The 20th Century philosopher Alan Watts called television and movies “simulated life.” That quote and others like it led me down a path out of the simulation that many people call life. It was one of the most important decisions I’ve ever made, some 23 years ago. The simulation would stop: I turned off my television. I unplugged it. And I gave it away. There were a number of factors leading to this decision. For years, I loved watching the blue screens of televisions and computers (smartphones would have been on the list had they been commonplace). I enjoyed shows and especially watching Southeastern Conference college football. But staring at a screen was never entirely satisfying. It put life on pause. Watts was right. It’s simulated life and not the real thing. While you’re sitting there staring, in the back of your mind, there is the knowledge that there’s something better to do with your life. With that knowledge I did something about it. Wally Carr, an elderly man I helped care for back in the 1980s, was a great teacher on television’s lack of value. He didn’t own one. His major joys in life involved taking long walks outside, going to libraries, walking through parks and the local university’s arboretum. Cicero wrote that “he who has a library and a garden lacks nothing.” (Literally, “Si hortum biblioteca habes, deerit nihil.”) Wally liked that quote, and repeated it often. So Cicero — and Wally — were right. And neither Cicero nor Wally watched television or used the Internet. Nor did Alan Watts. All three men lived noble and accomplished lives. Many potentially noble and accomplished lives are being wasted. The people who could live them are sitting down, staring at screens, mouths slightly agape, and not doing anything constructive. Media consumers seem to be trying to drown out their inner voices telling them to get up and do something. You will never get back the viewing time you waste. If you, your family or your country don’t gain something from your use of that time, what good does it do? Well, some people and corporations make money off of your use of viewing time. A lot of money. Commercial time on video broadcasts earns big money for media companies. It is the nature of video, whether online or through an entertainment company to keep the viewer glued to the screen, because audiences are influenced by advertising. The same can be said for websites. Advertising and clicks earn money. Websites encourage viewer to stay online, watching and absorbing, spending part of their lives being told how and where to spend their money. . Television, internet companies and other media become parasites if we let them. They take, they get fat, and they give back little. Their purpose is to keep you glued to your screen and to eventually do what you’re told. And this is where my old friend Wally came in. Wally lived a life doing only those things that could better himself mentally, spiritually, and physically. For Wally, bettering himself involved thinking for himself. Reading, walking, thinking, meditating, these were the things that Wally did for a living. What a great example. On top of all this, Wally was satisfied. He was a happy man. Screen addicts are never satisfied. So, now more than two decades after I turned off my television and gave it away, today’s media industries do even more to encourage people to spend more time being hypnotized by them. It’s way better to spend time with real humans - your friends and family. Use your time to be with real humans. Do real things, instead of gaming, viewing, or watching some stupid screen. Write, learn to cook, join a club, read ink-on-paper publications, study and spend time that benefits real, live human beings — not big media and big tech. My time includes friendships with a handful of farmers and ranchers in my area. I don’t watch the screen, unless I am using it to write, research or learn. It’s a happy life. Stay away from screens, even your smartphone, as much as possible. Don’t let AI-powered writing tools, such as the idiotic ChatGPT, do any of your thinking for you. Read books — REAL ink-on-paper — and exercise your brain. Live a real life, make real friends, and do real research not guided by some algorithm. You’re destined to live a life independent of what a screen tells you to do -- or an AI-directed program, programmed by some big government or corporation. Learn. Question, And think for yourself.
1 Comment
