On trying to see reality

Good essay here!

2012-02-05T05:35:00.003-05:00

Googled the words "ungendered" "marx" and "jung" and this essay came up!

The readiness to accept the phallic God in our society is positively related to the existential anxiety that the society is experiencing due to its having a brutal heritage, total lack of security, the inadequacy or absence of the welfare social system, the widespread corruption and unemployment, as well as to political programs of limited informational content and alternative visions. This need for a Phallic God is operating unconsciously to a major extent, and it represents the need of defending oneself against annihilation. Such a need can hardly be changed by the words of the linear logic of the conscious mind, since this need and its satisfaction are operating to a great extent in the unconscious level. To effect a change in the unconscious level of mentation, a person needs, as any psychiatrist or psychotherapist knows, to develop an emotional insight into one’s needs and conflicts. I cite a simple though a relevant example. We know that the vast majority of smokers know (they have the intellectual insight) that smoking is a risk factor in causing lung cancer. However, they would continue smoking nevertheless and would use all the words they have at their disposal to rationalise away their smoking addiction. What they need in order to stop smoking is rather a totally different insight which is the emotional insight The emotional insight is achieved though working through the unconscious defence mechanisms, hence it is much harder, and needs a longer time, to achieve.

Right on!

Marx condemns the false god of money

2012-01-27T02:22:00.006-05:00

Copied and abridged from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/power.htm

“Six stallions, say, I can afford,
Is not their strength my property?
I tear along, a sporting lord,
As if their legs belonged to me.”

- Goethe: Faust (Mephistopheles)

Shakespeare in Timon of Athens:

“Gold? Yellow, glittering, precious gold?
... Why, this
Will lug your priests and servants from your sides,
Pluck stout men’s pillows from below their heads:
This yellow slave
Will knit and break religions, bless the accursed;
Make the hoar leprosy adored, place thieves
And give them title, knee and approbation
With senators on the bench: This is it
That makes the wappen’d widow wed again;
She, whom the spital-house and ulcerous sores
Would cast the gorge at, this embalms and spices
To the April day again. Come, damned earth,
Thou common whore of mankind, that put’st odds
Among the rout of nations.”

And also later:

Thou visible God!
That solder’st close impossibilities,
And makest them kiss!

Shakespeare excellently depicts the real nature of money. To understand him, let us begin, first of all, by expounding the passage from Goethe.

That which is for me through the medium of money – that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) – that am I myself, the possessor of the money. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. Money’s properties are my – the possessor’s – properties and essential powers. What I am and can do is, therefore, not at all determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness – its deterrent power – is nullified by money. I, according to my individual characteristics, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and hence its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good. Money, besides, saves me the trouble of being dishonest: I am therefore presumed honest. I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? Besides, he can buy clever people for himself, and is he who has power over the clever not more clever than the clever? Do not I, who thanks to money am capable of all that the human heart longs for, possess all human capacities? Does not my money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their contrary?

...

Shakespeare stresses especially two properties of money:

1. It is the visible divinity – the transformation of all human and natural properties into their contraries, the universal confounding and distorting of things: impossibilities are soldered together by it.

2. It is the common whore, the common procurer of people and nations.

The distorting and confounding of all human and natural qualities, the fraternisation of impossibilities – the divine power of money – lies in its character as men’s estranged, alienating and self-disposing species-nature. Money is the alienated ability of mankind.

That which I am unable to do as a man, and of which therefore all my individual essential powers are incapable, I am able to do by means of money. Money thus turns each of these powers into something which in itself it is not – turns it, that is, into its contrary.

If I long for a particular dish or want to take the mail-coach because I am not strong enough to go by foot, money fetches me the dish and the mail-coach: that is, it converts my wishes from something in the realm of imagination, translates them from their meditated, imagined or desired existence into their sensuous, actual existence – from imagination to life, from imagined being into real being. In effecting this mediation, [money] is the truly creative power.

No doubt the demand also exists for him who has no money, but his demand is a mere thing of the imagination without effect or existence for me, for a third party, for the [others],||XLIII| and which therefore remains even for me unreal and without object.

...

Since money, as the existing and active concept of value, confounds and confuses all things, it is the general confounding and confusing of all things – the world upside-down – the confounding and confusing of all natural and human qualities.

He who can buy bravery is brave, though he be a coward. As money is not exchanged for any one specific quality, for any one specific thing, or for any particular human essential power, but for the entire objective world of man and nature, from the standpoint of its possessor it therefore serves to exchange every quality for every other, even contradictory, quality and object: it is the fraternisation of impossibilities. It makes contradictions embrace.

Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust, etc. If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person; if you want to exercise influence over other people, you must be a person with a stimulating and encouraging effect on other people. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return – that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent – a misfortune.

Correcting Sexism in Jung

2012-01-25T01:21:00.012-05:00

Carl Jung's terminology provides a powerful tool for analyzing the complexities of the mind. His basic goal is to show that God, while not consciously experienced by everyone, is an empirical psychological fact of the psyche. I believe he succeeds brilliantly in this. However, his beliefs are not without error. Jung believed that humanity could never be free from the false gods of "dominating ideas." He sees these dominating ideas as being universal to the human condition.

Man has always and everywhere been under the influence of dominating ideas. Any one who alleges that he is not can immediately be suspected of having exchanged a known form of belief for a variant which is less known both to himself and to others. Instead of theism he is a devotee of atheism, instead of Dionysus he favours the more modern Mithras, and instead of heaven he seeks paradise on earth. - http://www.jungland.ru/Library/EngArchAnim.htm

Jung failed to see the simple Marxist truth that class society is the source of the same "dominating ideas" he assumes to be universally embedded in the human psyche. He was writing during Stalin's rule of the USSR, and it is likely that a number of his patients clung to the false hope of Soviet communism. As a result, Jung may not have made a thorough reading of Marx. From Jung's assumption that dominating ideas dictate humanity's fate, it follows that Jung would color these "dominating ideas" as male and female, because gender is the most fundamental and most pervasive class division.

His sexism comes out when he describes psychological tendencies that characterize each gender. In the following passage, "anima" refers to the "feminine" soul of men, while "animus" refers to the "masculine" soul of women:

Turned towards the world, the anima is fickle, capricious, moody, uncontrolled and emotional, sometimes gifted with daemonic intuitions, ruthless, malicious, untruthful, bitchy, double-faced, and mystical. The animus is obstinate, harping on principles, laying down the law, dogmatic, world-reforming, theoretic, word-mongering, argumentative, and domineering. Both alike have bad taste: the anima surrounds herself with inferior people, and the animus lets himself be taken in by second-rate thinking.["Concerning Rebirth," CW 9i, pars. 222f.]

Note that the anima / animus distinction is often quite useful. Class society reinforces gender roles, which then repress the opposite traits, where in Jung's conception, they are encompassed in the individual's soul or shadow. Jung's mistake is that he believes the male and female traits are universally true, rather than reflecting specific conditions within society.

An online essay - http://libcom.org/library/critique-new-atheists - describes Jung's mistake regarding a better society:

Jung remained convinced that there was a higher self and that humans were capable of attaining to it: his theory of ‘individuation’ aimed at precisely this outcome. However he won this optimism lightly; he managed to posit the existence of a higher self in part by under-estimating the scale of the problem... He simply could not envisage how a fundamentally different society could emerge nor the extent to which the social forms hitherto (in particular social forms based on class division and exploitation) were premised precisely on the need to ‘repress’ and keep the full attainment of life out of reach for the majority of the population.

This error does not affect the bulk of Jungian theory, however! The theory requires only one small adjustment of moving the gendered aspects of the soul to the INDIVIDUAL unconscious, rather than the collective unconscious, where Jung had placed them. Note that the soul remains in the collective unconscious; it is just the soul's gendered traits that should be placed in the individual level of psyche, rather than the collective level.

2011-12-26T07:17:00.002-05:00

“Do we care about each other?”

Pink Floyd’s album Animals asks us to consider the consequences of our answer, claiming that it is empathy above all else, that differentiates human behavior from the behavior of other animals. Without empathy, we behave no differently than pigs, dogs, or sheep, vacuously zig zagging through life, hoarding, obeying, or being led astray.

Animals are actually capable of empathy, but their caring is limited by their lack of language and culture. When society accepts greed as a desirable principle, our caring becomes limited by a lack of opportunity to express it. We start to believe in “market solutions” more than in our ability to productively communicate, resulting in the fictions that someone must “hit bottom” in order to choose to quit an addiction, that economic profit is the driving motivation behind scientific progress, and that the poor are somehow responsible for the economic difficulties they face.

With the loss of empathy, we also lose our ability to openly communicate the struggles we face. As a species, we backslide.

“If you didn’t care / what happens to me,and I didn’t care / for you,we would zig zag our way, through the boredom and pain,occasionally glancing up through the rain...And watching / for pigs on the wing”

Michael Albert and Alan Maas debate the relevance Marxism

2011-12-21T00:45:00.004-05:00

Okay, went through the Maas-Albert debate on Marxism. Tried to pick out some highlights below. To summarize, Albert argues against democratic centralism claiming that it is one sign of what he calls "coordinatorism" and was one of the factors that enabled Stalin to come to power.

I'm not sure if this necessarily connects to the Maas-Albert debate, but while I was going through that, I also did some thinking about the role of radical-left groups within Occupy. I see Occupy as a broad coalition, not just of radical groups, but of everyone who recognizes the current two-party political system is worthless. Occupy is invaluable in that it provides a rational structure, with which people can identify and attach their politics to, but as I see it, being a coalition limits what kind of artistic statements Occupy can make.

A coalition is based on a common subset of rational principles, with which all members can agree. Artistic statements are often subjective, and so could easily fall outside that subset. For instance, I would feel out-of-place proposing in the GA, "Occupy needs to make a short narrative film that illustrates the inherent savagery within capitalism." The advantage that ideological groups have is that ideological groups are based on a complete framework of rational principles, out of which subjective, artistic appeals can be created.

So that's how I see the role of radical groups within the Occupy movement: ideological groups should create appeals to people on the artistic, intuitive-ideological level.

Anyway, back to the debate, Albert's accusation "Marxism leads to coordinatorism" is perhaps one-sided in that coordinatorism is just one possible outcome of a successful Marxist-Leninist revolution, and hopefully not the odds-on outcome. I have to agree with Albert that the possibility is there.

Albert explains "coordinatorism"

I say that class exists due to ownership, yes, but also due to social relations of the division of labor. Some [labor] have positions that empower, others have positions that deaden. This differential can lead to class division. To pay attention to those who exist between labor and capital by saying they have some capitalistic attributes and some workeristic attributes, whatever combination and variation may be discussed, is precisely still seeing everything in terms of these two categories and not introducing a third.

The situation of those who monopolize empowering work and the levers of daily economic decision making power isn't just confused. This group between labor and capital isn't just the bottom of capitalists above merging into the top of workers below. It has its own position, its own definition, and as a result its own views and interests. Calling it the petty bourgeoisie is again just working in terms of the old ownership viewpoint...and paying attention to the wrong sector of people...they own a little but not a lot of capital. The point is to see that something other than ownership differences can be the source of class division and even class rule.

When you say that Marx insightfully noted that capitalists had to elevate a sector to a considerable degree of power, I say, yes, Marx himself understood a whole lot of things, and if this is one, that's good. But the richer understanding isn't embedded in the system that is called Marxism. If people who read a useful take on such matters from Marx or whoever else come to realize that it is possible for the situation in workplaces to demarcate a new class due to the distribution of empowering and disempowering tasks such that some people monopolize the former and the rest endure the latter, that'll be excellent.

Instead, Albert argues for councils:

There are some Marxists, they have been called council communists [a position associated with libertarian socialism], who tried to describe a truly socialist -- in the positive sense -- vision. I feel they just didn't get very far, though others might feel that is too dismissive. But they are the exception that proves the rule, in my view. They ought to be extolled as the best Marxism has had to offer. Instead, they are literally ignored, to my knowledge, by large Marxist parties the world round.

Maas explains how the early soviets functioned:

The soviets first appeared as workplace committees organized for a wave of battles over economic issues. But the need to respond to wider political questions--most obviously, the use of massive repression by the Tsar--led the councils to make links locally and then regionally. As Lenin described it, "Soviets of Workers Deputies are organs of direct mass struggle. They originated as organs of the strike struggle. By force of circumstance, they very quickly became the organs of general revolutionary struggle against the government. The course of events and the transition from a strike to an uprising irresistibly transformed them into organs of an uprising."

Here was the form, Lenin and the other revolutionary socialists of Russia recognized, through which workers could exercise power democratically. There was a direct connection between the economic power of workers and a new political system based on representation from the factory floor. The level of grassroots participation was obvious from the ratio of delegates to those they represented: one delegate for every 500 workers. And like the Paris Commune, delegates were immediately recallable and paid no more than an average workers’ wage.

Much of the argument centers around the term "state capitalism." Maas believes the term applies to the Soviet economy under Stalin, and also certain aspects of Western capitalist economies. Albert says that it is not useful to call the Soviet, Cuban, and Chinese economies "state capitalist" economies when there are no private owners of capital. Maas replies:

"Once you strip away the rhetoric, you’re left with the picture of a society dominated by a minority ruling class that controls the means of production--not through private ownership, but through the apparatus of the state. This ruling class, like its counterparts in Western-style capitalism, organizes production to meet the demands of competition--not the economic competition of individual capitals fighting to dominate the market, but the military competition of state capitals fighting for political survival. As under capitalism in the West, the primary goal is not the accumulation of private wealth (though this is certainly a goal!), but the accumulation of greater and greater means of production--in Stalinist Russia’s case, machinery and factories that could be devoted to military production.

Albert says it's more important to focus on how these countries arrived at this end picture:

You say "If Albert thinks a debate with me and the ISO about the relevance of Marxism is useful, then he should address himself to our Marxism--not the fake Marxism of bureaucrats and dictators that we have always rejected and opposed." I think I am speaking to the core views of Marxism, period. I think our disagreements indicate that. You wouldn't let an advocate of capitalism say don't talk to me about depressions, about starvation, about wars and colonization -- that's just bad capitalism, I am for good capitalism... Does the ISO utilize democratic centralism? If not, okay, I will take a closer look. But if so, that would be a big indicator for me...consistent, in my view, with coordinator dominance. But it could be that in addition the ISO has beliefs in many domains I would like and support, I don't know.

Maas and Albert also go back and forth about coordinatorism, and whether it does in fact represent a separate possibility from the rule of capital.

Albert's association of "coordinatorism" with Marxism comes out of left field. Does Albert really believe that the economic aims of accountants, lawyers and mid-level corporate executives were best expressed by Karl Marx?

...His argument, as I understand it, is that the societies which have called themselves socialist and been ruled over by people who claim to be Marxist--countries like the former USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.--should be understood as "coordinatorist."

Here is his description of "this new economy": "It has public or state ownership of productive assets and corporate divisions of labor. It remunerates power and/or output. It utilizes central planning and/or markets for allocation. It is typically called by its advocates market socialism or centrally planned socialism...It has been adopted by every Marxist party that has ever redefined a society's economic relations."

This is by and large an accurate description of the countries listed above, past and present. But the question is whether they were socialist--and whether the "Marxist parties" that redefined their economic relations had anything to do with Marxism.

My organization, the International Socialist Organization, is part of a tradition that has always rejected the idea that these top-down regimes represent Marxism. Our case is simple--that the starting principle of Marxism was summed up in a sentence written by Marx for the rules of the First International: "The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves." It doesn't matter what the rulers of the ex-USSR and the other so-called "socialist" countries called themselves--any more than it matters for our understanding of democracy that Bill Clinton calls himself a Democrat. The question is whether workers control society. In the USSR and the other bastions of "Marxism," the experience of workers wasn't one of control and freedom, but of exploitation, oppression and alienation from all levers of social and political control.

Albert claims that Marxist-Leninist theory has tendency towards concentrating power in the hands of "coordinators" even though that is not at all the intention. Specifically, they disagree about what happened in the early Soviet Union. Albert contends that democratic centralism was one factor that allowed "coordinators" such as Stalin come to power:

The problem isn't bad people. Yes, Stalin was no nice guy. But the problem was the institutions which select and elevate a thug like Stalin. The problem with Marxism Leninism isn't that everybody in those parties wants to trample workers on the road to ruling them. The problem is that those parties, and their core concepts, however well meaning many or even for most adherents may be, lead to that outcome. That's what I said before, and I say it here again. None of us, no one, is immune to the pressures of our circumstances, and on average concepts and organizational choices and strategies that have a built-in logic elevating coordinators are overwhelmingly likely to do just that: elevate coordinators.

Become a cop, even with the best motives the odds are you aren't going to serve the people, all the people, and some who take this route will become grotesque. Become a lawyer, even with the best motives the odds are that you aren't going to be a paragon of justice but an elitist coordinatorist person. Become a Leninist, with the very best of motives -- the very very best -- and the odds are you aren't going to make a revolution in our modern world, I think (for want of diverse focus and especially, ironically, true working class appeal), but if you do, the odds are your achievement will, even against your hopes, elevate coordinators to economic rule, not workers.

Maas's response to Albert's attacks:

Ultimately, Michael believes that the coordinator class can "wage a class war against capital," enlisting the support of workers to overthrow the system, but then "imposing their rule in the process and...dominating in the new society." We’ll leave aside for the moment whether this has ever happened. The question that I’d ask is: Why? Why go to the trouble of a revolution, when the instinct of members of the middle class--bred by their experience as managers who "command in the name of capital" and as a product of their whole world view--is to try to work their way up the ladder?

It’s one thing to discuss the role of the middle class or coordinator class under capitalism. But when you start imagining this class taking action to establish itself as the rulers over a new society, Michael’s case stops making sense, in my opinion. In fact, the only way it does make sense is to stop thinking of coordinators as doctors and lawyers and managers--that is, everyone that we’ve been talking about in the analysis of the coordinator class under capitalism--and understand them as a stalking horse for an argument against Marxism.

...

This is why--or at least the first few reasons why--the ISO has made the case for identifying the ex-USSR and its imitators in China, Cuba, etc., as "state capitalist" societies. Michael objects that that this argument is "far less useful than realizing that it must be, instead, if not capitalism, and if not an economy in which workers self manage--then something else." He quotes me comparing different aspects of the system in the ex-USSR and the West, but dismisses my case, because I apparently didn’t explain "the absence of that which for Marxists is usually the first thing mentioned about capitalism, that capitalists own the means of production."

...

if Michael is right, and Marxism’s "rhetorical entreaties" have, for the past 150 years, been a smokescreen for core principles that are fundamentally elitist, then an awful lot of people have been duped...

I’m open to a debate about what these leading Marxists have said and happy to point out--as I have at various points in this exchange--where I believe they were wrong. But in Michael’s "original sin" version of Marxism, they can’t possibly be right about their vision of a future socialist society ruled by the working-class majority. Whatever insights Marxists have had about capitalist society, as far as the future is concerned, there’s only rhetoric or principles that embody the interests of a middle class elite.

I don’t buy it. To me, there is neither an "elitist core" nor "fine-sounding rhetoric" in genuine Marxism--only a 150-year-old tradition that, though much developed over the years, can still be reduced to its commitment to a future society in which "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

The full debate is available both through Albert's site: http://zcommunications.org/znet/zdebatealbertvsmaass.htm

and through socialistworker.org:http://socialistworker.org/Featured/MarxDebate.shtml

Going through the book Ben lent on Marxism and religion "The Meek and the Militant" by Paul Siegel, I found one a description of underlying principles of Marxism out of which I think the tendency towards coordinatorism might develop. Siegel quotes George Novack, "The Marxist theory of knowledge accepted...the empirical contention that all the contents of knowledge are derived from sense experience." Jung claims that sense experience is only half of the equation, and that intuition is an equally valid process. Intuition gives us access to the unconscious contents of the mind, which are either innate contents or compensatory contents that form when the psyche becomes too one-sided. Intuition "presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence." A good example of intuition involving innate content would be people's fear of spiders and snakes. For compensatory content, intuition re-centers the psyche. An example of compensatory content is illustrated through Jung's claim "too much civilization makes the animal in us sick," so the compensatory content would be that moment of epiphany or realization of the need for balance in life.

I came across a good description of Jung's theory of the innate content of the mind recently:

"The collective unconscious, which forms the deepest stratum of each human life, also forms a foundation common to all mankind. It is said that the entire spiritual heritage of man, gathered over two million years, flows within this deepest stratum. One of Jung's followers, C. S. Hall, analyzed man's fear of snakes and darkness, and concluded that such fears could not be fully explained by the experiences of a single lifetime. Personal experiences only seem to strengthen and reaffirm the inborn fear. We have inherited a fear of snakes and darkness from ancestors back in the unknown past. This is, then, a hereditary fear, according to Hall, which proves that ancestral experience is an engrained memory living in the deepest stratum of human life."

Following this line of thinking, Marxist theory has a tendency to alienate people who favor the intuitive, compensatory way of thinking, in favor of those who insist the content of knowledge comes through sense experience. The intuitive, compensatory thinkers, being a minority, end up being out-voted under democratic-centralism. As their way of thinking disagrees with a basic assumption of Marxism, they feel ill-equipped to make their voices heard.

On Carl Jung and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

2011-11-21T02:52:00.004-05:00

Our existence in society can be visualized as the middle ground between the opposing poles of existence as animal and existence through language.

Existence as animal ---------------> Existence in society <------------------ Existence through language

Historical materialism sees only one side of this formulation. It sees existence in society as necessarily developing out of how we produce enough subsistence to meet our animal needs.

Existence as animal ---------------> Existence through language ---------------> Existence in society

Why do I believe that our existence through language is fundamentally different from our needs for food, water, and shelter? Is not the development of language similar to, say, the evolutionary development of a tiger's sharp claws or a peacock's tail, in that they developed to enable the species to more effectively procure food or attract mates?

Yes, it is true we could view life through these lenses, seeing only the material causes for every event. But this view closes the door on so much! Unlike sharp claws or fancy tail feathers, language brought about the development of consciousness, and,in doing so, opened up a whole new way of looking at the world. Consciousness gives us the ability to “bind time,” as Korzybski put it, meaning that we can exist apart from the material world by reminiscing about past memories or planning future triumphs.

Rather than seeing history only as class struggle, history can also be seen as an attempt to unify the two opposing poles of our existence as animal and our existence as “time binders” through language.

Existence as animal, described by natural science ---------------> Existence in society <------------------ Existence as time binders through language, expressed by religious experience

If we are ever able to bring these two poles together, maybe we will be at what De Chardin calls the "sense of Earth."

De Charin wrote about: "The sense of Earth is the irresistible pressure which will come at the right moment to unite them (humankind) in a common passion." "Humanity. . . is building its composite brain beneath our eyes." - http://www.gaiamind.com/Teilhard.html

What interests me is the thought that Jung's archetypes are our clues for how to accomplish what De Chardin was talking about.

For Jung, archetypes are genetic echoes of how consciousness arose within early humans. These memories exist a priori in the structure of the human brain, waiting to be re-activated by specific social experiences.

What had to happen for consciousness to develop in early humans? I believe the development was gradual, with the archetypes signifying big events—the love of a mother, sharing in the knowledge of an elder, the fear of the unknown, the first conscious awareness of sexual attraction—I feel like these concepts existed as unconscious archetypes long before the creation of language.

Just as archetypes existed before we had words for them, perhaps archetypes can also be found on a social level.

Chardin wrote, "It is not our heads or our bodies which we must bring together, but our hearts." In looking to manufacture consciousness through artificial intelligence, we are getting too far ahead of ourselves. First we need to see how far human consciousness can reach, by creating a unity between our language-based and needs-based existences.

movie review of Pink Floyd - The Wall

2011-10-01T23:07:00.002-05:00

In spite of Pink Floyd's reputation, don't come into this movie looking for escape. While some of the film's animation can not be beat, newer movies with lots of random “I know that actor/actress” associations are better for distracting the mind.

The Wall is a journey into the darker sides of society. It shows us Pink, a rock-star who is disillusioned with everything our society has to offer and represses all desire for human connection. The cycle of disillusionment, alienation, and oppression unfolds.

The movie begins by contrasting an audience coming to see Pink in concert with images of soldiers in WWI. This could be the first anti-movie movie. Mass media brainwashes into conformity as much as the army indoctrinates soldiers.

The movie then takes us through the chronology of Pink's life. The death of his father in battle leaves a big gap in his family life and also a distrust of government, which he represses in order to fit in with other boys his age.

In one scene, a young Pink finds his daddy's military uniform one day, tries it on, and salutes his image in the mirror, as the soundtrack plays When the Tigers Broke Free:

It was just before dawn
One miserable morning in black 'forty four.
When the forward commander
Was told to sit tight
When he asked that his men be withdrawn.
...
And the Anzio bridgehead
Was held for the price
Of a few hundred ordinary lives.

...
They were all left behind,
Most of them dead,
The rest of them dying.
And that's how the High Command
Took my daddy from me.

Next comes education. A particularly harsh schoolmaster repeatedly belittles Pink in front of the class, which participates in his ridicule out of their fear of the master's paddle. Of course, this experience too becomes just another brick in Pink's wall.

The final step is marriage. While Pink becomes a successful musician, he is often inattentive to his wife, more interested in sitting at the piano keyboard than attending social functions, and looking over her at the TV as she tries to be romantic in bed. When she is inevitably driven away, and no longer answers his phone calls, Pink's wall is complete.

We begin to see the dark side of celebrity. Pink willingly participates in the music concerts, even though he feels the music industry is just another authoritarian social institution, offering no authentic human connection. In “One of My Turns,” his disillusionment boils over when a groupie follows him to his hotel room.

Day after day
Love turns gray
Like the skin on a dying man
Night after night
We pretend it's all right
But I have grown older
And you have grown colder
And nothing is very much fun, anymore
...
Run to the bedroom
In the suitcase on the left
You'll find my favorite axe
Don't look so frightened
This is just a passing phase
One of my bad days
Would you like to watch TV?
Or get between the sheets?

