I have explained that my mother was driven by a strong desire for her sons to be well educated which was translated into an unyielding pushing (hounding) for her sons to graduate from college. While I cannot speak of any deep motivation that might have resided in the core of my brothers’ souls, my early drive to do my studies in grammar school and junior high was to cope with my mother’s high expectations. Whatever my performance in the early years of school, it was not the product of my desire to be educated as much as it was a desire to avoid my mother’s tongue lashing. Somewhere along the road to a better outlook on being educated, this early motivation of avoidance of mother’s disappointment became a true desire to explore and learn which opened me up to be so receptive to that professor’s lecture about enlightenment, information and that muse. When, how and why this transformation occurred is unknown to me. I am not sure if I was aware that it had occurred at all.
I do know that it was never my plan to go to college. In fact I did my best to avoid college. Part of that truth was based on my performance in my Catholic grammar school; the nuns’ assessment of me as a student; my grammar school grades juxtaposed to my brothers’ grades and the like. I believed that I was ill equipped to make it through college. Even though my mother displayed no doubts, I saw it more in the light that my mother was in deep denial about my abilities. During my senior year in high school when seniors are contemplating their next move upon graduating, I wanted to go into the merchant marines.
There was an aggressive side to my mother. I experienced both her yin and her yang. She was certainly an advocate of spare the rod and spoil the child. I was certainly going to go to college, according to my mother, but most of her feedback to me regarding my demonstrated abilities was mostly negative most of the time. I don’t remember any compliments. (The feeling that I harbored was that I had done nothing to deserve a compliment. So the fault really was not hers.) There was no basis for me to believe that I could achieve academically. If this is all true, then how do I explain successfully earning my Bachelor of Arts degree in English and my Master of Education degree?
There was one class in high school that was taught by one of the wrestling coaches. He was a big man, 6 feet 8 inches tall or maybe even 7 feet. Back then that was extremely tall. Wilt the “Stilt” Chamberlin was one of maybe two or three basketball players who were 7 feet tall. Seven feet does not seem to be so unusual now. Anyway, this teacher was extremely proficient at making up tests that asked questions on everything that was covered in class and in the readings. I failed a couple of the first tests and did poorly on the next couple. My problem was that I was not studying and only did some of the reading. One time I wised up. I did all of the reading and studied hard before the test. I found that I did very well on that test. It finally struck me that if I did study and did do the work, then I did well, but I had to study. My test grades were rising. I felt good about the change. Working hard for this teacher did not earn me A’s but I passed his course with a strong C. This I believe was the beginning of a new path. I began to study in classes that were more difficult for me and found that studying really did improve my school work, but I had not yet developed a good habit of studying all of the time.
The nuns were sticklers on grammar and penmanship and error-free final copies written in ink. We used fountain pens. I never really saw a ball point pen until I entered high school. In high school I discovered that everything that I was taught and learned in my English classes at the Catholic grammar school allowed me to slide in my high school English classes without causing any severe impact on my grade. All of the grammar taught in high school was a repeat of everything I learned in grammar school. The hundreds and hundreds of sentences that were assigned to be diagramed for homework instilled a more than competent facility with phrases, compound sentences, compound-complex sentences, clauses, adverbs, adjectives and so forth and so on. I really did not have to work too hard at the grammar part of my English classes; however, the reading part was still very laborious. My visual handicap was still present and continued to secretly slow down and interfere with the flow of reading novels from cover to cover. My better than average language mechanics (grammar and such) offset my poor performance on the literature end. I could not keep up with the reading so I could not answer some aspects of the books under discussion. That which I had read I had down cold. I used what I had read as much as possible and pushed it as far as I could in discussions and assigned essays. My grades were much better in high school than in my Catholic grammar school.
Even though I was greatly improved as a student in high school, I still did not want to go to college. The war in Viet Nam was very active my senior year. The draft lottery had every eighteen-year-old’s undivided attention. My friend, Charles, (really my only friend in high school) and I were going to enlist in the navy together. Together we went for our physicals at the appropriate naval base. My family was not too happy. As it turned out, I was rejected because of my right eye. The physical determined that I had a significant blind side on my right. I also had a severe acne problem which disqualified me. My friend enlisted in the navy without me. I went back to my merchant marine plan.
