The Political Divide from A Theistic Perspective.

[Dao Hao Now]

Very well stated. And I wholly agree with you. Nevertheless, without meaning to sound too kerygmatic, I still think we should take a stab at truth, even if we miss the heart and hit it where the blood that comes out isn't, perhaps, deemed worth of a holy grail, and yet could nevertheless ornament a Torah scroll without offending anyone too much.



John

Kudos for expanding my vocabulary.
“Kerygmatic” is a new one for me!

 

[John D. Brey]

The right cannot be worked with. It must simply be neutralized. It needs to be disempowered. It needs to be excluded from governance. Talking to them is pointless. It would be like talking to a horde of locust and begging them not to despoil the land and consume the crops. And I mean that almost literally. What would it look like if you injected an insect's psyche, agenda, and values into a human form that could speak and pass as human, perhaps something from Men In Black? This. This is how insects would behave with human bodies, language, and reasoning abilities.

One of the problems in evolutionary-theory revolves around the fact that it's extremely difficult to understand actual speciation. We understand change with modification within a species. But at what point does the dramatic nature of the modification and change justify calling one species, with dramatic modification, a new species rather than just a species undergoing numerous and expansive modification? Part and parcel of this question relates to the distinction between a "host" and a "parasite." A host is categorized as a living species while a parasite is classed as a virus which doesn't fully meet the classification of a living-organism since it can't exist on its own without the host while on the other hand the host is a self-replicating, and self-contained organism.

We could, for the sake of clarity, use the homosexual population as an example of the host/parasite dichotomy since before you can have a homosexual population you must have a heterosexual host population (since every homosexual is basically born from the reproductive strategies of the heterosexual host population). The homosexual population is not classifiable as a living-organism since at its inception, and throughout its history, it requires a living host, the heterosexual population, that doesn't require the homosexual population one iota, while the homosexual population can't exist without the heterosexual population.

In this thread we're not really concerned with homosexuality except to point out that it's a parasite-organism (by scientific nomenclature and categories) and not a "host" body. What we really want to find out is if this scientific schematic, or paradigm, is able to help us determine whether something of this scientific concept can help us understand the dichotomous relationship between the political left, and the political right? Is one a living-political movement while the other is parasitical? Does one require the existence of the other, ala homosexuality versus heterosexuality, ala a parasite versus a host? Or are both living-organisms merely vying for the same resources in a combative manner? Are the political left and the political right the same species or different species? Did one evolve from one, into the other? Is one more like a healthy living-organism, while the other is more like a parasite body?

Your quotation above makes it sound like Trump has been parasited by some inhuman virus/parasite. I think it's a very fruitful analogy. Particularly since he and his followers are most often WASPS.




John

 

[idea]

Overcoming prejudices - against different races, different religious groups, different political groups seems to require empathy, and "deep-canvassing", rather than truth claims:
Your First and Complete Guide on Deep Canvassing

It uses personal questions to explore and change beliefs -
Example, say someone voted against lgbtq
Question: Why did you vote the way you did? - answer might include generalizations from media
Personal question - do you know anyone who is lgbtq? - answer will include family, friends, neighbors, work colleagues.
Question - how does issue apply to personal acquaintance? - hopefully personal experience is different from opinion generated by media - when considering personal experience might be willing to change.

Anyways, it's all based on reframing stance from media to personal experience, individual friends and family.


I'm reading "How minds change" by McRaney, some interesting things.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Where does "a theistic perspective" come in?

Even before you made this statement I made a subtle change to the title by capitalizing the A since in my opinion atheism is quasi-theistic. Atheists don't give a queer look of utter lack of understanding when asked about God. They typically imply that they don't believe in him, or that they don't believe there is a him. That stance is theistic: disbelief in God, as opposed to a total lack, or inability, to think about the concept.

I was just ranting to a friend earlier today about how Christians attempt to appropriate and monopolize such terms for themselves (it was in regards to the term religion in that discussion).
Theism doesn't mean Christians vs Atheist. Atheism isn't religion. And there's so many different religions in America that it's laughable to make such a claim because "according to a theist" includes polytheists, Muslims, Budhists, Hindus Jews and everybody else except atheists.

 

[John D. Brey]

Where does "a theistic perspective" come in?

