Truth

Truth may be undefinable in any human language, and it may be paradoxical, but it is neither incomprehensible nor sloppily mystical as some cults may want their followers to believe. Within the clearly defined boundaries of each discovered truth, human history is an ever expanding space of understanding more and more of the truth that is, as Einstein pointed out, so mysteriously comprehensible to the human mind. Granted, each step is not the definitive end of the complete and unadulterated truth that is undefinable truth, but it is one step closer, an approximation of the goal to come. Just as Newtonian mechanics is not the final Law as understood by an earlier age, and even Einstein's Theory of Relativity may be superceded by yet undiscovered truth concerning gravity and space-time, each new scientific theory, each new discovered truth, each additional perspective to understand and make sense of the vast and almost incomprehensible universe helps humanity to rise a little higher in the evolutionary scale towards a higher consciousness.

Cultivating a diversity of opinions, of individuality, of perspectives and attempts to understand the truth is not only to protect the right and freedom of individuals, it is also to protect and ensure the health and completeness of the collective of individuals, of society. Only with a diverse set of, often orthogonal, sometimes conflicting, opinions and perspectives that a collective of them can form a more complete picture of the truth. Since, by the limited nature of an isolated individual, and the Godelian nature of truth when expressed in a human language, it is clear that no single individual or single statement can have any claim on truth. The singular word of "truth" is used for multiple purposes, both for completeness, and for consistency, both internally to indicate a lack of contradictions within, and externally to measure its validity as a mirror of objective reality. It is this wide and varied use of the word that causes some confusion. It is clear that within a limited sense of the word, truth is invariant and definite and clear. Arithmatically, and logically, within simple systems, truth is without doubt concise, definitive, and without contradictions. It is when we attempt to encompass a wider sphere that the meaning of the word takes on more shades of truthfulness - to be more complete, more consistent with external reality, causing a Godelian decrease in internal consistency - hence the very common trait of hypocrisy among those who are most insistent on a claim as the holder of the knowledge of truth.

The incomplete nature of individuals makes it necessary to acknowledge our limitation, to seek only consistency in our understanding, both internally to be without contradictions, and externally to be verifiably repeatable, and not to attempt to claim completeness. Humility is a desirable not because it is a virtue. Humility is a virtue because it is necessary as the foundation to lead a life of truth. Only with humility, can we be open to others, to diverse possibilities, to truth yet undiscovered. Only with humility, can we see with fresh eyes the diverse interpretations of the same reality, each equally valid and valuable. Only with humility, can each individual function as a member of a community, and each community as a member of the human family of communities. Yet, paradoxically, while humility is required in relation to others, the opposite is true, when pride is essential in relation to the self. Without a true understanding of one's past, one's progress from nothingness, one cannot feel a meaningful sense of accomplishment, of pride, of confidence, to continue on the longer journey yet to come, to reach for the stars, the higher plane of Truth, undefinable, yet comprehensible.

Christ taught us in the parable of the two guests who arrived to a banquet, that one was proud and haunghty, selecting the most honored seat next to the host, while the other was humble and deprecating, sat in the least honored seat by the door. As more guests arrive, and among whom is a guest more honored by the host than the first two, the host asks the first guest to move, and recognizing the honor of the second guest, who also moved. Christ taught that it is better to be elevated by others, than to claim honor for one self. Humility is not just a virtue, but a necessity when we accept the truth of one's incompleteness, and imperfection. Yet, in a world also not perfect, we are told to be wise as scorpion and harmless as doves, so that while being humble and acknowledging our own limitation, we are also told to discern the truth about others, not to judge, but to know our own place, not necessarily at the bottom, but to not cause harm when we find ourselves there, and trust that in the fullness of time and the completeness of truth, that we will be elevated to our rightful place.

Satyagraha

I came across Satyagraha serendipitously while browsing the Wikipaedia, and then following up the external links to read more about Ghandi. I have always admired him ever since watching the movie over a decade ago, but never knew much about his writing. I recall being surprised by reading that he was influnced by Tolstoy's pacifist philosophy, while reading a biography of Leo Tolstoy. What really surprised me is the feel of completeness in his vision of Satyagraha. The taste of truth form it resonates so strongly with me, that it fills my being like no other, except in moments of contemplation and prayer. I think it was Einstein who once said that when a new scientific theory is proposed, one can feel the truthfulness of it by its overwhelming simplicity, and power in solving dilemma and answering questions. The simplicity of Satyagraha is amazing, yet, its implication is profound, and its power, when manifested properly, is immense.

