In the three previous installments I discussed why I felt the need to write The Jesus Conundrum book (now available on www.amazon.com as well as www.trafford.com) and why it is important for our society to heed the essence of Jesus’ message if it wants to avoid meltdown into complete chaos. Yet, I was also fully aware that our society simply is not ready for metanoia, which is the Greek word used in the New Testament for repentance. We have here another example of how words when translated into another language which demands that only one meaning be taken from several possible ones can lead to false thinking and thereby either wrong action or inaction. Anyone who tells Americans that they need to repent of past conduct will be looked askance and might even be regarded as a religious fanatic. We are, after all, if we listen to our leadership, the paragons of virtue whose “freedoms” need to be exported even to countries which don’t particularly hanker after them. Anyone who casts doubt on this stance is likely to be branded as un-American and possibly even as lending aid to our enemies. But metanoia, as explained in the previous issue, need not be confined to a religious context, it can be taken in its literal meaning of: to rethink, to reconsider.

            Serious thought, although essential for future conduct, is, however, at present a rare commodity in American life. Instead one finds mindless repetition of political or religious slogans, which in the latter case are called dogmas. This goes to the extent that if one knows a given person’s party or religious affiliation one can readily predict the opinions which will be expressed. Dissension from official dogma, regardless whether it is political or religious, can only safely be expressed against the opponents of one’s party or faith. Freedom of speech is only tolerated within these limits. We have thereby drifted into Humpty Dumpty type thinking without even realizing what has happened.

            The nursery rhyme:

“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men

Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again”

is, of course, known to everyone whose childhood was spent in English speaking countries. Originally in the early 1800s it served as a riddle why this should have been impossible. The answer was that one was talking about an egg. But it was Charles Dodgson who provided us with Humpty Dumpty’s essential characteristics. Before explaining those it is of interest to know a little more about the author and why he found it necessary to publish under the pseudonym Lewis Carroll.

            Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (1832-1898), the scion of a long line of  Anglican clerics, was raised in a small parsonage but subsequently went to Oxford’s Christ Church College and was expected to follow into the father’s footsteps with a clerical carreer. His interests and ambitions lay, however, elsewhere because he was a gifted mathematician, writer as well as photographer. Although he remained at Oxford as Lecturer in Mathematics for the rest of his life he was rather bored by it and enjoyed more playing with words, puzzles and acrostics. The stories which are now known as Alice in Wonderland and which dealt with the dreams of a little girl had some external precipitant. The Dean of the College, Henry Liddell, with whom Dodgson was friendly had three daughters whom Dodgson intermittently took out on rowing excursions. It was on one of these that the thought, which would later on become his most famous stories, occurred to him. When he first told them to Alice, the youngest of the three, she begged him to write it down for her. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland became an instant literary as well as commercial success and was followed in 1871 by: Through the Looking Glass.  

            While Alice had entered her adventurous dream wonderland through a rabbit hole, she met Humpty Dumpty on her trip through a mirror. Let me now paraphrase the beginning and then follow it up with an extensive quote. Alice had been to a store, which was tended by a shape-shifting sheep, and wanted to buy an egg. The sheep insisted, however, that two eggs were cheaper than one but under the condition that she had to eat both of them. Alice opted for one and tried to reach for the egg but it got larger and larger, more human, and then assumed the well known form of Humpty Dumpty who sat crossleged on top of a narrow high wall making remarks which did not relate to her. At that point Alice softly recited the above mentioned rhyme except that the last line read, “Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty in his place again.” This was followed by:

“’That last line is much too long for the poetry,’ she added almost out loud, forgetting that Humpty Dumpty would hear her.

‘Don’t stand chattering to yourself like that,’ Humpty Dumpty said, looking at her for the first time, ‘but tell me your name and your business.’

                        ‘My name is Alice, but – ‘

                        ‘It’s a stupid name enough !’ Humpty Dampty interrupted impatiently. ‘What does it mean?’

                        ‘Must a name mean something?’ Alice asked doubtfully.

                        ‘Of course it must.’ Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh: ‘my name means the shape I am–and a good handsome shape it is too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.‘”

            Alice didn’t want to argue so she changed the subject but the point to be made is clear. Humpty Dumpty is a proud character who lectures everybody on everything and who is always right as will be apparent in the next excerpt. But Dodgson played a trick on us, which has probably eluded the majority of casual readers, when he had Humpty Dumpty refer to Alice’s name as “stupid enough” and that, “with a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.” While the average reader might assume that Alice’s changing shape from that of a normal child to a very small or extra large one was the sufficient explanation for that statement Dodgson had a more profound thought in mind. The name, Alice, does have meaning and it does deserve Humpty Dumpty’s derisive dismissal when one looks at the world only on his terms. Alice is derived from Alicia, which in turn is the anglicized version of Aletheia–Truth. Thus, when  Dodgson repeatedly denied that Alice Liddell was indeed the model for his stories he was correct because the Liddell Alice was only one form of the universal truth of childhood he tried to convey in the dream imagery. It is equally obvious now that a character, as portrayed in Humpty Dumpty, could find no possible use for it except possibly as the assumption of different forms.

