, pleasure, and purpose. A lot of us identify with purpose. As a result, we’re dying for a cause. Add in something that tracks back thousands of years—the archetype of good and evil—and you see just what.

Those superhero comics didn’t sell like hotcakes simply because they were fun. Humans have a strong association with battling the forces of evil. Ever since childhood, this notion has been pounded into us along with the idea that the noble rise up. Granted mom was just telling a bedtime story but they’re there nonetheless. As a result, whenever we feel the big bad word, people grab for their sword. Based on positions taken due to thoughts placed well inside us, many believe they’re fighting the forces of evil (or serving God) while bellowing out one-sided thoughts.

So the question isn’t whether you have PsD — you do. The question is whichever the source?

Summary

Psychologists today are talking about confirmation bias, where two people watch an interview and only connect with what’s positive about their side. We used to say “you only hear what you want to hear,” but academics prefer fancier words. PsD is different. It says you can’t always think straight because of subconscious layers.

We’re emotional beings. Sometimes emotions are used against us and many times we don’t understand ourselves. But we never act this way at work because that’s a logical place. Only after five do we face issues we know little about. Here is where emotions attack. Naturally, one wishes to simplify and identifying with feelings make this easy. But don’t despair, PsD is totally treatable once you account for it. All it requires is a simple comment like this, “I don’t really know much about the matter but here is my psychological disposition.”

Stage III

One of the ways politics gets confusing is how we use the term liberal. Officially it means two things: freedom (both economic and social) and an ideology to describe political parties. Most everyone agrees with the first (freedom), the second is now coming to an end. To better understand, let’s look at history.

Stage I

Government was initially run by a single person, typically some dictator or a king. People went about their day in accordance with sovereign views until things changed in the late 1600s. That’s when Britain overthrew its monarch and made elected parliament supreme. France soon followed and later came the US.

In the early days, parliament took only two forms—one designed by the British and another by the French. In Britain, there were two parties, Conservatives and the Whigs. They took electoral turns while the other played loyal opposition. No matter what the government proposed, the other’s job was to object. If government said raise taxes, they said “no way”; if government said let’s have Sunday shopping, opposition said “not a chance.” Under this system, before any bill could pass it had to be thoroughly thought out and fought over. Kind of like an argument going on inside your head.

In early France, everyone advocating for change sat on the left side of the chamber and those preferring things stay the same sat on the right. Terms we still use today. Again, with this system there were proposals and objections—just like with the Brits.

Stage II

A second stage came when the Whigs changed their name to Liberals and adopted an ideology. As a party they stood up for two things: social freedom away from the Bible and the creation of a welfare state. Remember, the separation of church and state was a large part of democracy but much of religion remained within law. And at the time, economic productivity was just reaching the point where a welfare state was even possible.

The hallmark of this movement occurred in 1904, when Winston Churchill crossed the floor to join the governing Liberals and usher in Britain’s first welfare state. Then as time went by, more cons wanted to join in. They were called progressive conservatives.

Common beliefs

Within any political system there are always three boxes. A wide one along the bottom—to represent what everyone believes—and two more on top, to show differing views.

In Canada, our common beliefs rectangle is pretty thick. There’s little of Christianity left within our system and we boast a pretty robust welfare state. So at least in our country, the Whig agenda has won. Liberals are currently finishing things off through doctor-assist (Bible), legalizing dope (Bible), and beefing up CPP (welfare state). After that, there isn’t much left. So where do we go when we mostly agree? And what’s the new difference between liberals and cons?

Stage III

Going forward leaders will be more about competency than ideology, and issues will be more individual than according to theme. Yes, parties will be different but not along Whig-Liberal lines. Conservatives favour eliminating unnecessary business regulations but shouldn’t everyone be doing this—they’re unnecessary. They’re also big on personal responsibility, but even under left-wing governments I don’t qualify for welfare. So no matter the stripe, there’s only so much dough to go around.

