Jesus, Socrates and Paul

Professor J. Rufus Fears is professor of classics at the Univ. of Ok. he earned his Ph.D. from Harvard University, a 15-time award winner for outstanding teaching, and 3-times winner of "Professor of the Year" at the Univ. of Ok. He has written four books and over 70 articles

"history is made by great individuals and great events, not by anonymous social and economic forces"
- J. Rufus Fears
jesus and socartes were two of the worlds greatest teachers.
socrates founded the modern university.
jesus founded christianity.

both were unconventional
they received no salary
held no office
had no credentials
teaching was a vocation not a career
a "career" is not a calling, but a way to get somewhere (carriere, a highway)
a true philosopher is a lover of wisdom
such love of wisdom has nothing in comon with the modern academic discipline of philosophy

information is facts
knowledge is placing these facts into an interpretative framework
wisdom is the use of this knowledge to live your life in a moral fashion

jesus had no interest in the poliical kingdom of god
his kingdom of god was in the individuals soul
both socrates fought against the "known" and taught through refutation, contradiction and parables.

ambiguity was a means of forcing the individual to his or her own ethical decision
but only after they had been exposed to morals, and situations which pointed a way, indicated a direction which could be found by the individual within themselves

socrates asked questions
he did not lecture
his questions indicated an answer
his questions indicated directions of inquiry where the "answer" could be found

neither jesus nor socrates published
publishing is an act of implicit finality
publishing suggest that you know the truth
yet,
the true philosopher is always searching for the truth
and in this search there is only searching
as there is no earthly finality

both socrates and jesus directed their messages of individual salvation to societies that were communally based
both socrates and jesus went out of their way to be in conflict wiht their peers
sophist (socrates) and pharasees (jesus)

the trials of socrates and jesus were both "legal" and reflected the ideal of liberty under law
socrates was charged with blasphemy or atheism
or, refusing to believe in the gods of athens and corruption of the young

jesus was charged wiht blashphemy before the jewish sanhedrin
and treason for claiming to be the king of the jews before he governor pontius pilate
history teaches us, that if you want to bring someone down, you slander them and charge them with treason.

the basis of treason is always a lie
and the charge is not based on what they said
rather, the opposite of what they said and intended
it's the effect of their words, not the words which are the basis of the charge

both socrates and jesus were "innocent" of the charges
both refused to refute the charges
they refused to believe they had to defend themselves against lies
and so they said nothing
and this is what sealed their fate

Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori (Abdul Rahman): African Reinvigoration on the Shores of America

'Prince Among Slaves" is the story of Abul Rahman, an African Prince abducted and bartered for goods by his kidnapper. There are many important elements to Rahman's story, which make it culturally indispensable in the history of the World.

African Civilization: Rahman, was a Prince. His father commanded and ruled over thousands of subjects, himself, a sub-ruler to the ruler of Timbuktu. Rahman himself was lord of over 2,000 soldiers charged with guarding his peoples passageway to the sea. He was educated in Timbuktu and in the languages, culture and history of the different peoples that conducted essential trade with his tribe.

Black on Black Crime: The sad tale of Africa can not be told, in fact, would not exist without the complicity of Blacks in the acquisition of their own kind that were in turn traded for the cargo of slave traders. At the time of the beginnings of the forced exodus of an estimated minimum of 12 million Africans to the new world, African tribes, were all too willing to trade their own people for gun powder, muskets, rum, beads, etc. This was the beginning of the African arms race. Muskets became essential in the defense of ones territory. To survive without this contribution was increasingly impossible, setting off an arms race and upsetting of traditional power and relations which would become irreparably changed. It is the sad truth, that Blacks, once caught up in this arms race, demonstrated the basest of human psychological/social reactions in their quest to acquire the vital technology of power.

Cotton Production: Rahman, having been trained, educated and with his experience as a leader, was able to assist his master in the cultivation of cotton on a scale unseen in the Americas. Natchez Mississipi, the place of Rahman's plantation, would become the home to more millionaires than any other city in the New World other than New York City, due to it's climate and enviromental conditions which made it one of two ideal locations in the Americas (the other being on the Carolina coast) for the cultivation of cotton. Rahman was the leader and his knowledge made him indispensible to his master. In fact, of the New World crops, the ones that became the most valuable were the ones that Africans knew how to raise on an agricultural scale: Rice, Cotton, Tubers.