Or contemplate the silent freeway; would you like something to eat?
Would you like to learn to fly?
Would you like to see me try?

Would you like to call the cops?
Do you think it's time I stopped?

Why are you running away?

Ironically, the only place Pink finds hope for the possibility of authentic connection is TV, but he knows that's not real.

The song “Nobody Home” sums up his feeling,

I got elastic bands keepin my shoes on.
Got those swollen hand blues.
I got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from.
I've got electric light.
And I got second sight.
Got amazing powers of observation.
And that is how I know
When I try to get through
On the telephone to you
There'll be nobody home.

…

I've got wild staring eyes.
And I've got a strong urge to fly.
But I've got nowhere to fly to.
Ooooh, Babe.

When I pick up the phone...
There's still nobody home.

Pink's repression has cut him off from all authentic human connection. In what could be argued is the climax of the movie, Pink takes on the identity of the leader of a Neo-political movement and moves his adoring fans to adopt dehumanizing attitudes. Director Alan Parker portrays has the crowd transition into a synchronized march, and brilliantly superimposes faceless masks over every member of the audience, illustrating the egoless conformity that crowd behavior brings out in us.

At some point in the future, Pink at last yells “STOP!” and takes time to reflect on what he has become.

He then heroically looks into himself, as depicted in “The Trial”. The site http://www.thewallanalysis.com says it well,

In many ways, “the Trial" epitomizes all that is the Wall, combining the album's high theatrics, unflinching cynicism, dark humor, tongue-in-cheek irony, deep emotion, and (paradoxically) both unwavering nihilism and steadfast optimism. The song is a seeming contradiction, offering a dichotomous look at the light and dark, good and ill, of Pink's life from a number of different perspectives, all of which take place within the mind of one person.

Roger Waters explains, “the judge is part of him just as much as all the other characters and things he remembers. They're all in his mind, they're all memories.” Although bizarre at first glance, the“The Trial” is a fitting ending to the multiple themes the film touches on.

The Wall, both the album and the movie, is humongous in scope. It's about what concentrations of power and authoritarian social structures do to our souls. For anyone looking to face these deep issues head-on, The Wall brings offers ample opportunity for reflection.

'Non-cognitive' Skills and the American Bias Towards Rules

2011-09-19T02:45:00.008-05:00

Recently the term "noncognitive skills" has caught on in business and education circles. Just google 'noncognitive' to see that many academically published research articles use "noncognitive" as an umbrella term for anything which cannot be measured by a written test, usually things like communication, kindness, social intelligence, perseverance, and other 'intangible' traits.

But 'non-cognitive' is really quite a bizarre term to use! All of these skills have to be learned somehow, and so why is the term 'noncognitive' being used? 'Cognitive' comes from the Latin 'cognoscere' 'with knowledge.' 'Non-rational', or 'not based on rules' is a much better description of these skills.

The reason 'noncognitive' has stuck is that academics in America have a huge bias towards rules. We take it as a given that a technical solution must exist to every problem. The idea that these skills could be 'non-rational' or 'not based on rules' is highly unappealing to us, so we prefer the ambiguous 'non-cognitive' label.

This is a mistake. It is interesting to note that, despite its abundant use in university-level research, there is no wikipedia page on "noncognitive skills." A google search for "non-cognitive skills" returns 162,000 results, while a search for "non-rational skills", the correct phrase, returns just 277 results!

Carl Jung wrote in the just recently published Red Book, "Scholarliness alone is not enough, there is a knowledge of the heart that gives deeper insight." Knowledge/cognition goes deeper than scholarliness or rationality. We must look beyond institutional, formalized knowledge, and into the knowledge of compassion in our hearts if we wish to move society forward.

On capitalism and sociocultural transition

2011-09-04T16:15:00.011-05:00

When I was growing up I was told that capitalism is great because it “allows you to be anything you want to be!” By “anything you want to be”, they really meant sit at a desk all day doing what a person in the office above you tells you to. “But you can be at whatever desk you want, if you just go for your dreams!” Uhhh, yeah. Thanks, I guess.

So what to make of capitalism? Are we to join Michael Moore in mock outrage at it? Or what about those rational voices claiming that better alternatives are possible? What if they are right, and the rest of us are missing out on a whole different quality of life?

Are we not like the tribe of Israel, demanding to be ruled by a king? The prophets cry to us there is a better way, but we don't even understand what they are saying. We know only the primal thrill of the vicarious experience of power. Donald Trump is our generation's King Saul.

So why not join the radical left and anarchists? The problem is that progress is slow.

Capitalism itself is a form of progress over the monarchy of King Saul. This can be a disheartening thought for an idealist. There is no shortcut. Utopia can only come about one mind at a time. Yet we are dealing with archetypal forces here. The unconscious desire for even a vicarious experience of power is embedded more deeply than we would like to admit.

Irrationality is the prima materia of culture. Irrational drives are the basis for music, dancing, games, art, story-telling, governments, economies, or any socio-cultural institution.

Capitalism taken to the free-market extreme is "reason turned against itself"--a system that assumes the innate rationality of our behavior, but yet exists only because of our irrational desire to experience power over our neighbor, if only vicariously. We want to see our neighbors struggle and fail, so we can say “Ha! You're no Donald Trump! I told you you'd never make it.” Ridicule is an easier, more instinctive pleasure than friendship. That's why the Israelites served a King, and our age serves capitalism.

Repression of our Inner Personalities

2011-07-14T03:11:00.010-05:00

Back to what is apparently my favorite Erich Fromm quote:

“In making the individual feel worthless and insignificant as far as his own merits are concerned, in making him feel like a powerless tool in the hands of God, [Luther] deprived man of the self-confidence and of the feeling of human dignity which is the premise for any firm stand against [oppressive] secular authorities... Once the individual had lost his sense of pride and dignity, he was psychologically prepared to lose the feeling which had been characteristic of the medieval thinking, namely, that man, his spiritual salvation, and his spiritual aims were the purpose of life; he was prepared to accept a role in which his life became a means to purposes outside of himself, those of economic productivity and accumulation of capital. Luther’s views on economic problems were typically medieval, still more so than Calvin’s. He would have abhorred the idea that man’s life should become a means for economic ends. But while his thinking on economic matters was the traditional one, his emphasis on the nothingness of the individual was in contrast and paved the way for a development in which man not only was to obey secular authorities but had to subordinate his life to the ends of economic achievements.” [Escape from Freedom. p. 83-84]

Jung has a great term that explains exactly what Fromm is talking about here. The term is "inner personality". By "inner personality," Jung does not mean staying outwardly quiet when we may be angry. That is simply the choice of our ego. "Inner personality," for Jung, refers to a part of us far beneath the ego, which is most visible in dreams, but which also colors our conscious perceptions and feelings.

Jung describes inner personality as:

"those vague, dim stirrings, feelings, thoughts and sensations which flow in on us not from conscious experience, but well up like a disturbing, inhibiting, or at times helpful, influence from the dark inner depths, from the background and underground vaults of consciousness, and constitute in their totality our perception of unconscious life" [Psychological Types, pg. 466]

Historically, dialogue with the inner personality has been called "visions" or "revelation from God." In many Native American groups, members would go on vision quests to spur an inner dialogue. Western religion has a long history of respect for inner dialogue also, through those who experience a revelation from God.

What Fromm is trying to say here is that Western Protestantism carries a repressive attitude towards our inner personalities. We no longer look to our dreams to guide our social life. We reject the idea that important insights can be expressed through the symbolism of dreams. We fail to notice our inner responses to the individuals we meet, and focus only on reciting the appropriate social scripts.

So Puritanism was not so concerned about the repression of sexuality as people today might think. It was more than just that. Victorian Puritanism was about the repression of our inner personalities. It was about complete identification with the socially-assigned career--"My identity is lawyer", "My identity is house-wife", "My business is my identity"--and putting that socially-assigned role ahead of one's freely chosen role within a community. Markets and managers dictate the one. But in community one is able to seek out those friendships that one's inner personality responds the strongest to.

What we never realized and why the 60's failed, is that in trying to correct for Victorian repression, a sexual revolution falls short. Sexuality is only part of the full picture. What is needed is a full-identity revolution--a questioning of whether we should "subordinate our lives to the ends of economic achievements" and a turning inward to establish an inner dialogue and reaffirm our spiritual aims.

But politicians continue to preach about the need for 'creating more jobs' and we, the public, continue to eat it up.

On evolution and creation

2011-07-02T01:13:00.002-05:00

Here are some thoughts about creation myths, and what value they have in light of evolution. I don't get into any technical debates here, but just so you know, there are a few physicists I highly respect, including Richard Feynman and Freeman Dyson, who say there is strong evidence the earth is billions of years old, so that's the viewpoint I'm writing from.

Science and God. Evolution and Creation. How can I believe in both?

Do I believe the story of creation is true?
Look at it this way. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Perhaps reality exists only as we experience it, and the "Let there be light" of Genesis signifies the beginning of our consciousness as much as the creation of the sun and stars.

Search the shadows and side-streets until you find the face of Christ. Remember his words, "as ye have done to the least of these, ye have done it unto me." Look at history through their eyes--the starving, the orphaned, the victims of oppression. What story are we to tell? Which story communicates more truth about their situation? Should we tell of how a billion years ago a fish crawled onto the land? Or should we say to them " 'Let there be light.' We as humans possess the divine light of consciousness to lead us out of the darkness and shadows."

So how can I believe in both? Because society needs both.
The image is where evolution falls short. The language of science is not designed to create symbols as universally meaningful as those in our myths, stories, and religions.

Scientific language will not match religion's ability to create universally meaningful images. It's not designed to. Society cannot live on rationality alone. We need the images of our stories, symbols, and myths.

Darker than Black

2011-06-04T00:53:00.004-05:00

This poem was inspired by the "false sky" motif used in Tensai Okamura's anime series Darker Than Black.

“The moon reins over modernity's false sky,

forsaken goddess drifting through light-polluted smog.”

Faith is drowned, weighed down

in advertised promises of technological utopia.

Two students look to the sky,

she asks him what he sees.

He thinks back to childhood, back to his birth

under the gaze of sun and stars.

how the depths of the infinite sky evoke eternity,

the sky, a canvas on which God painted the human soul

He tries to see through child's eyes,

tries to find a star that could be his, theirs.

But the sky is dim, faded from the city lights and smog.

“The moon reins over modernity's false sky"

Science vs. miracles

2011-05-15T15:58:00.008-05:00

I recently started reading about "A Course in Miracles." It is both a book and a community of people. It gets a lot right about what spirituality means AND has managed to become somewhat mainstream! Quite an accomplishment in our age. Here are some thoughts I had about how "A Course in Miracles" bridges the gap between spirituality and scientific literalism:

I believe that science potentially can explain the cause of every event. Keep in mind that science still knows relatively little about our minds, our consciousness, and our cultures.

What are miracles? “Miracles are expressions of love.” Simple. But aren’t miracles supposed to feed the 5,000 and turn water into wine? That’s what orthodox Christianity says, isn’t it? Yes and no.

The traditional, orthodox Christian view is that miracles are events that reveal God. Before the days of widespread scientific literacy, the average farmer had a literal, concrete conception of spirituality. He would see a diseased person get well, a healthy person become diseased, crops mysteriously go bad or do well--all of which, he believed, points to God’s active participation in the world. Science, of course, shows there are unmysterious explanations for crops, disease, and the weather. So as scientific literacy spreads, a literal conception of spirituality necessarily fades.

The thing is the Fathers of modern science believed that science did reinforce a spiritual view of reality. In addition to the simple spirituality of the average farmer, a sizable community in the upper classes of Renaissance Europe believed in a deeper, more sophisticated spirituality beyond the world of crops, disease, and weather. Paracelsus, Tycho Brahe, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and Jan van Helmont all studied alchemy as a spiritual discipline. However, the divorce of spirituality and work during the industrial revolution tore the legs out from under Europe’s spiritual tradition. Gradually a literal view of reality, which the scientific community’s emphasis on empiricism and careful precision inescapably favors, took its place at the front of culture’s consciousness.

A scientific, literal view of the world puts into question the role of religion. Churches have two ways to respond--assert the validity of traditional religious symbols or to adapt church theology to the scientific, literal worldview. Many churches adapted by preaching a religious literalism that values the history of religious stories over their spiritual symbolism. That takes us to our present-day conception of miracles as extremely rare, scientifically-implausible occurrences.

But religious stories are meant to endow life with a deep spiritual symbolism. We are to believe out of faith and love, not out of duty or fear. “A Course in Miracles” boldly declares that the world’s literal way of thinking is illusory. There is a greater reality that is spiritual in nature. Our true selves are created in God’s image, which is love.

Now, look back at the orthodox definition of miracle: “miracles are events that reveal God.” Any expression of love is an overcoming of our short-sighted ego, and allows the image of our creator to shine through us.

Science explains a lot about the world, but tells us little about our true, spiritual selves. Miracles are in fact natural, everyday expressions of love, and not the rare, scientifically implausible events that that a literal theology represents them as. God is love, and as the Course says, “everything that comes from love is a miracle.”

A Course in Miracles - Christians who Understand Spirituality!

2011-05-15T01:34:00.003-05:00

Just discovered the "A Course in Miracles" community, and I'm super excited about what I've read so far.

Two of the interpretations I like most so far --

From http://www.circleofa.org/blog/ANewLevelOfConsciousness.php

One of the most beautiful aspects of A Course in Miracles for me is its re-interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion. Traditionally, the crucifixion has been seen as Jesus' blood sacrifice for our sins, but in the Course, it is an "extreme example" (T-6.I.2:1) of limitless love. In the Course's view, Jesus voluntarily went through the crucifixion to demonstrate that we can love and forgive even when experiencing "the most outrageous assault, as judged by the ego" (T-6.I.9:1). He realized that it is impossible to kill the eternal life that belongs to all of us as Sons of God; therefore, those who attempted to kill him (and those who seemed to betray and abandon him, like Judas and the other disciples) deserved not anger and condemnation, but only love. This is the message of the crucifixion: "Teach only love, for that is what you are" (T-6.I.13:2).

And from http://www.bearcy.com/acimfaq.html#aa6--

In Course usage, a miracle... removes a block to the awareness of love's presence. It is an expression of love, given freely to the recipient.

I suspect most people think of miracles as rare and outside of normal experience, if they think of them at all. But I agree with the Course. Christian tradition defines miracles as "a natural or supernatural event, in which one sees an act or revelation of God." As the Course points out, any expression of love is an overcoming of our short-sighted ego, and allows the image of our creator to shine through us. So, miracles are natural, everyday occurrences. As the Course says, "everything that comes from love is a miracle."

Selling Kirby Vacuums Door-to-door and the Thin Line Between Honest Advertising and Scams

2011-05-04T21:00:00.008-05:00

Kirby is one of the most interesting companies in America. Not always in a good way though.

A few facts about the company- Kirby is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, and was founded in 1914. It is currently owned by Warren Buffett's conglomerate Berkshire-Hathaway and has always sold its vacuum systems door-to-door only. In fact, in-home demonstrations and word-of-mouth are the only way the company advertises at all. The company sells over 500,000 machines a year worldwide, generating revenue of over $1 billion per year.

I spent a month and a half at the Huntsville office from the end of February to the middle of April, 2011. The money can be quite good if you are able and willing to convince people to pay $1500+ for a vacuum. They make it easier than it sounds, actually.

Like I said, the company is interesting, but not always good interesting. Here's my breakdown:

Good interesting
-The vacuum is actually quite good at capturing dust (see the first link at end of this page)
- Kirby never advertises on TV or online.
- ALL advertising and sales are either face-to-face interaction or occasionally through a phone.
- The job often involves a lot of driving around in vans, and a lot of late hours, so Kirby offices can become a tight-knit group of people.

Bad interesting
- Kirby circulates inspirational/instructional videos that encourage dealers to create unscientific fears in customers and embarrass customers into buying.
- Kirby sells many of its machines through underpaid, new dealers who are told about quick promotion opportunities that often never come up.
- All new dealers sign contracts stating they are independent sales representatives, but many Kirby offices tell them they are on a salary system anyway, so they can threaten to fire them if they don't follow that office's Program. As a result, despite "being on a salary", some new dealers earn less than minimum wage when they struggle to sell the vacuums for high-dollar amounts.

Kirby's business model is different and impressive. My main complaint is the way the company pressures dealers into strict adherence to the Program. The heart of the Program are the “5 musts” of a full-factory demonstration. Two of the “musts”, mattress test and shampoo, make good sense and are designed to give customer enough information to make an informed decision. 2 others, making a friend and the sales contest, are standard sales tools and are to be expected with advertising.

It took me a while to understand the 100+ pads though. 100 is a big number, especially when each pad has to be separately installed. Most people expect the demonstration to take 30-40 minutes when they agree to it, but a full demonstrations that pulls 100 pads takes an hour, and often a lot longer. I usually just did between 30 and 50 of them and felt that was plenty to show the customer what the machine could do, although sometimes I would do around 75.

The strategy admittedly works. Working with Kirby showed me how people respond to social scripts.

If your house looks like a mess from these little, white dirt pads [seen here] from a vacuum demonstration, and then a nicely-dressed manager comes in, you will probably feel embarrassed about how your home looks. In order to stop feeling embarrassed, you are much more likely to purchase an expensive vacuum cleaner from the nicely-dressed manager.

I might have stayed longer if it was just about getting customers to pay top dollar because they liked me. The Program though, encourages dealers to use ill-founded fear and embarrassment when necessary to get the sale. If I was good enough at it and needed the money enough, I don't doubt would have stayed. But even after a month and a half, I wasn't great at it, and the $250 a week I was getting wasn't worth putting up with what I disliked about the Program, although working with the people at my office really helped me learn how to be extraverted, and that alone made my time there worthwhile.

.

I actually have a lot of respect for Kirby people. It's a high-stress job, that requires you to constantly learn and adapt to new situations. Also, it's easy to believe the spin that Kirby puts on the health issues and also easy to accept the Program as simply part of the job.

What interests me most about the job is the advertising aspect. Most producers outsource advertising to slick PR firms. These firms make carefully-tested, high-budget ads for TV or online that depict whoever owns the target product or service as cool, and whoever does not own it, as out-of-touch. Kirby, however, uses only face-to-face interaction between customers and employees, who are often new to the job. Every firm in a market system must promote an image of the firm that is usually going to exaggerate the firm's strengths. Image is the only thing in determining the market price of a product, a service, or stock.

So does Kirby exaggerate the proof backing its claims of the dangers that dust mites pose to people's health? Does Kirby exaggerate the ease of using the machine and its ability to “protect the value of your couches and chairs”? Yes, but every firm in a market economy exaggerates its image to potential customers. The main difference is that other firms hire advertising agencies to “do the dirty work” of spinning and exaggerating how good its products and services are. Outsourcing the dirty work allows salaried employees to feel good about helping consumers that for whatever reason “have to have” the product or service, while CEOs and shareholders enjoy the bigger share of the profits.

Finally, I realized I would rather not get paid and be able to express myself, than to get paid by through the Kirby Program. Kirby is a high-stress job and it's easy for beginning employees to be used by the Program and come out with bad experiences. I found my time with Kirby interesting and exciting. It's an experience I'm glad to have had, but not something I expect to go back to.

Here are a couple of articles I found that help to explain what Kirby does:

About the actual Kirby vacuum-shampoo system -
http://reviews.ebay.com/DYSON-OR-KIRBY-VACUUM-Which-is-the-best-vacuum_W0QQugidZ10000000003855053

experiences with Kirby salespeople -
http://paintermommy.com/kirby-vacuums

about dust mites:
what Kirby says – (couldn't find a website that has the document that Kirby gives out to all its offices, but what it says is pretty similar to this one):
http://www.indoorpurifiers.com/dust-mites.htm
what Science says –
http://www.drugs.com/news/dust-mites-trump-asthma-prevention-guidelines-11794.html

about being a salesperson:
http://johnneymanjr.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/the-ultimate-salesman.pdf

Thoughts on Avoiding Identification with My Job

2011-03-02T01:16:00.008-05:00

There is a great veil over our eyes that blinds us from all spiritual matters. The veil causes us to equate our personal freedom with the tyranny of the free-market. The veil hides from us our ability to grow spiritually, and leaves us scrambling to grow our retirement portfolios instead.

The veil originated with the Protestant Work Ethic. In the words of Erich Fromm:

“In making the individual feel worthless and insignificant as far as his own merits are concerned, in making him feel like a powerless tool in the hands of God, [Luther] deprived man of the self-confidence and of the feeling of human dignity which is the premise for any firm stand against oppressing secular authorities. In the course of the historical evolution the results of Luther’s teachings were still more far-reaching. Once the individual had lost his sense of pride and dignity, he was psychologically prepared to lose the feeling which had been characteristic of the medieval thinking, namely, that man, his spiritual salvation, and his spiritual aims were the purpose of life; he was prepared to accept a role in which his life became a means to purposes outside of himself, those of economic productivity and accumulation of capital. Luther’s views on economic problems were typically medieval, still more so than Calvin’s. He would have abhorred the idea that man’s life should become a means for economic ends. But while his thinking on economic matters was the traditional one, his emphasis on the nothingness of the individual was in contrast and paved the way for a development in which man not only was to obey secular authorities but had to subordinate his life to the ends of economic achievements.” [Escape from Freedom. p. 83-84]

With the loss of pride and dignity of spiritual pursuits, the church planted the seeds for its increasing marginality in today's increasingly globalized, media-driven culture.

The puritanical doctrine that humanity is first and foremost sinful tore down centuries worth of spiritual wisdom and allowed the predatory, survival-of-the-fittest nature to come crashing back into the center of the Protestant's consciousness. Hard work shifted from an external pressure that people pursued with specific aims, to an inner compulsion undertaken as a moral duty. The willingness to soberly and determinedly work indicated faith in the Protestant doctrines of the individual's powerlessness and hopelessly sinful state, and so the dutiful believer placed faith instead in the authority of a higher power (the Church, or the political orator, or the infallibility of the free market.) [Fromm, p. 119]

Markets, like anything, have both pluses and minuses. While they efficiently produce and distribute material goods, they unfortunately treat human labor as just another commodity also.

Imagine for a minute that every occupation made roughly an equal amount of money, with the more arduous jobs (coal-mining, jobs involving lots of heavy lifting) and jobs that required extensive training receiving a deserving percentage more (between 10% - 50% perhaps). Presumably people would pick their careers on the basis of natural interest and emotional considerations.

Markets, however, manipulate people into doing otherwise. Markets will pay a worker upwards of 200% - 1000% of the median income to development a specialized skill, often involving intense rational development within a narrow field of knowledge. Anyone making upwards of three, five, or ten times the median income has a strong incentive to permanently identify their career with who they are, whether or not they have a natural interest or emotional fondness for the work. The man who has a strong emotional love for music might instead choose to attend law school. The woman who has a great passion for teaching might instead choose the business profession, because of the market wage. A psychological tension between the person's rational side and emotional side develops, and the role as spouse or parent suffers as a result.

Those who are paid below the median income are predisposed to a different sort of psychological tension. The market culture teaches that a person's social contribution is equal to their market-determined income. The perception within a market society becomes that a person's worth is determined by the material “blessings” they possess. A market culture literally worships money, because money is an indicator of social contribution and thus, moral aptitude. From a Christian perspective, this association of wealth with good morality is the great sin of our society. See Jesus's statement in the Sermon on the Plain:

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God... But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.” [Luke 6: 20, 24]

Jesus spent much of his ministry preaching love for the scapegoats that society's traditional power structures blame for the society's faults. Jesus replied to such hypocritical scapegoating saying “as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” [Matthew 25:40]

The inability to provide materially in our culture can lead to deep feelings of inferiority and individual powerlessness. The belief in her individual powerlessness leads a citizen to place her hope behind a centralized socialist state, which creates a whole other set of tensions, that I won't go into here.

Markets produce good material outputs, but bad social outputs. As long as the positive material production outweighs the negative psychological tensions, then certainly markets are on the whole a good thing. And if the goal of society is to produce social stability, then maybe markets will provide solutions to these psychological tensions, as in Huxley's Brave New World. However, if the goal of society is to produce a full spiritual life, as the world's great religious traditions aim to do, then the psychological tensions would need to be rooted out at the source, and not covered up by medications or methods of conditioning.

Thoughts about equality

2011-02-05T02:51:00.002-05:00

The average American will trade freedom for security in a heartbeat. A desire to maximize our lifespans, even at the expense of liberty, seems to be deeply ingrained in the traditional American psyche. The reason, I think, is that the assurance of long-life helps compensate for a psychological insecurity. Americans want so much to be thought well of. To be liked, to be included, accepted. (Notice this is the language of Facebook.) So we strive to be responsible citizens. We strive to not offend, to keep up appearances, and fulfill the expectations of our peers.

This is all well and good, but the problem is in the vast discordance between those we consider our peers and those who are physically our neighbors. It’s safer for us if our bubble of peers contains only those with a socio-economic or educational background relatively similar to ours. We feel secure there--even if it means ignoring our neighbors or the people living in the communities we pass by everyday on our way to work.

We live in a deeply fractured society. The distribution of wealth is nowhere near equal, but the greater issue is that we are losing our ability to shape our environments. Only 30% of Americans are placed in a position where they can conveniently enact changes within their community. These are the comfortable, well-paying jobs--doctors, engineers, lawyers, upper-management positions. These 30% are seen as “winners”. Another 40% of us believe we’ll be there soon--another year, another 5 years, another 10 years. These still believe and try hard, even under complete awareness of how much they hate current situations. The other 30% are escapists, having sought refuge somewhere else, somewhere other than the American Dream and economic promise of power and privilege.

So what does it take to reclaim our ability to shape our communities? What's the best available approach?