For centuries, illegal immigration has been a weapon to topple empires. Its most famous use triggered the fall of the Roman Empire. The winter of 406–407 A.D. was bitterly cold. When the Rhine froze solid on the night of December 31, hundreds of thousands of barbarians came running across to what they thought would be a better life in Roman territory. Roman legions were stationed at all the crossing points on the Rhine. They felt secure, guarding the empire. But, when the river froze solid, they were bypassed and totally overwhelmed. “To the Romans, the German tribes were riffraff; to the Germans, the Roman side of the river was the place to be. The nearest we can come to understanding this divide may be the southern border of the United States. There the spit-and-polish troops are immigration police; the hordes, the Mexicans, Haitians, and other dispossessed people seeking illegal entry. The barbarian migration was not perceived as a threat by Romans, simply because it was a migration — a year-in, year-out, gaggle-tangle migration — and not an organized, armed assault.” — Thomas Cahill, How the Irish Saved Civilization It would be inaccurate to assume that the fall of Rome was due to a sudden invasion by barbarian troops who had marched upon city, stormed it, and caused it to fall. Rather, many barbarians had actually worked within the empire. Some had served in certain Roman legions. Some had been slaves who had escaped and gone back home. But most of them knew that Rome was much more prosperous than their homes north of the Rhine. So essentially, illegal immigration caused Rome to fall. We have seen illegal immigration used many more times in history. In 1803, Thomas Jefferson advocated the settling of American citizens in the French territory west of the Mississippi river. “Population is power,“ Jefferson said, numerous times, knowing that the majority of settlers spoke English, and had some sentiments favoring the American government, rather than the French, he knew that this would help convince Napoleon Bonaparte to approve the Louisiana Purchase and sell that territory to the Americans. Or, in case of a conflict, Napoleon would realize he would have a much rougher time of maintaining French possessions in North America. Legal migration, too, has been used as a diplomatic and military weapon. Abraham Lincoln signed the Homestead Act in 1862, in the early days of the Civil War. This law gave a parcel of 160 acres of free western land to any family that would build a house on it, and live there for five years. Lincoln’s hope was to attract the many poor farmers of the South to settle on the free farmland of the non-slave states and territories of the West. It was a great tactic, that worked pretty well. The Homestead Act kept many of those same farmers out of the Confederate army, and away from resisting U.S. troops needed to maintain a united country. It made sense. A lot of farmers preferred to have their own place, all paid off, instead of living on mortgaged or sharecropped land in an area quickly becoming a war zone. And, we see the U.S. southern border opened, with different forces using that same “population is power,” tactic, used intentionally by Jefferson, and opportunistically by the barbarians from north of the Rhine. The only question to ask about this is, “If population is power, who gains power by the current migration?” Read up, it’s up to you to answer this question. In my book Wednesdays with Wally, I give the account of his years in Berlin as an American university student in the 1930s. When he first arrived, sometime in June, 1933, one of the things Wally had to do was make a special delivery for his former employer, a Jewish businessman from New Orleans. To find out where to make his delivery, Wally needed to find out how to get to where he needed to go. He didn’t yet know his way around Berlin. Wally’s landlady, an older woman named Frau Schoebel, told him to go to a nearby bookshop and buy a map. He found the bookseller and noticed that bookstore of 1933 Berlin looked very different than its American counterparts. Wally was unaware that the year before he arrived at the University of Berlin, more than 22,000 volumes from that University’s library were burned in a socialist rally. Bookstores which sold unapproved books found themselves with shattered windows or were firebombed. Police were unwilling to investigate these crimes, because the Nazis, now Germany’s ruling party, were behind the crimes. In its front window, the bookstore Wally went to had copies of the two officially-approved “bestsellers” displayed prominently, along with a framed photo of Adolf Hitler and little Nazi flags. Those two bestsellers were Adolph Hitler’s autobiography Mein Kampf, and Mythus of the Twentieth Century by Alfred Rosenberg. Readers and historians are aware of Mein Kampf, but many haven’t heard of Rosenberg’s Mythus. Many loyal Nazi households in 1930s Berlin kept a copy of Mythus sitting in their home, often in a prominent place — like today’s coffee table books or a family Bible. The author of Mythus had an interesting — and checkered — past. Alfred Rosenberg was a former Bolshevik from the Balkans. An ethnic German, Rosenberg fell out with the Russian leadership of