            The conversation continued with Humpty Dumpty correcting Alice at every turn and taking each one of her comments literally. After he had informed her that un-birthdays are infinitely more important than birthdays, the following exchange took place:

“’… that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents–‘

‘Certainly,’  said Alice.

‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’

‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”’ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t–till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’

‘But “glory” doesn’t mean a “nice knock-down argument,”’ Alice objected.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master–that’s all.’”

This is indeed the question for our time to which I shall return later. My private question, however, is: did Deacon Dodgson allow himself a spoof on John 1.1? Well educated trickster that he was I would not put it beyond him. Let us look at that quote as it exists in the King James Version which was authoritative in those days. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” As explained in The Jesus Conundrum this was, of course, a simplistic translation from the original Greek where logos was used in that sentence and which has a much broader meaning. The most relevant one in the current context would be: thought and reasoning power. Nevertheless, a gifted atheist might translate logos with story, fable or rumor and no one could contradict him because logos not only allows these meanings but many others. When the gospels were translated into Latin for dispersion throughout the Roman Empire the translator was, therefore, confronted with a difficult choice from all the potential meanings and settled on: In principio erat Verbum . . . . St. Jerome’s version (c. 347-420), the Vulgate, which was adopted as official by the Church, then elevated Verbum, word, when written in capital letters, to God. This was retained in all subsequent translations thereby creating no end of confusion, especially since spoken language does not distinguish between upper and lower case. The situation became even worse when Luther and his followers declared the Bible in its entirety as the inerrant word of God.

The deliberate misuse of words has a long history. In Faust a new student was advised, when paraphrased, “most of all rely on the master’s word, then you shall enter through the portals to certainty.” When the student objected that there ought to be a concept behind the word he was told, “don’t get all flustered over that. Precisely when there is no concept you’ll find a word. With words you can most eloquently argue, with words you can create any system you like, in words you can readily believe and you can’t even deprive a word of an i.” The latter was a pun in High German language because the letter “i” is spoken as iot (pronounced yot) and and “not even one iot” means: not even the slightest trifle. But Goethe was making an additional point; he castigated the battle over the i which defined the nature of Jesus among warring views, as explained in the Jesus book and the previous installment. The word homoousis, identical with God, versus homoiousis, similar to God,  had fractured the Catholic (universal) Church and the split persists to this day. Goethe, just like Dodgson, had a keen sense of  humor and put some of the most profound truths of daily life into the mouth of Mephistopheles, as exemplified above.

These were just some relatively more recent examples from the literature yet Humpty Dumpty type thinking goes all the way back to the times of Socrates. But when one familiarizes oneself with those days one comes to the remarkable conclusion that we know as little about the “real” or “historical” Socrates as we do about Jesus. There are three depictions of Socrates extant, that I am aware of, and one can pick and choose among them the one which best fits one’s preconceptions. There are no original publications by Socrates, just as there are none by Jesus, and all we know about these human beings is what others said about them.

Since I have previously discussed Jesus at length it may be useful to stay with Socrates for a moment because there are so many parallels with Plato’s account of him that one is tempted to wonder to what extent aspects of his Socrates might have served as a model for the Jesus of some of the gospel writers. But as mentioned there are two other views of Socrates; one by Xenophon and the other by Aristophanes. All were contemporaries and had known Socrates personally. While Xenophon, similar to Plato, exalts Socrates’ wisdom and defends him against the unjust accusations which had led to his judicial murder, he presents us with a more practical side of the man. His Socrates gives sage advice on matters of warfare, husbandry, and marital affairs. The social critic and satyrist Aristophanes on the other hand turns Socrates into a smug atheistic sophist from whom one can learn how to use language to overcome ones adversaries in legal matters regardless of the truth of the matter.

It is a pity that Aristophanes’ “The Clouds” are no longer shown on the stage or on TV because this is one of the most modern plays I have come across, although it was first performed in 423 B.C.. The Peloponnesian War had been going on for years and Athens had suffered a serious defeat at Delium in 424 which had led to a temporary truce with Sparta. Aristophanes had no use for that war and Cleon, who ruled the City-state at the time, was a frequent target of his sarcastic ire. But since there seemed to be peace on the horizon Aristophanes devoted The Clouds to the larger issues of society namely religion versus science and legalisms versus truthful speech. The reason of the protagonist, Strepsiades, for seeking out Socrates in “the thinkery” is to learn “wrong logic” so that he can get out of his debts. Although the play abounds with aspects that are specific to the times and locale its underlying message is reenacted in our days when words are again twisted out of context to serve private gain. It could readily be translated again in modern idiom to show our fellow citizens “what fools we mortals be.”