In Ontario, Doug Ford campaigned against McGuinty-Wynne debt but is this Liberal policy? Paul Martin ran 13 federal surpluses and belongs to the same party. Wynne privatized hydro and invested heavily in R&D. Couldn’t conservative government have done the same thing? And how about Alberta’s NDP fighting for pipelines?

When NAFTA was redrafted, it was strictly business. Any party could have done it. Same goes for banking regulations, privacy laws, and increasing the minimum wage. And like it or not, other than maintaining or increasing the welfare state, when it comes to economics, we’re looking for optimal standard of living. So no matter your slant, it must work within human nature. Raising taxes too high makes the gifted give up, and no economy can operate like that.

Summary

In Canada we’re pretty lucky. We’ve never been overly religious so resistance to social change was soft. For example, conservatives opposed gay marriage and 10 years later passed it into their party platform (making the argument gone for good). We’ve also been fortunate financially, which made building a welfare state rather easy.

Today’s challenges are postmodernism on the left and US-style wackos on the right. Liberals seem to be linking to some PM causes and for some reason crazies like the prospect of lower taxation. In both cases it’s important to vote down the middle. I don’t know enough, but postmodernists seem to lack brainpower and may be riding on the Whig-Liberal’s good name. I doubt it’s something I’ll fight for. Likewise, I don’t understand the American beef against social programs. Isn’t government supposed to operate monopolies?

Bottom line: we’re mostly good people who all want the same thing. Yes, we get divided by what goes on in the States but they’re not us. Down there it’s a different situation that varies by a lot. Up here life is mostly good. Let’s hope we don’t wreck it.

See also Left is for Liberal and Conservatives.

Buddy Jordan

We’ve finally hit the tipping point. Today, more people know about Jordan Peterson than don’t (at least among my friends). So it’s time to give this man an introduction. Hopefully, one that provides a framework for better understanding. First off, he’s hard to understand and this guy needs to be broken into parts.

Prof

Initially, Jordan was a free psychology professor on the web. And just like the world has leading experts on gold, we have them in psych. Jordan is an expert in two areas: why we do bad things (e.g., Nazis and commies) and archetypal stories including those from the Bible. (An archetype is a recurrent symbol in art, literature, or mythology—like the mythological archetypes of good and evil.)

Like most professors, Jordan is well versed in a number of disciplines and he’s smarter than most. Why? Because he’s dug deep into his specialization and connected the dots.

As a young man, he visited Europe and got hung up on the ills of the early 1900s. So much so that Jordan had nightmares until he figured it all out. This experience plays a major role in his beliefs. He’s also an expert at illuminating old stories, including some from the Bible, and says, “maybe you can learn something from your dead ancestors.”

Postmodernism

Jordan’s now extended himself beyond mere intellectualism to promote what he feels is a dignified belief system. And his passion for this project is great. To understand, you need a quick summary:

  • Piaget said people are deeply rooted in their belief systems (axioms).
  • Western Civilization was built on the axiom of capitalism, democracy, and Christianity.
  • Modernists were the people who designed our Western system.
  • Liberals and progressive conservatives took it further. They brought in adjustments to capitalism (like the welfare state) and lightened the effects of Christianity. Most people today agree with these changes.
  • Postmodernists take it another step. They’re attempting to alter capitalism to favour those who’ve been oppressed, and then want to eliminate religion completely.
  • Jordan opposes both spouts of this ideology. He says favouring the oppressed is all bunk. Capitalism, by definition, is unequal and you’ll only ruin what we’ve got. Attempting utopia is what the communists tried and that was a murderous disaster. He’s also opposed to the idea of crushing the Lord. His alternative is to redefine spirituality through natural psychology, philosophy, and a bunch of old stories.
  • Nietzsche said as religion falters, society has to develop its own set of rules.
  • Jordan says don’t let postmodernists do it. They can’t be in charge.

