Music is Music: Feeling Good

This is the ninth edition of my series, Music is Music.  In each episode,  I give a brief musical analysis of recordings, often of the same song, which I consider to be outstanding in one way or another.  This time I have chosen for discussion three recordings of “Feeling Good.”

Every Saturday morning, I take a spinning class with an excellent instructor who is also my friend, Sushil Sharma.  During our exercise sessions, Sushil plays a music CD to accompany our huffing and puffing.  Some are fast, some are faster, all programmed to reflect whether we are sprinting or “climbing a hill,” that is, pedaling against increased resistance. At the end of our session, it is time to cool down.  This we do to Michael Bublé’s version of “Feeling Good," which follows:

Well we know what he means.  The butterflies are having fun, and he wants some of the action as well.  (I wish I could have found a version without a video.  Mr. Bublé puts it on kind of thick in the video, at least from my perspective, that of an albeit rather youthful, yet a septuagenarian nevertheless. One more comment: cut the Elvis impersonation, Mr. Bublé, you can’t dance). I advise listeners to close their eyes. For the singing is much more subtler than the video.  NB: I found a vocal without an accompanying  video after all!

The sexual longing comes across well; no doubt many, or at least some, young women will see stars.  But this singer has a lot more than sexual appeal; he is first-rate.  When I heard the recording for the first time during a spinning session some time ago, I remember saying to myself, “This guy is the successor to Frank Sinatra." Like Sinatra's, Bublé's voice is pleasing to the ear; like Sinatra, his range is limited.  But the phrasing!  What a crooner, in the best sense of that word. His phrasing, like Sinatra's at his best, is well-nigh perfect.  He knows when, and for just how long, to come in after the beat in order to produce the maximum effect.  He uses what in classical music is called melisma, that is, several notes for one word that is denoted with only one note in the sheet music.  This device is used very often in African-American music.  (There must be a term other than melisma for it, of which I’m unaware.)  Much of his phrasing, like just about all popular American music, is deeply indebted to African-American music. (Note the African-American phrase, ‘don’t you know').  However, this is a very white version of this song.   It doesn’t go for the emotional jugular as many fine examples of African-American music does.  For that, we turn to a recording by Gregory Porter.

The second rendition of this song is performed a cappella by Gregory Porter:

I had only head the Bublé version previously.  This isn’t a song of a young buck on the prowl, after all; it’s a song about the attainment of freedom—as yet  incompletely realized—by a member of a much abused race.  I did some research on the song.  It first appeared in a 1964 musical, “The Smell of the Greasepaint—The Roar of the Crowd”.  It was described at the time as a “booming song of emancipation,” and it is just that.  The show, which has since been forgotten as far as I know, came to Broadway the following year.  It was first sung in England by the Guyanese-British singer, Cy Grant, and on Broadway by the classical baritone, Gilbert Price, who unfortunately died in an accident at the age of 49.  In the play, the singer of this song was referred to simply as “the Negro”—we have come a long way since 1964, and still have a long way to go. Gregory Porter sings here a Gospel version that would fit in perfectly if sung in a black church or during the Civil Rights Movement. Mr. Porter has a beautiful voice that is also heftier and that also possesses a wider range than the singer of the first arrangement. I was not surprised to learn that Mr. Porter is a renowned jazz singer as well; it shows. (I’m glad Mr. Bublé did the version he did, which is good in its own right; he would never have been able to pull off anything comparable to Mr. Porter’s version—Neither could, of course, Frank Sinatra.They are both masters of entertainment; Mr. Porter gives us entertainment that pierces the soul).  His phrasing and his ability to provide variation so that each repeated stanza is never boring, is amazing as well.  This is especially hard to do when one sings a cappella; kudos to Mr. Porter!

The third version we will discuss is by Nina Simone:

I heard this song for the first time during a recent step aerobics class.  (Where have I been?)  After the class was over, I asked the instructor who the performer was, and, as soon as I got home, I went straight to YouTube.

Notice the vampy chord progression and the sassy orchestration.  This was taken over by Bublé, along with the 'don’t you know'.  The original musical-theater accompaniment is less effective. Ms. Simone sings beautifully here; this is my favorite version.  In this rendition of a “booming song of emancipation,” I detect a good deal of sadness in her voice.  Her “feeling good” is more subtle, and, for me, more profound.  Ms. Simone appears to know that freedom is never secure, and, possibly because of her own personal difficulties, cannot pretend otherwise, even in this song. The technical  aspects of her performance impress.  Even more important, however, Ms. Simone, while not contravening it, transcends the historical aspect of the song and seems to be singing on behalf of the entire human race.  We will never break all the invisible bonds that keep us chained to greed, hate, and delusion; Ms. Simone's voice, straight from the heart, conveys this sentiment extraordinarily well.  A tempered joy is perhaps all we can expect. When listening to this recording, however, my joy is unalloyed. Such is the power of music.