that country’s socialist revolution of 1917, and fled to Germany, where he also had citizenship. Like many other German socialists, Rosenberg gravitated toward Nazism. According to American journalist William Shirer, CBS News’s Berlin station chief in the 1930s, there were rumors of Rosenberg having had a financial falling out with Russian Bolsheviks before his move to Germany. Rosenberg would later find a more appreciative audience in another expression of socialism, the pro-German (and anti-Russian) Nazis. “Rosenberg was one of Hitler’s ‘spiritual’ and ‘intellectual’ mentors, though… he strikes me as extremely incoherent and his book Mythus of the Twentieth Century, which sells only second to Mein Kampf in this country, impresses me as a hodgepodge of historical nonsense.” — William Shirer, Berlin Diary Socialist movements of all kinds need ideologies that claim the moral high ground — no matter whether they actually have it or not. Rosenberg — and today’s socialists — claim they act for the good of everyone involved. As George Orwell would point out, this kind of claim is especially for the good of the leaders of a ruling party. Rosenberg knew this. He was a pseudo-intellectual and a writer who claimed to speak for the good of the people. Drawing on dubious sources, and fabricating a false history with just a few facts thrown in, Rosenberg wrote Mythus based on racial themes. He portrayed Western civilization as having been formed and transformed by the “superior” German race. Rosenberg wrote that the Germans, in turn, had then been persecuted by “lesser” races, such as Slavs and Jews. It was time, claimed Rosenberg, for Germans to ascend to their proper place. Rosenberg used a doctrine of racial hatred that claimed Socialism was the answer to save this “master” race. Rosenberg claimed that confiscation of property and violation of human rights were necessary to prevent anti-German racism. Now in 21st Century America, instead of the 1930s Berlin, we see something familiar. The Rosenberg approach has made a comeback. With lots of financial backing, and with the endorsement of well-paid promoters, the 1619 Project is essentially the same book as Mythus of the 20th Century. It has the same goal. It means to divide rather than to unify. It justifies violence on the grounds of a false moral superiority, encouraging revenge. Also, 1619 Project endorses a form of socialism as the only solution. (Ignoring 150 years of evidence for the economic failure of socialism in all its forms.) Socialism - in any form - has nothing to do with equality or fairness. It reestablishes a ruling class over a class of those who are required to farm, manufacture and serve the rulers. Socialism re-creates the serf class. And a serf system always benefits those with money and power. This is how Rosenberg was able to publish his book. Moneyed interests in Europe wanted serfs. It is how the 1619 Project — and Critical Race Theory — became so highly promoted. Many people with power and money want a serf class. The self-styled “lords“ over the would-be “serfs“ call for a redistribution of the wealth of others to the interests of the “ruling class”. They spend loads of money to destroy human independence and enforce dependence on this newly-created serf system. True equality respects the rights of each individual. And it is the job of each individual to take responsibility for himself. Democracy does not equal freedom. History gives us a great example of a democracy that promoted eugenics, government economic control, and a worthless fiat currency, all more than 2,000 years ago. This was Sparta, the ancient Greek city-state. The word "democracy", as Spartans used it, was not the same as “freedom.” It is not a guarantee of human rights. Democracy is a method. In a society that does not recognize human rights, democracy is a con game that implies — but NEVER guarantees — freedom. Fiercely militaristic and brutal, Sparta had democracy a full century and a half before Athens. But its rulers did not recognize the rights of its citizens. Spartan democracy was mob rule. Sparta enforced brutal militaristic laws written by Lycurges, a 7th Century BCE tyrant. Spartan law required eugenics. Every newborn child was examined; if the child did not meet the physical standards of the law, it was discarded into a pit and left to perish by exposure to the elements and wild animals. Spartan law required that boys to be taken away from their families at the age of seven. The boys would then begin the military training that would continue for the rest of their lives. Spartan boys were taught to fight, wrestle, steal, lie, and forage. They were purposely underfed and had to use those skills or otherwise starve. Part of the military discipline for boys included regular beatings. “So seriously did the Lacedemonian (Spartan) children