Complicated, with two parts. First let’s deal with religion. Back when we were all churchgoers, getting out the message was easy. Every Sunday you’d visit the village priest and he’d assign you a purpose. Those days are gone. Today’s theologians go on speaking tours and write books. Jordan is offering a new twist. He doesn’t sell you on dogma (Church rules), he goes straight for the spirit. Never asking for faith, he uses only reason. And he tells many stories from long ago, written well before religion, plus a few from modern day (e.g., Disney movies). To him, Biblical stories are just part of the mix and he rarely mentions the word God.

Net result: audiences all over the world are listening because Jordan is filling a hole. He may not be our modern day Jesus, but he’s a good village priest. It’s unique what he’s doing—so competent and complete—and a lot of people are grateful. To my knowledge, he’s the only person doing this. So bully for him. One’s belief system is a big part of life, surely worth discussing. So again, bully for him.

Politics

Make no mistake he’s also political, though not in the traditional manner. Jordan is opposed to postmodernism, which associates him with the right. But he’s not mad at the likes of Paul Martin or Jean Chretien. His fight starts with Justin Trudeau.

It’s not about gay marriage, doctor-assisted suicide (called MAID), or legalizing dope. He’s nuts over forced political correctness, new-style feminism, and a host of socially oriented changes. He sees much of postmodernism as being based in Marxism (which scares the heck out of him) and figures with leaders like them, we’re headed for less.

It’s a cultural revolution as societies around the world plot their new courses. Are we going the way of postmodernism—which has infiltrated government, education, and the legal system—or will we generally stay put? It’s a big idea and a big fight. That’s why lefty protesters always show up at his talks.

Now everything for him doesn’t revolve around politics. He’ll also debate popular atheists over the belief in God (not the weird parts). So it’s a two part approach, which of course makes him more confusing.

Summary

Intellectuals defending belief is nothing new, getting involved in politics is. It’s really not their field. As a result, old Jordan was ransacked. The dirty game of campaigning targeted him early and he’s been labelled with all the regular anti-conservative stamps (like, racist, fascist, and puppy-hater).

Don’t kid yourself, slander is done on both sides. Making truth near impossible in a world of fake believe. But now that you have a framework to see Jordan for what he is—free professor, mentor for your own world views, and political activist resisting new change—take what you wish and leave the rest. But please, let the man speak.

Note: Here’s his wiki page (it’s good) and a previous article about him. You can also watch him at Oxford. If you’d like more on postmodernism see Social Control and Left is for Liberal.

God Is Dead?

Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher born during the 1800s. His father, a Lutheran pastor, died when he was 4. During his early years, he too studied to be a minister but lost faith partway through. Instead, he pursued a career in thought. Nietzsche is known for the phrase “God is dead.” Perhaps the most misunderstood expression ever said. He is also credited with devising the term nihilism, where nobody cares about anything.

He recognized that religion’s authority over ethics was diminishing. That as society increased in ways of education, it outgrew the need for traditional faith. He said the first result would be nihilism (where nobody cares about anything), followed by a period when society comes up with its own moral code. Excited about this last step, Nietzsche didn’t die an atheist.

Rather than being told by religion what to do, people would become the masters of ethics. And though this proposition sounds liberating, it was also a large step. One that would require years of implementation and came along with risk. As a result, he forecast religion would initially be replaced by ideology, which would culminate in the death of millions. This came true by way of Nazis and commies. Fortunately, his next step is also coming true but there is always a catch.

Caveat

Throughout history philosophers have wrestled with the idea of ethics. The human struggle between reason and inner animal, plus the wishes for the whole over the desires of self, are everywhere in writing. And though Nietzsche didn’t say this, the concept of central control enforced by the notions of heaven and hell worked well for much of the population. It was only around 10% who rebelled.