The difficult part of following in the footsteps of great spiritual leaders is the will and self-discipline to do what is required to overcome old habits, like Christ taught in the parable of new wine in old bottles. Even something simple like telling the truth, as in the dedication of truth, can be so easily mis-applied. So many people use truth as a weapon, wielding it in a spirit of criticism, to dominate and control others, to make themselves feel superior, to stroke their own starved ego. It is such a waste when the truth can be so much more, when used as a beacon for those in darkness, to illuminate and inspire those in despair, as a warm cloak of protection to nurture and comfort. Truth in Satyagraha is used to serve others, to do no harm, to uplift, not to trodden down. It is why Christ condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees most of all in the Gospel. His most severe condemnation is against those "who would not take a step to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and even guard the gate keeping others from entering." We are told to be wise as scorpions and harmless and doves, because the truth is so easily twisted and distorted by those wolves in sheep's clothing. Instead of nurturing and caring for the flock, there are those who feed on the flock instead.

It is not easy to define truth, and sometimes just as difficult to understand it when we hear it. Yet, it is not impossible because Christ said that the flock knows the voice of the shepard. Although truth is paradoxical and impossible to define in words, I think we have the capacity to feel it, holistically, in the sense that inconsistencies become apparent, like a blotch of paint in the middle of an intricate painting. The key to satyagraha's first principle, I think, is to learn to listen to the inner voice, to hear the warning of jarring double-take, and take the time to reflect on the inconsistencies consciously. Most scientists don't know the answer, and don't deduce their discoveries. Instead, they follow their intuition to find proof of a hypothesis, a hunch, of what they think the truth should be. Only in quiet contemplation, when we are empty of our own preconceptions, our own prejudices, when we are ready and open to accept whatever the truth may be, however paradoxical it is, that we can see the light. The danger is the cultish truth that seems to be paradoxical, when it fact it is merely inconsistent. We are told to be wise as scorpion, and discern among trees by their fruits, not just their outward appearance. In today's busy hustling materialistic world, few can find the time, the leisure, to taste the banquet of truth, free for all who are open to it. Instead of the life giving water that truth gives, we thrist for the addictive drinks in gossipy news and virtual reality multiplayer games. Instead of the love that builds community and family, we search for soul mates in phone lines and chat rooms. The truth is simpler than we think, and more paradoxical than we can imagine.

A Life of Truth

A life dedicated to truth is not easy. The most famous example is that of Mahatma Gandhi, who formulated his life-long philosophy as Satyagraha,

1. Satya - truth; implying openness, honesty, and fairness.
2. Ahimsa - refusal to inflict injury upon others.
3. Tapasya - willingness for self-sacrifice.

It is not just the telling of truth, but the living the truth, that is hard. Even liars tell the truth half the time, but to live according to the truth requires self-discipline, and self-sacrifice, and ironically, an emptying of the self for the sake of others. It is this insistence on living the truth that sanctified the early Christians, and made Gandhi the most revered man while he was alive among Hindus and Muslims. The same dedication to truth also lifted up Martin Luther King Jr. above the chains and shackles that an unjust society placed over him.

Everyone always talk about truth, and accuses each other of lies. Yet, what is truth? Is it a system of logic that always yield the right answer according to some rules of logic? Is it a book of facts that record all the irrefutable truths, like the laws of physics? Einstein once said that it is a mystery that the laws of the universe is understandable. The Bible says that the mystery of the world is a glory to God, while an understanding of the mystery is the glory of kings. Lao Zi wrote that, "The Truth that can be told is not the truth." And finally, the penultimate mathematical achievement, in my opinion, is Godel's Theorm, which defines the limitation of logic systems, that any sufficiently powerful logic is either incomplete or inconsistent, and can never be both complete and consistent.

