See You in April 2013!

Dear Readers,

Thank you for being my readers!  I hope that my ramblings have been interesting to you, or at least prompted some thought.

Today, I am leaving, and won't be back for a year and a half. I have been called to serve as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Florida. I am excited to serve and teach the message of the Restored Gospel, which has blessed my life in many ways.

So, I will be back in 18 months. Take care!

My Heritage

Last fall in my English 251 class, in discussing Multiculturalism as a literary theory, we talked about how we can be Americans and still feel connections to our heritage from other places. Our text focused on African-Americans and the dual consciousness theory. Our instructor broadened the topic and asked us each to share a little something about our heritage.

Our discussion got me thinking about the irony of some of my older heritage coupled with my political ideology and my American patriotism. It should be noted that there is no such irony that pertains to my more recent ancestors. I have some ancestors from Scandinavia and England who settled in Colonial America. Some of the Hessians who defected to the Americans' side in the Revolution were my ancestors. In the 1800's some of my forbearers converted to Mormonism and came from England, Denmark, and Switzerland to escape persecution and to be with others of their faith. They were stalwart pioneers who worked for what they had and lived their religious convictions, even when it meant they had to give up comfort and convenience. My grandparents were part of the Greatest Generation, and both of my grandfathers put their lives on hold while they fought in WWII to defend their homeland. My parents carried on and created family traditions that taught us the value of family, moral principles, work, and service. All of these made possible many of the opportunities I have now.

Go back far enough along some of my lines, and you'll find noble families in England and France in the late Medieval period, and before then, kings and queens and emperors anywhere from Norway to Italy to Bohemia, and from anytime between the second or third century AD to the thirteenth. (Now, I do want to look at other sources and get second opinions just to make sure this is all true.) Look at my family lines, and you'll see the history of Medieval Europe pass before you. If you took them all literally, you'd also see some myths and semi-myths in my family history. (According to the download-able pedigrees on familysearch.org, I am a descendant of both Odin and Zeus.)

Empires

I have a few ancestors listed who were Roman emperors, but I'm a little dubious about that (...and I'm not too excited about being related to Tiberius or Nero). Neither Constantine nor Justinian is in my line, but there are emperors and empresses of the Macedonian Dynasty of Byzantium. Then, there are the Franks and their chieftains, Merovignian kings, and then Charlemagne of the Holy Roman Empire. His descendants married other royals from Italy and other places. I can assume that some of them took part in the Crusades because they died in the Middle East.

Scandinavians vs. Celts

Meanwhile, we have the Norsemen and their legends of Sigurd the dragon-slayer and his in-laws' ill-fated connection with Attila the Hun (Atli). Then we run into real kings like Harald Bluetooth. Several of the Scandinavian royals married or were related to Russian, Polish, and Ukrainian princes and princesses. I the fifth century, we have the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain from Denmark. Then, because of royal people marrying other royal people, I have connections with ancient Welsh, Scottish, and Pictish kings. So now, we have the heptarchy in England. Then Alfred the Great, among others, unifies England and fights the vikings, also my ancestors.

Normans vs. Saxons

A couple hundred years later, back in Normandy, France, William starts eying England, then invades. More ancestors fighting ancestors. A few English kings and princesses are married to royals from places like Spain, Italy, Prussia, Germany, and Bohemia. From then on, I start to have more family in noble ranks and less in royalty. I am a descendant of Henry V's ancestors, (like Duncan of Scotland) but not him. I did have some ancestors follow him to France. One died at Harfleur, another at Agincourt.

My Heritage

Now, all the big names I've mentioned here are listed in my pedigree. These are the guys that kept records of their predecessors or made them into epic heroes and gods, and these are they guys in the history books and the Shakespeare plays. They're remembered by everyone. Here I am hundreds or thousands of years later at my desk at my house on a quiet street in rural Utah writing about them. Unlike them, I am only known by those I meet face-to-face. I am a middle-class college student who intends to raise a family and pursue whatever career I choose. I bow to no kings. I vote people into or out of office, and don't think they are superior to me. Instead of saying “Hail Obama. May he live forever,” I revere my grandparents and great-grandparents, etc. for making the decision to come here to be free, even when it meant great hardship and sacrifice, and then to defend that freedom when it was threatened. 

Further down the line, I will say that I appreciate Charlemagne's and Alfred's efforts to promote education in their time, but I don't think they were any less human than I am. They used their position for some good, but others in the same position have done great harm. 

I always remember my Furse family motto that came from the time when Furses were noble land-owners in Medieval England: Nec desit virus, or “Nor let Valour be lacking.” However, I don't want to think less of anyone else if they don't have family heraldry or lots of land. I don't think more of people just because they have big fancy houses and lots of shiny stuff.

I'll admit, it's kind of hard not to get a big head when I think of all the well-known names in my pedigree. I have to remember that there are places where the lines end abruptly, but there are still people there to be found: people who lived and dreamed just like me, but just aren't remembered by the world. I am glad that some people left records, even if it was only the kings and nobles. It gives me at least an outline of my long heritage, and it reminds me that I am standing here in a present that was built layer upon layer in the past. I am a part of the movements of people and ideas that have changed our world and our understanding of it over the centuries. My posterity will look back at me and say, “She was alive when 9/11 happened and during the War on Terror.” Or perhaps, “She lived in 21^st century America during the time of the republic. She was alive when... I wonder what she was thinking.” I hope I can leave them a legacy that they will be proud to remember, even if it's only remembered by them.

Below are a couple of links to resources I've been using for family history. FamilySearch.org is a free service, but as with anything, I like to get a second opinion if possible. I found the second website that I use to for this purpose for my medieval lines.

I've been using the older Family Search because I'm still trying to figure out the new one. If you can figure it out, great! If you do use this resource, you'll want to download the free PAF Family History software you see at the bottom left corner of the page. That way, you can save your findings on your computer and/or a removable disk. As you can see, there are also links to several helps like online classes, or you can find the nearest Family History Center where people are there to help you in your search.

FamilySearch.org
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy

My Book

When people hear that I am writing a book, they always ask what it's about. I don't mind them asking, but I find it hard to explain. I have lots of ideas of what it's all about, and it doesn't neatly fit into a genre, although you'd call it fantasy. As I've said many times, I like to call it a historical novel that takes place in another world.