I was just ranting to a friend earlier today about how Christians attempt to appropriate and monopolize such terms for themselves (it was in regards to the term religion in that discussion).
Theism doesn't mean Christians vs Atheist. Atheism isn't religion. And there's so many different religions in America that it's laughable to make such a claim because "according to a theist" includes polytheists, Muslims, Budhists, Hindus Jews and everybody else except atheists.

I was insinuating that atheism is a branch of theism; the branch that, though it understands the concept of God, nevertheless rejects that concept. As I noted, apes and gorillas aren't atheists. If you ask them if they believe in God they will give you a dumb stare. Not so with atheists. They know what the term God implies. They just don't believe in it. They are the atheist branch of theism.



John

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I was insinuating that atheism is a branch of theism;

Then your comment of a "theist perspective" is moot as you might as well say a human perspective.

God they will give you a dumb stare. Not so with atheists. They know what the term God implies. They just don't believe in it. They are the atheist branch of theism.

I know what the term leprechaun implies. It's foolish and absurd to say that somehow makes me a believer branch of leprechauns. Unless it's ok for me to dismiss your disbelief in orcs and elves just because you know what those terms imply.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

My interlocutor in the noted thread made some points very much in line with the statements above. To generalize his argument, this particular person is past the point of even considering dialogue or compromise with the other side. They can't be worked with at all. Worse, paraphrasing his argument, they're like insects with the form of a human but who are not really a human through and through. Incredibly, according to this person, the people on the other side of the political divide are like aliens from the movie "Men in Black," who should be shown the business end of a weapon of mass destruction.

Naturally this person is deeply caught up in his struggle with the political divide that's in the cross hairs of these dialogues (and is the point of this thread). Nevertheless, to a student of history, this recent talk (just his week in fact) sounds like it's plagiarizing the historical writings of another person struggling similarly, if not identically, with people he considered insects unworthy of dialogue or compromise, but who are undeniably, in his mind, clearly worthy of extermination. This historical personage's heartfelt struggle is painstakingly described in writings come to be known specifically as his struggle with peoples less than worthy of human dignity.



John

Well, if my understanding of the corollary to Godwin’s law is correct, you conceded your argument right out of the gate.

After reading the post from your interlocutor in the other thread and again in this thread along with clarification (post #14), I took it as his being fed up with the recent discourse of what appears to be the side you at least lean towards and his exasperation with the rhetoric they (or at least a vocal faction of them) tend to extol.

The references comparing their actions to various insects I took as analogues to his impression of their humanity.

Granted, I believe it was less elegant than may have been desirable, but not far from the sort of decorum one can easily encounter from both sides if you peruse the sorts of media outlets that cater to the perhaps more ardent of ideologues.

Did you really take it as literal?
Or, where you perhaps in hindsight, being a bit hypersensitive as is the want of those that stoke up such fervent vitriol in order to perpetuate the sort of divide you appear to be admonishing.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

From simply an abstract, or objective standpoint, we could say there's one side who believe strongly that the current President in no way stole the election, and another side that implies the election was stolen. If we keep in mind that the side that considers the election stolen isn't just a fringe element, but the majority of the other side, the problem in the cross-hairs of this thread is better established: what is the criteria for determining the truth concerning matters of such grave import? Which leads to the quasi-theological heart of this thread: Quid est veritas?



John

The same as has always been;
The following of verifiable facts as discerned by factual evidence.

 

[blü 2]

Recent political events have magnified the political divide in America to a degree probably unseen since the Civil War. In various threads on politics here in our forum (most notably Predictions of how Trump supporters will react if he's arrested and indicted) dialogue has reached not just a fever pitch, but people on both sides appear to be pitching the dissolution of dialogue with the other side altogether. Worse, they're implying that the other side is beyond hope and must be eliminated rather than finding a middle-ground or reaching some kind of democratic consensus.

I think the judicial processes in place are easily the most positive and restorative way forward.

That is, if the Democrats were to adopt the tactics and attitudes of the Trump Republicans, in my view that would be a major mistake, an abandoning of reason, Constitutional procedures and the rule of law.

There will always be a Trumpian element on the right. But it's not impossible that some Republicans are persuadable away from Trump and not a few are already persuaded.