The late great M. Scott Peck wrote in The Different Drum, that truth is always paradoxical. It goes without saying that we refer to human truth, not physical, arithmatical, objective truth. Indeed, even mathematical truth can be paradoxical when it approaches the complexity of human truth. So what is the definition of human truth, and furthermore, the definition of the truth that cannot be defined? A simple explanation refers to the momentus book "Godel, Escher, Bach" which explains the work of three great artists, who created opus containing self-referential symbols. At the foundation of all human attempt to understand the universe which includes humanity is a self-referential language, whether it is poetry or music, mathematics or computer programs. By definition, when we refer to ourselves in a sentence, it falls under the boundary of Godel's Theorm. It cannot be both complete and consistent at the same time. In other words, when we try to be consistent, we must acknowledge our incompleteness, and if we try to be complete, we will naturally be inconsistent. Indeed, this is consistent with religious teachings. By definition, human beings are limited and therefore incomplete. In all religions from all the different cultures, the fundamental tenet is social justice, which is simply translated mathematically as consistent behavior following a set of laws. We are urged to be consistent, and submit to our incompleteness before God, who alone is complete, and therefore, beyond our understanding.

Of all the sins in the Bible, Christ condemned the most, and most frequently in the Gospels, is the sin of hypocrisy, which is the paragon of inconsistent living. Indeed, contrary to Catholic dogma, all sins are forgivable, but one... well, that's another blog, for the Christians and pious. Suffice it to say that it is a universal human virtue to live a consistent life, one based on truth rather than falsehoods, not only of telling the truth, but according to truthful principles.

According to Ghandi's Satyagraha, the three principles of Satya, Ahimsa, Tapasya, living according to the truth requires first and foremost self-discipline. Without it, there is no control over when and where one inflicting harm on others. A British lord once said, "A gentleman is one who never offends others unintentionally." This implies that there are times when it is appropriate for a gentleman to offend someone. The key is to have the self-discipline to restrain and act according to self-will, rather than to react. But unlike the willful self-centered child with perfect self-discipline who manipulates and control everyone and everything for his own advantage, Satyagrapha demands also Ahimsa and Tapasya, self-sacrifice and do no harm, submitting to a higher power than one's own desires and even one's own needs.

One of the most frequently misquoted work of Chinese Classics is Zhun Zi's Art of War. Instead of quoting the most important passage which states that war is evil and must be avoided if at all possible, and the best warrior is the one who can win a war by not fighting, the most frequently quoted passage is the one much later in the Classic, teaching that when all else fail, and war is inevitable, then to win, one must first deceive the enemy. The problem with this belief in half-truth, and the lesser half at that, is the commitment to falsehood instead of truth, without the agony and soul-searching of the first step, to avoid war if possible. Admittedly, war is sometimes unfortunately necessary, as against an evil invader such as Hitler's Nazi Germany. However, even then, all possible means must have been attempted to avoid it. As the adage says, "Violence is the last resort of the powerless." Whenever someone misquote and commit to war, the life is already not dedicated to truth, because it is against Ahimsa, to cause no injury. No matter what anyone may say, lies will always result in injury, eventually. Under conditions of war against Nazi, the Allied forces won many battles and eventually the war by first of all, breaking the Enigma code, and then misleading the German High Command in all vital information. Yet, to commit oneself to this life style, without careful consideration, is like going to war without careful planning. Some wars should not be fought. Indeed, some wars can only be won by not fighting. Ghandi proved the power of Satyagraha, and inspired similar results in Martin Luther King's struggle for civil rights, and Nelson Mendela's commitment for a free South Africa. The common mistake is often a commitment for war when the devastation and destruction can be avoided.

Finally, Satyagraha is not possible unless one is ready and willing for Tapasya, self-sacrifice. Christ lived the ultimate life of truth, bringing light to the world, and made the ultimate sacrifice. Instead of a war against the Romans as the zealots had wished, Christ hanged on the tree to illustrate for all mankind the love of God, the Grace of unconditional acceptance, and the faith of life lived according to truth.

