Meeting of the Minds,June 5, 2017

.

   The subject for the day’s discussion was identity. What is identity and what accounts for our fascination with it?  In essence, identity is a metaphysical concept related to our very existence. We tend to be obsessed with ourselves, whether it is as individuals, or as members of a group such as a family, a religion or a nation. The differences between these forms of identity are important with major existential consequences. .

   Our personal identity is formed at a young age as influenced by our families.  As we grow older we are affected by the jobs we hold and group identities such the schools we attend, the religions we practice, and finally the nations we inhabit. Global identity is defined as what it means to be a citizen of the world. This type of identity is the most complex and both broaden us as individuals and at the same time threatens our sense of self.  The resolution of these conflicts determine whether we are content with ourselves and whether we seek peace or war

.

    Earl opened the discussion with a consideration of a New York Times Opinion piece authored by John Brodies, who considered personal and group identities as the motivation for the shootings of republican legislators at a baseball practice in Virginia. The notion that the group we identify with is good and other groups are bad is instilled in our psyches and is responsible for intergroup rivalry and war.

   There was then a brief discussion as to what constitutes personal and group identity and is identity stable over time. This brought us to a discussion of Jewishness.  The fact that Judaism is both a religion and an ethnic designation help us to understand identity.  Judaism has been assumed to be a firmly held identity, rooted in the myth of the Abrahamic covenant. The covenant established the Jews as a group chosen by God to receive the land of Israel and His eternal blessings. Nothing was required in return. However, since the holocaust many Jews have felt that God went back on his word and thus they lost faith in the covenant and in God himself.  Nonetheless Jewish identity persists and is rooted in traditions and cultural factors rather than divine belief.

   Our discussions then proceeded to recall how Durkheim applied the concept of religion as a contribution to our group identities.  Durkheim, who was a sociologist and atheist, posited that man invented religion to provide the cohesion of society.  Society in turn was charged with preserving religion.  In his book Elementary Forms of Religious Life, published in 1912, Durkheim looked back to primitive societies to uncover the source of religion. He described how totemism was used to cement the society. Since the totems were unique to each society, people prayed to the totems and were willing to sacrifice their lives to preserve them. With the diminishment of religion, the notion of an object representing society persisted. Thus the flag became a secular stand-in for a religious symbol. Importantly, men were willing to risk their lives to protect the flag.

    The discussion then went on to globalization as a force in our society.  All do not agree upon the meaning of globalization. To some it means free trade and to others types of world government, such as the League of Nations or the United Nations. John Lennon went further and suggested that we could imagine a totally unified world, with no governmental or ethnic barriers.  

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

   Lennon thus described a notion of globalism that was an earthly paradise, in his words a dream. Lennon’s notion of globalism is perpetual love and peace. Despite the inspiring lyrics, globalism is a mixed blessing.  It leads to greater understanding amongst peoples and yet it asserts a destabilizing effect on individual societies. In our case, open borders and free immigration is a threat to some parts of our population but not to others, thus creating a rent in our national psyche. Immigration does not represent a threat to the coastal elites who can tolerate less skilled workers. On the contrary, the workers in the Midwest, who are well paid but unskilled are threatened by immigrants willing to work at their jobs at lower wages. This situation nurtures an authoritarian approach to unification. Trump, who understood this dynamic, was willing to sacrifice the stability and meaning of the country for his own political and personal gain. It has also been observed that globalization may lead to interference in other nations national elections.  Russia used cyber attacks to alter voting patterns to favor he election of candidates favorable to their regime. Globalization is a mixed blessing, both benefiting and threatening all societies,

   Ultimately the discussion was centered around the concept of how to talk to people we do not know or like. We agreed that we must not demean such people and assume that they are a source of evil.  Insightful guidance can be found in Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s book “ In My Own Words” where she revealed the secret to a happy marriage, viz.  Be deaf.  A more artful bit of advice can be found in Luke 6:27-31:

But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. And just as you want people to treat you, treat them in the same way.