My mother, my eldest brother and others, whom I don’t remember, were doing their very best to nag me into applying to college. I was out numbered and became overwhelmed with pressure to enroll anywhere just in case I changed my mind. After all, it would not hurt to have a backup plan just in case. I was tired and worn down, so one night I proposed a deal to which there was agreement. I would apply to only one college of my choice and if I was accepted, then I would go; but, if I was not accepted, then I would pursue the merchant marines with their full support.
Soon thereafter, I made an appointment to see the high school guidance counselor. My inquiry was simple, “What local college has the best mathematics program?” I was given the name of the college that, upon graduation, the graduate could go anywhere he desired with a recommendation from the mathematics department. Perfect. Mathematics and the sciences were my strengths, but my English class grades were average and I scored weak on my verbal SAT test. My SAT math score was good but not great. My plan was to apply to that college because I did not believe I would be acceptable to them because the college had a high reputation to uphold. It was a good plan.
It was not a great plan because I was accepted as a Summer-February freshman. This particular college knew that about 5% of the freshman class would not make it past the first semester which meant that 5% of available space would be empty at the start of the spring semester which began the first of February. The month of January was reserved for an explorative mini-mester for students to pursue nontraditional course material such as parapsychology. Therefore, to offset vacancies in the spring semester, the college accepted Summer-February applicants who would take the fall semester classes in the summer and then returned for the spring semester. I was one of the lucky recipients of this special acceptance. It needs to be noted that the summer classes would not be watered down because of the reduced chronological time into which the summer class structure had to fit. Classes were structured as if they were Tuesday/Thursday classes during the regular fall class schedule. Classes were 90 minutes long instead of the Monday, Wednesday, Friday classes which were 60 minutes long. A minimum of 12 course hours had to be completed by the end of the summer. That would be two classes in the first half of the summer and then two more classes during the second half.
I was accepted, so I had to go. The agreement had to be honored, especially since I thought that I had succeeded in what I thought was a clever scheme to stack the odds in my favor. Ok, I was in college. I would take courses as though I was meant to be in college. I signed up for Chemistry for science majors and some other course. It probably was Comparative Religions. The chemistry class had a mandatory lab attached to it which made it a 4 credit course. It was this Chemistry for chem majors that would have a significant impact on my self image as a viable student.
The first class in chemistry opened with the professor outlining the grading structure for his class. He was a young Ph.D. Rumor among the students was that our professor was around 28. We would all agree soon enough that he was very, very smart. He started out matter-of-factly.
“This is Chemistry 101 for chem. majors. You should know that the median score on tests will be 50. I have already compiled my grade book. Five percent of the students will earn an ‘A’; five to ten percent will earn a ‘B’; five to ten percent will score a ‘D’; five percent an ‘F’, and the remaining scores will be in the ‘C’ range. The only part that I have not figured out is whose name to place by each score. That determination will be made by each of you.”
Without a doubt, we were to be graded on the curve, the bell curve of normal distribution. We would be competing against each other for our grade. May the best student win. The median score on the first test that we took was a 20. All tests were reviewed in the very next class. After the review of that test, students began forming small study groups to improve their scores, or more correctly, to improve their understanding of the material. Two tests later, the median score was 80. The professor was smiling when he handed out those tests and commented, “You did a very good job on this one. I will get you on the next one.”
I calculated what would be the grade spread given the data received. In a class of twenty students, the number of A’s would be 1 which meant that the number of F’s would also be 1. The range of five percent to ten percent would yield a maximum of 3 students scoring either a B or a D. The remaining students (between 12 to 16 depending on the number of students awarded either a B or a D) would be the spread for receiving a C.
This class and his follow up class of chemistry (Chemistry 101 and 102) were without a doubt the most difficult classes that I have ever undertaken. I received a C in Chemistry 101 and a B in Chemistry 102. One day when working during a scheduled open lab for students to complete assigned, unfinished or difficult experiments, I asked the professor while waiting for a chemical process to occur, “So, why is it important to you that your tests have a median score of 50?” His response was quite interesting to me and upon careful consideration I could see his point of view.
