Is Life Really as Complicated as it Seems?

An essay by graham gambier

It is sometimes held that truth is a slippery critter and hard to pin down and thus, life is complicated. I, however, disagree and maintain that truth is personal and simple and can be determined by a six-year-old.

In this essay, I will present a fictional scenario that many adults will recognise, either through personal experience, or simply by being adults in the modern world. Then, I will ask some questions about the scenario that, when considered, might make it seem even more complicated. Lastly, I will attempt to deconstruct this scenario and present it as a six-year-old might see it, and hopefully you will agree, as it really is.

The Scenario

I was sitting on my sofa, watching the news on my television when I heard a noise at my front door, so I went to investigate.

As I entered my hallway I espied the postman retreating round the corner of my building and noticed a letter lying on the doormat. Wondering what the postman had delivered, I picked the letter up and started to tear it open as I returned to my living room.

To my dismay, it was a letter from the Tax Authority stating that they had re-assessed me and that I now owed them considerably more than I had calculated.

In my agitated state I lost interest in any continued appraisal of the state of world affairs so I switched off my television and decided to go for a drive in my car.

I drove out of town and headed for the highway. Once on the highway I ‘opened her up’ and enjoyed the freedom of the open road which served as a temporary distraction from my financial worries.

Unfortunately, my distraction extended to failing to notice the speed limit, or the highway patrol vehicle strategically placed behind a large roadside advertising board.

The highway patrol vehicle pulled onto the road behind me and quickly caught up with my car and, by sounding his siren, flashing his lights, and motioning with his arm, the highway patrol officer ordered me to pull over.

The highway patrol officer came up to my window and demanded to see my papers. He asked me if I knew why he had stopped me and I apologised for my excessive speed.

The highway patrol officer proceeded to write me a ticket and informed me that, because I was a specified amount over the speed limit, he had no choice but to remand me to appear before a magistrate for sentencing.

My next letter was even more distressing than the tax demand as it summonsed me to court a few months hence under pain of dire consequences should I fail in my duty to attend.

On the day of my hearing, I carefully showered and dressed myself so as to demonstrate my acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation and hopefully show my normalcy and my respect for the court.

The whole proceeding went better than I had feared. I went where I was directed, I stood and sat when I was directed, I swore an oath on the Bible, I was polite and respectful and answered all their questions as best as I could.

Because I freely admitted my guilt and showed contrition the magistrate chose to be lenient with me and imposed the minimum penalty permitted.

The combination of the tax assessment and the motoring fine will make it hard for me to find the required money and I may have to sell my car to fund it. I have calculated that my car is worth enough to pay off the purchase loan and still have enough left over to purchase an older vehicle that will still get me to my place of employment.

Some questions about the scenario

Things that you can directly experience with your senses contain truth - everything else is a mental construct, a fiction, a story about the truth containing thing.

Let us now examine the scenario portrayed above line-by-line and see what questions arise that may indicate the presence a mental construct overlaying the truth.

>>I was sitting on my sofa<<

The bodily position described as ‘sitting’ is trivial, although it nicely demonstrates the difference between truth and a concept. The term sitting covers a wide range of limb angles and heights and might be thought of as some non-standing position where one's bottom provides significant support. What about lying down, or reclining back at a shallow angle, or basically standing but resting your bottom on something like a wall. Are these species of the creature, ‘sitting’? If I say I was sitting on my sofa this only conjures up an image in your imagination of what this might have looked like had you been a direct observer, not reality, thus for you, my ‘sitting’ is a concept, not truth.

>>watching the news on my television<<

Watching

There is little doubt that I was watching something because I was using my eyes, although I could have had my eyes pointed in the direction of the television without conscious attention to its images. I was probably using my ears also, so ‘watching the news’ may be an inadequate description of my action unless I had the volume turned down. Did I?

