Free Speech - Or Not!

 OK, this is mostly last minute this time, since the meeting is tonight.  Sorry about that, but I've been distracted but trying to come up with a good topic for tonight's meeting.  I'll let you decide if this is a good one.

To find source material for tonight's meeting I pulled out my copy of Barnet and Bedeau's classic book, Current Issues and Enduring Questions, 4th Ed.  I see the current copies are 10th editions.  Lucky you.  Anyway, there is a section called "What are the bounds of free speech?" which includes excerpts from Plato, John Stuart Mill, the reversal of a Vietnam war protester's "disturbing the peace" conviction in California for wearing a jacket with the words "F*** The Draft" by the US Supreme Court, and 2 sections on pornography as a form of free speech.  I recommend reading all of them, but I will highlight a couple to get our discussion going.

Plato argues in "The Republic" that children not be taught stories about the gods that show their immoral or willfully evil natures, because this will form ideas in the minds of the children that immoral and nasty acts are OK.  The gods do them, right?  Rather, we should teach children stories of heroism, right actions and right relations, so they grow up knowing right from wrong and wanting to to do the right thing.  It is a form of censorship that intends to improve the children involved.  Plato specifically calls out poets and writers of plays who use stories or tales that glorify nastiness or treachery, torture and infidelity, etc..  The old tales, especially about the gods, where sons kill or castrate fathers, and more, are not good stories for children, especially.  People should not be free to talk about such things.  -  Maybe this is mild stuff in today's world, but I get the feeling that this was very important to the Greeks.

In the case of the protester's suit, the decision by John Marshall Harlan, speaking for the 6-3 majority in this case, reverse the earlier CA convictions on the grounds of the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and 14th amendments (Section 1 shown):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The court upheld the right of the defendant to peacefully display his jacket, inciting no disturbance or physical altercation, but only displaying his displeasure with the draft.  In fact, the court papers report that he did nothing aggressive, and was actually verbally silent during his arrest.  Granted this was in 1968, just as tensions were about to reach their peak, and he displayed his jacket in the San Francisco city courtrooms and hallways trying to provoke a response, which all played into the game he was playing.  

The last section on pornography and obscenity is a reasoned discussion between 2 perspectives that are not totally at odds.  Both respect the physical acts involved, with one stating that this is always the exploitation of the female participant (when present).  The arguments include the idea that this behavior is intended to shock the viewer, but concludes that public sex has been around for millennia, and in many ways it has lost the shock value it might have had.   The cure, they state, is when the viewer is bored and simply walks away.  It is also political, since pornography is a socially subversive activity that works to break down our social institutions and norms.  Calls for censorship come from many sides of the political spectrum, which touch on the idea of free speech and free acts.  

The second article quotes Chief Justice Warren Berger, when he said:

To equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom.  It is a misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press.

This came on the heels of calls for burning books like James Joyce's Ulysses, and works of Henry Miller, and many others.  The author goes on to describe pornography as inherently degrading to women, and is in no way "art" or "free speech".  She goes on to point out the many ways the justices on the Supreme Court have been conflicted and inconsistent in their interpretation of obscene materials, and their failure to adequately define what constitutes "hard core" and "patently offensive" obscene images, among others.

We have come through a recent season of political abandonment of facts and truth, in favor of imaginary facts and politically expedient statements.  Can these be justified as "free speech" or are lies in another category of obscene dialogue?

What would it take?

 I read a lot of science fiction literature.  Some of it is escapist drivel, but not much.  I prefer what is called "hard" science fiction, where the author takes pains to keep the developments and technology believable, with Einstein's laws mostly obeyed.  Faster than light travel might be quicker if you need your protagonists to get from star system to star system in less than double-digit year timeframes, but movement through space should have some sort of limit, am I right?

One of the series I enjoy involves the development of a communication system that is instantaneous throughout the galaxy, or seemingly so.  The story plays out over decades so the people can get far enough apart in space to make the story interesting, but the communications allow them to stay in touch in a sort of internet-like way.  What this means is that trouble in one place can be shared with everyone everywhere, in real time.  Ideas can be shared, with action taken by those close enough to do something about it.  Maybe it is helping a sentient species out of an environmental problem, or how to thwart the evil intentions of a diabolical race of devils.  The connectivity of everything makes it all work.

