If This, Then………………..

                                                                        If This, Then…….

                                                                       by Marco M. Pardi

 Note: All comments are appreciated, read, and responded to accordingly.  The comments sections for all previous articles have been opened for use.  I will certainly look forward to your comments.

“Since proofs need premises, it is impossible to prove anything unless some things are accepted without proof.”  Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). The Faith of a Rationalist. 1947.

“A mind all logic is like a knife all blade.   It makes the hand bleed that uses it.” Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) Stray Birds, 193, 1914.

In my early schooling numbers intimidated me.  It was not until I was in the military and began using my free time to read academic books – admittedly a risky environment for that pursuit, that I found logic texts which clarified for me that numbers only signify relative powers.  Deeply embedded in a system of relative powers, the military, that epiphany opened my universe.

The applications of logic go far beyond simple syllogisms, even beyond the means to understand and, if necessary solve those once daunting mathematical formulae.  Logic informs the structure of grammar, and thereby provides insight into the mind utilizing that structure to convey an idea.  An example I use in teaching potential crisis counselors is as follows:

There are three fundamental characters of expressed thought:

Rational – statement of fact supported by evidence.

Non-Rational – statement of fact resting on unsupported supposition.

Irrational – incoherent presentation of unconnected morphemes.

Many people engaged in an argument either employ or find themselves the object of the claim of being irrational.  This tactic of desperation arises when one side sees its arguments fail to change or convince the other side.  Objective analysis will show there was nothing incoherent and unconnected in the presentation of the opponent; the accuser is simply lamenting his or her own failure to change the opposing narrative.  Thus, Irrational is inappropriate to our discussion.

A Rational investigation of a fatal one car accident, D (death) works backward to C (conditions, as verified by time, meteorology, etc) to B (driver’s behavior, as evidenced from the scene) to A (antecedent circumstances such as recent argument with significant other, ingestion of intoxicants, etc.) and forms a Conclusion.

A Non-Rational investigation of the same event may, and often does, completely agree with the Discovery and Conclusion of the Rational investigation but it appends a Non-Rational ultimate causation: “It was God’s will” or “God called him home” thus making the medical examiner into a retrospective haruspex, specially trained to examine the entrails of the case and divine God’s will.  It is Non-Rational only because it is an unsupported supposition; there should be no claim it is inherently false.  There is simply no objective evidence to support its truth.

A primary focus, then, in any discussion with another person, regardless of topic, should be the discovery of “where the person’s coming from”.  Rational or Non-Rational?  Most of us employ a Boolean algorithm – a system of logical thought developed by the English mathematician, George Boole (1815-64), to varying degree in our thinking process. Basically, this system seeks the power relationships of concepts and provides a bridge to an outcome: If this, then that; if that, then…and so on.  As epistemology makes clear, a common failure is that of not questioning the initial If this – the initial premise. 

This failure to question the initial premise often cascades toward unfortunate outcomes.  Military historians I have read agree WWII in Europe most likely would have ended 10 months sooner than it did had serious questions been directed at General Eisenhower’s (Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe) initial premise.  After the successful liberation of France Field Marshal Montgomery, in the north, and General Patton, in the south, proposed a pincer movement on Berlin to decapitate Nazi Germany. Eisenhower refused the option and ordered a uniform advance across Europe, premising his objection on the difficulties of rear guard action even should the pincer succeed.  However, even staff officers at the time felt his true concern was that the British might reach Berlin first, allowing them to take the bulk of the credit for ending the war in Europe.

The unfortunate outcome?  10 months of greatly accelerated, 24/7 feeding of concentration camp prisoners into Germany’s Final Solution – the crematories;  the Soviet takeover of most of Central Europe, including about half of Germany; and, the displacement of millions fleeing ahead of what Churchill would call “The Iron Curtain”.  A Rationally based decision, or Non-Rationally based?

In the Far East George Marshall refused to support Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader of China, against an ill equipped, vastly outnumbered and nearly defeated guerrilla leader named Mao Tze-dung.  His premise?  Such support would be costly inasmuch as Chiang was considered not a very able leader.  The outcome?  The emergence of a growing super-power that supported North Korea’s invasion of South Korea a few years later; the slaughter and forced labor deaths of millions of Chinese; Chinese support for North Viet Nam’s invasion of South Viet Nam; and, the emergence of an economic power which all but holds the mortgage on the United States.  Rationally based, or Non-Rationally based?