go about their stealing, that a youth, having stolen a young fox and hid it under his coat, suffered it to tear out his very bowels with its teeth and claws, and died upon the place, rather than let it be seen. …I myself have seen several of the youths endure whipping to death at the foot of the altar of Artemis…” — Plutarch Seeing boys beaten to death was a common experience in Sparta. It was a brutal way of discipline and seen as an aspect of growing into manhood. This continued into adulthood with Spartan soldiers being brutally treated by their commanders. By the time a boy was a teenager, he had frequently seen death. One can understand how Spartans became fierce fighters. The boys were taught little else. The Spartan’s duty was to fight for his tyrants, but not for his rights. Theirs was a North Korean sort of democracy. Spartans were not allowed to own gold and silver. That city-state issued an iron coin that was worthless in every other city. This discouraged trade with outsiders. It discouraged innovation. Foreigners could only trade with the Spartan government or its elites -- and not its commoners. The worthless iron currency prevented Spartans from fleeing their city for a better life elsewhere, and gave the government control of what could be bought and sold. Spartan monetary policy repressed industry and business. Without the ability to export for precious metals that could be spent almost everywhere else in the ancient world, Spartans were not motivated to work in any kind of commerce. And then there were the Athenians. Athenian democracy developed about 150 years after Sparta. It accelerated after Cleisthenes reformed the government and established the individual rights of each Athenian. When an Athenian went into battle, he was not fighting for his homeland, or for a tyrant, or even for his government. The typical Athenian soldier fought for himself and his rights. This difference between Sparta and Athens was put to the test early. Cleisthenes’ reforms alarmed Sparta. Its army joined with the forces of Isagoras, the deposed Athenian tyrant (in 508-507 BCE), to overthrow the new government and its concept of human rights. It should have been an easy task for the Spartans. Their army had the most powerful infantry in the world at that time. They invaded Athens and… Sparta’s army was destroyed. The common people of Athens rose up. They fiercely defended their rights against Sparta and tyranny. So personal freedom in Athens had immediate results. And those results were dramatic. The arts and literature blossomed. So did technology. The age of Pericles, a mighty commoner who led Athens for more than 30 years, transformed that city. Athenian businesses were promoted. Its merchants and businesses prospered, being paid in silver and gold. Athenian economic power increased. With the resulting wealth, the arts, philosophy and literature prospered. Athenian technological innovation was unmatched, and it set the stage for a future empire. Today, the world still studies the brilliance of Athenian culture, which eclipses Sparta. Sparta continued as a military power. In future years, that warrior nation would sometimes ally itself with Athens to repel foreign invaders. Sparta’s military would eventually suffer because it never evolved by recognizing the rights of its people. Repression destroys innovation and Sparta‘s military had become technologically inferior. In desperation, Sparta was forced to rely on the Athenian military and its superior technology. An example of Athenian technology saving the day for Sparta was when (480 BCE) Xerxes the Great invaded Greece with what was likely the world’s largest army. Persian troops sacked and burned Athens, but the technologically superior Athenian navy escaped. The Athenian admiral, Themistocles , came before Spartan rulers and urged them to attack the approaching Persian navy. Themistocles’ argument convinced the Spartans to attack, because, if Sparta would not fight, the Athenian navy would depart. With its primitive ships, Sparta would fall in the resulting invasion. The Spartan admiral “…feared that if he withdrew his fleet… the Athenians would sail away, and knew that without the Athenians, the rest of their ships could be no match for the fleet of the enemy.