The News

What is ‘news’? Was I observing what the broadcaster claimed was ‘the news’, or a piece of ‘infotainment’, or a section of a movie that contained a representation of ‘the news’? How factual is ‘the news’? What story is being portrayed by the ‘news’ piece? Who decided that this story was ‘news’ rather than a million other possible stories? What is the broadcaster’s intent in presenting this story in this way? What adjectives are being used to describe the scenes and persons presented? How do the images, sounds, and narrative presented make you feel about the places, organisations, persons, and actions portrayed in the story?

An example may help here. Say that your television shows an image of two men, with beards, wearing similar clothing, carrying weapons, speaking an unintelligible foreign language, and situated in some foreign looking land. What is truth here? The truth is that there are two men in the camera shot. There is a good chance that they are men because they have beards though it is possible (if unlikely) that they are children or women in costume, you should use your judgement on this. The men are wearing clothing that appears similar to you. The men are carrying what appears to be weapons. There is a voice speaking a foreign language that is unintelligible to you coming from the television. The scene appears to be situated in a setting that looks foreign to you.

Are these two men being displayed in an appropriate context? What would you have seen five minutes earlier, or five minutes later, or if the camera panned left or right, or if the camera zoomed in or out? Have they been captured in their daily lives or are they posed? What does the narration claim; that they are of the same tribe, the same security force, the same terrorist group? Does it describe them as defenders, or aggressors, allies or enemies? Is the scene in the geographical location claimed? Is the scene part of the event claimed? Is the scene from the timeframe claimed? Is the scene stock footage? Is the scene studio footage? Is the voice the voice of the person claimed? Is any translation provided accurate?

I cannot think of anything more susceptible to bias, context, and agenda than that which is presented by the media as news and portrayed as truth.

The media contribute greatly to the confusion and apparent complexity of the world. If the media told the truth, governments would castigate them and sponsors wouldn’t advertise with them so prices would rise with a consequent loss of business.

On my television

Is it really ‘my’ television? It is certainly ‘a’ television, but is it mine?

Property is a concept. At this juncture, I can imagine the cries of outrage as libertarians quit reading this essay in anger.

Let me clarify by stating that I am a libertarian and hold Lockean/Rothbardian views on property rights but they are just that - views - not truth or reality. Queue outrage, take two.

Females of my acquaintance are want to refer to everything as ‘my’ this, and ‘my’ that, though, of course, the phenomenon is not solely limited to females.

In the libertarian tradition one obtains valid title to property via acts of original appropriation from nature, the fruits of one’s labour, or by exchange, and one can tell if one owns something by determining if one has the RIGHT to use it or not as one pleases, to dispose of it through exchange or gifting as one pleases, or to destroy it if one pleases.

Examples of when you might not truthfully refer to something as ‘my’ thing include: when it is under joint ownership with a spouse or partner, or owned by your business or employer, or it is subject to a finance agreement, or it is rented.

Ownership is a concept, rather than a provable fact as philosophers would espouse, because philosophy is a mental construct, however logically and convincingly it is conceived and the esteem in which it is held. Imagine, if you will, a toddler playing with a toy. That toddler may demonstrate by his actions that he believes that the toy is his, however, he did not homestead it, produce it, or exchange for it. His parent(s) may consider that they retain title and that he is using it on license, or that they gifted it to his sibling, or that his sibling holds it on license, or any other arrangement you may imagine. And that is my point, imagination, all the arrangements listed above exist only in the imagination of the perceiver. To that child, at that time, that toy is his. Who amongst us is qualified to state that he is wrong?

>>when I heard a noise at my front door, so I went to investigate<<

After what delay did I investigate? I heard a noise, but how much would I be willing to bet that it was from some action involving the door of my dwelling?

>>As I entered my hallway I espied the postman retreating round the corner of my building<<

I espied a human being wearing a particular style or colour of clothing, how sure was I that his profession was postman? Why do I describe his locomotion as retreating? Is the building my property?