Posted by Arthur Banner

Thirsters communication

The Thirsters are a Wise Guys  like group, meeting in Portland, Oregon every Thursday.  They recently sent this communication to John who thought you might be interested in attending, either  occasionally or regularly.

THIRSTER OPEN DISCUSSION – JUNE 29th 2017

Dear Thirsters in Residence:

Want to discuss culture, politics, problems of society, local community issues, the Peace Corps, history, or anthropology with thoughtful and informed people?  Want to be a part of an intellectual community to which  you can contribute and from which you can learn?   If so, then the Thirster Open Discussion this coming Thursday is for you!

We also invite Thirsters with informed opinions on cultural topics that you find disconcerting or of benefit in Portland, or elsewhere in the world, to tell a story or introduce one of those issues for 5 minutes at the beginning of a Thursday meeting.  The topic could be from the past, present, or future, and could be a problem statement, a question,  a quandary, experience, reflection, new discovery, relevant poem, or recent book.

UPCOMING PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION TOPICS:

        July 6th - Truth and Truth-telling - Martin Hesiler

THIRSTER SEMINAR SURVEY:

Please complete your survey by July 4th.    There are only three questions in the survey!   

Here is the link to the survey:

https://surveymonkey.com/tr/v1/te/akU_2BQc2vAhAsa_2B264x1g6_2FpF_2Fhy3EhxbpxJDHYpYZT3PErDK_2Bf6OjNYOPsqZdKwgXxaPkEXsqGoLikkWkXsCPfpNrhLur057jItJF_2FXwtiUDGVCKt2X_2FhlcA7zgrcu4KwIT3eVXxD9czYWzSIPWchBkdu4VAdUImqRs3zdvsbGodOjTlGGsMkyvZjlszvgLPKo4gkuzm6KUdVMZyWEnvWQ_3D_3D

THIRSTER MEETING LOCATION:  MCMENAMINS BROADWAY PUB, 1504 NE BROADWAY (AT NE 15TH AVE), PORTLAND, OR 97232.

    - Thirsters meetings start at 7 pm with discussions, ale, wine, and food, and may continue until 11 pm.

    - Presentations, if one is scheduled, start at 7:30 pm.

    - Topical, Data, or Open Discussions (when we don't have a presentation) start when Thirsters find themselves compelled, usually around 7 pm or shortly thereafter.

*INVITING VISITORS TO THIRSTER MEETINGS:   All Thirsters are encouraged to  invite colleagues, friends, and students to Thirster meetings.  If you invite someone who has not attended a meeting in the past, please inform them about the Thirster custom for paying for food and drink:  As you all know, instead of each Thirster paying the restaurant separately, we pay for food and drink by putting cash into a hat located on each table.  We then  pool the cash to pay for the McMenamin's bill.   Please ask the visitor to

bring enough cash for the hat to pay for their own food and drink (plus an 18% gratuity), and a little extra to cover the food provided to any presenter we may have.

*PITCHERS OF BEER OR ALE:  In the past there has been a long and strong tradition of purchasing pitchers of beer and ale for the Toping Tables.  However, In recent years the consumption of beer and ale has decreased and most Thirsters now prefer to order individual drinks of tea, wine, and beer.  Also, when pitchers of beer are ordered, we usually fail to cover the McMenamin's bill with the money contributed.  In the future, if a Thirster wishes to order a pitcher, that person should be prepared to pay for the entire pitcher.

IMPORTANT RESTROOM ANNOUNCEMENT:  The code to the Men's and Women’s bathrooms at the Broadway Pub have been changed to: 2288

THIRSTER DISCUSSION LIST:   This is an online discussion listserv where  Thirsters can exchange ideas.  Please contact John Dougherty at:  jdougherty-thirsters@earthlink.net if you want to join the Thirsters Discussion list.

As always, please suggest the names of speakers and/or discussion topics for future meetings; many Thursdays are available for speakers.  We also encourage Thirsters to come and talk to us about their work or other activities related to culture.

