It is universally understood that the existence and successful functioning of human society, is fundamentally dependent upon the availability and use of a common language, as part of a system of interactive communication. Interdependence, problem solving, mutual sharing of empirical experience, as well as mundane social communication, are the basic structural supports, found in the underpinnings of any societal life.

Thus, because the element of interactive societal communication is basic to the establishment and perpetuation of society, we have, from time to time, deemed it useful and responsible to offer our comments regarding selected words, drawn from the American lexicon, which were felt by us to be deserving of comment.

By way of illustration, we have written that certain, apparently simple words, such as “repetition,” “nice” and “like” were unjustly given short shrift and, for the reasons proposed, ought to be accorded significantly more intrinsic value and respect. We have, as well, denigrated words such as, “tolerance,” as an expression of bigoted, faux self-praise, (who is it, that is qualified to tolerate, and to tolerate what?) and the hateful term, “race,” the latter, an entirely unscientific conceit, employed exclusively, for despicable purposes.

Our recent ruminations have centered around the tiny, seemingly inconspicuous, two letter word, “us.” The selected word is functionally and contextually, distinguishable from the similar word, we”, which latter term is frequently employed, merely to connote a first- person plural subject, viz., an objective, numerical observation; this characterization is, contrary to the case of the emotion-packed word, “us.”

It is with our sincerest of apologies to Robert Louis Stevenson, whose classic novel, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, we have chosen as a syntactical metaphor for our subject word “us,” based upon our word’s potential for polarity. On the positive (Dr. Jekyll) side, the subject word, “us” summons up warm feelings of acceptance, security, inclusiveness, sympathy, belonging, assurance, identity, safety, concord, mutuality, commonality, and other terms of positive societal attribution. On the negative (Mr. Hyde) side, the same word, autonymically, refers to insularity, bigotry, exclusiveness, asserted superiority, class or economic distinction, religious discrimination, political or social tribalism, xenophobia, anti-immigrant trope, selfishness and other like anti-social or reprehensible reference.

We have often written of a singularly, but common, instance, in which a Dr. Jekyll, (good) intention, nevertheless unwittingly but inevitably, results in disastrous (Hyde) outcomes. This well- intentioned practice amounts to the parental inculcation of their young children in the ethnos and belief system of their birth, [but, significantly], to the exclusion of a respectful and enlightened picture of other, divergent belief systems. While this practice offers the child the desired and intended sense of identity and belonging (Dr. Jekyll), it often delivers a harmful (Dr. Hyde) message, of a reasonable “we” (“us”) and a bizarre and irrational “they” (them), ultimately leading to a distorted emphasis of perceived contrasting differences, and subsequently, the development of hostility toward the “other.” This historically repetitious travesty can be avoided, in the practice of good sense and enlightenment, by a program of teaching, not solely limited to who we are, ethnically, [“us,”] but also inclusive of a fulsome and positive explanation in the Dr. Jekyll mode, which is inclusive of others.

The personal use and intended meaning, of the somewhat ubiquitous word, “us,” in any context, will depend upon whether the preferred self-image, is one comparable to a Dr. Jekyll, or to a Mr. Hyde.



Thoughts of younger years bring to mind a High School course in Euclidian Geometry; a course that may have proven to be the most impactful in later years. The study and accumulated ephemeral knowledge of angles, planes and concentric circles, were valuable to a degree, but far less valuable that the taught discipline inherent in the experience of the subject.

A set of facts (a “given”) was presented, in each instance (the “theorem”) from which, by logical steps, the desired principle was finally deduced. What was eternally significant, and impressionable, was the instructed process of orderly reasoning to a conclusion, from a fixed set of facts. The subject of Euclidian Geometry instructed the inestimable (lifetime) practice of the application of reason to the solution of problems.

We often reminisce about past events, most especially, our choices and decisions, to act upon, or refrain, from doing something which may have turned out to have considerable significance.  Any regrets or self-praise, in such instances, is not only useless, but illogical, and amounts to ex- post facto rationalization. We often make the fundamental, albeit common, error in the comparison of our personal choices, with the choices of others, perhaps erroneously ascribing to ourselves, comparative credit or error. In addition to being simply useless, these inclinations are totally senseless and irrational.

There may exist, a human tendency to extrapolate presently existing circumstances with the past. This phenomenon, obliges us to responsibly critical concerning the popularly accepted nostrum, “those who ignore the past, are likely to repeat it.” With the humblest and the sincerest of apologies to George Santayana, the popular aphorism assumes that the comparative circumstances are factually identical (inclusive of the protagonists). In an individual matter, the reverential adherence to such urging might have disastrous results. Reason and experience teach that, regardless of source, all aphoristic expressions, even this one, need a measure of additional and nuanced scrutiny.