Here's why it could be called a fantasy:

• It involves fantastic beings like sprites, goblins, people who live ten times longer than we do, and elves (I don't actually call them elves, but they're like the elves in Norse mythology: bright beings that live in a blessed realm).
• My protagonist is young, and it's a coming of age story for her.
• It involves “magical” objects:
  • Crowns that not only symbolize power, but have actual authority, either proper and overbearing.
• Lights contained in a glass that everyone possesses from birth that can give them guidance and show things as they really are.
• Keys that unlock doors that open into a land of peace and refuge -- and eventually more than that.
• Warfare between good and evil.

This is why it may not be a really typical fantasy:

• My protagonist is not “the chosen one”, neither is she on a clear-cut quest to save the world or a nation. Not everyone's life and freedom depends upon her. Each individual must decide which side he/she is on, whether to be free or to become a prisoner of evil.
• The arch villain is not a big evil dude that everybody recognizes. The evil dude targets mostly the mind, although he does exercise some influence over larger entities. In these cases, he mostly uses other people who have come under his influence to carry out his purposes.
• In all honesty, I have three main characters. The one I've been referring to (Winkle) is the main character of all main characters I suppose. I get into the heads of all three of them, but the story begins in Winkle's head. I follow the others' thoughts more directly as they separate and go in different directions. Their stories become just as important as Winkle's. Winkle is still the main protagonist because she is the youngest, and hers is the coming of age story. The other two have already grown up, but must unlearn some things, remember things, or build on what they've already learned.
• Magic isn't very heavily involved. Politics, characters' personalities and choices, and interactions between characters are pretty important to the story.

I still need to get to what the story is about -- but of course, I can't tell everything and give it away. So, it all takes place in an empire called Arlithed. It has a republican form of government, so it is ruled by an established Law that both the people and the government must be responsible too. At the point where the story begins, corrupt leaders are trying to maneuver around the law, the economy is going downhill, “secret combinations” are gaining power, etc. (Let me be clear that this isn't a pure allegory of the current American situation. I've looked into some histories of republican Rome and similar entities as well.) Not everyone knows about what is happening because news takes weeks or months to get to the outer reaches of the sprawling empire. (They didn't have the internet or TV.) Winkle, Lady Dorthea, and Lieutenant Wendil do know what's happening because they all work in the Forum at the capitol. As much as they try to correct the direction of the administration and save the empire, things fall apart. They struggle to find purpose in life as the world crumbles, and everything they cherished, built, and fought for is threatened by alternating anarchy and tyranny. They learn that they cannot successfully combat the forces of destruction without first finding and gaining strength from another power. This power works inside each individual, and then when those individuals are united in one purpose, they can defeat evil.

-->

Now, if that is all too vague, let me give you some ideas of what my story is not about, and maybe that will give you (and myself) a clearer idea of what it is about.

What it's not about.

What it is about.

-->

1. Villains:

In a lot of fantasy, sci-fi, and superhero stories, the villain is easily recognizable, even if he's called “the nameless one”. That's not always the way it works in real life. Sure, we have our Hitlers and Stalins. Even in those cases, people can't always tell who's the bad guy. A lot of people thought Hitler was great because he was a strong, charismatic leader and because he helped the economy. Very few people knew what was going on in the concentration camps until after the war. He was kind of like Saruman: a great speaker with a lot of blood and dirty deeds on his hands.

I'm convinced that the greatest battles we fight are within ourselves. No matter what forces or influences put pressure on us from the outside or the inside, the way our lives turn out, and the person we become is ultimately up to us. Remember the part in The Fellowship of the Ring where Frodo was on the seat of seeing with his ring on, and one power was pressuring him to leave it on, and another was pressuring him to take it off? Neither of those powers could decide for him. It was up to him. That's what I'm talking about. You can never honestly say, “The Devil made me do it” or “I am what I am” without acknowledging that you chose to give up some of your freedom.

So in my story, I want to show that everyone's fate doesn't depend on a single person, and that the evil dude has no power over anyone unless they let him have power over them. Circumstances are difficult for everyone, but they can still respond to what he or fate throws at them and choose sides.

As I've been writing, I've been thinking. The whole quest-that-depends-on-one-person story does have some merit. Even though we are free to choose, there is only one way for us to make it to where we want to go, and that way is only possible because of one person: Jesus Christ. Without His sacrifice, we would have no hope of ever making it home. We all make mistakes, but because of Him, we can all be forgiven, cleansed, strengthened, and transformed into something greater than we could ever imagine. Because of Him, we are free to choose. Now, it's up to us to use that freedom to turn away from evil influence and turn to Him.

So that's really the point. The power of Good is there to save us. We just have to choose to use that power. We know that the good guys are going to win, but we just have to be one of the good guys.

I have thought of bringing in a kind of allegorical story that is told in my story about a Christlike figure who went on a quest to save humanity. What he did didn't cause evil powers to cease to exist immediately. It made a way to escape evil so if one so chose, evil could have no power over him or her.

2. What are we fighting for?

Not just “all that is good and green”. Sure, it's sad when orcs go stomping through forests and chopping down trees for no reason, but I don't think that's really what it's all about. ...And I'm sick and tired of stories about how the evil or thoughtless humans are killing off dragons so they're now on the endangered species list, etc. Think about it. When you're in some kind of trouble or you just accomplished something great, who's going to be there for you? Your family and friends? I hope so. Your friendly forest beasts or trees? What do they care? A grizzly would just as soon eat you as sit down and listen to your problems or triumphs.

Now, suppose your friend or one of your siblings needs you. Are you going to be there for them, or just expect them to find support from a friendly rock or an ant scurrying by? It wasn't the pretty trees of Lothlorien that helped Frodo accomplish his task. It was his loyal friend, Sam, whom he could trust.

You're not going to be much more help to a person than a rock, ant, or grizzly if you haven't built some kind of trusting relationship with them. In this crazy life of ups and downs, we need strong families and friendships. Those relationships can last forever if we work at them. We can learn from each other, love and support each other, and build things together. If we neglect our relationships and let them deteriorate, what do we have left? Maybe money, a house, some trees, some rocks... but nothing that will last.

3. How do we know which is the good side and which is the bad side?

I've already gone on about how good and evil isn't so obvious in real life as it is in the storybooks. That doesn't mean that there isn't a difference. It's just harder to detect, and it's no time to go bumbling about following whims. What on earth does “Follow your heart” mean, anyway? It's just fluff! What if your heart tells you to do something stupid that will get yourself and others into trouble?

We have to find out what is right and what is wrong, and that means finding truth – and changing our hearts where necessary.