“My job as a professor of chemistry is to make sure that I challenge every student. Every class always has a range of student talents and abilities. I do not want any of my students to get a perfect score. A perfect score means that I have not set up a situation for that student or students to be adequately challenged by that test.”
I decided that his thinking was sound even though it made things very difficult for those of us who were less talented.
Lesson learned: There are benefits to competition.
When I left that first class where the grading parameters were explained and after the professor smiled and said that he would get us on the next test, I said to myself, “I’m not the one to get that F. He’s not going to get me.” I was ensnared but I was determined.
After completing my summer school freshman semester successfully (two B’s and one C earning 11 credits with a grade point average of 1.64 on a scale of 3.0), I knew that I could do this college thing. I surprised myself especially when I found out that this professor’s Chemistry 101 and 102 classes served to weed out the freshman body of those individuals who are not studious enough to maintain the college’s standard.
My brothers went to college on athletic scholarships for their abilities playing tennis. I had no such abilities and I was not a shining star academically in high school. My family did not have the money to put any of us through college and my brothers were already in college when I submitted my one and only application. My mother being the determined individual that she was, found a scholarship program for visually handicapped students. She collected all of the necessary particulars and submitted a request in my name for one of those scholarships which I received. That was how my tuition and books were covered.
Sitting alone in my dorm room during the spring semester of my second year, I fumed internally with extreme anger because my scholarship, which was a government sponsored scholarship, was no longer of concern to the government. The funds were cut. My scholarship was gone. I knew that I could graduate from college and that I was not stupid after all. That I had proven I could do the work was of no consequence. I would have to leave college because I was poor. I had no money. The injustice of the situation I felt was great. There was no way that I, or my parents, could find the tuition for this college let alone all of the other expenses required of a college student. I would have to leave. Shit!
I transferred to a college in my home town. I could live at home. The tuition was much less than the one and only college that diverted my merchant marine journey. I was unhappy, to say the least. But things would work out. I eventually obtained my B.A. degree and moved on to earning a master’s degree in education.
What is vital at this point in my deathbed reflections is that I wanted to be taught, to exchange ideas in robust discussions, and to learn what I did not know. My mother’s wish for me to be educated was eclipsed by my own desire to learn all that I could possibly learn.
But what if an individual, perhaps hidden in some unknown niche of his or her soul, determines that individuals need to be educated? Needing is distinctly different from my mother’s wanting for her sons to be educated. It is also significantly different when the individual experiences the wanting in his own soul rather than coping with his mother’s deep wishes.
The need to be educated began to permeate my consciousness when I encountered a philosophy expressed through the understanding of three coins. The first coin from which the other two were developed to fulfill the intentions of the originating coin is called Joe’s Honor Coin of Reciprocity:
The evolution of this philosophy began with the mantra inscribed on the back side of this coin. The originator of these three coins professes that this mantra developed as two parts. At age fifteen or sixteen, the originator conceived the first part: “See a thing for what it is; Nothing more; Nothing less.” He chose to live by that command from that moment forward. That command, however, proved to be inadequate as a guiding beacon. There was always something fleeting that would then partially emerge only to quickly vanish, a vague something that was just out of sight of an individual’s perception of the reality before him. The identification, understanding and embracing of this phenomenon as an intricate element of all reality was added and celebrated in the second half of his mantra: “But remember Wonder and Mystery are forever and always present.” This full command is more than adequate as a guiding beacon for one’s choices in this life.
The front side of Joe’s Honor Coin formed as a result of the originator attending a weekend men’s retreat. The originator’s emotions were already heightened the Friday night of his arrival because of recent events in his life, and the weekend events continued to build in him until all crescendoed to a single occurrence during the Saturday evening’s festivities.
He had met a man named Joe who moved him, the newcomer, to feel very welcomed. During the next twenty-four hours Joe revealed publicly and privately his long struggle with depression and the events tied to that potentially debilitating condition. Joe was not the only man struggling with strong emotionally charged consequences of life’s dark side. There were others who also shared their secretly endured troubles.