I’ve written elsewhere about the “Domino Theory” and its disastrous outcomes for SouthEast Asia.  But a new Domino Theory has emerged centering on same sex marriage.  The claims about same sex marriage range from “will destroy the sanctity of marriage” to “will destroy traditional marriage” to “What will come next is marrying your pet”.

What about that sanctity?  In the early 1970’s two students (heterosexual) asked me to marry them.  When I explained I had no power to do so they rectified that by paying the entire costs for me to be made a Notary Public in the State of Florida.  They wrote the vows, choreographed the ceremony, and rented a hall for the families and friends – Catholic and Baptist.  They billed it as a Zen wedding.  Quite a crowd, awed by the solemnity and gravitas, by the huge text I held in my hands (my Paleontology text with the cover papered over), yet following every movement of what they were sure was a Zen ceremony.  But the ultimate fact of the matter came after the kisses and procession; I stepped into a side office with the couple and the witnesses and had them sign the State legal document which I then signed,  clamped and stamped.  The takeaway lesson was that the State could not care less had they been married by the Pope with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing back-up; without a duly sworn officer of the State certifying the wedding there was no marriage.

The wedding is the formalization of a contract between two parties, no different from buying and registering a car.  Proof of this secular pudding comes at divorce time.  One sues for divorce, citing reason(s) the contract has been broken. No priest, rabbi, shaman or even Notary Public can execute a divorce;  attorneys mediate a negotiated agreement for termination of the contract and a judge reviews and approves, with rights to modify it or vacate it entirely.

Several people did come to me later to comment on the sanctity of the Zen ceremony, having never seen one.  In the spirit (so to speak) of the event I did not “enlighten” them that they had yet to see one.

Clearly, the State held a Rational view of marriage while it is likely that many in attendance that day held a Non-Rational view; that is, that some earthly representative of a non-physical entity they did not understand but toward which they had numinous feeling intoned Words of Power over two young people who were somehow powerless otherwise to make their contract real.  Magic in the air. Legal paperwork in the room off stage.

Once the County Clerk’s office learned I could perform these functions in several languages I responded to quite a few calls.  But when it dawned on me that I was getting people into something I could not get them out of I stopped.

And what of the much trumpeted threat to traditional marriage?   Returning to simple basics, the appellation “traditional”, the initial premise of the claim,  has seldom been questioned.  Heterosexual marriage has claimed primacy by several contributing factors, none of which have any basis in sexuality:

1. In every society homosexuals have been a minority;
2. In many societies, past and current, homosexuality has been proscribed by custom or law thus making self-declared advocacy evidence of culpability;

3. In those societies which have decriminalized homosexuality laws are only now being passed to legalize homosexual marriage.

So, saying heterosexual marriage is traditional and therefore correct is like saying Whites, by virtue of accredited levels of education, must be smarter than Blacks.  This overlooks the history of preventing Blacks from receiving education and the roadblocks to getting educated even through the early years of admission to decent schools.

Indeed, heterosexual marriage has traditionally been the refuge, the cover for homosexuals.  In the 1970’s I knew two men and one woman who, long enrolled in heterosexual marriages, announced their truth, divorced and moved in with their lovers.  One of the men had fathered six children.

It also reminds me of (and I’m historically interpreting here) White people saying if Blacks were allowed to ride the busses it would destroy public transportation. As far as I know, no bus has ever broken down because it had a Black rider.  In the same way, I am confident there will not be a noticeable spike in heterosexual divorces because same sex marriage is now legal.

In looking at our social discourse it is hard to say if the cart is before the horse, the horse before the cart, or if they are sliding down the hill side by side.  Clearly Non-Rational populist religious leaders and politicians abound. One noteworthy political party is a born again hybrid. But are they driving the masses to Non-Rational thought and action, or are the masses pushing them forward as their spokespersons?  Symbiosis in Nature is mutually beneficial.  Symbiosis in this case is universally dangerous to all.

I refuse to engage in discussions which are glibly founded on unquestioned premises.  Such discussions are the Siren songs, luring us happily and hopefully to the rocks of our destruction.  And, yes, if that last sentence sounds like an If this, then that, I fully acknowledge it and will defend accordingly.