Uncle Nino

Emily and I watched a movie this week called 'Uncle Nino.' It's about a man from Italy who travels to America to visit his nephew, Robert Micelli, and his wife and children. His primary purpose is to visit the grave of his brother, but he spends a couple of weeks with Robert whom he hasn't seen since Robert was a child. The contrast between Nino's life in Italy and the Micellis' life in Illinois is pretty amusing.

Nino is shown first in a beautiful little Italian village leisurely feeding himself and his dogs on the morning of his trip. He takes his suitcases out of his house to wait for a friend to pick him up and spends some time in his nice clothes gardening while he waits. On arriving at their destination, the friend asks Nino where his hat is. Realizing he forgot it at home, the friend gives him the hat he's wearing. The Micellis are shown next and they can't seem to slow down. The father is working hard to obtain a promotion; the mother is busy running errands and trying to keep her family together; the children have issues with school and home; and no one has time for each other ... or for Uncle Nino.

Somehow, Nino gets to know the family in spite of their lifestyle and helps them draw closer together. It's a really sweet story and too complicated to summarize so briefly, but hopefully that gives you a an idea of what it's about. I highly recommend it. It's a feel-good movie with all around good morals.

One of the basic messages, of course, is SLOW DOWN!! Life's too short to be so fast-paced. To really enjoy it, we need to focus on the things that matter most. Here's an easy example - 'family is more valuable than money' - according to a fortune cookie I got about 8 years ago. I keep it in my wallet just to remind myself.

And if family is more important than money, then a lot of us in America should probably work a little less and spend more time with our families. Of course that would necessarily mean less money. And that would mean we should be content with less. Henry David Thoreau was a good example of frugality. Thoreau's friend Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote of him: "He chose to be rich by making his wants few, and supplying them himself." Maybe we should rethink our definition of 'rich'.

Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau himself tells us in 'Walden', "we live meanly, like ants; .... Our life is frittered away by detail. An honest man has hardly need to count more than his ten fingers, or in extreme cases he may add his ten toes, and lump the rest. Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand; instead of a million count half a dozen, and keep your accounts on your thumb-nail. .... Simplify, simplify. Instead of three meals a day, if it be necessary eat but one; instead of a hundred dishes, five; and reduce other things in proportion. .... The nation itself, with all its so-called internal improvements, which, by the way are all external and superficial, is just such an unwieldy and overgrown establishment, cluttered with furniture and tripped up by its own traps, ruined by luxury and heedless expense, by want of calculation and a worthy aim, as the million households in the land; and the only cure for it, as for them, is in a rigid economy, a stern and more than Spartan simplicity of life and elevation of purpose. It lives too fast."

Interesting when you think about the state of the world economy and the calls for government measures of austerity throughout Europe. Shouldn't we the people, who have lived so high for so long on borrowed money, lead the way in scaling back our own needs and wants? Couldn't we take a lesson from Thoreau and simplify our lives? Wouldn't it be worth it to slow down a little and focus on the things that are most important - even if that means we have to sacrifice some of the things that we love, but that are less important?

Gandhi, recognizing his country's addiction to the luxuries of Great Britain, preached simplicity and austerity ... and he lived by his words. He was among the upper caste in India's social structure. He was educated as a barrister in England and could have had a relatively luxurious life. But his addiction to truth required that he search for his purpose in life and that he live a life of integrity according to the truths that he found. And this search led him to live a very simple life. Hard to argue with the wisdom of a man like Gandhi.

I'm not as brave as Thoreau and Gandhi, but I am willing to scale back my material wants if that's what my family needs. I loved the movie 'Uncle Nino' for that message of proper priorities. And I wish I had the courage to scale back even more. But for now, I will try to keep a balance in my life and remember that no matter what, nothing is worth the sacrifice of peace in my home and happiness in the lives of my wife and children.