Today, those numbers are reversed in modern nations. Here, 90% enjoy the idea of society creating its own set of rules but we still have to deal with the rest. Generally speaking, most get swept up in common culture. So if everyone else is doing it, they’ll usually go along. But there are exceptions. Like hard drug dealers born in Canada don’t see the conflict in choosing the material benefits of money over the spiritual burden of caring for the whole. So in some cases, society would be better served with a stricter code of conduct (which is why places like Iran haven’t yet converted).

Today

Looking back, the world has changed plenty over the past 200 years. Everything is different when you have financial means and access to education. Nietzsche lived at the front end of this revolution. And though he said some wonderful things, devising a moral code is a whole whack of work.

It’s like we’re living in a virtual courtroom with various outlets acting as attorneys. They tout their one side and we have to judge. It’s hard work being a judge because you have to listen to both stories. (And there are so many cases.)

A natural reaction is to simplify, but if you cling to political positions things don’t always line up. Parties often switch sides and fight among themselves. It’s better to look at topics on an individual basis. In the US, they’re experts at party-style conflict. Professional debaters thrive on showing only one side of the story. And though this method may be deemed acceptable, it’s currently not easy for those who speak up.

Summary

Nietzsche’s message came by identifying with human nature. People need something to believe in. And without motivation, folks tend to give up. Removing the perceived positive influence of religion leaves only politics for guidance. So the famous Marxian quote “religion is the opium of the people,” must be rewritten to substitute ideology for faith. Unfitting for democracy because any theory can get elected.

As we’re losing confidence in religious institutions, the masses have stopped listening to theology. Popes and pastors are losing their status, so these duties are falling on us. And while it appears we’re always fighting, actually we’re not. We’re just forging the future together and this is how it looks.

Every time an issue presents itself you have three choices: join one side evangelizing their story, become interested in the topic by exploring all options, or practice nihilism (where nobody cares about anything). Whichever you choose, God is not really dead. She just wants us to figure this out.

There’s a good BBC program called Genius of the Modern World. Season 1, episode 2 is about Nietzsche.

The Soul

I was once stuck on an elevator with two very different people. We were there for hours and needed conversation but nobody knew what to say.

Charles was a wealthy, healthy, executive from New York, and Ernie a chubby trucker from the sticks. We tried cars, but Charles had a Bentley and Ernie a pickup. We tried music, but Charles liked Beethoven’s fourth symphony and Ernie said Willie Nelson. We tried women, but Charles enjoyed $1,000 a night escorts while Ernie liked to roll around in mud. After getting nowhere, I finally asked about what we had in common. “What do you guys think of beauty?” and, “Who do you find to be interesting?” Once we tapped into the right stuff we talked for hours (and even went for coffee after being rescued). Just goes to show, people aren’t that different.

Human condition

Do you know the expression, do bears s#!% in the woods? That’s the bear’s condition. We humans have our own and it includes body, personality, and soul. Everyone knows about the first two but few of us understand soul. What is it? And why is its reference always so spooky? Your soul is every non-body part you own that isn’t personality.

Our personalities say if we’re highly creative or social, and dictate how we act out in nature. Souls then hold the results. The soul’s job to observe, experience, and absorb—it’s your reflective self. Open your eyes and gaze into a photo. That feeling doesn’t go into personality, it enters the soul. So even if you’re an atheist, you have one.

Souls hold calculations, impressions, and knowledge. Everything that helps generate opinion. Feelings, thoughts, personal pleasures, and pain—this isn’t personality. Like bodies, personalities are just a way for getting around and they’re a dime a dozen. It’s souls that are interesting. That’s why the board game Funny You Should Ask flopped. It spent too much time on, which is your favourite colour of jellybean (body)? And how much do you like camping (personality)? None of which queried the soul.

Packing slips

We enter this world with an item list, like a packing slip coming from a warehouse. Some of us are tall, others are pudgy. Then we accumulate from there. On the slip is personality, loaded with instincts, desires, and quirky traits. All of which affect our actions living an eventful life. Souls are the baskets that pick up the fruit. 

