A Few Thoughts On Life & Learning

From the Beginning

Apr 11, 2023

People are communal. I don’t think there is anyone with the possibility of Henry David Thoreau, who has ever disputed. Of course others have wandered off to escape the mis-culture and seek solitude. But those who reject society, must in some way feel society has rejected them. Hermetism is not unique in any way to Thoreau, but most hermetism of rejecting society is probably more inclined to result in some type of Adolph Kramer or Silas Marner who actually feel society has rejected them or their place in society. Or in real life isolationists who turn violent like Theodore John Kaczynski. I do not think Thoreau was really in that category, he was more like the more contemporary Thomas Merton whose contemplative appeal is not nearly as isolationist as some suggest. Their retreats were for contemplation and they continued to interact with society both conversationally and through publication. Merton, of course, lived in a community, albeit a community of monks. But Thoreau was no more alone than was Merton. In Walden it often appears Thoreau was living “out yonder” and all by himself like Adolph Kramer before Heidi entered into his life. Thoreau lived not too far from Boston society and still entertained and communicated with that society. He was influenced by Emerson’s concepts of self-reliance (who never relied very much on himself from all accounts) and wanted to prove its possibility. The result for Thoreau was Walden in which he seems to say he did just that. Of course Walden is just as fictitious as grandpa Kramer. Thoreau was in no way alone at Walden Pond, yes he might have lived in his dwelling mostly by himself, but he shared the environment with many other “outcasts” from society. Black people, early Irish immigrants and a few other rejects of society that had been enslaved or were near-slaves were gathered there before Thoreau retreated to Walden Pond and remained after his migration to the area. There is a relatively new book by Elise Lemire, Black Walden, but a little diligence could provide anyone with the same information before her book came out. Hailed as masterful research (and not saying it was not), nevertheless much of the information in her book, I had already ascertained in more isolated bits and pieces before I encountered her work. But she does put all of those pieces together quite nicely and illustrates the myth of Thoreau’s isolation. Even grandpa Kramer was within walking distance of town and needed to interact with society even though he pretty much scorned those interactions. Of course a priori to scorning society, he felt scorned by society, similarly to Silas Marner.

Likewise, the myths of the individualistic survival in America’s “wild west” and more than likely Australia’s outback, are mostly just that—mythical. At least it was rare enough in the American west that anyone who was lost or abandoned and survived either to be found at a later date or who struggled to make their way back to a community was so amazing it usually was reported on and the stories would be picked up by the national press. But the concept of heroic individualism among western trekkers was not something western trekkers themselves believed—in fact becoming isolated and alone was their greatest fear.

Even Kaczynski had to at times interact with others, to go into town, to buy supplies, and to interact occasionally with his other more isolated neighbors. Almost no one can ever be completely apart from community. The only really long-duration of isolation I am aware of was that of Alexander Selkirk. And he was pretty much alone, there really was no Friday. But Selkirk was not shipwrecked, he was cast aside from his ship because of a troublesome attitude that made it untenable for the Captain to keep him in his employment on the ship. But the captain was rather benign to Selkirk and Selkirk was cast ashore on an island—too small to actually support a human community, but a relatively well marked island that was a frequent stopover for ships to gather fresh fruits and wild vegetables. Since there was no human habitation the environment was basically untampered and there were no large or dangerous animals, but plenty of small game. And both the captain and Selkirk expected his duration on the island to be relatively short since it was a frequent stopover for European conquerors to easily gather supplies without needing to contend with native human opposition. And according to Selkirk’s own account, it was only a few days before another ship did arrive. But it was Spanish and he had to flee. At one point they almost caught him but he managed to avoid the Spanish and they weren’t interested enough to expend the energy to continue the search. Over the next ten years, according to Selkirk there were multiple ships that arrived but they were all Dutch or Spanish. That’s not totally surprising since they had a much greater presence in the southeast pacific than the English. Still Selkirk never contemplated his isolation would be for such a long duration. But there was little danger in the way of wild animals and abundant food easily gatherable and the tropical environment meant a continuous natural production of available food. Selkirk says the only real danger were rats and so he developed a community with wild cats by sharing small game he captured with them. The cats then more or less stood guard over him when it was dark and kept the rats abay. So certainly he survived as a lone human but only with the wild cats to aid that survival and only because it was a unique environment that it could support one human handsomely and also because it would not have been able to support a full human community. The cannibals on the “other side” never existed, or as far as Selkirk reported to my knowledge, ever arrived—his human danger was from the Spanish and Dutch ships that did arrive.

