Rumors of Order Forum

ROCK HALL SUNDAY

2005-08-21T15:34:00.000-07:00

ROCK HALL SUNDAY
Originally uploaded by jon fobes.

Excuse me while I kiss the sky.

COMMENT

2005-01-30T10:28:00.000-08:00

Originally uploaded by jonfobes.

You may
leave your
signed or
anonymous
comments about
Rumors of Order
here.

The Yoke of Slavery

2004-12-14T15:34:00.000-08:00

Dear -----,

I just had the chance to read the highlighted scriptures you copied for me and saw your note: “This is a rather Emersonian argument that exalts freedom and says the rules were a temporary expedient until maturity is reached.” I would agree that's very Emersonian.

The passage indicated was Galations 4, 5: “Our mother is the free woman. It is for freedom that Christ set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and refuse to submit again to the yoke of slavery.”

This reminds me of the question in regards troublesome or secular thoughts, which I don’t believe we ever resolved. The question was: “What thoughts are dangerous and should be banned from the adult mind or resolved ‘properly’ through science, philosophy or scripture?” I am not talking about actions, but thoughts. And the adult mind I am thinking of is not the mind of a madman or criminal.

I am reminded of a passage I read recently by Marilynne Robinson:

“Evidence is always construed, and it is always liable to being misconstrued no matter how much care is exercised in collecting and evaluating it. At best, our understanding of any historical moment is significantly wrong, and this should come as no surprise, since we have little grasp of any present moment. The present is elusive for the same reason as the past. There are no true boundaries around it, no limit to the number of factors at work in it.”

So, I am left to wonder: How can we praise the idea that we’ve been set free and then set up absolute ideas to which we must adhere? Or does the passage suggest that it’s wrong when “the yoke of slavery” is placed on us by others but OK when placed on us by ourselves?

Jon

PS. I like this passage, too, because it gets at what I was saying when I said, “The adult mind I am thinking of is not the mind of a madman or criminal.”

Galatians 4, 13 reads: “You, my friends, were called to be free; only beware of turning your freedom into license for your unspiritual nature.” This indicates you’re doing OK if you’re using your freedom in service of your spiritual nature … and this opens up myriad areas that don’t depend on accepting Jesus as the son of God.

LATER ...

I must include this delightful passage, which I just came across in Joseph Campbell’s book, “Pathways to Bliss: Mythology and Personal Transformation.” He’s talking about Jung’s view of social roles and writes:

“The whole personal complex includes your moral principles. Ethics and social mores are internalized as part of the persona order, and Jung tells us that you must take that lightly. Just remember, Adam and Eve fell when they learned the difference between good and evil. So the way to get back is not to know the difference. That’s an obvious lesson, but it’s not one that’s very clearly preached from pulpits. Yet Christ told his disciples, ‘Judge not, that ye may not be judged.’ You judge according to your persona context, and you will be judged in terms of it. Unless you can learn to look beyond the local dictates of what is right and what is wrong, you’re not a complete human being. You’re just a part of that particular social order.”

When More is More

2004-12-10T10:46:00.000-08:00

“I want to overhear passionate arguments about what we are and what we are doing and what we ought to do. I want to feel that art is an utterance made in good faith by one human being to another. I want to believe there are geniuses scheming to astonish the rest of us, just for the pleasure of it. I miss civilization, and I want it back.” — Marilynne Robinson, “The Death of Adam: Essays on Modern Thought”

Dear ------,

I dug out my one and only Marcus Borg book today, which I got off the PD book cart for $2. It's called "The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith — How We can be Passionate Believers Today." I had heard of Borg and wondered what he had to say for himself. So I bought a "title" I wouldn't normally touch.

Before I get to my main point, let me share the passage I mentioned the other night about the variety of Christian belief:

"We can perceive Christian diversity in the various cultural forms that Christianity has taken. To illustrate without seeking to be comprehensive: there is a second-century Syrian way of being Christian, an eighth-century Irish way, a twelfth-century Eastern Orthodox way, a fifteenth-century Chinese way, and a nineteenth-century Scandinavian Lutheran peasant way.

"There is theological diversity as well. Without explaining the differences, there were, from the early days of Christianity, Arian and Athanasian Christians, Monophysite and non-Monophysite Christians, predestination and non-predestination Christians, infant-baptisim and adult-baptisim Christians. Being Christian therefore canít be about getting our beliefs ëright,í even though we have often acted that way.