Previous editions of this series, all available on my blog:

l.   Music of Transformation: An Analysis of a Spiritual*
2.  Schubert in Five Songs Part l
3.  Schubert in Five Songs, Part ll
4.  Music is Music: Gospel
5.  Music is Music: der Schmied
6.  Music is Music: Throw it Away
7.  Prometheus
8. Music is Music: Beautiful Hurts

* includes a recording of Nina Simone

The Chemistry of Charlottesville

During the years 1966-1967, I studied in Freiburg, Germany, in a program sponsored by the University of Wisconsin. One evening, I was walking through a little village in the Black Forest.  Everyone was heading toward the main street, so I followed them.  There I witnessed a procession that made me feel uneasy.  A torch parade, a Fackelzug, marched through the village.  The nature of the event was innocent—I don’t remember the occasion; perhaps it took place in honor of a saint.  As an American, my sole knowledge of Fackelzüge came from old newsreels depicting Nazi marches during the Third Reich. 

I still remember the feeling that came over me so long ago: a catch in the throat, a brief touch of nausea; for a moment it was as if I had been transported to 1930s Nuremberg, witnessing one of those infamous Nazi rallies.  I couldn’t watch it; I left rapidly.   

Torch parades have existed since medieval times in the German-speaking world, often with a connection to university life.  Hitler, however, gave them evil connotations, as he did to so many aspects of life in Germany.  The torch parade I witnessed occurred only about twenty years after the war—Some of the older people marching could well have marched in Nazi parades as well, I thought with a shudder.  As an American and philo-Semite, I imagine I felt much like an African American  does, when passing a statue of Robert E. Lee in a town square.

Two years later, I was living in Yorkville, a New York City neighborhood which at the time still had a very distinct German flavor. For instance, I remember having lunch many times at the Berlin Bar on the corner of 85^th Street and 3^rd Avenue; I also remember buying cookies with a friend, who was visiting me from Germany, at the Kleine Konditorei, a block away.  When the young lady at the counter asked what we wanted, my friend, pointing to some cookies on display, asked me, Wie heissen sie?--What are they called—Kooookies?? The young lady at the counter thereupon switched to German.  There was a lot of German spoken in Yorkville in those days.)

My apartment was between 2^nd and 3^rd aveneues on 85^th street.  One day, when I was about to turn the corner, onto 2^nd avenue, I noticed a few men waving flags that had fascist insignia on them. They were right-wing radicals, trying to start a new movement.  The inhabitants, however,  had had enough with the Nazis.  Nobody followed them—I remember it well—nobody followed them; we, in fact, booed them along.  There were only about three of them, which as far as neo-Nazis are concerned, were three more than enough. They quickly gave up, got in their truck and drove off.

Fifty years later, I was confronted by this image, all over the news, of a neo-Nazi march and demonstration in Charlottesville, Virginia:

In case you are unfamiliar with the details, I will provide a brief summary.  The city of Charlottesville decided to remove, for obvious reasons, a statue of Robert E. Lee from a city park.  The organizer of “Unite the Right”—I refuse to mention his name—got a permit for a protest march.  On the evening of August 10, 2017, approximately 500 hundred neo-Nazis had crawled out of the nation’s woodwork and descended on Charlottesville.  As they approached the park the next day, waving flags emblazoned with swastikas, they were met by counter-protesters.  Violence broke out.  The nadir of the rally was the death of a young counter-protester, Heather Heyer, when a neo-Nazi terrorist deliberately rammed his car into the antifascist  crowd, killing her and wounding nineteen others.

The is a the face of an American terrorist, James Alex Fields, Jr.:

My intention is not to write about the riot; I wasn’t there and many fine journalists have given vivid accounts.  My intention is to help explain why this riot occurred.  What I see as a very significant cause of the rise of the right-wing has been, in my opinion, virtually ignored by everyone.  I felt obliged to bring this to the nation's attention.

The Chemistry of Charlottesville

A well-known chemical reaction is as follows:

AgNO3 + KCL → AgCl + KNO3

This equation indicates that when liquid silver nitrate is added to a potassium chloride solution, silver choride will precipitate out of the solution as a sold white mass.  This is a phenomenon of nature that can be replicated anywhere. Societal equations are less exact, but they are phenomena of human nature nevertheless and can be replicated (inexactly) anywhere as well.  In the societal version of the above equation, KCL is replaced by current economic  conditions, while AgNo3 is replaced by income inequality. Add income inequality to the status quo and a precipitate will result, each one representing a number of citizens who feel disenfranchised.  In the chemical reaction, a white mass results, which responds to the result of the human equation as applied to the United States quite nicely, indicating an increasing number of angry whites.  Just as when a lot of silver nitrate is added to the solution, lots of silver nitrate will arise, the amount of radicalized citizens is directly proportional to the increase of income inequality.  There will always be income inequality, a historically normal amount will produce unnoticeable results.  But when it reaches a critical amount,  radicals will appear in all cities and towns.  (I’m not only talking about neo-Nazis and white supremacists here; the bulk of the precipitate is composed of voters who let their anger trump their ability to make a rational choice.)