That Saturday evening, after dinner was over, several men performed unique, creative presentations of their own design. Joe was one of the last to present. It would turn out that Joe had put on several wonderfully colorful and tastefully designed t-shirts, one over top of the other thus camouflaging the array of t-shirts.
Stepping in front of the group of men sitting in chairs to the left and right of a central aisle, Joe spoke of his warm feelings and deep gratitude for the men sitting before him. Then he did something that astounded the originator of Joe’s Honor Coin. Joe stepped in front of a man sitting in the front row to his right which would be to the left of the audience and said, “I’d give you the shirt off my back.” With that he took off his outer shirt and gave it to the man. The maker of Joe’s Honor Coin was amazed to witness such an act. This phrase was a cliche but to see it actually done powerfully impacted the creator of Joe’s Honor Coin. Joe turned to his left, walked some steps up the aisle, turned to his left again, and repeated the exact same words and gesture. The emotional state of the designer of these three coins was again shocked. Like getting a booster shot, his emotions went reeling to a new excited state that had to be contained with concerted effort. Up the aisle a little farther, Joe stopped in front of the newcomer that he so warmly greeted and said to the maker of these three coins, ” I’d give you the shirt off my back,” and did so with a warm smile.
It was a beautiful yellow t-shirt with a frog swimming in water with his head above and his legs dangling below the illustrated, stylistic ripples of the water. The receiver of this t-shirt was undone internally but composed externally. He could not speak. Joe moved on, and most likely repeated this act again, but the man who designed the front side of the coin inscribed with his life long mantra stopped being aware of the happenings surrounding him. Internally unhinged, he resolved to be civil but to get to his bunk as soon as possible and sleep. The next morning would be to make his fair-the-wells as quickly as possible and with brevity be off toward the safety of one’s home before a complete meltdown occurred.
Once home, this emotionally supercharged individual took two days to reflect on this extraordinary event, to confide in his wife, and to try to synthesize what had been experienced. The words: “Truth, Honesty, Honor, Respect,” and “Reciprocity” are the nouns that state what was viewed and experienced as the men interacted with each other concerning the significant and perhaps protected truths of their lives. The one verb, “Nurturing” was the predominate activity streaming throughout all actions of that weekend.
Most importantly, however, is the motivation behind the drive to have this coin minted. The creator of this coin felt compelled to reciprocate the honor bestowed upon him by Joe’s gift of the t-shirt that as it happened had the image of the first totem in the creator’s medicine wheel –a frog. The frog was the first of four totems revealed or recognized by the maker of these three coins around the same time the mantra was first embraced. Frogs are important because they symbolize metamorphosis and change. Frogs change from aquatic tadpoles into land animals who love the water. For the designer of Joe’s Honor Coin, the fact that Joe bequeathed him a t-shirt sporting his first totem was a demonstration of the wonder and mystery that is forever and always present. After conferring with his wife and explaining all of the ramifications of the weekend, his experiences and the whirlwind that had impacted him, it was agreed to spend the money to mint the coin and present it to Joe as an honor reciprocated.
Reciprocation is not an act of obligation. Reciprocation is not an act of loyalty. Reciprocity is being compelled to act in kind regarding acts received. It is the action received that motivates the action returned. Regarding the other nouns cited on the front side of this coin the following statements have been made:
Truth and Honesty are not synonymous. Truth and honesty are not the same entities because there have been, and are times, when an individual must honestly say that he does not know the truth.
The degree of honor is observable through the degree of respect shown. You honor the individual when you show that individual the utmost respect. Honor the lives of others. Honor all life. Honor the planet. Honor all steps to improve.
Genuine reciprocity occurs when truth, honesty, respect and honor form the foundation upon which reciprocity stands. Reciprocity is being compelled to act, compelled to reciprocate. I was compelled to produce Joe’s Reciprocity Coin.
The need to be educated becomes clearly apparent when Joe’s Honor Coin of Reciprocity is deeply probed for understanding. Gaining a deep clarity of the distinction between truth and honesty; respect and honor, and appropriate acts of reciprocity may require the individual to seek as much education (both formal and informal) as can be obtained. Certainly, when mercy, tolerance, stewardship and guardianship are added to the mix, education is not just a desire. It is needed.