"The point is, there is no single right way of understanding Christianity and no single right way of being a Christian."

So that's interesting. It reveals an open-mindedness I did not expect to find. So the title is a bit misleading — I'd like to think he was trying to suck in pious people and enlighten them with his slightly more open-minded views. So again we're back to someone's enlightenment project.

"MORE" and THE X FACTOR

Now let me introduce Borg's idea of "more." In a section on worldviews, Borg says that while there are as many worldviews as there are cultures and subcultures, there are two primary ones: religious worldviews and nonreligious worldviews.

He said the religious worldview hinges on the belief that, metaphysically speaking, there's something more than this life alone, while the nonreligious view sees this world as all there is. But this fails to recognize a third alternative: that there's already a "more" that does not depend on metaphysics or theology for its existence; indeed, it's this "more" that gives theology its existence, purpose and meaning in the first place!

Let me elaborate by turning to a book called, "The Van Gogh Blues: The Creative Person's Path Through Depression," by Eric Maisel. This shorthand description speaks volumes about the "more." Maisel says: "We don't know the secret of our own genetics, how easy or hard it is for us to change our basic nature, or how our beliefs are woven together. This X factor produces, if not utter mystery, enough mystery that our understanding of who we are is obscured and limited." And the X factor doesn't simply obscure our knowledge of ourselves, it reaches out in many directions.

This leads to an observation from Emerson: "The true path to spiritual reality lay in and through the structure of the human mind. The character of each man shall form his Imagination. The Beings of the Imagination shall become objects of unshaken faith, that is, to his mind, Realities."

If we could make Emerson and Maisel speak in one voice for a moment: "Recognizing the X factor means recognizing the limits of our understanding; to deny the X factor is to overestimate our ability to know; it means forgetting forget about the relationship between imagination and faith — that ideas and stories become realities in our minds for reasons beyond our control."

The True Believer is truly in the grip of his own psychology.

In short, there's always much more to life and to ourselves than we can grasp; so secular life becomes religious for those who recognize their limitations.

WHEN MORE IS MADE LESS

Which is to say: The unfathomable nature of all this complexity creates a "more" that does not require a deity for its existence. The "more" forms over time from myriad evolving situations, coincidences, accidents, mishaps and mistakes — or by the conscious efforts of certain individuals or groups — and it can be left in place, studied and appreciated; it can inspire, enthuse and sustain. Indeed, to explain it away by invoking a deity would — ironically! — diminish its religious quality by making the "more" less.

In "On James," Robert Talisse and D. Micah Hester explain that William James shied away from embracing either religious or empirical worldviews because they result in what he called a "Block Universe."

James contends that such views, "commit the same error insofar as they turn away from the vagaries of lived experience for the sake of theorizing a world that is finished, complete and tame. Yet experience teaches that our world is not a finished, rational whole and not reducible to the scientists' atoms and laws; we live, instead in a 'half-wild, half-saved universe' in which 'possibilities, not finished facts, are the realities with he have actively to deal.'" So again, the X factor looms large.

BACKWARDS BORG

So I would say Borg has it backwards: The "more" gives rise to confusion, complexity and ambiguity — it keeps giving rise to more, more, more — while it's the business of theology to make the "more" less through absolute-truth claims.

By putting a fixed meaning on the X factor, theology makes the world seem like an understandable and comprehensible place — but less awesome and inspirational. So the stunningly secular life — if free of absolute beliefs — can be the most religious life of all by allowing the "more" to remain truly more. What would Borg say about that?

MYSTERY AND LIMITATION

I am once again urging that complexity remain central to human life. Or perhaps I am saying that humility should remain central to human life — and it will if we realize we can't separate our worldview from our interests and values.

This doesn't mean we're incapable of learning complex things, making hard decisions, solving great mysteries or even discovering the truth. It just means that even if we should stumble on the truth, we can't know that we know it. To think that we know when we don't or to think that we know when we really just believe — these are indulgences we must abandon if we want to truly recognize and benefit from the "more." When we diminish the "more" we diminish ourselves.