In the large scheme of things, personalities aren’t that important. Like bodies, you play the cards you’re dealt. But personalities are worth understanding because they’re part of the trip. “I’m like this.” “Sally is like that.”

Here are five personality types psychologists use to describe us:

  • Openness – open to anything and creative, or reserved and conservative
  • Conscientiousness – hardworking and organized, or lazy and a mess
  • Extraversion – outgoing or an introvert
  • Agreeableness – easy to get along with or pugnacious
  • Neuroticism – the amount of anxiety you have

And we have many more like patience, honesty, humility, and pride. There are plenty of characteristics. Add in passion from the animal side and the need for social survival (status), and you see it’s too much. This package needed to be split up. So that’s what psychologists did.

Summary

Many problems with communication lie in definitions. When Plato identified the soul, he didn’t know people like Freud would come along to confuse things. And that’s the problem with social sciences—too many words. There was never any need to forget spirituality while breaking down personality further. Pieces like intuition, emotion, and reason could have added to what was already said. We didn’t need to start from scratch.

In the end, it’s easy to get wrapped up in everyday life and external definitions of who I am. But don’t forget there’s another something deep inside making observations and absorbing. For believers, no one said personalities go to heaven, it’s only the soul. And for atheists, you just don’t believe they move on. Either way, when stuck in an elevator, it makes for good conversation.

Death 176

Yale University offers a free online class called, The Philosophy of Death. I took it, watching lectures only, and here is my summary—along with a few opinions.

None of the course deals with religion. It’s simply a discussion of logic. And the logic comes mostly from Plato, who lived 700 years before the assembly of the Bible and the formation of Christianity. The first topic is that of dualism.

Dualism

Like all philosophers of his time, Plato looked only at raw life, without any external influences. He ascertained there must be more to human existence than life followed by death. He concluded that in addition to body and personality, we also have soul. And our souls exist long before coming onto this planet and well after.

He goes on to explain that life in the “other world” consists of forms. For example, something like beauty on earth is just a partial representation of true (or full) beauty that exists in heaven. And this must be so in order for you to recognize beauty in the first place. He uses the same analogy with justice. How could you intuitively know whether something is fair unless you’ve had prior familiarity with the concept?

He says our souls inhabit a vessel (body and personality) for a while on Earth and then return back to their world armed with the experience. So it’s like training school or some wild Club Med vacation.

Physicalists

Opponents to Plato’s views are called physicalists. They say no, we humans exist only for a period of time, only on this planet. And for every dualist point of view, they have a counterpoint.

Dualists say “we humans have reason,” they say so does a computer. Dualists say “but we have feelings,” they say so does a dog. And when dualists say “what about consciousness,” they don’t have a good answer but discard it anyway by saying that doesn’t prove anything.

Physicalists say the person is just a body that can do some amazing tricks, and when you die you simply fall asleep forever. They also get hung up on Plato’s concept of immortality. Sure it’s great to stare at total beauty but who wants to do that forever? Dualists say perhaps time is just an instrument of this world.

Summary

Since humans are equipped with purely logic, this sort of discussion can never be solved. Not only because no one has come back to inform us but because logic itself is flawed. George Carlin used to make a joke, “Can God create a rock so heavy that not even He can lift it?” And of course, we still have the chicken and the egg. As a result, neither of these possibilities is a slam dunk. At best, we’re stuck with 50/50.

You can turn this into 51/49, at least for yourself, but before doing so consider the following: psychologists who are also atheists say for most people it’s healthier to believe. The connection with a loving God and the comfort of an afterlife makes it easier to navigate this existence. So even if you’re not a big believer in anything being out there, let others keep their peace.

P.S. There’s also the witnessing of transcendence—because once you’ve seen the fireplace turn on for itself, you’re totally sold.