From Nomadic Devices

This particular thread, of eradicating poverty, has been particularly and unexpectedly long. It began from the page titled, "Nurturing Individuals", which was a result of the discussion on communities facing a crisis, as in Katrina in New Orleans, and community as a basis of utopia, which has been the goal of futurist visions since the Enlightenment, and especially for the technocratic philosophers of twentieth century. In particular, Jacques Attali's Millennium predicted a time when an upper class of techno-literati will be freed by nomadic devices establish their lives anywhere in the global village, while a lower class of techno-peasants struggle for a living, unable to meet the "standard" of beauty, behavior, speech, etc. This is nothing new in human history, only the technology has changed, which means the time-scale has changed. Instead of weeks and years, global events can begin and finish in matters of days, even hours. There is still poverty everywhere. There is still unhappiness among the rich leading meaningless and empty lives. There is still conflict between nations, between patriots, between fathers and sons. There are still lies and misunderstanding being treated like the Gospel Truth, revered and repeated, stubbornly held in the bosoms of the educated and the ignorant alike. As the French said so famously more than three hundred years ago, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Is there hope for humanity? Is Armaggedon inevitable? The signs for hope are abundant when we know where to look. The signs for humanity's future is bright and glorious if we have the vision to believe in the beauty of our dreams. But it will be hard work. It will be painful, because facing the truth and changing old habits are often more painful than carrying on the same old ways, rolling along the same old ruts. It will require each and every individual in the global village, because like the prisoner's dilemma, one betrayal from within will set everyone back. And in the age of Bill Joy's iterated enabling technologies, one betrayal can destroy our common living space, the earth's biosphere.

The hope for humanity's future is not in devices or technology, but in the human heart, as the ancient mystic leaders have always said. Our future is decided when each and every person can walk the Solzhenitsyn Line that divides every heart between good and evil, and land safely on the side of good, to have the strength of personal will to take charge of each action, take responsibility for each decision, and submit one's desires to the greater will, a higher power.

The future of humanity is a battle of will, not of control or conflict, but an internal battle of selfish lies versus a dedication to truth. Everyone has looked up to a clear autumn sky and be awed by the countless bright twinkling stars. The same experience from time immemorial has always inspired a sense of perspective in one individual within the long history of human experience and huge space of universal dimensions. Only those selfish individuals, after such an experience, would continue on a course of conquest and destruction. The seed of Armageddon is not in the politics or religion of men, but the heart that ignores the Solzhenitsyn Line and, in self-centered arrogrance, take the life of others in one's own hand.

The difference between an optimist and a pessimist is when faced with an indeterminate problem, the optimist sees the best possible outcome and believes it to be the future while the pessimist sees the worst possible outcome and knows that to be the future. A realist sees both possible outcomes and works hard to make sure the best outcome will be true while keeping a careful eye on the road to avoid the other. The Uncertainty Principle says the universe is an indeterminate place until we decide what it will be. The choice is up to us, and I am a Realistic Optimist who believe in the Goodness of humanity. We, as a community, can create a future where every heart will choose the right thing to do, when faced with the Solzhenitsyn Line and take the Road Less Traveled, to dedicate a life to Truth.

Marginalized Poverty

One of the key strengths of free-market capitalism is also its key weakness: unfettered self-interest in free and unrestrained competition allows the strongest and best to rise to the top, while leaving the weakest and least adaptable to struggle either with new ways to survive, or perish under the weight of social darwinism. Although this kind of extreme meritocracy sounds attractive and just at first sight to some, especially those in power, it is fundamentally flawed because it overlooks a vital part of the human experience - everyone at some point or another is weak and helpless. The children of the most conservative right wing proponents are invariably expected to live by strict standards of performance that create psychological anxiety precisely because they are not allowed to be children, to be weak and helpless. The same is true of the marginalized poor living in free-market capitalist society. Their economic status at the lower strata of society eliminates numerous opportunities for them to re-invent themselves, the same opportunities that are abundantly available to others living in luxury, creating a vicious cycle that divides one social group from the other, resulting in parallel worlds that often never meet, until revolutionary pressures explode in social changes that demolish the walls separating the two. The upheavel at the end of the Industrial Revolution led to socialist democracies that are neither unrestrained capitalism, nor totalitarian communism. The end of the Cold War and the Information Society will lead us into a new social form. Many have made predictions, but only history will tell for sure.

One key feature of the new social norm can be certain: vertical mobility. Since the agricultural revolution milleniums ago, human society has progressively transformed to promote vertical mobility, to allow any one to move from one stratum to another. The speed and range of mobility has progressively increased: from the Eygptian static model of profession inherited from one generation to another, to the Feudal model of profession remaining within each social caste, with the occasional star rising in status, but not in class, to the industrial model of status based only on wealth, to the information model where status is based only on knowledge. The speed and range of change in social status increased from the glacial multi-generational to the meteoric rise of instant celebrities.