The second coin developed and minted is called The Decision-Making Coin.
After living many years with the mantra on Joe’s Honor Coin and reflecting upon truth, honesty, honor and respect, the maker of these three coins concluded that all decisions could be traced back to two choices. An individual can either choose to nurture or to exploit. Thus The Decision-Making Coin was first minted on December 21, 2015. Being raised a Roman Catholic, the story of original sin was well known. The Tree of Knowledge, the snake, the apple and the temptation were all known and perhaps understood from an early age. Age and life’s experiences, however, contributed to the concept of original sin fading into a smoggy, polluted atmosphere over a once clear understanding.
As it happens often with wonder and mystery, ideas seem to pop into one’s consciousness without any known cause. So it was that the epiphany about the nature of original sin crystalized during a discussion (or reading) about ecosystems, niches, trees, humans, eating and Mahatma Gandhi’s ahimsa (the reduction of harm to the lowest degree possible).
As human beings high up in the food chain, we cannot survive without eating organic material. We are not primary producers. We are not like trees or the grasses that can take in raw, inorganic matter and, with the aid of the sun’s energy, convert that inorganic matter into organic matter used for nourishment that sustains life. We must consume organic material. We must consume life. We have no choice in that matter. It seems quite apparent that original sin, the sin with which we are born, is the condition of needing to consume other life so that we may live. Hence the Exploiting side of The Decision-Making Coin.
Nurturing, however, is a pure choice. It is not mandatory that the individual nurture anything or anybody. Sometimes the motivation to nurture may not be primarily about nurturing but more about exploiting. Consider animal husbandry. The caretaker of beef cattle is motivated to care well for his cattle because he wants a vey good product to eat or sell. The ultimate apparent nurturing in this case is really an issue of exploitation.
Without proving or disproving that all decisions can be ultimately traced to these two choices of nurturing or exploiting, suffice it to say the designer steadfastly believes that all major decisions are rooted in either of these two possibilities. But, to highlight, every individual must exploit to some degree. It is unavoidable. This is the infamous original sin.
There is one other aspect of The Decision-Making Coin that needs to be explored. It was not a mistake, nor was it by chance that this aspect of the philosophy or value system is expressed as a coin. This is a coin that is for flipping. Modern science stands upon the premise that evolution evolves by chance occurrences. Randomness is a key component to our scientific understanding of evolution. Thus the flipping of a coin represents this randomness. An important decision must be made. Do I exploit the situation or do I nurture. Flip the coin and, then, proceed according to the outcome of the flip.
I witnessed a demonstration of this coin and the flipping aspect of it to an elderly, educated woman. When all was explained and the decision to nurture or to exploit was announced and the coin was flipped to determine what action the flipper would take, she became very angry. “That’s not what I do. I don’t make my decisions randomly.” “No problem,” was the response, “You don’t have to flip the coin.” The subtlety of The Decision-Making Coin is the first decision that must be made. That first decision is to decide whether to flip the coin or not flip the coin. The persons in possession of The Decision-Making Coin may simply turn the coin over to the side of their intention. You can consciously turn the coin over to reveal your choice to exploit or to nurture.
Flipping is not mandatory, but that choice enhances the coin with another subtle characteristic. Each time the coin is deliberately and consciously turned to either the nurturing side or the exploiting side, the owner of the coin will reveal to him or herself the nature of his or her core character. The function of this coin is to reveal the motivations behind the owner’s actions. First, the owner, in determining if the decision at hand is somehow rooted to either the nurturing or the exploiting side of the coin, must reflect upon the nature of the choice and the nature of his motivation at each step along the way. Second, when a determination is made as to his or her true motivation, that choice is validated by the conscious turning of the coin. Finally, the owner of the coin can decide to take this coin and throw it deep into a dark corner of his bureau drawer to be forever forgotten. Such a person, however, would most likely never purchase such a coin. While such a person may argue that he or she does not act randomly, such a person is (or wants to be) ignorant of his or her true motivations. This latter statement goes to the heart of the mantra on Joe’s Honor Coin — See a thing for what it is, nothing more, nothing less. That being understood, the individual who is not interested in The Decision-Making Coin most likely would not be interested in Joe’s Honor Coin. We are getting at the interconnectedness of these coins.