Plato Was Wrong

Cato Plato was a famous Greek philosopher born in 425 BC. He lived to the age of 80 and is known for writing dialogues and founding the world’s first university. He concluded man can be divided into body and soul. And that once life is over, the soul moves on while the body remains. This concept inspired much of Christianity and Western values. And though Plato was a great guy, he made no assignment for personality. Is it body or soul?

Personality

Back then, people didn’t know much about chromosomes. As a matter of fact, they knew little of science. But they could have figured out what social scientists know today, that personality is made up of two parts—one big and one little. The big (outer self) is our auto-pilot, acting out pre-programmed responses to everyday events. It’s the personality we’re born with that gets shaped by nurture. Psychologists label this the elephant because it’s large and somewhat animal. Others call it the external self.

The little is what we use to think. It observes and makes conclusions. “People are like this.” “Dogs are like that.” Also called our conscious self, its job is to make us smarter. But it too, has a couple pieces: one that feeds the elephant (influences outer selves) and one that feeds the soul. So it goes like this: 

Soul ⇦ Conscious Self ⇨ Outer Self — Body

Outer self

Truth is we’re trapped within our selves. Along with body, these are what you enter the world with. Yes, you can make small changes, but most personal traits stay the same. So if you’re a loudmouth or shy, happy or miserable—we are who we are. But again, there are rules. Our conscious selves can make subtle changes. You’ll retain the same temperament and sense of humour but one can fix attitudes toward any number of things—all by using concentration. That’s why people meditate. They sit and focus, hoping their auto-pilots will eventually get the message. And sometimes they do.

This is why upbringing is so important and why it should include a little discipline. Just think of why we train kids into knowing please and thank you. We’re civilizing the buggers. You also see this with dieters trying to change their regular order at a restaurant. They’ll practice saying “no cheese and just water” until it becomes habit—all by using focus and concentration. But again, this only goes so far. You have little control over outer personality. (Just listen to yourself speak.)

Feeding the soul

Okay, so if soul is what goes with me (or is me), how should I nourish it? Besides a few recipes, Plato said all you take with you is knowledge and a little culture. And because the bum didn’t define inner and outer selves, let’s assume he meant what you’ve felt, what you’ve been taught, and what you’ve figured out for yourself. So there are a number of ways.

Feeding the soul means living life. Some methods are simple like listening to sounds, absorbing a story, or witnessing nature. They also come from overcoming a challenge that took tremendous amounts of effort. But they don’t come from watching Netflix. They’re mostly from things you’ve seen, people you’ve met, and stuff you’ve done.

Summary

Philosophers are funny because they just sit around and think. One guy said man is like an animal. I already knew this from watching my relatives eat. It’s not rocket science.

Plato said we’re body and soul, this too isn’t profound. You could have arrived at the same conclusion. Then psychologists devised the two parts of personality. Again, no big brain storm. What is brilliant is remembering this from time to time and not taking oneself too seriously. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make the best of life. Just spend some time with your thoughts.

Trade Wars

During 2018, America was renegotiating international trade agreements with the world. Some countries seemed fine but a number were in the crosshairs—namely Mexico and China. Add in a third group for postmodern nations like Canada and we have something to talk about. This article comes from August of that year. There’s a big difference between all three.

Europe and Canada

Let’s start with the small stuff. After WWII, European countries were handled with care. They were essentially treated as developing nations because their continent had been decimated. Today’s negotiations are simply bringing Europe up to par. It’s time they were fully incorporated into the First World with all its responsibilities and that’s exactly what’s happening. Portions of older agreements are being updated (including payments to NATO) and the whole thing is a coming of time—no big deal. It’s simply an adjustment, just like seeing a chiropractor.

Canada is different. Our liberal government is filled with left-leaning theorists not well-versed in the mechanics of business. Their passion is to promote a progressive agenda, which includes telling others how to live. And, believe it or not, it’s a valid position. The world needs those who push. But it’s probably best to separate us from our double-southern neighbours because Mexico may not be in a position to absorb all this progressiveness (i.e., more human rights only work when everyone is well fed, and there is an order in which you implement these sorts of changes).