The burden of the marginalized poor is the lack of opportunities that allow them the same access to vertical mobility. What are these obstacles? Is it money? Is it education? Is it hard work? Is it character? Is it talent? Is it luck? Perhaps it is a combination of all of the above? Whatever the reason or obstacle, the key to eradicate poverty is to address these individually and collectively, to allow those who are able to rise to their proper level.

What is a person's proper level in society? The ancient Eygptians thought it was the one he was borned. As late as Georgian England, a person's birth is a strong determinant of his future. It is only with the liberating forces of the industrial revolution that a man borned poor can be a president, or the richest man on earth. Although it is good to have dreams, and work hard to achieve, is it realistic to expect them, and feel disappointed or even angry when they do not materialize?

It is the negative emotional reaction to the result of unrealistic dreams that lead a person to crime, to despair, and both are among the strongest obstacles to opportunities for a better future. While it is important to promote the positive aspect of having dreams, it is equally important to promote realistic dreams, and tools to deal with disappointments.

The marginalized poor is similar to adolescents: full of dreams, ready and willing to climb the mountain of life, to rise to the top. By giving them a helping hand at the right time, society will benefit in the long run, much more than sitting on the sideline doing nothing.

By providing timely and carefully considered assistance to the marginalized poor to allow them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, society gains a larger percentage of strong and productive workforce, instead of one perpetually struggling on the edge of survival.

Treatment for Chronic Poverty

Those suffering from acute poverty are most visible, but not most numerous. The impact and effects of the chronically poor on society far outweigh those from acute poverty. The children living in poverty form the majority of those suffering from chronic poverty. These children carry the consequences of growing up poor. Although some rise to the occasion and bloom beyond anyone's expectation, a much larger number of children with the same potential as those born in rich families are stunted by the despair and hopelessness and become stuck, as their parents were, in the chronic cycle of always depending on the government or charity.

It is this vicious cycle of dependency that a society must break if there is any hope for utopia. If not, the consequences of perpetual despair and hopelessness are crime, drugs, addition, lost opportunities, and wasted lives.

The antidote to despair and hopelessness is not as some conservative think tanks might suggest, to let them pull themselves by their own bootstrap, for the poor children to hunker down and learn to be self-disciplined. Admittedly, they are correct in the final destination, that ultimately, we want every citizen to be self-displined (not just the poor, but also the rich), and each person to be self-sufficient, (indeed, more than that, but to be contributing member to be of service to others). However, their over-zealous passion for laissez-faire often blinds them to the need for compassion. Would they ask a wounded man lying on the road to get up and treat his own injuries? Would they tell a hungry child to go learn agriculture, and grow food? The chronically poor needs first aid, as well as security, in order to find their own boots, before they can pull themselves by their own bootstraps. It is this breathing space that governments and charitable organizations can, and should, provide, not just out of compassion, by out of economics.

The cost of chronic proverty is not only measured in human suffering, but also economically in terms of expenditures in health care cost, crime and the cost to maintain order, and most of all, in terms of lost opportunities. A society with a quarter of its citizens living in poverty is certainly poorer, and its government collects much less in taxes, than a society with all its citizens living in moderate comfort, and spending more disposable income. Acts of compassion to help the poor to help themselves are also acts of profitable business with no down-side. Only a stubborn misguided faith in outdated myths about the poor would allow any reasonable person from doing the right thing.

What is the right thing for the chronically poor? In additional to what they receive in most liberal socialist countries, what else do they need to rise above their condition? Just like those who afflicted with acute poverty, they must first believe. The chronically poor have been so conditioned by their own history and environment of poverty that they see nothing else in the future. As Eleanor Roosevelt so poetically put it, "Vision is for those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." When anyone, including the poor, believes in the beauty of their dreams of a better future, they will rise by whatever means necessary to their rightful place in society. The first role of government is therefore to inspire, to lead, with a vision of beautiful dreams, not ephemeral, but practial, with a plan, not of bureaucracy, but of actionable deliverables that can be measured. Most of all, a government of the people, for the people, must be also accountable to the people.

One of the most successful international foreign aid programmes to developing countries is the supply of micro-credit to entrepreneurs to start their own business, with mentoring and advise from professionals along the way. The same can be applied to the chronically poor, helping them to earn a living instead of relying on welfare. Unconditional aid, although well-intentioned and definitely needed in urgent and desperate cases, can be also a dangerous crutch.