      This graph shows the exponential increase of inequality in the U.S.since 1979

Germany is well aware of the havoc economic instability can cause.  They know that the severe depression and inflation of the 1920s and 1930s helped elect a madman.  The German government was recently so afraid of inflation that they refused aid to Greece until the budget of that country became more balanced.  We don’t seem to see the connection between economic misery and the rise of the alt-right.  In most of the recent newspaper articles about the Charlottesvile debacle I’ve read, the cause is simply a matter of whites refusing to accept diversity and wanting unlimited white privilege.  They are demonized and thus dismissed.  Yes, white supremacists are indeed guilty of demonic behavior, but failure to pay attention to the societal equation we have discussed is not wise.

The white supremacists chanted, "You will not replace us, Jews will not replace us," as they marched through Charlottesville, indicating their economic anxiety as well as their vile hate.

That increasing income inequality tends to cause increasing radicalization is well known. In an article by Seyward Darby in the September 2017 issue of Harper's, this phenomenon is addressed:

...Societal science research sheds some light on the (alt-right) movement's appeal to individuals who profess to be seeking truth of purpose.  The work of the political scientists Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent suggests that people who experience anxiety and loss of control over their personal circumstances are more likely to adopt fringe beliefs.  This March, psychologists at Princeton published a study showing that ostracism also enhances the belief in conspiracy theories.
                                     --page 27

When I practiced pediatrics, I was confronted over the years by many cases of child abuse.  Child abuse of young children is usually inflicted by mothers, since they usually have the burden of child care at this age.  Once I ordered a bone scan of a child suspected of abuse.  It revealed multiple fractures, in various stages of healing, which just about clinches the diagnosis.  It is normal to be angry with the mother who inflicted these injuries--but anger doesn’t help to resolve the problem.  Although one might be reluctant to do so, the best results are obtained when the well-being of the mother is of primary concern, once the safety and recovery of the child has been assured.  Social workers might see to it that the abuser gets more social support; they will think of such things as helping her get a job, helping her get day-care for the child, helping her to further her education, etc.  Once the abuser’s stress is decreased and her sense of self-worth is increased, she is likely to become a much better parent.  White supremacists are no different. Those who have meaningful work at a living wage tend to be happier and happier people tend to be more tolerant. We, therefore, don’t need further reductions in taxes for the very wealthy; we need such things as more funds for education, a New-Deal type program to repair our failing infrastructure, etc, etc.

It’s time to introduce another white terrorist:

Paul Ryan, the current Speaker of the House, is representative of just about all Republicans; he and they are doing their best to increase the income inequality in this county.  Decreasing taxation on the very rich and shrinking the safety net at a time like this is nothing short of violence against those at the lower end of the income scale. 

A good example is the recent  Republican attempt to rescind the Affordable Care Act, a bill which narrowly missed being passed.  Ryan, of course, voted in favor of repealing Obamacare.  The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that for every 455 people who lose health care, one death per year would result.  If passed, the Republican bill would, by conservative estimates, cause twenty million people to lose their health insurance.  The result would be the deaths of over 43,000 people a year!

James Alex Fields, Jr. killed one person; Ryan, if he had his way, would be responsible for the deaths of thousands!  Which is more dangerous, lone wolves or a pack of wolves in business suits?

Sure, Ryan’s terrorism is of a different kind; he is articulate, dresses well, and is quite affable.  He appears to be a model citizen.  But he isn’t. 

The proper response to his gentleman’s terrorism should, of course, be quite different from the response to the terrorism of the misfit who murdered Heather Hyer.  The latter deserves to be thrown in jail, while Ryan and his ilk deserve to be thrown—that is voted—out of office. If we want fewer James Alex Fields in our midst, that’s what we must do.

Trump, The Emperor of Ice-Cream

Let be be finale of seem:

The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.
                                   --Wallace Stevens

We have elected the Emperor of Ice-Cream to unnerve as our president, and still act surprised when the ice-cream drips all over us and makes the body politic a mess.

Making fun of Trump—I can’t blame the comedians, our getting ever closer to a downfall is their windfall. (I listen and laugh with them; too bad, though, that the jokes are on us.) I suppose this applies to pundits as well; they-- the progressive ones at least--also seem to be making a living by parsing the latest proof that the emperor has no clothes. But I have less patience with them.  They seem surprised, even shocked, by every importunate tweet, by every wackadoo move our dear leader makes. 

An example: after giving a widely criticized speech to the Boy Scouts, Trump said, “I got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them and they were thankful”. Was there such a call? Nope. Similarly, Trump said that the president of Mexico called him to praise the former’s—how I wish he were “a former”-- immigration policies.  If you believe that call ever took place, I would like to sell you some solar panels specially designed for that “big, beautiful” wall that will never be built.

