Saturday, October 22, 2011


Today, an article I wrote for the local newspaper got published. It was about trust (using the Occupy Wall Street protest as a springboard) ... a "trust" that might roughly be defined, as an Internet dictionary suggests, as "confidence that something is safe, reliable, or effective." Two days ago, I went into a radio news studio to discuss the article further and that interview (largely a plug for the newspaper) will air twice on Monday, the interviewer said. Fifteen minutes of 'fame.'

Prior to the interview, I looked up the word "trust" and found the definition above among others. For an amorphous and yet compelling item, the definition struck me as close-enough-for-folk-singing.

But it also struck me that the definition left out -- and I was sorry I left it out of the article -- the fact that trust, by whatever definition, is constantly at war with the facts of life -- most notably the FACT that everything changes. How reasonable or sensible is something called "trust" when everything changes? Or, leaving reason out of it, what role does trust play and what function does it perform? How does trust differ from a trust in distrust?

It's a question individuals sort out for themselves, I imagine.
PS: Here is the interview.
Pretty AM-radio, but beggars can't be choosers.  

No comments:

Post a Comment