The third coin has been named, Two Sides of the Same Coin. Two sides of the same coin are inseparable. You cannot have one without the other. Such is the nature of the third coin. Thus the name.
On the freedom side are diverse individuals. Each carries a sign. The woman carries a sign with the words: “Our Petition”. The man carries a sign that says, “My Petition”. This side is about freedom to dress differently, to think differently, to speak those differences and to live differently. But, are there no limits to the allowable diversity which full freedom seems to indicate? If I am injured, am I not free to retaliate? If I am free to speak my thoughts, can I not shout out my hatred and incite others to follow my lead? If I am stronger than others, am I not free to dominate (maybe even enslave) the weak? If I have power, am I not free to wield it to my own advantage and take whatever I want? In short, what checks unlimited freedom?
The check on unlimited freedom is not dictatorship, tyranny, enslavement or the like. The healthy and nurturing check on unlimited freedom is responsibility. Free individuals must act responsibly or risk the deterioration of their freedom into descending states of repression. Free individuals must collectively not tolerate bullies. But, instead of attempting to delineate all of the negatives to avoid, consider the image on the responsibility side of this coin. Unlimited freedoms are checked by individuals choosing to help others cooperatively. Freedom is protected by cooperative nurturing. Differences are allowed in a free environment, but all individuals must act cooperatively for the good of all individuals, especially those who are weaker or less talented, less intellectually endowed, or less fortunate in all the ways that other humans are endowed. This responsibility is easily and clearly expressed with this understanding:
The community of individuals is responsible to nurture and assist each and all individuals to become the best that is in him or her to become.
Each and every individual, to the best of his or her ability, is to assist the community in carrying out its responsibilities.
This is a statement that consciously and deliberately turns The Decision-Making Coin to the nurturing side.
Education, both formal and informal, is a necessity for those individuals who accept this value system as a guide for their life choices. If those individuals open themselves to be receptive of the wonderfulness in the universe, then fulfilling the need to be educated becomes, not a chore, but the source of penetrating joy. I promise those individuals a fully satisfying life experience.
The level of intimacy between individuals living according to the value system encompassed in the gestalt described by these three coins will be unmatched and will deepen and expand as they gain more insight when they experience the ramifications of actualizing this worldview.
Education is needed when living this worldview to better equip the individual to cope with those who do not prescribe to these ideals. There exists intelligent, well educated individuals who, whether or not they own a Decision-Making coin, choose consciously to turn to the exploiting side most, if not all, of the time. It is my experience that those who are intelligent and well educated who are also devout exploiters are most often successful in their dealings and therefore become wealthy and powerful because they are not restrained by the needs of those persons or situations they exploit. Such individuals are prodigious opponents to those who embrace Joe’s Honor Coin of Reciprocity and its companion coins.
It is through formal education that individuals acquire the skills in reading, writing, conversing, calculating, understanding history and science and more, all of which contribute to improving powers of perception and reflection needed to see a thing for what it is: nothing more; nothing less. Additionally, education (formal and informal) is needed for self protection.
While education is paramount, cooperation is equally so. I fear I may not have emphasized enough that cooperation is an essential element for those ascribing to these three coins. My life experiences have indicated to me that intelligent, well educated, powerful and wealthy narcissistic individuals are best controlled by cooperative actions of individuals who profess a worldview antithetical to that of self-centered narcissistic individuals, who are devoutly greedy.
My informal education gained from my life experiences on the many school playgrounds that I frequented growing up has taught me that bullying behavior is learned, developed and regretfully perfected as bullying children grow into bullying adults. Discussions and conversations concerning our public education system have not focused on the informal social education that our children receive during their 12 years in our public schools. Discussion of the existence or nonexistence of free will aside, the point of view of behaviorism is that bullying is a learned behavior. Bullies are not born bullies. Bullies learn how to be proficient bullies. They hone their skills on our playgrounds and on our streets and, at times, within the halls of our schools. The bullies on our school playgrounds and in the halls of our schools grow up into adult bullies if their behavior is left unchecked or, worse, their bullying behaviors are reinforced unwittingly.