Permaculture is the idea that plants, and especially plants we eat, are an integral part of a sustainable culture, and that by outsourcing the growing of these plants to industrial farms, we are losing a potentially invaluable part of healthy community life. The social bonds that develop through the growing and preparation of food can bring great benefits to the psychological health of those involved. And here’s the great thing: involvement is dependent only on physical location and no other requirements. Urban farming makes it convenient for us to treat our literal neighbors as peers--to burst that bubble of distant but socio-economically similar acquaintances--and to reap the improved self-confidence and increased emotional support that comes from increased face-to-face interactions with those around us.

personality type theory - categorical vs. holistic thinking

2010-11-08T04:15:00.004-05:00

Personality type reflects the extent we rely on words and the categories that words create. The Myers-Briggs system uses 4 categories. Why? The last letter represents how we make ourselves known to others. Those who rely primarily on words and the categories words create to make themselves known to others are called Judging, and extrovert their Decision Making function. Those who do not trust words and rely on a more holistic process to make themselves known to others are called Perceiving, and extrovert their Information Gathering function.

From there it seems reasonable to discuss the Decision Making and Information Gathering functions. Those who rely primarily on words and the categories words create to guide their decision-making are called Thinking. Those who rely on a more holistic process to make decisions are called Feeling.

Those who rely primarily on words and the categories words create to gather information are called Sensing. Those who rely on a more holistic process to gather information are called Intuiting.

Finally, what’s left is how we get our energy. Those who prefer words and the categories words create for their energy we call Extroverts. Those who draw their energy through a time of reflection and temporary retreat from words we call Introverts.

Thus we have four personality sphers, each with the possible letters ESTJ or INFP. ESTJs rely on words and the categories words create in each sphere, while INFPs rely on a more holistic process drawing from both words and the biological instinct.

For instance, I am INTP. I rely on a holistic process to get my energy (I), gather information (N), and make myself known to others (P). However, I rely primarily on words alone to make decisions. This is true, as I am very distrustful and skeptical of things in general, but demand a strict logical consistency of my actions.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance review

2010-09-25T03:14:00.007-05:00

I think the following passage captures Pirsig's theme:

"A screw sticks, for example, on a side cover assembly...
"If you're experienced you'd probably apply a penetrating liquid and an impact driver at this point. But suppose you're inexperienced and you attach a self-locking plier wrench to the shank of your screwdriver and really twist it hard, a procedure you've had success with in the past, but which this time succeeds only in tearing the slot of the screw.
"Your mind was already thinking ahead to what you would do when the cover plate was off, and so it takes a little time to realize that this irritating minor annoyance of a torn screw slot isn't just irritating and minor. You're stuck...
"It's a miserable experience emotionally. You're losing time. You're incompetent. You don't know what you're doing. You should be ashamed of yourself. You should take the machine to a real mechanic who knows how to figure these things out." - Ch. 24, pg. 271 [out of 402]

Pirsig builds of this common feeling of stuckness--lost keys, test questions that we can't quite remember, computers that don't do what we are telling it, etc. The book opens on a road trip that the author is making with his son Chris, and John and Sylvia, a likable couple who also enjoy motorcycle riding. Chris is riding on the back of his father's cycle, John and Sylvia on their BMW. Pirsig knows his bike inside and out, observant of every mechanical nuance that might be a clue toward keeping the motor in top condition. John and Sylvia, however, both are "stuck" when it comes to technology (BMW cylces are known for having few mechanical problems on the road), and leave even the smallest jobs to a paid mechanic. Finally Pirsig comprehends why: "To get away from technology out into the country in the fresh air and sunshine is why they are on the motorcycle in the first place. For me to bring it back to them just at the point and place where they think they have finally escaped it just frosts both of them, tremendously." (Ch. 1, pg. 8)

Pirsig's book presents a theory about the source of John's and Sylvia's exasperation with technology and outlines the foundations for a solution. At this point I feel it necessary to issue a disclaimer. You may be thinking this book sounds like both an enjoyable and illuminating read. And for the first 100 pages you'd be right! The core of the book shifts in style, though it's not necessarily a change for the worse. My disclaimer: "This book was written for people who like to struggle with ideas." Pirsig, who also spent four years teaching rhetoric in the Montana and Illinois university systems, admits as much at this point within the book--"I suppose if I were a novelist rather than a Chautauqua orator I'd try to 'develop the characters' of John and Sylvia and Chris... That would be quite a novel, but for some reason I don't feel quite up to it." (Ch. 12, pg. 129)

Webster's defines a Chautauqua as: "a traveling show or local assembly that flourished in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, that provided popular education combined with entertainment in the form of lectures, [among other activities]." This book was written precisely for those individuals who feel excited by the idea of a Chautauqua.

The rest of the book is more an autobiography of the author's journey through Western thought than a novel, although it retains many literary elements. Pirsig's insights continued to surprise me through the whole 373 pages. His main concern is the question "What values does scientific thinking teach us?" He comes to doubt society's commonly-accepted viewpoint that science teaches only morally-neutral, objective analysis.

Pirsig is not satisfied with this answer because for him, science is a means to Truth rather than a means to utilitarian application. Utilitarian application may satisfy most, but Pirsig invested too much in the pursuit of deeper Truth to stop there. To him, the near universal acceptance of utilitarian application as a validation of science, at the expense of the pursuit of a single absolute truth, becomes a ghost that haunts his whole way of thinking. "Great minds struggle to cure diseases so that people may live longer, but only madmen ask why. One lives longer in order that he may live longer. There is no other purpose. That is what the ghost says." (Ch. 7, pg. 85)

The problem, as he sees it, is that there are infinite possible applications of science, and indeed an infinite number of truths that experimentation can prove. We treat scientific knowledge as an end worthy in itself, but there is no ultimate completeness to be found there. "It is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones... Science itself is producing the indeterminacy of thought and values that rational knowledge is supposed to eliminate." (Ch. 10, pg. 108)

Science, when its end is only technology and no longer a meditation on Truth, becomes every bit as subjective as musical taste or religious belief. We use science to extend lifespans and rearrange the elements of the earth into any number of products for physical comfort or electronically-produced amusement in the same way that one prefers Beethoven over Mozart, or Catholicism over Baptists.

To avoid facing this inconsistency, Western thought has petrified, insisting that Classicism and Romanticism are mutually exclusive spheres rather than two approaches toward the same end. There's the "hard" sectors of science and business, which are ruled by objectivity, and then everything else--the arts, volunteer work, religion. In fact these spheres are different, but it is wrong to think think they have nothing to do with each other, and that the "hard" sphere should be controlled only by objective analysis. Classicism develops out of our social predisposition to use language--to learn the accepted name of things and conform to one's cultural grouping. Romanticism comes from humanity's evolutionary, biological need to experiment and experience until arriving at the behavior that feels most right. It is the interaction of these competing worlds that created and has the ability to expand humanity's consciousness. Pirsig is exploring this fundamental duality of consciousness through the lens of Western philosophical thought, using motorcycle maintenance to explain the Classical mode of dividing and classifying knowledge, and Zen, the Romantic holistic approach.

This book is for those who enjoy wrestling with these sort of ideas. In one of the more revealing autobiographical segments, Pirsig employs a quote from Albert Einstein describing an angel who expels the egoists and utilitarians from the Temple of Science. All that remain, "those who have found favor with the angel," are those whose "finely tempered nature longs to escape from his noisy cramped surroundings into the silence of the mountains where the eye ranges freely through the still pure air and fondly traces out the restful contours apparently built for eternity." (Ch. 10, pg. 104) For these, I could not recommend ZAMM highly enough.

Personality Theory

2010-07-09T21:06:00.013-05:00

Jungian Personality-Type theory -

4 spheres of personality -
1st - how you think, how you "recharge" yourself - ENERGY
2nd - how you get information - INFO
3rd - how you make decisions - DECISIONS
4th - how you schedule your time/interact with others - TIME

	Are you more comfortable with:
THE WORLD OF WORDS atomized world as created by language and symbols --- Sustained by the drive to share in society, to obey society's rules, to fit in, to conform CONFORMING		THE CONCEPTUAL STREAM continually flowing world of senses and concepts --- sustained by the drive to experiment, to experience all possible variations, to fully know everything around you. INDEPENDENT MINDED
Extrovert	ENERGY	Introvert
Sensing	INFO	iNtuition
Thinking	DECISIONS	Feeling
Judging	TIME	Perceiving

For more info on specific types, I really liked the descriptions on this site Plenty of good ones out there though, (others have free tests)
----------------------------------------------------

Consciousness arises from these two competing energies. They go by many names. Music theory calls it Repetition vs. Variation; literary critics - Society vs. Nature; Ayn Rand referred to it as Integration vs. Differentiation; also, stoicism vs. hedonism; conformity vs. independence; words vs. instinct.

Although market capitalism encourages people to follow their immediate self-interest, everyone's first experience with society comes from profoundly un-self-interested acts--the sharing of language. It is a lesson the child's mind is quite eager to learn. We want society's affirmation--we want to be seen as good by those who are important to us. We quickly learn that to share, there are rules we must learn and follow. We must learn certain words, and learn when to say them, and in what tone to speak. We must learn the standards of modesty, we must conform. But the other force, the biological energy within us, encourages experience rather than obedience. This drive tells us to seek out all possible variations, to know and experience a thing to its bottom. Animals too experiment. They will try an action again and again and again until they master it to an exceptional degree. To this, humans add language, rules and constraints. The strain of our biological drive to experiment against our social desire to share and fit in, is what creates our consciousness.

How do these energies play out in our lives? My theory is that left to ourselves, we are all non-conformist INFPs, but upon first feeling part of a group that we want to be a part of, all start out as ESTJs. The change from INFP to ESTJ is often (but not always) seen in children around the age 5-7, as kids go from being curious about everything and largely self-centered, to being strict enforcers of rules and focused more on pleasing others (friends or authorities).

Life in society then is a (not necessarily linear) journey starting from the conforming side of the conforming-independent spectrum, then learning to think for oneself (analogous to leaving Plato's cave and seeing the sunlight), and then possibly returning to society in an effort to implement a certain insight, (going back into the cave). In this interpretation then, there would be not 16, but potentially (3^4) 81 personality types. The INFP letters would all be the same, but each ESTJ letter could be either a "starting" E (or S or T or J) - meaning an extrovert who has not yet learned introspection - or a "returning" E (one who has).

No market for a playwright

2010-05-26T00:36:00.004-05:00

If Shakespeare were an American, would he write music, using his words to cash in on albums and concerts? I would say he could be a better Woody Allen, but alas he was Catholic and not a Jew. Would he write for TV, could he make top writer for The Simpsons?

Or would he have been a modern Van Gogh, quietly writing plays while supported by a brother? It takes a culture to produce a Shakespeare, and America is a market instead.

The Shack review

2010-04-28T16:51:00.002-05:00

The Shack is not great literature, so it will not change anyone's mind. However, it does contain great theology. If you are already religious and are looking for a way to express Christianity free from its corruption by power, The Shack is worth checking out!

Some good passages-

Expressing the biggest mistake within mainstream Protestantism:
pg. 66 - Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book.

pg. 123 - "Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and the enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or a system of order that destroys relationship rather than promote it... Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you."
...
"Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want."
"Isn't it helpful in keeping people from fighting endlessly or getting hurt?"
"Sometimes," Papa continued. "But in a selfish world it is also used to inflict great harm."
"But don't you use it to restrain evil?"
"We carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them."

pg. 189 - "People are tenacious when it comes to the treasure of their imaginary independence. They hoard and hold their sickness with a firm grip. They find their identity and worth in their brokenness and guard it with every ounce of strength they have. No wonder grace has such little attraction. In that sense you have tried to lock the door of your heart from the inside."

pg. 182 - Again Jesus stopped. "Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormos, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I ahve followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved."
"Does that mean," asked Mack, "that all roads will lead to you?"
"Not at all," smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you."

#1 on my list of most important Americans - Noam Chomsky

2010-04-01T16:12:00.007-05:00

The man has done it all. From helping drive behaviorism out of psychology in the 1950's, to standing up for populist and third-party politics, Chomsky is an intellectual and democratic hero.

Excerpts from his book, What We Say Goes: Conversations on US Power in a Changing World. (2007)

ON THE MEDIA

Imagery over Issues
pg. 53 - 54
When I was driving home the other day and listening to NPR—my masochist streak—they happened to have a long segment on Barack Obama. It was very favorable, really enthusiastic. Here is a new star rising in the political firmament. I was listening to see if the report would say anything about his position on issues—any issue. Nothing. It was just about his image. I think they maybe have had a couple words about him being in favor of doing something about climate. What are his positions? It just doesn't matter. You read the articles. It's the same. He gives hope. He looks right into your eyes when you talk to him. That's what's considered significant. Not “Should we control our own resources? Should we nationalize our resources? Should we have water for people? Should we have health care systems? Should we stop carrying out aggression?” No. That's not mentioned. Because our electoral system, our political system, has been driven to such a low level that issues are completely marginalized.

ON FOREIGN POLICY

pg. 24 - From Washington's perspective, any democracy that emerges has to be one subordinated to U.S. interests. The United States wants Lebanon to become a commercial and financial center run for the wealthy. One of the reasons that Hezbollah became so powerful is that the Lebanese government did essentially nothing for poorer Shiites in south Beirut and south Lebanon. Hezbollah's prestige comes not just from leading the guerrilla forces that drove Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, but form providing social services--health, education, financial aid. For many Lebanese, Hezbollah is the government. As with other Islamic fundamentalist movements, that's the basis for its enormous popular support. You don't want to have nonstate actors, especially military ones, inside a state, but unless the fundamental problems are dealt with, that's going to happen. It's almost inevitable. In fact, the United States and Israel substantially helped create Islamic fundamentalist extremism by destroying secular nationalism. If you destroy secular nationalism, people aren't going to just say, "Okay, cut my throat." They're going to turn somewhere else. And that somewhere else has been extremist religious fanaticism.

ON IRAQ

Leaving not an option
pg. 28 – The United States has a real dilemma. All the talk about withdrawal strategies is essentially worthless unless we face a fundamental point: the United States cannot easily withdraw from Iraq. It cannot leave Iraq as a sovereign independent state. “Cannot” is too strong, but it would be an immense defeat, nothing like Vietnam. The analogies are worthless. In the case of Vietnam, they could destroy the country, walk out, and basically win the war. Those were their major objectives: killing a “virus” that might “infect” others by independent development, maybe undermining the U.S. Position in much of Asia if the “infection” spread. They didn't achieve the maximal objectives in Vietnam, but they achieved the main ones. You can't do that in Iraq. It's much too valuable. Not only in itself—Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the world, and very accessible ones—but because of its position right in the center of the world's main energy-producing regions. Iraq borders Iran and Saudi Arabia. It would be a night-mare for them to leave Iraq to its own population, which would, of course, have a Shiite majority and would tighten its relations with Iran, as it's already begun doing.

pg. 27 – You have to give Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz credit. They have created a Shiite-dominated state in Iraq that has close links to Iran and may turn out to be another religious fundamentalist state. They created it—it wasn't there before. Whatever they thought they were doing, that's what they achieved.

ON DEMOCRACY

pg. 5 - Howard Zinn, in his speech "The Problem Is Civil Obedience," says civil disobedience is "not our problem. ... Our problem is civil obedience," people taking orders and not questioning. How do we confront that?
Howard is quite right. Obedience and subordination to power are the major problem, not just here but everywhere. It's much more important here because the state is so powerful, so it matters more here than in Luxembourg, for example. But it's the same problem.
We have models as to how to confront it. First of all, we have plenty of models from our own history. We also have examples from other parts of the hemisphere. For example, Bolivia and Haiti had democratic elections of a kind that we can't even conceive of in the United States. In Bolivia, were the candidates both rich guys who went to Yale and joined the Skull and Bones Society and ran on much the same program because they're supported by the same corporations? No. The people of Bolivia elected someone from their own ranks, Evo Morales. That's democracy. In Haiti, if Jean-Bertrand Aristide had not been expelled from the Caribbean by the United States in early 2004, it's very likely that he would have won reelection in Haiti. In Haiti and Bolivia, people act in ways that enable them to participate in the democratic system. Here, we don't. That's real obedience. The kind of disobedience that's needed is to re-created a functioning democracy. It's not a very radical idea.

ON INTERNATIONAL LAW

pg. 2 - 4 - Eighteen Pakistani civilians were killed in a U.S. missile attack on Pakistan in January 2006. The New York Times, in an editorial, commented, "Those strikes were legitimately aimed at top fugitive leaders of Al Qaeda."
That's because the New York Times agrees, and always has, that the United States should be an outlaw state. That's not surprising. The United States has the right to use violence where it chooses, no matter what happens. If we hit the wrong people, we might say, "Sorry, we hit the wrong people." But there should be no limits on the right of the United States to use force.

The Times and other liberal media outlets are exercised about domestric surveillance and invasions of privacy. Why doesn't that concern for law extend to the international arena?
Actually, the media are very concerned, just like James Traub, with violations of international law: when some enemy does it. So the policy is completely consistent. It should never be called a double standard. It's a single standard of subordination to power. Surveillance is bothersome to people in power. They don't like it. Powerful people don't want to have their e-mails read by Big Brother, so, yes, they're kind of annoyed by surveillance. On the other hand, a gross violation of international law--they the Nurmeberg Tribunal called "the supreme international crime" that "contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"--for example, the invasion of Iraq, that's just fine.
There is an interesting and important book, which naturally has hardly been reviewed, by two internaional law specialists, Howard Friel and Richard Falk, called The Record of the Paper. It happens to focus on the New York Times and its attitude toward international law, but onlu because of the paper's importance. The rest of the press is the same. Falk and Friel point out that the practice has been consistent: if an enemy can be accused of violating international law, it's a huge outrafe. But when the United States does something, it's as if it didn't happen. To take one example, they point out that in the seventy editorials on Iraq from September 11, 2001, to March 21, 2003, the invasion of Iraq, the words UN Charter and international law never appeared. That's typical of a newspaper that believes the United States should be an outlaw state.

Pg. 76 - Could you talk about the use of the passive voice in reporting on crimes of states?
That's a standard device, to write in the passive. So you have “People were killed,” not “We killed them.” Or “They died,” not “We murdered them, we tortured them.” In fact, there is more that you can say about the Chilean coup. The coup took place on September 11, 1973, which is often called the first 9/11 in South America. If you want to really think of what it was like, let's take a look at our 9/11 and imagine if it was on the same scale as the one in Chile in 1973, the one we were instrumental in perpetrating. To make a sensible analogy, you have to use per capita equivalent numbers because the United States is a much bigger country. So let's imagine that on September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda had bombed the White House, killed the president instituted a military coup, killed 50,000 to 100,000 people, tortured 700,000, established a terror center in Washington that instigated or supported comparable military coups elsewhere in the hemisphere, murdered and assassinated people they didn't like all over the world. Suppose they brought in a bunch of economists—let's call the Kandahar Boys—who wrecked the economy, were greatly revered, and then went home to collect their Nobel Prizes. Let's suppose that had happened. Would it have changed the world? Everyone says our September 11 changed the world. But this isn't hypothetical. That's what happened on September 11, 1973.

ON DRUGS

pg. 165 - It's usually called a "drug war" in the U.S. press. It has very little to do with reducing drug use in the United States and is known to have no effect on it. It's basically chemical warfare carried out against campesinos, Afro-Colombians, indigenous people, destroying their crops, driving them off the land and into the urban slums, leading to a lot of deaths. Colombia has one of the largest displaced-persons populations in the world.Alfredo Molano, Dispossessed: Chronlicles of the Desterrados of Colombia, trans. Daniel Bland (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2005), see foreword by Aviva Chomsky. The government effectively clears land for mining, hydroelectric plants, export-oriented agribusiness, ranching, mineral extraction. It's also destroying the biodiversity of one of the richest areas of the world.
You were there.
I took hours of testimonies from poor peasants whose lives had been destroyed, whose lands had been destroyed, whose children were dying, and who were being driven away. It's chemical warfare. It also happens to destroy coca, but the government's own studies show that if there were really any interest in cutting back drug use in the United States, by far the most cost-effective means is prevention and treatment.http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR331/index2.html Police measures are far more expensive and less effective. Still more ineffective and costly is border interdiction. And by far the least effective and most costly is out-of-country operations, like eradicating crops, which means chemical warfare.

ON EDUCATION

pg. 186-187 - In your book Perilous Power, which you wrote with Gilbert Achcar, you say, "Educating the American public is the main thing to be done." You write books, give lectures, and do interviews like this. That's your effort in terms of education. What about a broader initiative in terms of education the U.S. public? Do you have any suggestions?

Just the obvious one. Individuals can't do it. It doesn't make any sense. People have to do it locally. That's exactly the importance of labor unions. They did defend workers' rights, but beyond that they were very influential in workers' education. I remember this from childhood, when my family--seamstresses, shop boys, unemployed working-class Jewish immigrants--were members of labor unions. That's where there were workers' education centers, cultural centers, cultural events, newspapers. In the early part of the twentieth century, there were all sorts of labor newspapers that reached hundreds of thousands of people. That was a source of popular education. Unions have been under bitter business and government attack, partly for that reason. But it's possible to reconstruct popular education in all kinds of ways, in fact to influence even the schools. But it's going to have to be done by lots of people, just as in every other case.

Where did the civil rights movement come from? It didn't happen because Martin Luther King said, "Let's have a civil rights movement." He was riding the wave of popular activism. And the same with Lyndon Johnson's progressive measures, which were not insignificant. He played a role in them, but a wave of popular activism demanded them. It's the same with anything else. Did Betty Friedan say, "Let's have women's rights," and all of a sudden we had women's rights? No. It's a long struggle. That's what education is.

OTHER PASSAGES

Free market globalization
pg. 82 – There have been major struggles over the issue of water privatization in Bolivia, particularly in Cochabamba, where there was a big uprising that forced out Bechtel and the consortium that was privatizing the water. That was a good example of real globalization. Part of the reason the people of Cochabamba could succeed was that they were able to quickly contact activists around the world to coordinate demonstrations at Bechtel offices. One protest in particular happened to coincide with a big demonstration in Washington against the World Bank and IMF policies. That gave the struggle in Bolivia international publicity. That's real globalization by people, so therefore it's called antiglobalization. But it worked.

Vietnam "war"
pg. 4 - 5Martin Luther King Jr., in his April 4, 1967, Riverside Church speech, said, "Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war." Is that true?

You see that anywhere you look. It's obviously true in the United State. But was the United State "at war" in 1967? King suggests it was. It's an odd sense of being at war. The United States was attacking another country--in fact, it was attacking all of Indochina--but had not been attacked by anybody. So what's the war? it was just plain, outright aggression.

O you Worshippers of Efficiency

2010-03-01T16:30:00.005-05:00

I'm officially in love with parecon.

And Michael Albert is my new hero

The Contradiction in Today's Republican Leadership

2010-01-22T20:08:00.012-05:00

Society needs both conservative and progressive voices. We need both traditions and change, both productivity and equality, both “what works” and “how it should be.” For politics to be healthy, conservatives should identify and draw attention to contradictions in progressive programs, and progressives should do the same for conservative programs. Lazy political discourse between progressives and conservatives leads to corruption and inefficiency.

So anyway, here goes:

The libertarian strain is what gives today's Republicans their intellectual depth. Economic freedom is one of the primary adversaries to the vast dehumanizing social forces that democratic socialism easily stumbles into. Freedom is more than just economics though. Freedom is the use of creativity, the use of imagination. Children instinctively know this, but as adults we seem to forget.

Creative freedom is incompatible with the militant paranoia that sadly defines the Republican party today. When today's Republican leadership use the word 'freedom', it is a dead word. It is hypocritical to talk about freedom while refusing to accept a rational level of uncertainty regarding one's security. The exercise of our freedom implies a certain level of uncertainty.

Creativity feeds off of the new. And as adults we know that the new is dangerous in the 'real' world. The new is risky, and our financial futures contain enough risk as is. That is the reality of adults, and there is some truth to it. But not to the extent that current Republican leaders would have us believe. Is the 'risk' of being a victim of terrorism really worth perpetual war? Is the 'risk' of being a victim of a serial killing really worth never talking to strangers? Is the 'risk' that marijuana poses to our youth really worth the criminalization of criminalization of a normally harmless, non-violent activity?

You cannot exercise freedom without accepting a rational level of uncertainty regarding your security. People have trusted in the common humanity of strangers for millennia. All the major religions encourage it. But we are told to give up the new, to stop exercising our freedom, in the name of security. We as citizens are to be contented to simply have the freedom provided to us by military sacrifice. Freedom is a thing for us to be proud and thankful for, but only rarely to be exercised. That is the contradiction behind today's Republican leadership. They paint themselves as the protectors of freedom, but their freedom is an abstraction, a buzzword. Freedom is like any other ability--it shrivels when not exercised. Unexercised freedom becomes small and withered, a meaningless freedom.

This corruption of freedom, this 'baby-sitter freedom' we are told to accept, is the Achilles heal of today's Republican leadership. Freedom is not maintained by the paranoid elimination of every conceivable threat to one's security. A toleration for a reasonable amount of uncertainty, and a trust in the humanity of others, is an essential part of exercising our freedom. Just as it was for Jesus, just as it was for Muhammad, just as it was for Buddha. Liberals should hammer this point relentlessly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTABIxEMoAw

Teach for America essays

2009-12-21T22:26:00.003-05:00

Letter of Intent:

I want to join Teach for America because I believe in the program's mission of providing equal opportunity and equal education for all students. School, as I understand it, has two distinct functions. One role is economic--to provide equal opportunity, to give students an equal chance to earn scholarships to top universities, and to help each student find a specialization they can use to make a living. The other role is social--to teach students how society as a whole works. In other words, school should not only determine where in the economy a student will "fit in", but also should give students an understanding of how the different pieces of society "fit together."

As much as we would like to, these two roles seldom can be combined. Someone can become a highly successful lawyer, doctor, or even (scarily) politician, without understanding much about the rest of society.

Standardization helps achieve equal opportunity, the economic role of schools, but makes it harder for teachers to explain how a topic relates to society as a whole. A student's "Why are we studying this?" is increasingly likely to be met with "Because we have to", "Because I said so", or likely the most common, "You want to go to college, don't you?" Such responses leave huge blank spots within a student's understanding of how different sectors of society are related.

