Burial letter

BURIAL: A letter to those (or their relatives) about to be the dearly departed.

Dear Madam or Sir:

It is important that you understand that urban communities around the world face an unheralded disaster, which most likely will transform our sentiments about life and the consequences of death. We are faced with a burgeoning population and diminishing burial grounds. This warning may produce a pursuing of your lips or even a snicker, but the danger is real. There is legal pressure to disinter the dead and place them in common graves to make room for the newly departed. London is on the verge of requiring disinterment after seventy years in the grave. In various parts of Europe, they permit only thirty years of resting before digging ‘em up. And, in Venice, Italy, you hardly have time to get used to your new quarters when, after ten years the shovels start their mournful task of searching you out and digging you up.

It is clear that burial in caskets designed never to disintegrate will become a procedure of the past. But, your body will require some disposition and immediately you think (some of you with horror) of cremation. That should solve the problem of land use, but the reality is that cremation sends a huge variety of noxious chemicals and fumes into the atmosphere for us to breath. Because we live longer and have cared for our teeth, mercury is one of them. And, don’t forget carbon dioxide; we all know that problems that causes. Imagine if everyone were cremated; the energy bill would be enormous and who knows the incidence of illnesses breathing in the consequent miasma. Perhaps we could solve the problem with gas masks.

There are some who wish to mask the reality of cremation by enclosing your ashes in concrete balls and depositing them onto coral reefs. It is well known that such reefs are deteriorating and need support; and what is left of you in your cozy concrete would serve the oceans and humanity. That is a lovely thought and some with whom I have discussed the problem seemed enthusiastic. Still, it depends on skunky, smelly cremation. Inquiring minds wish to know: Why not use concrete balls to strengthen the reefs and eschew cremation? There is silence on that subject.

A proposed solution to the problems of burial and cremation is “natural burial.”

The remains are put into a cardboard box and buried in a shallow grave. The box and its contents will dissolve fairly rapidly. Such burial would surely save ground and after a year or so other bodies could use the same space. Headstones would not be permitted because they take space and imply ownership of the ground. And, who would be willing to return to the site and drag the marker away? For the bereaved, a simple stone could be placed at the grave, or directions be on a sort of pirate’s map. You know, walk 20 paces to the south. Find the hump of ground and from that go 50 paces east and dig up the loot. If that also sounds too cumbersome, there is experimentation of GPS devices. That surely would work. (I have recently learned that in some parts of India and in Israel, bodies are wrapped and buried. Still there are gravestones and ownership of the land.)

While “natural burial” would satisfy many concerns, it still takes up space. Commercial interests have come up with some possible solutions. You know how flowers turn brittle when immersed in liquid nitrogen. The same would happen with your body. A light tap with a hammer, or perhaps just vigorous shaking would do the trick; you would be reduced to a pile of tiny, frozen body mass and bone fragments. In case there is a compost shortage, such remains would be useful in satisfying the need, and like natural burial, you return to the soil. The energy cost and environmental cost would be considerably less than cremation or burial.

The final idea (that I know of) is to melt your body. That seems bizarre. A body of flesh and bone transformed into a liquid would seem to require a death ray brought here by malevolent aliens. No, it is doable and has been done. The results are safe and liquid you can be poured down a drain. I suppose water treatment facilities would require consultation and how would you like to have a nice drink from the tap of grandma. “So long, Uncle Charlie, join the fish in the seas. With our love, your nieces and nephews.” Still, for those wanting Uncle Charlie closer to home his fluid remains could be poured into the backyard. “Say, the grass seems much greener since you know what. Who has dibs on Aunty Harriet?”

Several of the above provide no final resting place. Perhaps the population of ghosts might increase with clankings and moanings about being lost souls. Alas, they truly would be lost, and ghost busting become a growth industry. And relatives who would visit grave sites. Where would they go?

I don’t much care what happens to my body but you never know about survivors preferences. Perhaps I had better make some changes to my will.

FATE? NONSENSE!

 

FATE

There is no such thing. Things happen without our control and we invent things about them. Asians call fate Kismet, meaning when bad things happen the only thing to do is shrug and live your life. Fate implies that there is some mysterious force that operates in the universe that controls our destiny. It was a guy’s fate never to meet a decent woman is what people say about him, meaning that it was somehow ordained by the universe. Because that’s his fate, he’ll never find one.