Nicholas Nickleby, the book

I recently finished reading Charles Dickens' 'Nicholas Nickleby'. My wife and I watched a movie adaptation of the book a while back and it was so good! It inspired me to want to read some of Dickens' work ... and what better way to start than with the story that first impressed me?

Portrait of Charles Dickens

The book was great and I found the movie was pretty faithful to the original - about as faithful as time constraints would allow. The story is a moral tale about, among other things, the effect of character and the tendency of good character to yield happiness and bad character to yield misery. Dickens may be stretching plausibility now and then by putting circumstances together that link the cause and effect so closely in time, but I like his emphasis on the inevitability of such an outcome. I agree with his moral conclusions and I think his storytelling is masterful! He may be the greatest genius of an author of the English language I have ever read.

It's interesting that the very thing I appreciated about his novel seems to be the thing he later reconsidered and revised. Maybe not revised ... expanded. 'Nicholas Nickleby' focuses on two main characters, Nicholas (the good guy) and his uncle Ralph (the bad guy). Ralph is a man whose sole aim in life is the acquisition of wealth. He is clever and ruthless and quite successful in carrying out his objective. This morning, I read a talk by Elder Richard G. Scott in which he says something that reminded me of Ralph. He says, "A clever individual without foundation principles can at times acquire, temporarily, impressive accomplishments. Yet that attainment is like a sand castle. When the test of character comes, it crumbles, often taking others with it."

Ralph has no guiding principles other than wealth accumulation. Anything it takes to achieve that end is well within his moral sphere. His end is a miserable one. I won't ruin the story for you by telling you how it ends, but Ralph 'gets what he deserves,' I guess. Unfortunately, we don't get much of a glimpse into what made Ralph the kind of man he is. We get a little hint of a cause, but it's not sufficient for us to really enter into Ralph's character and feel sympathy for him. This is what I believe Dickens later revised or expanded upon in his novel four or five years later called 'A Christmas Carol'.

I don't know what Dickens was thinking, but I imagine he looked at the novel he had written (and possibly others - I don't know) and wondered whether there was any redemption for a man like Ralph. In a spirit of greater liberality, he explores that question in the character of Ebeneezer Scrooge, an equally ruthless man bent upon acquiring wealth at the expense of anything else of value in life. I love that Dickens revisited this type of miserly character and found redemption by allowing such a man to recognize his own depravity, explore his past to find the cause of his current state, and rekindle whatever virtue he had as a child and a young man to become a beneficent, liberal man. His ending is much happier than it would have been if he had not altered his character for the better.

Dickens doesn't step away from the correlation between joy and a virtuous life, but in his later work, he acknowledges the possibility for an evil character to change. Considering that we're all a mix of good and evil, it's a good thing we have the ability to change. We usually can't undo the evil we have inflicted on others, but there seems to be sufficient grace from heaven to compensate if we'll just change our hearts and our actions. I really enjoyed 'Nickleby,' but I also appreciate the more liberal message of 'A Christmas Carol' and its application for me personally.

Decapitated!

Number three woke me up early this morning to tell me he had a bad dream.

"Dad?"

"Yeah?"

"I had a bad dream."

"Oh, I'm sorry, sweetie. Tell me what happened."

"Well, there was a bad knight and you told me to run away and he chopped off your head and started chasing me."

[Ouch!]

"I'm sorry, pal! Why don't you try to think about something happy and see if you can get back to sleep."

That's all it took because I didn't hear from him again, but it got me thinking. As young as he is, he looks to me as his ultimate protector. Nobody is stronger than dad. When he sees someone chop off my head and start chasing him down, he knows he's in trouble! Imagine the panic he must have felt in his dream. Poor guy.

He'll find out one day just how weak his dad really is, but for now, I'll offer him a false sense of security. And I'll try not to get my head chopped off anymore.