(As for 'theistic', if there's a god involved in this, it's probably Loki.)

 

[Dao Hao Now]

It appears to me that when the person I noted as my interlocutor in another political thread implied that the people on one side of the political divide are so divorced from truth that they should be cut off from dialogue or compromise, violently if need be -----that kind of belief, or statement, or action, clearly activates the seemingly necessary proposition that a "truth" is possessed by the exterminators that justifies the high-bar required to resort to extermination.

Where life and death are concerned, where deadly-force is legitimized, and justified, it seems difficult, or impossible, to suggest that the philosophy concerning the truth that's being used to justify deadly-force has no practical application?

Isn't the taking of a life something like the very heart and soul of deciding where the practicality and practice of one person's "truth" is allowed to exterminate the "truth" possessed in, and by, another person ----precisely by eliminating that person, and thus that alleged truth?

"But my truth is true . . . and theirs is just conspiracy theory," assumes a criterion for truth so transparent that anyone not part of that truth shouldn't be part of the community of truth-possessors. Is there a "truth" so transparent that all agree, or should, universally? Is there a Gospel truth so transparently so, that a bullet is the cure for those who reject it? If not, and I believe there is no such truth accessible to more than an individual singularly, then why do so many of us tend to resort to a violent reaction as though there were a universal truth that the bad guys know is true but refuse to accept? Why do we instinctually, when push comes to shove, feel justified in curing disagreement with bullets or gases or poisons (regardless of whether we participate directly or through our elected surrogates)?




John

Here you appear to be very hyperbolic concerning what you are claiming to be the actual intent of his (again inelegantly) expressed opinion as actually advocating for violence.

Perhaps a more efficacious method of determining if that was his true intent would have been to ask him to clarify if he advocated for actual violence or if he was perhaps loosely using words which might be misconstrued (which I believe you have..
whether unintentionally or not) as such.

Or is it possible you are taking the easy bait of reading into what you want to hear?

Is there a "truth" so transparent that all agree, or should, universally?

Yes, the reality that is determinable by reasoned persons guided by verifiable facts supported by well-founded evidence.

If not, and I believe there is no such truth accessible to more than an individual singularly,

This is problematic;
Are you suggesting that all truth is subjective…
That there is no objective truth available?

then why do so many of us tend to resort to a violent reaction as though there were a universal truth that the bad guys know is true but refuse to accept? Why do we instinctually, when push comes to shove, feel justified in curing disagreement with bullets or gases or poisons (regardless of whether we participate directly or through our elected surrogates)?

“We” don’t.
Those that do are the problematic ones that laws are enacted to protect “us” against.

 

[Kenny]

Recent political events have magnified the political divide in America to a degree probably unseen since the Civil War. In various threads on politics here in our forum (most notably Predictions of how Trump supporters will react if he's arrested and indicted) dialogue has reached not just a fever pitch, but people on both sides appear to be pitching the dissolution of dialogue with the other side altogether. Worse, they're implying that the other side is beyond hope and must be eliminated rather than finding a middle-ground or reaching some kind of democratic consensus.



John

This, actually, has very good points.

The feverish pitch has gotten to such a critical mass that even the mention of a name creates a diarrhea of the mouth where one asks oneself, why dialogue?

Not that I would want anyone to be eliminated but I can't wonder what one did with simple logic (which, probably, they are saying the same thing)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was insinuating that atheism is a branch of theism; the branch that, though it understands the concept of God, nevertheless rejects that concept.

There is no concept of God, in any singular sense. That much is clear to me, as an atheist. I had the pleasure of being raised within one of those traditions, and I daresay I retained enough to avoid a dumb stare. If the first time I was presented with a cargo cult had have been in person rather than from a distance, I daresay my stare would have been plenty dumb.

As I noted, apes and gorillas aren't atheists. If you ask them if they believe in God they will give you a dumb stare. Not so with atheists. They know what the term God implies. They just don't believe in it. They are the atheist branch of theism.