4. What to be?

Most of the plays and movies I've seen lately all have the same theme: Be different! (Why don't they take their own advice?) Does that mean that if everyone else is not jumping off a cliff, you should jump off a cliff? This idea doesn't seem to fit all circumstances. Sure, it would be boring if we were all exactly the same and never could learn anything from each other, but we've all had the idea that being different is OK jammed into our heads. It's time for some fresh – ahem, different – ideas to think about.

How about this one: Be the best you can be.

But – but -- that means saying something is better than something else! We can't have that. It's all relative! Alright then, have a boring life of just being the same person who doesn't have to change because nothing is better than anything else.

We are free, and we can have the power and support we need to become the greatest being ever. We just have to find truth, choose the right path, accept help and help each other along the way, and work at being what we have the potential to be.

* * *

Yes, that was a very long explanation. I've said a lot of things directly here, but I hope that as I write, I'll be able to craft a good story, and also say this kind of thing in a way that readers have to dig a little. My favorite books are the ones that I can read over and over again and find some new meaning every time.

What You Need to Keep an Empire Together

The novel I'm writing is set in an empire that happens to be falling apart. Name an empire in history -- besides a relatively young one -- and it has come to an end one way or another. Some were broken up on their own. Many of them got crushed by outside forces -- but most of the time, not before they were weakened from the inside. I've written a list here, but I'd like some ideas in case I overlooked some obvious or not-so-obvious points. Although I have some general ideas, I want to pinpoint exactly what went wrong with my imaginary empire. This could also be a useful exercise for us Americans to see where we're at.* This was kind of off the top of my head, trying to remember stuff I've learned in history and humanities classes and my various readings and observations.

*The U.S. is pretty much an empire, although it's not necessarily actively expanding at the moment. Think about it: we have a lot of territory, and not just here on the mainland , much of which we conquered. You don't have to have an emperor to be an empire. Until the Caesars came along, Rome was a republic, too.

• People and Territory (That's a given.)

• Authority (No wimpy successors, please.)

  • Governors of provinces to keep things in line, especially the more distant provinces.

  • Visits to keep tabs on things, especially if you don't have cell phones, internet, etc.. Charlemagne was on the road quite a bit.

• Law (Common law is especially helpful. If you hold yourself to the same standard as everyone else, they respect you more.)

• Military

• Border Defences: Walls, military and naval bases, coast guard, natural barriers (impassable mountains, seas of death, cliffs of insanity, etc.)

• Economy:

  • Resources, producers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, consumers

  • Trade: to get resources you lack

  • Coinage

• Communications System(s)

• Roads and Transportation: Trade, communication, inspection

• Ports

• Revenue: to support military, build roads, etc.

• Diplomacy

• Strategies for dealing with rivals. Strong defense against enemies who intend to wipe you out.

• Cities: centers of economy and authority

• Education: So you don't make stupid mistakes and blow it.

• Balance between unity and autonomy. Factions are dangerous, but let people keep their identity, and don't be so controlling that people hate you.

• Incentive to not rebel. Here are some ideas:

  • Reward conquered people with privileges of citizenship. Make their situation better than before they were conquered. Make them proud to be a – whatever you are.

  • Fear only works to a certain extent. If you're an evil tyrant, people will be more likely to rebel or to help your enemies. (See ancient Mesopotamian empires.)

  • At the same time, you don't want to be a softy because people will take advantage of you. (See Shay's Rebellion.)

  • Convince people that you're a deity (Egypt) or that you have some kind of divine right – although this may not be totally honest.

  • Religion/Philosophy that teaches Moral Code. This code should encourage people to obey just laws and deal with each other honestly. Note: This should not be a state religion because if adherence to these ideas are based not only on fear of the law, but also on individual choice, people will be more motivated to adhere. There will still be dishonest criminals and corrupt authorities out there, but there will be less of them. Less resources will have to be spent on law-enforcement, and the economy and administration will run more smoothly.

What Are We, Anyway?

A facebook comment string set me to thinking. (Comment strings can be either really boring, entertaining, weird, or surprisingly thought-provoking. Sometimes the latter turn into comment wars.... but now I'm getting off track.) To get to the point, I think that we, as humans, should all ask ourselves this question: What are we? Our answer to this question can have quite an effect on how we view life in general and the kind of decisions we are going to make. Here are some answers that some people have come up with or learned:

• We are pre-determined animals that act on or try to fight primal drives, but never really succeed in subduing them.
• We are beings created out of nowhere by the gods and are bound to fate, the will of the gods, and a little of our own will.
• We are beings created out of nowhere by God for His purposes and therefore have a natural desire to follow Him, though we may choose otherwise and suffer the consequences.
• We are intelligences, eternal beings, who chose to follow God's plan for us so we could return to Him and become gods and goddesses like Him. We have the choice to continue to follow that plan, though we may choose otherwise and suffer the consequences.

Now, these are just a few, and I'll admit that I don't know what a lot of different religions or philosophies teach about what we are, but you can use them as examples as you understand them.

So far, I see a pattern here. All of these beliefs involve a certain degree of free will or agency. You can see how it increases as we go down the list.

Here are some of my thoughts on the subject. Have you ever thought, “Man, why do I do stupid things like that?” or “Why am I so lazy? I wish I could do better.” Weaknesses are easy to point out in ourselves, but why would we even wish we could be better if there wasn't a better that we knew about? I am convinced that we are something more than animals. We may have some carnal drives, but here are a few points of evidence of another, higher part of our nature:

• We naturally seek and desire something higher.

Since we can remember, we humans have looked up at the sky and thought of gods with superhuman qualities who live in splendid dwellings and who, some way or another, have the ability live forever. We try to reach perfection and find ways to improve everything from our living rooms to computers to society at large. Some philosophers say that this is just an extension of the things we do understand or it is because we always want more, more, more! We're never satisfied. We seek gratification, and once we get what we want, we get bored with it and want something else. That goes for some things. We eat a good candy bar, and we want another one. We watch a movie, and as soon as the credits roll, we want to watch it again (unless it was a stupid movie like Twilight). In some cases, our wanting more is an indication of our search for perfection, rather than just satisfying our perpetual, carnal appetites. We break our PR for a mile run. We want to break it again. We play a piece on the piano with no mistakes. Now we want to add dynamics and expression and memorize it. We make a great scientific discovery. We realize there is still more to discover and want to pursue the inquiry further. We answer a question and see that there are more questions to be answered, so we try to find the answers.