Which brings me to this week's BQ.  In our modern global world where things are connected by images, video, and words, where we can see what is happening essentially everywhere as never before, people are connected in the same way.  In the electronic world we live in, is shutting down an aggressor by denying them access to bank accounts, the commercial world of buying and selling things, including foodstuffs they make and buy, enough?  Can we shut down an aggressor to the extent that the people  will put a stop to the war?  Can a corrupt government be stopped through isolation of this kind?

Could a wall of economic isolation put up around a nation be enough to defeat it?

Could denial of internet, banking, economic sanctions, travel, and so forth be enough to convince a dictator to stop his expansionistic plans?  

Ambiguous Loss

 Meeting Date:  February 18

Two of our BQ regulars suggested we discuss the topic, Ambiguous Loss.  Originally they referred me to a New York Times article on the subject, which discussed and quoted Dr. Pauline Boss, the originator of the idea, which I read.  Now, I am not a mental health therapist or psychologist of any sort, only a simple philosopher.  I was asked, however, to lead the discussion, so here is my attempt to do so. 

The first link above is for a dedicated website to this topic supplied by Dr. Boss, and it includes a video of her explaining the idea, where it came from, and how it has formed the basis of her life's work.  Additional tabs take the site visitor to different areas that explain and expand on the ideas she has developed, and some offer access to training and other resources if someone really wanted to take the Deep Dive into this topic.  I have not taken the training, so I can't comment on it.  You can suit yourself, I suppose.

The key idea is that some relationships end without a closure that allows an emotional end to the relationship.  If a romantic relationship ends where one partner just walks away, that might be an example.  Or if a parent dies in some distant place, of if they pass away from dementia or Alzheimer's, then the slipping away does not happen in a way that a final goodbye conversation can occur.  The best way to wrap your head around the topic is to click on the links and read more about it.

(Note:  Jane E. Brody is the author of several articles in the NYT on this topic, and she references conversations and resources from many sources.  I signed up for a NYT account as several people have been sending me links to articles there, and I have exceeded my limit on free access.  $1/week.  I can afford that.)

Special Note:  Scheduling.  I apologize for moving this meeting forward a week, but it turns out that we have a conflict for 2/25.  I hope we don't get to many folks missing the change.

Stardust and the Big Bang

 In recent Sunday services the idea that everything we know about the Universe and all its contents arose at the time of the Big Bang, and with the expansion of matter into an empty cosmos, the flinging about of elements and energy has created the environment we see and experience.  Stars, suns, planets, moons, galaxies, and so forth are all products of this original act of creation, so that the matter of which we are composed is just "the stuff of stars," hence we are made from stardust.

This Big Bang idea is on every philosopher's List of  Big 10 Key Questions.  Ethics, consciousness, meaning of life, life after death, and so forth make up the whole list, but first among them is the question, essentially, Where did we come from?  If you click on the link just shared you will find a website where everyday people (non-philosophers) ask life's hard questions, and philosophy students and instructors answer them in as common a language as can be managed, to make the answers "understandable."  In the Ivory Tower of the university the modes of speech can become quite jargonistic, especially so in philosophy, so the effort of making the key ideas accessible is welcome.

If you click through to the discussion of the Big Bang on this website there are a series of questions posed by people that are answered, and I think in a main-stream sort of way, exposing what is known and thought by most philosophers.  Key ideas, for me, are the presumption that the expansion of the universe after the BB was into a nothingness of empty space, that the eternal expansion of the cosmos will continue (pending the influence of dark matter and expansion-curbing gravity), and the concept that there was no possibility of the existence of time before the BB.  Many of these topics are addressed in a very accessible way in the novel mr. g by Alan Lightman, which I think I mentioned before.  He uses the concept of god as an eternal, all powerful being who is behind it all, but he doesn't control its every action.