African Culture: Africa, African-Americans and the new world, is a fantastic story of survival and adaptation. Slavery began in the Caribbean and became widespread in southern America on a scale and depth much stronger than in the northern American areas. The climate was more similar to the climate of Africa, thus allowing the culture to take hold in a deeper, more penetrating and significant way, with less to adapt to. Also, to be factored in the survival of African culture is the fact that African culture was constantly replenished with each arrival of a new African. For multiple generations, the stories and traditions of Africa, literally, the best of all of Africa's tribes and peoples and agriculture's were passed on from mother and father to son and daughter. As new generations of American born Africans were rooted, new influxes of Pure Africans arrived. The final analysis is that African Culture became fully and totally subsumed into the America's, up and down the Americas in all of the locations where slaves landed. Seeing as Slavers traded with areas where they had established relations, many new world African populations, were from the same locations in Africa, thus adding a new entrenching element to the unique culture of the new world African locations.

The Story of Rahman culminates in his being eventually freed by his master, meeting the President of the United States (John Quincy Adams) and engaging in speaking arrangements with free Blacks and sympathetic whites throughout the north. he returned to Africa, where he died 4 months later of a fever, never having returned to his homeland.

Amazingly, not many years after his arrival in Natchez, he crossed paths with a Dr. he had met in his native Africa. A white Doctor became stranded in Africa when he went into the mainland and his ship sailed without him. Rahman and his tribe took care of him for the 6 months he was there and this doctor was the first white man to visit Timbuktu. The doctor persistently enjoined Rahman's master to allow him to be sold, so that his "debt" could be paid back, but Rahman was too valuable. Besides, in the meantime he became married and had several children. Each child became a new heart string with which Rahman would become bound up and trapped in his American fate....

[The son of Rahman's slave owner was married to the daughter of a minister. their relationship soon grew cool, but his wife found out why when she discovered that he was in a relationship with Rahman's daughter and had children]

Milgram, Social Psychology, Racism and Tyranny in Higher Education

Tyranny - Tyrant: In modern usage, a tyrant carries modern connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which the tyrant governs or controls. [1]

The problem of rampant racism in higher education is a very perplexing moral problem to come to terms with. How can those who are deemed the most intelligent, well educated, skilled academics, in this day and age, still rely on tests, measures and means to admit their incoming classes which fly in the face of logic and justification to the continued detriment of societies racial minorities and historically marginalized and excluded populations?

When we look at the famous example of Nazi Germany, I believe there is something to be said for the argument that it is human nature itself which is to blame for rampant racism in our higher education system.

racism and exclusion in higher education, at it's core, is largely explainable by what has been identified as "a fundamental attribution error". that is, in excluding minorities and historically under-resourced, under-supported, historically oppressed populations from higher education in this day and age is a self-fulfilling prophecy constructed upon creating a system that attributes the cause of racism admissions to the disposition of the individual and their "out group" rather than historical circumstance and the "qualities" judged by the universities.

why was the Holocaust perpetrated against Jews, gypsies, the mentally defective and the like? the same reason Blacks can't get into college (once they have somehow found a good school, have performed well and have prepared themselves for college) the foundations reason is the ultimate attribution error. So what we are left with in higher education selection procedures is the accentuation of difference the systematic ignoring of similarity and more highly correlatable information to determine a students potentiality in order to find an element of seeming validity to justify a set of attitudes and behaviors which are integrated into and then self-fulfilled by admissions policy

Stanley Milgram conducted a famous experiment in 1961 to answer a question about compliance. Milgram, a Yale university researcher conducted his experiment in response to the war crimes trial of Adolph Eichmann. far too frequently, Nazi leaders repeatedly came before the war crimes tribunal an stated as their defense for atrocities that they were only "following orders"

Milgrams experiment required that students that were recruited to participate in a study presumably on "learning". other students (who were in on the experiment) were "learners" and the well known effects of punishment on learning proved in animal experiments were to be replicated in this experiment.

electrical shocks were given to the "learners" by the students as directed by the lead experimenter. the amount of the electric shock varied from a small shock to a shock level labeled "danger: high voltage", as increasing shocks were administered, the person receiving the shocks called out at first in a low tone to express pain to anguished, progressing to pained and tortured vocalizations and finally culminating to a macabre silence for the highest shock level.