Recently, we were advised of a mutual friend who, against professional advice concerning the manifestly dire financial condition of a certain public company, nevertheless, recklessly and heedlessly, invested a substantial sum of money in the purchase of many shares of its stock. As advised, his heedless stock purchase turned out, unexpectedly, and against all prognostications of the experts, to be a very lucrative one. There are many people who would consider that investor to be enterprising and intelligent; we, emphatically, do not at all, agree.

The rational wisdom of any choice, we insist, may only be properly judged as of the time that it is made, and under the contemporary facts and circumstances in existence at such time; certainly not at the time of its (possibly surprising) outcome. The soundness of any choice should empirically be seen, fairly and reasonably, solely in the context of the existing facts (the “geometric given”) at the time of its determination. Granting the possibility that “wise” choices may ultimately, have a disastrous result, in matters of judgment, mankind will, with rare exception, eternally benefit from the consistent exercise of applicable and contemporary reason.


Blogpost # 330 “STICKS & STONES” REDUX

Many of us still have some memory of the childhood defensive tactic of a sing-song response to derogatory attribution: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” This popular childhood strategem, generally proved to be adequate to preserve the dignity and public standing of the offended. In adult society, wrongful and intentional false accusations, or the imposition of false, hurtful attribution to another person, is an established, precedentially recognized act of wrongdoing, and is dealt with formally. For centuries, the willful employment of false and defamatory words and accusations, injurious to the name and reputation of another person, has been legally redressable under established Tort law; written defamation, classed as “libel”, “oral” as “slander.”

Recent events, have made necessary this third post, regarding the wrongful, misleading and bogus use of the word, “socialist” or “socialism” in critical public discourse. [see past posts :American Socialism” and “Compassionate Capitalism”] . The word “socialist” has recently been intentionally highjacked and misappropriated, for tactical employment as an epithet; resulting in a reflexive (negative) reaction, most especially, by the ignorant and reductionist members of our American population. We have been energetically attempting, for a considerable period of time, to make clear the wide, distinctive contrast, between the federal government’s responsible, programmic exercise of empathic morality, as authorized by the representative Congress, and the misused and tactical attribution of the newly created bogey-man, “socialism.”

The word “socialist,” in actuality, applies to political-economic systems in which the government is the sole owner and manager of all industry and business; as distinct from private entrepreneurship. It can, confidently and emphatically be declared, that there are absolutely no contenders for political office in this country, who would champion such an unworkable and un-American theory of governance, as socialism. Yet cynical, right-wing political operatives have now created the ersatz epithet, to brand all opposition, with the tactical intent that it especially appeal to that insular cohort of the reductionist ignorant, who helped install the iconic Mr. D.J. Trump in the Oval Office.

That the arrogant and cynically intended target of this false propaganda, is irrefutably, the low information base, is evidenced by print advertisements, shown on television, bearing the publicly recognizable image of Karl Marx. As is generally known among the better informed, Marx was the founder of Communism, not Socialism. Significantly, Marx sought the elimination of government, altogether, in favor of a theoretical (mythical) “dictatorship of the prolitariat,” This is markedly in opposition to Socialism, which espouses the ownership and operation of industry and business by an existing central government. Any casual student of political theory and general history might tell you that these two widely divergent and competing movements, were mortal enemies. As observed, however, it is the same base that supported Trump,who constitute the targeted audience for such manifestations of intentional falsity and arrogantly practiced cynicism; unquestionably not, the informed citizen.

Instances of compassionate capitalism are readily discernable in such long-standing and traditional government programs, as social security, disability, retirement, federal loans and mortgages, flood relief, FEMA, environment cleanup, flood control programs, food and tuition assistance, regulations and protection of the health of the consumer-citizen and a great many additional instances of Congressionally authorized involvement with the quality of life and the safety of all American citizens. The “socialist-phobes” should recognize that they are in truth, fortunate recipients of numerous, vital and beneficial government programs, which, incidentally, and practically, makes any socialist type program from having any appeal or necessity.

The prospect of a Socialist state is rationally and empirically, non-existent; one would hope that the cynically, self-interested and tactical perverters of our system of governance, be recognized, and justly sanctioned as the real danger to our democracy.



























Post # 467   TRUE LOVE AND BULBS (A Valentine’s Day Reprise)*

Caution, dear reader, brace yourself. In a few days, the perennial tsunami, appearing every February 14, will predictably reassert itself, in all its traditional force. The sole fans of the feared flooding are the usual suspects, the greeting card companies, the chocolate manufacturers, the florists, the retail jewelry businesses, the pajama industry and the novelty sales folk. The expected high tide of the Valentine’s Day inundation, judging by previous experience, will submerge all land masses, human population and baffle all reason. Among other phenomena, the advertising industry will publish a stage 4 hurricane of notices, featuring photo-shopped, seemingly amorous couples, in intimate proximity, to their highlighted sales merchandise.

