Two Ideas

One: lists. Not a new idea, obviously. Start with lists of great music sorted by traditional and non-traditional means. (Note: lists of recipes sorted by ingredient would be handy, since often I want to know what I can do with 4 pounds of butter, two melons, flax seed and licorice.) Then a list of those lists, i.e. list of the top albums/hits by year, then a list of the top years. Then a list of the top makers of lists, followed by a list of meta-list lists, and then a list of ways that makers of exhaustive lists such as this eventually went mad or were killed by the list-hating citizenry of their small town near Vaduz. (Quick: what country is that in? And is it a real country?) As a follow on, how about a story about guys with OCD-like behvaiour working for some spy organization who stumble across the contents of a list without knowing the subject matter and take it to mean something entirely different. Eventually hordes of innocent people are killed by over-zealous spy masters acting on the assumption that the list is a recipe for terrorist activity, or flax-seed, melon and licorice casserole with lots of butter sauce.

Two: People-powered projects. A website to leverage the grass-roots in support of better, more targeted municipal, regional and national projects. Why wait until some group has developed enough influence to push their own agenda... let's ask what should be on the agenda and help to prioritize it.

Abortions

I guess there's a bit of the cynic in me. Coyness, too. I like to think that I am a genuinely optimistic person, with loads of faith in some things: the "laws" of science, that people will do the right thing (provided "the right thing" is perfectly circumscribed, known to them, within their purview, and not in conflict with some other "right thing"), that there is meaning in what seems so meaningless. But as with religious faith, I have no proof or evidence which could ground my faith with solid foundations. I guess that's okay, because that's what faith is after all: willingness to accept/believe things not in evidence.

The cynic in me sees all of the occasions upon which people did not do the right thing; the cases where the laws of science simply didn't govern, or were wrong, or just by application somehow made things worse; and those times when no amount of trying could find meaning hidden in the seemingly random, cold exercise of the forces around us. Furthermore, the cynic in me sees opportunity in these failings. In the first place, an opportunity to make things better just by helping to clarify what we mean by "the right thing" and how to go about doing said thing. In the second place, by looking at what we know and how we know it, and by asking when we revisit our thinking on that. In the third, by taking these things altogether and asking what "meaning" could "mean", if not somehow related to our experience, even if that experience is often qualified as enduring the meaningless machinations of a universe we don't understand, or can't understand.

The end result of our continued struggle to manage these paradoxes is what I mean by the term "abortions"--not the termination of a pregnancy via medical intervention. We have a tendency to see the "either/or", to laud the good and reject the bad, to admire those who succeed and disregard those who fail. Why? Well, obviously success feels a whole lot better for the most part. But we create these narratives that end up marginalizing the actual experiences of almost all of us, much of the time. The experience of not quite getting what we wanted or expected. The choices which turned out to be much worse than anticipated. The roads that led to dead ends. And the sad thing about disregarding these kinds of events is that they are far more determinate of eventual success than our past success. What happens when we didn't get what we wanted? What choices do we make after making bad ones? What does the road out from a dead end look like?

There are days when life seems full of promise, and others when it seems like what's left from an aborted suicide. It hasn't killed me, I haven't killed myself... now what? This may not sound very uplifting, but I don't intend to focus on why I ought to kill myself (or you yourself), but rather on the "now what?" And frankly, I cannot listen to the radio in the car anymore without wondering these kinds of things. The "science" of economics has failed us utterly, by failing first to answer the question about meaning. And today's journalism somehow doesn't ask that question either.

As if hourly reports on the number of new jobless claims, coupled with government pronouncements and stupid political ads could do anything other than make it harder to find the "meaning".

Optimism, Fear and Progress

Further to my last post (loosely referring to philosophy and/or psychology), I hereby add some other fleetingly considered thoughts. In so doing, I plainly am not elucidating anything more regarding the last post, but oh well.

You can see the analytic philosophy student in me by virtue of the tripartite title of this post. That makes it neither good nor bad (I hope).

I was struck, as I am everyday lately, by the sheer volume of negative hyperbole in the media. The stories of abductions, recessionary losses, job losses, corruption, incompetence, apocalypse and yet another videotape of wannabe celebrities engaging in terminally boring sex. And gas is more expensive (again). Look, we are setting ourselves up for a really bad trip man! Where's the enthusiasm, energy and hope for the future? I know, it's over there in a box being squashed by the sensational, stupid and stultifying.

But it's extremely important that we re-discover it, because we cannot begin to repair our, well, civilization without the wholehearted engagement and enthusiasm of each one of us. And, more than that, a world without optimism is a world lacking in respect, etiquette and innovation. A world which, if not in serious decline, will be shortly, because the prevailing attitude tends to be a leading indicator of what comes next.

If hope, trust and progress begin with optimism, there's no doubt that devolution, conflict an distress begin with corruption- and incompetence-fueled cynicism. Don't get me wrong; my issue is with the cynicism, rather than the cynics, most of whom are merely reacting to the prevailing zeitgeist. And while I love Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, they point to what's wrong, while we need something point us to what's right.

More: Need for leading indicators... the housing market is a reflection of a banker's fantasy, not reality. We need fewer (many fewer) economists... most are poor political philosophers in disguise, and very few actually understand much about "the economy". As a society, we need to reinvent ourselves, not just our individual institutions, but who and what we are in toto.

If this seems like a rambling, pointless exercise, give me some time. I hope to turn it into something more meaningful.

The philosophy of psychology, or, er, vice versa

What follows is a list of discussions, or thoughts, or meaningless intellectual exercises with which I have lately been preoccupied, and of which I hope to set down lengthier treatments in the near future. (What an enormous cop-out! OF COURSE I will write more!)