The pundits never cease to be amazed by Trump goose-stepping over the faces of members of an ever-increasingly oppressed minority composed of fact-bearing, truth-telling patriots.  Don’t the pundits have his number yet?   In case you, dear reader, still support our dear leader, let me explain the nature of the cipher that he is.

President Trump is mentally ill.  He really is a pathological narcissist.  It’s not a case  of name-calling, it’s an objective assessment of a textbook case.  If you are interested in how this disorder is defined—and you should be—here is a definition from the Mayo Clinic: Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others.  But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

There is simply no better way to understand Trump’s behavior. There are no doubt many people suffering from this condition, many of whom are doomed to long-term therapy--it is apparently a very difficult dis-ease to treat. That someone so afflicted has become the president of the United States and, while he is in power, will continue to afflict us all, is, however,  truly unprecedented.

A narcissist is a frog who needs to be convinced that he is a Prince in order to forget that he lives in a swamp. Deep down he’s convinced that he’s nothing more than a measly little reptile with a big mouth; to contain the anxiety that this slimy self-image causes, he needs, to borrow Emily Dickinson’s immortal phrase, an admiring bog.    If birds tweet his praises, he’ll tweet their praises as well. If he believes that a fly is buzzing with praise for somebody else, he’ll lash out his tongue and devour it.

This is the extent of a narcissist’s morality: mirror, mirror of the pond, tell me I’m great or I’ll despond.

The vast majority of commentators don’t seem to get this, although, as Trump’s pathology continues to be more and more obvious, some of them are beginning to comprehend that our president is not only incompetent, but suffers from a serious mental disorder as well.

One wouldn’t expect a man with a physical condition that causes a high fever to act cool; how can one expect a man with a mental condition that causes a raging inner fever not to act like a fool?

If one has some knowledge of Trump’s illness, one realizes that his actions, however ridiculous and seemingly impulsive when judged by objective standards, arise from his pathology as inevitably as a cough arises when one contracts the flu.

There are so many examples! Trump has mocked a disabled reporter; Trump has belittled very talented people such as Meryl Streep and Jon Stewart.  He has even criticized the pope!  Do you think he would ever have denigrated any of these people if they had praised him?  Meryl Street is one of the most overrated actresses in Hollywood? What about the mediocre Scott Baio, who was just about the only “star” who was willing to speak on Trump’s behalf during the Republican Convention?  Remember, pathological narcissists lack empathy.  He doesn’t see persons as persons. He’s rankled by criticism and puffed up by praise; for him, unless others cheer him on, they aren’t worth a nit.

The Emperor of Ice-Cream has no friends, not even allies. Having little or no empathy is incompatible with respect for others as well.  He denounced Jeff Sessions, one of his earliest supporters, for recusing himself from the investigation of Russian collusion. Sessions had no choice; nevertheless, Trump severely criticized him for doing so, since he wanted Sessions to call the investigation off.  What good is an attorney general who is no longer useful to him? Loyalty to the Emperor is the sole criterion for the mini-Nero's imperial support. Recently, Trump even denounced Mitch McConnell, an essential ally, for not being able to deliver for the president's signature a (truly terrible) health care bill--even though McConnell worked tirelessly to do just that, while The Emperor of Ice-Cream simply lay in his dish with a pen.

When he was campaigning, Trump promised to replace Obamacare with affordable medical services for every citizen of the country.  Logically, he would have striven to improve Obamacare, which wouldn’t be that hard to do.  But no.  According to the Emperor, everything about Obamacare is evil.  To understand his hatred for Obamacare and Obama, it is helpful to think of President Obama as Britannicus and Trump as Nero.  Nero had Britannicus, his step-brother, murdered because he was a rival.  No, no, I’m not implying that Trump wants to kill Obama, only his legacy, no matter how damaging rescinding many of the good things Obama did for the country would be. Emperors can’t abide rivals; the Emperor of Ice-cream is no different.

(Why does Trump like dictators and dislike leaders of democratic countries?  That's easy: Duartes and Putins don't criticize him; Merkels and Mays do).

Recently, Trump has been criticized—rightly—for not condemning the recent horrible demonstration of white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, during which one person died and many more were injured.  He remained silent not because (or not only because) he supports white supremacy, (it's bad for business), but due to the praise that these wretched people give him; they are definitely part of his base.  (Note: Just as one is responsible for one's actions while under the influence of alcohol, the fact that Trump suffers from a mental condition does not exculpate him. Trump's failure to denounce white supremacy is a moral outrage; that the president has a personality disorder is no excuse). I’m not claiming that Trump has no racist beliefs, either—far from it—What I am asserting is that he has no sense of morality.  If in some crazy parallel world, African Americans supported Trump, he might well be advocating such things as reparations and a vigorous program of affirmative action for members of Congress.

Mental illness is a devastating condition; if he weren’t the most powerful person in the world, the correct response to Trump would be empathy and compassion.  Since he is president, however, we must see to it that his powers are curtailed—the best solution for us all, of course, would be his removal office as quickly as possible. (I suspect, although I'm not sure, that he colluded with Russia; that he has been involved, at least indirectly, with money laundering, is almost certain.  There is a very good chance that Muller's investigation will reveal an impeachable offense. Let's hope so!)