Another successful program has been low cost housing via Habitat for Humanity, where the receipients often build their own homes using material and expertise provided by the local donating organizations. Instead of giving a person a cheaply built pre-fab anonymous apartment, this program lays the foundation of a sense of community and ownership that a sense of faith and hope can build and extend into the future.

What the poor needs is neither the extreme of laissez-faire, nor the extreme of unconditional paternal care from cradle to grave, but the middle road of responsible nurturing, as a loving parent would expect for helpless, but hopeful children.

Treatment for Poverty

In medicine, it is often useful to study case histories in order to understand and infer the general principles involved. In treating poverty, given its diverse and multi-dimensional nature, it is also useful to study a number of hypothetical cases in order to appreciate the complexity of this universal and eternal problem that has afflicted all societies and communities since time immemorial.

The first case must necessarily be the most visible, which is the homeless person who is acutely poor, without income, without anything of value, without security, with literally nothing except what is at hand. In spite of all this nothingness, our homeless person often is also extremely resourceful, finding treasure in other people's garbage, building a collection of valuable junk, and trading one item for another. The horizon of perception is limited to what can be seen immediately, from day to day, hour by hour. Anything larger triggers a cascade of emotional response, from anger to despair, from depression to fear. The barest social contact each day requires monumental effort and energy, both externally, and more ofteh, internally in order to deal with the collage of images and visions that accompany each emotional episodes.

In this case, poverty is but the mere superficial manifestation of a much more profound disconnection between a person and the community. When this homeless person first fell into the trap of poverty, the vicious cycle of disconnection perpetuates itself, and thus poverty, by isolating the person further and further, until finally, in the depth of winter, even life disappears.

What does the acutely poor desire and want? What passions drive them to continue an existence that seem horrible to others? What goals have they, now or in the past? What drove them to take that first step into the trap of poverty, either voluntarily or otherwise?

In one case, the first step can be addiction. In another case, the first step can be emotional trauma. Whatever the cause, the first step out of the trap must be a glimpse of hope and the conviction of a possiblity for change. For addicts, the first step is to admit the problem, and a willingness to overcome that problem. Indeed, the first step is to admit that the problem CAN be overcome. Only then, is any course of action possible. Often, most addicts first hide in denial. Then, when they are confronted with the irrefutable evidence, they get angry and hide in their own submission to the addiction, and wallow in the "joy" of it. And when confronted with a choice between life and death, some would even bargain for a "milder" form of addiction, claiming to have control. No matter which stage of "grief" the addict is in, over the loss of his "fix", there is only one final destination of hope, which is acceptance of truth. Until then, there is no treatment.

In the case of the emotionally traumatized, only finding and facing the cause of the trauma will aleviate the pain and suffering that drains the person's energy each and every day, diverting useful productive energy away from rewarding work, and dissipating it in fits of flashbacks and echos of pain. Some attempt to cure themselves of this pain by drugs, or other forms of therapy, such as the misleading "shopping therapy", etc. Fundamentally, unless the same dedication to truth is applied here, as with an addict, to acknowledge and confront one's own emotional shackles, one is forever trapped by the energy used to maintain the facade that there is no trap. Ironically, by tearing down the facade, by facing the truth, one overcomes it, and dispatch it forever, free to spend one's energy in more rewarding experiences than playing games of hide-and-seek.

To treat poverty, to eradicate it from society, is to help individuals to mature, to grow as a person. It is a job that requires the patience and nurture of a parent, and the selfless love.

The reason why poverty is so prevalent and difficult to eradicate is not because of a lack of patience or skills or will. It is because there is either a lack of selfless love, or as often the case, too much of it in an individual to handle the herculean task, and the selfless individual is drowned in the rescue attempt, of one case or another, eventually.

The role of society and government is to assure that those who wish to help has the facilities to provide it, without being overwhelmed by the task; while those who need the help has the connections, the lifelines, the incentives, to reach out for the offered hands. The collective must serve as the intermediary to protect both sides of the loving equation.

