Two thoughts about last night’s #NNM4N broadcast; they are probably related.

THOUGHT ONE:  Chris Hoffman introduced his game I called The Oracle Bowl. Chris had cut up a hardback dictionary into tiny inch-long pieces and put them into a large oval plastic jar.  We then asked our call-out guest to think of a concern or question about the recent election of He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named as POTUS; Chris would then reach into the Oracle Bowl, swirl it around and pick out one square piece of a repurposed dictionary; the guest would reveal her concern or question; Chris would read the words.  He was serious and I was not.  I want to apologize to Chris and the OB.  The first question and answer was unnervingly, wonderfully, scarily related.

Listen to Program #4 and you may understand what I mean.  But, I poo poo-ed the result, and I feel – because logically it makes no sense – the OB turned away from us.  The answers that followed did not resonate like the first one.  I want to apologize to Chris and the OB and try again with new faith, based in a sense that life is about a bigger energy that I do not understand – but desire to engage.  Amen

THOUGHT TWO: Paul Ruben is without a doubt my best friend.  His way of thinking is similar to mine but not mine, and I always turn to him when I have something important to think about.  He is a deeply thoughtful person and so when I ask he always responds with an idea – an approach – that I had not considered, but should. On the program last night Paul responded to the election of DT.*  He talked about the connection between actions and outcomes and analyzed the trope – ‘the ends justify the means.’  He used two examples – the Trump election and how DT accomplished his “ends” and President Obama’s meeting with DT in an attempt to modify the POTUS-elect’s promises and his one-sided approach to ruling this country.  Both examples included means and ends – one used moral means the other not.  I am unsure of Paul’s final thesis in relation to this analysis – but it got me thinking about this trope — Means < Ends – which seems to be flawed.

“The Ends JUSTIFY the Means” is argued by someone who is thinking about moral ends; ends that are justified in a positive way – yes?  But what if you do not support a certain “ends” – call it E1.  The means to E1 might be moral or not – if E1 is positive – how you get there is of no concern. This seems to make no sense.  Nazi Germany’s goal – universal, White, Germanic control.  Nazi means were mass imprisonment and death.  For a supporter, these ends are moral, and any way to get there is supportable — any means necessary.  This equation is relative to which side you are on – yes?  As a moral statement — one side eliminates the other–algebraically.

I propose a different approach – a non equation.  There are no ENDS – only choices and doings.  Human life is a series of actions that we take, that lead to other actions; outcomes –ends – that results in another world, another realm of possibilities opening up to new choices, new possibilities of human life.  ENDS have no meaning – only processes – choices that are made from moment to moment.

Looked at this way – in the realm of human, social life – each step taken is important – forget the ENDS — they do not exist.  Each action is a new world – basic – primary.  That is who we are – what we will be.  AND – the social structures – political/governmental/economic/ media – either limit or extend that process towards a democracy of voices – all of whom yearn for a moral compass.   Amen

---

*Why did this not occur to me – DT – also stands for Delirium Tremens. “Delirium tremens (DTs) is a rapid onset of confusion …” Is the “Force” telling us something about our times.  Chris, I am giving myself over to the OB —