John Dougherty

Co-Coordinator

Semper Sitiens

Doc:Then and Now with a Montana Physician

   This post consists of a review of a book entitled Doc: Then and Now with a Montana Physician. It is authored by R.E. Losee, a country doctor who remarkably became a world-renowned orthopedist. John Badgley gave the book to me without comment or explanation. I suspect that he thought that I would identify with the author since both Losee and I are retired physicians. Importantly, the book appears to relate to John as much as it does to me. Both the author and John have a Montana connection, love the state, its geography and its people. Both John and Losee are similar in temperament, political inclinations and devotion to a secular based morality.

   The book is a memoir of a Montana physician, and Yale Medical School graduate.  The book describes the author’s conflicts with the medical establishment as he struggled to find the meaning of the title Doc., and more importantly, the meaning of his contemplated life. The book consists of an introductory chapter followed by a series of anecdotes describing the journey of a country doc to a world-renowned orthopedist. That his patients profited from his journey is in fact the important subtext of the book.

   The introductory chapter summarizes Losee’s medical education.  Unfortunately it is confusing with a time line that is indecipherable. This difficulty is probably attributable   to the vagaries of memory of an old man. Losee describes the inadequacy of his medical education, lamenting the failure of his training to prepare him for meaningful patient relationships, surrendering instead to scientific pursuits. His premedical education was at Dartmouth where he majored in chemistry. While at Dartmouth he memorized formulas, which were meaningless then and thereafter. His obituary states that his Dartmouth years were the worst of his life.  His medical education at Yale was equally disappointing.  Although he fails to describe his experiences at Yale, he states that he spent his life trying to forget the lessons learned at that august institution. Apparently the lessons were incompatible with his expectations of what it meant to be a doctor.  The   model of a doctor was based on the lives of his grandfather and great grandfather who practiced medicine when medicine was mainly a social pursuit, only to be displaced by the concept of medicine as a scientific endeavor. In 1910, Abraham Flexner wrote a report condemning American medical education, which was socially oriented and often taught by the apprenticeship method. He preached that medical education should be modeled after the German system, wherein teachers were the role models rather than doctors. The teaching of Medicine changed and would never be the same.

 Following his graduation from Yale, and after being denied an internship at Yale, he obtained an internship at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal. He then headed west, to complete a rotating internship in Denver, Colorado, which once again denied him the opportunity to develop the skills that were pertinent to relationships with patients. He then completed his peripatetic across the country, eventuating in a practice in Ennis, a small l town in Montana, where he finally found himself and the meaning of his life. The subsequent narrative interweaves his experiences with patients   with his appreciation of the beauty and majesty of the Montana geography.

   The Montana anecdotes start with his experience as a general practitioner, stressing his experiences delivering babies and treating everyday maladies typical of a general practice. Almost imperceptibly, his medical practice changed from family practice to surgery and then an orthopedics.  He realized that his knowledge base in orthopedics was inadequate and thus threatened the lives of his patients. In response he returned to Montreal to further his internship in orthopedics. On return to Montana, we witnessed a gradual change in the nature of his practice. It became more scientific and technologically oriented. At one point, he experienced an epiphany that he had actually become a scientist. Consequently, he became interested in the mechanisms of disease and in particular of the unstable knee. This experience led to a life of scientific pursuit, eventuating in series of publications, attendance at scientific meetings and honorary lectures.  Although never board certified, he became an acknowledged authority on abnormalities of the knees, finally obtaining an honorary degree and the title of professor. Ironically, he discovered God when he realized that his skills alone were inadequate to achieve success for his patients. He describes how he prayed that an operation would go well.

The book ends with a reverie, reprising the meaning of the author’s life.  The subtitle of the book Then and Now with a Montana Physician implies that the author retuned to traditional practice, an implication that is misleading. The past was gone and what he experienced was not a return to former life, but simple nostalgia, nostalgia for his grandfather and great-grandfather and all they stood for.  There was no turning back. He was left with the title of Doc, an honorific obtained from grateful patients and their treasured memories.  The term encompassed respect and affection, and includes concepts of image building and image reception, The image is as much a creation of the adoring and needing patient, as it was imposed upon them by a sympathetic and occasionally manipulative physician. Times have changed and the needs of a public for a physician scientist, has superseded the needs for a loving, albeit limited knowledge based physician.  We cherish the loving healer, but need and revere the scientist, an important subtext that makes the book worth reading.