“ — Herodotus The Spartan leaders listened to Themistocles. The invaders were defeated at Salamis, thanks to Athenian technology and innovation. Salamis was a great naval victory over Persia. The Battle of Salamis was also a triumph of an Athenian system that recognized human rights, freedom of commerce, the arts, and innovation, over a stale, state-controlled Spartan system. This point was proven a second time the next year at the Battle of Platea (479 BCE). Athens and Sparta faced the Persians in an immense land battle. As fierce as they were, Spartan forces had to retreat from Persians fortresses because they did not have the technology to lay siege. But the Athenians did. “So long as the Athenians were away, the barbarians kept off their assailants, and had much the best of the combat, since the Lacedamonians (Spartans) in the attack of walled places, but on the arrival of the Athenians, a more violent assault was made… In the end, the valor of the Athenians and their perseverance prevailed…” — Herodotus The Persians had a superior number of soldiers. Athens lay in charred ruins. The Athenians had every reason to admit defeat, but they kept fighting. The Athenians valued their rights, no matter what the situation. Both the naval battle of Salamis and the land battle of Platea were won by Athenian troops due to their dedication to preserving their liberty. The innovation that had resulted from that liberty and from a free economy, made it possible. Great lessons with modern applications are to be learned with this history. “Don’t worry about the things you can’t control.“ How many times have you heard that old saying? It’s common sense. It’s also a great Stoic teaching. It’s benefited people over the thousands of years since it was advocated by philosophers in ancient Greece. Like all great wisdom teachings, this is as powerful a life lesson today as it was back then. Using this lesson, the Greek Stoic Epictetus makes an amazingly accurate analysis of human psychology. Epictetus says there are two kinds of people. The first kind are those who are only concerned with things they can control. They don’t worry about what is beyond their control. These people avoid an awful lot of stress. The second type of people are those who let themselves be manipulated by things they can’t control. “Some are free from hindrance and in the power of the will of those around them. Others are subject to hindrance, and depend on the will of others.” — Epictetus (50 -135 A.D.) What Epictetus says here is amazing. He reveals the character traits that result from the mindsets of these two kinds of people. “If then he places his own good, his own best interest, only in that which is in his power and is free from the control of others, he will be free, tranquil, happy, unharmed, noble-hearted, and pious; giving thanks to God for all things, finding fault with nothing that happens, blaming no outside influence for his problems. “Where if he places his security in outward things, not depending on his own will, he will be subject to hindrance and restraint, the slave of those that have power over the things he desires and fears…” — Epictetus Epictetus’ analysis is deadly accurate. These two types of people are easily identified. You see these mindsets in politics, media, and religion. The “can-do” mindset of the Stoic is held by those who make changes where they can. These are the movers and shakers of this world. A great example is Rosa Parks, who acted on a small scale in 1955 Alabama. Rosa refused to sit in the back of a bus, which was demanded of all African-Americans of that place and time. Her act triggered a cascade of events that helped reform civil rights in the United States. Yet, she acted on a small scale, within the scope of the things she could control. Even if she didn't realize it at the time, Rosa was a great Stoic. She didn’t fret about things she couldn’t control, but acted with conscience and integrity with things she could control. Rosa Parks changed the world as a result. But those who believe they are subject to the will of others become self-made victims. These people are told what to do by the internet or media or unethical leaders. These can manipulate this sizable audience by enhancing a self-perceived “victim“ status. This audience is easily controlled once its members are steered away from any sort of responsibility. That prevents them from changing their own lives and developing self-reliance. The self-made victim becomes dependent on systems not created for their benefit. Extremists are frequently this kind of person. The self-made victim takes the easiest and least responsible way in life. (That’s easy to do if there is financial support somewhere.) This is how, in 21st Century America, we get the stereotypical young adult living in the basement of his parents’ home; entitled, unemployed and playing video games. Self-made victims are naive. They hope to be led by and provided for by others. They always end up getting used. “There’s a sucker born every minute.