Logic and conclusions

It's possible to come to a correct conclusion even if one's logical path is imperfect. This fact is illustrated in programming. One should have only the necessary and sufficient conditions for any given decision. But it could be in the larger context, that a decision was not necessary at all. One may have several ways of approaching a result. The result may be proven from the clear input data, no matter what tortuous path is traced through the program. The result may be good and useful even if the method could have been better.

Another important thing for a programmer is sharp tools. We need to be able to see inside our decision making. This involves a trace mechanism, and writing code for our thoughts to suggest where the change is required. This is particularly true of experimental programming. Experimental programming is a bit like life. One has to change course if the results dictate.

One might ask if these principles may be applied to non-programming situations. Is there any logic, for instance, to wanting to have children? Or to voting a particular way? Is the logic of the majority only based on necessary and sufficient conditions? By no means! In these cases the imprecise and unmeasurable inputs from our culture, our desire, and our prejudice, will be judged by the result. You shall know them by their fruits, says one who is famous both in his words and in his work. But how will we see inside our decision making? Do we need to conform to what we see around us? Or do we need to change our behaviour because of what we fail to see around us?

In this case, we are not dealing with a program, so the results, the fruits, prove whether the decision based on its vague inputs and a mysterious brain wave was a good one. Then the vague inputs and decisions will be judged by the results and not vice versa.

What are these good fruits? Do they include war, chaos, violence, self-interest, a protection racket, the distortion of information? Or should we judge fruits by the character of the God portrayed in our sacred texts. Love, tenderness, care for others? Can one tell truth from falsehood? If someone is always getting ahead and someone else is always lagging, is the problem with the prejudice of the social structures or with the capacity of the one who is lagging? Perhaps such a one just needs more incentives, or perhaps the social systems (there are plenty of these on all sides) are an entrapment. (We all know many of these entrapments, these barriers to social mobility.)

I can come up with a way to study Hebrew based on the relatively firm data of the Hebrew canon. My logic may be imperfect even if my final presentation is complete and clear. There may be, in other words, easier ways to arrive at my conclusions. But the conclusions will be provable from the data regardless of my decisions. It will not be as easy to prove a decision whether or not to defend myself against violence to my way of life. My self-defense is not so clearly proved.

In the case of exercising one's role in a democracy, the present conclusions reveal a problem on the input side of the process. I am speaking outside my scope of responsibility but not outside the scope of the effects of the 4 years of Trump to my south.

He claimed he was good for the economy. He was not. The stock market on which we all depend has been seriously volatile these past 4 years. He inherited an excellent economy and he manipulated it through the tax cuts and the chaos of unnecessary trade battles for the ends of the cronies he is beholden to. His record is there for all who have eyes to see.

Republicans have been known to despise both the words socialism and liberalism. But they are social people just like anyone else. At least I hope they are not anti-social! They also hate big government, but it is not noticeably smaller when they have power. 

I hear that those who voted for the incumbent were really voting against abortion and same-sex relationships. But they were voting for a person who was like the judge in the city who "feared not God, neither regarded man." He only gave them what they wanted to buy their votes. And they won't get what they wanted anyway, because though they say they are looking for moral behaviour, they are really seeking in their ignorance to perpetuate injustice. 

(What! Is God unjust? By no means! But our reading of Scripture is unjust. We often use it to justify ourselves, not to receive the justification that is God's alone: i.e., to seek the good of others, and behave as God does with a preferential option for the poor, as I have so often noted.)

Of course, there is really no 'they' to speak of. We are all individuals, even extreme individuals, not recognizing our social prejudices, valuing our lives but failing to hear the one who said, Whoever would save their own life will lose it. 

I heard some logic from a republican. If he (Trump) loses, we will lose our way of life. Nonsense. You have been losing your own way of life quite independent of his winning or losing. He was losing you your way of life even as he coddled your ignorance with his bitter tweets. Some of your religious leadrs claimed Trump was anointed. Yes, to reveal your own emptiness and fear. You could hope for something better than that from God. But you got the leader you deserved to expose just what alligators in the swamp look like.

I also heard about freedom. I did not hear much about care except Dr Fauci's clear note, "I do not know how to teach you that we must care for others." He was teaching then even in this statement of not knowing how to do it. It is not in anyone's interest to have sick people working because they have no health insurance. It should not take a pandemic to convince us of this. 

Your wealth is in your people. If they are poor, so are you. We are not free to drive on the left side of the road in North America. Neither should we be free to exploit our workers, or ignore regulations that govern the safety of others, or run businesses only for the good of the shareholders or only for profit. Read that carefully. I am not saying you can't run a business or make a profit. Of course you can, but not by making it impossible for others to do the same. Freedom? To wear a mask? Admittedly there has been confusion here. But freedom needs to be free to chose what is right for one's own protection as well as the protection of others. It is more mutual responsibility than it is freedom. At the moment, the consensus is that a mask will both protect you and protect others from you. 

It's strange, this appeal to freedom. Elevating freedom above our social mutuality is sin. He who would save his life will lose it. (And it often is a 'he' problem, but allow the pronoun its generality.)

So what should we do? When the people of Jerusalem heard about the resurrection of Jesus, they were cut to the heart and they said - what should we do? 

We know what to do - to act with justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly. If I say 'with our God', or not, it amounts to the same thing. Adding God to a sentence is often just confusing. There is a human social imperative in the Bible: You will love your associate (aka neighbour) as yourself. This second commandment is the same as the first. Do the right thing. Love your enemy with mercy rather than punishment or vengeance in your mind. And bear in mind, you might be wrong in your deeds and thoughts.

But for goodness sake, do not help Trump to continue to bear false witness.

The consequences of this aberration will be seen for years. I hope my neighbors to the south can heal each other. The disease is more than a virus.