One way or another, The Emperor of Ice-Cream is going to melt. We must see to it that the whole world doesn’t continue to heat up and melt down with him.

Self, Love, and Wisdom: Three Interconnected Spheres

My wife recently had a serious bike accident.  She has since recovered, but she easily could have died. Such an event knocks the nonsense out of you.  I have been postponing writing this essay; I feared I was not up to the task.  That may be, but now more than ever do I understand Hillel’s famous words; If not now, when?

Three Interconnected Spheres: Self, Love, and Wisdom

1. The Self           

If I am not for myself, who is for me? –Hillel

In my long career as a pediatrician, I have seen many examples of troubled children who grew up to be troubled adults.  Houses without a firm foundation are at the mercy of unstable earth below them; if they don’t stand on solid ground, existence for their inhabitants is precarious. For human beings, a firm foundation refers to support and love during the crucial years of development.  A strong sense of self is not self-caused.

In many instances, children whom I have treated came from broken homes with little social support.  I can recall many examples of insufficient parental involvement, e.g. single mothers who slept late and expected their children to go to elementary school by themselves.  What should have been homes, were merely houses; meals entailed giving a child money to eat at McDonald’s alone. 

I am not blaming anyone, I am merely pointing out a psychological law: a healthy sense of self is necessary in order to lead a good life; without its formation in childhood, however, serious life-long problems arise.  Despite having endured a difficult childhood, even for that individual all is not lost: love that comes later can help a seriously psychologically injured person recover.  But in almost all cases, that person will never remove all the scars, and some of the injuries will remain as open wounds; we can presume that one would have had a much happier life if one had not been injured in the first place. 

Humans can hate, humans can love, but nature is always indifferent. If one falls into a ditch and cannot get out, gravity certainly will never ease up to enable the person to float to safety. Yes, a human being can lower a ladder, descend, and help the fallen stranger to get back into the world.  But that person has troubles of his own; that person has fallen into his own ditch, as it were, and is busy trying to extricate himself from his shallow pit and has little energy left over to help his neighbor out of a deeper one. 

I remember attending a Unitarian service in New York City over forty years ago.  Shortly after the service began, a seriously troubled man entered the church; he was poorly dressed, unkempt and probably homeless.  As is the case with many homeless people, he also appeared to have mental problems.  He walked up and down the central aisle without saying a word, obviously seeking help. Although he appeared to be desperate, nobody, including myself,  reached out to him in any way.  After a while, realizing that he would find as much support from us as he would from stones, he left.  The minister continued the service without ever having acknowledged the poor man, as if he had been merely static which we good Christians had tuned out.

“Nobody want you when you’re down and out” is as true now as when Bessie Smith sang the song so beautifully in 1929.  Another old saying is, "God helps people who help themselves".  
Self-reliance is certainly a good thing,  but this bromide is often used as a shaming insult to ditch dwellers.  If one lacks the wherewithal to help oneself; if one is lost in the labyrinth of an ill mind; if one lacks a functioning self,  God, that is nature, will provide no ladder to extricate the fallen individual from his prison.  Passers-by will pass by, self-absorbed with their own problems and cognizant of the enormous and time-consuming effort it would take to rescue one who has sunk so low; to assuage their conscience, many will demonize the fallen and attribute their descent to a free-will choice of depravity.  

We human beings must  be reasonably “self-fit” before we can fit in well with other selves. An important aspect of being self-fit is the development of empathy, including empathy for those who are quite different from ourselves.  Empathy for others as well as for oneself is more readily developed when one becomes more aware of the miracle of consciousness, the highest good in the universe that we know.  The realization which naturally follows,0 that one image of God, as it were, is not better than another, certainly fosters empathy.  Society demands that we must judge another’s behavior when that behavior is harmful to others; judging the person, however, is never warranted, despite the fact that this is the norm.  We don’t even know ourselves well enough to judge ourselves, much less the workings of a different mind raised in a different environment. 

Just because a person is different from us doesn’t make that person inferior or superior.  As Walt Whitman wrote, “Nor do I criticize the turtle for not being something else.”

You did not make the weed.  You did not make the redwood.  Nor did you create yourself.  The proper response to all three is awe.  Only one who has developed both self-respect and respect for others can realize, despite greed, despite hate, despite delusion, this essential inner fact: we are all intrinsically good; we are all who knows how? amazingly alive. The reality of a balanced self-hood should make us humble; if we had a different brain chemistry and a different environment, we would be a different person.  We are who we are largely due to factors beyond our control; once we realize this, how can we ever be in a position to judge others?

In summary.  to do well for ourselves and for others requires a firm foundation, a healthy sense of self.

2. Love              

If I am only for myself, what am I?