>>and noticed a letter lying on the doormat. Wondering what the postman had delivered, I picked the letter up and started to tear it open as I returned to<<

How do I know that the person I designated as a postman delivered this letter? If the person I saw was indeed a postman, could it have been another postman walking to or from his place of employment? Was it delivered earlier without me perceiving it? Did a Tax Authority official deliver it? Was it left with a neighbour in error who then delivered it.

>>my living room<<

Property rights again, coupled with the notion of the designation of a room.

>>To my dismay, it was a letter from the Tax Authority stating that they had re-assessed me and that I now owed them considerably more than I had calculated<<

Why was I dismayed? Am I just predisposed to dismay at any communication with the Tax Authority? Was I dismayed that amount was so high but otherwise believed that they had the RIGHT to demand it from me? Was I dismayed that the amount was so small? Did I consider the calculation was in error? Was I dismayed that another person would consider that they had some RIGHT to make such demands of me? Is there any such thing as authority?

>>In my agitated state I lost interest in any continued appraisal of the state of world affairs so I switched off my television and decided to go for a drive in my car<<

See above my thoughts on whether the ‘news’ is capable or likely to perform such a function and, once again, consider property rights. It is entirely valid for me to report my own feelings and the context seems clear.

>>I drove out of town and headed for the highway. Once on the highway I ‘opened her up’ and enjoyed the freedom of the open road which served as a temporary distraction from my financial worries<<

Is one category of road any more ‘free’ than another category of road?

>>Unfortunately, my distraction extended to failing to notice the speed limit, or the highway patrol vehicle strategically placed behind a large roadside advertising board<<

Who designated the speed limit? By what RIGHT? How did I determine that this was a highway patrol vehicle, did it say that on it, and if so, how did I determine that it was genuine? ‘Strategically placed’ implies intent. How did I KNOW this functionary’s intent, was I just guessing, however likely or accurate that may be?

>>The highway patrol vehicle pulled onto the road behind me and quickly caught up with my car and, by sounding his siren, flashing his lights, and motioning with his arm, the highway patrol officer ordered me to pull over<<

To catch up with me, the highway patrol vehicle’s velocity must have exceeded my velocity and, apparently, I was already going too fast. Was not the highway patrol vehicle also going too fast? Why must one driver of a particular class of vehicle drive at one maximum speed and another driver of the same class of vehicle drive at a different maximum speed? Are there different classes of people, or is it down to skill level? If it is personal, what makes one person superior to another? If it is down to skill, how did the highway patrol officer know that I had not attained that skill level? If I had not attained that skill level, why did I not have the opportunity to attain it?

How did I know that a siren, flashing lights, and arm motions constituted an order to pull over? If speed is a factor in road safety, is not sounding your siren, flashing your lights, and motioning with your arm, and hearing a siren, and seeing flashing lights, and arm motions not a distraction, and therefore a factor in road safety? Why did I stop?

>>The highway patrol officer came up to my window and demanded to see my papers. He asked me if I knew why he had stopped me and I apologised for my excessive speed.

Why did I characterize the highway patrol officer’s words as a demand? Does anybody have the RIGHT to demand anything from me, highway patrol officer or otherwise? Why do I need to produce papers? What do papers have to do with any speed I might have been travelling at?

Did I answer the highway patrol officer’s question adequately? Did I believe that my speed was excessive? My travelling at that speed suggests otherwise, so why did I apologise for it?

>>The highway patrol officer proceeded to write me a ticket and informed me that, because I was a specified amount over the speed limit, he had no choice but to remand me to appear before a magistrate for sentencing<<

A ticket, that’s nice, I hope it is for a concert by a performer I like. What class of human being does not have free will? If highway patrol officers do not have free will are they actually a lesser class of human being, not a superior class of human being as his ability to travel above the speed limit suggests? Who decided on this excess speed margin? What is a magistrate? Can I be a magistrate?