Let us now move from fith centry B.C. Athens to 21^st century America which finds itself embroiled in two wars and which, just like the Athenian one, were brought about by Hubris. Yet if one listens to our politicians and pundits they were forced upon us through sheer villainy of others. In additon, one gains the impression from TV commentators that the United States is about to succumb to terrorists at any moment unless we pour vast sums of money into this war on terrorism and enact even more stringent regulations on civilian travel than already exist. It can safely be predicted that when the next underwear, or whatever, suicide attempter arrives on the scene futher regulations will be imposed and if things go unchecked we might even get martial law, which some of our fellow citizens seem to look forward to.

I don’t deny for a moment that there are misguided people who want to blow themselves up and take as many innocent civilians with them as possible, but let there be some sanity. While reasonable precautions need to be taken and cooperation by international security organizations (such as Interpol and the various spy agencies) is essential, ordinary nail clippers or a toothpaste need not automatically be regarded as contraband and confiscated when one wants to board an airliner. Those of us who lived as adults through the sixties and seventies will remember the evil organization Thrush and people such as Goldfinger, Dr. No and other miscreants who threatended the world with disaster. It seems that these TV scripts are now serving as blueprints for political propaganda. The current arch-villain is Osama bin Laden although there is good reason to believe that he may actually already be dead and only his name is kept alive to provide credence for a variety of groups which now call themselves Al Qaeda affiliates. The purpose of all this is to frighten our citizenry and bring about a return from President Obama’s Internationalism and hankering after diplomatic solutions of our problems to the more robust Cheney-Bush years which, in the words of Senator McCain during the election campaign, will defeat evil. Since this has been tried with the same methods for millennia it hardly seems likely that going down the same road again will lead to a different result.

The sad state our country has come to as a result of Humpty Dumpty type thinking was again demonstrated last Wednesday during President Obama’s State of the Union Address to Congress. This annual spectacle of pomp and glory is apparently the closest America can come in imitation of past European splendor. A ritual has evolved, which surely was not what George Washington or Thomas Jefferson had in mind when the  Constitution was adopted. Its pupose was simple, namely to have the president of the country report ever so often, at a time of his choosing, the situation the country is in and what he intends to do about it. The fact that the time has become fixed doesn’t matter but it is the grand entrance that strikes a devotee of simple tastes as rather quaint. Various luminaries, such as members of the Cabinet, the Supreme Court and others are announced first. Then comes a pregnant pause and two worthy gentlemen appear. They head down half way to the center of the hall and then one announces “Madame Speaker,” addressed to Mrs. Pelosi as Speaker of the House, while the other, after another due pause, declares: “The President of the United States.” Whereupon among universal cheers and handclaps Mr. Obama emerges from the shadows where he had been patiently waiting to shake hands with some, embracing others, while he wends his way to the rostrum. Once arrived under continuing applause Mrs. Pelosi eventually pounds the gavel on the desk and announces again that the president has now arrived. This leads to another outburst of applause and when the president then tries to talk he can’t do so because of unending new rounds of applause.          

This would all be very nice if it weren’t staged and if the acclaim were genuine which in many instances was not the case as soon became obvious. President Obama gave a good speech, as speeches go, and covered all the bases mainly on the domestic front. He promised to save us money by 2011 with a “freeze on government spending for three years.” But “spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected.” Since it is those aspects, however, which gobble up most of taxpayer money a genuine deficit reduction can hardly be expected to occur. He vowed that he would continue to fight for the moribund “health care plan,” although it won’t save much money but it was the right thing to do. In the realm of foreign affairs he promised to have all “combat troops” out of Iraq “by the end of this August” and “make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.” In Afghanistan it is expected that their security forces “can begin to take the lead in July of 2011 and our troops can begin to come home.” He also informed us that during the previous year “hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed – far more than in 2008,” and that Iran and North Korea will face even tougher responses if they continue their pursuit of nuclear weapons. To placate Muslim sensitivites he assured them that, “we are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education, and innovation.” This is nice but hardly addresses their main grievance because he had left the Palestinians to the continued not so tender mercies of the Israelis.

On the whole the speech was conciliatory and Obama genuinely tried to convince Republicans that they should no longer automatically block his legislative agenda and instead of thinking what is good politics at the moment to consider the well-being of the country. On the other hand it was obvious that he didn’t change a single vote. While Democrats stood up clapping their hands furiously, especially in the beginning, they seemed to have gotten tired after about half an hour, the Republicans sat on their hands and were already thinking of when they could go home.