                                                           --Hillel

In nature, inanimate entities such as stones are perfect; seen from above with a transcendent eye, self is perfect as well. Seen with a human eye, however, things are different: from a humane perspective, much of our behavior is far from perfect, and, when it inflicts harm on others, even evil. No doubt about it, a cosmic eye sees perfection everywhere; from an earthly perspective, however—and we all live on earth—a self without love is, to put it mildly, deficient.

“Love, then do what you want,” ("Ama, et quod vis fac"), is an adage Augustine famously wrote well over a thousand years ago.  It is generally true, but Leviticus 18:19 is more accurate: love your neighbor as yourself.  If love is not grounded in Leviticus 18:19, love can lead one astray, as we shall see.  The biblical injunction implies a combination of a beloved self and a loving self.  As we have seen in the previous section, without a functioning sense of self, love is well-nigh impossible.  Note that the commandment does not enjoin loving your neighbor more than yourself but as yourself. 

Jesus of Nazareth taught that one should always “turn the other cheek”.  If this commandment is followed literally, one would not survive for long.  “He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword.”  Simone Weil agreed, but added that he who puts down the sword, dies on the Cross. The middle-road interpretation of Leviticus 18:19 includes justification for legitimate self-defense.

One is perhaps closer to the truth when one interprets Jesus’s statement as a deliberate exaggeration to reduce  greed, hate, and pride.  If it is interpreted literally, it is not in accord with the Golden Rule.  Taken figuratively, however, Jesus’s advice enjoins us to significantly reduce the desire for revenge and to significantly increase the practice of love and wisdom, much-needed advice indeed.

Of the three rungs discussed in this essay, self, love, and wisdom, love is by far the one most sung about and written about.  Love is indeed a powerful emotion, but is more than a matter of feeling; it is a course of action that often requires hard work.

All of us at least on occasion worship an idol that tells us, “You’re good and they’re bad”--“they” being members of another race, class, or nationality, all neighbors whom we refuse to accept as equals.

Love must begin locally—with oneself and one’s family—If it stops there and doesn’t radiate to include others, and doesn’t continue to radiate to include the whole world, it is a poor version of love indeed.  The wonderful Native American saying that teaches us not to judge another until we walk a mile in that person’s moccasins, illustrates an essential combination of love and wisdom, that, unfortunately, is not the way of the world.

A recent example of a lapse of judgment, a failure to internalize the aforementioned Native American adage, is a recent quote by the retired neurosurgeon, Dr. Benjamin Carson.  He said that if you took everything away from a successful man and plopped him down in a ghetto, he would be back on his feet in no time.  Similarly, if you took a "typical” person from a poor neighborhood and provide him with a lot of material support, he would never get to Gold Town—his attitude would confine him to Lead Town forever.

No, Dr. Carson; you rose from the ghetto, but you had a lot of advantages: intelligence, and a mother who insisted that you work hard. One isn’t even in a position to judge oneself, much less the effect that a specific environment and a specific internal environment has had in making a person who he currently is. 

Dr. Carson is also forgetting an essential fact: if the advantaged had practiced Lev. 18:19, there wouldn’t be any ghettos in the first place.

One of the greatest moral errors is the haughtiness that arises when one compares one’s own success to the perceived failure of others.  In Dr. Carson’s case, the faulty reasoning is as follows: ‘I succeeded and came from the same neighborhood.  The reason why many have failed is simply due to laziness, etc.'  Judge not lest ye be judged, taught a wise man whom Dr. Carson worships, but not always follows.

Love is a noble emotion, yet it can lead one astray when combined with ignorance and egotism.  One of my favorite examples of this is a poem by Baldur von Shirach, the notorious Nazi of Vienna who “loved” Hitler.  (Granted that some Nazis were far worse than he, but being a rotten piece of fruit among even more rotten pieces of fruit is hardly complimentary).  He wrote a love poem to Hitler, called “Er,” (“He”) extolling in a dreadfully bad poem the virtues of a dreadfully bad man.

Love of oneself is good; love of one’s family is good as well.  But if that love is not extended to include the stranger—as Hitler’s certainly wasn’t—that love can cause a great deal of harm. When Lev. 18:19 is put into practice, however, the individual is transformed, and if enough people follow suit, society will be redeemed.  Who has ever known the meaning of life without experiencing love for oneself, one’s family and love for one’s neighbor?

We now have the image of the second sphere, love, and the combination of the two, self and love.

                 

We should strive to live in the area that is a combination of each.  For self without love is selfish; for love without a well-developed self is like sowing the seeds of happiness among thistles. We still have an essential sphere to add, however.

3. Wisdom        

                                    --Tat Tvam Asi, Thou art that

                                               --The Upanishads

In general, Western religions emphasize love, while Eastern religions emphasize wisdom.  Meditation, perfected in Buddhism, is a way to transcend oneself by objectifying personal thoughts.  Meditation thus fosters wisdom, the realization that everyone and everything are connected.

This is well expressed by a poem by Michael Ende, which I translated form the German several years ago, “The Actual Apple”.