Posted by Arthur Banner

Meeting of the Minds, May 8,2017

   At our May 8 meeting, the shadow of Donald Trump hung over our democracy like a shroud.  That Trump is a threat to our democratic institutions clearly troubled the Wise Guys, and gave rise to a number of questions, all of which were addressed during the meeting.  Issues such as the meaning of executive power, the value of real knowledge, and the policy implications of executive privilege were discussed at length.

   It was realized that Trump has a casual relationship with the truth. It is not clear whether he is telling lies, is ignorant or is actually delusional. In any case, his statements appear to be akin to propaganda. His lack of awareness of the limits of presidential power raises the question as to whether he is a legitimate head of government. Jeff questioned as to who is actually in charge of our government. This led to a discussion of the role of separation of powers and how this affects the Trump administration. Earl mentioned Wayne Morse as the sole legislator to oppose the Viet Nam war, a plea for genuine leadership in our perilous time.  Ultimately the question was raised as to how to rid us of Trump in a constitutional manner.

   All these questions were dealt in some fashion with the master’s thesis of Bob Campbell. Bob introduced this document at the start of the session. His thesis dealt with the role of the executive and the role of executive privilege. These issues, which are normally difficult to comprehend, were presented in a clear fashion, accessible to all interested individuals.

   Bob began the 2^nd chapter of his thesis with a discussion of the powers of the executive provided by the Constitution.  He noted that Article II opens with the statement, “the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States. ” The meaning of these words is that the executive power shall not be shared with others, but should be reserved only for the individual charged as the chief executive. He stated further that the President is charged with the duty and responsibility to see that that the laws be faithfully executed.  Bob admitted that this wording is somewhat ambiguous, and problems arise as to what powers are inferable from that duty. Bob explained the role the executive plays in carrying out those duties. Those favoring a more active role will see it differently from those who are more passive. He thus compared Theodore Roosevelt, to Howard Taft.  Roosevelt favored a stewardship relationship, wherein the power of the president is limited only by specific restrictions imposed by the constitution. Taft, on the other hand, believed that the executive can no exert no power that is not be traced to or implied in the constitution. Roosevelt is associated with the Progressive Movement, which promoted a powerful central government.

   Bob then discussed in a competent fashion how separation of powers prevents the chief executive from seeking and gaining dictatorial powers.  The separation of powers is a complicated issue and requires further comment. Separation of powers encompasses a variety of reciprocal interactions between the divisions of government. The President can initiate laws by requesting congressional representatives to introduce these proposals as laws, and yet the President can veto laws, which can in turn be overturned by Congress. Similarly the judicial branch can declare presidential actions as non-constitutional, but the president does have the power to appoint judges, whose views correspond to his own.

    Bob then went on to discuss executive privilege wherein the executive can withhold information if he considers that its disclosure would be harmful. This concept is open to interpretation and might be used to excuse Trump’s misuse of information

 

   Trump clearly suffers from a severe character disorder characterized by sociopathy and extreme narcissism His delusional thinking raises the issue of psychosis. The most disturbing question is whether our destiny is tied to that of Trump. Heraclitus reminds us “character is destiny”. Let us not follow Donald Trump into this dark night. Let us remember that there are constitutional ways to replace a president. We can simply await the next election and fail to vote for him. Alternatively, the Constitution provides for removal of the president either through the mechanism of impeachment or alternatively through resort to the 25^th amendment. According to the impeachment clause: The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
(U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4)

According to the 25^th amendment: “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

(U.S. Constitution, Amendment 25,Article II)

Let us hope that one of these remedies can serve to rescue us from the Trump grip.

Posted by Arthur Banner