A Beautiful Metaphor

There is an ancient Greek myth found in Plato's 'Symposium' of the origin of man and human love. It's possible Plato made it up, but it seems like it could have more ancient origins. Plato's character Aristophanes describes how mankind was once a larger version of himself, with four arms, four legs, two faces, etc. When mankind became rebellious and sought to overthrow the gods themselves, Zeus split them down the middle and had Apollo reform them to be male and female. And it seems that these half-human two-legged creatures spend the rest of their lives searching for their other half.

There is more to the myth that reflects Greek culture and society, but my description above is the part of the story I'm interested in.

I think it's a beautiful metaphor for love. Something inside a man seems to long for something feminine to make him complete. I'm not a woman, but from my experience with them, they seem to likewise long for something masculine to make them complete. When we each find such a thing (or rather such a person), we have the potential to become something much greater than the single sex creature we were born as. I don't pretend to understand it, but there is something holy about the union of the male and the female. And I mean that in a more profound way than simply sexual. The sexual union is a symbol of the more complete union that's needed to make sex meaningful. When we are truly united with a beautiful person of the opposite sex, I think we have begun to achieve our full potential as children of God.

I recognize that not all men feel masculine and not all women feel feminine. And perhaps this is part of what lies behind homosexual tendencies. However, I think by and large, most men long for something feminine outside themselves to make themselves complete. And most women long for something masculine to make them complete. It's not my intention to take on the topic of homosexuality in this post, but I guess it's worth mentioning because it is part of the metaphor that Aristophanes proposes and is one of the shades of Greek culture that influences the myth.

The myth is somewhat similar to the story in Genesis of Eve being formed from the rib of Adam. Whether symbolic or literal, this story seems to teach the idea that the female originated from the male in some fashion and that 'a man [should] leave his father and his mother and ... cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh' (Gen 2:24). It's interesting that this verse comes immediately after the story of Eve being fashioned from the rib. Once separated, it seems that the focus of male and female should be to reunite and stay together. Kind of a cool idea.

The Peter Principle

Years ago, a colleague introduced me to a book called "The Peter Principle" in which the author tries to explain why so much incompetence exists in business and in other spheres of life. The basic idea is that people, after obtaining a professional position, will succeed if they are well suited to the job and will be rather incompetent if they're not. Those who succeed are viewed as capable of taking on additional responsibility and are often promoted to new responsibilities. If they are well suited to these, they will succeed in their new position and likely be promoted again after some period of time. At some point, they will eventually encounter a position in which they will not perform well and they will have been promoted beyond their level of competence.

The book is quite humorous and a salve for those who are annoyed with incompetence and office politics. But it's a dark humor and, although I saw the truth behind the 'principle,' I was unhappy with the negative aspects of human nature that the author emphasizes.

I've been thinking about this 'principle' again lately and I think there's a lot of value in what the author says in a positive sense. His conclusion is negative because he assumes that peoples' skills and interests remain static. But the tendency for us to promote those who succeed doesn't have to end in stagnation. If the purpose of life is centered around growth and development, then the process of 'The Peter Principle' is a really useful one for making life meaningful. When we encounter responsibilities that seem overwhelming to us, that can present us with an opportunity to grow rather than being an impassable obstacle.

If we find ourselves in a position of being promoted to our 'level of incompetence', rather than looking at the situation grimly and thinking we have nothing left to offer the world (as Peter would have us believe), maybe we can look at that as an opportunity to become more capable by struggling to overcome the challenge. The struggle itself can be a lot of fun and the feeling of success very satisfying.

A couple years ago, I wondered whether I had become a victim of the Peter Principle. I knew I wasn't competent for the job I had inherited, but I was somewhat hopeful I would figure it out. I became pretty despondent occasionally, thinking that perhaps this just wasn't for me, but I never gave up trying to do my best and, with some help from a few colleagues, I found myself growing into my new role and now, instead of feeling overwhelmed all the time, I find myself in a position that gives me more satisfaction than any other job I've ever had. Part of the joy I find in my job is the constant challenge it offers me and I feel like I'm learning and growing all the time. But now, that constant challenge isn't overwhelming because I've found a model for success and I no longer feel like I'm drowning all the time.