John

That's an interesting definition of theism, if it includes a branch of people who explicitly reject it. Perhaps theists are merely the believing branch on an atheist tree. Wait...that doesn't really make sense. Right?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Recent political events have magnified the political divide in America to a degree probably unseen since the Civil War. In various threads on politics here in our forum (most notably Predictions of how Trump supporters will react if he's arrested and indicted) dialogue has reached not just a fever pitch, but people on both sides appear to be pitching the dissolution of dialogue with the other side altogether. Worse, they're implying that the other side is beyond hope and must be eliminated rather than finding a middle-ground or reaching some kind of democratic consensus.

John

Whilst unsure how this is a theistic perspective, particularly given your particular claims about the inclusiveness of that particular label, there is nothing to good to be had in dehumanizing political opponents.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

But imagine that, per Trump's urging, Mike Pence refused to legitimate the election. Say it went to the Supreme Court, and, as they ruled on Roe v. Wade, so too here, they rule that though it's unsavory as hell, the vice President has the legal authority to question the legitimacy of the election under the conditions in play, and was of his legal right to not legitimate the election. If Pence takes that legal right and de-legitimizes the election, the election is legally illegitimate and that's the end of the matter.

In the spirit of not jumping to a conclusion about your actual meaning here perhaps you could clarify for me;
What part of this is one to consider as hypothetical?
If it’s not the entire paragraph, it’s problematic.

It's when we feel that the system itself is under attack, i.e., that even the legal checks and balances that secure our freedom are being disassemble or destroyed by those on the other side of the political divide (often using the law to destroy the law), that, devoid of the normal support and defense for our freedoms and rights, we feel forced to think and act outside of the once functioning legal and political system.

You keep using the word “we”…
Is this you specifically;
those who may agree with you;
the “right” (as opposed to the “left” of the political spectrum) in general?

Should this be taken as hyperbole, or are you specifically “forced to think and act outside of the once functioning legal and political system”?

Right or wrong, the Right (so to say), feel that the judges who overlooked the irregularities and legalized the election at the court level, even implying there was very little evidence of serious irregularities, were like the flip side of Mike Pence. Pence surely felt the weight of what was going on and just didn't feel the situation warranted dismantling the long established norms and standards even if it was legal to do so (he said as much). In the mind of the Right, the judges who shot down appeals regarding the election were part of the machine that rigged the election in the first place; they feel precisely as the Left would have felt if Pence refused (with legal force) to legitimize the election.

The important part of this for the sake of where I would direct this thread is not to argue what is true, right, factual, in all this, but to point out that we have ---in my opinion ----reached a point in our political history where majorities on both sides of the isle feel that the very legal checks and balances that support a healthy functioning society are under attack by those on the other side of the isle. I feel I genuinely see and appreciate the arguments from both sides. Beyond that, I feel the arguments for both sides are sound and legitimate within the context of the thinking that supports both side.

The problem with this is that the truth and the facts actually matter.
Subjective “truth” in this instance is a part of the problem, and the cause (at least in large part) of the divide.

I feel I genuinely see and appreciate the arguments from both sides. Beyond that, I feel the arguments for both sides are sound and legitimate within the context of the thinking that supports both side.

Both these sentences can not be true.
If you actually understand the arguments from both sides….
you would understand that both sides can not be
“sound and legitimate” because the context of the thinking is crux of the problem.
It doesn’t matter if a point of view is (in theory) internally consistent if the foundation it is based upon (the context of the thinking) is incorrect.

My goal would be to posit a philosophical/theological argument that's abstract enough that a thinking person even on the side of the isle I feel is incorrect could see the strength, or at least understand the nature of the argument, even if they disagree with it for personal or theological reasons that for them might transcend the factuality, scientific validity, of the argument.

And there is the heart of the problem.
The problem here is that you can’t discount the facts.
That’s the problem with theistic perspective, it renders scientific validity and facts (in other words reality) to a secondary position behind subjective reality based on faith (belief that is not based on proof) which can be easily manipulated to disastrous outcomes.

It sounds like you’re saying;
“If only I could get everybody to believe like I believe based on my emotional preferences, rather than following their intellect, then the world would be just right.”

This is how “alternative facts” become believed, and that way delusion lyes.

As Abe Lincoln said:
You can fool all of the people some of the time…
You can fool some of the people all of the time….
But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

it’s that second line thats made possible by theistic perspective.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Even before you made this statement I made a subtle change to the title by capitalizing the A since in my opinion atheism is quasi-theistic. Atheists don't give a queer look of utter lack of understanding when asked about God. They typically imply that they don't believe in him, or that they don't believe there is a him. That stance is theistic: disbelief in God, as opposed to a total lack, or inability, to think about the concept.