Notice the difference between these pushes for more. It would be very easy to pop another candy bar into your mouth without even thinking about it. It would be pretty easy to push play again or to keep the movie for another night. What's an extra dollar? This first kind of drive leads to repetition, and in the worst cases, addiction.

The other push for more involves more work, and it leads to expansion and higher levels. Even if we never quite reach perfection in our imperfect state, it's always the ultimate goal. Like a lot of philosophers in the rationalist school say, how could we have a concept of perfection and of imperfection if there were no such thing as perfection? Plato thought that our spirits once lived in a perfect place, and that is why we have an idea of perfection and are always seeking perfection and, for example, trying to surround ourselves with aesthetically pleasing things because of their perfect proportions.

Now, cheetahs and gazelles can run pretty fast, faster than humans. I don't see any of them with stopwatches trying to beat records. They're either trying to get lunch or trying not to be lunch. That rockin' robin can get his tune right every time, but I never heard of a robin locking himself up in a practice room for hours a day and drilling the more difficult passages. Actually, he's just fighting over territory or trying to get a girl robin.

• We find patterns and order in nature and seek to order our lives and other things.

I know how easy it is to let my room or apartment get cluttered and messy. That's the lazy part of me. There's also the part of me that gets sick of the mess and spends the afternoon cleaning up and organizing. This kind of thing also applies to humanity at large. We start a society and everything looks like it'll be dandy. Then corruption somehow creeps in and messes things up for everybody. Then people get sick of the corruption and revolt and reorganize everything, hoping for a perfect or near-perfect society.

We not only try to organize, but we get pretty excited about finding organization in nature. We've found mathematical proportions like the Golden Section and functions and sequences that create pleasing and/or functional patterns. We learn things about the amazing organization that allows a living thing to function. We lots of patterns in the table of elements. We find order in colonies of social animals. Wait a minute! What about those other animals that have organized “societies”? What sets us apart? The fact that we are aware of our organization and that we can see organization in things beyond ourselves, the fact that we experiment and ask questions about our organization. I don't see any bees setting up congresses and revolting against Queen Georgina III because of nectar taxes without representation. I don't see ants worrying about how many calories they should be taking in or measuring the proportions of a dead fly they bring home for supper. Everything they do is by instinct.

We have the ability to wonder and ask questions about ourselves and our place in existence.

Animals are generally concerned with their own survival or the survival of their pack/herd/flock/whatever. They dedicate all of their time to this. A lot of people do the same thing. Some people are still in the hunter-gatherer mode where they have to spend all their time finding food, providing shelter, and defending themselves. Even those of us who live in an advanced civilization often just go through the daily routine of work, eating, sleeping, and taking care of hygiene with a few leisure activities thrown in if we have time.

Sometimes, however, we can't help slowing down for a bit to wonder why we do what we do and what our place is in the grand scheme of things, if there is a grand scheme. In the very act of wondering if we are more than animals created by chance phenomenons in nature, we indicate that we are something more than your every-day-run-of-the-mill animal. We have this natural hunger to know our purpose and whether or not life is even worth the bother. We wonder if there is a purpose in existence, or if the universe is just a cold, impersonal existence that doesn't care if we succeed in life or not. There are four three basic answers to these questions:

1.What kind of a stupid question is that?

2.Life has no meaning. We live and die, and that's the end of it. Everything we do is “dust in the wind”.

3.Life has an objective purpose. There's a game plan, and we have to learn the object of the game and try to succeed at it.

4.Life doesn't have any objective purpose, but we assign our own purposes to our own lives.

I suppose an in-depth discussion of these three answers is for another time.

We ask lots of other questions about ourselves, such as: How can we know things? Can we know anything? Is everything just in our heads, or is there really something of substance outside of us? Are we just physical bodies, just spirits, or both? What the heck are we? Etc. etc.

These are hard questions to ask and hard questions to answer. Sometimes we don't want to face them, and we just want to go on living without being bothered by them, but we can (and I think should) ask these questions and try to answer them.

• We look beyond ourselves by speculating and discovering.

We not only ask questions about ourselves and our place in existence, but we inquire into things beyond ourselves. We may begin by making up stories that explain how things work, or we may experiment or reason about how things work using observations and discoveries. We look under the surface of the ocean, into the microscopic world, and up into the stars. Some discoveries we make directly benefit us in various ways, but a lot of them do nothing for us but to satisfy our curiosity. There's the story about how curiosity killed the cat. If the cat could have escaped danger, he would have. But would he have sent in a robot probe to observe for him and answer his questions. Right now, we know we can't survive on Saturn, but that doesn't mean we ignore it, and never look in it's direction again. We still want to know, so we send things in to do what we can't do so we can find answers. This takes a lot of money and effort -- and a lot of math, but we still do it.

• We have rational abilities.

It's pretty obvious by now if you've read the above. Animals go primarily on instinct. We humans do to a certain extent, but with a little effort, we can reason things out and make reason-based decisions. We can also do math, music, logic, language, philosophy, etc. Some animals have limited rational abilities, but was there ever a dog who invented calculus or a pig who wrote a fugue?

• We have complex language and complex, abstract concepts and symbols. We assign meanings to things.

This is kind of a continuation of the last point. Reasoning involves abstract concepts, and we need language to express those concepts to each other. Words and other things serve as symbols of abstract concepts. Now, some will point out that animals have ways of communicating to each other. Bees do their little dance that says “Hey! There's a good patch of flowers 100 feet to the southwest of us.” I never heard of bees or dogs or chimps discussing the concepts of justice or love. A lizard is glad of some sunlight to warm him up in the morning, but he doesn't look up at the sun and see it as a Platonic symbol of truth and enlightenment.

• We are consciously creative.

We marvel at what some animals can build and create, but they build the same things over and over again, generation after generation, never consciously changing or experimenting with new artistic ideas. We humans, however are very conscious of our art and design, and it changes from culture to culture, age to age, and now decade to decade or less. As an example in Western culture, we went from post-and-lintel architecture to round arches to Gothic arches, etc. There are even different kinds of arches in different cultures, like the corbel vault used in pre-Columbian America. All of these designs were meant to support structures, but since we didn't have a specific design programmed into our brains, we've had to experiment and create and see what works. We also go beyond the functional and create designs, sounds, stories, etc. that are pleasing to us and/or have meaning to us.

• We have a concept of morality.