I hope to teach mathematics. Often, mathematics is taught without mentioning non-mathematical subjects, and the subject can be taught quite well this way. Some students benefit from the focus on pattern-recognition that such an approach would bring out. But for others, the class can become needlessly boring. Technologies such as the TV, radio, and the electronic computer would never have occurred without mathematics. More relevant to most high-schoolers, mathematics teaches logic--it asks students to determine what they can know for certain. Just as we use logic in mathematics to determine what we know for certain about a problem, we can use logic in our lives to maintain consistency in our relationships.

During the past two years since graduating, I have spent time substitute teaching and volunteering in GED and after-school tutoring programs. Now that I have a 2.5 GPA, I look forward to continuing my career in education with Teach for America.

I believe many students are eager to understand how society fits together. I hope to provide that understanding to as many students as I can.

two examples of the jobs or activities that best highlight your leadership and achievement:

1 - interim Alabama organizer for 2008 Nader for President

What are/were your primary responsibilities in your current or most recent role?
As the Alabama State Coordinator, it was my job to collect the sheets of signatures that the state requires for a presidential candidate to appear on the ballot. I was in charge of collecting the signature sheets from 2 paid petitioners and from 6 or 7 volunteers. I also sent out a biweekly email updating donors about the campaign and took part in a weekly phone conference.

What was your most significant accomplishment in your current or most recent role?
I turned in the over 9,000 signatures to the Alabama Secretary of State's office in Montgomery, Alabama on August 19th, 2008, fulfilling Alabama's requirement of 5,000 signatures of registered Alabama voters for third-party candidates to be on the state ballot.

For number 2 I have two options - A) the conservative "after-school volunteer" or B) the more personal, but abstract "self-directed student" option

A) - Sarah Tate Reading Room

What are/were your primary responsibilities in your current or most recent role?
I served as an after-school tutor for 2nd-5th grade kids. After snack, I would work with one or two students usually on their math work. After working, students were free to play outside, use a computer, or create another activity such as a group game or chess.

What was your most significant accomplishment in your current or most recent role?
I introduced some kids to chess, helped them learn to use a laptop, and (most importantly) got to play some awesome games of wall ball.

B)

Many people today define success within the game of limitless acquisition. They get jobs because it pays well, because it has “upward mobility”; usually not because they believe in their work. I believe my greatest success in school has been to escape form this approach to education, and begin to truly learn about our society, and how I can contribute to its progress.

(And I could reword some of that of course.)

Leaning toward option A)

hopefully math degree + caring about education + talking the phone interview about starting a technology club after school will be enough, so play conservative i'm thinking.

Sufi Wisdom

2009-12-15T14:51:00.015-05:00

Some quotes I especially liked from a book I read recently (Edenborn, good if you like sci-fi and thinking about broad social issues):

pg. 61 -
Echoes of my father's words permeate my mind and my heart. Vividly, I remember him sitting me down when twin fears of death and failure twisted me in their coils. He sat me down, dried my tears, and armored me with the wisdom of Abu Sa'id ibn Abi'l Khayr, a Persian Sufi master who lived a thousand years ago. The master said:

'Whatever you have in your mind, forget it.
Whatever you have in your hand, give it.
Whatever is to be your fate, face it!'

They are freeing words.

pg. 160 -
"This is an old trick," he explained, while unloading [coconuts] from my copter. "The monkey reaches into the hole to grab the treat but cannot pull his paw free without letting go. Because he is unwilling to let go, he is trapped by the force of his greed."
Though they are low-tech contraptions, my nieces and I find them wonderfully resourceful, the kind of outdoor-savvy skill set Isaac's kids have inherited, and Vashti and Champagne's kids have not. And Mu'tazz is Isaac's son in another respect as well, using the event as an opportunity to teach. "We all carry coconuts," he told the curious girls. "They are our problems, our woes, and we drag them around, shortsighted, too proud to let go and welcome God into our lives."

pg. 232 -
We remember your lessons We embrace the future. We fight for life with every drop of blood in our veins, but the microbes that threaten us come from God, and with God what can we do but surrender completely to whatever fate He has prepared?

pg. 254 -
When I tell the story about the frogs, I never tell it the same way twice. Sometimes they are green frogs, and sometimes they're brown. Sometimes I describe them with warts and other times without. They could be your common bullfrogs or Okinawan green tree frogs. They might even be toads. There could be ten, twenty, or a whole army of them, but the core of the story is always the same.

A group of frogs was traveling together, when two suddenly fell into a pit. The others rushed to the edge to see how very deep it was, and they realized the pair would never be able to get out. Don't even bother, they croaked, but the two trapped frogs started hopping anyway. They jumped and they hopped but they couldn't quite reach the top. All the time the crowd kept yelling for them to quit suffering and just give up, lay down and die. Finally, one of the two did exactly that. But the other ignored his fellow frogs and kept jumping with all his might. Against all odds, he made it out.
The others were amazed. Why did you keep trying? they asked. Didn't you hear us yelling for you to quit?
Oh, is that what you were doing, said the bewildered frog. I'm afraid I'm going deaf. All the time I was down there I thought you were encouraging me.

Music!

2009-11-16T01:25:00.014-05:00

Why do we demand that our popular music have words? For the same reasons that American pop culture remains so emotionally stunted? That when the individual is made to feel politically and economically powerless, when economic life dominated by the interests of big government and big business, it leads to an emotional regression in the general public? Probably so. (Maybe separating words from music is what allows Jay-Z and Lil Wayne to sound more authentic/honest about their life?)

But no matter. Music is still awesome. It writes the stories we live by. It both defines and reflects our emotions. This is all as it should be. A story ties together emotional progressions. A melody ties together chord progressions. It’s a tight analogy. ‘Melody’ and ‘story’ are very much synonyms.

Take Beethoven’s Fur Elise. It starts in darkness, in a minor chord. Not quite darkness though, just a shady dimness, as we move from the tonic A minor, down to dominant E major (0:04 to 0:05), then back to the tonic again(0:05 to 0:06). This progression of minor tonic, down to major dominant, back up to minor tonic--from darkness, then a distant flicker of light, darkness again-—repeats three more times (0:07-0:23). Then finally—Hope!—light penetrates our darkness, C major followed by G major chords, (0:23-0:25). This beam is quickly drowned out again by the canopy as A minor follows (0:26), but the memory of light echoes for a moment in our minds (the dominant E major) making us search upwards that much harder (0:28-0:30). We end in the darkness of A minor, as we must (0:31-0:37).

The chord progression of music IS an emotional progression at the same time. The melody in music IS a story that ties that progression together. If self-consciousness is primarily a story, music is quite literally the stuff our minds are made of.

“Breathe, breathe in the air,
Don't be afraid to care”
- Pink Floyd

If baseball were fair...

2009-10-06T22:36:00.024-05:00

Tomorrow night, the Yankees and Twins open the AL playoffs. Both teams have deserving players, but so do some of the teams that were left out of this year's playoffs--that's bound to happen when a 30 team league only has 8 playoff spots. The problem with MLB though, is the disparity in teams' payroll.

What if baseball were fair? What if the playoffs were seeded according to the teams that earned their wins, rather than buying them? To find out, I seeded the teams according a new metric I call "final grade", calculated by dividing a team's number of wins at the season's end by the 4th root of team payroll.

Without further hesitation, here are your 2009 deserving Division winners:


AL East     Tampa Bay
AL Central  Minnesota
AL West     Texas
AL Wild     LA Angels

NL East     Florida
NL Central  St. Louis
NL West     Colorado
NL Wild     LA Dodgers

Interestingly, both LA teams deserve wild card spots, with the Dodgers and Angels finishing just ahead of the Padres and Red Sox, respectively. 5/8 of the deserving teams made the actual MLB playoffs. The players for the Devil Rays, Rangers, and Marlins are more deserving than those for the hulkishly-rich Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies.

More interestingly, without needing any adjustments, the ratio produces a report card-type score that gives fair assessment of each team's season, punishing neither big nor small market teams. (I think most reasonable fans would actually agree with the final grades the system cranks out.) Pretty cool!

Other notes:
*** Again, final grade was calculated by the equation:
Final grade = Total Wins / (team payroll in dollars)^(1/4)
*** The Marlins won 2.36 games/million dollars spent, almost 5 times that of the Yankees, who led the majors in victories but still finished dead last in wins/million dollars spent at 0.51.
*** Obviously, the system does not take injuries into account, which played a large part in the Mets and Indians poor seasons.


Team       Wins    Wins/    "final grade"
                 $mil spent
Marlins      87     2.36     1.12  A++++
Rockies      92     1.22     0.99  A+
Twins        87     1.33     0.97  A+
Rangers      87     1.27     0.96  A
Dodgers      95     0.95     0.95  A
Rays         84     1.33     0.94  A
Angels       97     0.85     0.94  A
Cardinals    91     1.03     0.94  A
Padres       75     1.75     0.93  A
Giants       88     1.07     0.92  A-
Red Sox      95     0.77     0.90  A-
Phillies     93     0.82     0.90  A-
Braves       86     0.89     0.87  B+
Yankees     103     0.51     0.86  B
Mariners     85     0.86     0.85  B
Reds         78     1.10     0.85  B
Brewers      80     1.00     0.85  B
Athletics    75     1.20     0.84  B
Tigers       86     0.75     0.83  B
White Sox    79     0.82     0.80  B-
Blue Jays    75     0.93     0.79  C+
Cubs         83     0.61     0.77  C+
D-backs      70     0.95     0.76  C
Pirates      62     1.27     0.74  C
Astros       74     0.72     0.73  C
Royals       65     0.92     0.71  C-
Orioles      64     0.95     0.71  C-
Indians      65     0.80     0.68  D+
Nationals    59     0.99     0.67  D
Mets         70     0.52     0.65  D-

Oh yeah, and my world series prediciton:
I'm gonna go Angels over Rockies in 6.

on trying to see reality I

2009-09-27T23:57:00.005-05:00

Beauty is the in the cutting through/the liberation from the illusions our minds build up. Our minds build up illusions, systems that we use to operate in the world. But utility has a price—we become addicted, we become dependent on formula, routine. The systems we at first freely chose, become our prisons, our chains. But, sometimes, a new experience will cut away the chains, tear down the prison walls, and set us free. Beauty is found in the cutting through. The more powerful the original formula, the deeper is the beauty that liberates us.

Education and Work

2009-09-23T01:08:00.016-05:00

The big problem in our schools today is NOT mandatory standardized tests. The big problem is that educational policy, (and overall federal policy), is too closely linked to corporate interests. Our schools are designed on a corporate model. Mandatory standardized tests are simply a tool corporations use to streamline their control.

Schools have been designed on a corporate model for hundreds of years now, since the industrial revolution. The difference is the economy. During the industrial revolution, when the vast majority of workers were either farmers or factory workers, it made a lot of sense to require everyone to learn to read and learn basic arithmetic. Without these skills, you could not operate factory equipment, and therefore were mortgaging your future economic possibilities.

This is no longer the case. Factory jobs make up an increasingly small segment of our economy today. We are a post-industrial economy now. Our economy no longer depends on factory output. Communication, team-work and computer literacy are now more important than reading, writing and arithmetic. The service industry is replacing manufacturing jobs; “.com” has dethroned Steel as king of Wall Street.

Corporations use GPA requirements, attendance requirements, and mandatory standardized tests to separate the “winners” from the “losers”. The winners get scholarships, and, after college, get to pick the profession they want. This is perfectly fair. The vast majority of these people work hard and deserve what they are given. It’s the “losers” that get shafted. The problem is that they are forced to play the game, even if they have no interest in it. Let me say that again—they are forced to attend classes, forced to accumulate a GPA, and forced to take standardized tests, whether or not they have an interest in doing so. We don’t force kids who don’t want to compete at football to play football. We don’t force kids who don’t want to compete at swimming to learn to swim. We don’t force kids who don’t want to compete at acting to do theater. Why do we force kids who don’t want to compete for scholarships and corporate salaries to be graded and ranked with students who do?

This idea that grades=education is 1.) inherently ridiculous (no one’s come up with a proven procedure for bettering society) 2.) dangerous for our futures (innovation is more likely with unhindered variety, not perfected conformity). GPAs are great for students who want to show others their ability to excel and determination to work hard. But for others, why do we insist on 1.) wasting so much of their time, then 2.) telling them that the only way for them to better themselves is to “go back to school and make up for their mistakes”?

Why is unemployment considered a bad thing? (Well, because the investing class wants to maintain its current monopoly on our country’s wealth.) But there are plenty of productive activities that don’t require an extensive resume to work on. Make a movie! Or start something within your community. The open-source and free culture movements are growing rapidly through the internet.

People seem to have this idea that everyone needs a corporate or government-funded job. Purposeful work is extremely important to any good life. But purposeful work does not have to be in service to increasing GDP. Working within that systems can be ok. But the far more important message schools should send is, whether full-time or when you’re home from your “real job”, find some work you can honestly say that you love.

God, Agape and Eros

2009-09-02T01:59:00.008-05:00

In Plato’s Symposium, each guest is invited to give a speech on the nature of Love (Eros). After Agathon makes an elaborate speech praising the beauty of the god Eros, it is at last Socrates’ turn. At first he declines speaking though, claiming that his opinion would not fit in with the others’ claim that Eros was a great and beautiful god. His argument rests on the fact that the defining quality of Eros is desire, and that one cannot possess what she desires. [If we have good health and say we also desire good health, what we mean is that we desire the continuation of good health into the future.] So we cannot possess something and desire it at the same time.

Since the object of Eros’ desire is beauty, Eros itself does not possess beauty. And since all gods possess goodness and beauty, neither is Eros a god. Socrates recounts his teacher Diotima’s explanation:

"What then is Love?" I asked; "Is he mortal?" "No." "What then?" "As in the former instance, he is neither mortal nor immortal, but in a mean between the two." "What is he, Diotima?" "He is a great spirit (daimon), and like all spirits he is intermediate between the divine and the mortal." "And what," I said, "is his power?" "He interprets," she replied, "between gods and men… he is the mediator who spans the chasm which divides them… For God mingles not with man; but through Love all the intercourse, and converse of god with man, whether awake or asleep, is carried on. The wisdom which understands this is spiritual; all other wisdom, such as that of arts and handicrafts, is mean and vulgar. Now these spirits or intermediate powers are many and diverse, and one of them is Love. "And who," I said, "was his father, and who his mother?" "The tale," she said, "will take time; nevertheless I will tell you.

“On the birthday of Aphrodite there was a feast of the gods, at which the god Poros or Plenty, who is the son of Metis or Discretion, was one of the guests. When the feast was over, Penia or Poverty, as the manner is on such occasions, came about the doors to beg. Now Plenty who was the worse for nectar (there was no wine in those days), went into the garden of Zeus and fell into a heavy sleep, and Poverty considering her own straitened circumstances, plotted to have a child by him, and accordingly she lay down at his side and conceived love, who partly because he is naturally a lover of the beautiful, and because Aphrodite is herself beautiful, and also because he was born on her birthday, is her follower and attendant. And as his parentage is, so also are his fortunes. In the first place he is always poor, and anything but tender and fair, as the many imagine him; and he is rough and squalid, and has no shoes, nor a house to dwell in; on the bare earth exposed he lies under the open heaven, in-the streets, or at the doors of houses, taking his rest; and like his mother he is always in distress. Like his father too, whom he also partly resembles, he is always plotting against the fair and good; he is bold, enterprising, strong, a mighty hunter, always weaving some intrigue or other, keen in the pursuit of wisdom, fertile in resources; a philosopher at all times, terrible as an enchanter, sorcerer, sophist. He is by nature neither mortal nor immortal, but alive and flourishing at one moment when he is in plenty, and dead at another moment, and again alive by reason of his father's nature. But that which is always flowing in is always flowing out, and so he is never in want and never in wealth; and, further, he is in a mean between ignorance and knowledge.

The error in your conception of him was very natural, and as I imagine from what you say, has arisen out of a confusion of love and the beloved, which made you think that love was all beautiful. For the beloved is the truly beautiful, and delicate, and perfect, and blessed; but the principle of love is of another nature, and is such as I have described."

So Eros is not a god, nor even good and fair. He is the offspring of Plenty and Poverty, sometimes reflecting one, sometimes the other. He is a philosopher, a seeker of beauty and wisdom.

Agape love, charitable love, however, is possessing of goodness and beauty. 1 John 4:8 even claims that God is this charitable kind of love, (and what God is, must be good and beautiful.)

Have to pull out a Stephen Colbert Wag of My Finger to the 12th century monk who translated 1 John from the Greek as “God is love” rather than “God is charity.” I believe this is the root of a lot of confusion in modern Christianity. “God is Love” is perhaps the shortest possible summary of Jesus’s teachings, but it is a bad translation. I think the common perception among most Christians is that “yeah, I know the difference between “agape” love (charity/God’s love) and “eros” love (romantic love), but they are similar in a lot of ways, (after all they’re both love.)” Even Pope Benedict in his first Encyclical “Deus Caritas Est” claims that “God loves, and his love may certainly be called eros, yet it is also totally agape.” Plato would disagree. God’s love cannot be Eros, because God already possesses goodness and beauty. Agape and Eros, while both are important parts of a good life, are not really similar at all. Eros is seeking, wanting, desiring--Agape is enjoyment, beauty, and happiness. “God is charity” or “God is charitable love” is a better translation.

So close!

2009-07-19T14:25:00.009-05:00

Sensational! Once in a lifetime! Even though he lost, that is how Tom Watson's performance at this year's British Open will be remembered. The oldest player to win any PGA Tour event was Sam Snead at age 52--for a 59-year-old to almost claim a major makes that seem trivial. We certainly won't see it again any time soon (or at least until Tiger Woods is that old!).

How improbable was Watson's performance really though? (It certainly didn't hurt that Phil Mickelson stayed home and Tiger missed the cut). Sure older players lose some distance on their drives, presumably a little hand-eye coordination and all. But golf is a lot more about consistency than about ability to react, and consistency is not lost with time. The truth is that 50+ year-olds almost never get to play in major tournaments in the first place.

To qualify for the British Open you probably need to be high enough on the Tour money list. That would require you to play 30 tournaments a year, which is much harder on older players.

The only reason Watson got to play was because he was a former champion (this was his last year to qualify under current British Open rules, which only includes former champions under the age of 60.) Watson has made 5/8 British Open cuts since turning 50, but just 1/10 at the Masters. Nicklaus from age 50-59 made 8/9 Masters cuts and 5/8 British Open cuts, and finished tied for 6th at the '98 Masters at age 58.

If other top Senior Tour players were able to more easily qualify for Tour events, then would we see results like this regularly? Not regularly, as long as Tiger Woods stays healthy. But Watson proved it would not be out of the question.

That a 59-year-old did well at a major is perhaps just as unlikely as a 59-year-old getting to participate in the first place.

Seattle to Huntsville Without Corporate Assistance

2009-07-08T20:08:00.014-05:00

The goal: Travel from Seattle, WA to Huntsville, AL without paying a large corporation for travel/lodging.

I’ve kinda wanted to try different ways of traveling lately. Seeing how my life currently has no deadlines of any kind, this seems to be a good time to try out rideshare/hitch-hiking.

Hitch-hiking is no more dangerous than riding in cars in general (as long as you don’t get dropped off in a dangerous neighborhood!), but can be frustrating if you set up at a bad spot. I don’t think I would have had the patience for it even two years ago.) But you do have to know how to do it, and you shouldn’t have any schedule to keep to, otherwise it could get very nerve-racking. (Also I made sure I wasn't carrying anything that I considered irreplaceable, and of course was careful to be appreciative and not offensive toward my drivers.) I had a few pointers from friends, but there’s also plenty of info online, and I bought a copy of this book, an excellent guide to “taking a road trip pilgrimage.”

Anyway, here’s how things went—

July 1st -

Here's what I have with me in Seattle -
way too many clothes for this kind of thing, but at least clothes aren't heavy so whatever.
way too many books that I brought for the bus ride on the way up.
Debit card with 32.85 on it.
Check from separate account with 110.26 in it.
Emergency credit card from my dad that I'm pretending doesn't exist

I'm thinking I may offer to split some gas costs with anyone who gives me a ride (craigslist rideshare, or hitchhiking)--this doesn't count as paying a large corporation since the gas would have been bought anyway, and I may also eat at McDonalds or other chain if my driver suggests we stop there for food. But I will try to the best of my ability not to pay a big company for travel or lodging.

Someone on craigslist is going olympia to colorado tomorrow--a couple things aren't ideal…

-------from Craigslist-------
I'm going to Fort Collins in Colorful Colorado tomorrow (Wednesday, July 1.) It would be great to have some company to help keep me awake and pitch for gas and I could take you as far as Denver, or drop you off anywhere along the way. I am a smoker and like the music loud but am respectful of my companionship. I am a good conversationalist and I'm not a serial killer. Must be willing to pitch for gas and as we are going to a Higher State (5,280ft) must be 420 friendly. I'll be leaving in the early afternoon, around two-ish.
------------------------------

maybe a little rough, but to get straight to Colorado in just one ride sounds well worth it to me. Plus could be interesting to spend 16 hours in a car with--we'll see if he takes me up.

----------from me--------
Hey, I could use a ride out towards Colorado if it's still available. I'm in Seattle now, but could meet you tomorrow off I-90 in Bellevue (if you're going through Seattle anyway) or off I-5 in Tacoma. I'm flexible as far as plans, and I'd be glad to contribute a tank or two for gas. Email back or give me a call if you think things will work.

Thanks,
Tom - 336-251-2196
--------------------------------

July 1st –

Never heard back form that first guy but Ralph came through for me!

----------Craigslist--------
GOing to Colorado (Paonia )
[ Don't have exact first message cuz it's deleted from craigslist, but basically said he's offering a ride from Washington to Colorado for anyone that needs it, and left his name and cell number ]
-----------------------------

I e-mail back, we call in the morning, and head out from Seattle to western Colorado around 1 pm!

July 2nd -

Ralph is a good dude. We communicate well, and I am very compatible with the songs on his iPhone (which includes a very cool reggae version of dark side of the moon)
He found a national park a little ways off the highway on his Iphone, so we camped there (that’s how he was planning to sleep anyways), and plus we communicate well and have similar interests. I'm in Salt Lake City right now, Ralph's staying with his brother who he says has a super small apartment and can be a "difficult guy", so I am either gonna get in touch with someone I know or crash in a hostel. It's raining so prefer not to camp.

July 3 -

Stayed at Avenues Hostel in Salt Lake City last night. Very good experience. Roomed with two English guys, who just happened to check in (they didn't know each other before). Phil (I think his name was) was from Wales, and don't remember the other guy's name but he was from Manchester City. The guy from Manchester brought a Australian movie that he thought was killer, and I did quite enjoy it--The Proposition--apparently based on a true story about a family of outlaws, but kinda reminded me of an Australian Apocalypse Now. Slept on the top bunk, and there was a clean bathroom/shower. Very reasonable at $18 a night (and $10 key deposit that you get back).

Next, I’m heading to Delta, CO with Ralph. Before dropping me off, we stop by a City Market to get some supplies. Ralph advises I get the large 30-gallon trash bags to water-proof my stuff. I also pick up a flashlight and sunscreen. He’s hitchhiked some before, says I shouldn’t have any trouble getting rides in the area, as long as I don’t get discouraged. Think I’m all set for some corporate-free traveling!

July 4th –

This was easily my most adventuresome day. Rode 250 miles with 5 different drivers, with an average waiting time of just 15-20 minutes (being in a hitchhiking-friendly area on a holiday weekend probably helped out). All different types of people gave me rides—Amy, a college student, took me to Gunnison. I get a quick 5 minute ride out of town from a couple in their 30s. Next Marcus, a 21-year-old born in Germany but has lived in the US since he was 11, then Hashish and Nidan, graduate students at UF who have a rental car in Colorado for the holiday. (Hashish mentions Into the Wild, and we cover as much ground in our 15 minute conversation as any other ride I have.) Finally, Jeff and Pat, both over 50, give me a lift into Pueblo, where they are meeting some friends to watch fireworks.

I needed a couple of supplies in Gunnison, so I relax there for the morning. It’s a very cool town, about 5,000 people, but basically all of them are coming to the park downtown for 4th of July festivities. The city is small enough to walk wherever you need to go, so the shops downtown aren’t sprawled apart by parking lots. The result is a very welcoming feel to the city. Would love to come back sometime!

After I am dropped off by Jeff and Pat, things get interesting. Turns out to be a bad intersection for rides. The best intersection would be the last one at the edge of town, but I don’t know if this intersection is near the edge of town or not. I stand there and hope to get picked up, but it doesn’t happen. Finally it starts raining a little, then a lot. Still haven’t gotten picked up. Now I’m worried; I break out a poncho, put a trash bag around the outside of my bags, but by now it’s pouring. The poncho isn’t doing a great job of keeping me dry, and I’m worried about my stuff. I’m on the wrong side of the road from nearest shelter. I can carry all my stuff when I can wear my bookbag, but not when things are in trash bags. So I have to carry one bag at a time across the highway, up to a dry area within a carwash right across the street. Drop bag one off, and go back for the other. Fireworks are still going pretty well by now, and I rejoice at at least having found shelter for now and pull out a book. After 15 minutes or so, still enjoying fireworks, I check my stuff. And it’s dry! The trash bags worked completely! Even against the torrential downpour! Total joy! (well maybe some boo-ya pride too—“I am the best homeless person out of all my facebook friends!”) I settle in, read my book, and enjoy the fireworks show going on all around me (apparently no ordinance against fireworks in the city in Pueblo).

The rain stops, the weather’s not too cold or anything (it is July after all), so I walk down the highway a couple miles, and find a suitable area for camping.