Humans have huge egos. We easily develop the notion that the universe takes an interest in us or ignores us when it should not. So many things happen of which we do not approve and we bizarrely become upset, either bemoaning our fate or becoming angry when things go wrong. We miss the obvious; there is no rational reason that the universe should pay attention to our desires. We do not as separate entities exist in the universe; we are part of the universe as much as the earth we walk on or the stars in the sky.

How did we get here? Religionists insist that there is a determining part of existence that created the universe, IE god that created us. The thought seems to make some people happy, but at the same time left many people uncertain. Instead of accepting such received wisdom, they raised questions. That God created us did and does not satisfy. Human beings just a few hundred years ago began to understand the process of how we became . . . us: Evolution. Paying attention to that process makes it evident our transformations over time were natural events, a function of the state of the universe's interaction with protoplasm. No one knows how protoplasm got started. (There is some great research and it appears that we are getting closer to figure it out.) Some think it was in primordial oceans hit by lightening that made things that lived. Others think that spores of life, floating through space, landed on earth and survived. Some think that aliens seeded earth with life for whatever purpose they had. The red-hot research has to do with, get this, RNA. They are figuring out how RNA might have spontaneously formed, and that would be it. Many argue that God did it. The trouble with God explanations is that they stop inquiry and godly institutions, jealous of their perquisites, sometimes killed people who wanted more knowledge.

Some religionists argue that everything in the universe is exquisitely balanced so as to make life possible. If the earth were too hot, or too cold, we could not survive. Too much or too little radiation would make us unfeasible. If Planck's constant were was a fraction different would have forestalled our existence. Thus, they argue, that the universe must have been created so we would have a place to live. Idiotic! They miss the point that however, life started it would have gone no further had it not fit in. There is no knowing how many times some form of life appeared but could not live in the environment as it was. All sorts of changes happened to the protoplasm and most died out; only our strain survived. When the environment changed, we adapted. But, sometimes adaption was not possible and huge species died. The dinosaurs could not make it after the giant meteor hit the earth. Our mammalian forebears did. Of course, they changed to meet the new conditions and over eons, we changed and changed and changed to meet new environments. Nothing about the universe was designed for us; adapt or disappear. The fossil record attests to that.

We all face the problem of how to live an acceptable life in the face of an intractable universe. By far, the great bulk of humanity reacts with emotions that have no relation to the problem. A patient described how, once, he shook a fist at the sky in outrage for something or other that had gone wrong. What's the point? Yes, he said he felt better after doing so, but it had never occurred to him that he could feel better by accepting loss as part of life and to continue to strive to enjoy his life. “I can't be happy unless the universe does such and so,” is the lament. Humbug, sheer, unadulterated humbug. But prayers are made urging God to change the rules and most prefer not to notice when he, she or it doesn't pull it off. After all, at least there is somebody there listening and making decisions on a master plan that we cannot comprehend. Yeah.

Some people become pissed, others bewildered at the ideas below. They try to figure out how I'm wrong, but I bet you can't do it.

EVIL – WHO NEEDS IT?

That, of course, is a silly question. Those who are reputedly evil don't need it, they already have it and some surely enjoy it. No, it is not them, it is the rest of us because the more we find others evil, the more virtuous we believe ourselves to be. It is truly reassuring to find that others are of that sort because three existential problems become resolved.

The first: Once someone becomes identified as evil, nothing more about that person is relevant. The hard work of understanding them is avoided. Knowing someone is evil is the ultimate and only meaningful truth; nothing else is relevant. And, because the person is evil, dispositional concerns are simple: kill, incarcerate or exile. Whew, no moral ambiguity there.

The second: Once the other is defined as evil, we immediately assume moral superiority and do not have to think about our own behavior. No matter how badly we may act, that the other is evil makes our transgressions pale in comparison. The evil Germans killed prisoners because Germans are evil. American soldiers did the same thing; but because of the exigencies of war and thus are good guys. We are off the painful hook of self-contemplation and live a self-congratulatory life.