Only animals are without theism. Ask an ape what he thinks of God and he will stare at you blankly. Atheists aren't like that. Ask and ape if he wants a banana and he's likely to show the kind of enthusiasm theists show if you show them a Bible and atheists might show (by involuntary salivation) if you show them a juicy steak.



John

This is just nonsensical, another example of subjective emotional reasoning not based in fact.

Atheists have thought about the concept….
realizing that it is devoid of evidence and have therefore not subscribed to the fantasy of it.

Is this an attempt in trying to include them in your ubiquitous “we”?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

One of the problems in evolutionary-theory revolves around the fact that it's extremely difficult to understand actual speciation. We understand change with modification within a species. But at what point does the dramatic nature of the modification and change justify calling one species, with dramatic modification, a new species rather than just a species undergoing numerous and expansive modification? Part and parcel of this question relates to the distinction between a "host" and a "parasite." A host is categorized as a living species while a parasite is classed as a virus which doesn't fully meet the classification of a living-organism since it can't exist on its own without the host while on the other hand the host is a self-replicating, and self-contained organism.

We could, for the sake of clarity, use the homosexual population as an example of the host/parasite dichotomy since before you can have a homosexual population you must have a heterosexual host population (since every homosexual is basically born from the reproductive strategies of the heterosexual host population). The homosexual population is not classifiable as a living-organism since at its inception, and throughout its history, it requires a living host, the heterosexual population, that doesn't require the homosexual population one iota, while the homosexual population can't exist without the heterosexual population.

In this thread we're not really concerned with homosexuality except to point out that it's a parasite-organism (by scientific nomenclature and categories) and not a "host" body. What we really want to find out is if this scientific schematic, or paradigm, is able to help us determine whether something of this scientific concept can help us understand the dichotomous relationship between the political left, and the political right? Is one a living-political movement while the other is parasitical? Does one require the existence of the other, ala homosexuality versus heterosexuality, ala a parasite versus a host? Or are both living-organisms merely vying for the same resources in a combative manner? Are the political left and the political right the same species or different species? Did one evolve from one, into the other? Is one more like a healthy living-organism, while the other is more like a parasite body?

Your quotation above makes it sound like Trump has been parasited by some inhuman virus/parasite. I think it's a very fruitful analogy. Particularly since he and his followers are most often WASPS.




John

Wow!
The level of misunderstanding here is simply mind numbing.

We understand

Give up on the “we” unless specifically defined, by all indications it’s referring to you individually.
It appears to be an attempt to bolster “your” personal opinions with the weight of fictional multitudes.

 

[John D. Brey]

Then your comment of a "theist perspective" is moot as you might as well say a human perspective.

Bingo! You've hit the nail on the head. Someone give this girl a box of Screeming Yellow Zonkers. Seriously, though, my point is that what we know and experience as human thought and perspective doesn't exist anywhere else in the universe, or in any other creature, and cannot be explained apart from theism. Anyone who has an experience of a "self" (anyone who can say: "Why did I do that") is a theist whether they like it or not; whether they concede that they are or not.

Yet, by any conceivable standard, humanity is far and away life's greatest achievement. We are the mind of the biosphere, the solar system, and---who can say? ----perhaps the galaxy. Looking about us, we have learned to translate into our narrow audiovisual systems the sensory modalities of other organisms. We know much of the physicochemical basis of our own biology. We will soon create simple organisms in the laboratory. We have learned the history of the universe and look out almost to its edge. . . except for behaving like apes much of the time and suffering genetically limited lifespans we are godlike.

Edward O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth, p. 288-289.

Aside from God, there is only one other being that is invisible and imperceptible to the senses, but whose individual reality and personal existence are nevertheless absolutely certain to each one of us. That being is our soul, our נפש. The soul that reflects on itself ["why did I do that"] is capable of grasping the real, personal existence of an invisible, imperceptible Being; aware of itself, it also knows God. Just as we are sure of our own existence, so we are sure of God’s existence [we have no choice in the matter except to use our human freedom to pretend we do].

Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash, Deuteronomy 4:15. Bracketed comments mine.
​

I know what the term leprechaun implies. It's foolish and absurd to say that somehow makes me a believer branch of leprechauns. Unless it's ok for me to dismiss your disbelief in orcs and elves just because you know what those terms imply.

It sometimes amazes me that people educated in a Judeo/Christian culture can reach adulthood having never surveyed nor surmised the genius and genuineness of Jewish monotheism. Jewish monotheism points out that whereas a leprechaun is a Duke's mixture of other, real, genuine, traits, shapes, sizes, colors, etc. (just mixed up into something different rather than truly new), the concept of God posits something that's not a mere mixture (per the pagans) of snakes, men, deified men, etc.. Jewish monotheism acknowledges the fact our human minds can acknowledge a Creator who is not a snake-man, or a leprechaun, or a giant glittering man, but who is none of those things whatsoever. Jewish monotheism posits a God who can't be described by, or compared to anything else whatsoever but perhaps, ala Rabbi Hirsch, an invisible human soul.

This human theistic ability is the foundation and the truth taught in Judeo/Christian thought. That we can't reach some humans with this great truth even though they have all the prerequisite abilities leads into another concept of Judeo/Christian thought: evil.

As it relates to the heart and soul of this thread, the question is whether God parasites the human mind, or whether the human mind is the parasite, and God the host? Anyone familiar with the arguments of the man after whom the University in Berkeley is named knows he argued so completely that God is the host, and the human mind the parasite, that according to many of the greatest philosophers of science of the last century, quantum physics grew out of agnostic and atheist thinkers and scientists trying to refute Berkeley's argumentation and ending up with the question of whether the particle is the parasite or the host of the wave.



John

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Seriously, though, my point is that what we know and experience as human thought and perspective doesn't exist anywhere else in the universe, or in any other creature

The same applies to all sentient creatures. So what?

Anyone who has an experience of a "self" (anyone who can say: "Why did I do that") is a theist whether they like it or not; whether they concede

A theist believes in a god, sometimes used to refer to monotheism (this one tends to be a cultural view in some parts of the world).
The Self invokes a world of ontological, existential, phenomenological and religious discussions. But they don't necessarily revolve around a god, and that is a part of theism.

 

[John D. Brey]

Well, if my understanding of the corollary to Godwin’s law is correct, you conceded your argument right out of the gate.

After reading the post from your interlocutor in the other thread and again in this thread along with clarification (post #14), I took it as his being fed up with the recent discourse of what appears to be the side you at least lean towards and his exasperation with the rhetoric they (or at least a vocal faction of them) tend to extol.

The references comparing their actions to various insects I took as analogues to his impression of their humanity.

Granted, I believe it was less elegant than may have been desirable, but not far from the sort of decorum one can easily encounter from both sides if you peruse the sorts of media outlets that cater to the perhaps more ardent of ideologues.

Did you really take it as literal?
Or, where you perhaps in hindsight, being a bit hypersensitive as is the want of those that stoke up such fervent vitriol in order to perpetuate the sort of divide you appear to be admonishing.

If you read "my interlocutor's" statement, he conceded that he meant it to be as close to literal as possible without, perhaps, actually wanting to be prosecuted for taking action. Furthermore, if you read message #16, you'd see that far from demonizing the statement (which would have been the opening quotation of this thread if the rules permitted), on the contrary, I pointed out that in my opinion the statement brilliantly summed up, in a refreshing way, how most of us feel about where our Nation currently finds itself regardless of whether we lean left or right politically.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The same as has always been;
The following of verifiable facts as discerned by factual evidence.

The same so-called factual evidence is interpreted differently, and sometimes legitimately, by two different examiners with equal intelligence and objectivity. As Popper tried to explain, facts aren't self-contained. They, like the very empirical prism through which they come, are all, theory impregnated. There's no non-theoretical fact. There are not facts that justify one interpreter over against another interpreter to the point of one of the interpreters being worthy of death for alleged falsification of facts. Facts simply aren't what some people think they are.

We could (and shall) go further by positing that those who think facts are more than they are, are most often the side of the binary spectrum who live in a dream world and who are most often enraged to the point of unjustified violence when the facts they take too seriously aren't taken seriously enough by others.



John