July 5th –

Foiled! Got 400 miles in one ride from Pueblo, CO to Wichita, KS, asking to be dropped at the public library at 3 PM, well in time to go online before the 5 PM closing time, hopefully find a craigslist rideshare headed toward TN, GA, or AL. Problem: the Wichita library is closed July 5th because of the 4th of July! Apparently July the 4th is a multi-day event.
Damn! Realized I rely on the internet for basically all of my information and am terrible at getting information from actual people. Took me 35 minutes to figure out there is an I-35 through Wichita. I had been told I must mean highway 135, but finally looked at a map in a gas station. Part of it is I have 2 medium-large bags and one medium-small—fine for walking around if you have an exact place to go, but not good for exploring/trying to gather information about a place.
In the rainstorm, I was still pretending—this is by far the more authentic feeling—“how in the world has life taken me to here?”

It’s harder to stay enthusiastic in the face of an unexpected crisis. I decide to try and talk to some people, get to know about the city. There’s a skate park on Broadway and Kellogg Parkway underneath the overpass. It’s hopping with people, many look high school age. I decide the crowd at the library is probably the better, less dangerous source of information, a conclusion I am later told is correct. I head to the park across from the library where people were earlier. One is still there, sleeping. When he gets up, I start up a conversation—Paul tells me he was there for a weekly pizza dinner that a local church gives out for free to the community. Paul is eager to talk, and I’m eager to listen.
Paul tells me about a few areas where I might sleep. “Best not to let me or anyone else know. Just find a spot out of the way, where you won’t be noticed, and you’ll be fine.” He also talks enthusiastically about other services that local churches provide for the homeless—as Paul put it later, “there’re helping hands in Wichita”—there’s coffee and doughnuts in the morning, a weekly lunch. “They bought me these shoes for free,” he says. “I walked in, someone asked me about the shoes I was wearing, then drove and got me this pair.” Carl walks up and listens in on the conversation. He’s less enthusiastic about the lunch—“Those folks don’t stay around long.”
The Salvation Army will buy you a ticket back to where you’re from, I’m told.
“I mean, I have enough to buy a ticket and all,” I mention.
“But you didn’t tell anyone that,” Paul says without blinking. “People will rob you if they think you have money; not me, but you still shouldn’t let me know.”
“They got someone three weeks ago down a few blocks from here for 75 bucks,” Carl adds. “Popped him when he came around the corner. He was always bragging, talking shit ‘I can afford this, I can afford that.’ He didn’t have to be down here; his parents would have paid for him to live wherever.”

Paul was very insistent that I not trust someone like Carl. “I don’t know him, maybe he’s an honest guy, but nothing’s for free with guys like him. Before long he’ll be asking for money, looking to buy alcohol.”
“You shouldn’t trust anyone down here. People here are always looking for something back, dollar here, dollar there. I’m not like that, I’m helping you because… I dunno, I’m just like that for whatever reason…”
Carl asks me for a couple bucks later. I give it to him. He’s friendly and all, but suspect Paul made a good read.

After Carl leaves, Paul says something that really hit me, changed how I saw my whole journey. He tells me he sleeps beneath a bridge (“open area, public land”) near what society considers a nice neighborhood. “Some of those people, they’re crazy. They’ll get drunk, be cursing, fighting with each other, just mean-spirited. But society accepts them. For people like me, though…”
Police drive them out of parks, businesses don’t let them use the rest room, (well they have one freebie at each place).

Without corporate assistance—here I was purposefully avoiding any corporate assistance, and I run into Paul who is denied the option. Our society’s corporate structure rejects people like him. And that’s the bottom line, despite a free lunch here, free pair of shoes there, people like Paul are perpetually without corporate assistance. What else does our society really offer?

It’s the top-down nature of corporate commercialism that scares me most—the security of the monthly paycheck, and the superficial relevance created by infotainment media. Homelessness is the observable, tangible lack of community, but how about sections of our society? How many of our interactions are like Carl’s, dependent on “getting something back”? The lack of community that characterizes homelessness is the reality that commercial corporatism tries so hard to cover up for the rest of us. It largely succeeds.
The movie Network states it better than I can:

From Network (1976) –

HOWARD BEALE: “We are right now living in what has to be called a corporate society, a corporate world, a corporate universe. This world quite simply is a vast cosmology of small corporations orbiting around larger corporations who, in turn, revolve around giant corporations and this whole, endless, ultimate cosmology is expressly designed for the production and consumption of useless things.”

NARRATOR: “It was a perfectly admissible argument that Howard Beale advanced in the days that followed; it was, however, also a very tedious and depressing one. By the end of the first week in June the Howard Beale show had dropped one point in the ratings, and its trend of shares dipped under forty-eight for the first time since last November.”

It worries me that I think he is right…

Corporate Assistance—addictive, hypnotic, and quite enjoyable. But is it real? Can it be the foundation for meaningful communities?

Epilogue:
I wasn’t very tired that night, plus had I lot of thoughts I wanted to digest, so I decide to just stay up until the library opens. Pretty unreasonable I guess, but my options were either that or to hitchhike to I-35 S from downtown. Difficulty is I didn’t really know where I need to go. “I need a ride to a better spot for getting a ride out of town” basically. Or I could read a book sitting near the library until it opens tomorrow at 10AM, 14 hours from now. This is probably more of a rationalization and I’d probably be alright hitchhiking, but like Paul advised me “don’t do anything that would attract attention to yourself down here.”
The deciding factor was that I simply felt more enthusiastic about staying up and reading even though it seems far less reasonable. Authentic enthusiasm is very important to my decision-making, I like to believe, at least.

When the library opened, I bought a ticket home from Greyhound. ($128 because had to be routed through southern Illinois, making a 20 hour drive out of what google maps says is 12 hours). A good writer would have hitch-hiked all the way, probably, not betrayed the loyalty of the reader and all. Or better yet, I could have rode a Greyhound part way, and hitch-hiked the rest of the way in.
But Colorado was an amazing hitch-hiking experience, possibly partly due to it being a holiday weekend, everyone being in a generous mood, and just the overall outdoorsy nature of the state. So perhaps it’s better not to risk being let down by other states, just yet at least. I’ll do the Southeast some other time, when I have lighter bags!

Thoughts from Kazantzakis's The Last Temptation

2009-06-15T17:46:00.003-05:00

Flesh ultimately either becomes mud and returns to dust, or becomes spirit and ascends.

Life is mostly spent somewhere in between mud and spirit—flesh strives to remain strong and firm, but never finds an upwards purpose, continuously trying to sprout wings, but in the end remaining grounded. There is contentment to be found on the ground, the ground offers security, familiarity, and acceptance. In the end, it is a choice between body and mind, flesh and spirit—the body loves the ground, seeks to become dust and return to the ground. The mind or spirit, however, strives against the ground and, seeking separation, tries to build wings and explore the world above.

To honor your father means to honor God, and to honor your mother means to honor the Earth.

Pg. 346- The old law instructs you to honor your father and your mother; but I say, Do not imprison your heart within your parents’ home. Let it emerge and enter all homes, embrace the whole of the Israel from Mount Hermon to the desert of Idumea and even beyond: east and west—the entire Universe. Our father is God, our mother is Earth. We are half soil and half sky. To honor your father and mother means to honor Heaven and Earth.

The foundation for happiness.

(from Anthony De Mello's Awareness)
“People don’t really want to grow up, people don’t really want to change, people don’t really want to be happy. As someone so wisely said to me, “Don’t try to make them happy, you’ll only get in trouble. Don’t try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it irritates the pig.” Like the businessman who goes into a bar, sits down, and sees this fellow with a banana in his ear—a banana in his ear! And he thinks, “I wonder if I should mention that to him. No, it’s none of my business.” But the thought nags at him. So after having a drink or two, he says to the fellow, “Excuse me, ah, you’ve got a banana in your ear.” The fellow says, “What?” The businessman repeats, “You’ve got a banana in your ear.” Again the fellow says, “What was that?” “You’ve got a banana in your ear!” the businessman shouts. “Talk louder,” the fellow says, “I’ve got a banana in my ear!”
So it’s useless. “Give up, give up, give up,” I say to myself. Say your thing and get out of here. And if they profit, that’s fine, and if they don’t, too bad!” – Awareness pg. 8

The foundation is the body, we argue. Each woman is to become God to one man, each man God to one woman. In this way, all become God, and all are engaged in a continual worship. Heaven and Earth are thus joined into beautiful, joyful harmony.

Pg. 359 - “Jesus of Nazareth,” said the angel, unwrapping his wing from around him, “the two sisters lighted a fire, did the milking first thing in the morning and are now preparing the milk for you. On our way, didn’t you want to ask me the meaning of Paradise? Thousands of small joys, Jesus of Nazareth. To knock at a door, to have a woman open it for you, to sit down in front of the fire, to watch her lay the table for you; and when it is completely dark, to feel her take you in her arms. That is the way the Saviour comes: gradually—from embrace to embrace, son to son. That is the road.”

The foundation is the soul

On Wanting Happiness - pg. 10

“I was saying that we don’t want to be happy. We want other things. Or let’s put it more accurately: We don’t want to be unconditionally happy. I’m ready to be happy provided I have this and that and the other thing. But this is really to say to our friend or to our God or to anyone, “You are my happiness. If I don’t get you, I refuse to be happy.” It’s so important to understand that. We cannot imagine being happy without those conditions. That’s pretty accurate. We cannot conceive of being happy without them. We’ve been taught to place our happiness in them.

Pg. 78 – Happiness is our natural state. Happiness is the natural state of little children, to whom the kingdom belongs until they have been polluted and contaminated by the stupidity of society and culture. [Why do we believe we need the “thousands of small joys” in order to be happy? That is the lie we are taught, conditioned since birth to believe in...] To acquire happiness you don’t have to do anything, because happiness cannot be acquired. Does anybody know why? Because we have it already. How can you acquire what you already have? Then why don’t you experience it? Because you’ve got to drop something. You’ve got to drop your illusions.

A Conservative Christian argument for politically accepting gay marriage -- (reemphasize politically)

2009-05-15T10:21:00.011-05:00

Sept. 10, 2009

I think I have a problem with wanting to start arguments for no reason, and tending to support contrarian positions. But anyways... the idea i've been getting at is this: for any issue that does not directly threaten the well-being of other citizens, whether the issue is religious beliefs, substance abuse, adult content in media, and even polygamy, regulation and control make more sense than a complete prohibition or ban. (The soul is never enriched by blindly following rules or “codes of proper behavior.” This is precisely why Jesus condemned the Pharisees.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 4, 2009

Okay, so my original argument was extremely naive. (It happens, I guess.) There are valid arguments for allowing homosexual marriage without legalizing group marriages. (It comes down to "Should government put restrictions on how people organize their personal relationships?" Valid affirmative arguments can be made in the name of social stability.)

A better summary of the issues than my original post--
http://www.indegayforum.org/topics/printer/26668.html

I really should have just found a message board that discusses this topic, but whatever. And
here's a site that makes a few of the points I was getting at (although it endorses polygamy religiously as well as politically.)

Final thought: Banning polygamous marriage tranquilizes the objectification of women into a socially acceptable, stable form. But is this a good thing or not? Wouldn’t Jesus say not? “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart,” right? (Matthew 5:28) The objectification of women (or men) in any form is as much a sin as adultery.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original -- May 15th, 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Why We should have Freedom of Marriage in the same way that we have Freedom of Religion--

History
The key idea is to realize that Freedom of Marriage is a technological change, and not necessarily symbolic of a changing morality in our culture.

Methods for controlling STDs and STIs have changed dramatically over the past 60 years. According to Wikipedia: “Sexually transmitted infections have been well known for hundreds of years” and “Prior to the invention of modern medicines, sexually transmitted diseases were generally incurable, and treatment was limited to treating the symptoms of the disease.”

Due to these factors, the values of traditional marriage, in addition to encouraging healthy community-oriented attitudes, have historically been used to control STIs. (funny WWII poster)

For obvious reasons, defining sexual expression as only appropriate during marriage decreased the amount of STIs within society—this is the rationale behind abstinence-only sex education. Now, of course, there are other effective methods for controlling STIs, which have made sexual activity far less dangerous to an individual’s physical safety. Sexuality is no longer the threat to physical safety that it once was.

Safety and Freedom
Government must balance physical safety with individual rights. Certain freedoms should be restricted in the interest of ensuring our physical safety—i.e., laws against hard drugs or owning bazookas. However, in cases where physical safety is not endangered, government should allow freedom for individuals to gather information and make their own choices. Crack cocaine still threatens people’s physical safety—sexuality now no longer does.

Values
Still, traditional marriage is an ideal that I believe in—traditional marriage and the values that it represents are an important part of the moral health of a community. I am against my church or pastor performing gay marriages. As it currently stands though, churches that speak against gay marriage politically are positioning themselves to be perceived by the rest of society as discriminatory, because they are trying to use politics to impose their views on everyone else.

Standing up for traditional marriage and the values it represents is not discriminatory—trying to use politics to impose your view on others, when there is no longer a threat to the physical safety of individuals, is. Just as Christianity survived the idea of freedom of religion, traditional marriage and, just as importantly, the values that it represents, will remain strong after freedom of marriage.

Churches recognize the rights of atheists to be treated politically as equal members of society—rights regarding marriage now should be given to homosexuals, and to poly-amorous families as well (and no, James Dobson, this does not have to extend to brothers and sisters—that risks the physical safety of potential offspring—or to people and animals—that's still just ridiculous.)

Conservative Christians need to understand this—need to see that Freedom is not contrary to conservative principles. God gave his creation free will for a reason—because freedom creates the best possible forum for moral development to take place.

“Community” vs. “Job Market”
All this talk about “the values of traditional marriage” may seem outdated and obsolete—in today’s America maybe so. The benefits of traditional marriage are diminished outside of strong, personal communities, and (as all of us college graduates know by now) in America, the idea of community has been replaced by the idea of the “job market"—the fight for social justice should come first and all... So bottom line, basically, thank God for people like Ralph Nader.

—Okay, so, if you’re a conservative Christian who believes in the principle of Freedom, how can you disagree with any of that?

Sports experiments I would like to see

2009-04-06T05:14:00.007-05:00

Baseball – Change to 8 fielders instead of 9.
The biggest advantage is it would reward hitting the ball, rather than waiting for either a walk or a pitch to slug, like the current system rewards. (So game would go faster, as a side advantage.) Great contact hitters like Juan Pierre, Michael Young, and Johnny Damon could legitimately be considered great players again, and Ichiro would possibly be the perennial MVP.

What would be the best way to react to this? I’m assuming have the pitcher cover first base? It’d be interesting to see what teams came up with. Other less drastic (but less fun) options are to make fields wider (but some stadiums would have to be altered), or possibly change rules about fouling balls off to stay alive (three foul offs and you’re out, or the ball has to move forward on a foul-off.)

Men’s tennis – only get 4 faults per game.
This change would be the easiest to implement and I think has real potential toward making the game more entertaining. You can go for big serves still, but not an unlimited amount. And if the game is dragged on in deuce, the advantage would shift to the fleet of foot. This could make things really enjoyable I think.

Basketball – higher rims and bigger penalty for fouling, maybe?
The combination of both of these could be interesting. Make it harder on players like Lebron to take it to the hoop, but also give a greater incentive to draw fouls—a free throw and the ball, perhaps. This would really be too much of a change though. I like basketball for the most part how it is.
(Except NBA really needs to get rid of the stupid “Timeout moves the ball to mid-court” that has hurt the last seconds of games since it was adopted in 1976. Last-second, full-court passes/drives are awesome! Look at plays #7-#3 here—and #1 if you’re a Duke fan. But yeah. None of these ever happen with NBA rules!)

Football – too many options to even consider
Football has a bunch of rules. Too complicated to try to change them!

Teach for America application essays

2008-10-28T02:15:00.002-05:00

Here are the two essays I wrote for my application to Teach for America. I received a rejection saying I was ineligible for the program since I didn't have the 2.5 GPA that TFA requires because it's required by some states for teacher certification purposes or something, so I'm assuming the essays were never read.

1st essay: The topic was “A Time You Overcame an Obstacle to Success”

Success, I think, is actually a somewhat vague concept. The idea of success that’s most prevalent in our schools, corporations, and social circles could probably be described as “getting ahead,” or “beating out others.” We compete for grades, we compete for scholarships, we compete for internships, we compete for jobs… And then that’s when the real competition begins.

I grew up going to a K-12 private college prep school in Huntsville Alabama. I remember in middle school, grades were everything to me. That’s just what my friends did at the time, I guess: play computer games and maximize the grades on our next test, our report card, etc. As far as I was concerned, education = grades. I had no conception of what one would be like without the other.

Gradually I began to differentiate between the two. Around 10th grade, I remember being in a math class that was covering something I had learned about year ago. I remembered that I had understood it pretty well a year ago, had gotten a 99 or something on the test, but a year later, I was totally clueless again. This troubled me a little bit at the time, but I didn’t really know what to do about it, so for the most part I went on trying to make good grades, believing that was the right approach for learning how to function in society.

In college, around the end of my sophomore year, I finally got it. Grades only have meaning within the academic/corporate cultures that use them. They have little relation to how smart students are, and much more relation to how willing they are to follow directions and how much time they willing to invest in them.

The problem is that schools spend little time on providing actual educations for students (teaching how society works) and too much time on training them for life in “the real world” (aka the privatized corporate business world). Sure the content may be geared toward education, but the method through which students are evaluated twists it toward corporate training.

We’ve replaced the natural reasons for learning (wanting to know how society works, how it can be improved), with “incentives” and “motivators” like grades to some extent, but most glaringly adult approval. The result is that learning occurs through imitation of processes rather than through the creation/recreation of ideas. (See my Letter of Intent.)

For me, my reasons for learning are now much more varied than simply the desire to get good grades/the approval of others. I want to learn math and physics, because I find it interesting to learn the stories behind technology, how we are able to do all the amazing things and are able to make such accurate predictions about how the world works.

Most students today equate success with acceptance into a corporate structure. They get jobs because it pays well, because it has “upward mobility”; usually not because they believe in their work. I believe my greatest success in school has been to escape form this approach to education, and begin to truly learn about our society, and how I can contribute to its progress.

2nd essay: The topic was "Why I want to join Teach for America"

Learning can be approached as imitation or as creation/re-creation.

Most teachers are somewhat aware of this distinction: they might call it memorization vs. understanding, higher level vs. lower level, or something like that. The problem is imitation is the only method that is commonly taught, because imitation is the only method that can be effectively graded. And most teachers rely on some sort of grade, or reward mechanism to control their classes.

I believe these two methods have very little in common; that being able to imitate the process of getting a “right answer”, writing a “5-paragraph essay”, etc has little to do with being able to create/recreate for yourself why math is useful in developing technologies or recreating in your mind why our country is so politically divided along party lines.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe imitation has its place; society, reality, is built on imitation. And in school also. In order to get a degree, students should prove they have attained a minimum level of proficiency in reading, writing, math and science, and imitation is a perfectly acceptable method of attaining this minimum level.

But our understanding! Our ideas! Our ideas should never be subjected to learning by imitation. An idea that is learned through imitation has no purpose, no vision of its potential, of what it could be. Imitation has its functional place in reality; there it should remain.

I believe progress is achieved through innovation, through the creation/recreation of vibrant ideas. Imitation can serve to spread and maintain existing social structures, but ideas are kept alive by people believing in them, not by people imitating what they have been told.

I think Teach for America is one of these vibrant ideas that people believe in, and that is serving to help our society progress. I believe I would benefit from and could contribute a lot to the Teach for America program. Otherwise, I’m planning on working in a high school somewhere in the southeast anyway, so no biggie either way. : )

Why I support Ralph Nader for President

2008-09-02T01:08:00.001-05:00

For me, I guess it comes down to moral authority of government. Should government be a source of moral authority? In other words, should citizens be able to look to their government when trying to find some direction or sense of community for their lives?

I believe so.

The separation of church and state does not require the absence of moral authority from government. Our nations most celebrated achievements have a significant moral dimension to them. Civil rights, the end of slavery, and the founding of our country were all at least partly pursued due to the moral claim that “All men ['men' in the universal, un-gendered sense, of course] are created equal.”

In fact, without access to government, morality itself can become impotent, unable to take significant action.

Both the Democrat and Republican parties have become dependent on corporations to:

provide media coverage that champions their platform
donate an unlimited amount of soft money to the parties, and
help pay for political rallies, such as the parties’ national conventions.

[Not to mention the unavoidable dependence politicians will have to corporations threatening to move jobs out of their district.] Hence, both parties have rejected the moral issues that Nader is trying to address: poverty, lack of medical attention, disease caused by pollution/other corporate abuses. Both parties have instead come to embrace a "corporate moral relativism" whose only ideology is that of dollars and markets.

To quote Neil Postman’s book The End of Education:

“Our genius lies in our capacity to make meaning through the creation of narratives that give point to our labors, exalt our history, elucidate the present, and give direction to our future…
“The measure of a narrative’s ‘truth’ or ‘falsity’ is in its consequences: Does it provide people with a sense of personal identity, a sense of a community life, a basis for moral conduct?"

“Our genius lies in our capacity to make meaning through the creation of narratives;” not in our capacity to create dollars.

Corporations, when they are granted too much political influence, demand that our “narratives,” our sense of community life, be rooted within business, within our economic interactions with others. That's why they demand our schools place standardized test-taking above all other concerns, such as civic participation, staying healthy, or pursuing extra-curricular interests. That’s why corporations make sure they have control over the media and the messages we hear on TV, which are often opinions from corporate-funded think-tanks.
Why? To make sure we hear the message that the creation of “wealth” (as defined in terms of monetary exchanges) is the only real way to help people, the only real ideology to build a life around.

And that’s where they get it wrong. It’s NOT money that decides what’s worthwhile; it’s the reasoned judgment of individuals.

Reasoned. As in free from the tyranny of greed, which INEVITABLY will play a role in judgment, when men trying to climb the corporate ladder gain influence over our political institutions. Of course such men will pull political strings to save their business some money; they have their employees (real people they interact with everyday) to think of and all.
Corporate abuse shouldn’t just be pinned on rogue individuals; it is a systematic problem within the structure of our economy.
And it comes at the cost of thousands of deaths and infections caused by air pollution, hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars used to pay corporate bills, and millions of people in our country living in conditions that could be improved by responsible congressional action.

I believe that Ralph Nader understands as well as, if not better than anyone, how to use government to help people, without damaging the capitalist institutions and values that have made our economy great. Equally important to me, he is standing up against the corporate moral relativism that is communicated through the structuring of our educational, industrial, and news-media systems.

Sports and our culture

2008-07-24T23:32:00.005-05:00

Read this introduction to White Fang by Jack London.

“A vast silence reigned over the land. The land itself was a desolation, lifeless, without movement, so lone and cold that the spirit of it was not even that of sadness. There was a hint of laughter, but of a laughter more terrible than any sadness—a laughter that was mirthless as the smile of the Sphinx, a laughter cold as the frost and partaking of the grimness of infallibility. It was the masterful and incommunicable wisdom of eternity laughing at the futility of life and the effort of life. It was the Wild, the savage, frozenhearted Northland Wild.

“But there was life, abroad in the land and defiant. ...

“On wide snowshoes, toiled a man. At the rear of the sled toiled a second man. On the sled, in the box, lay a third man whose toil was over—a man whom the Wild had conquered and beaten down until he would never move nor struggle again. It is not the way of the Wild to like movement. Life is an offense to it, for life is movement; and the Wild aims always to destroy movement. It freezes the water to prevent it running to the sea; it drives the sap out of the trees till they are frozen to their mighty hearts; and most ferociously and terribly of all does the Wild harry and crush into submission man—man, who is the most restless of life, ever in revolt against the dictum that all movement must in the end come to the cessation of movement.”

Our society takes the wrong approach to sports. We see sports as competition against other people; this is not as it should be. Sports are a competition not against other people but a competition against Nature, against “the Wild”. And don’t for a second believe we have overcome the Wild’s desire to end our movement with technology. Look at a nursing home; we are still “ever in revolt” against a Nature that will “crush into submission man”.

Sports are not about winning. They’re a competition not against other men, but against Nature. Sports are about movement, and not letting old-age or apathy destroy it.

Substitute Teaching

2008-05-01T03:32:00.001-05:00

I’ve been substitute teaching for about 3 weeks now; it’s not hard, sometimes kinda fun, and pays $70 a day for about 4 and half hours of actual teaching (you have to be there for 7 hours though, planning periods and lunch and all.) I’ve mainly done middle school math classes, and the teachers usually leave some pretty basic worksheet for the students to work on for the whole period. A few kids wanna actually learn how to do the work and all, about half the class just wants to talk, some kids want to run and throw stuff around, and the rest of the class just sits there bored out of their minds.

Okay, now I ask myself, why are most these kids even here? The ones who actually want to learn, alright yeah makes sense, but the rest? Why can’t they be outside playing or doing that they have an actual interest in? Yeah, there’s the whole you need to know stuff for college, for your future job, etc, but is this really relevant when you’re in middle school? I’m not sure our current education system has a good answer to these questions.

The way I see it, our K-12 education system vastly overemphasizes graded coursework. Before I go any further, let me say what is good about graded coursework, and why it is an important part of our education system. 200 years ago, there was virtually no economic mobility in our society: if your parents were poor, you would also be poor. The poor simply had no access to any sort of economic opportunities. Now, that has changed. Now, everyone goes to school, and everyone is ranked by their grades. Any one who makes mostly A’s in high school can at least go to their state university, and if they do well there, they have access to all types of high-paying salaries. It doesn’t matter what family you are from, who you know, or what “connections” you have; ranking people by their grades gives everyone access to many of the economic opportunities within our society.

Having said that, I believe our society vastly overemphasizes graded coursework. Education could and should be about so much more than the allocation of economic opportunities. Yet students spend 6 hours a day in classrooms, grades K-12, in order to be ranked, sorted, and inserted into the economic position that they “earned.” Like I said earlier, I think there is value in this process, but I believe we should spend maybe 3 years, grades 10-12 on it, rather than the 13 years we currently spend on grading coursework and analyzing standardized test scores.