After the president’s exit the networks waited for a few minutes and then came the customary response by the opposition which was given at the State House in Richmond Virginia to a loyal crowd by their Governor Robert McDonnell. One might expect that a response would be a reply to what the president had just said. The transcript had been made available to the media earlier and was, therefore, already in the public domain, but that would never happen in a Humpty Dumpty society. In this one it is necessary for the respondent to ignore the speech and pronounce instead the Republican agenda. Never mind that it hardly differed from the goals of the president especially since the details how to accomplish them were left rather vague. As such Republicans and Democrats were talking on parallel tracks where never the twain shall meet.

America now finds herself in the difficult position where the reality of relative loss of power, through fiscal mismanagement and militaristic adventures, is beginning to become obvious. Yet, instead of  laying doctrinal differences aside and starting to embark on a genuine effort by both political parties to work towards what is good for the country, the current overriding goal of Republicans is winning the November midterm elections to regain enough seats in Congress so that Obama’s “socialist” plans can be brought to naught. Although the previous elections were already exteremely costly the midterm elections of 2010 are likely to become the most expensive ever. Raising obscene amounts of money was aided by the recent Supreme Court decision which declared previous laws in regard to campaign financing as unconstitutional (including  Senator McCain’s prime claim to fame, the McCain–Feingold Bill) because it curtailed “free speech.” What giving money has to do with free speech eludes ordinary citizens, but it should not when one realizes that Humpty Dumpty also rules the Supreme Court of the land. This decision means that all pretense of democracy is gone because the vote will now go to whoever has received the most money. While Hitler had always railed against the “plutocrats” we will in fact have even more plutocracy than ever before.

To a realistic observer of the American scene it has become obvious that no later than last summer a decision was made in Republican circles that the Obama administation must not be allowed to succeed and that the health insurance plan was to be “his Waterloo.” This goal, of derailing every and all of Obama’s efforts had already been enunciated prior to that time by the radio personality Rush Limbaugh as soon as the new president was sworn in. But it took till the summer to become unspoken, yet apparently official, policy. In previous years a simple majority could pass legislation in Congress but this is no longer possible. Now the supermajority of 60 votes is required in the Senate and up to January 19 the Democrats were able to muster it by cajoling and bribing reluctant members of their party. This state of affairs ended on that Tuesday when the good citizens of Massachussets elected a Republican to fill Teddy Kennedy’s seat, who had died last year of a malignant brain tumor. Athough other local issues  had been at play, the election outcome was widely hailed as a repudiation of Obama’s policies in general and the health insurance program in particular. The newly minted Senator, Scott Brown, declared immediately that he would vote against the currently existing plan which is undergoing a “reconciliation” of the House and Senate versions before it can be submitted to the president for signing it into law. Thus it is obvious that there will be no meaningful change in the health insurance situation except that the insurance companies, in anticipation of harder times ahead, have already raised their rates in some instances and some medications which had previously been covered are no longer.

The question now arises: can an educated citizenry put a halt to this slide into political chaos and infighting which prevents proper government? The outlook is not good because as discussed two years ago (Is America Fixable?, February 1, 2008) the American educational system has been geared towards the lowest common denominator and there is no sign that serious reform is in the offing. President Obama correctly declared in his address to Congress that a High School diploma no longer guarantees a good job, but he failed to put his finger on the cause. Instead he advocated more money for community colleges. Yet, college cannot, and should not, make up for the years that were wasted during Primary and High School education. Ill considered legislation which requires of teachers to achieve across the board acceptable pupil test scores, when some of them are mentally handicapped and others don’t even know English, is absurd. Yet it is curent law because “no child must be left behind.” While test scores may go up under these circumstances genuine learning can hardly occur. Unless curricula are revamped, at all levels, American youngsters will not be able to compete against the rest of the world which does take the education of its children seriously. We are spending infinitely more on our schools than other countries, yet are producing a worse outcome, which is another example of Humpty Dumpty’s reign.  The mental level of America’s younger generation, who will be in leadership positions in the near future, is perhaps best exemplified by a cartoon which came through the e-mail a few months ago

            A society where its male members, have largely given up on extracurricular political or intellectual aspects of life and limit their interests to the Trinity of: Money, Sex and Sports, in varying proportions, can hardly be expected to retain a responsible leadership position in the world. The cultural level of our country is not only portrayed but also manufactured by the mass media. They show us Humpty Dumpty land and some years ago Woody Allen “joked” that “the brain is my second most favorite organ.” But it wasn’t a joke; not for him and not for a great many of our citizens. As long as this state of affairs persists, all well meaning efforts to bring our society out of its rut will be in vain. Humpty Dumpty’s fate is well known and so is the proverb that pride comes before the fall. We are fortunate at this time to have a president who is genuinely well meaning, regardless of what the opposition says, and has the intellectual and emotional acumen to guide the country into calmer waters. But the forces which are arraigned against him are substantial and the audacity of hope may not be enough to carry the day; although it is our best chance.