>>My next letter was even more distressing than the tax demand as it summonsed me to court a few months hence under pain of dire consequences should I fail in my duty to attend<<

Why do I classify the words in the letter as a ‘summons’? What is a ‘court’? Will I even remember what I am supposed to have done wrong by the time of my ‘hearing’? Why have I been told that if I don’t come to a particular building on a particular date that harm will befall me? Can I order people to go to particular buildings on particular dates and threaten them with harm if they don’t comply? Isn’t a ‘duty’ a moral obligation backed by force? What is the moral that compels human beings to go to particular buildings on particular dates?

>>On the day of my hearing I carefully showered and dressed myself so as to demonstrate my acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation and hopefully show my normalcy and my respect for the court<<

What is the appropriate dress when being threatened? Armour? What is ‘normal’? Is respect for a human being who can harm you the same as respect for a dangerous dog?

>>The whole proceeding went better than I had feared. I went where I was directed, I stood and sat when I was directed, I swore my oath on the Bible, I was polite and respectful and answered all their questions as best I could<<

Does one fear genuine justice? Is politeness, obedience, and compliance evidence that my speed was not excessive? What is a promise on the Bible worth if I am an atheist? Does the Bible permit me to swear oaths?

>>Because I freely admitted my guilt and showed contrition the magistrate chose to be lenient with me and imposed the minimum penalty permitted<<

Guilt? Did I accept that my speed was excessive or was I just agreeing that my speed exceeded some arbitrary limit? Why do some ‘officials’ seem to possess free will while others don’t? Is any financial penalty imposed on me used to compensate my victim? Who was my victim anyway? In what sense did my coerced confession and apparent contrition alter any deleterious effect of my velocity?

>>The combination of the tax assessment and the motoring fine will make it hard for me to find the required money and I may have to sell my car to fund it. I have calculated that my car is worth enough to pay off the purchase loan and still have enough left over to purchase an older vehicle that will still get me to my place of employment<<

Has anything in this scenario seriously affected another human being, or their property, to such an extent that my livelihood should be put in jeopardy?

The questions posed above may seem at first blush to contradict my assertion that truth is evident to a six-year-old because these questions could act to make affairs seem even more complicated.

Not so! Read on to discover how deceptively simple it all is.

The truths contained in the scenario

Any truths contained in the scenario will involve physical objects and concrete actions which can be registered by the human senses.

Once again, let us now examine the scenario portrayed above line-by-line and see what truths it contains.

>>I was sitting on my sofa, watching the news on my television, when I heard a noise at my front door, so I went to investigate<<

I was sitting on a sofa. I was watching television. I heard a noise. I determined that the source of the noise was likely to be in the direction of the front door. I investigated the source of the noise.

>>As I entered my hallway I espied the postman retreating round the corner of my building and noticed a letter lying on the doormat. Wondering what the postman had delivered, I picked the letter up and started to tear it open as I returned to my living room<<

I entered the hallway. I espied a human dressed in some type of costume or uniform outside. This human was walking round the corner of the building in which I was located. I noticed an envelope lying on the doormat. I picked the envelope up. I tore the envelope open. I returned to the room containing the television.

>>To my dismay it was a letter from the Tax Authority stating that they had re-assessed me and that I now owed them considerably more than I had calculated<<

The envelope contained some sheets of paper with writing on them.

>>In my agitated state I lost interest in any continued appraisal of the state of world affairs so I switched off my television and decided to go for a drive in my car<<

I switched the television off. I drove my car.

>>I drove out of town and headed for the highway. Once on the highway I ‘opened her up’ and enjoyed the freedom of the open road which served as temporary distraction from my financial worries<<

I drove out of town and headed for the highway.

>>Unfortunately, my distraction extended to failing to notice the speed limit, or the highway patrol vehicle strategically placed behind a large roadside advertising board<<

I drove my car.

I heard a siren. A distinctly decorated car behind me flashed its lights. The driver of the car behind gesticulated.