The third: We can join with others in decrying their evil outrages, sort of form a brother/sisterhood, supporting each other in our superior morality and feeling the warm glow of comradeship. We joyfully unite in destroying those who are evil; it is an easy way to forget they are human beings.

You see, we need the concept of evil to make our daily lives a bit more comfortable. But, from this, it is obvious that the notion of evil is a psychological trick we humans have invented to make ourselves feel better. And, the question remains, whence the idea?

As far as I understand the notion, it is purely religious and perhaps only significant in the Abrahamic religions. How is it we believe in the concept of sin (sinners after all are evil)? In the good book, there is no uncertainty; sinners are killed by God. For about half the American population, the devil is a reality and churches have active exorcists to drive demons out of possessed bodies. We are told daily that evil exists and must be fought everywhere. The church that pickets funerals of dead soldiers is convinced our country is evil and they do what they can to thwart it.

If we give up the pleasures of believing in evil, we can get a better understanding of the human animal.

First, there is no such thing as a superior human being. We are all born with the same passions and lusts that are part of our human nature. Civilization has striven to curtail them with commandments and laws, but with almost no success. Everyone hates war, yet how is it that the history of humankind is a history of each group bound and determined to destroy the other. We are all common clay. Or, more crudely, we all fart.

Second, a significant part of our nature is that we make mistakes. Essentially, we do things that make our lives worse and it is not only caused by our passions. Our brains are not computers. Advertising and politics everyday fool us into thinking A is really B and vice versa. Science tells us we are somewhat mentally clumsy and hell, who wants to admit that?

Three. We have laws that designed to punish evil doers. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime assumes a rational thinking person who opts to be a law-breaker; no doubt that's why children are sometimes prosecuted as adults. It was a long legal struggle that determined that mentally retarded people are not competent to defend themselves in court. How humane we have become. Contrary to religion, our legal system and common misconception we are not responsible for ourselves. Mistakes and foolishness clutter our lives and we learn to take such seriously.

We have had enough of religious declarations of evil with its freedom to punish evil doers. Nonsense, we are creatures of our genetics and our history, neither for which are we responsible. Yes, we should have a legal system to protect society from criminals but that is a shorthand way of saying we figured out that a stable society is best. Killing people for their crimes is not getting rid of an evil person; and there is little evidence to support the notion that it deters others.

It is better to accept the wisdom, “There but for the grace of God go I.” Or, how about this rule: All people should be treated kindly regardless of their actions.” Or, as my aunt Rose used to say, “People are not for hurting/”

If we get away from “evil,” we become more humane, surely, that is a worthy goal.

Divine Truth

Divine Truth.

Reading Midrashes (definition below) has been a wonderful experience for me and sometimes an astonishing experience. For example, some sages had to determine whether an oven was ritually pure. Rabbi Eliezer said no, the others said yes and apparently there had to be total agreement; a holdout had veto power. Eliezer called upon God to prove him right, and the proof came in the form of miracles and when the sages did not accept such evidence, a voice from on high declared Eliezer to be correct . . . and still they did not agree. Think about this. Supernatural events occurred all confirming that Eliezer was correct. How could anyone reject such powerful support? But, the sages argued that once God had provided divine law, He no longer had a voice in interpretation because the law was perfect. It was up to human beings exercising free will to do their best to understand God’s law and that meant a vote.

This was a remarkable transformation. Human beings were responsible; they could not turn to God for His opinion they had to rely on themselves. For better or worse, they had cast aside seeking his guidance for their own understandings. When God was questioned about their action, he responded laughingly, “My children have defeated me. My children have defeated me.” In other words, humans had made God irrelevant; all of life had to be decided by humans trying to understand what made sense. Divine law only had meaning provided by human understanding.

You must understand that a Midrash is a story designed to get at some truth about Jewish theology, or law or daily existence. They usually begin with some trivial issue and come to conclusions about major topics that are often clearly fantastic. The word, Midrash, means search; a Midrash is an exploration.

The story is ostensibly about a power struggle between the rabbi and his colleagues, but the stakes are quite high. It is not about the stove or ritual cleanliness but about how Jews should orient themselves to the universe. That is a big issue indeed, but the sages, never daunted, took it on.