Philosophy vs. psychology

(Some) psychologists like to believe that the psychological/neurological/pharmacological approach to human behaviour is all that there is. [Of course (some) philosophers believe the opposite.] That “philosophy” is merely a reflection of the psychological state of affairs, but that our psychology is such as to create the philosophies we choose to “believe” in. [See Hume on inference]

But if I make choices, even based entirely (or almost entirely) upon my psychology, physiology, experience and situation, I still can reflect on those choices (and do). The purely psychological picture does not allow for reflection, unless it treats reflection as simply another psychological state. But to do so is to put the cart before the horse, because that determination itself (that it’s all psychology) is as open to the same charge as is applied to philosophizing. It’s a choice. And even if it is a choice entirely explained by psychological arguments, it is beyond our knowing, inasmuch as knowing such a thing requires some kind of self-reflection and self-consciousness.

We live in a philosophical world, even if many of the furnishings are supplied by our psychology. This is merely to say that philosophizing is an essential part of our psychology, even if it can’t answer all our questions, or rise above the highly determinate world our psychology makes for us. All that is required is that philosophers acknowledge the role of psychology as on par with metaphysics—and crucially, as a modern lexicon for addressing epistemological and ethical questions.

Fear and choice

The survival instinct is the starting point for all our decision making. Long after we’ve stopped thinking in concrete survival terms, we continue to make decisions influenced by an unconscious drive to “survive” and prosper. As Charles Prather once remarked to me, the brain isn’t “designed” for thinking, but rather for “surviving”, and sometimes that primary function gets in the way of effective thinking. Politics in the broadest sense, meaning national electoral politics, down to municipal, down to institutional and organizational politics, has become (perhaps always was) driven by fear and opportunism. The problem with democracy, in some respects, is that it only appears to be “free”. The goal of many politicians seems to be to constrain that freedom by instilling fear—directly or indirectly, abstract or concrete. When individuals fear, their survival instinct kicks into action in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, resulting in decision options being badly evaluated, prioritized, misunderstood or rejected out of hand. This is a problem, since we are living through the age of fear, and we can’t seem to make good decisions… even when our lives depend upon it.

Not “values voters”; “fear voters”

By extension, one of the ways to combat the “values voter” paradigm is to target this group as “fear voters”, who irrationally vote against their own best interests based on the (misplaced) fear that everything they cherish is threatened. After all, what are the “values” that they want protected? Freedom of choice? Individual liberty? Quality of life? Religious meaning?

Abortion: when is a fetus “alive”, by analogy, when is a robot “sentient”?

The essence of the argument against abortion is that it is murder by another name. This is so because the fetus is considered a living human being from the moment of conception. Or, for many, because it is impossible to know at exactly what moment the fetus is “human”. One way of attacking this problem is to get to the fundamental problem of the sanctity of life—why is (should be?) human life sacred, and why should a fetus be accorded a different level of “sanctity” from, say, innocent non-combatants killed in “just” wars? (The key, after all, appears to be that fetuses are the quintessence of “innocence”. Though it begs the question why some are miscarried.) The problem is that there is no obvious way to come to agreement on this, and most appeals are tied to rigid, unyielding belief in God, or the lack thereof.

Another way of looking at it is to see it (the question of abortion) as a management issue, not an ethical one. Abortions will occur regardless of what the law is. They will be immoral or not regardless of whether they occur. But from a management perspective, understanding when to apply the term “living” is analogous to when a computer or robot can be said to be “intelligent” as it is being constructed. Very much a sophisticated Sorites paradox… when is it merely a collection of inert pieces of metal and chips, and when is it something that can think?

The Underrated: a “hall of fame” of artists, art and music that have been overlooked

I have a very long list, which I have never bothered to set down, of things I have had enormous appreciation for, but which seem to have never been accorded the fame or respect I think they clearly deserve. Now seems like a good time to start.

The grass is greener bug

"Follow those who seek the truth. Run from those who claim to have found it." attr. Vaclav Havel

I can't define "real". I'm not even sure I know it when I see it. But like most of us, I carry on every day in the expectation that I am experiencing it, and have no qualms about continuing to do so without question.

And yet... this is the fundamental question (well, "a" fundamental question). For good or for ill, we humans have developed some pretty ingrained approaches to what is real, and most depend upon the notion of authority. If the Bible (substitute the Koran, Talmud, Bhagavad Gita, Foundation Trilogy, CHUM-FM, guy next door, or anything you like) says so... then it must be so. Mustn't it?

Sometimes I wonder whether our philosophical positions reflect little more than our neurological anatomy, our chemical dependencies, our conditioned reactions, and our need to feel that they reflect none of these. And sometimes I wonder whether there are forces at work which we have not yet begun to comprehend. Do we continue to engage in futile competitive behaviour because it's our nature? Our chemistry? Our upbringing? Or perhaps it's the work of some kind of neuro-parasite which exploits some element of our survival instinct and turns it against ourselves, as we pursue goals without meaning?

In reflecting upon the pathology of schizophrenia, it seems as if the condition is determined to persist at all cost. Better to kill the host than the parasite, the unsuspecting host develops an inability to consider the possibility of infection. Everything else is possible, but not the illness.

Must think on this some more.

How to survive

1. Breathe (repeat as necessary)
2. Try to understand
3. Do not ask questions
4. Approach each day with the expectation it will be better than the last.
5. Make decisions with the wisdom of knowing that it won't be.
6. Make friends.
.
.
.
.
1,547,023. Re-read this list.

Another day, where's the dollar?

Hey, it's easy to be cynical.

That's about it.

Blogged with the Flock Browser