A most interesting point
Friday, January 28th, 2005was brought up today by Bob Sweeny. A seventeen year old at ris youth was adopted by a black couple, both with Masters degrees. The female is a lawyer. The child had love, role models, “built-in tutors,” financial resources and, I assume, spiritual resources since the lady is converted Catholic stemming from her work as a youth minister. The child chose to steal their car, drop out of CBC and become a father.
Bob asks what did he need? Bob compared the situation to our own Lawrence, a De La Salle graduate with a romantic history. It is unclear to us.
Interpretations:
1) Something truly was missing. We can search the history, find that thing. Science could examine the variables and with comparisons could isolate a factor, or a series that “caused” this youth not to change his path. One possible factor would be “perspective.” The child certainly thought that his choices were the best for him at the time. We always choose the option of the most amount of perceived pleasure, right? The neurons chasing through the mind follow the path of least resistance, right? There is no free will? We are just not smart enough yet to sort out the factors. We don’t have the technology, or organization. We certainly don’t have the energy or the priority devoted to the human sciences relative to selling junk.
2) The “other.” The factor that we are seeking to isolate is simple and large and right in front of our faces. The boy had free will. We do what we can, the rest is up to our clients to CHOOSE. You can lead a hoser to water, but you can’t make him drink the beer, right. (That’s a pathetic attempt at an allusion to that stupid Canadien beer movie that we all love so much. The one with Rick Morannis and Quaid. A spinoff from a SNL skit, they get jobs at a brewery to get free beer and uncover a conspiracy.)
I believe the truth lies not only “somewhere in between.” It is better to say the truth lies in accepting the paradox.