Diagnosing Poverty

Since each poor person has a different reason for being poor, the first step of helping the poor is the same as a physician's first step when approaching a patient: watch, listen, and ask questions. Instead of giving advice, or demanding actions, or criticizing, the Good Samaritan has to keep the end goal in mind: to nurture and mentor a person from whatever current state of being, to a higher level of health, physically, emotionally, mentally, and finally, financially. If wealth is a scorecard of who we are (erroneously believed by many), then it is a reflection, an indicator of the health of the individual in other aspects. The error of this belief is in the assumed linearity of the correlation. Instead, the correlation between wealth and the other aspects of a person is not linear, but quite non-linear. Without digressing, suffice it to assert that great wealth does not indicate that a person's other aspects are also great, but a deficiency is wealth is definitely an indication of some deficiency in a person's other aspects, but not necessarily clear which, and to what extent. This is the necessity for "watch, listen, and ask" to determine the deficiencies, and methods to compensate for them.

Watch: for signs or causes of acute poverty (just as addiction or ill health), perpetuating cycles of chronic poverty (such as lack of motivation or education), and variations in marginalized poverty (such as traumatic events or changes in society). More importantly, watch for opportunities to provide an uplifting hand at the right time, rather than at a convenient time for ourselves.

Listen: for the hopes and aspirations, goals and directions that the person most desire. More importantly, listen for the passion that propels the person's motivation, which gives rise to opportunities for change.

Ask: for specific changes that the person most want, in the priority and according to the values that is unique to each individual. Out of these priorities and values come the action plan for change.

Then and only then, after patient understanding of a person's position and history, is the Good Samaritan ready to plan a course of action to help, to alleviate whatever kind of poverty that afflicts the individual.

Understanding Poverty

In order to eradicate poverty, we must first understand it, and its causes.

Just like other diseases, poverty has many causes, and many different manifestations.

There are those who suffer from chronic poverty, which is indeed the majority of those living below the poverty line, and also the most invisible. They are the single mothers raising a few children, living from day to day, paycheque to paycheque, or welfare cheque to welfare cheque, depending on food banks, and charity donations. They are the ones living the lives of quiet desperation.

The most visible poverty is seen among those who suffer from acute poverty, who are homeless, often pushing a cart from dumpster to dumpster, living in cardbox shelters in alleys and under bridges. They are usually those who also suffer from another disease, most often addiction of one form or another, perhaps even multiple addiction, from alcohol to cigarettes, from prescription drugs to illicit nacortics. Increasingly, with advances in technology, addiction can also take the form of online gambling, casino gambling, sex, or food, or video games. The depth of poverty, or the intensity of the acute poverty depends on the severity and multiplicity of the addiction.

Finally, there are also those most transient of the poor, who suffer from marginalized poverty, those who hover above and below the poverty line, living from day to day, barely making ends meet, paying for all the "necessities" of today's consumer society, holding multiple jobs, often part-time jobs at minimum wages. They hang on to their dignity and self-respect by the smallest of margins, by the skin of their teeth. They waver over the margins of society, at one time or another mingling with the chronically poor, and with the lower working class.

Just like in medicine, treating the poor, helping them to help themselves, requires different treatment for different causes.

To use the same dogmatic mantra for every situation is as ineffective, and as irresponsible as using antibiotic indiscriminately for all patients.

An ancient Chinese proverb says, "Treat the illness with the right medicine."

First understand the person's root cause of poverty, then decide which course of assistance is most appropriate for that individual. To be a Good Samaritan requires more than good intention and a willing compassionate heart; it also calls for humility and emptiness (as discussed in M.Scott Peck's book, Different Drum) to hear the cries for help and understand what is needed, not just what we want to give.

Helping the Poor, Collectively

Poverty is much bigger than any single individual can handle. No single person can eradicate it from history, and few individual can manage to rise above it without a helping hand, from friends, from government, from a good Samaritan.

Nothing is too big for the collective will of a united people. Not poverty, not space, not the ocean, not global warming.

What do we need, collectively, to bring utopia closer to reality?

We need to first of all, care. Until each member of utopia care about the well-being of each and every other member of utopia. There won't be an utopia.

Second of all, channel that care and attention in appropriate and sustainable actions. Some have said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. A famous quote attributed to Ben Franklin, "Well done is better than well said." No matter what we say, and how we feel, it means nothing unless we act on it with the best of our technology, the best of our managerial organizational abilities, and the best of our wealth.