That we are made of the stuff of stars seems indisputable.  What other stuff is there?  That we inhabit a planet were life developed and grew is self evident.  That some of us developed consciousness, which feels like something other than a purely physical thing (like most of life feels), which gives rise to philosophy.  So there you have it - the circle of existence explained in a few simple sentences.

What is Spontaneous?

 Meeting Date:  21 January 2022

Let's pick a question from the list below.  I hope to see you there.

Desmond

Meditations on a New Year

 Meeting Date:  January 7, 2022  7:00 pm

I ran across the following writing in a book on meditations by Robert Walsh.  (The link to the info is below).  As it touches on a couple of my favorite topics, which are 1) everything we do in life matters, somehow and in ways we often cannot know, and 2) the meanings of our lives arise from the summation of our connections and relationships, especially with ourselves, but also with everyone we ever come into contact with.  

The story told here is an elegant way of getting at these same concepts, and includes the idea that we have control of those relationships.  Taking stock of where we are in our life's story at the start of a new year is a good idea, but taking stock continuously, every day, makes just as much sense.  

I often tell my golfing partners that the most important conversation they will have during the round is the one they will have with themselves.  I've played with people who swear at themselves over a disappointing shot, and others that take it all in stride.  Who has the better conversation, and who ultimately enjoys the day more?  Six months from now I doubt I will remember our scores, but I will certainly remember your attitude when we played, and how much fun we had together.  It pays to think about such things.

It Matters

I knew a man who had printed on his stationery this proverb: "Nothing is settled.  Everything matters."  It established a certain ambiance for reading his letters, as if to say:  what you are about to read is to be taken seriously, but is not final.

I remember him and his proverb sometimes, especially when it seems impossible to change the world or myself in any significant way.  Times like the beginnings of new years.

"Sorry, Jim," I say.  "It's not true that nothing is settled.  In the past year choices have been made, losses have been suffered, there has been growth and decay, there have been commitments and betrayals.  None of that can be undone.  A year ago no one knew whether during this year one person would become pregnant, another would get cancer, another would take a new job, another would have an accident, but now it is all settled.

"One day this year I was present just when someone needed me, another day I was busy doing something else when I was needed.  One day I said something to a friend that injured our relationship, another day I said something that enabled a person to see life in a new way.  The best and the worst of those days is now written.  All my tears, of joy and sorrow, cannot erase it."

If I stay with my meditation long enough the reply comes. "Robbie," says Jim, "You have misunderstood the proverb.  It is true that you cannot escape the consequences of your actions or the chances of the world.  But what is not settled is how the story turns out.  What is not settled is what the meaning of your life will be."

The meaning of a life is not contained within one act, or one day, or one year. As long as you are alive the story of your life is still being told, and the meaning is still open. As long as there is life in the world, the story of the world is still being told. What is done is done, but nothing is settled.

And if nothing is settled, then everything matters. Every choice, every act in the new year matters. Every word, every deed is making the meaning of your life and telling the story of the world. Everything matters in the year coming, and, more importantly, everything matters today.

Source: "Noisy Stones: a Meditation Manual"

 

Impossible Questions

 A participant to BQ sent me a list of "Impossible Questions" that we may want to consider for our discussion forum.  Most of these look like questions we have discussed before, but perhaps not in the same phrasing as posed below.  Still, they seem current and important topics to discuss.  Let's pick one and see where it goes.

• Does fate exist?
• Does an ideal government exist?
• Does life have a reason?
• Are there limitations on free speech?
• Are we a minuscule part of intelligent life in the universe?
• Does free will exist, or is every action predetermined?
• What is human consciousness?
• Why do we do things we do not like to do?
• Do atheists make their own gods?
• Can artificial intelligence be creative?
• If judgment is for God, why do we pass judgment?
• Can religious beliefs affect scientific thinking?
• Will a world without reliance on modern technology make any progress?
• Is human potential capable of anything?
• Is death a new beginning?
• Why does God not intervene when evil takes root in people?
• Does belief make God exist?
• Will robots take over the world in the future?
• Does the path to salvation lie within us?
• Are beliefs and superstitions the same?
• Are we the biggest threat to humanity?
• Do parallel universes exist?
• How does one find purpose in life?
• If aliens attack, what will we do?