“ — Phineas T. Barnum “Make yourself sheep, and the wolves will eat you.” — Benjamin Franklin “Evil always wins through the strength of its splendid dupes…“ — G. K. Chesterton. Self-made victims -- the dupes -- lose their courage and ability to be self-reliant. This destroys their character. Epictetus says those convinced of their own helplessness become embittered against God and those around them for not coming to their rescue. “…he will be impious, because he thinks he has been injured at the hands of God; he will be unjust, always prone to claim more than his due; he will have a mean and depressed spirit.” — Epictetus Those who believe they are victims are less likely to seek an answer, or to create one for themselves. Those who create change in the things they can control pioneer new territory in their own lives. They live life on their own terms. Leaving things better off than you found them leads to a life of accomplishment, self-worth, and satisfaction. And that’s a great lesson from a Stoic. August 25, 2022 “The magistrates were elected according to qualifications of birth and wealth. At first, they governed for life, but later for terms of 10 years.” — Aristotle (Constitution of Athens, Chapter 3) Social class systems are a self-invented curse of humanity. That was true in ancient Greece and it’s true today. The philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote about the harsh class system that existed in Athens in the Sixth Century BCE. The creation of an upper class led to the rulership of one tyrant after another, ruling “democratically”, but being elected for life, or later for 10-year elected terms. All Athenians had until then been divided into four different tribes, with the aristocratic tribes getting special privileges. Excluded from being candidates in their poor semblance of the electoral process were the “commons”, or lower classes. Among these were small business owners, workers, freed slaves and the slaves themselves — the lowest of these tribes was one referred to as “the Accursed.” The very names of the commoners designated not just who they were, but what class they belonged to. Enter the great ruler Clisthenes. Trying to seize Athens’ political power was the aspiring tyrant Isagoras, who had the support of the wealthy Athenian aristocrats. While both Clisthenes and Isagoras were both from the aristocratic class, Clisthenes understood the importance of all Athenians — Commoner and Aristocrat — sharing the same rights. Rallying the commoners, Clisthenes became the Athenian ruler. His reforms would change Western history. “…instead of the four tribes among which the Athenians had been divided until then, Clisthenes made ten tribes, and parceled out the Athenians among them. He likewise changed the names of the tribes…” — Herodotus (Book V) In other words, the labels used to differentiate Aristocrats and Commoners were eliminated. New groups were created and all pretty much had the same rights as Athenians. The rights of Athenian commoners were finally recognized. But Isagoras got the support of powerful Sparta, a powerful city-state with an expert military, who sent its troops to enable Isagoras to forcibly seize Athens. The Athenians rallied behind their newly-found rights. They flooded into the streets to confront Isagoras and his Spartans. “A battle was fought accordingly and the Athenians gained a very complete victory, killing a vast number of the enemy, and taking seven hundred of them alive.” — Herodotus (Book V) The results of this victory were astounding. The idea of defending one’s personal rights, rather than fighting at the whim of some tyrant, was born in Athens. The historian Herodotus (484-425 BCE) describes it best. “Thus did the Athenians increase in strength… These things show that, while undergoing oppression, they let themselves be beaten, since they then worked for a master; but so soon as they got their freedom, each man was eager to do the best he could for himself. So fared it now with the Athenians.” August 17, 2022 What is a mystic anyway? Is it that guy on the talk shows who writes all those books with his picture on the cover? Maybe you can find a mystic online with your favorite search engine. Or perhaps if you hike to a distant cave in the Himalayas, you’ll find a sage living there who can explain the meaning of life. Great mystic teachers are still with us — and always have been. They’re out there. Humanity would be nothing without them. Mystics have contributed to our lives in innumerable ways. We can’t escape their influence. Some of them don’t bother to write down what they say. For example, Socrates, Epictetus, Jesus, and Lao Tzu’s teachings are known through the writings of their students. Other mystics have written quite a lot, from Plato and Gregory of Nyssa to Myhuddin ibn Arabi and Ralph Waldo Emerson. On his daily long walks on the sidewalks of Lexington, Kentucky, over more than 30 years, my friend Wally Carr contemplated great thoughts as he recited Shakespeare and Roman Stoics like Marcus Aurelius and Cicero. Mysticism is vital. It is present. Modern science, philosophy, and government is nothing without the reality of unmeasurable realms. Real scholars have known this