silver tongued arrogance

The democratic civilities around religious liberty and all having lots of different views on what happens when we die, is among the widest appreciated and valued items of personal liberty. We remember the Middle Ages history of inquisitions and religious wars, and every time religion comes up we experience the value of our liberty to think something else than the person or group we are talking to. Some follow a politeness tip to avoid it in conversation because of the different views, but folks interested in the subject enjoy exploring the ideas range.

Part of the civil coexistence is to know that we will each apply our own beliefs to each other's deaths. That's common sense. The only exception to the civility is the insultingness and evil fear play involved in threats of hell, and those are obviously a personal hostility and bigotry so they breach civility. All the range of beliefs that are not control threats or hostile like that, but that are civil to imagine, the civility of coexistence applies to. Whatever you believe about death is what you believe has happened.

An author of a well regarded autism book interpreting our community as a civil rights movement, Neurotribes, Steve Silberman, has died suddenly. There is some mourning around on Facebook. But also, there is a post going round, that he posted only a year before, telling everyone how to react to his death. It orders, dictates, not to react to it saying anything that expressed any afterlife beliefs. He calls those "comforting fables", which comes from the hardline atheist astronomer Carl Sagan. He was entitled to his view like anyone, and to have any memorials follow it. But he was not entitled to dictate to everyone else not to react to the event of his death through their beliefs.

He dictates to all to take an anti-afterlife lesson of our impermanence, from his death. Dictates to arrive at his view. That's overbearing dictatorial arrogance. He tried to use instruction on how to handle his death, to trap folks into his belief position, as an outcome of following the instruction. To censor folks' own perceptions in how they react to a death. That was controlling arrogance and a misuse of the civility code around death.

For it he forfeits the civility code. Your beliefs are your human right. It makes it fair to only remember him as an arrogant jerk. To realise from this that he was that, and for it not ceased to merit positive remembering.

Maurice Frank
4 Sep 2024

social real life justified the gradual wind down

I have been interested to observe this. Every frequently meeting group in my social life has been psychologically reluctant to stop. It was always been irresistible to go on and achieve their next meet so long as folks generally seem well. There is that mismatch, then, between a thinking group's natural instincts and the advice. Folks have stayed active until last weekend before the move to major shutdown from Mar 16, feeling they owed to each other to try not to drop activities, and there was always a next meet that would still be good to get done if folks were still well. Precautions like separately wrapped food started, and Anglican churches stopping their handshakes and shared wine, but knowing there were not yet many cases, folks all seemed to need the week of build-up of threat awareness, before the govt announcements of Mar 16, to get mentally ready to stop their social activities.

That felt right. It's particularly reasonable for support activities. I found that it aligned me against the armchair opinion on Facebook for a sudden instant "lockdown" on the shockingly authoritarian model seen in some countries like Italy. As a report by Robert Peston raised, heavy handed lockdowns put the elderly at risk of unseen neglect inside their homes, which counters the argument that the authoritarian lockdown makes them safer from the virus. I agreed with the government keeping the country active as long as we were still mostly healthy, and being driven by events re when we had to tip over into shutdown. Because it all matched folks' irresistible common sense day-to-day behaviour in my experience, mine included. That has been the real life practicality of folks' social and support lives, during the descent into this health emergency.

So I'm very glad and morally defend, that ELAS met on Mar 14. It was a good success for the 2 folks with ADHD who came to it: one new, so we achieved support by having it for them. That makes it right that we had it. Then it was reasonable that we supported each other into the shutdown period by an outdoor strolling meet of 1 1/2 hours today, around discussing it. An intermediate stage of wind down before stopping meeting. It met a need, it was supportive, but it was supportive about knowing we can't return to keep doing it for the duration, as the outbreak gets worse.

Maurice Frank
21 Mar 2020