Now, I can just hear somebody saying, “We just made up morality. It doesn't really mean anything. There's no objective morality.” The same sort of person would be quick to point out that anything we do that would be considered moral or unselfish is really for deeper, selfish motives. That may be true in a lot of cases, but not all. Think of the story of the plane that crashed into freezing water and the man who let everybody else – people he never knew before – be rescued first, at the cost of his own life. Anyway, the point is, animals don't even have a concept of morality, made-up or not. If they need to eat another animal, they'll kill it. It doesn't mean they're evil or that they have the ok from their conscience. We, on the other hand, have debates on whether or not eating animals is moral, or if abortion is moral, etc. The point is, it's easy to disregard morals and to pretend that we're nothing but amoral animals. It's hard to live up to moral standards, especially an objective standard, but if we tried harder to do it, society would be a lot better.

_._._._._

Have you noticed a pattern? We do have a kind of nature that would make one think we were only animals, and it's usually the nature that is easier for us to act on. Then there is something else inside us that makes us want to be better, to create, and to find answers. We have those desires, but it usually takes us a lot of effort to act on them and ignore the carnal drives that get in the way of them. Still, we can do it, and many of us have.

Here again are some of the answers to the question, “What are we?”

• We are pre-determined animals that act on or try to fight primal drives, but never really succeed in subduing them.
• We are beings created out of nowhere by the gods and are bound to fate, the will of the gods, and a little of our own will.
• We are beings created out of nowhere by God for His purposes and therefore have a natural desire to follow Him, though we may choose otherwise and suffer the consequences.
• We are intelligences, eternal beings, who chose to follow God's plan for us so we could return to Him and become gods and goddesses like Him. We have the choice to continue to follow that plan, though we may choose otherwise and suffer the consequences.

So, I'm ready to eliminate the first answer. We are not mere animals, and we do have a degree of freedom. How much freedom, though? If a god or gods did create us out of nothing for their own purposes, and/or we are governed by fate, we have a limited amount of free agency. In response to the second answer, even if things beyond our control happen to us, whether it's fate or the will of a deity or just chance, we can't blame those things for the person we become. That's up to us. A lot of atheists ask in response to the third answer, “If God created us, why didn't He make us perfect? Why should there be all this trouble in the world if there is a God?”

Now, imagine that we really are free. The Restored Gospel has a way to explain it. We are intelligences, free and eternal, but not progressing to our full potential. God offered us a way to become perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent creators like Him. He created us as spirits, so we are His children in spirit, and have godlike tendencies. All of us here chose to go along with His plan and have a mortal experience and test. (There were some spirits who chose Lucifer's plan, wanting an easy in – so they got kicked out.) If we decide not to keep going along with the plan, we don't get to become like our Father, and if we break eternal laws, we are punished. Now, some people will complain about the idea of objective, eternal laws. They think they somehow make them less free – at the same time they're likely saying that we are pre-determined and not free at all. Actually, the idea is that these laws make us more free if we learn how to keep them. If we learn how to work with things of an eternal nature, we can become and do more than we could ever imagine now. So, even if we think we have a good idea of what we are, the really important questions that we must provide answers for are: “What can I become?” and “What am I becoming?” In this “enlightened” 21st Century, when a lot of influences are telling us, “It is your destiny” to join the dark side, don't forget the Greek watchword ârte and the Renaissance motto virtu. Be the best you can be.

Spring in Zion National Park

I finished Winter semester at BYU-Idaho, and then came home to the Mojave Desert last Saturday. A lot of people thought I was home for spring break and were a little surprised when I told them I was home for the summer. BYU-I is on a three-track system, and each semester is only about 14 weeks long. Each student is on two tracks, unless they want to go for three and graduate faster. There are advantages and disadvantages to the system. I still wonder how they marry people off so fast up there. You just get to know some people, and then the semester ends and you have to say goodbye. You might not even be on the same track as them the next semester. Anyway, one of the advantages to coming home so early is the chance to see spring unfold in the southern desert. When I went to school at Snow College in central Utah, we got out the first of May when trees were just barely budding there and there were still chances of snow. I would come home to full-fledged summer. The day I left .Rexburg, it was snowing. I came home to see thick green grass, tulips, blossoms, and bright green puffs of willow trees. It's still cool enough for comfort, but much warmer than Idaho.

So, to go along with the title of this post, I went up to Zion National Park with my Mom. We hiked the Emerald Pool trail. The pools aren't yet emerald at this time of year because the moss hasn't had a chance to grow yet. With the early spring snowmelt, the waterfalls you run into along the trail were at the full. The lower falls arc out over a natural arch in a sandstone cliff, so you can walk right behind them and enjoy views of red and white sandstone cliffs and clear blue skies. Here are some photos I took along the trail.

Here we are coming up on the lower falls.



Lower pool.



Water trickling into the arch and sprinkling on these boulders.



Looking through a stream of water at red rock cliffs.








Approaching the upper falls.

Levels of Reality

Yesterday, I saw a clump of purple crocuses with golden centers. That was the first time in my life I had seen real crocuses. I knew what they were because I had seen pictures of them, but they don't grow well where I come from. So what was different about seeing them in real life? Why isn't seeing a high-resolution photograph enough? Why wouldn't it be enough even if there was a realistic scent with the photograph? What if there was a cool breeze wafting through the room where the picture was displayed? What if it was not a photo, but a sculpture that you could touch, and the petals and leaves felt like real ones? Would that be enough? Certainly, it would be a great artistic achievement. But that's all it would be. It wouldn't be a living, metabolizing plant. It would be created for the pleasure of our senses. Now, art isn't inherently bad at all. In fact, it can be very beneficial, but I am afraid that these days, we're generally too distracted by merely gratifying our physical senses and using art to do so.

Okay, before we get into this, I want to make it clear that I have nothing against art in general. It all depends on its intent and effect.

So you've all heard about Plato's Cave and the different levels of reality, right? Plato thought that the physical world is the lowest level of reality. Beyond that is the intelligible world, which is made up of the forms: eternal truths. I wonder what he would have thought of our virtual realities and our entertainment that is made of images, fabricated stories about what is supposed to be like real life. Now, one might say that the Greeks had art, and Plato didn't seem to have a problem with art – as long as it didn't corrupt people in any way. There is a difference between classical Greek art and our art. One might say that Greek art didn't represent reality because it was purposely ideal. That all depends on what you consider reality. Greek art represented a perfect reality beyond this mortal, imperfect existence, something above the shadows of the cave. In a similar way, Greek theater went beyond the common conception of reality. It may have been seen as unrealistic because of the giant masks and the fact that they didn't show violence. They only talked about it. In comparison, our movies show EVERYTHING, and people think they're more realistic. But Greek theater had something that most of our entertainment doesn't. It wasn't just entertainment; it wasn't meant to just appeal to the senses. It was a form of education. It made people think about ideas beyond the physical world. They would discuss the plays for months -- and they would have something to discuss besides action sequences and the attractiveness of the actors.