I think the Peter Principle is a valid process that reflects some aspects of human group behavior, but by making an incorrect assumption, it arrives at a very negative conclusion that serves no real purpose except to explain the reason for incompetence. I've decided the principle is actually a positive thing because of the opportunity it gives us for growth. When I see incompetence around me, I will try to start looking at the source of that incompetence, a person, with an attitude of hope - that they are at a crossroads and, if they work hard and make good choices, they will become a better, more capable human being than they are now.

Maybe the Peter Principle of one of God's ways of helping us to become like Him.

The Scarlet Pimpernel, the Weather, and the Economy

I read 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' last week and came across the following passage near the beginning of the book:

"It do seem more like April than September, don't it?" continued Mr. Hempseed, dolefully, as a shower of raindrops fell with a sizzle upon the fire.

"Aye! that it do," assented the worthy host, "but then what can you 'xpect, Mr. 'Empseed, I says, with sich a government as we've got?"

"Mr. Hempseed shook his head with an infinity of wisdom, tempered by deeply-rooted mistrust of the British climate and the British government."

This seemed like such an appropriate passage to read just after the elections. It's such an obviously ridiculous correlation drawn here between government policy and the weather. It made me think of the correlation we often draw between government policy and the state of the economy. I have no doubt that bad policy can hamper prosperity and good policy can encourage it, but we tend to lay all the blame and/or praise at the feet of the ruling political party. The truth, I believe, is much more complicated.

Policy, if it does have an impact on the economy, may not make a visible impact right away. It might take years for some effects to be seen. That makes it really difficult to scientifically dissect the impact of individual policy decisions ... maybe impossible in some cases. That means that the mess of one era may have been created jointly by decisions made over the course of multiple Congresses and multiple Presidential administrations. Blaming or praising the current government for the current state of affairs is very short sighted.

I'm no economist and I would quickly get in over my head if I started arguing my viewpoints in too much detail, but in addition to that problem of latency, I also believe that our elected officials have much less influence over the economy than the unelected officials of the Federal Reserve, which, as I understand it, is neither 'Federal' nor associated with any type of 'Reserve'. But even those officials don't wield as much power as we'd like to think they do.

Our national market is made up of millions of individuals making individual choices every single day. That is far too complicated a system to be 'controlled' by such a small group within that system. We, as participants in the market, are the ones with the most power, though we're a terribly unorganized force. Failing to recognize our own power and placing the blame on someone else makes us feel good, but it also takes away our power to change anything.

I'm a big fan of the Austrian school of economics and though I don't think they have all the answers, I am convinced that they have the beginnings of the right formula for a perpetually healthy economy, though natural booms and busts will always be with us. The formula is based on freedom, but it must also include virtue, which I'm not going to define right now, but I might clarify that someday.

Having said that, I would prefer to see the government stop meddling in the economy and "leave us alone", as the French phrase "laissez-faire" implies, but even if they don't, we are the ones who have the true power over the economy. Let's do what we can to encourage government to do what we think is best for the economy, but having done that, let's then turn our attention to our own lives and do all in our power to improve our own situation and the situation of those around us.

And let's try to stop blaming the ruling government for everything that goes wrong, whether that be the economy ... or the weather.

Lead Me

I came across a song recently that really made me think as a dad. We have a lot of demands on our time and energy, but the most important priorities should be our wife and children. Probably more important than that should be our relationship with God, but as far as earthly things, our families are number one. This song seems to challenge me to be the best husband and father I can be. I like the words he uses and thought I would share my thoughts about the song with the world.