A writer and a  realist, well known

for his literality,

searched for something found at home

to delineate from A to Z:

an apple, for instance, an organic bit,

and all that goes along with it.

He described the core, the pulp, the skin,

the stem, the leaves, the branch, the tree,

the roots, the ground the roots grew in,

and Newton's Law of Gravity--

But that wasn't the actual apple at all;

he must include spring, summer, winter, and fall,

the sun and the moon and the stars--

He filled enough paper to paper a wall,

yet the ending seemed farther than quasars:

for actually he belonged there too,

this man of prose who hated verse,

and Adam and Eve and I and you

and God and the whole universe--

Finally he became fully aware

that apples are just indescribably there;

neither he nor another shall ever define

something so common, something so sublime--

He lifts his apple to the light;

smiling now, he takes a bite.

Love and wisdom can and should work together, as they do in the Great Commandment.When we love our neighbor as ourselves, our self-orientation can no longer be selfish—We learn that the center of creation is outside ourselves—in others—as well as inside ourselves.  Just as the center of the Big Bang is everywhere, the center of an inner universe is everywhere as well. We need to realize, if we are to lead full and just lives, that everyone is central to the universe.

Wisdom provides guidance for love that has gone astray.  Let us return to Baldur von Shirach’s love poem to Hitler  Hitler’s violent antisemitism is incompatible with wisdom, the knowledge that everything is connected, and that every human being deserves respect. In the eye of wisdom, the worth of a Jew is not in any way less than the worth of a Christian.  Love that only extends to one’s group--and in Hitler’s case, that was a perverse love as well—is like comparing the light of family hearth to the light of the sun.

I do not claim that love or wisdom has a supernatural origin; they originated via evolutionary adaptation to the environment.  Both of these virtues helped the individual and the group survive—and be happy.  I am not claiming that wisdom and love are merely biologically derived, either.  One cannot deny that both feel divine.

Now we can present the venn diagram that represents the best way to live:

It is in the area that is common to all three circles where self is not selfish; where love is never foolish and where wisdom is never dry.

When we go astray, the union of love, wisdom, and self acts like a magnet to draw us back to where we should be.  For instance, if we love our family but disparage those of another culture or ethnic origin, our diagram elicits the following questions: Is that love?  Is that wise?  Is that all we are? Similarly, if we enrich ourselves while depredating the environment, our diagram reveals that we have gone beyond where we should be at all times. 

Now we can return to Augustine's famous quote: love, then do what you want.  This, as we now can see, is valid only when that love resides in the common area of self, love, and wisdom.

I invite you to internalize this diagram and use it to monitor your behavior as well as the the behavior of others.  Should a wall be built between Mexico and the United States?  If we are speaking from the joint area of the three circles, the answer is obvious.  Should we accept capital punishment; should we break up families by deporting a mother or father who has lived here for a long time; should we continue to jail people for marijuana possession; are we doing enough to decrease racism and to foster peace, etc.  The questions are endless.  If we live where we should be, however, the answer to every one of them, however, is the same.

I would be pleased to receive comments from those who live where they should be, as well as from those who are moving, or at least desire to move, in the right direction.

If not now, when?

The Benefits--and Joys--of Bilingualism

Trump and immigration, a combination that goes together as readily as oil and water; a combination as harmless as the effect of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on arctic ice. Yesterday, the obnoxious portavoz-porte-voix of the present let’s-hope-soon-to-be-ancien regime, announced in a press conference new immigration guidelines, which includes a provision to favor those who already speak English.  A reporter asked whether this was what Emma Lazarus had in mind, and whether this evinces discrimination against non-English speaking would-be immigrants; this drove Trump’s representative, Stephen Miller, into a tirade that was, well, more than a few steps across the border from the World of Reason into the realm of La La Land-crazy.

I read that in high school, hearing students speak Spanish sent little Steven Miller into a rage against the apparent affront to his native tongue.  He has become even worse.  The covert anti-Hispanic element in the new policy is obvious, but in this article I’d like to ask a more general question: Is the desire to continue to speak another language a threat to the identity and well-being of the United States? I think not; if I said this to Stephen Miller during a press conference, the next word I would be able to get in would come many, many of his fatuous words later.  My computer, however, accepts what I write without an ampersand of hysteria, so I decided to defend bilingualism, or better yet, multilingualism, in this little article;  it is an attempt to encourage monolinguists—the majority of Americans—to stimulate the language centers of their brains, which is just as important as exercising the body.

"Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiss nichts von seiner eigenen.” (“If you don’t know foreign languages, you don’t know your own.” Notice the plural!)           