Our technology and entertainment are really good at imitating the physical world, and it is getting better at it. People are lead to think that it is getting closer and closer to reality. It is in a sense, but only the physical sense. In another sense it is getter farther and farther from reality. Entertainers will often try to reconcile unreal things and false messages with reality by making the physical aspect seem real. Often, making unreal things seem real isn't inherently harmful, especially when the audience knows the unreal thing could never be. For instance, we all know that dragons are a thing of legend, so even when we see a very realistic portrayal of a dragon in a movie, we know it's not actually real. However, when the concept is not as obviously unreal as dragons, and has a semblance to reality, it has a more destructive potential. I always get annoyed with movies where the characters do stupid things, everything works out anyway. Real life doesn't work that way, and we shouldn't expect it to. But if spend enough time with entertainment, we start to expect those things. We expect something for nothing.

Media also imposes on us images of what other people think we should be like. These days, actors and singers are rated by their looks, not so much their talent. They are made to look perfect, and computers pick up the slack if they can't actually sing or if they're not quite a size 0. If they are all we see, we think we have to be like them, and we base our self-worth on our looks. If the physical world is a lower form of reality, then this, of course, is absurd.

A lot of sitcoms and movies show people drinking, partying, beating each other up, jumping into bed, etc. -- doing anything to gratify their physical senses and passions. They show the characters having fun and seeming happy. They don't show all the negative and lasting consequences that happen in reality and effect both the participants and their loved ones. What about the child born out of wedlock who grew up without a stable family life and who received only distorted messages about love? What about the lives lost to reckless violence, lives with potential and a chance for free agency? There are many stories that are left untold in our high definition, surround-sound entertainment. If a person's only source of knowledge was the television set, video games, or internet entertainment, they would quickly forget that real freedom can only exist when responsibility is exercised.

Alright, now that I've ragged on entertainment, I'll acknowledge that it is not all bad. Many artists are inspired and in turn inspire us. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that all art and entertainment became inspiring and uplifting. Let's also assume that even though people tend to be attracted toward media that satisfies the senses, we all turned into people that found this kind of art appealing. Now, I have to ask myself this too. Assume that in the above circumstances, you spend as much time with media and entertainment, particularly electronic media, as you do currently. Then consider how much time you spend doing other things in comparison. Even if the media was all good and inspiring, would your life be an active, fulfilled life if you spent all this time with media? Do you go outside enough? Do you go to live concerts and plays once in awhile? Do you make things? Do you ever just sit and think, even if that includes writing out your thoughts? Do you take time to study things out and try to understand them? Do you spend enough time with your loved ones? Do you spend enough time doing things for other people? The things that aren't real and that we should beware of cause us to focus only on our own pleasure. We should be doing things that turn the focus outward and bring fulfillment and meaning to our lives and build real relationships with real people around us, as Elder David A. Bednar said in his address to young adults of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: “Things as they Really Are”.

I think that in addition to levels of reality, there are also different levels of doing. There is sitting on the couch and doing nothing. There is watching the TV and doing nothing. There is playing video games and accomplishing nothing. There is thinking and talking about doing something. Then there is actually doing it. There is doing something with a purpose. There is doing something for the right reasons. Taking action is doing something to something beyond yourself or doing something for someone else. Being entertained is just trying to satisfying yourself. The only way we can really find meaning and fulfillment as human beings is if we take action and look beyond ourselves. If we constantly seek pleasure, we will never be satisfied, even if we get the things we thought wanted. We'll always want more. On the other hand, if we reach out beyond ourselves and forget ourselves, we'll find the things will give us lasting happiness, and we'll find that we have become something we could have never imagined before.

So, let's find out where those crocuses came from. Let's do something. Let's climb out of the cave of the shadows of shadows and find reality and the source of truth. There are many conflicting and false messages being thrown around. People are using media and entertainment to try to get us to believe things that may not be necessarily true. It's hard to know who and what to trust. Let's not be gullible, but use our heads and find out what's really going on. I believe that the truth resides in the restored Gospel of Christ and that all the true answers we seek can be traced back to it.

Freedom and Responsibility

Here are some thoughts I've been having lately. It seems like a lot of people these days just want everything to come easy. That's not the way life works, but a lot of us have been fooled into thinking that. My grandparents and my parents knew how to work, and they knew that if they wanted something in life, they had to work for it. Now machines and computers do a lot of the work for us. We like that. I must admit, it's nice to have extra time for thinking, reading, socializing, etc. But the media and politicians play on our lazy nature. They offer to take care of more things for us and make more decisions for us. If we let them, we're giving up part of our agency, and we're no longer free. Giving up responsibility is giving up agency.

Another way people give up agency is by claiming that they were born with a certain nature or into a certain environment and that they can't change. “I am what I am,” they say. They make themselves a victim to there genes or circumstances. Some scientists claim that we are predetermined which leads to the conclusion that we are not free. I choose not to believe that. I think one of our most important attributes as human beings is our agency. Why is it so easy to give it up? We want the freedom, but not the responsibility. We have freedom and liberty drilled into our brains, but our media very rarely portrays the consequences that come from making choices of a certain nature. We forget about our responsibilities to ourselves, to others – especially our loved ones, and to God.

This is why, over all the socio-economic systems we currently have available to us, I think a republican government with free enterprise economy is the best option. We are free so long as we don't infringe on other people's freedoms. We have liberty and responsibility. The government is also responsible to us. A lot of people don't like the competition and hard work required to succeed in this kind of system, but they want all the benefits and freedoms that come with it. When politicians offer to take care of the people and provide them with happiness “from the cradle to the grave” it sounds pretty good. What people don't realize is that they're being fooled into giving up their freedom to choose what to make of their own lives. Isn't that the point of living as a human being? They are also being fooled into giving up pain and discomfort. Yes, those things are necessary too. How could we ever know pleasure if we didn't know pain? How could we ever know fulfillment if we didn't have any obstacles to climb over? How could we ever be victorious if we never had any conflict? We will never find what life is all about if we are like the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver's Travels who lead meaningless, but painless lives.