More than likely the most isolationist era in entire human history is of more recent vintage. Not because we all live or survive alone but because our technological innovations have often alienated us internally. And many communities in modern times are built more or less around the concept of the “nuclear” community of single families moving into a home that is not established by predetermined social parameters. Throughout most of human history, groups of interrelated members of a community or relationships would migrate together. Okay, some say there people move into neighborhoods that are socially or economically or racially similar. Nevertheless, that is irrelevant to the point that this “neighborhood” is entered by individual nucleations. And the fact that a community may be moved into for any of the above reasons of similarity mentioned increases rather than decreases isolation. ` We move into communities of similar ideology, economic or racial background because we believe we will be safer surrounded by others similar to ourselves but often go away from those communities to associate with those relationships before we moved into those communities. Most don’t even know their neighbors to a great extent other than an occasional conversation, but they know their neighbors visually which causes nervousness when someone unknown appears within the community that increases risk and conflict but does little to satisfy the need for human communal relationship and increases the feelings of isolation and apartheid from our very own communities. This angst of abandonment leads to human despair and the results of human despair are our modern social ills—depression, mental illness, violence against each other when we feel intruded upon, and suicide. And crime statistics actually show these suburban communities actually are not “safer”, that crime is just as frequent within such communities. Crime is seen and reported to be occurring more frequently in inner cities and suburban myth says that most crimes within their communities are created by those external to their communities. But the statistics do not bear this out. Firstly almost all crime in any community is created by members within the community and there is greater danger of external members of the community having crimes committed against them that there is that they will commit crimes against the community.

Well that is not commonly believed but you are free to check the stats and examine suburban crime statistics.

What is true, however, is that there are more severe punishments for crimes within inner city communities than within suburban, and the “wealthier” the community the less severe the punishment in the sense of imprisonment or danger from the crime-enforcers. Punishments, as wealth increases tends to be more towards monetary than physical. So this is not, despite claims that justice is even-handed for all wrong-doing, totally false.

Let’s put in this way, if a poor robs a liquor store and gets $100 he will have a high bail that he can’t pay and be imprisoned until he can be judged, often without trial because he’s convinced he cannot win, evidence can be relatively scanty and if he does go to trial it will be over in a few hours and he will be sent to prison.

Rick Scott stole a billion dollars, it took years to gather evidence, every dot had to be connected, as they say, plea bargained and obtained a settlement of less than he stole, he was removed from his position by his company who paid him more than he was fined to remove him.

Now the poor man who stole one hundred dollars loses liberty and the opportunity to earn for a determinate amount of time increasing the likelihood he will upon release steal again. He will, at the least, be marked and in many ways ostracized from future participation in both the economic and political society. While in prison he loses his right to vote and often afterward. Rick Scott settles before being charged so he has no criminal, he is forced out of his company not into joblessness and ostracization but with a reward large enough to buy another company and not only doesn’t lose his right to vote but runs for political office by campaigning against the program he stole from.

By standards of equal justice then the man who is imprisoned for one year for stealing $100, then the man who steals one billion dollars should not be able to settle for less than he stole and should be imprisoned for no less than (dollar-for-dollar) one hundred million years. If he is criminal and used his position to steal he should not be paid to leave his position but forced to leave without any compensation. Certainly the man who works at a seven-eleven and is caught stealing from the till is not going to be paid to leave his position.

And so “the people” are not necessarily going to believe equal justice occurs. They already know that is mythical. They already are depressed from a society they feel has stolen their individuality, their respect and their economy. They do not feel the freedom the vote is supposed to give them, they have isolated themselves from communal alliances, and they absolutely know justice is not equal and absolutely do not believe no one is above the law. To tell them is a further insult.