Since (mercifully) this holiday has only a short half-life, one day, the need for effective, sales propaganda becomes urgent. Unaccountably huge profits are earned by companies who, presumptuously, maintain that there is a realistic (and commercial) need to supplement the interaction of couples, who love one another, with their manufactured paraphernalia. Greeting card companies are especially guilty of this self-serving assumption and hire distinguished “poets” to create trite doggerel, consisting of inane expressions of love and fidelity, for the thousands of presumably, aphasic, anonymous consumers.

The most objectionable of the various Valentine’s Day symbols, is the trite, red valentine “heart,” an outmoded and retro- configuration, broadcast without relief; on all holiday products, greeting cards, gift wrapping paper, stuffed toys, pillows and candy boxes.This  stale symbol is glaringly imprinted on all items for sale on Valentine’s Day, as well as on the consumer’s mind, by some Manchurian Candidate type, propaganda.

Various research people [ who apparently have no more pressing fields of inquiry for the employment of their PHD acumen] have uniformly reported that the classic red symbol is derived from an early, incorrect understanding, by [no less than] Galen and Aristotle, who believed that the heart contained only three chambers. [It may be noted, that Dr. Galen and Mr. Aristotle were, innovatedly, accurate on many other subjects]

The valentine depiction of the human heart, maintains the very same proportionate degree of accuracy, as a wood duck, in appearance, bears to a moose. Nevertheless, it has, over the ages, been foisted upon, and willingly accepted, by the consuming public.  appr

In truth, the human heart is shaped like a pear and is the approximate size of a man’s fist. This life-or-death chest muscle is taxed with the existential job of circulating blood and oxygen throughout the body. It has no time, or noticeable inclination, for holiday Hallmark sales propaganda, as the purported source of love, courage, strength or kindness. The statement, “He has a good heart” should be reserved, solely to a positive determination by a cardiologist, and not a comment on such traits as a person’s, love, generosity or empathy. We are only concerned with cardiologists and not “cardeologists.” How would you value a positive comment on generosity, like, “He has good kidneys.”

It is certainly inarguable that all human thought and emotion are exclusively functions of the brain and, empirically, not the traditionally romanticized heart muscle. Admittedly, however, it would be impractical to artistically create a brain-shaped cartoon figure to serve as a symbol of the holiday.

The senseless valentine “”heart is best replaced by a preferable love symbol, the unique and marvelous tulip bulb. Certainly, the outline of the traditional bulb is simple to replicate, artistically. More important, the bulb has always been a reliable symbol of future growth and predictable beauty. Relative to the modern conception of true and healthy love, the tulip bulb is independent and self-sustaining, having within its inner self a sufficient systemic source of future nourishment as well as the natural ability and inclination for growth and the achievement of its innate potential.

The tulip bulb, in the Middle Ages, was thought to be magical and priceless. There are historical records of its individual sale for the modern equivalent of several thousand dollars. If you should offer one to him/her and it is refused, we earnestly suggest that you look elsewhere.


Why should it be necessary to dedicate a one- day holiday in recognition and expression of love; and, further, to do so by trite gifts of holiday nonsense? Love, where it is genuine, is experienced on a regular basis, and expressed in tender interaction and caring, personal acts. This one- day holiday is sadly  comparable to gifts of free turkey dinners on Thanksgiving to the needy. Hunger exists year- round and the poor and unfortunate need more than a gratuitous symbol.

* perienniel message


Blogpost # 326 THE CATARACT

Life rockets on, like a cold, insistant mountain current, fast, furious and determined. No rocky impediment can hinder its raging impatience, nor burden its gravity inspired speed, in its steep dramatic journey from natural promonitory to the sea, far below.  Its unabating power and untamed turbulance, have the two-sided potential to inspire admiration, or true atavistic fear.

Metaphorical life too, inexorably surges on, apparently undaunted by temporal impediments, and at an alarmingly, uncommon speed. The old folks ironically observe, “The years are short, but the days are long.” The breakneck speed of man’s years, as they seemingly dissipate, sans empathy, seems to completely blur specific recollection, with the exception of exceptional matters of life-altering significance. By cognitive contrast, the day presents itself at once, in sixty minute, conscious and sometimes, seemingly, prolonged doses.

The use of the waterfall image is an exciting, but rather limited metaphor, specifically chosen to portray the immutable and unrestrained passage of time; and as derivatively applicable to each man’s relatively brief allotment of lifetime on Earth.

Of all the terrestial, sentient fauna, man has the good fortune to possess the exclusive knowledge of his ultimate mortality. His nuanced reaction to the impact of that eventuality, varies with age, sophistication and persona, and can indeed, be a material determinant in the quality and degree of his ultimate satisfaction with life.