Seriously, is anyone else tired of being told what to study, what to do with all your time? I mean, it’s not so bad if you have a clear idea of what career you want, and are doing the work to get the degree that allows you to have that career. But do we really need to shut fifth and sixth-graders in classrooms for 6 hours a day forcing them to study triangles, governments in Asia, how to classify rocks, literature that they have no interest in, etc? And then we give them an hour or two of homework a night, on top of all that? Come on! We don’t need to spend 13 years on all this crap in order to get kids to the minimum level of proficiency at reading, writing, and manipulating numbers that our economy requires.

From grades K-8 or 9, there is no good reason to pressure kids into learning. School at this level should rather be a supportive community where kids are allowed to freely pursue their interests. (A couple of them might even be interested in those triangles, rocks, or literature.) I’m reading a book about a school in Massachusetts called Sudbury Valley that has no set courses for students to attend. If students are interested in something, they find others who are interested and talk to them or they read books about it; they design their own courses of study, if they choose to have any courses at all. The idea behind this approach is that we’re now in a post-Industrial economy that needs innovative workers, while our country’s current educational system is based on an Industrial economy that requires workers who can easily learn to do specific repetitive tasks. Here are a couple excerpts from some articles about the school that help explain the school’s philosophy.

“People come to SVS and see it as being in "perpetual recess," and it gives them a little twinge and perhaps they start worrying. But just remember this: these schools that we all grew up in, with their classes, their curricula, their SAT's and Achievement Tests and Placement Tests, their grade levels and exams, these schools are relative newcomers to the scene! They're only about one-hundred-fifty years old. They were started by people who sat down and thought about education and said, "This is the kind of school we need to create a great industrial society." And do you know what happened? People in the 19th century used to walk into those "newfangled schools" and experience culture shock! They'd say, "This is a school? My kids could be spending their time productively out in the fields on the farm. They could be apprenticing as tradesmen, or as craftsmen, or doing all sorts of useful things. You mean to tell us that taking kids and sitting them at desks and having them write on chalkboards, that's a school? You're calling that education?" They had just as weird a feeling then as people have today looking at Sudbury Valley! It took many, many years for people to get used to the industrial-age schools which are so accepted now!” – from http://www.sudval.com/05_underlyingideas.html#08

“I always get into arguments about “the basics,” especially with academicians. They always come back to me with math. I love it when people discuss math, because I cannot imagine a subject that more people hate than math. It is universally hated, but nevertheless everybody comes back with, “How are they going to make it in life if they don’t all know math?” My answer is always, “As far as I know, nobody ever uses math, really, unless they’re in a math-related field, like engineering.” The truth is, if a kid wants to become an engineer he’s going to figure out pretty early on that if he doesn’t know math he’s not going to be an engineer, and he’ll learn math quickly and easily, which is our experience. There’s nothing to it when you want to learn it. But I don’t even try to teach anybody who isn’t invested in learning math. I keep asking people: if they walked into a supermarket and went to the cash register, and had a cashier there with a piece of paper who started putting down a long column of all the prices on the things in their carriage, and then started adding it up the way they were taught in school, would they ever shop in that supermarket again? And would they trust the addition? It’s ridiculous!” - from http://www.sudval.com/05_underlyingideas.html#05

I do believe in the ideas behind universal education, that knowing how society works is something everyone can benefit from. However, I disagree with the idea of pressuring and coercing students to learn, especially to the extent that our current educational system does. As a teacher I will do my best to encourage without pressuring, requiring, or coercing my students.

Corporations vs. Capitalism

2007-10-08T21:46:00.000-05:00

So, I've been thinking about like the economy lately. And, umm, here are my conclusions:

Okay, Corporations vs. Capitalism. I'm gonna start with some simple observations, I guess.

Corporations want the most capable person working for them. To make sure they get the most capable, corporations encourage people to ask themselves “What already existing job is my resume competitive enough for me get?” Capitalism, however, encourages people to ask “What’s a job that our society needs more of?” because capitalism rewards people who provide the goods/services that society most needs. That’s always been the strength of capitalism: it encourages creativity and innovation within the economy. Corporations, however, seem to reward optimization (think Walmart), but also sleek presentation (think car manufacturers, alcohol or fast food).

But the important thing is to be aware of the question that corporations and capitalism get people to ask when deciding their careers. Corporations encourage “What’s a stable job that provides the highest salary?” while Capitalism gets people to ask “What do people need more of? What business has the most long-term growth potential?” It’s a difference of “What can I get” vs. “What do people need?”

One concern is that instead of getting people to think about what goods/services society needs, people are just concerned about getting people to choose their particular good/service. Like fast food. I’m not like anti-McDonalds; fast food has its place and all; but I think it’s safe to say that it’s fairly overrated in our society. But, despite it being way overrated (or maybe because it is overrated), people get paid lots of money for coming up with ways to get people to choose fast food over the cheaper, healthier options at the supermarket. (And cooking vegetables or pasta at home isn’t necessarily ‘slower’ than going out for ‘fast’ food, either.)

But it’s not just about advertising, I don’t think. It’s about who gets what jobs. Jobs are a method of allocating money, something that businesses often have a lot of. There’s some people who really need a reliable source of income, and would work hard to keep that opportunity. But other people are used to reliable source of income, and might be more happy if they have a job that makes them feel like they are helping people, even if it’s for a little less money than they would otherwise be making.

I’m concerned that we are over-encouraging people to enter the already-established business world, rather than pursuing jobs that society needs more of. There is something within high school and college, some “corporate force” I guess, that is over-encouraging us to ask “What already existing job is my resume competitive enough for me get?” and under-encouraging us to ask “What’s a job that our society needs more of?” Corporations vs. Capitalism. “What can I get” vs. “What do people need?”

I’m not saying it’s wrong to pursue “what can I get.” Pursuing “What can I get” will probably provide people with a better starting income, and some people need that and would be grateful to get that opportunity. But I think a lot of people would be better off pursuing “What do people need?” Pursuing that question with your career is likely to be more psychologically rewarding, because you’ll believe you are helping people, could be more stable, and could be more financially rewarding over time, because it requires you to be innovative/creative so you might come up with something people really actually want, and have a successful business. That’s how capitalism is supposed to work, right?

So then, why are we being over-encouraged to ask the corporation question? Hmm, something to do with systems and control, maybe? I dunno, basically I think I need to watch The Matrix again. : )

11th grade Enlgish essay

2007-08-10T14:30:00.000-05:00

It cracks me up to look back at the essays I have written for various classes throughout high school and college. Not necessarily because I think they’re silly or something now, but more because of the whole idea of assigning specific topics and then assigning grades to those essays. How exactly do teachers give out these grades? Actually, I understand how they give out the grades; it’s whether the essay meets their expectations or not. I can understand writing comments on an essay and giving plenty of your opinions and feedback to the student, but the idea of assigning a grade to it still cracks me up. Remember, this is not like Ebert giving a movie 2 stars, or 4 stars. With movies, the directors want to make the movie. They are the ones claiming that their movie is worth seeing. With the typical high school or college essay, however, the teacher tells students what to write about, and then criticizes or praises it on whether it meets his or her expectations. The analogy would be Ebert requiring Steven Spielberg to make a movie about “how Tolkien weaves historical themes into The Lord of the Rings” or some such nonsense, and then praising or criticizing the job that Spielberg does. That’s what cracks me up. If its “historical themes of The Lord of the Rings" that Ebert cares about, why doesn’t he make the movie about it.

In all my literature classes and history classes, I don’t ever remember the teacher writing and sharing an essay that they wrote with the class. Thinking back on this now, I actually find this kind of odd. Why did none of my teachers share an essay that they wrote with the class? It’s like they were more interested in doing stuff to students instead of with students, is all I can figure.

Anyway, back to the papers I wrote, I basically took the same approach to every essay assignment I ever had: that is, write about what interests me within the general subject we are studying and then force those thoughts into the requirements the teacher asked for. This same approach usually resulted in approximately the same grade, also: usually about a C (I’ve gotten anywhere from a B+ to a D, I think, but C has probably been my average), but I had actually fun writing the essays about ideas that interest me, so I don’t regret it. I haven’t really read enough of other students essays to really know whether or not I have missed something about “writing clearly” or “giving convincing examples” had I actually tried to meet my teachers’ expectations, but I would suspect the answer to be “I haven’t.”

Here’s an essay I wrote in 11^th grade about one of my favorite books, Brave New World. I used to actually care about my grades enough to get frustrated when I got below an A-/B+ on anything (though not enough to change the way I wrote essays, apparently), so I threw out most of the graded copies of my essays. But I’ve still got’em on my comp. I think I got a C- on this particular essay, maybe a C+ or something though, but I actually like some of my ideas. And you can actually see how I forced those ideas into the requirements of the assignment (apparently some sort of compare and contrast assignment in this case), so like I said at first, it kinda makes me laugh.

Tom Burwell

Society Exposed

Conditioning is an addiction; perpetuated by societal pressures and the comfort we take from the stability conditioned behavior offers, it tears away our individuality. Both A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley address this issue through the conformity of the societies within the books. Conditioning affects both how people think and what behaviors feel comfortable to us. These two effects work together to deceive us by making us find comfort and stability within certain assumptions and ways of thinking. However, if we resist settling for what is comfortable to us and confront our assumptions with logic, we can break free from conditioning.

Conditioning affects the way we think by making us oblivious to other ways of thinking. When a person is conditioned all of his life to live in a certain way, he often may continue to live in this way, simply because he does not know any other. For example, in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, a farmer helps hunt down his neighbors who had been falsely accused of killing a lord. He and the other farmers “seemed to feel that in a quarrel between a person of their won class and his lord, it was the natural and proper and rightful thing for that poor devil’s whole caste to side with the master and fight his battle for him” (180). They had been conditioned to think in this way all their lives. However, when Hank talks reasonably with him, he is glad to speak of rebellion against the lord, but is also cautious to deviate from conditioned way of thinking. “He looked pleased; pleased, and touched with apprehension at the same time” (182). The apprehension comes from his conditioned way of thinking. The farmer’s loyalty to the lord is formed around the fact that he never thought of another way to behave. When Hank presented an alternate, more reasonable way to think, the farmer, although a little cautious at first, was glad to side with reason.

While one whose community is treated so harshly would be happy to find a new of thinking, in many situations it is not so easy to side with reason. This is because conditioning also determines what we find to be comfortable and what “the line of least resistance,” (222) as Mustapha Mond calls it in Brave New World, is for us. Although people may not find their current life perfect at all times, they have still grown accustomed to it. Many resist change because it disrupts the stability of the system they know. I believe a more complete view of this conflict within man is given in the description of Bernard Marx, who is often miserable within the society in Brave New World. He asks “what would it be like… if I were free—not enslaved by my conditioning?” (91), as if he wished he lived in a different situation. However, when an opportunity to change arises, he is very resistant to it and even cries “Send me to an island?…You can’t send me. I haven’t done anything” (226). The conflict we see in Bernard is the same conflict that arises later in the discussion between Mustapha Mond and John. Which is more important: truth or comfort? John asks the controller “isn’t it natural to feel there’s a God?” (234). The Controller responds saying it is no longer natural because what a person naturally believes is dependant on conditioning. “One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them” (234,235). The civilization in Brave New World has redefined what is natural for man by altering the laws of nature. However, in doing so, they lose what is really most wonderful about life. They lack all that is actually meaningful in life.

Twain writes

“We have no thoughts of our own, no opinions of our own; they are transmitted to us, trained into us. All that is original in us, and therefore fairly creditable or discreditable to us, can be covered up by the point of a cambric needle… And as for me, all that I think about in this plodding sad pilgrimage, this pathetic drift between the eternities, is to look out and humbly live a pure and high and blameless life, and save that one microscopic atom in me that is truly me: the rest may land in Sheol and welcome for all I care” (91).

Although at first Twain seemingly agrees with Mustapha Mond, (that man believes what he believes because he is conditioned to do so), Twain also speaks of a speck of meaningfulness within people. This, which civilization has eliminated in Brave New World, also is the only thing worth saving.

What exactly is this speck of individuality of which Twain speaks? When I am trying to make a judgment about something, I usually think of situations that I have experienced in order to determine what is right or wrong. However, to “humbly live a pure and high and blameless life” suggests that there is an absolute ideal out there; right and wrong are not dependent on my experiences. There is also a truth that I can learn through reason, and, while my experiences may be helpful in discovering this truth, they are not necessary.

When Mustapha Mond asks John if he claims the right to be unhappy, it is the controller who is at last held back by conditioning and John who is finally under control of reason and not reliant upon Shakespeare for his answers. It is the controller who has been so conditioned his life to detest the “necessary” tears and pains of unhappiness, that he automatically rejects the notion that unhappiness would be worth the good that accompanies it. He sees happiness and truth as equal ideals between which man must choose. John, however, understands the true difference. He realizes that, in the end, the smallest truth, although it comes with “the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind,” (240) is better than even the absolute happiness offered by the society in Brave New World.

Truth is all that can have real meaning. Stability and comfort use pleasure to create an instantaneous sense of fulfillment. This is where the civilization in Brave New World has its flaw. Citizens are conditioned to believe that their purpose is to be a proper part of the “social body” to ensure its stability. However, while most of the citizens will be fooled by the sense of fulfillment from the pleasures available in their society, one such as Helmholtz or Bernard, who do not have the pleasures, may discover the lack of fulfillment within this purpose.

Conditioning controls us through our ignorance of other ways of things and the deception of comfort. However, when we stand up against it with logic, truth will win every time. Of course, this leaves us with the problem of knowing what truth is. It is important to know the difference between being conditioned and using experiences to help discover truth. We must always look for the beauty that lies in understanding. Truth has a certain “thunder” that awakens that speck of individuality within us and allows us to see the beauty of reality that is inherent in all that is true. It is through this beauty that we can realize that the pains and sufferings in life are necessary. The choice of sin, including all the pain and discomfort that comes with it, must be available to us in order for the selection of virtue to possess the beauty and goodness that lets us know it is right.

More on Religion

2007-03-27T20:06:00.000-05:00

"I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian." - Mahatma Gandhi, January 19, 1928

(When asked if he was a Hindu) Yes I am, I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew.

What if Westernized Christianity got it wrong? What if Jesus's Great Commission to us (“go and make disciples of all nations”) does not call us to convert individuals of another faith to Christianity? What if, rather, we are called to share the transformative influence of Christ’s message with members of other religions? In other words, we are called to help members of other religions to interpret and live out their faith in a more life-transforming way, in a way that is more in line with God’s purposes for their lives.

And, perhaps, (I would say it is very likely, in fact) this process of sharing in our faiths will lead us to grow in our interpretation of the Bible, God’s Word to us.

As Gandhi also said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Religions_Initiative

Limits and Potentials of Words and Religion

2007-03-25T11:58:00.000-05:00

Words are not reality. Words are just metaphors that tell us about the way humans categorize the world, the way we conceptualize our experiences. Words are the map, not the territory. Words should be judged based on usefulness; not “rightness.”

(For more about this, look here or maybe start here)

We don't "see" reality. The word "sight" is a metaphor that we use to conceptualize patterns of color and light that reach our eyes. Sight is a map, and the map is not the territory. Sight should be judged based on usefulness, not “rightness.”

We can't "hear" reality. The word "hearing" is a metaphor that we use to conceptualize vibrations in the air. Hearing is a map, and the map is not the territory.

"Smell" is not reality. "Smell" is a metaphor that we use to conceptualize gas molecules that reach our nose.

But then again, these terms, “patterns of color and light”, “vibrations in the air”, “gas molecules”, these terms are not reality either. These terms are words, meaning they are metaphors that tell us how we humans categorize the world. Really all we can say about the sense perceptions, sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste, is that they are metaphors that we use to conceptualize the “bits of reality” (patterns of color, vibrations in the air, gas molecules that reach our nose) that reach us.

The point is that reality exists completely independently of the words (the categorizations, classifications, and divisions) we use to conceptualize it. Words categorize, classify and divide reality in ways that are extremely useful to us; people find sight, hearing and smelling to be very useful metaphors by which to remember and communicate their experiences to others. However, the “rightness” of words is determined solely by the usefulness of those words; not by some philosophical or theological truth.

Applying this to religion, we see that “religion,” like any other series of words, cannot exist independently from humans, from our limited ability to conceptualize and interpret reality. All religions are just human creations used to explain who God is. And God exists outside religion. There is no “absolutely true religion,” in the same way that there are no “absolutely true words” that “correctly” describe reality. The “rightness” of religion must be judged only by usefulness, just as the rightness of any other words must be judged. Reality exists completely independently of the words we use to describe it, and God (whatever your conception of this word is) exists completely independently of the words we use to describe Him (or it, or whichever pronoun is most suitable to your line of thinking.)

Some religions are good at “drawing people closer to God”, “giving people direction in life”, or whatever you think that religion is for. But the idea that some religions are “right” and others are “wrong” is a misconception. Some religions are useful; others are less useful. That is all.

Addendum: The reason I consider myself Christian is that I think Christianity is the most useful religion for my life right now. (I also think the Christianity presents a very powerful set of beliefs for anyone to order their life by, but I’ll address that in a minute.) Christianity gives my life a strong sense of direction and a strong set of ideals to live by. But if someone is currently productively involved in another religion, Christianity probably would not be the most useful religion for their life, given their place in their society; such a person should not convert to Christianity, if doing so would decrease their usefulness to society as a whole.

Given Christianity’s prominence in my culture, even if I thought there was a more powerful, useful religion out there, I would be Christian right now, because given my place in my culture, it would still be currently the most useful for my life. The goal of society is for natural continued growth and evolution. You don’t have to believe in the most useful religion (whatever religion you believe that to be) to contribute to this goal.

I would hope these opinions would not make me “undevout” in the eyes of other Christians. I believe that the story of Christ’s death and resurrection, combined with its historical significance to our world, contains a very powerful set of ideals and a very powerful vision of the potentials that life has, and I love being part of a community that shares in this belief! The danger with religion, as with any words, is that we let the conception (the words themselves) cover up the purpose, the usefulness that the ideas have for our lives. We should remember that God exists outside of religion, and that all religions can be useful at bringing people closer to His purposes for their lives.

Review of the movie Freedom Writers

2007-02-09T03:21:00.000-05:00

This is an extra-credit essay I wrote for my education class about the movie Freedom Writers, which tells the story of a teacher and her students in a public school in LA in the mid 90's.

I found Freedom Writers to be a valuable movie for anyone who would like to see real improvement in public education. It’s important to understand the movie is trying to tell an inspirational story. It does not attempt to paint a realistic picture of the problems and solutions of American education. Yet, in telling its story, it does show some first steps we can take in improving education in America.

The film created a strong contrast between Erin Gruwell’s way of teaching and the “standard" school approach of “getting students to obey,” as the movie put it. The movie showed how effective teaching requires us to build off of the everyday experiences of the students.

In an interview I found online, the real Erin Gruwell was asked how other teachers can replicate her success in the classroom. Her answer was, “Allow your students to teach you about what they know and where they come from. Make your curriculum relevant to their lives.” I believe this is excellent advice; advice that every teacher should remember and apply. But how can we apply this? A teacher like Mrs. Gruwell’s “opponent” in the movie can stand in front of a class and talk about how important and how “relevant to their lives” it is for them to do their work so they can get into a top college, but is this what Gruwell is talking about? I would argue possibly so in specific cases, but definitely not in general. Gruwell is saying to design your curriculum in a way that applies directly to students’ lives; in a way that might affect how students spend their free time that day.

In the movie, Mrs. Gruwell paid attention to what her students said about the effects of gang violence in their lives, and responded by designing the curriculum around that theme. The lessons involved what the students cared about; not what the teacher or state had required. The first steps to effectively teaching any group of students are to interact with them, “learn what they know and where they come from,” and most importantly, be responsive to who they are.

An important question for teachers to answer is “what is the point of education?” Mrs. Gruwell faces this question the moment she steps into school. Is the point to “follow orders,” to “make the children obey, and learn discipline”? Or should education involve being responsive to individual students? Should teachers restrict their lessons to what the system has decided is best for the students’ futures? Or should teachers take an interest in what the students are interested in?

Mrs. Gruwell made it clear that she was going to put the students ahead of any regulation or requirement the school system had in place. An important part of being a teacher is to make sure that your students know you’re both on the same side; that you genuinely care about their goals for the future; that you will try to help them in whatever issues they are dealing with. Mrs. Gruwell was honest with her students and encouraged them to be honest with her, not to be afraid to voice how they really felt about something. Also she was open to their suggestions about what activities and issues the class should cover. The ability to express their feelings and having some influence over the curriculum were key elements in getting the students to form relationships and “feel like a family” with their classmates. It’s only in such a supportive atmosphere that students like the quiet Latino student will be able to open up and express how “this classroom is the only place where I feel like I’m at home.”

Granted, the movie probably did leave out a lot of the struggle of how hard it would be to reach the average student in the way the students in the movie reacted. I found it a little difficult to believe that students would be so diligent in their reading and so personally affected by The Diary of Anne Frank, etc. just because Mrs. Gruwell assigned the book to them. I think a scene showing Mrs. Gruwell talking about what literature is, how it can affect us, and maybe suggesting some questions for her students to think about while they were reading would have fit well in the movie.

I personally like the idea of ungraded assignments, such as the journals that the kids wrote. I think school should encourage students to explore their different interests and possible career paths freely, without the threat of “bad grades.” But, whether assignments are being graded or not, the important thing is to emphasize what the subject can tell us about how to approach our everyday lives; to emphasize that aspect of education over grades, “getting into the best college,” “getting a high-paying job,” etc. For example, Mrs. Gruwell used journal writing as a means for her students to reflect about who they were and where their life was headed, and used literature as a means for her students to find inspiration and hope that they can look to when making decisions about their life.

Luckily for us, we don’t even have to give emotional speeches about the holocaust, or fly in speakers from around the world to get students to be affected by what they learn in school. Because these issues arise naturally from the subjects we already are studying in classrooms. Unfortunately, the way it is now, pressures of grades and rewards often overshadow the true benefits that education has to offer. But if the emphasis is taken away from grading and rewards, as the movie illustrates, issues about how we live would return to their rightful spot as the central emphasis of the subjects.

I especially appreciated the way the movie paralleled the class’s struggles with Mrs. Gruwell’s own struggles involving family life. Her students are learning to treat the classroom as a place to grow and develop relationships, instead of just somewhere they have to spend the next 45 minutes; she is learning to treat teaching as an important part of who she is, instead of just a job she is doing for money or status. This parallel highlights an important theme of the movie: should we view work (and school also) as a shaping who we are, or should it just be a way for us to make money? Certainly there is no one, correct answer to this issue; everyone must find the balance that is appropriate for themselves and their situation. When her husband leaves (assuredly to go to Seattle and find his true calling in medical school), Erin is clearly hurt and shocked, but her identity is in no way devastated. She has chosen to allow her job as a teacher to define who she is, at least as much, if not more so, than her marriage.

When her father tells Erin how much he genuinely admired what she had accomplished, an important truth about education is revealed. Parents and teachers pressure their children and their students to make good grades and get good jobs as a way of expressing their love and care. At first, her father was skeptical that Erin would be successful as a teacher and so was trying to push her toward law school, a career path he understood. Tragically, this “loving pressure” often discourages children from exploring new areas and, perhaps, from finding a job or activity they would love. Parents and teachers want to expect the highest from their children. Unfortunately making demands and pressuring are the primary ways our culture has taught them to communicate these expectations.

With Mrs. Gruwell as an example, we can learn to pay attention to what children care about, and adapt our expectations with the child’s goals in mind. Like Mrs. Gruwell did in reevaluating her class’s curriculum, we should make sure our expectations are in harmony with what our kids care about and take interest in. We should replace the demanding expectations that we too often believe are “necessary” because “I went through that in school” with supportive expectations that are still set just as high, but, like the journal assignment that Mrs. Gruwell gave her students, are guided by what the students care about.

Mrs. Gruwell’s father’s admission of his admiration is proof that miscommunicated supportive expectations are behind many of the demands placed on students. If we follow the example Mrs. Gruwell sets in Freedom Writers, the power of supportive expectations could be set into motion in classrooms across America. Of course, for this to happen, some fundamental changes need to occur in the way education is approached. Rather than seeing learning as a “one way street” with knowledge passing only from teacher to student, classrooms must:

1) allow students to define for themselves what is interesting about a subject and

2) become places that encourages students to build relationships around their interest so that they will continue to explore the subject as far as their interest takes them.

If there is one message to take from “Freedom Writers,” it is that change is possible. Mrs. Gruwell’s class of Freedom Writers showed us that simply being honest and genuinely caring for eachother make up some of the most powerful motivations available to us and can overcome some of even the hardest obstacles. If we start by simply striving to establish those two values in our classrooms, and we refuse to let the current mess of the system get in the way, I believe we’ll be well on our way.

Why I'm in education

2007-01-21T17:13:00.000-05:00

The primary reason I feel called to education is concern.

I’m concerned with the way education tends to be viewed solely in terms of an individual’s economic abilities. I’m concerned that teachers go into the profession with the primary goal of preparing students for standardized tests rather than cultivating a real love for learning within them.

I first got interested in education when I read Summerhill School by A.S. Neill. At Summerhill, students were never pressured to learn; they did not have to attend classes if they chose not to. Education was a completely natural process.

Clearly public education cannot hope to replicate Summerhill's system of allowing children to go to class only when they want to. However, the message that could be applied to public education is that children do not need to be pressured into learning. Summerhill shows that, if you show children caring support, they will eventually come around and listen to your advice and respect the caring expectations (as opposed to demanding expectations) you have for their lives.

My vision of public education is one that does not use grades, evaluations and rewards to pressure students into learning. (I believe grades are needed only for certification purposes once someone has decided what career they want to go into.) Education should not just be about preparing children to plug the open jobs in the economy; it should enable students to excel in all aspects of life within society: how to stay healthy, how to be a caring person, etc. These issues arise naturally out of studying subjects like biology and literature, but only when the emphasis is taken away from grading and rewards, which often overshadow the true benefits that education has to offer.

