Reaction

                                                                        Reaction

                                                                by Marco M. Pardi 

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Newton‘s Third Law of motion.

All comments welcome.

When I was very young I took interest in the doctor smacking my knee with his reflex hammer.  Born lacking the gene: Respect for Authority, I determined to spoil his fun.  I would control my knee to give no reaction.  After many years I did succeed in reducing, if not eliminating that reaction.  But for far too long I failed to recognize the broader application: showing no reaction to the other kids who taunted me for being “foreign”.  Each time they acted I reacted, giving them exactly what they wanted.  Oh, perhaps sometimes something other than what they wanted, but who’s counting.

Now, so many decades later I can look back on a broad history of my own reactions and the reactions of groups and whole societies to the actions, real or perceived, smacking us somewhere.

Very early in martial arts training I learned that an explosive shout at your opponent caused in them an involuntary tightening of his/her muscles, making the distributed impact of your about to be delivered blow much more severe.  Sounded plausible, but I can’t recall a single instance of ever having used it.

Later, in school debates I learned, “Never argue with a fool; they cannot see your point no matter how clearly you make it.” I have forgotten that lesson at times, actually far too often for my liking.  Recently, with the expansion of social media we are confronted many times daily with action in the form of some written comments or diatribe which seem to cry out for a reaction.  A visit to a chatroom or message board assures us there will always be someone to pick up the gauntlet, and another to throw a different one, and so on.  It seems endless.

And, opponents can be quickly assessed by the speed with which they descend to argumentum ad hominem, all too common in the now pervasive cyber world where people can hide behind screen names or “anon”. 

But even in the real world of face to face meetings there can be pitfalls and trapdoors.  I’ve written elsewhere of an episode during my time in Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Response when, in a meeting of my agency with the CEOs of internationally known Non-Governmental Agencies I clearly stated what I saw were two very serious omissions in their contingency planning.  I was roundly denounced for my ideas. A short time later Katrina happened. An unknown but likely substantial number of deaths occurred that could be attributed to failure to act on my warnings.  The outcome for me was severe career damage. Why?  Because I “made” someone else – power brokers, in this case, wrong. 

I admit I did not see that coming.  But even if I had, would I have reacted to my discoveries differently?  I like to think I would not have.  I do not mind causing someone distress when they hold to a position which is clearly incorrect, though I usually try to shape the realization to make it “theirs”.  But I cannot abide other people paying the price for someone’s refusal to alter their views.  Lesson learned. Standing up for someone or something makes you a bigger target.

I’ve made naive reactions before.  In a methodology class taught by a very self-important instructor he was explaining the use of a concealed tape-recorder and mentioned that certain actions depleted the batteries quickly, but he did not know why.  “Being helpful”, I blurted out the reason.  I got no Thank you, or That’s interesting.  Just a baleful stare.  Only whispers from fellow students, You just screwed yourself.

So maybe mentioning the reason for battery depletion was, as the current saying goes, TMI – too much information.  Probably.  But striving for understanding and the precise behaviors which should flow from that is a hard habit to break.  Today, I might have used a computer to send an anonymous message to him with my information.   

It seems I have reacted for many years by speaking out, even to the extent of subsequently being asked to engage in formal debates with live and/or radio and television audiences numbering in the thousands.  In earlier years my brother often cautioned social gatherings with, “Don’t get into a debate with Marco.  You won’t understand what he says, but you’ll love how he says it.”  Well, that’s nice.  But if the conveyance of substance is the point, it hardly makes sense to concentrate just on form.  I hear the immortal words of the Sheriff in Cool Hand Luke, “Whut we have heah is a failure to communicate.”

So I have debated on a number of topics before large audiences, always trying to ensure my substance is understood.  Doing that requires clear specification of terms, leaving no opportunity for miscommunication based on someone incorrectly presuming my meaning.  It did not take long to discover that many people have no patience for establishing clarity; many people come to a debate with their minds made up and only waiting to hear “their side” score points.  Consequently, I reduced my profile considerably.

A few years ago I was asked to give a presentation to a meeting of the American Free Thought Society (“Free thinkers”) on the subject of non-corporeal existence, or consciousness after physical death.  Having some time before making a commitment, I quietly attended a few meetings of this society.  And, it took only a few meetings to realize they were living with a misnomer: they should call themselves the American Closed Thought Society.        

Quotations from their Scriptural literature, composed by the Saints Francis Crick, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and The Amazing James Randi floated like, dare we say it, evangelical gospels (“good news”) over the congregants of the new religion of Scientism; a religion since the pronounced dearth of scientific understanding in this group left them no choice but reliance on faith. 

I realized a presentation, no matter how well grounded in Formal Logic and permeated with clear examples of veridical evidence would only be my appearance as the piñata for their self congratulatory amusement.  I declined the request.

Keeping this in balance, I’ve also done some media and public appearances for groups devoted to “spirituality” and “alternative” views.  But here again I made the mistake of assuming the audiences would welcome demonstrations of logic and clarity which would bolster their arguments with strict materialists.  Wrong.  “Puts you to sleep”, “doesn’t really know science”, “depressingly skeptical” are typical of many comments – when anyone bothers to make them, following these efforts.  Clearly, the hope was for someone to come in with a litany of new “woo-woo” stories, not a measured and careful analysis of stories already in common circulation.

Thus, having said all this, I’m out of the public arena.  I suppose that’s my reaction.  But I was never convinced that even the best prepared formal debate, or presentation did much to change views.  On the contrary, audiences are more often waiting for the dog whistle tuned to their favored pitch.

I will continue writing this blog because I very much enjoy doing so.  And, more than anything else, I enjoy the comments provided by others.  My greetings to all readers, and I look forward to your comments.