It would undoubtedly be harmful, unhealthy and non-productive, to eternally dwell on the reality of one’s inevitable mortality; in such event, long term planning and personal aspirations, would appear to any such person, as foolish and impractical. People who fearfully live their entire lives, waiting, in readiness, outside death’s door, sacrifice all of the joy of living  and surrender themselves to insular, limited lives. Some, perhaps, seek succor and comfort, from the traditional archaic pretentions of religious dogma and spiritual fantasy. To many of those people, life on earth may be merely a preparatory precursor to something better, as promised.

Those with healthier perspective, appreciatively affirm the priceless gift of life, most especially in their understanding of its limited timespan. They enthusiastically and energetically, open themselves up to life’s virtually unlimited array of available potential for the pursuit of advancement and intelligent stimulation, and strive for personal self-fulfillment (happiness). Pursuits such as the regular reading of good literature, attendance at lectures, travel, theater, enjoyment of music, are sources of personal development, satisfaction and the pure joy of living. Additionally, very rewarding are voluntary services rendered to worthy causes. These undertakings and pursuits, make valuable use of whatever time we have allotted to us, and result in a hightened appreciation of life, and a recognition that it is indeed, a most, generous, planetary gift, for as long as alloted.





Blogpost # 325 CONTRACTS

The noun, “contract,” is prevalently employed in the context of business relations, to signify an enforceable, promissory exchange between two or more parties, concerning the performance of specific agreed upon obligations. Such business agreements might typically concern, the sale of merchandise or property, the extension of financing or the performance of services. Most contractual undertakings can be either express (written) or implied (oral or situational).

However, the word, “contract,” can be permissibly employed, as well, in the context of many human (non-business), interactive relationships, to describe the necessary social mandates and assumptions that accommodate societal living and interactional behavior. Obviously, such binding societal agreements and behavioral mandates, are implied.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the French 18th Century philosopher, is best known for his concept of “The Social Contract,” which defines a transactional relationship in which the individual, contractually surrenders certain of his personal rights to (his) society, in exchange for the benefits of membership and for the common good.

Since ancient times, marriage has always been considered a contractual relationship, with several attendant and implicit obligations by reason of its vital societal importance. Some cultures, provide, additionally, for a written document, as for example, the traditional Hebrew practice of the bride and groom signing a written marriage contract (the “Chupa”),  in the presence of the assembled wedding party and the officiating clergyman.

“Societal contracts” are implied by necessity and relationship. Societally and socially affirming folkways and behaviors, are recognized and mutually complied with, by members of every society; these include, as examples, handshaking or some alternate form of social recognition, offers of neighborly assistance when needed, mutual  recognition of certain secular and historic holidays, acceptable dress, accepted rules of common hospitality and decency, shared response to disaster, observance of  expected familial responsibilites, participation in joint enterprise, and many other implicit and binding social obligations.

From an anthropological view, homo sapiens eventually concluded that living in society was vastly superior to his prior solo existence; the latter involved a daily, desperate search for food and habitation, as well as constant exposure to danger from predatory animals and marauders. Living in society with other humans however, necessitated the evolution of mutually binding understandings and assumptions, relating to behavior and communal authority (Rousseau’s “Social Contract”). The obvious success of the societal mode of living was, in large part, due to man’s willingness to comply with uniform, tacitly accepted, social responsibilities and mandatory interactive discipline. These implied understandings were contractual, and enforceable by an appointed agency of the communty. It is a tribute to the innate nature of mankind, that for the most part, these implied “contractual” undertakings were universally observed, making possible, the continued growth of even larger and more sophisticated societal groups.

As life became more complex, supplemental rules and understandings,  most,unrelated to basic survival and mandatory behavior evolved, of necessity. This was especially true and applicable to advances in communication, such that, in contemporary times, inter-active communication has inarguably become part of the social infrastructure. Yet, despite the sophisticated growth of common language and the development of modern forms of communication, certain problems persisted regarding human interaction, possibly due to the increasing number and kind of relatively complex relationships, possibly due to the exponential speed of technical and social change, or more likely, attributable to human failings.

We find it frustrating, that the communal responsibility, in conversation, to be clear, and at the very least, marginally understandable, is often ignored. The obligation, of a party to a conversation, in fairness, to exercise at least a modicum of care, to state that which he had previously resolved to say is a material flaw, if not also a contractual wrong.  By reason of the speaker’s prior intention, he will, no doubt, “truthfully,” and adamantly, insist on a statement having been said, despite the fact that such intended message was, in fact, never articulated.  The predictable result is a possible misunderstanding by the  parties, and its proximate, eventual ramifications, be they of slight, or of a serious nature.

Accordingly, we would, respectfully suggest, a mandatory “Rider” to Rousseau’s Social Contract, expressly providing, by its terms, for a contractual obligation, to consider, specifically, what one  intends to say, in advance of any significant conversation, so that there will be a better possibility of actually saying it.  **

** Also recommended for family members and spouses.