Consider this perception. One lone bully on a school playground is usually physically or emotionally substantial. On a one-to-one basis, he or she can easily intimidate a weaker child. If the children on the playground see themselves as separate, unconnected individuals fending for themselves, then the bully can rule the playground via individual confrontations with weaker children, developing a climate of intimidation that engulfs the entire playground. On the other hand, if the lone bully is confronted by say ten children acting in cooperation, then the situation is drastically altered. In this altered situation, the bully usually begins to recruit his needed henchmen. If this new situation is left unchecked, then the potential for gang formation grows.
While the above scenario is simplistic in its presentation, it captures what I have witnessed as a child and as a teacher with 25 years of experience augmented with my work with adolescents requiring assistance within a psychiatric setting. What is missing in the above scenario is the role of the adult authority which is mandated to supervise the developing children. This authority function for the general public is mandated to the government and the police. The role of the supervising authority is significant in both cases.
If the supervising teacher or teachers turn a blind eye to bullying behavior on the playground, then the children are left to self protect. Cooperation between the bullied individual and the observers becomes more critical in opposing the bully. If the teachers intervene but the intervention lacks the ability to eradicate the bullying behavior, then the bully gains more power as he or she is seen as being more powerful than the authority. The intimidation factor grows. The cooperation between those being bullied turns to enlisting the authority to their predicament without real success.
In short, to summarize, while I believe in the worldview described and implied by these three coins that represent the true relative position of the human individual to the surrounding world of which he or she is a significant and critical part, I believe that there is much more present in that worldview than I have yet to discern. Those who seek to nurture as opposed to exploit can best defend themselves against self centered narcissistic individuals by banding and working together to sustain their ability to live and thrive within their shared worldview. Without cooperation, each individual must stand alone to challenge self centered narcissistic individuals and bullies. There is a great potential that such an individual will have to grow out of the gentleness of a nurturing personality to become more of a fierce self defender. Cooperative self defense is a better option.
If I am so confident in this value system and if I have demonstrated a more than adequate understanding of the message contained in these three coins, then why do I need to carry them on my person? Why do I need to be so attached to their physical existence? I carry all three coins with me every time I venture out of my dwelling because of the need for cooperation. I want them available to me to help explain the worldview that they encompass. Chance may offer an opportunity to speak with individuals who may understand and embrace this gestalt and who are potentially inclined to this way of living. These coins serve as a collection of banners to be placed upon the field of life around which like minded individuals may rally. Around these banners, like minded individuals can discuss, nurture and implement actions for growth and self preservation.
These three coins as symbols, as banners, also serve to be a homing device to which others may outwardly be identified as kindred spirits seeking to abide by a uniting worldview. The idea of having some type of symbol to represent a common point of view, value system, code of behavior and such appears to me to be critical to the establishment of a concerted, cooperative effort by a group of individuals attempting to achieve a positive impact on society and the individuals who populate that society. Organized religions have a number of such symbols or artifacts. Corporations have trade marks which serve to represent the company’s character as represented by what they say and how they act. These companies will do all that is in their power to assure that this trade mark is not tarnished.
I prefer these three coins over religious groups for three reasons: First, because there is no mandate within the worldview of these coins that requires homage to any deity, nor any mandatory ceremonies to practice, nor any of the other elements that distinguish a given religion from the secular world. Second, given the first statement, any individual from any religious persuasion may subscribe to the proponents of this worldview because there is nothing inherently “evil” or “demonic” in the proponents of this worldview. Third, from my limited comparative religion studies, I have encountered all of the elements encompassed by these three coins within almost all, if not all, of the major religions of the world.
To be clear, however, the sentiments in the worldview of the three coins as presented here are secular in nature and that is precisely why they are so important. This is about humankind’s aspiration to be the best that is the true nature of humankind to achieve. This is about each individual achieving the highest level of humanity possible. This is not about achieving a heavenly reward or avoiding an eternal, horrific punishment. It is about achieving a better life for one and for all, for the living, here on Earth.