In other words, belief is always wishful in nature; we project our hopes on the world and pull back "facts" and doctrines. Perhaps this is unavoidable. But it's not the hallmark of wisdom: It has little to do with diversity and nothing to do with enlightenment.

GOOD GRIEF — TOGA PARTY PROOF

2004-11-09T09:37:00.000-08:00

TOGA!
Originally uploaded by jonfobes51.

Just to show that I don't take myself too seriously, here's toga-party proof.

I include this under pressure from a variety of people who are more interested in wild parties and goofy pictures than views on belief, and who can blame them — I am, too!

Here fellow Poynter student Peggy Shaw feeds me grapes at Roy Peter Clark's 1979 toga party. I wouldn't be surprised if Roy took the picture.

LOOKING THROUGH LENSES

2004-10-23T09:13:00.000-07:00

DOUG ARTICLE
Originally uploaded by jonfobes.

NOTE: E-mail to Plain Dealer editor Doug Clifton about a column he wrote for The Plain Dealer forum page to go with a project we’d been working on, pairing quotes from readers who bashed us — or stopped the paper — for being too liberal and pro-Kerry with quotes from other readers who bashed us as being too conservative and pro-Bush.

Read the column: To some folks 'be fair' means 'agree with me'

You wrote a very interesting column to go with all those reader quotes. I hope it made some people realize that bias is more in the eye of the beholder than on the pages of their newspaper.

I have long had a passionate interest in why people believe what they do. It flared in college during the reading of countless works of literature (you can’t get a master’s in English without reading a few mind-blowing novels) and erupted into a volcano of enthusiasm for philosophy and psychology after the dissolution of a 10-year marriage to a person who, though a journalist herself, never grasped the distinction between fact and opinion, at least not in regards her own concrete ideas. In short, like many of our readers, she was convinced of her completely correct views on a wide variety of topics. “Case closed, end of story,” was her mantra.

I can testify: Living with that for 10 years will get you thinking about the psychology of belief! And in the 10 years since I fled that miscarriage of a marriage, I have done lots of reading and writing on the topic, and I believe I’ve learned something, which you touched on in your column.

DISTORTED LENSES

I think those “filter-equipped eyeglasses” you wrote about are quite common and powerful and come with a variety of lenses. Moreover, and ironically, the people with the thickest lenses are the ones who forget they’re wearing glasses. Which is to say: The more powerful the conviction, the greater the claims of objectivity — the more a person gets lost in his opinion, the more he thinks he’s “just facing facts” and “telling it like it is.”

In other words, to go back to your column, I am not saying we should not have “personal views” and beliefs, but I am saying that as journalists — and as mature adults and careful thinkers — we should, “be aware of them and guard against letting those views influence our judgment …” not just in the news pages but in day-to-day life, too. I think we need to work harder to recognize our opinions as opinions, our beliefs as beliefs and our judgments as our fallible judgments — not as “obvious” facts about the world, which we grasp through the grace of some magical or supernatural power or as Aristotle believed, through some “infallible intellectual intuition” that’s our birthright as human beings. In other words, we all have lenses that influence our judgment ... but they don't have to be a foot thick and dictate our judgment.

KARL POPPER

One of my favorite philosophers — a person I started to focus on just this year — is Karl Popper. He lived and wrote during most of the 20th Century and died in the late 1990s. He became famous writing about the philosophy of science and then grew in fame as a defender of freedom and critic of authoritarianism when he wrote the two-volume “The Open Society and It’s Enemies,” during WW II, a book amazingly relevant to our times today.

In short Popper believes that civilization is still in its infancy, as is shown by how we're torn between the open and closed societies. Popper said the closed society believes in eternal truths and magical powers; on the other hand, he believes the open society was founded on the ability of human beings to learn, think and do things better. He understood that it takes a toll on human beings to be responsible for their thoughts and actions, and that’s why much of the human race gravitates back toward the closed society, where core “truths” don’t have to be discussed, just accepted and followed without question. In other words, the open society and its members value thought, discussion and flexibility while the closed society and its members value belief, conviction and certainty.

OUR CURRENT SITUATION

Our country is probably the most open society in the world, yet it is populated by lens-encumbered people who seem intent on closing it down as much as they can. Indeed, I was struck by how the first presidential debate echoed Popper’s ideas:

“If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. … I just know how this world works, and that in the councils of government there must be certainty from the U.S. President.” — George W. Bush

“It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong. ... and certainty sometimes can get you in trouble. (But you can) learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right.” — John Kerry

Well, I fear I have droned on long enough. If you’re curious, here’s a link to the Popper Page on my Web site.