for a long time. Isaac Newton, the man credited with inventing much of modern calculus and physics, left behind thousands of documents on mystical and spiritual themes. Author Michael White - former science lecturer and director of studies at Oxford University - details this in his book, “Isaac Newton - The Last Sorcerer.” Philosopher Georg Hegel changed the world with his work. He was greatly influenced by Kabbalistic, Rosicrucian and alchemistic thinkers — this in addition to his being a devoted Lutheran. One of the world’s most important Hegel scholars, Dr. Glenn Alexander Magee of Long Island University, describes this philosopher’s mystic approach in his book, “Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition” The dogmatic atheism in modern academics and politics is intellectual insecurity. It is not based in reality. It’s the result of a cultural view that separates the spiritual and the physical. It’s a distortion of Aristotle, and was called to account by the Orthodox Christian priest Alexander Schmemann. Schmemann wrote the most profound book most people have never heard of; “For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy.” He opens his book with a quote from the atheist writer Ludwig Feuerbach, who claimed, “Man is what he eats.” Schmemann takes that quote and deftly dissects it. Separating the spiritual and the physical philosophically creates a barrier that does not exist. It distorts reality. There is no seperaton. Biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake of Cambridge University says that separation is unscientific and intellectually dishonest. The hazard, Schmemann writes, is that those who believe in the separation of the physical and the spiritual easily fall into the temptation of disbelief in all things spiritual. At the very least, Schmemann said, one’s perception is distorted with this belief. The essential existence of the spiritual gets too easily ignored and cheapened. All society suffers from this, in its media, academics, and politics. The spiritual exists. Mystics discover and reveal untold wisdom. All we need to do is listen. My old friend Wally was a mystic. He saw his daily walks as a pilgrimage. Wally was just disguised as a street person and people mostly ignored him. Art, philosophy and politics are transformed by the mystics. John Coltrane was just a drug-addled musician until his artistic genius was revealed by his spiritual awakening. Boxer Cassius Marcellus Clay, a savage fighter, became Muhammad Ali, a great voice for peace, after his conversion experience. And revolutionary physicist Albert Einstein kept a copy of mystic Helena Petrovna Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine on his worktable. (And if Albert took notes in the margins, that’s one copy of Secret Doctrine I’d love to study.) To deny the spiritual is to choose close-mindedness. That is the opposite of any kind of learning. Wally was bigger than the Internet: You are, too. The period of 1982-1994, the years of Wally's and my friendship, was certainly pre-internet. By the early ‘90s, what passed for the internet only existed between a few universities and businesses. Today, the internet is considered an essential. There’s no doubt what Wally Carr would have thought of it. Wally would be unimpressed. He was bigger than the internet. Seventeen years of solitude and electroshock treatments in a Long Island mental hospital during the 1940s and '50s— Wally was committed there on a legal technicality — forced him to put things in perspective. Here’s Wally’s perspective, more genuine than the entire Internet. “Now that I no longer desire it all, I have it all without desire.” — St. John of the Cross The Swami Vivekananda re-told the old folktale about Alexander the Great’s encounter with the wisest man in India. It was the young emperor’s custom to surround himself with the wisest and most learned men of each new land he conquered. When asked who the wisest man was in his new realm, Alexander was told about a lone sage who lived deep in the forest. Sending soldiers to retrieve the sage, the young emperor was less-than-impressed when a bedraggled, bearded old man, wearing nothing but a loincloth and a turban, was brought to him. In a conversation of just a few words, Alexander was dumbfounded by the surpassing wisdom of this old sage. He offered the sage riches if he would return to Greece with him. The old man refused. Then Alexander offered the sage a harem of the most beautiful women of the land. Beginning to laugh, the sage once again refused. Alexander then threatened the sage with execution if he refused to be the emperor’s adviser. The old sage burst out laughing in the face of the young emperor — an unthinkable act of disrespect in the mind of those sitting in Alexander’s court. “Have you not learned anything?” the sage