The results of the study were that 1/3rd of those recruited refused to administer the shocks, while a full 2/3rd complied and delivered the maximum shock level.

No one thought that the experiment would turn out. Milgram talked to other professors, graduate students and no one believed that individuals would shock other humans as part of an "experiment". As it turned out, about 1/3rd of the test subjects pulled out of the study and refused to administer high level shocks. the rest went all the way to the max. through the screams of agony and even to silence.

The participants could have stopped at any time. If they said anything like, "I think I'm hurting this person" or they expressed that they were not certain they should do it, they were to be told by the researcher, "You agreed to conduct the study, will you please continue", if they contested again, they were to be told a bit more sternly, "you said you'd finish this, we need the data set, please continue until the study is concluded."

The interesting part to me is that these folks entire reinforcement history militated against entering into a laboratory situation where in order to learn you begin electrocuting your neighbors. These were Yale students, highly educated, privileged, and yet, they participated in torture merely to participate in a "study".

What does this say? It seems that the context determines the outcome. People are obedient in settings which summon obedient behavior. A university with lab coats and assumed intelligent people carry a certain authority which elucidates obedience.

Could this in part be the reason that nearly 50 years after the civil rights movement, major universities, especially the most "prestigious" universities still justify the exclusion of racial and economic minorities? could this be a major factor the reason they cling to measures of worth which have a demonstrated non-utility in determining academic, social, or vocational success? could the appearance of righteousness, rightness, authority, be what continues to sustain a this system of institutionalized racism under the guise of "correctness"? Could this flaw or loophole in human character in part explain how the horrible destructive and multi-generational effects of exclusion upon income, access, health care and also crime, poverty and violence be sustained despite the well-known and deleterious almost tortuous effects upon those who are excluded from such opportunities?

There are ethical implications as to how our entire society participates in disparity and oppression within our own borders to those both within and without. I do believe that this is a great nation and that we have an obligation to teach and raise our children to be respectful of authority, yet we must also teach them and set an example for them in such a way that they understand that at times the demands of authority must be resisted. We must retain in our children and instill in them a certain moral authority as well as the moral resources to say, 'no, i won't do it' when facing seeming "authority". Even if that authority is academic and stands on the hallowed ground and defense that they are acting in the best interest of society and with the full backing of "the best things thought and said by the human race."

the question is for each individual in our society, "what principles should guide my conduct, regardless of who I face, what uniform they have on, what uniform I put on and what I am told to do?" If one does not have clarity on that account, then they will always be a hostage to the context and doomed to a condition of being constantly in the thrall of circumstance instead of in the position of being masters of our own fate with a moral code of conduct which can weigh and react to all circumstances of discrimination and moral questionability with confidence and preparation for the dubious claims and seeming authoritative/justified actions of those who are entrusted with the power to meet out various forms of overt and disguised justice.

Because of the failure of a solid moral grounds and moral resistance to tyranny in higher education, we are suffering a dire, grave and life risking cost as lives of poverty, disadvantage, violence and multi-generational oppression is forced upon an entire race and economic class of individuals.

and so we are left with Stanley Milgram's experiment and the somber conclusion that is inescapable.

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."[2]

[1] "Tyrant" From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[2] Milgram, Stanley. (1974), "The Perils of Obedience". Harper's Magazine. Abridged and adapted from Obedience to Authority.

"Man is never so authentically himself as when he is at play." -Johann Schiller.