                          --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

We who live in the United States have a distinct advantage:we speak the most important language in the world.  True, there are more speakers of Chinese, but nothing can compare with the universality of English.  Among non-English speakers, English is the first choice for foreign language study virtually everywhere in the world.  You just can’t consider yourself educated in many non-English-speaking countries in Europe and elsewhere if you don’t know English along with your native language.  Most scientific research, moreover, appears in English, whether the scientist hales from Denmark or Egypt.  It is truly the world language.  If you want to get ahead internationally, English will undoubtedly make your journey easier,

Learning English is not only practical; it is a beautiful language as well.  Literature written in English is astoundingly rich.  It amazes me that a small country produced so many great authors: Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens, Austin, etc. etc, and so many fine poets as well: Keats, Shelley, Pope, Dryden, Manley Hopkins, etc etc. English-speaking countries, such as the United States, continue to increase the number of great writers in the language: Melville, Dickinson, Frost, Roth, Whitman, etc. etc.  In addition, English is so wonderfully idiomatic, malleable, and musical, making translation very difficult.  For instance, how would you translate, “What if a much of a which of a wind/gives the truth to summer’s lie/..." Bob Dylan’s “The answer my friend, is blowin’ in the wind” has been translated into German as “Die Antwort, mein Freund,/Weiss ganz allein der Wind”--the  original is indeed much superior. In addition,writers from all over the world continue to enrich literature in English, e.g. many authors from India choose to write in English; many foreign directors direct films in my beautiful native language as well.  What better way to obtain an international audience?   

Native English-speakers, however, also have a considerable disadvantage.  It is acceptable for an intellectual whose native language is English to know only that language; if you're Dutch, however, you can’t consider yourself educated if you don’t know English.  (The Dutch often know French and German as well.) Those whose mother tongue is not English, therefore, compose the vast majority of those who reap the considerable cognitive benefits of knowing more than one language.

Although foreign language instruction in the U.S. is said to be improving, I haven’t seen much results.  As a pediatrician, I picked up enough Spanish to be able to communicate with those who only spoke Spanish. I asked one of the medical assistants to tell a Spanish-speaking family in an examination room that I would be in to see them soon.  (She had told me previously that she had taken four years of high-school Spanish.)  She refused to inform the family--I was shocked to discover that just about the only thing she was able tp say was Hola!

Another example, Nancy Pelosi, the Italian-American politician, told a group of pundits that “We must improve the world mano a mano".  Not one of the highly-educated pundits in the room knew what she meant.

Why is it important to know another language? Let me count some of the ways.

Research shows that the brains of bi- or multi-lingual individuals are larger: this includes not only the language areas of the brain, but the hippocampus as well, which is essential for memory and quick thinking.  Research shows that if a bilingual person is going to develop Alzheimer’s, the onset of that dreadful disease is delayed five to seven years. Additional research strongly indicates that bilingualism, along with ballroom dancing, reading, playing a musical instrument, and social engagement, keeps the brain young.  Being bilingual also increases one’s attention, one’s ability to multitask, and even helps one to develop more empathy.

Learning languages is an enriching experience; more than that, it’s fun.  If you keep at it, it’s not at all difficult. I love to switch from language to language—I speak four; multilingualism has given me an international perspective as well.  I think I know a lot more about the situation in Venezuela, for instance, by listening to the news in Spanish every evening. I read novels in English, French, and German.  I’m not bragging; I am not a linguist.  Your interests might lie elsewhere, but it wouldn’t be difficult for you to speak at least one language in addition to your own.

Anthropologists believe that humans evolved speaking more than one language, as they learned to communicate with others.  The European Union advised all inhabitants to speak two languages in addition to their own. We Americans have a long way to go so that we don’t go young.

Many Americans, like Stephen Miller, get angry when they hear a foreign language, usually Spanish, spoken. YouTube contains many clips of people yelling at others for daring to speak another language.  This is America!  Speak English!  Go back to where you came from!  I am pleased that the equanimity that comes with age doesn't permit me to get a frisson of Schadenfreude by the realization that such people are much more likely to get Alzheimer’s; I just would like it if they behaved more like human beings.

This is why I welcome Spanish-speakers into our country—yes, there have to be some legal restrictions on immigration, but hardly the draconian measures Trump has taken. Every night on Spanish news I am confronted by the deportation of a family member who has been in this country for years and who has committed no crime.  Frequently, one family member is deported while the rest of the family, here legally, remain. The deported individual, who often has been in America for decades, who more often than not works and pays taxes, is forced to return to a land that is foreign to him, even though that person was born there--This might be legal, but it is still, in my book, a crime. Government-sponsored breaking up of families--is this the American way?

We should be happy that there are many Spanish-speaking people in this country.  (They learn English, don’t worry.)  They make learning Spanish much easier, a proven way to enlarge our brains and to keep them fit. 

(By the way, pace Trump, Hispanics are not taking American jobs away in any significant number.  Instead of scapegoating them, we should be addressing real problems: increasing automation, inadequate education, and the absence of a New-Deal-like program to put people to work, for instance. Building a wall we don't need while so many of our bridges are on the verge of collapse is, well, ridiculous).

Learning another language is a no-brainer grow-brainer; it is a proven way, like exercise and eating vegetables, to live a longer and better life.  

Por favor, ¡no espere más!