But of course he can’t steal from the till. Even though he knows the till is stealing from him. The owners of 7-11 have determined that he is of less value than he is and don’t share the till with him but actually pay him less than he earns because prices inflate beyond his salary. That, in itself, is theft. That theft creates an indignity that the person feels makes society untenably alienated from himself and he moves into a community where he isolates himself and his family from the community and that creates a non-community that fights against each other. And as we mentioned, he cannot successfully steal from the till. So he steals from the neighbor, or for most of us, we become afraid our neighbor will steal from us. Further moving us into isolation from the community. Since he knows society is not the predicated proclamatory ideals he has supposedly been taught in school, since he knows he has been relegated into an inferior position within the community, he becomes isolated by that rejection into feelings of isolation and anger that leads to his depression. Because even grandfather Kramer has to interact with society to some extent and unless he becomes Kaczynski and lashes outwardly against the rejection he has felt from the community in violent retribution, he turns his fear into hatred for society. Since he has also been taught democracy is furthered by choice through a vote between alternatives, and the alternatives seem unattractive, how does he choose? One alternative is to give the rich man even more so you can have more. Well everyone desires more, or at least is constantly bombarded that wanting more is attractive and he should want more or he is somehow mentally defective. So he gives the rich more and it works. He has a bigger or more expensive house, he has a big screen tv, and he has a more expensive car. Right? Maybe he even has a college education. He lives in a neighborhood of likeness. But he feels even less represented by his government because he supposedly has all these “more” stuff, he supposedly is more important to society because of the “more’ but he feels just as insignificant because no one has asked him for his opinion. Politicians give him alternative opinions to choose from, which is supposedly good right? And then they make decisions for him if they are elected just as they told him what opinions he could choose from. So he has no input into the candidates. A primary doesn’t do that, that’s just a few more candidates telling him what he has to think. Someone else, the candidate, the scholar, the expert, tell him what his choices are. But these opinions, or directions for the society to move towards, these supposed choices he has to make are divisive. This way, that way, how someone else thinks the society should be. I return often to the Federalist 10. Madison understood that “:democracy” is a limited concept that simply cannot work in a utilitarian way for thousands of people. And despite reading a column yesterday by a person whom I often find quite perspective, he falsely claimed Madison thought the constitution was democratic. In fact, he refutes the effectiveness of a democracy for a large community. So he tells us the constitution is a republic, not a democracy. That democracy for a large group is untenable. Jefferson definitely had similar ideas, and even though he had many egalitarian principles, he was to a large extent very platonic because he felt most communities needed to be independent and largely equal but guided by the more “enlightened”. Both favored “small” government and would almost certainly reject the democratic party of today.

All of this leads to the isolation of individuals from the community because the individuals feel rejected by the community, or disrespected as being important to the community. So, Ken, are you suggesting abandoning democracy? I have heard, but never found the source, that Dewey once said something to the effect that the only thing democracy needs is more democracy. Well I would certainly agree with that just as much as I agree Madison was correct in his estimation of federalism as confederation of democratic communities. But the issue with the vote, not that there was really a lot of voting in the constitutional framework (open enfranchisement of selecting leaders), as I see it, is the alternative ideas required from candidates who tell us what we need is not democracy, not us selecting representatives we choose.

And so of course today we face a crisis termed as whether we will be able to preserve “our democracy”. But what is seldom realized in such discussion is the fact that democracy is an outlier of human evolution and the community of individuals who each had important role within the community and the leader was the person most capable of recognizing each other’s role and utilizing the strengths of each individual to the survival of the whole. If an individual is unrecognized, if he is a mere voter, he is isolated socially from the whole, and the community fragments and becomes susceptible to conspiracy theories because he feels conspired against, he feels rejected and seeks solace in likeness which he assumes he must because he has been taught democracy is a choice between opposing ideas or parties. Of course that is not a real democracy of individuals important to the community that can select a leader from their midst who recognizes that individual necessity of each individual in making the community a whole.

So let’s return to grandfather Kramer and to Silas Miner. What brought them back to the community? Not each other. They didn’t meet and grumble together and plot to overthrow the community. No, they encountered very different people from themselves. In both stories it was through a child. The child learns the importance of grandfather and Silas and then through circumstance encounter the alternative, and in the end the child brings the individuals by illustrating to the community the importance of grandfather and Silas and showing the community how grandfather and Silas can contribute to the community and make the entire community more complete.

The problem we herein face is not isolating into likeness and political parties based on some type of theology (called a party ideology, but in essence a theology that preaches a certain line of what they want followers to believe). A community must be made of individuals with different talents and skills that need each other. When someone is less needed, or feels less needed, he becomes a follower. People by nature are not followers. People are forced into followship by leaders who desire a following. For a government to exist of and for the people then it must be a government that is not telling, teaching, or preaching (all basically synonymous). It must be a community of individuals each with diverse skills who are each individually important to the community because they are individually needed and the selection of the leader in such that he is the person who can recognize the individual qualities and importance of each to the community.

Perhaps to make democracy more free we do need at least one constitutional amendment. One that says no one can run for any office, or proclaim he wants to be a candidate and the only way to get on the ballot is for the community itself to put forth a candidate it feels has supported and represented them by their actions within the community. We need an amendment that proclaims anyone who publicly announces they want to be a candidate is disqualified from that office and we need a government formed and led by a community that selects candidates that has already been recognized by recognizing the role of each of them.

Improbable? Yes. But humanity evolved as communities of diverse individuals who needed the skills of each member to survive and, I believe, quite naturally chose leaders from its ranks that best supported their needs. We evolved for roughly a million years until we had leaders who chose subjects to follow them. That is an alternative subject, but I am convinced it was not an advancement in human evolution, but a retraction from such.

The UnUtopian Optimist

Discussion about this post