Johann Christoph Friedrich Von Schiller 1759-1805

From, The Encyclopedia of contemporary literary theory By Irene Rima Makaryk

One of the first to take advantage of the position taken by Kant on the notion of play, was Friedrich Schiller. In his On the Aesthetic Education of Man in a Series of Letters, he hypothesized that play, itself a spontaneous drive, maintains an equipoise between the other two major drives -the empirical (material and sensuous) and rational or ideational (formal and abstract). He accorded play a position of considerable importance, not only in it's relation to art but especially in its effect on personality development, for it allowed people to realize their full potentialities. For Schiller play is an indispensable feature of humanity, especially effective, like art, as self-conscious illusion, when governed by reason. By giving play such a prominent role in human development, Schiller set the pattern for all modern discussions of play, which will always involve a polarity of play and seriousness,... in which one term will invariably take precedence over the other (Spariosu, Dionysus Reborn 59). Schiller's concept also highlights the two irreducible and often conflicting senses of play: free voluntary action and random motion.

I believe that play is an essential element of communication. The ability to play is the demonstration of an excellent and highly adaptive and creative mind. Priggishness in terms of the act of living, is a lie. Life itself is a play, it is play, we play, by playing we learn life, we learn convention. Play in other terms is synonymous with learning, experimentation, with intimacy, sex, discovery, exploration... Play is the act of action and interaction as well as mutual and social action. all disciplines, all sciences, all professions are based upon play. economy is play. tokenism and monetary theory rests in play and the act of playing. there is serious play and fun play, but it is all play.

Play is affirming of the self. It would be more appropriate say, "I play, therefore I am" instead of "I think therefore I am" for I do not believe that thinking is an act that resides in the self. At many times were are made aware of thoughts, or have thoughts, so thoughts or having thoughts, only shows that a thought was had, and not that a being exists. Whereas play is the act of individuality expressed in interaction.

I believe in playfulness and finding someone to play with is one of the most wonderful things in life. To play spontaneously, is to be alive and open and aware of it's possibilities and to interact positively, and creatively with another or with a thing, or with oneself, or ones body, ore mind, or space, thereby affirming rationality, interpretation, absurdity, critique and possibility.

I believe in play.
Surely to Play, is at least the subject to the object of love.

Essential Lessons In High Finance.

I was driving home and saw an add for Bay Alarm and it said, "Burglar Schmurglar" and underneath, was the line, "What have you got to lose?"

There are many new tag lines which are complex plays on cultural colloquialisms that tie in words that are key to the core business, in oblique ways.

But the phrase, "What have you got to lose?" seems like something that everyone in high finance should at the very least, consider fully when developing core financial products and investments.

It's as if there is a bed of raw diamonds directly under a precariously placed, wavering mountain of death, which WILL fall.. and yet, those who watch from the sidelines are dismayed that some individuals, despite repeated trips into this "kill zone" are able able to emerge with vast sums of riches, which allows them in turn, to richly reward their investors, especially themselves, as well as to have the financial reserves to capture your target business audience and threaten your very existence.

And so, you jump into the fray.

In the face of such a situation, the question isn't if you will jump into the fray, rather, when. and when you also factor in the fact that it's always someone else's riches, and someone else who is ultimately risking their financial lives in the death defying dash... then it makes sense that resources are thrown into the dark oblivion.

the fact that the money is not theirs, should result in a more cautious approach, but it doesn't.

but let's examine the flip side. A few years back, in the previous incarnation of "the bubble" there was a run up in the share price of Internet businesses. Warren Buffet, despite the allure of seeming teeming riches to be had at pennies on the dollar (and the face that domiciles were not at risk) stayed squarely on the sidelines and did not enter the fray.

Of course he was proved right, despite the fact that millions of millionaires and thousands of billionaires were made in the interim. He wanted no part of it because in consideration of the finance zen koan, "what have you got to lose?" the answer, with reflection upon the principles that drive share price, was "everything". It simply did not make financial sense to invest. the fundamentals were whacked. the amount of profit to be made, was not a part of his equasion, because the equasion itself showed there was no profit to be made.

the second principle of high finance which is routinely ignored is, "do you have the money to pay for it?" all to often the answer is "no" and yet the action is "yes". It's a case where a willing spirit sadistically compels weak flesh to dance all too gleefully and long. once again, with someone else's shoes, tutu, music, band, floor and audience.

I would propose that for the first semester of any business education, what should be done, is that the students should sit in a gym while over the loudspeaker plays, "Can you pay for it? if not, then you can't have it." followed by, "What have you got to lose? Too much? then don't do it."

This would do much to solve all future financial crises.