Finally, I thought Gloria and Mary Lou did a wonderful job with the page, and I sent your thanks to Racquel and Denise, who were so good about forwarding the quotes.

Popper the rationalist

2004-10-16T13:32:00.000-07:00

Excerpts from his essay entitled, “On Freedom.” See the Karl Popper Page. Emphasis is Popper's.

It is especially important to me that what I am about to say is not taken on trust. Indeed, I should prefer it to be treated with the utmost skepticism. Unlike so many of my philosophical colleagues, I am not a leader in traveling new paths, heralding new directions in philosophy. I am a thoroughly old-fashioned philosopher who believes in a completely outmoded philosophy: that is, the philosophy of an age long past, the age of rationalism and the Enlightenment. As one of the last stragglers of rationalism and the Enlightenment, I believe in human self-emancipation through knowledge — just as Kant, the greatest philosopher of the Enlightenment once did. … I should like to say quite clearly that I represent views that were already seen as outdated and totally mistaken some 150 years ago.

When I speak of rationalism, I am not speaking of a philosophical theory (such as Decartes’) and not at all of the highly unreasonable belief that man is a purely rational creature. When I speak of reason or rationalism, all I mean is the conviction that we can learn through criticism of our mistakes and errors, especially through criticism by others, and eventually also through self-criticism. A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others — not by simply taking over another’s opinions, but by gladly criticizing or, to be more precise, critical discussion. The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us to achieve new ideas. But he does think that in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that critical discussion can give us the necessary maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgment of it.

This assessment of critical discussion also has its human side. For the rationalist knows perfectly well that critical discussion is not the only relationship between people: that, on the contrary, rational critical discussion is a rare phenomenon in our lives.

THE RATIONALIST APPROACH

The rationalist approach might be described as follows. Perhaps I am wrong and you are right; anyway, we can both hope that after our discussion we will both see things more clearly than before, just so long as we remember that our drawing closer to the truth is more important than the question of who is right. Only with this goal in mind do we defend ourselves as well as we can in discussion.

SELF-EMANCIPATION THROUGH KNOWLEDGE

This, in short, is what I mean when I speak or rationalism. But when I speak of Enlightenment, I mean something else as well. I think above all of the idea of self-emancipation through knowledge, the idea that Kant and Pestalozzi inspired. And I think of the duty of every intellectual to help others to free their minds and to understand the critical approach — a duty which most intellectuals have forgotten since the time of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. For, unfortunately, it is all too common among intellectuals to want to impress others and, as Schopenhauer put it, not to teach but to captivate. They appear as leaders or prophets — partly because it is expected of them to appear as prophets, as proclaimers of the dark secrets of life and the world, of man, history, and existence. Here, as so often, ceaseless demand produces a supply. Leaders and prophets are looked for, so it is hardly surprising that leaders and prophets are found. But “grown men do not need leaders,” as H.G. Wells once said. And grown men ought to know they do not need leaders. As for prophets, I believe in the duty of every intellectual to keep them at arm’s length.

SIMPLICITY

The Enlightenment thinker speaks as simply as possible. He wants to be understood … because the true Enlightenment thinker, the true rationalist, never wants to talk anyone into anything. No, he does not even want to convince: All the time he is aware that he may be wrong. Above all, he values the intellectual independence of others too highly to want to convince them in important matters. He would much rather invite contradiction, preferably in the form of rational and disciplined criticism. He speaks not to convince but to arouse — to challenge others to form free opinions. Free opinion formation is precious to him: Not only because this brings us all closer to the truth, but also because he respects free opinion formation as such.

NO CERTAINTY ABOUT TRUTH

One of the reasons why the Enlightenment thinker does not want to talk people into anything, or even to convince them, is the following: He knows that, outside the narrow field of logic and perhaps mathematics, nothing can ever be proved. Once can certainly put forward arguments, and one can critically examine points of view. But outside elementary mathematics, our arguments are never conclusive and free of gaps. … In the end, then, opinion formation contains an element of free decision. And it is the free decision that makes an opinion humanly precious. … Kant meant that every human being and his convictions should be respected.