laughed. “I am immortal! What truths I possess cannot be killed! You might take my body away from me, but that would not destroy the truth, nor would you learn it by doing so!” Alexander the Great sat silently, his court aghast at the impudent words of the motley sage. Most expected the bearded old man to be sent to his torture and execution. There was a moment of silence. In a humble voice, Alexander then ordered the sage to be returned to his forest, unharmed. Wally was like the sage. He didn’t need the internet, nor its precursor, the television. He would have understood that there were great resources online, but using some sort of electric device to get to them would be too expensive and too much trouble. It was much easier to walk to a library or take a book off of the shelf. The truths Wally possessed could not be killed, distorted, controlled or marketed. He did not need an online connection to be wise or profound. Nor did Wally need to be monitored or marketed to. Seventeen years of solitude and electroshock treatments in a Long Island mental hospital during the 1940s and '50s— Wally had been committed there on a legal technicality — put things in perspective. Despite the awful treatments of the day, Wally found wisdom and the eternal by contemplating what he learned from the ancient wisdom he'd studied. So Wally would likely say that the internet is simply a tool, and a fickle one, at that. Alexander the Great would probably have loved the internet. The contemplative Wally, like the sage in the forest, saw the connection to the Divine as being infinitely better. Our ability to connect to the Divine makes just one human a lot bigger than the whole of the internet. Humans can live without the internet. But the internet cannot live without humans. You are bigger than the internet. “He who has a library and a garden lacks nothing.”
Cicero was right. Getting up before daylight, my first hours are spent in our library. That sounds kind of snooty, talking about my library. In reality, the house I live in IS a library. There are bookshelves in the bedrooms, hallways, guest bedrooms and even in a bathroom. Open a cabinet and you’ll find even more books. Books even fill a walk-in closet where clothes are supposed to be. “Si Hortum in bibliotheca babes, deerit nixit,” as Wally would say Cicero’s quote, in the original Latin. He lived in a tiny apartment walking distance to the Lexington Public Library and the University of Kentucky Arboretum. Wally spent hours reading in libraries, walking through the University’s plantings, and was a happy and grateful man. Wally had the Cicero lesson down pat. He didn’t have much money, a yard or even a potted plant. But he had access to books and the beauty of a garden. Back in 1980s Lexington, Kentucky, the elderly William Wallace “Wally” Carr walked all around the University of Kentucky campus and throughout downtown at all hours. Usually disheveled, he was often mistaken for being homeless. He didn’t own a TV or car (or money). Wally probably wouldn’t have used them if he had. He was a professional Ciceronian. Wally was a grateful man. He lacked nothing. Books are a life essential. Wally knew that. Stoic philosopher Epictetus (50-135 AD) valued books more than gold and silver. He said a book’s greatest value is for its readers to apply the lessons they learn from it. Epictetus asked; “Tell me, what reason do you have to read? If you aim at nothing beyond mere enjoyment… you are just a poor, spiritless knave. But if you want to study to its proper end, what is your life other than a tranquil and serene existence?” Wally lived in the East Maxwell Street area known as the “Student Slums”. The area earned that title because it was close to the University of Kentucky campus and had lots of decrepit old houses divided into decrepit little rental units. Like his father, the great American Classics professor Dr. W.L. Carr, unless he was given a ride by someone with a vehicle, Wally walked everywhere he went. Now it’s almost 30 years since Wally’s death and I’m 800 miles away from Lexington. Getting up before sunrise, I start most days reading. When the sun’s up, I walk through the garden. With the garden, I help the plants grow. With books, I help myself to grow. These are the keys to Cicero’s — and Wally’s — greatness. It's been an eventful beginning of summer!
On Monday, June 20, 2022, Anita Sherman's excellent review of "Wednesdays with Wally" was published in The Epoch Times. Here's a LINK. Thank you, Anita, for your comments on this book. Love is the key to life. Wally knew that, and was a great teacher of how to love others. |
About claude E. hammondClaude Ellis Hammond, J.D., is a continuing education professional. He speaks frequently on historic and esoteric subjects. He's also an expert on coffee and drinks a lot of it. ArchivesCategories |