I’ve never seen a pancake so thin it didn’t have two sides

This blog is about perspective. It is not about right or wrong, about the best or worst. It is about appreciating that there are few absolutes. Free speech is to be honored, but we cannot shout “Fire” in crowded theater in the absence of a fire. War is undesirable but when an enemy bombs our Naval bases in Hawaii, it may be needed. Capitalism seems to work better than other economic systems, but as we have seen repeatedly, it needs to have limits set.

I first heard the aphorism, “I’ve never seen a pancake so thin it didn’t have two sides,” over a decade ago from Lee Fritchler, at the time the President of Dickinson College. It stuck with me, perhaps because it fit my world view.

It summed up my approach to political philosophy, to the business world, and to many of life’s every day issues. It is an extension of the line of thought inculcated in me by S.I. Hayakawa’s classic work, “Language in Thought and Action.” I read that first semester freshman year at the aforementioned Dickinson College as part of the much maligned Social Science 10 course.

Seeing the world from both sides now (another formulation, credit to Judy Collins) is highly recommended for diplomacy, mediating arguments of all sorts and otherwise leading a stress reduced existence. It does not work well for advocates, militants or protest song writers.. You are probably not familiar with the 1960s satirical songs of Tom Lerher. In 1980 a show based on his old songs was produced. In a concurrent interview in The Wall Street Journal, Lerher, who had long since stopped writing or performing, was asked why. His reply, which I may have clipped but have no idea where it might be, responded something to the effect that as a younger man he saw the world and its issues in black and white. As he got older he recognized it was more like shades of gray. “It’s hard to write a protest song with lyrics ‘on the one hand, but on the other hand.’” Lerher had been hobbled by the two sided pancake.

My world view infuriates my teenage daughter. She called to my attention at dinner one evening that I never took “her side” in any dispute. What she was referring to was my two sided perspective, which I wanted to imbue her with, but she saw as being just contrarian. For example, she may have complained back in high school that it was so unfair that Mrs. X didn't allow the students to chew gum in class. I suggested that while she (my daughter) may have chewed quietly, it may be that others annoyingly popped their gum or too often left it parked underneath the desk. Rather than have to single out individual culprits Mrs. X thought it fairer just to make a blanket rule. My point was not that the rule was fair, only that it may not have been arbitrary. At least, I tried to say, see the other point of view.

I’m not going to be writing here about gum in the classroom. But from time to time (these issues don’t arise every day), I will offer in this space “the other side.” In many cases it will be to suggest that in going with one side of the pancake there are untended consequences that had not been considered. If this approach interests you, click in from time to time to get a feel for what I mean.