Perhaps it is true that freedom of thought can never be completely suppressed, but it can be suppressed to quite a considerable degree. For without a free exchange of ideas there can be no true freedom of thought. To find out whether our ideas are sound, we need other people to try them out on. Critical discussion is the basis of free thought for each individual. This means, however, that freedom of thought is impossible without political freedom.

NO CONVERSION

Because I am a rationalist, I do not want to convert anybody. Nor do I want to abuse the name of freedom to turn anyone else into a rationalist. But I should like to challenge others to contradict me; I should like, if possible, to prompt others to see things in a new light, so that each may take his own decision in the freest possible formation of opinion. Every rationalist must say with Kant: One cannot teach philosophy — at most only philosophizing, which means a critical attitude.

Presidential Debate II — David Brooks

2004-10-04T11:06:00.000-07:00

It’s not just me. New York Times columnist David Brooks also saw a debate within the debate Thursday night, and he reaches a similar depressing conclusion, which I deleted from my posting: That Bush is popular because people love conviction — even it if means death and destruction. This is also the key to Osama bin Laden’s popularity, and that ought to tell us something very disconcerting about our “open” society.

Brooks begins his essay — published in today’s editions of The Plain Dealer — by writing, “In weak moments, I think the best ticket for America would be Bush-Kerry. The two men balance each other out so well.”

He continues: “Kerry can’t make a decision. Bush makes them too quickly. Kerry changes his mind by the month; Bush almost never changes his mind; Kerry thinks obsessively about process questions but can’t seem to come up with a core conviction; Bush is great at coming up with clear goals but is not so great about coming up with the process to get there.”

Brooks also writes: “That was the striking thing about the debate on Thursday night. It wasn’t so much a clash of ideologies or a clash of cultures. It was a clash of two different sorts of minds. … The atmosphere of Kerry’s mind is rationalistic. He thinks about how to get things done. … The atmosphere of Bush’s mind is more creedal or ethical. He talks about moral challenges. … His mind is less coldly secular than Kerry’s, but also more abstracted from day-to-day reality.”

POPPER POPS IN

At this point the newspaper was ripped from my hands by the ghost of Karl Popper, who stood by my chair and shouted, “These candidates embody the approaches I was so intent on explaining in ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies.’ This is exactly what I meant when I wrote that our world is still struggling between the open and the closed societies, where on the one hand you have tribal people who embrace eternal truths — and what they assume to be the infallible integrity of their own intellectual intuitions — and on the other hand you have modern people who are critical of absolutes and ‘core convictions’ because they believe the best way forward is to constantly re-evaluate their old theories and approaches for new ideas and plans that work better.”

“Read more,” Popper commanded, and handed me back the paper.

“These contrasting casts of mind influence how the two men see the world — for example, how they define the enemy. …”

“I already defined the enemy,” Popper roared. (Magee was right; he’s got a temper!) “It’s the strain of civilization and our ambivalence about change. The strain centers around the fact that it’s hard for us to make decisions without the help of some authority; we want a solid foundation for those decisions: we want to get god or truth involved. So yes, our minds become ‘creedal.’ What’s more, our ambivalence about change comes back to our realization that change can be good, that it can bring us a better world, but that it can also be risky because we might lose our advantage or drift into chaos. So we want to hold onto god or truth as a way of limiting the damages change can bring. So we lose our nerve and look for absolutes — we cringe from the responsibility of thinking things through.”

“You don’t have to convince me,” I said. “I’m already on board with your ideas — I was before I even read your books. I even added a 'Popper Page' to my main Web site."

“More,” Popper yelled, so I turned back to Brooks.

“Bush sometimes acts as if it’s enough for a president to profess his faith. But a coach can’t just dream up a game plan. He has to understand what his specific players can and can’t do and adapt to those realities.”

“That’s the weakness of the creedal mind,” Popper said. “Once you believe you’re connected to eternal truths, it’s very hard to adapt to specific realities; indeed, doing so often brings charges of weakness, even blasphemy. But the progress of a culture — in my view — depends on the ability to adapt to new realities, which represents the triumph of critical thinking over the worn-out notion that there are eternal truths or magical powers to rescue us from the perils of change. We must remember that things are always changing and that even the idea of gods and truths are products of changes in human minds and human cultures. I explained all this in ‘The Poverty of Historicism.’ You can’t escape choice or change by hiding behind god or eternal truth.”

