I find myself in what would seem to be very desirable circumstances regarding information.  The internet gives me access to books, blogs, videos, social media, news feeds, email, texts, and even good old phone calls.  Since I am a retired empty nest man with just a few life maintenance activities to tend to, I have ample time to explore the available information.  Yet I find myself frustrated by my lack of discipline in how I make use of the resources available.  

One default mode I seem to share with many folks is a tendency to use my phone to mindlessly scroll through various articles.  The social media, search engine, and artificial intelligence software is very good at feeding me more and more bite sized chunks of things that I seem to have shown interest in.  Consequently, the scrolling can become somewhat akin to a substance abuse disorder.  

I used Facebook for a couple of decades and found that I was reading many fewer things that could be seen as edifying.  When I posted my thoughts on various subjects, I became increasingly frantic to see whether I got likes or comments on what I had written.  I found myself checking many times a day to see where those stood, even though I knew full well that the data would trickle in over a day or three and would prove to be of very little importance or even interest.

I got off Facebook about a month ago.  I don't really miss it except for one small thing.  Facebook was one of the few places where I strove to put my thoughts into writing.  Passive consumption of other people's creative content can certainly be worthwhile, but I miss the discipline of organizing and recording my own material.  

So here I am on Blogger once again.  I see that most of my writing are more than a decade old.

The Left Right 2D Trap

 Humans are incredibly multidimensional.   Nonetheless, it seems that many, maybe even most, debates in

 recent years are couched in terms of a single dimension.  

One such spectrum that seems greatly overused is the left/right political one.  Leftists are said to 

believe "such and such" which is thought to be quite contrary to what right wingers are adamant about.  

For example, leftists might be said to support big government whereas right wingers want small government. 

 My personal bias shows even in how I have selected terminology for this example. 

 I suspect my "leftist" friends would start by denying that they are leftist. 

They would likely prefer to be described as compassionate.  

They might be happy to see the size of the government diminished in certain areas such as military defense 

spending or immigration enforcement.  They might see my calls for smaller government as a disguised 

cruel streak where I may be indifferent to the suffering of the poor, the sick, or the weak.  

Each of us is puzzled by what seems to be a gross misunderstanding of our respective positions.  

Perhaps my so-called leftist friend believes they are well aware of the limitations of governmental

 solutions to such things as poverty. They may espouse a thorough understanding of the fact

 that government spending is necessarily limited to one degree or another.  I on the other hand am eager to

 see many government programs that are meant to help the poor as actually contributing to their plight 

because of a misunderstanding of human nature and a faulty approach to stimulating productivity as a 

means to increase the resources available in a way that reduces the likelihood that a large portion of the 

citizenry will find themselves suffering from a lack of life's necessities.  

We may also differ in our attitude toward whether it is inherently unfair for some to have so much

 more than others, even when the poorest have access to basic food, clothing, and housing.  

Some may believe that the very existence of rich and poor is a sign of failed sociopolitical policies.

I find it interesting that the very idea of left and right in politics can be traced back to the seating

 chart for the French National Assembly during the French Revolution. Those seated on the right 

of the assembly president's right generally wanted to preserve traditions of the king and church.  

Those seated on the left opposed monarchy and sought many changes to the existing order.  

Of course, in the United States there has never been a monarchy or a state church. 

 The French left wing agenda of republicanism is foundational in the US constitution. 

 Applying left and right as descriptors for the US congress is immediately problematic. 

Nonetheless, language morphs over time.  Here we are in the 21st century United States and we tend to 

use left and right freely with the supposition that we have mutual understandings of what we mean.

I hope to avoid a simple linear spectrum unless I am addressing very specific topics.  

Coercion and Influence

Christopher Walken, as a character in the movie "Seven Psychopaths" is confronted by a man with a shotgun who commands him to put his hands up.   Walken says, "No".  The other character is astonished and says, "Why not?"  Walken says, "I don't want to".  The gunman says, "I've got a gun. "   Walken says, "So what?" The other guy says,"That doesn't make any sense".  Walken replies, "Too bad."

I love this scene.  One might say that Walken was being coerced into cooperating with the gunman.  However, by simply refusing to comply, Walken defies coercion.  When the gunman argues with him about it, Walken defies influence.  Of course Walken might pay for his intransigence with his life.  Nonetheless, he has rendered both coercion and influence useless for changing his behavior.

Once obese human beings achieve weights of approximately 1000 pounds, they are generally unable to walk or even fit through the door of their room.  Yet they require many thousands of calories of food each day to maintain their incredible girth.  Clearly someone is complicit by purchasing, preparing, and presenting food to the bed bound person.   Yet, this sort of extreme obesity is definitely life threatening.  Bathing and using the toilet require a great deal of help from others.  All sorts of complications and discomforts accrue to the obese person. 

Why would the patient's helpers continue to help the patient maintain this wretched existence?  For reasons that vary, they are unwilling to tell the patient no when they demand or even just request the massive amounts of food and special care.  The helpers are often family members who love the patient and long for them to be restored to health.   Yet they do not make simple changes that will enable the patient to lose weight.

Coercion and even influence are real, but the means to render them ineffective are available to any human with a "free will".  We all possess the incredible power to refuse to cooperate. 

Of course, a strong adversary can force us to our knees.  But then, we have not really yield to their demands.  Our body has been forced into a position we disagree with, but our minds remain uncompliant.

Even brutal beating and even torture may hurt us so much that we speak agreement or some sort of information.  However, the pain is used to force the brain, mouth, and lips to move somewhat like the physical force might be used to force us to our knees.  Our will and some portion of our mind are not yet conquered.

It is humbling to consider that we often say that we were forced to do something or convinced to do something that is against our will, and yet realize that the option to say, or at least think, no was always an option we had available.

Matthew 5:37 New International Version (NIV)

37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

When we comply despite or desire to resist, we are making some sort of bargain with ourselves.  We hope that in the overall scheme of things, we will benefit more by agreeing than we would by resisting.  For example, we hand our wallet to an armed robber in hopes that compliance will result in less disruption to our life than would resistance.  In a sense, we are making a bargain with ourselves.  We believe that we have escaped more onerous costs by simply handing the wallet to the thief.

We actually have no ability to forecast the future well enough to ensure that the bargain we have made will provide the desired outcome.  In the case of a robbery, the thief may decided to kill us despite our compliance. Alternatively the loss of the wallet may start a chain of events that leads to consequences far more dire than we could have imagined.  For example, losing our identification documents might result in our being falsely imprisoned, leaving our family to suffer greatly before the matter can be resolved.  Or the emboldened robber may decide that our compliance denotes that we are an easy mark that should be subjected to more and more onerous demands or other misdeeds.

Often we say yes, when we want to say no, simply because we want to avoid the unpleasantness of experience dismay or anger on the part of the person who has made the request.  If we seek to avoid all manner of unpleasantness and avoid all sorts of confrontation, no matter how mild, our lives become unbearable.

We will benefit from realizing that saying no is always an option.  We will benefit even more if we choose wisely as to when to exercise the option to say no.

Only God can see the bigger picture and comprehend the future consequences of our decsions.  Let us be quick to turn to him for guidance.  If we are not aware of direct guidance when we ask for it, let us fall back on what we know to be true from our experience, our limited wisdom, and our understanding of God's will as revealed to us in Bible study, Godly teaching, and Godly examples.  We can rest in the knowledege that God will honor our desire to be like Him.  If we fail, he can help us to recover and to do better in the future.  As we trust in him as our savior, we are assured of the ultimate resolution of this life's difficulties: eternity with God.  A renewed body and spirit.  No more crying, pain, illlness or death.