I think women and children need their husbands/fathers to be strong, firm, and unwavering and they want to be able to rely on that strength. Firmness doesn't mean we lead like tyrants, but we can lead with firmness and love while respecting their freedom. I haven't figured out how to do that yet; I just believe it's possible ... and necessary. I really like the artist's emphasis on that aspect of our 'job' and his assertion that he's incapable of doing it alone. Me too, pal. If you're a father, take a few minutes to listen and let me know what you think.

The Idiot

I just finished reading Dostoyevsky's 'The Idiot'. I enjoyed a lot of it; Dostoyevsky has a way of pulling you in to another person's mind. I love how he describes unnatural states of mind like dream sequences or temporary madness. He has some fascinating descriptions of death and executions, which he seems to dwell on in some of his works because of an experience he had being condemned to death for 'political' crimes at a fairly young age. At the last minute, he was reprieved, but the experience left a big impression on him - go figure - that is seen in some of his writing.

Anyway, a lot of cool ideas, a lot of interesting philosophical discussions, but I started to get bored with the themes after a while. It seemed like the book could have been half as long and served its purpose well. If you decide to read it and you stop halfway through, read the Cliff Notes version and you won't have missed much, in my opinion.

The main theme of the book is the depiction of a truly honest, good man. The hero of the story, Prince Muishkin (or Myshkin), is a man who cares nothing about gossip, status, wealth, or anything that typical societies value. He cares about people. He cares about their feelings. He cares about their happiness. And he cares about ideas. He's extremely intelligent, but has epilepsy and as his fits are coming on, he starts to act like an idiot. But that isn't really the reason for the title. He is given the title of 'idiot' because, in the eyes of the world, his simplicity, altruism, apathy for social forms and sincere expressions make him seem stupid. And if you were a slave to the social norms of 19th century Russia, he would have seemed like an idiot to you. Perhaps some of us, being slaves to 21st century social norms, would consider good men and women around us to be idiots for similar reasons ...

The first half of the book really makes the hero shine and seems to present the theme that a good, simple man can triumph in spite of his ignorance and/or apathy for 'the way things are done.' The theme seems to be that a good man will succeed because of virtue and the strength of his kindness, graciousness, sincerity, humility, etc.

The second half of the book (roughly) takes a bit of a turn. I think Dostoyevsky was trying to make the case that in the end, such a virtuous man will ultimately be exploited by others and fail because he is fundamentally at odds with his society. Sort of like the idea that in an unjust society, the only proper place for a just man is prison. There is something to that idea, but in general, I had a hard time swallowing the theme because of his portrayal of the circumstances and I got bored with the repetitions of his arguments to that effect. Muishkin ultimately fails, not because he is too good, but because he focuses on some of the wrong things. He fails because, in his simplicity, he remains ignorant of certain facts and refuses to see the importance of at least recognizing certain social constructs whether or not he chooses to adopt them himself. He also continually forgives others without considering that it may be wise to be cautious to avoid being exploited repeatedly. In the end, Muishkin ends badly, but I think Dostoyevsky's hero was ill formed. The truly good man does not have to be willfully ignorant of certain evils. The good man simply has to choose the good when faced with evil. The hero is created well in the first half of the book, but I much prefer Dostoyevsky's heroes in Brothers Karamazov.

I'm glad I read the book, but for the sake of posterity, I think a student would be better off reading 'Brothers Karamazov' and 'Crime and Punishment' and leaving 'The Idiot' alone. With those first two works, you get all of Dostoyevsky's brilliance, his amazing descriptions of strange mental states, his philosophy (though more fully developed in Karamazov), and a host of characters, both good and evil, that encompass almost everything 'The Idiot' can offer. There is, however, no other character quite like Prince Muishkin. If you haven't read it, you might try reading the first part just to get a taste of how Dostoyevsky viewed the ideal good man ... at least at one point in his life. It's definitely an interesting and worthy character sketch, but I'm glad he changed his mind later. I think Alyosha Karamazov is a much more worthy hero.