Assessment can be a useful source of feedback for students, but as soon as a reward, a ranking, or any other college acceptance criteria is attached to the assessment, those things begin to block out the original reason for studying the subject. We should teach students to be motivated by the natural rewards of an activity; not pressure them into activities with an onslaught of artificial motivators and pressures.

The key to getting education to reach its full potential is to get students to understand how the subject should affect their lives outside of the classroom. To do this, it is important that students understand the reasons for studying each subject; to understand what makes the subject relevant to the way they approach everyday life. (I’m not talking about when science textbooks explain how GPS works and so on. Those things can be interesting, but I’m talking about how subjects can change the way we think and act, as opposed to just being aware of how things work.) For example, math and science teach us not just about how technology works, but also how to think about the world rationally.

In fact, each subject can teach us a way of thinking that can be applied to our everyday lives.

Making some slight alterations to Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, I think intelligence can be separated into six primary areas that define the way we approach life. Gardner defines intelligence as “the ability to solve problems that have value in at least one culture.” The “problems” an individual faces can be separated into three areas: mental, bodily, and social. There are two general approaches we use to solving these problems: a rational approach or an emotional approach.

So, for example, when we approach social problems in a rational way, I would claim we are using what Gardner called “Logical-mathematical” intelligence.

These distinctions leave us with 6 core intelligences that people use to approach their problems:

Core intelligences	Means that you apply:	Interpretation:
Logical-mathematical	Reason --> Society	Understanding society rationally
Bodily-Kinesthetic/ Athletic?	Reason --> Body	Understanding your body rationally
Intrapersonal	Reason --> Personality	Understanding your feelings rationally
Interpersonal	Feelings --> Society	Understanding society emotionally
Sensual	Feelings --> Body	Understanding your body emotionally
Artistic	Feelings --> Mind	Understanding your thoughts emotionally

What makes this significant to someone interested in teaching is that the subjects taught in school naturally address these same problems. This chart answers the question “Why do we study these subjects?”

6 Core Intelligences	Means that you apply:	Interpretation:	Subjects/activities that teach this intelligence:
Logical-mathematical	Reason --> World	Understanding the world rationally	Math, Sciences, History
Bodily-Kinesthetic/ Athletic?	Reason --> Body	Understanding your body rationally	Health and exercise, Sports
Intrapersonal/ Introspective	Reason --> Personality	Understanding your feelings rationally	Philosophy, Reflection, Journal writing
Interpersonal	Feelings --> World	Understanding the world emotionally	Social interactions, Story-telling, Group activities
Sensual	Feelings --> Body	Understanding your body emotionally	Dance, Rhythmic aspect of music
Artistic	Feelings --> Mind	Understanding your thoughts emotionally	Art, creative writing, melodic aspect of music

From this we see that education does not need to be solely about economic preparation, and also that grades and rewards are not needed to make academic subjects relevant to students’ lives. Rather, educators should show how lessons apply to the mental, bodily, and social problems that students are dealing with. Rather than emphasizing grades or other methods of assessment, math teachers should emphasize how math teaches us to use logic and reason to understand our society; art teachers should emphasize that drawing or painting can help us reach an emotional understanding about the thoughts that pass through our heads, etc.

There is great potential within education to improve the way people function in society in their life outside their work. Certainly, it’s good that education can lead to many good economic opportunities, but I believe we need to view education in a much broader context. Education should involve all aspects of our relationship to society. Good parenting, being a supportive friend, and keeping yourself healthy: education should cover all these aspects of life.

When education is limited to just the economic aspect of life, those students who are concentrating on other aspects of life get unfairly criticized. What’s more, that criticism pressures students to devote themselves to economic goals not out of a genuine interest in achieving those goals, but out of a fear of the criticism that will follow if they fail. So instead of exploring different topics and searching for a career they will love and enjoy, the pressure causes students to push themselves into career paths they may not be happy in. The end result is a lot of unnecessary time, energy, and stress spent in service to the economy. This occurs at the expense of our mental health, bodily health, and social health.

The power of music

2006-09-14T14:42:00.000-05:00

Listening to music recalls memories from our lives, and so listening sensitively to music helps us to better know ourselves. The ordering of the melody or the rhythm reflects the way our thoughts are ordered.

Subconsciously we all realize this. Our favorite songs are the ones that call forth the strongest responses from our mind, the ones whose ordering best reflects the ordering of our own thoughts.

Listen sensitively to music! Take time to listen to your favorite songs without surfing the internet at the same time, playing a game, thinking about all you have to do, or whatever. Allow yourself just to listen and let the music affect you. Reflect on what images from your life the music brings to mind. This is music’s chief power over us and the primary benefit that it offers.

For example, You Never Give Me Your Money, Golden Slumbers, and Carry That Weight at the end of the Beatles’ album Abbey Road, always produce strong feelings when I listen to them. The transition from the youthful enthusiasm of pursuing “One sweet dream!” expressed in You Never Give Me Your Money to bearing weight of expectations in Carry That Weight brings forth a barrage of images from my own experience of how, in elementary school and middle school, I was always eager to work to do what was required to get a high grade, but then in high school this enthusiasm and eagerness to “become successful” became a giant weight on my life.

Misstatement

2006-09-13T18:47:00.000-05:00

I just realized I made a misstatement in my post about religion. I still stand by the basic point of my post that religion should serve to unite people of all different beliefs. However, in my post I stated "Nothing about Christianity should ever be used to separate or further divide humanity."

I actually contradicted this statement with the quote that came right after it: "The true division of humanity is between those who live in light and those who live in darkness. Our aim must be to diminish the number of the latter and increase the number of the former." - Victor Hugo

The truth is that Christianity is a religion about transforming one's life, and any attempt to transform will always be met with resistance of some kind, and therefore, with occasional division. What I should have said was that "Nothing except the fundamental religious truth of Christianity (or, as Hugo stated, 'the division between those who live in light and those who live in darkness') should ever separate or divide humanity."

Alright, in the future I'll try to move away from this sort of logical argumentation. I've become convinced that stories are the natural method of transmitting all types of knowledge. (Keep in mind that logic can still play a major role in stories; it's just that in stories, logic is always accompanied by relevant examples or explanation of the purpose of the argument.) So, altough it might be a little rough at first (I've never really been much of a "story" person), I'll try to include more stories in my future posts.

Also

2006-09-12T17:12:00.000-05:00

Just wanted to add this excerpt from De Mello's book The Song of the Bird that illustrates the point of my last post.

The World Fair of Religions – Anthony De Mello

My friend and I went to the fair. THE WORLD FAIR OF RELIGIONS. Not a trade fair. But the competition was as fierce, the propaganda loud.

At the Jewish stall we were given handouts that said that God was all-compassionate and the Jews were his Chosen People. The Jews. No other people were as chosen as they.

At the Moslem stall we learned that God was all-merciful and Mohammed is his only Prophet. Salvation comes from listening to God’s Prophet.

At the Christian stall we discovered that God is love and there is no salvation outside the Church. Join the Church or risk eternal damnation.

On the way out I asked my friend, “What do you think of God?” He replied, “He is bigoted, fanatical, and cruel.”

Back home, I said to God, “How do you put up with this sort of thing, Lord? Don’t you see they have been giving you a bad name for centuries?”

God said, “It wasn’t I who organized the fair. In fact, I’d be too ashamed to visit it.”

Apply the religious aspects of Christianity to religion; apply the historical aspects to history, the literary aspects to literature, etc.

View on Religion

2006-09-11T12:56:00.000-05:00

Can’t have a philosophy blog that doesn’t address religion at some point, right? Not a proper one, at least, I guess. As most people reading this probably know, I personally am Christian. To me though, this should not be the cause of any sort of division between myself and others. Of course, a key part of Christianity is the Great Commission that the followers of Jesus should go out and spread His message. But I think it’s key for Christians to realize this means spreading the Christian way of living and has nothing to do with spreading the Christian set of beliefs. We should be concerned only with getting people to live in a Christ-like way; not with getting people to call themselves Christians.

“I gave up my religious convictions and practices because I just didn’t want to participate in any division of the human race, whether religious or political.” – Erich Fromm (psychologist and author)

“Religious people in general are so discriminatory against other people, and that really disturbs me. My idea of religion is we all love and respect.” - Charles Barkley (former NBA star and future governor of Alabama hopeful)

What is the fundamental truth of Christianity? Is it our belief that 2000 years ago Jesus Christ was crucified and came back to life? I would say no. We may believe this is the historical truth as it is part of our tradition, and we believe strongly in the message this story tells us about life, but it is no more valid as a religious conviction than the traditional beliefs of other religions. Nothing about Christianity should ever be used to separate or further divide humanity.

"The true division of humanity is between those who live in light and those who live in darkness. Our aim must be to diminish the number of the latter and increase the number of the former." - Victor Hugo

Yes, as a Christian I believe that there are those who are saved and those who are lost, but this distinction should never be used to create barriers between people. It doesn’t help people to tell them “you have to live up to this group’s demands in order to be saved.” That doesn’t save; that either brainwashes or turns people away.

The fundamental truth of Christianity has nothing to do with some historical event. The fundamental truth of Christianity has to do with how we live our lives today. Not what actions we do, but how we approach life, how those actions are motivated. Christianity teaches that motivation should come from loving God and loving our neighbor as ourself. The fundamental message is that people should find their place within the Body of Christ. I believe this has everything to do with how people live, and nothing to do with what traditions they belong to. I see nothing that should prevent this fundamental message from being open to people with ALL kinds of traditional beliefs.

Re-launch

2006-09-04T19:07:00.000-05:00

Alright, I haven’t really done much as far as making this a quality blog lately. But what I have discovered from my blogging experience so far, is that the purpose for writing something (other than “because we have to for a class”) can be divided into two separate levels. Most my previous posts resemble the first level, where my purpose of writing was to give form and structure to feelings that I had on various topics, without much regard toward how a reader would interpret them.

For the future of this blog, though, I hope to steer it toward the next level of writing, which has the purpose of communicating my thoughts and feelings in way that is accessible to the reader and, hopefully, interesting or helpful to them.

All writing, and all thinking, too, has the purpose of making the unconscious conscious, of transforming our unconscious feelings into concrete thoughts. Feelings are constantly changing, but once we have experienced a thought, we can fall back on it again and again. So, with this image of writing or reading with the purpose of transforming our transitory feelings about a subject into enduring concepts that can be applied to numerous aspects of our lives, I’ll “re-launch” this blog by reviewing the book that inspired it in the first place, Awareness by Anthony De Mello.

Review of Awareness

2006-09-04T19:02:00.000-05:00

“The perfect review should indeed allow a reader to determine whether he or she is likely to enjoy or appreciate a film--but that does not require the critic to agree with the reader. The critic who tries to reflect public taste casts himself in the role of the ventriloquist's dummy, with the public of course acting as the ventriloquist. Opinion often varies between critics and the public, if I may say so, because critics know more about film, have seen more films, have thought about them more, are more experienced at viewing them, and are looking for more than immediate escapism.” – Roger Ebert (Rotten Tomatoes interview)

I don’t believe that I’ve read enough books yet to qualify as a “book critic” or to give out a meaningful star rating, like Ebert does for movies. What I will do for my next few posts though, is look at excerpts from some books that have been influential to me, and try to explain what I found relevant and affecting about the book. I’m starting with Awareness by Anthony De Mello.

It’s almost dangerous pulling out isolated quotes from a writer like Anthony De Mello, because De Mello often communicates through contradiction. For instance, he tells us “The only way someone can be of help to you is in challenging your ideas." (Awareness pg. 35) No doubt, all of us can think of countless other ways and specific situations in which someone could be of help to us in a way other than by “challenging our ideas”. However, this is a style De Mello has intentionally chosen in order to battle the sea of misconceptions that he sees over flooding our society. Rather than go through the semantic hoops that are technically necessary in order to make the subtle distinctions that he is after, De Mello chooses to “shock the truth out of us”. He says things that are not intended to be completely accurate, and are sometimes even logically inconsistent, but rather contradict our culture’s common assumptions, forcing us to either totally dismiss what he says or, if we read with an open mind, to consciously think about the point that De Mello is trying to communicate.

The backbone of this sort of “non-logical” communication is De Mello’s belief in logic’s inability to fully capture reality. He explains, "the guru cannot give you the truth. Truth cannot be put into words, into a formula. That isn't the truth. That isn't reality. Reality cannot be put into a formula. The guru can only point out your errors. When you drop your errors, you will know the truth. And even then you cannot say." (Awareness – pg. 99)

I’ll start with how De Mello starts, his message of “waking up to life”:

“Spirituality means waking up. Most people, even though they don't know it, are asleep. They're born asleep, they live asleep, they marry in their sleep, they breed children in their sleep, they die in their sleep without ever waking up. They never understand the loveliness and the beauty of this thing that we call human existence. You know, all mystics—Catholic, Christian, non-Christian, no matter what their theology, no matter what their religion—are unanimous on one thing: that all is well, all is well. Though everything is a mess, all is well. Strange paradox, to be sure. But, tragically, most people never get to see that all is well because they are asleep.” Awareness – pg. 5

“I was saying that we don’t want to be happy. We want other things. Or let’s put it more accurately: We don’t want to be unconditionally happy. I’m ready to be happy provided I have this and that and the other thing. But this is really to say to our friend or to our God or to anyone, “You are my happiness. If I don’t get you, I refuse to be happy.” It’s so important to understand that. We cannot imagine being happy without those conditions. That’s pretty accurate. We cannot conceive of being happy without them. We’ve been taught to place our happiness in them.”– Awareness pg. 11

Before I really begin commenting on these passages, I want to examine more closely De Mello’s claim that “most people are asleep.” This passage I found on Wikipedia’s entry for “hypnosis” makes an interesting point about how different levels of “hypnosis” occur all around us.

“Harry Cannon (FNRAH) defines hypnosis: "a psychological mechanism by which a suggestion moves directly to and is accepted by the subconscious mind." For this (hypnosis) to take place you require four things:

1. A focus of attention 2. A heightened emotion 3. The suggestion itself 4. No critique of the suggestion by the conscious intellect.

When these four requirements are met, suggestion takes root in the subconscious and so has action out in motor function. This simply means that the suggestion is acted upon by the mind.

Harry postulates that we are constantly being affected by hypnotic process. He gives the following example: “Imagine a small child being caught by their mother taking something that does not belong to them from another child. Imagine then the mother chastising her child for this action (the child now has a focus of attention and a heightened emotion). She then instructs her child to stop it and not do it again (the given suggestion). This suggestion, laid down during the child’s formative years has, by the criteria above, moved to the subconscious mind without any intellectual argument from the child. Because of this experience, a new social boundary has now been placed upon the child who, in later life will definitely ‘feel’ those same feelings and emotions whenever it finds itself in a similar situation.”

So hypnosis is all around us and is happening all the time. The level and apparent intensity of the ‘hypnotic state’ is the witnessing of an individuals subjective experience of it, and nothing more.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis

So we are “hypnotized” by certain emotional suggestions that, to a large extent, dictate the way we behave around other people. I can think of numerous examples of this within our society. Society tells us, “Be friendly and helpful to everyone you meet, but most people are too busy to care how you really are feeling.” “It’s not proper to talk about private personal issues when you’re in a group activity.” “Whether you realize it now or not, showing up on time to all your classes and getting all A’s will make you into a good citizen in the future.” “Accept people as they are, and let them live their own life and make their own decisions.” “Education is key to being able to contribute to society.” I’m sure there are many other similar “common sense rules” we use to define the social norms of our culture. Some of these I agree with, others I don’t, but whether we agree with them or not is not the point here. De Mello is saying that we should not let any these “rules” affect our ability to be happy. Whether you’re friendly to everyone, or act like a jerk on occasion; whether you're too nosy around others or too distant, don’t worry about it; you can’t change yourself through worry.

That’s all I really have that’s worth saying, I think. Anything else I want to say would just be me repeating De Mello’s message. So, I posted some of my favorite passages from Awareness, for those who find this kind of stuff interesting. Of course, I’d be happy to lend out my copy if anyone wants to read the whole book, or it can be bought new for about $11 or $12 from Overstock.com (cheaper new) or Amazon (cheaper used and good user reviews).

There's a lot of good advice in this book that has helped me to get past (to some extent, at least) the messages society tells us about what it takes to be a "success." I highly recommend for anyone who is feeling at all disillusioned with Western culture and is willing to read with an open mind.

Excerpts from Awareness

2006-09-04T18:47:00.000-05:00

I went ahead and included a good many passages. If you like the first few, I think you'll like the others, while if you don't like the first few, the last ones are more of the same type stuff, I guess. Anyway, like De Mello wrote, "My business is to do my thing, to dance my dance. If you profit from it, fine; if you don't, too bad! As the Arabs say, "The nature of rain is the same, but it makes thorns grow in the marshes and flowers in the gardens."" (Awareness - pg. 6)

“The great masters tell us that the most important question in the world is: “Who am I?” Or rather: “What is ‘I’?” … You mean you understood astronomy and black holes and quasars and you picked up computer science, and you don’t know who you are? … You mean you understood what Jesus Christ is and you don’t know who you are? How do you know that you have understood Jesus Christ? Who is the person doing the understanding? Find that out first. That’s the foundation of everything, isn’t it? It’s because we haven’t understood this that we’ve got all these stupid religious people involved in all these stupid religious wars—Muslims fighting against Jews, Protestants fighting Catholics, and all the rest of that rubbish. They don’t know who they are, because if they did, these wouldn’t be wars.

But what I’d like to stress right now is self-observation. You are listening to me, but … are you aware of your reactions as you listen to me? If you aren’t you’re going to be brainwashed. Or else you are going to be influenced by forces within you of which you have no awareness at all. And even if you’re aware of how you react to me, are you simultaneously aware of where your reaction is coming from?” – Awareness pg. 44-45

“But notice, you’ve got the “I” observing “me”. This is an interesting phenomenon that has never ceased to cause wonder to philosophers, mystics, scientists, psychologists, that the “I” can observe “me”. It would seem that animals are not able to do this at all. It would seem that one needs a certain amount of intelligence to be able to do this. What I’m going to give you now is not metaphysics; it is not philosophy. It is plain observation and common sense. The great mystics of the East [when they ask “Who am I?”] are really referring to that “I”, not to the “me”. …

When you’re caught up in labels, what value do these labels have, as far as the “I” is concerned? Could we say that “I” is none of the labels we attach to it? Labels belong to “me.” What constantly changes is “me.” Does “I” ever change? Does the observer ever change? The fact is that no matter what labels you think of (except perhaps human being) you should apply them to “me.” “I” is none of these things. So when you step out of yourself and observe “me,” you no longer identify with “me.” Suffering exists in “me,” so when you identify “I” with “me,” suffering begins.” – Awareness pg 49-50

"When you renounce something, you're tied to it. The only way to get out of this is to see through it. Don't renounce it, see through it. Understand its true value and you won't need to renounce it; it will just drop from your hands. But of course, if you don’t see that, if you’re hypnotized into thinking that you won’t be happy without this, that, or the other thing, you’re stuck. What we need to do for you is not what so-called spirituality attempts to do—namely, to get you to make sacrifices, to renounce things. That’s useless. You’re still asleep. What we need to do is to help you understand, understand, understand. If you understood you’d simply drop the desire for it. This is another way of saying: If you woke up, you’d simply drop the desire for it." - Awareness pg. 16

“Anytime you have a negative feeling toward anyone, you’re living in an illusion. There’s something seriously wrong with you. You’re not seeing reality. Something inside of you has to change. But what do we generally do when we have a negative feeling? “He is to blame, she is to blame. She’s got to change.” No! The world’s all right. The one who has to change is you.

… Suppose you witness some out-and out injustice, something that is obviously and objectively wrong. Would it not be a proper reaction to say this should not be happening? Should somehow want to involve yourself in correcting a situation that’s wrong? Someone’s injuring a child and you see abuse going on. How about that kind of thing? I hope you did not assume that I was saying you shouldn’t do anything. I said that if you didn’t have negative feeling you’d be much more effective, much more effective. Because when negative feeling come in, you go blind. “Me” steps into the picture and everything gets fouled up. Where we had one problem on our hands before, now we have two problems. Many wrongly assume that not having negative feelings like anger and resentment and hate means that you do nothing about a situation. Oh no, oh no! You are not affected emotionally but you spring into action. You become very sensitive to things and people around you. What kills the sensitivity is what many people would call the conditioned self: when you so identify with “me” that there’s too much of “me” in it for you to see things objectively, with detachment. It’s very important that when you swing into action, you be able to see things with detachment. But negative emotions prevent that.” – pg. 51-52

“But it’s what all the mystics in the past have been telling us. I’m not saying that “me,” the conditioned self, will not sometimes fall into its usual patterns. That’s the way we’ve been conditioned. But it raises the question whether it is conceivable to live a life in which you would be so totally alone that you would depend on no one.

We all depend on one another for all kinds of things, don’t we? We depend on the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. Interdependence. That’s fine! We set up society this way and we allot different functions to different people for the welfare of everyone, so that we will function better and live more effectively—at least we hope so. But to depend on another psychologically—to depend on another emotionally—what does that imply? It means to depend on another human being for my happiness. Think about that. Because if you do, the next thing you will be doing, whether you’re aware of it or not, is demanding that other people contribute to your happiness. Then there will be a next step—fear, fear of loss, fear of alienation, fear of rejection, mutual control. Perfect love casts out fear. Where there is love there are no demands, no [requirements], no dependency. I do not demand that you make me happy; my happiness does not lie in you. If you were to leave me, I will not feel sorry for myself; I enjoy your company immensely, but I do not cling.

I enjoy it on a nonclinging basis. What I really enjoy is not you; it’s something that’s greater than both you and me. It is something that I discovered, a kind of symphony, a kind of orchestra that plays one melody in your presences, but when you depart, the orchestra doesn’t stop. When I meet someone else, it plays another melody, which is also very delightful. And when I’m alone, it continues to play. There’s a great repertoire and it never ceases to play. – Awareness pg. 54-55

“What you are aware of you are in control of; what you are not aware of is in control of you. You are always a slave to what you’re not aware of. When you’re aware of it, you’re free from it. It’s there, but you’re not affected by it. You’re not controlled by it; you’re not enslaved by it. That’s the difference.” – Awareness pg. 71

“You don’t need to belong to anybody or anything or any group. You don’t even need to be in love. Who told you you do? What you need is to be free. What you need is to love. That’s it; that’s your nature. But what you’re really telling me is that you want to be desired. You want to be applauded, to be attractive, to have all the little monkeys running after you. You’re wasting your life. Wake up! You don’t need this. You can be blissfully happy without it.

Your society is not going to be happy to hear this, because you become terrifying when you open your eyes and understand this. How do you control a person like this? He doesn’t need you; he’s not threatened by your criticism; he doesn’t care what you think of him or what you say about him. He’s cut all those strings; he’s not a puppet any longer. It’s terrifying. “So we’ve got to get rid of him. He tells the truth; he has become fearless; he has stopped being human.” Human! Behold! A human being at last! He broke out of his slavery, broke out of their prison.

No event justifies a negative feeling There is no situation in the world that justifies a negative feeling. That’s what all our mystics have been crying themselves hoarse to tell us. But nobody listens. The negative feeling is in you. In the Bhagavad-Gita, the sacred book of the Hindus, Lord Krishna says to Arjuna, “Plunge into the heat of battle and keep your heart at the lotus feet of the Lord.” A marvelous sentence.

You don’t have to do anything to acquire happiness. The great Meister Eckhart said very beautifully, “God is not attained by a process of addition to anything in the soul, but by a process of subtraction.” You don’t do anything to be free, you drop something. Then you’re free.” – Awareness pg. 81-82

The Harmfulness of Grades in Education

2006-08-13T03:32:00.000-05:00

I get really angry thinking about the way education is carried out in this country. Specifically, I hate the whole idea of ranking students based on their performance on compulsory work. I don’t have a problem with grades being used as a means of certification. For example, I agree that it makes sense to grade students who all have the goal of becoming doctors, because there should be some kind of test to ensure doctors are responsible, capable people. But these pre-med students are not under the compulsion that I am talking about. They know what their goal is, and they have freely chosen it. I ask, “what certification are middle school, high school, and even first and second year college students working toward that warrants the use of grades in their classes?”

First of all, shouldn’t the point of education to be to educate the students, rather than to find out which students are “best”? The counter-argument to this is that “grades aren’t there to rank students, but rather to let students know where they are.” If it were true that it’s the goal of every student to get into med school some day, then I would agree that grades do a very good job of telling students where they are in relation to fulfilling their dream. However, it is my experience that many students don’t really know what they want to do with the rest of their lives.

Rather than be a predictor of a student’s future med school potential, education should strive to teach students how to apply knowledge of a subject to their everyday life. And the fact is grades do a routinely terrible job in measuring a student’s ability to apply their knowledge of a subject to their daily life. (There are plenty of students who get A’s in psychology, philosophy or religion, but it’s rare for a student to allow their life to be significantly changed by what they learn in these classes. What’s more, I believe a C student is just as likely as an A student to let their lives be affected by a subject.)

Okay, so grades are useless for showing how much a student really got out of a subject, but we need grades as a way to make sure people show up for class and learn to be good, responsible citizens, right? NO, NO, NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NOOOOOOOOO!!! The way to encourage others to better themselves is always through showing your interest and concern for them and can never be accomplished by forcing them to adhere to your demands. Forcing demands on others is a technique that should only be brought out when necessary; it is not a philosophy that a healthy system can be built upon. Yes, we need to set high standards in our schools and to hold high expectations for the brightest students. But it is imperative that students view these standards and expectations as arising from our concern about them rather than as arising from the competitive demands of the social and economic system.