Besides that, no man-made system could possibly provide every pleasure or happiness. How can a bunch of mere mortals who don't know us at all know what will make us happy? Aren't we supposed to figure that out as individuals? I believe that there is one objective path to happiness, but we must, as individuals, be convinced that that is the right path. We as individuals must choose to follow that path or to not follow it. Then we must take the responsibility for that choice.

Have you ever seen Megamind? It has an interesting message that goes right along with this, I think. Here's a simplified rundown of the story. So, Megamind, a big-headed blue alien man, was raised by a bunch of jailbirds – a less-than satisfactory upbringing. He was taught that bad was good and that good was bad. So, he became a super villain and fought against Metrocity's hero, Metroman. As the plot progressed, he realized that bad didn't give him all the rewards he wanted. He started to care about something beyond himself. He tried to do something good, but it backfired. He thought that was only good at being bad. In the end, he pulled through and saved the day. He realized that even though he was brought up in less than ideal conditions, and that even though he had been an outcast in his younger years, he could still choose to be something good. He learned to act, instead of being acted upon.

Hooray for good movies!

Where Is Music Now?

For my humanities class, I am required to take something we discussed in class and do some research, then write up my thoughts about it. Here is an example that I thought would be interesting to share here.

I find it rather curious that a lot of people think that music is all about feeling. Although I acknowledge that emotion is an important part of music, especially for music on the romantic side of the spectrum, I don't think it is the only thing that gives music its value. I think that music can also have meaning in its various levels of structure. Before I was a Humanities major here, I was a music major at Snow College. I have studied a lot of musical structure, from individual chords to the way chords function with each other (or don't function) to overall form. Thus, it sounded a little strange to me last semester when students at the beginning of Music 101 could only think of the feeling of piece as a musical merit.

So what's my point? I think that as far as music, we are still generally romantic, and Dionysus still has the upper hand. It is true that our music is generally less grandiose than 19^th century Romantic music. (Movie music is a notable exception.) It is true that 19^th century Romanticism was still within the common practice period of music, whereas composers from the Impressionist movement on have succeeded in completely overthrowing the rules of harmony and rhythm in art music. However, I would argue that the general musical world is still essentially in a romantic stage. We have yet to see another major classical, Apollonian movement. It seems like what was almost a Dionysus/Apollo pattern in musical history has been broken.

The common practice period of music began with the Baroque period, an essentially romantic, Dionysian movement. Then, the neoclassical period came as a reaction to the perceived excess art and decoration. Reason, balance, refinement, and natural expression were valued in art, music, and thought. When the Snow College chamber orchestra played a piece by Mozart, our instructor told us how the expression was like love at a distance. It's never quite fully expressed like in romantic music. In spite of this seeming lack, Mozart, as we all know, was a genius. Neoclassical music was very well structured, as a rule, and one could make sense of it.

Then in the Romantic era, EVERYTHING was expressed over the top, and old forms were tinkered with or discarded. Then Debussy reacted against the huge sound of Wagner and the like. I still wouldn't say he reverted back to classicism. Though the musical emotion and volume wasn't excessive, he broke away from traditional chord functions and the major/minor system. He turned instead to the old church modes, pentatonic and whole-tone scales, and parallelism. Harmonically, his music was very un-structured. Feelings and impressions were an important aspect of impressionism.

Since the beginning of the 20^th century, we have seen several relatively small musical movements, many of them simultaneous. We saw neo-romanticism, expressionism, and another small neo-classical movement. The latter was a reaction to the former two, a return to reason and balance. Still, it was not a major movement, and it became a joke with some composers like Prokofiev. It may be argued that serialism has a classical slant because it is extremely structured. Still, as I mentioned, it is chaos to the ears. It is based on rules that were set up to render tonality and harmony impossible. It falls under the category of expressionism, which constitutes the expression of raw emotion and psychological turmoil not limited by the rules of harmony. (The Scream is a famous example of expressionism in visual art.) Primitivism was anything but Apollonian. It was characterized by driving rhythms, clashing harmonies, and harsh sounds (like today's popular music in a way). The theme was often focused on primitive, backward life before society was refined. Stravinski's Rite of Spring is a famous example.

I'll skip ahead to current pop music. It all sounds the same after awhile because little of it has a melody with a good contour (if any melody), and little of it has an interesting harmony beyond the old “Pachalbel Canon” chord progression (if any harmony). “But it has a good beat!” Yeah, the same one over and over again. The beat makes you feel a certain way. Is that all that matters? “The music video is awesome!” Does it have to have an image to mean anything? The singer looks good, but can't actually sing without a computer. I think that music reflects its culture. What does our music -- and media in general -- say about us? I think too many young people are too caught up in satisfying the senses quickly instead of really delving into the structure and meaning of things. I think it would do us a lot of good to sit down and listen to a symphony, watch an opera, or read a good book, and then talk about it, just like the Athenians used to discuss their plays and tried to learn something from them.

February Thaw

cool wind, not cold,
a voice from home in the south,
soothing breeze makes you quiet;
let it play with your hair, wrap it around your face.
sounds come smoother except crunchy slush;
cars glide past on bare roads
free from icy sinews.
sun goes to bed later, still light at six,
horizontal clouds cooling,
comfortable orange street lights,
cool blue shadows.
warm lights smile through windows
like baking bread,
like grandmother at rest in her favorite chair.
banks of layered snow receding
reveal mud and bits of green grass.

you want to run barefoot,
jump up and catch the moon,
dance an Irish jig.
you want to run away to the mountains,
hike up to waterfalls,
roast hot dogs,
tell ghost stories around the fire.
you want to lay in the grass,
expose yourself to the sun,
or stare at stars and talk about God and life.
you want to be in love for the sweetness of it
even though it might be another hopeless wish.
you want to breathe a garden's quiet fragrance.

you have forgotten
old snow,
dead leaves still clinging to skeleton branches,
the jacket still hanging on your shoulders,
sidewalks cracked from freezing.
you walk lighter for the music of peace inside,
a small glow of optimism,
not because you're trying to get across the ice patch
without slipping.

Individual vs. the State

So, I thought I'd post one of the essays I wrote for a political philosophy unit in my PHIL 110 class semester. There are four key questions/issues in political philosophy.