Understanding the relationship between humans and God must have been a major struggle between the sages. Where was truth? Did God provide it or did humans have to stumble around it to try to get some semblance of divine reality. Was the universe understandable or did humans have to rely on themselves to circle around it, make mistakes before finally reach some approximation of it. And, did the one man who spoke in God's name control everything or were decisions reached by a vote. If the former, it presaged tyranny. Rulers notoriously ruled as gods, in god's name or by divine right; their dicta could not be challenged nor could they be deposed. If the latter, there could be no such leaders.

The rulers created parliaments or similar bodies who voted to raise taxes for whatever enterprise the ruler wanted. In spite of the despots’ attempts to eliminate them, they began to place conditions on providing funds and ultimately they were successful. (Actually, it was chancy. The British Parliament was the only such European body to survive. It took a long time for other countries to create viable alternatives)

More important, science became possible. The days when Truth was dispensed by God or His representative were numbered. Science doesn't seek the truth but knowledge and the knowledge is always conditional awaiting new ideas and new evidence to supersede it. The difference between received knowledge and discovered knowledge is profound and understanding the difference has produced what we call science.

Wow, all of that packed into one Midrash. I don't know whether any of the above can directly be traced back to it, but it does speak about a Jewish perspective that raised important questions about humans’ relationship to the universe. Not all Jewish religions would adhere to the above, and certainly, other religions might take umbrage, but the sages, hundreds, perhaps thousands of years ago knew what they were about.

Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon: An aging male, who grows crankier and more irritable each year. Well, I admit it, that's me. Philosophical popshit warns not to sweat the small stuff, but it I the small stuff that stifles us. It is easy to forget or ignore that life is a pretty thwarting enterprise. Where can you go where that is not the case? Alas, hardly anywhere because life is cluttered with people. Unless you choose to live a hermit's life, you are surrounded by people who have their own way of doing things and the more people the worse it is. Yes, everyone has her or his way of doing things and rarely, if ever, do they mesh.

Marriage, the culmination of the excitement of the pleasure of another's company itself is a hotbed of sorting out the details of the ceremony. Sure, some people go to the county clerk, but most want the presence of family and friends and the more of them, the greater opportunity for conflict. Sometimes the conflict is open and accompanied by shouting and screaming. Other times it is so low key the unwary observer is, well, unaware of the hidden tensions. But, in either case, there are always winners and losers. The honeymoon is, at least one hopes, the time for sexual exploration and pleasure and accommodations. Shall we do it this way or that way and who is really in charge. Of course, when the honeymoon is over awareness creeps in. In a movie, the recently married Judy Holliday said, with great surprise when her husband belched, said, “Oh, animal noises.” That honeymoon was over.

Consider the forthcoming baby. It gets popped out of a lovely oceanic existence aware of no social needs and no responsibilities. After rudely thrust into reality its parents immediately start the process of thwarting it. Obviously, such training is necessary because the infant has to learn the difference between toilets and diapers and assume responsibility for its actions. The infant learns there are goodies in reality and wants them. As it ages, it learns the word “mine,” in its mad desire to own everything. Growing up requires massive thwarting of human desires in service of civilization. Kids quickly find out that if they act right their parents (really, giants who control their lives) will do nice things for them, but self-control is the key. It is a clumsy way to produce the next generation, but what can you do?

A woman I knew, who loved her husband literally danced with joy when he left on a trip so she could be alone and free. Free? Free to do what? Whatever it was, she didn’t think her husband would approve. How’s that for a sense of marital stuckness?

I'm sure you can see how being thwarted is a major aspect of civilization. We suppress ourselves, we don't punch others for whatever slights have occurred. We smile in the face of others dullness and express delight at being fed detestable food by our hosts. I want a hamburger, why am I given cold zucchini soup? Bah, humbug!

Or consider restaurants. We pay for food and service and ambiance adds to the pleasure. But, often enough, the food is indifferent and the service sparse and most, yes most of us stoically put up with such indignities. And, we even provide a generous tip!