“I’m afraid our culture hasn’t quite caught up with you,” I said. “Listen to how Brooks ends his essay.”

“Nonetheless, I suspect that the reason Bush’s approval ratings hover around 50 percent, despite a year of carnage in Iraq, is because of the reason many of us in the commentariat don’t like to talk about: In a faithful and moralistic nation, Bush’s language has a resonance with people who know that he is not always competent, and who know that he doesn’t always dominate every argument, but who can sense a shared cast of mind.”

“Cast of mind,” Popper mumbled. “In other words, people like Bush because he’s a walking, talking advertisement for the worst attributes of the closed society?”

“That’s how I understand it.”

“Right now, I am not the least bit sorry to be dead,” Popper said, and disappeared back into the wallpaper.

(See below for my take on the debate.)

Certainty in the presidential debate

2004-10-02T10:48:00.000-07:00

“If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. … I just know how this world works, and that in the councils of government there must be certainty from the U.S. President.” — George W. Bush

“It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong. ... and certainty sometimes can get you in trouble. (But you can) learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right.” — John Kerry

I found it interesting that the word “certainty” popped up quite a few times in the first presidential debate; and even when the word itself wasn’t used, there was an undercurrent behind many comments, a hidden debate on the difference between conviction and flexibility.

The question seems to be: Does one stick to his core convictions, simply forge ahead and stay on message — almost as a propaganda tool? Or does one incorporate new information and changing circumstances into his views and act accordingly? How do thought and judgment, on the one hand, interact with conviction and certainty on the other?

THE PROBLEM WITH CONVICTIONS

The problem with convictions and ideals, it would seem, is that they are something we know and accept today. But if we’re living and learning and getting wiser with each passing day, why would we assume something we adopted yesterday, last year or a decade ago is still the best idea?

To "live and learn" means being flexible in regards our ideals, which may be more the product of our immaturity than we’d like to admit. Maintaining our ideals and convictions in the face of new experience and updated information is like saying, “I am getting dumber every day, so I have to stick to things I learned back when I was smart.” Does than make any sense? Isn’t that backwards and fundamentally wrong-headed?

STAYING ON MESSAGE?

I also thought it was almost insulting the way George Bush talked about staying on message, especially in regards our troops. It’s as if he thinks that as long as he maintains conviction everyone else will blindly follow suit. He’s so conviction-oriented he doesn’t seem to grasp that some people go back and revisit their convictions and change their minds — no matter what their president says. Some people actually think new thoughts.

EXCERPTS

Here are some excerpts from the first debate that touch on certainty and conviction. There’s a link to the full transcript at the bottom.

B: “The best way to defeat them (terrorists) is to never waver, to be strong … And if we lose our will, we lose. But if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy.”

K: “I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But we also have to be smart, Jim. … This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.”

B: “I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis? No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined.”

B: “What kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, ‘wrong war, wrong place, wrong time’? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a ‘great diversion.’”

K: “I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right.”

B: “He says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be: ‘Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?’ I know how these people (world leaders) think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently. They're not going to follow somebody who says, 'This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.' … They're not going to follow somebody whose core convictions keep changing because of politics in America.”

B: “My concerns about the senator is that, in the course of this campaign, I've been listening very carefully to what he says, and he changes positions on the war in Iraq. He changes positions on something as fundamental as what you believe in your core, in your heart of hearts, is right in Iraq. You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our allies. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to the Iraqi citizens. And that's my biggest concern about my opponent. I admire his service. But I just know how this world works, and that in the councils of government, there must be certainty from the U.S. president. Of course, we change tactics when need to, but we never change our beliefs, the strategic beliefs that are necessary to protect this country in the world.”

K: “But this issue of certainty. It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong. It's another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right. What I worry about with the president is that he's not acknowledging what's on the ground; he's not acknowledging the realities of North Korea, he's not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and other issues. And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.”

Link to full transcript.

Links to my other sites

2004-10-01T23:26:00.000-07:00

You can find The Plain Dealer News Desk site at Nightsiders blog. • You can reach the Rumors of Order Web site portal at www.fobes.net. • And here's where you can find the A Life in the Day, with some personal photos and literature-based posts.