>>The highway patrol officer came up to my window and demanded to see my papers. He asked me if I knew why he had stopped me and I apologised for my excessive speed<<

I pulled over at the edge of the road. The distinctly decorated car pulled up behind me. A human being got out of the distinctly decorated car. The human approached the car I was driving. The human spoke to me. I felt guilty and nervous and started babbling accordingly.

The human proffered me a piece of paper with writing on it. I took the piece of paper from his hand. He spoke some more.

>>My next letter was even more distressing than the tax demand as it summonsed me to court a few months hence under pain of dire consequences should I fail in my duty to attend<<

I found another envelope in my domicile. It contained some pieces of paper with writing on.

I showered and dressed.

>>The whole proceeding went better than I had feared. I went where I was directed, I stood and sat when I was directed, I swore an oath on the Bible, I was polite and respectful and answered all their questions as best I could<<

People named various basic actions and I agreed to perform them. I touched a book. I told a story.

>>Because I freely admitted my guilt and showed contrition the magistrate chose to be lenient with me and imposed the minimum penalty permitted<<

A man in a costume said some words.

I contemplated changing vehicles.

How might a six-year-old analyse the truths outlined above?

First, some ground rules for our six-year-old analyst:

Don’t hit people first;
don’t take their stuff; and
beware of bullies.

Where an adult may see a law enforcement officer compelling him to do something, or prohibiting him from doing something, a six-year-old might say “a man in a funny suit is talking to daddy” or, if the situation is more tense, “a man in a funny suit is yelling at daddy”.

Which version is truth and which version is pregnant with mental constructs, beliefs, preconceived ideas, imagination, and fear?

A letter from the Tax Authority might seem to carry the weight of law, be just and fair, be applied according to defined rules and procedures, seek payment for services received, or claim a just share of your income to fund care for the sick, poor, and elderly, but, all of these explanations are fictions overlaying the truth that what you received was a letter saying “send us money or we will hurt you”.

I will not laboriously copy out the entire scenario again, but to a six-year-old it might look something like this:

Daddy was watching television.
Daddy got a letter.
A bully threatened to take Daddies stuff.
Daddy drove his car.
Daddy talked to a man in a funny suit.
Daddy got another letter.
A bully threatened Daddy if he didn’t go to a big house.
Daddy went to a big house.
Daddy talked to a man in a funny dress.
A bully said he would take Daddies stuff.
Daddy came home again.

How complicated was that?

Any time you see life as more complicated than this you are obscuring truth with mental constructs, beliefs, preconceived ideas, imagination, and fear.

Conclusion

Six-year-olds have fertile imaginations and to them a simple stick can be a gun, a lightsaber, a magic wand, or any number of wondrous things, with an elaborate back-story, a set of rules, and an operating procedure. So, why do I maintain that life is simple enough for a six-year-old to master? It is because the six-year-old knows that his story is just a story.

Adults, however, can fall into the trap of believing their own elaborate fairy tales and live their lives as though these fairy tales are true.

I conclude that life is so simple that a six-year-old can analyse it and learn its truths and its rules. I am sure that you will agree that any normal six-year-old could understand, learn, and abide by the following. The question is - can we?

The only truth is your truth.
It is your responsibility to determine the truth in all circumstances.
You have free will.
You, and you alone, are responsible for your actions.
No one is the boss of you.
You are not the boss of anyone else.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (said in six-year-old language).
Don’t hit people first.
Don’t take people’s stuff.
Your stuff is your stuff.
A letter, book, magazine, or pamphlet etc. is a piece of paper with writing on it.
Television, radio, the Internet, books, magazines, pamphlets, advertisements, and other media present other people’s opinions (see #2 above).
A man talking to you is a man talking to you.
A man threatening you is a bully.
Placating a bully out of fear is OK as long as he doesn’t want you to hit people first or take their stuff.

Try thinking in this manner about the things you believe to be complicated and maybe you will see life in a different light.

Purple Elephant UK

Thursday, 29 October 2015

Is Life Really as Complicated as it Seems? - An essay by graham gambier