And finally, it is not enough to give poverty lip-service, or even catchy media slogans to attract attention. Although it is a good beginning, and deservedly receive all the praise in the media, it is but the beginning of the beginning. What is desperately needed to continue to pay attention to this universal and eternal social problem is to insitutionalizing rituals and cultural values that make poverty a collective responsibility, rather than something left to the whim and fancies of politicians during election campaigns, or rich philantropists during their time of personal crisis.

The medieval Jews, without a country and in Diaspora, at the mercy of the hospitality of their hosts, have collectively institutionaized this responsibility for their own poor, so that no poor Jewish person would be a burden to their respective host society. The same should be done in all society, especially utopia.

What the Good Samaritan did individually, in three steps of first aid, security, and sustained care, society must collectively provide to the poor through government agencies (such as food banks, homeless shelters), non-profit organizations (low cost housing, job share, workfare), and educational initiatives (low cost education, mentoring programs, and continous development).

To fulfill these responsibilities require financial resources. A government of the people, by the people, for the people must, therefore, first and foremost, be responsible in its financial balance sheet. In today's economic environment, it would be folly to run a budget deficit.

Only with a strong financial foundation can the social responsibilities of utopia be built.

Helping the Poor, Personally

Helping the poor at a distance, in the abstract sense, is easy. Giving a dime here, a loonie there, is not hard.

Real charity is a labour of love, that requires personal sacrifice, inconvenience, and pain.

It is a misconception that in utopia there is no pain. If utopia is living life to the fullest, that it is living with pain for a purpose, not as the ancient stoics or modern ascetics who seek out pain as proof of the strength of their will. That would be self-serving. It is living with pain for a greater purpose, of serving the whole, of contributing to society at a personal cost.

On the other hand, Christ has promised that we will not be burdened with a yoke that is too hard to bear. "My yoke is easy." That is what Christ said. Instead of the thousands, tens of thousands of regulations and laws that the priests used to enslave the people, the Gospel liberates us with two simple, profound, and far reaching commandments: To love, to the point of giving up one's life. But Christ also taught us to be wise as scorpions while being harmless as doves. To know the appropriate time for love, for tears, for celebration, is to echo the wisdom of Soloman.

The poor will always be with us. We need to judge for ourselves, each according to one's own conscience, what is appropriate at that moment in one's life. Not everyone should be like St. Francis, taking up a vow of poverty. And giving has to be evaluated in terms of its effectiveness, not just as a way to sooth one's aching conscience. To give for the purpose of helping is greater than to give for the purpose of one's own salvation, or gain.

Instead of giving a dime here or there, a loonie here or there, is it not also more effective to give one's time by volunteering at a homeless shelter, or food bank? Vancouver has an innovation that is an interesting compromise. Instead of encouraging panhandlers by giving them cash, people are told to put money in a meter specifically used to accept donations for a local food bank. Anyone can go there for food. This eliminates the waste of panhandlers taking their money to buy drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes. It is responsible giving. There is also a new program being considered, to provide free alcohol at the food banks, and shelters, to encourage the homeless and needy to seek help there. When we give with a loving heart that says we do it because we are needed, instead of an arrogant one that says we do it because we are good, God provides ways that we would not find ourselves.

It is a common mistake of the kind-hearted to give too much, to become too personally involved. It is imperative that government agencies, as bureaucratic and cold as they may be at times, can provide the coordination and supervision which will prevent both "burn-out" of the giver, and the abuse of the recipients, as in the case of those infamouse residential schools and foster children.

In the case of the most neediest of all in society, the addicts, the chronically and terminally ill, those lacking the most fundamental skills to survive in today's society, indeed, any society, only the strongest political will of the people, the strongest conviction of government, and the most generous support of the richest in society, can lift them from a state of despair to utopia. Instead of charitable organizations wasting thousands in advertisement and collecting from hundreds of thousands of people, is it not more effective to have one or two generous souls to take on a single cause, donate sufficient funding to support the operating cost of that cause for an entire year, and then, with annual financial audit, ensure that the money is well spent?

Giving indiscriminately may be soothing to our conscience, but it hardly makes a dent in poverty.

Utopia is not built by the good and smart and strong, but with the loving hearts of the willing, and the strong hands of the humble and the support of the generous rich who gives not for their own salvation but the good of the whole. They have nothing to prove.