1. What is the justification of government authority? Why should a person subordinate my will to another person, institution, or especially government?
2. What is justice? How do we determine if a government is just or not? The aspect of justice we focused on in class was the just distribution of goods (wealth, power, etc.) and burdens (taxation, military service, etc.).
3. Individual vs. State: Where do we draw the line between individual freedom and government control? Which is more important, individual freedom or the needs of society? When they conflict, which should trump the other?
4. Are there circumstances in which it would be immoral to obey the government or in which it would be permissible to break the law? Are we always obligated to obey the law even when it is unjust or immoral?

I'll be focusing more on the third question. Here is the continuum of individual liberty and state collectivism:

INDIVIDUALISM-----------------------------COLLECTIVISM
-----------------------------Democrats &
----------------------------- Republicans-----------------Stalin--------1984
<------------------l------l----l-------------------------------l----l------------------l->
Anarchism---l--Classical Liberalism------Marxism---Totalitarianism
----------Libertarianism

(Don't you love all the "ism"s)
Note that Classical Liberalism and Liberalism are not the same thin. "Liberalism" is applied in different ways in eith case. Here is the difference between Conservatism and Liberalism:

Conservatism: Let society grow naturally. Hands off.
Liberalism: Legislate social progress. Hence the term Progressivism

Note that Democrats and Republicans are in about the same position along the continuum, and that neither are purely Classical Liberal. Both in general legislate aspects of life that Classical Liberalism wouldn't allow for, but they don't agree on which aspects to legislate.

Classical Liberalism: Freedom, liberty, individual freedom from inappropriate government control. Freedom to pursue legitimate individual interests. Human autonomy is considered one of the most basic rights and should only be controlled when it has the potential to cause direct harm to others. The state should not force an individual to act in a certain way, even for his own good, unless doing so would prevent harm to others besides himself. The governmet's domain is only within the public sphere. Each person is considered the proper guardian of his own physical, mental, and spiritual health.
Marxism: Capital (the means of production) is owned by the state.
Marx said that in capitalism, the worker is exploited. In his time, they were to a certain extent. They were paid ridiculously low wages, worked long hours, had no safety standards for protection, and child labor was prevalent. Marx thought that capitalism would inevitably undermine itself and lead to communism. Here's the process as he laid it out: Competition for profit -> Lower wages, machines introduced -> international companies -> failed company owners join the unemployed -> growing, unified embittered worker class -> ka-BOOM! They rise up -> capitalism is discarded ->
Transition:
1. Dictatorship of proletariats (workers) - They clear out the last remnants of capitalism.
2. 1st stage of Communism: Socialism - state ownership of production.
3. Ultimate Communism: People as a whole make economic decisions. (And they all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.)

My paper (after a very long introduction) is a response to Marxism. (Don't let the title scare you) Here goes:

Marxist Theory in Practice

Marx's theory beyond a certain point can only be just that, a theory. It describes how capitalism will evolve into communism, but it does not account for its implications after the proletariat becomes the ruler and common ownership of the means of production have been achieved. It does not account for how economic decisions would be made. If there is no class distinction and if all the people at once own the means of production, how is any kind of decision going to be made? The theory also does not account for what the workers may become when in power. Would they remain workers? Or would they transform into another upper class?

Imagine a society where all the people had equal power in making the economic decisions. For this to be possible, votes or polls would have to be taken for every decision. Someone would have ot administer the polls or votes, and somehow a decision would have to be made about which decisions should be voted on. It would not be possible for the workders to vote on every single decision, or no work would be done. So who would make the other choices if all the people were workers? Then once the polls or votes had been taken, who would gather, count, record, and implement the results? The people assigned to do this would not inherently have any particular power over the others. However, it is conceivable that they would use their position for their advantage. They may tweak the decision in the implementation of it. A Marxist mights say in response that ehy would have no reason to take advantage of their position, being content with no one having an advantage. However, this cannot be left up to chance. Throughout history, we have seen that people do not always behave within a system as expected, and they must be checked. Even if the people in this position did not mean to take advantage of it, they may inadvertently make changes to the voted decision when implementing it. To ensure that this did not happen, an impartial panel would probably have to be set up to make sure changes were made exactly as decreed by the vote. Already we see that not all the people can have absolutely equal power. Some sort of administration would have to evolve to carry out the decision making process. Now, suppose that the majority of the workers, not understanding economic principles, made some unwise economic decisions and put the economy into a precarious position. This situation could perhaps be avoided due to the free public education. Then who would determine the curriculum? Fro all the people to have equal power, educational decisions would have to be determined the same way as economic decisions. If this is the case, we come full circle and find ourselves stuck with the same dilemmas.

Suppose the above scenario was applied to a small society. Now imagine a society with millions of people all with absolutely equal power trying to make and carry out decisions. Even the first stage of the decision making process would be impossible. Imagine trying to herd millions of people to the polls for every economic or education decision. That alone would require someone to have some administrative powers. At best, the millions of people would have to select representatives to make most of the decisions for them, and they could all still vote less often on the more important decisions. This scenario would be not so different from a representative democracy. Now, not only decisions about justice would be made by the delegates, but also decisions about the economy, education, health care, etc.

Now, the Marxist may respond to all of this by saying that Marx did no necessarily intend for there to be no administration at all. He merely said, as quoted by Lawhead, that the "public power will lose its political character" (Lawhead 609). He defined political power as "organised power of one class for oppressing another" (Lawhead 609). The delegates in an administration in a communist society would not necessarily take advantage of their constituents, especially since they were likewise part of the proletariat class.

I contend, however, that those in power would eventually cease to see themselves as workers on the same plane as their constituents. They would be making decisions that affected many aspects of their lives, yet they may not fully understand the workings of all these areas, such as economics, education, health care, etc. They could also take advantage of their position and make decisions that favored themselves or they could exempt themselves from decisions that affected everyone else.

By publicising all these facets of our lives, Marx claims that we would all really be more free. However, this is very unlikely to be the case when his theories are applied because he did not consider some of the implications. Some kind of administration is necessary, so the people could not all have absolutely equal power. Economic decisions would be in the hands of even fewer than before. Those with power would probably cease to be on the same level as the rest of the population, but they would be making decisions that affected and were not necessarily good for them, and they would not be free.

P.S. I didn't write the following in my paper, but I think it's interesting to note who is trying to take over capital in our country (health insurance, GM). Are these guys workers? Or elite? They claim to be facilitating social progress, but they're just making themselves -- the elite -- more powerful.