More pictures from The Plain Dealer: My somewhat dated version of The Intern Web site. • And here we have some move-in pictures. • And let's not forget the TNG LOCAL 1 Web site.

THE ORIGINAL NOWHERE MAN

2004-10-01T23:05:00.000-07:00

THE LOST MAN
Originally uploaded by jonfobes.

We couldn't have a Rumors Forum without the image that tells us — without saying a word — that a person can lose himself to symbols, whether religious ones, like the apple, or cultural ones, like the typical British business outfit.

The point: Don't lose your identity to a hat or a piece of fruit. Believe it or not, you're more than that.

THE TROUBLE WITH RULES

2004-10-01T22:54:00.000-07:00

MANY RULES
Originally uploaded by jonfobes.

It's interesting that one little cartoon can point up the problem with rules: Unless they're the ones you love or fear, they can seem quite arbitrary — even silly.

A wonderful documentary called "Purity" accomplishes the same feat. Sundance runs it sometimes. Check out this link to read more about "Purity."

The Age of Faith

2004-09-26T16:46:00.000-07:00

“The life of the mind is a composition of two forces: the necessity to believe in order to live, and the necessity to reason in order to advance. In ages of poverty and chaos the will to believe is paramount, for courage is the one thing needful; in ages of wealth the intellectual powers come to the fore as offering preferment and progress. Consequently a civilization passing from poverty to wealth tends to develop a struggle between reason and faith, a ‘warfare of science with theology.’ In this conflict, philosophy, dedicated to seeing life whole, usually seeks a reconciliation of opposites, a mediating peace, with the result that it is scorned by science and suspected by theology.”

— “The Age of Faith,” Will Durant

This is all we need to know

2004-09-25T20:18:00.000-07:00

“If my travels, if my books have meaning — if geography itself has significance — it is that we are made to lift our eyes from our own small, provincial selves to the whole complex and magnificent world.”

— Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890) explorer, trying to shake the London geographical society out of its prideful, practical and provincial views on exploration

"Answering Only to God"

2004-09-25T17:38:00.000-07:00

“Answering only to God: Faith and Freedom in Twenty-First Century Iran,” by Geneive Abdo and Jonathan Lyons gets at the problems Popper speculated about in “The Open Society and Its Enemies.”

“Answering Only to God” is billed as, “An inside look at the battle for faith and power in today’s Iran.” And we get a brief history lesson:

“In 1979, Islamic revolutionaries set out to create a new kind of state from the ashes of the Shah’s U.S. backed monarchy — one that was both religious and democratic. But the result was the modern world’s first theocracy, an authoritarian state run by conservative clerics.

“Hope emerged … with the landslide election of President Mohammed Khatami in 1997. Like Islamic reformers throughout history, Khatami argued that the needs of modern Muslims could be met if reason and rationality were introduced into the practice of the faith. His ideas energized parts of the Muslim world yearning for free expression, the rule of law, religious and political tolerance, and increased participation among women and minorities.”

The book goes on to explain how the writers “found themselves chronicling the collapse of this republican leader under the weight of Iran’s religious and social traditions.” Should Iran be a Muslim state ruled by clerics or a republican state ruled by the people? “Unable to resolve this conflict, the clerical establishment has come to rely on repression to maintain power,” shattering the dreams of millions of Iranians who want a state that’s both religious and free.

End of excerpt.

And so that’s the problem: How do you have a state that’s both religious and free? You don’t if you’re “Answering only to God.” Instead of decrying all the problems of the open society, the devout American should remember where his religious freedom comes from: the open society. We seem to be drifting away from this crucial understanding. In short, the Bush presidency is the closest thing to a theocracy I’ve ever experienced in my 53 years of being an American.

Even the most devout believer has to assume at least some responsibilty as a guardian of freedom and friend of the open society.

You're allowed to rant

2004-09-24T17:07:00.000-07:00

In answer to Haki's question across the News Desk: Yes, you're allowed to rant in this forum. You can rant under your own name, under some clever screen name ... or even anonymously. Whatever you're comfortable with.

I reserve the right to delete racist, sexist or otherwise offensive messages. But since we're all adults, I won't have to.