Mexico

Though definitely moving upward, Mexico still has many problems. Too many poor people (which leads to illegal immigration), too small a welfare state (which is hard to compete against), and too big a drug industry. All problems which affect the United States. There’s no reason why Mexico can’t be like Poland. And it’s silly for the US to be exporting so many jobs overseas when they could have the very same arrangements next door.

The deal with Mexico has to be different than that with Canada. So much of Mexican life affects cultural America and they’re the gateway to stabilizing Central and South America. So if Mexico succeeds, so can 20 more.

China

China and the US have an interesting past. When Churchill and Roosevelt developed the UN, each selected one nation to join them on the five-member security council (along with Russia, with veto powers). For historic reasons, Winston chose France. FDR picked China. Four years later, Mao turned his country towards communism. A year after, they sent 260,000 troops to war against America in North Korea. (Nice!)

During the 1950s, China was an economic mess. Mao’s policies basically led people into starvation but once he died, reforms began to emerge and China introduced their own form of capitalism. One that employed a lot of help from the US. Remember, prosperity doesn’t come from dust. All that know-how and customer support came from somewhere. Needless to say, China became the poster child of globalization. But today, it no longer wishes to play by those rules.

The basic components to any economy is hands, minds, and money. And the rules of globalization say it demands capitalism and democracy in return for assistance. Well, China is feeling good about its system and are in no hurry to make change. They’ve come to a point where they have loads of dough and lots of confidence. All that’s missing is ol’ ingenuity but they’ve come up with a solution for that—just steal it. And herein lies the problem. China is saying no to full first-world conversion while continuing to enjoy the benefits of receiving globalization. And now they’re building a military.

In their defense, China still has way too many peasants to even consider democracy, regardless of what Hong Kong thinks. America says, “Fine, but conduct your business like a modern nation. No more special treatment with low currency and stuff.”

China’s GDP is $14 trillion while India’s is only 4. But India is an English-speaking democracy, shouldn’t those figures be reversed? Truth be told, India’s democracy has hampered their progress. Private property rights have been an issue and their court system is a nightmare. So while India struggles doing things the right way, China puts its foot on the accelerator. Perhaps the tactic will be for American corporations to shift alliances to India or Pakistan. Hasbro has already announced it’s moving its manufacturing elsewhere. Lots of places have hands.

Summary

International trade is complicated because so many countries are at different levels. It’s easy when everyone’s the same and that’s the position Canada would like to take. But while you can discuss 18-week paid maternity leave with places like Europe, it’s naïve with somewhere like Mexico. And though the US is happy to listen, they’re busy right now.

Roosevelt knew something when he cuddled up to China in 1945, for it was the Chinese who built much of America’s railway. Back then, architects were amazed by how these people could work. Their hands moved like windmills as they outperformed anything America could muster by 30% (including every type of immigrant). It became well known that if these people ever got themselves organized, they’d be a real force. And now they have money.

Everyone knows the photo of Trump pointing his finger at Justin Trudeau. It’s become iconic. But there’s a better one where he’s shaking hands with President Xi. It says “game on.” So are we witnessing the economic dismantling of China? Or is this just a spat between number two and number one? I don’t know but it should be a good fight. Casual observers may think America has the advantage but they’re not taking into account culture. China is a get-to-work, obedient state. America is no longer anything like that. So at best, it’s 50/50.

Trump is definitely a controversial figure but believe me, he didn’t run to showboat his time with Daniels. This negotiation is the bailiwick of his candidacy and will certainly be the hallmark of his time as president. And like it or not, corporate America is right behind him. And though many of us find our entertainment in the political pages, you have to flip to the business section to follow this one.

Note: Watch the documentary, American Factory, produced by the Obamas.