So, the aging process has led me in a somewhat different life path. I notice, without any specific intent that I am becoming more curmudgeonly. Actually, it started many years ago in an Italian restaurant. Our waiter spoke with an Italian accent, no doubt to impress us. He obviously was not Italian and the accent was phony as a street corner Rollex. At the end of the meal, he disappeared, taking much too long to provide the bill. When he finally presented it to us with a supposedly Italian flourish, I said something how long he had taken to supply what we needed to get the hell out. He became instantly insulted and said not to leave him a tip; I acquiesced. My wife, as was her wont, became enraged, chided me for this, that, and last year’s accumulated sins. Her vision of life was to supinely accept others rudeness . . . except mine to her, which I never engaged in. In those days, I wasn't so sure of how I wanted to deal with all the crap, so remained mute.

But now, no longer. India's restaurant had reopened near a retread-movie theater and Shirley and I ate there. The food was miserable and the service worse. I left no tip and calmly told the owner what I thought of such treatment.

Folks, I've had it with people who clog supermarket aisles with their carts not permitting others to pass. It is the total indifference that galls me. I've had it with shopping in department stores with no sales clerk in sight. Everywhere I go, when things aren't right, I complain. I don't shout, curse or carry on, but I express my annoyance at how the place is run. Once, a restaurant manager apologized and gave us a $25 card for our next visit.

 I’m doing my best to make the world a more livable environment. I hope you join me.

Bonnie and Clyde: Why do we love them?

Many, many years ago, when the movie Bonnie and Clyde appeared both the critics and public went wild for it. As I did. But my sister, brighter than me was irritated by such enthusiasm. Four years older than me, she had been aware of the real villains they were and she resented the notion that killers should be so lionized. Of course, I was annoyed with her because she, gratuitously, had demolished my pleasure in the film. OK, the many many years have passed and the other day I briefly glanced at a movie about Billy-the-Kid and my sister's frown flashed into my head. Another sympathetic portrayal of a killer. Of course, I could not watch that film but this time my brain held on to the reality that some really bad people have gotten amazing public approval.

Recently, a flight attendant, miffed by a passenger's behavior opened an escape hatch and slid down the inflated ramp to get away. In a minor way he had run amok, but his behavior surely was inappropriate. But, a segment of our peace loving law abiding public cheered for him, praised him for “sticking it to the man.” And there was the young man who committed petty crimes and eluded the police for a very long time. Again, the people cheered. Jesse James had admiring songs written about him: “He robbed from the rich and gave to the poor” enlightened the world about his nobility. Forgot that he was a robber and killer. The ancient general, Alexander, went off and killed people over a wide swath of the earth and is called “the Great.” The great killer would seem more appropriate.

With the advent of popular media, in particular movies, we have thrust upon us the same sorts of hero, all cut from the same cloth. First, they are loners, isolates. They have little regard for the general run of humanity but often wind up, albeit reluctantly, eliminating social miscreants. 007 is licensed to kill whenever he deems it appropriate because his cause is just. Second, they have little regard for the laws of the land or common concern for ordinary social behavior. Car chases are fun to watch, but try counting up the laws they break and the property they damage. If their supervisors take note, they can put up only feeble objections. Watching police dramas is hair-raising. Dirty Harry has little regard for anything except his own version of justice. And, The Godfather glorifies criminal behavior. Show the good guys in the worst possible light and the bad guys as if they are paragons of virtue.

What is it about the public, you and me, that gets us to pay money to see such stories. Clearly, the “good guys” act almost without restraint and in the real world would face significant jail time; why do we always want more?

I think that Americans have a powerful sense that their lives are constrained by forces outside their control and long for “freedom.” Get up, breakfast, clean up, go to work, come home deal with wife and kids and go to sleep. This is repeated day after day until whatever end is in store. Thoreau said that most people live lives of quiet desperation and have no way to change that existence and why should this be so?

The human animal came into existence in wildly different circumstances from current existence. Life was dangerous and was physical. Hunting occupied much of its time, and it was dangerous. Evolution shaped us to fight or run,

procreate and survive. It is hard to imagine that early humans were ever bored. We are engaged in the same demands, but in civilization which has separated us from what our bodies were designed for. We need action, but our lives are designed to keep us under control lest we upend the social contract. So, we love the outlaws, we smoke, drink, dope ourselves up, get on campaigns to remove life's restrictions i.e. Tea Party, anything for freedom. London is in flames as is the Near East. American soldiers are coming home from war and cannot find jobs, a dangerous mix.

We better wise up. Civilization is all we have and we better learn to love it.