Hiatus

It has been some time since I have written here. Not necessarily for lack of content or motivation, but mainly for writer's block. And I do not think that the problem is solved today, though I think I'm overdue for writing.

My sources of input these days are mostly bits and pieces about the news, and occasionally I will watch the Fox News production Fox News Watch, which is a panel of four commentators and the emcee who directs the show. Dubbed as a show that "covers the coverage," I find it somewhat less introspective than necessary.

Nonetheless, the show does often provide interesting insights about what these particular folks, at least, feel the purpose of the media is. In particular, it seems that they find the purpose of media is almost a moral one—that the news that deserves national attention should get it, to the end that some change would be implemented. I suppose good examples of this kind of coverage are Hurricaine Katrina and Iraq, both of which have cost the administration dearly in P.R. points.

For what it's worth, I think that Freedom of the Press was envisioned in the same way. Press was seen as a safeguard against tyrannical government and a means for mobilizing the population. In this sense, it is not surprising to find that news has an anti-government slant; that's basically why it's there.

It's interesting to find, however, that while the press originally was envisioned as a tool for keeping the government out of the affairs of the governed (e.g., stop taxing your people), it has transformed into an entity that invites the government to expand. While it is often on moral grounds—e.g., universal health care—I find the change profound (and unfortunate).

First because the moral grounds often aren't. Second, because the solutions undermine the moral fabric of society. Community—not government—should be the first responder in crisis. The press would do well to shame the citizenry into action.

Sovereignty

My karate studio is having a black belt test next month, and so I have had some time to think about rank and related topics a bit more lately. There is a certain authority associated with the achievement that students often abuse.

While it is easy for people to understand that a black belt symbolizes a certain dedication to the art and understanding of it, it is considerably more difficult for them to regard it as a symbol of service. This is because the pursuit of rank is usually motivated by the desire to rule, not to serve.

But the pursuit is made objectively worthy by those who contributed an objective good to it. If all black belts were rapists, it is unlikely that anyone worth knowing would aspire to the rank. (It's not like anyone really wanted Cobra Kai to win.) Fortunately, most black belts aren't rapists, and many really and truly do serve those around them.

It is authority used in service that makes rank effective. Were I able to communicate more effectively the notion that rank is to be served, not to serve, perhaps the world could be a better place. Examples of the perversion of sovereignty litter the news daily.

Relationships

I am quite tired, but I have been in the mood to get things done this evening. I had a conversation with an old friend tonight after a movie; the norm for our conversations is that they're relatively long, and this was no exception.

I summarize, for both our sakes. I think we arrived at the conclusion that the old adage "Love your neighbor as yourself" requires a certain extrinsic outlook. There are two interesting things to note about the phrase: the first is that it requires self love, and the second, that unless you love others, you don't love yourself.

The genesis of our discussion was that my friend's cousin said that he would never die for his wife; he loved himself too much for that. It is not particularly surprising to find that my friend's cousin has a reputation for putting others down to exalt himself—his relationships suffer through respecting his own life overmuch.

Because his outlook is narcissitic and introverted, he is unable to love others or himself; his self-love isolates him and leaves him unhappy, which is precisely the result he would avoid if his pride didn't get in the way. (You may, of course, substitute me in this paragraph; I am surely guilty.)


The connection of pride and misguided self-love is not accidental. Lewis talks of appropriate pride, which is the natural reward of the task. It is not wrong to take pride in compliments, as a child does when his father congratulates him on a job well done. It is the "natural reward" of doing the job well.

But there is a pride which motivates self-sufficiency and suppresses the need for the natural reward of pleasing another person. In self-obsession, it isolates man from his peers and destroys his ability to relate to others; it is an inability to admit a need for friendship and companionship, to be interdependent. It is a negative pride that eliminates the positive (and Good) pride.

It is precisely the answer of the cynic to those who are in love or who love at all, because love expects the natural rewards of a relationship, as a man pursues marriage rather than sex or a child the approval of his parents rather than their scorn.