Closed systems in the open society

2004-09-24T11:38:00.000-07:00

Karl Popper believed that the closed society gives certainty regarding unseen powers and ultimate outcomes. However, in the open society belief in magical, unseen forces takes a back seat to thoughtful discussion, which includes an endless critique of all theories, philosophies, systems and plans. The open society values thought over belief; it values group discussion over the idea that some expert has concluded, once and for all, the secret to personal or societal success; the open society is practical and piecemeal — not sacred or utopian.

And so a problem: It would seem to me that the devout believer struggles with his or her existence in the open society. That society, which gives them freedom of belief, also threatens it; it always tends toward a dangerous erosion of all their sacred truths. Therefore, the devout person must perform a balancing act, which the secular person can avoid.

So, how far does the devout person go in his fight against the open society; how far does he go in threatening the very basis of the freedom to believe? How hard does he or she chip away at the foundation of freedom? Remember, the Baptists were very intent on supporting Virginia's early freedom-of-religion plan (which later became the blueprint for our Constitution) because they knew if there was any sort of state religion they would be barred from the forms of worship they so cherished, which is not to say that Jewish or Muslim groups would have objected but that other Christian groups would have barred the Baptists from their chosen practices. The Baptists, as Christians, were very concerned about Christian oppression. So that's the first irony.

And so the absolutists sided with the freedom people because the only place their closed views were protected was in the open society. And that's the second irony — and a pretty big one. The devout believer needs the open society every bit as much as the avowed secularist. Maybe more.

How I became a blogger

2004-09-24T10:43:00.000-07:00

I was very prejudiced against blogs and bloggers.

I didn’t want to be confused with a blogger because I didn’t want people think that all the items on my Web site began, “Got up this morning. Made some coffee.” In other words, the blogs I’d seen were nothing more than on-line journals; each entry started off totally boring and went downhill from there. I wrote things that took hours or days, not minutes. (Unfortunately, this doesn't mean they're not boring, too.)

Then in the span of one week bloggers uncovered the CBS blunder in regards George Bush and his military service — or lack thereof. Then there was the buzz surrounding The Plain Dealer Mystery Blogger. What’s that?

After the 4:30 meeting Monday or Tuesday Jeff Greene and Margie Frazer were talking about … well, I couldn’t tell what they were talking about! “And this is in reference to what?” And that’s when they told me a PD employee (we assume) had published a blog, anonymously, rating some of the columnists, taking pot shots at bosses and speculating about who might get what job.

By the time Jeff sent me a link, the blog had already gone down; all that was left was a snapshot Google had taken earlier in the day — or perhaps even the day before. But it got me thinking about blogs, and I saw Kim Moy looking at the Blogspot Web site and realized how easy it was to make an on-line forum. And in 24 hours (with the help of flickr, an on-line photo service), I set up the “Nightsiders” blog for the News Desk.

It can be found at: http://nightsiders.blogspot.com/

Then last night after work I set up The Rumors of Order forum, based on the same black template the PD blogger used.

So thanks to CBS for making a big mistake, and thanks to the Mystery Blogger for basing his forum on Blogspot. And thanks for curing me of my prejudice against blogging. One other thing: Using Blogspot and flickr doesn’t cost a cent! And it’s easy — very easy.

The funny upshot of this whole thing is that some misguided PD people speculate that I was the Mystery Blogger, but those who have worked with me know better; they know I have never interested myself in behind-the-scenes stuff. I don’t know who’s getting what job where — I can’t even keep track of who’s doing what on the News Desk from day to day! I couldn't even remember the typeface for "The Price of Poverty" logo!

Anyway, this is how I became a blogger without really trying.

Introduction

2004-09-23T21:32:00.000-07:00

The Rumors of Order Forum is a place to talk about belief.

It's a place to ...

1. Share ideas.

2. Explain and defend your belief system.

3. Stick up for your secular viewpoint.

4. Show me the error of my ways.

5. React to anything on the Rumors of Order Web site, which can be found at www.fobes.net

6. Make us aware of interesting books, essays, articles, lectures, TV specials, movies, documentaries — whatever might deepen our understanding of philosophy, psychology, religion, literature or the arts ... and inspire us in our efforts to better understand the nature of belief and the consequences of certainty.

7. Or to discuss any idea or topic because it all comes back to belief one way or another — your judgment about what matters most.

Just click the "comment" button and start typing.