Imagine being an observer at a basketball camp. Rather than letting the kids enjoy playing basketball, the camp directors decide to figure which kids will have the best chance of playing in college. But the way they do this is that they tell all the kids to go and collect as many things having to do with basketball as they can. The kid who can collect the most about basketball surely is the most knowledgeable and devoted to it, they figure, and will therefore make the best college player. Some kids run off immediately to find books, balls, trading cards, and whatever else they can find relating to the game. Another group of kids ignores these directions and start playing just for their love of playing basketball. But when these kids see the camp directors praising the first group of kids for what they’ve collected and telling them what good college players they’ll be, more and more kids stop playing basketball and go off to collect paraphernalia. The small group of kids that keeps playing basketball is largely ignored. Most of them never even get a shot at playing in college though, while scholarships are readily handed to the kids who have large collections of Nike shoes and NBA jerseys.

Now replace “basketball” with “education” and “playing in college” with “being successful.” That’s a picture of what education is like today. I swear to you right here; it will be torn down.

What we control

2006-07-07T03:23:00.000-05:00

Epictetus begins his work The Enchiridion by telling us:
“Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.
"The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered.” (The Enchiridion by Epictetus)

At times before I have felt a deep sense of isolation; that no matter how much I accomplish it still wouldn’t be enough. Other times, I have ceased caring at all about my goals and have just wanted to enjoy some of life as it passes by. Both of these views resulted from a misunderstanding that I held.

Epictetus goes on to advise us: “Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, "You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be." And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.” (The Enchiridion by Epictetus)

What I now see is that it is good that there are some things I control and some things I don’t control. The pressure of controlling everything would be too much for any of us to bear. We need the reassurance that the universe will go on, even if we fail in our goals in life. But at the same time, the way to truly enjoy life isn’t to let it pass by. As Epictetus tells us, “those (things) not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others.” In other words, submitting to them would never bring us a true sense of purpose or a real inner happiness. Rather, as Epictetus advises, we should set goals and work to accomplish them, applying ourselves fully to what circumstance has given us control over.

thoughts about life

2005-12-28T04:22:00.000-05:00

Lately I’ve been thinking about how the purpose of life can’t really be explained. A love for living can be found while doing any activity, provided that we are approaching the activity in the right way. In other words, the joy isn't really found in the activity, but in our freedom to act. We are free to choose to act however we want within the circumstances we are born into. I’d say that finding joy in that freedom is all the purpose that life really needs. Here are a few other thoughts I had about this subject:

It’s okay to be motivated by fame and glory. It’s just as okay to want to play Nintendo all your life. If that’s what makes you feel alive, then they’re both great ways to spend your time. But understand that dedicating yourself to a life of selflessness and serving others is in no way inherently different than dedicating yourself to say basketball or boxing. They both could bring earthly fame, and they both could help better the circumstances that others face.

But in the end, doesn’t it seem a little trivial to just care about basketball? Doesn’t our ability to create relationships with other people just seem to be on a higher level than loving to play basketball, or loving to do any other activity for that matter? But does loving others really just mean selflessness and serving them? Isn’t it more important to share in the joy of life with them?

Sharing in the joy of life can be done through any activity. The type of activity we choose to do may have an effect on the circumstances that others face. We can perhaps give them more time to live, better places to live, more political freedom, etc., but these are all just circumstances, and change nothing about the actual individuals. Changing these circumstances may bring us fame and the admiration of many, and that’s great. But experiencing the joy of life involves the approach we take towards our activities and has nothing to do with the type of activities we choose.

The truth is that all motivation, in some way, should be about sharing in the joy of life. Seek out that joy, that freedom to make your own choice about the situations that you face; and when you find it, you won’t be able stop yourself from wanting to share that joy and freedom with others. The two things are mutually inclusive: the joy in life can’t exist without the desire to share it. Likewise, in order to share that joy, you must first experience it in your own life. Our mistake is that we try to force the activities we have chosen to do on others and ridicule them for not choosing the same way as us. Sharing something never involves forcing it on someone else. Sharing in the joy of an activity means each person has freely chosen to do that activity because he finds it interesting and relevant to his life.

Why Matrix Revolutions is my favorite movie.

2005-11-26T14:09:00.000-05:00

My last few posts have all dealt with pretty heavy topics i guess, so I'll try talking about something a little more "normal" this time: movies! It seems to most people go to movies these days because it allows them to escape from pressures and monotony of their lives. Therefore most movies are filled with cheap laughs or thrills, because these are the easiest way to provide an escape. A good story though can also provide an escape, a chance for us to examine a situation unrelated to our lives, while also showing us something about life in general: an approach that a hero takes that we can look up to and emulate, or maybe a realization that despite all the problems it's never as bad as we make it seem and there is still room for what we love about life. In other words, movies can also be works art in that they can tell something about life. I goes without saying that I try to judge movies as works of art instead of as a means of escape. I try to judge a movie not based on how good it makes me feel after watching, but rather based on what direction the movie points me. That being said, here's why Matrix Revolutions is my favorite movie (in case you haven't seen the movie, these are just some quotes from random scenes in the movie that I think relate to eachother to give a really strong message):

Oracle: I made a choice, and that choice cost me more than I wanted it to.
Morpheus: What choice?
Oracle: To help you to guide Neo. Now, since the real test for any choice is having to make the same choice again, knowing full well what it might cost - I guess I feel pretty good about that choice, 'cause here I am, at it again.

Neo: I just have never...
Rama-Kandra: ...heard a program speak of love?
Neo: It's a... human emotion.
Rama-Kandra: No, it is a word. What matters is the connection the word implies.

Oracle: That's it. That's the secret. You've got to use your hands.
Sati: Why?
Oracle: Cookies need love like everything does.

Oracle: I told you before. No one can see beyond a choice they don't understand, and I mean no one.
Neo: What choice?
Oracle: It doesn't matter. It's my choice. I have mine to make, same as you have yours.

Smith: Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why, why do you do it? Why, why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is, do you even know? Is it freedom or truth, perhaps peace - could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself. Although, only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson; you must know it by now! You can't win; it's pointless to keep fighting! Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist?
Neo: Because I choose to.

What is the meaning of life? What does it mean to truly live? If there is an answer to these questions, is it possible for us to understand it? Is it possible for us to "see beyond" the meaning of our lives? The answer is, of course, no. The meaning of life can only be defined as life itself, because life's meaning is something beyond what definitions and logic can make clear. We only know that we are alive, and not just in the sense that our bodies are still functioning, but in the fact that there are activities that we love doing for the sake of the experience itself, because it somehow makes us feel more alive when we are doing it. The answer to the question of why we keep wanting to live more fully, instead of settling for the comfortable yet boring existence that is readily available to us provided we meet the expectations of those around us, will always come down to the fact that we choose to.

An invitation

2005-10-31T02:42:00.000-05:00

In my last post I outlined the formation of and consequences of the western economic system, specifically how work that people are coerced into doing produces within them the desire to spend their free time in mindless activity. It doesn’t matter what type of coercion is used, whether it’s a Soviet system of the supreme authority of the state, or the western system of rewards. In both systems people are not motivated by their own personal choice, but rather by societal forces. “Work how we tell you to, or you are a traitor!” Our society is similar to such Soviet dogma. Our school system tells children that the only way to be a good member of society is to do what you are told. Sure we don’t tell this to them directly, but the grades they receive and the subsequent praise or criticism they receive is all they need to hear to get the idea. Either way, the motivation is coming from an external source.

Any type of outside coercion will create a barrier in an individual between their natural drives and their ability to act. Once our required work is done, we will not pursue our natural drives because we feel “we have exerted ourselves enough for the day”. “I deserve a break after all that work.” Such an attitude is in no way “bad” or lazy. It is a necessary consequence of acting on an external motivation. Without such a break from activity one would not be able to return to doing an activity that is motivated externally. Externally motivated activity requires the reward of mindless activity (or a break from real activity). Otherwise, no one would be willing to put up with coercion.

So what can we do to reverse the trend of increasing amount of time spent on mindless activity? I believe the best answer lies in Education. The purpose of education should be to allow an individual to find a place in society. Modern education has lost sight of its purpose and strayed from its chief use to man. It has been a wonderful achievement of the past century that every individual has been given the opportunity to fill whatever role they prove themselves capable of. However, because of the coercive measures schools use to teach students, this benefit is by far outweighed by the harm that this system causes. This coercion creates students who spend their free in mindless activity. It follows that they will see their job only as a means for continuing this existence; the better the job, the more time they have to pursue whatever mindless activity draws their interest. Thus, to them whether their work contributes to society or not is insignificant. Their motivation for work is the external desire for mindless activity; a desire which was conditioned into them due to the coercion of the classroom.

The new system of education must be one which excludes the use of any type of external motivation or coercion. It should allow students to be motivated solely by their own interest in a subject without any fear of punishment or criticism, while still providing them with the opportunity to learn about every sphere of society. I believe this vision would best be accomplished if public schools (at least K-12) were to stop recording grades. Without any threat of consequence for poor work, all outside compulsion would be eliminated from the classroom. Students would still have the opportunity to learn the skills needed for whatever job the wished to have, but they would no longer be coerced into gaining these skills. The result would be that people would work in the sphere in which they thought they could contribute the most to society rather than in order to fill their desire for mindless activity. Not only this, but students will be able to learn at the right pace and will be able to gain a more complete understanding of the subjects they choose to study.

There are, of course, many issues that I still must address. What is the best way to insure people are properly qualified to do their job? Would not being forced to learn affect people’s ability to be able to pass certification tests? What about students who aren’t interested in learning anything in school? My quick responses would be that people may have more to learn going into a field, but would be better able to become good workers in that field, since they approach the work in the right way. And I would also claim that forcing students who aren’t interested to learn probably does more harm than just allowing them to be not interested, even though this may result in some people who don’t learn basic arithmetic, reading skills, etc.

I believe the elimination of recorded grades as means to evaluate an individual’s economic worth is a desperately needed reform in our society. Such a reform would destroy the root of much of our society’s anxiety related problems and allow individuals the freedom to develop a productive orientation in their lives. In order for such a change to happen, a large number people first need to become aware of the need for and the potential benefits of the change. Change occurs when individuals understand and react to the social forces which face them. The sooner that individuals react properly to the social forces of coercion, the sooner our society will be able to recover from the decay that is being caused.

For further reading on issues similar to the one I discussed here, I highly recommend To Have or To Be and The Art of Being both by Erich Fromm which sparked many my ideas for this essay.

2005-10-28T18:29:00.000-05:00

well, started up only to stop again. i don't feel like defending my posts and i'm just not a motivated writer. tom will do a better job than i at making interesting posts.

An observation

2005-10-23T22:20:00.000-05:00

Certain aspects of society today are in a state of decay. The purpose of an economy should be to facilitate society’s ability to meet the natural demands of the people. However, rather than serving the people in this way, in modern society the people have been made to serve the economy. Due to the constant pressure to maximize the profits of an industry, modern society produces within people a need to relax and escape from the compulsory activities of the work day. This need creates within the commercial market a high demand for mindless activities, as is evident from the kinds of movies that continue to be popular, the amount of time spent watching TV, and the continuous consumption of the newest products, despite their being at best minimally better than the products people already possess. This demand for mindless activity requires mindless workers to meet it, because no truly sane person would spend their life working to meet the trivial needs of others (or would do so only when no other ways of earning a living were available). Thus a large part of our economy requires the systematic training of workers who, while skilled in producing certain goods and services, will not consider the social benefit of their work and will be eager to consume similar goods and services during their free time. Such people therefore work in order to fill a role in the economy, rather than a needed role in society.

In order to meet this vast need in our economy, the Western system of “education,” if it can still be called that, has acquired the chief goal of assigning an economic value to every citizen, according to how well he or she can fill a certain role in the economy. This goal is met through the system of recording the grades of each student. These records will be used to determine what university a student gets into, and then their records at university will be used to determine what job they get. In this way, the goal of the modern system of education is no longer to educate, but rather to train individuals to fill certain roles in the economy.

Undoubtedly much good has come out of the modern economy. The modern economy has provided a reliable source of income to a drastically higher percentage of the population than at any other time in human history, while requiring them to spend less time working at their job than in times past. What, then, could possibly be wrong with the system as it is now? Presumably, as technology continues to improve, standard of living should continue to increase and the work day could be made even shorter. As people have more free time to spend, they will theoretically be better able to pursue his natural drives and explore what it is to be alive. However, it is my claim that such an assumption is false. As long as people view their job as something they do only because they are required to, as long as the motivation for their work is something other than either the desire to fill a needed role in society or survival, people will spend nearly all their free time pursuing mindless activities.

This still leaves the question whether there is anything wrong with people spending all their time pursuing mindless activities. The 1932 Aldous Huxley novel Brave New World. Huxley creates a conceivably possible world in which all activity is mindless. Everyone seems pretty happy for the most part. One character in the society is unhappy but only because he is looked down upon by his fellow citizens due to his physical defects. He is an anomaly, by far the exception to the average citizen. Is there anything wrong with such a society? As Huxley did, I only know to leave this up to the reader to decide for him or her self. Perhaps we do have a clue though in the very way in which the society in Brave New World is set up. The society is by necessity set up in a way in which change for the better is not possible for both the society and the individual. In fact, any change at all would result in the disruption of the whole society. This stifles the drive to improve oneself, along with the drive to reach past any mindless activities and come to know other people as they are. Although society can attempt to cover up these drives through a constant barrage of other thoughts and activities, they can never be removed completely from mankind.

(Next post: my proposed solution)

Friendship

2005-10-22T23:52:00.000-05:00

People tend to blind themselves when it comes to friendship. It's quite obvious that there is a gap between people that they constantly try to bridge. This attempt at bridging the gap comes in many forms of relationships, some good and some bad. Humans are communal beings at heart and basically spend their entire lives trying to unify with people. Reaching out to others is quite healthy and instinctual, however one should be careful that they do not reach out on the basis of attachment. Most people don't have a high sense of self worth, and as such are willing to basically delude themselves into thinking that "this is the best that they can get." This results in people hanging out with "friends" who don't really care about them, and this is done only to falsify a sense of acceptance.

Another big problem with false relationships is thinking of friends as property. For instance, saying something like: "I have a lot of friends." You don't actually "have" them, for you don't own them. Once one starts to think of friends on a non-attachmental basis, then they will enjoy them not as possession to be "consumed" but as true people who bring the most out of every moment with you. However when friends are not around one will not despair because nothing has been lost. Something must be possessed first in order to have lost it.

The very first person to look out for should be oneself before all others (I'll clarify this in later writings). In terms of relationships, the best way in which to do this is to freely love without thought of return. Doing so will result in those who are worth being friends with, responding in kind. Ironic isn't it that in being "selfish" will result in being unselfish. If someone does not respond to love in kind, then drop them and move on. You are better than that.

This was just a brief overview of the friendship relationship, I'll probably hit it again in more detail in the future.

The Present

2005-10-07T21:22:00.000-05:00

I have recently been thinking about the importance of living in the present. People these days tend to live in the future rather than in the Now. They worry about deadlines, tests, social events, and other things that really don't matter in life. I want you say the phrase "so what?" out loud. Go ahead. In regards to one's worries in life, 99% of them are not worth worrying about. So what if a test is failed. So what if a project is turned in late. So what if you don't get a date. Things such as these should have no affect on your happiness, for that comes within. This of course relates back to the several essays on attachments that I have already written about.

To go beyond the nonattachment mentality, we arrive at the state of being of "the now." One who inhabits the Now doesn't need to hear "stop and smell the roses", for their entire existence is all about the roses per se. One who lives in the Now truly sees reality, for no other thoughts or worries are present in their being. They truly see the tree by the road because it takes up all of their attention and concentration.

I'm reminded of a story found in The Song of the Bird by De Mello. A samurai was captured in battle in ancient Japan. He was stuck in a cell after being brought back to the enemy's castle and was sentenced to death on the next day. He tossed and turned the night before, unable to sleep until he remembered the words of his master: "There is no future, there is only now." Upon remembering this, he smiled and fell right asleep.

insert witty title here

2005-08-14T14:13:00.000-05:00

heh, i know that this is a philosphy blog but i just wanted to say that i can't wait to get back to school. i'm so psyched about this next year and about life. also, check out Bloc Party and the Editors if anyone is into indie rock. look out for a real post next time ;)

Apathy

2005-08-08T13:50:00.000-05:00

It seems to me that people in general have developed quite
an apathetic attitude towards their fellow man. This attitude
even often borders on billigerance. Easily observed in global
issues, what I am focusing on more is the obersavtion on a
local scale. In what people say, how they act, look at others,
drive their cars, and so on, all point to the surprising conclusion
that there is a mentality that is uncaring towards others.

The real question is why do people not care and even furthur,
should they care? I believe that the latter question is more
easily answered and as such, I shall start there. Simply put,
humans have congregated into great communities out of an
instinctual longing for company. It has also been realized,
over the year by people, that more people can complete big
tasks easier and in a faster fashion. Big tasks such as
irrigation, walls for defence, and mass farming are beneficial
for everyone in the area. This need for others readily lends
support to the idea that caring for others is essential in
working with others, for who would work or live with an
asshole? Caring for others means that people will get along
and work together better for the benefit of the whole.

This being said, why has it occured that people are now
overwhelmingly uncaring? It seems as if I have come upon
a split in my discussion. There are two different worlds
in which caring can be exhibited, the professional and the
social. Professionally, it is quite easy to see why it pays
to be kind towards others. Socially however, is where my
original train of thought was headed.

There are now incredible numbers of people inhabiting this
planet at six billion plus. Most people talk to and meet
many strangers throughout a week's time. Why care about
someone you are never going to see again? Indeed, why even
care about people who live halfway across the world? People
do not seem to care because they fail to realize that we
all affect one another. And this affection is very important
given the fact that we inhabit the planet, such an increasingly
confining sphere.

This "bubble consciousness" is the root of apathy. People do not
care about what happens outside of their little bubble because
they do not believe that anything will affect them. It is only
when actions tend to become extreme that people will take notice.
However even such notice will not lead to caring as people are
unaware of the causes of such extremes. Is it perhaps easier
to hate and lash out than it is to accept and understand? This
is a thought with which I cannot be complacent.

to be continued maybe

faith discussion (from a friend's facebook wall)

2005-08-06T02:08:00.000-05:00

Well, since I haven't posted too much lately, I thought I'd put up this discussion I've been having on one a friend's wall and I thought was pretty interesting (I even color coded the posters: ) I went ahead and included the whole discussion, so it's a little long, but I think some good points are made toward middle and the end. Feel free to continue the discussion with comments if there's anything you might want to add.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question of the...

"Is faith a principle of condemnation?" It´s fairly obvious to me that people can have genuine faith in Jesus, or their parents, or that the Qur´an is true, but can we have genuine faith that Jesus is NOT christ, or that the qur´an is NOT true?. Is faith always a positive force or can it be a force for negativity?

That depends on the "faith" we're discussing. Are we talking about purely religious faith or simply a more general faith? Religiously, I think that faith often does imply negatives, at least about everyone else's faith. The Qur'an (I believe) states that Jesus is not Christ, so in order to have faith in the Qur'an, I would think that you would have to hold a similar faith in the fact that Jesus is not Christ. If we're outside the bounds of religion, then I think it's even easier to see negative faiths. After all, I might say that I have faith that the sky will still be blue tomorrow. By the same token, I could say that my faith rests in the fact that the sky will not be yellow tomorrow. ~John

It seems to me like John's talking more about belief than faith. Faith is different from belief in a fact, even a religious one such as "Jesus rose three days after the crucifixion." When we say someone has faith in the truest sense, we mean that they are in touch with what it is to be human, with what is beautiful and meaningful in life. To say we have "faith in Jesus" or the Qu'ran or whatever simply means we understand how this idea or message has put us in touch with that quality that gives meaning to our lives. So when I say "I have faith in Jesus" I mean "I understand that Jesus through his resurrection into the living Body of Christ shows me what is meaningful to my life." This kind of faith is something we all have hopefully experienced at some point in life. Christopher Alexander talks about this quality in his book The Timeless Way of Building: "When we know those moments, when we smile, when we let go, when we are not on guard at all -- these are the moments when our most important forces show themselves; whatever you are doing at such a moment, hold on to it, repeat it -- for that certain smile is the best knowledge that we ever have of what our hidden forces are, and where they live, and how they can be loosed." I think "hidden forces" is a good description, because people are born with an idea of what these moments are, of what is meaningful to life; it's just a question of not letting them get covered up by other things. Faith in its truest sense is the positive act of searching for and holding on to those "most important forces" that give beauty and meaning to life. – Tom

In a way,I must admit, I feel guilty for having brought up such a semantically ambiguous topic. After all, people in different faiths (me as a Mormon as much as anyone) have entirely different definitions of what the word "faith" actually means. Still, hopefully we can come to some intuitive or telepathic mutual understanding of the term, since supposedly we have all experienced faith in our lives. Perhaps we can thus approach agreement.

John, I feel obligated to disagree with you. The Qur´an does indeed state that Jesus is not the Christ. However, I don´t think that having faith in the Qur´an implies faith in Jesus not being the Christ. Having faith in the Qur´an would rather imply that you don´t even Consider that Jesus is the Christ (since to do so would be grave blasphemy in the Muslim tradition). Having faith in the Qur´an might lead you to Disagree with Christians, or even kill them (if you interpret it particularly messily), but I don´t think that it means that you shape your own faith as an inverse to theirs. Rather, your faith must remain independent from theirs. Then again, I don´t really think that Islam and Christianity are any more than superficially different...

Tom, I think I must (vaguely) agree with you.

In my own religion (perhaps I ought not call it a "faith" for the moment) faith is referred to as the "principle of power" that makes active living possible in all animate beings. As such, it is not only faith in the sun rising that tells me to get up in the morning, but also faith in my own capacity that allows me to physically move my own body, and faith in the inherent meaning of my current lifestyle that motivates me to continue studying and questioning. Faith, in my own sense, is that separates the sane man from the insane: a man with faith can continue.

In this sense, it´s rather significant that people often use the word "faith" to refer to their religious affiliation, rather than "church" or "religion". To affiliate oneself with the Christian faith, for example, would be to be motivated to continue progressing through the intended Christian paradigm, including cuiltivating humility, learning, obedience, and (above all) peace and love. Your membership doesn´t motivate it, but rather your faith.

In my own opinion, faith can only be a principle of progress. Since I consider myself (more than anything else) a Christian, I consider this path to include only positive views of the world and mankind. The principles of love and peace (only deeply held principles because my faith has assimilated them into my worldview) leave no room for condemnation. I find that if faith is a shield (as biblical sources suggest) then to focus on things that are not true (that is, things towards which you do not want to progress), even for the brief moment that it takes to disclaim them, is to lower the shield. If faith is a path leading up, condemnation is a descent.

I don´t exactly know where in this analysis to place the criminally malicious, the killers and faith-destroyers out there. Any suggestions?

<>
I disagree with the idea that there is no room for condemnation. To hold a faith in something requires a faith that other things are not true. If I state that "God is Love" then I also firmly believe it is untrue to say "God is Hate." Furthermore, if comdemnation is bad, then how do you reconcile conflicting faiths? Personally, I am not comfortable with "Well, that's what you believe so it's ok for you." At least, not on big differences. (I realize I may be pushing this more theological than you'd like. If so, feel free to pull it back.) –John

I´ll create a whimsical analogy, since I can´t think of any other way to respond. Suppose faith is like reaching a hand out to touch a particularly beautiful flower (or better, lowering your nose to smell it). In my view, to condemn something (or someone) is more like retracting your hand from a thorn. That is, it is cowering back, retreating from an unpleasant object, standing away from it. One is love and one is hate. Love and hate both occupy the mind sufficiently that i´m not sure it´s possible to do both at the same time. –tristan
<><>

I don't agree that hate and condemnation are the same. I can condemn behavior or thoughts without having necessarily hating them. –John

John, I don´t know whether you´re right or not. I´ts awfully hard for me to draw a line between hate and condemnation, but it doesn´t necessarily mean there isn´t one. I do think I can say that they are similar. The reason I use them as synonyms here is that hate and condemnation are both methods of focusing negativity on something.
In a way, they exalt the negative as the defining feature of the subject at hand. In this sense, I think hate and condemnation are equally unproductive. I have no idea how I reconcile the fact that I am in effect condemning condemnation. Help?<>

Can faith be a source of condemnation? Alright words can take on many different meanings, so first I want to establish the difference between genuine faith and “false” faith in a social belief. Okay, let’s suppose that there is a real God in whom we can have genuine faith. Someone in 16th century

England

might say “I have faith in God” and they might really have genuine faith in God and be inspired to live a loving and creative life. Just as easily though, they might say “I have faith in God” and use that as a reason to burn someone for “witchery.” In the same way a Muslim today might say “I have faith in Allah.” It might be that they have come to know this real God, or maybe it is just their belief in their social conditioning that they are really talking about. My point is that a person’s words do not really tell us anything about their faith. As far as I know, the only way to tell about their faith is through their actions (as discussed in previous posts).
Tristan, about condemning condemnation. Of course, to condemn all types of condemnation would be a contradiction, but remember we are just talking about condemnation in the context of faith. Condemnation cannot come through faith because, as you said, faith is always a positive, building force. Therefore “condemnation through faith” is a false concept. Surely we should condemn what is false, right? Shouldn’t negativity be focused on something that is false? But, John, is it faith that is condemning what is false? Isn’t it always something else that does the condemning? Isn’t it logic, and not faith, that tells us “God is not hate”? Faith shows us what faith is, not what faith is not. –Tom

teehee, you boys are gonna love me, cuz i'm not gonna nearly address all of this. i just wanna submit my opinion that you don't necessarily have to condemn something that's false...can't it just be false? and besides that, i'm not entirely ready to concede that we can always *know* if something is indeed false...but i'm willing to discuss it :-d

love and kisses,
Jennifer

<>

I agree that we cannot know whether somethings are false or not, but I think we probably should go ahead and condemn what we do know (through logic) to be false. One reason to condemn the terrorist bombings, for example, would be that 'condemnation in the name of faith' is false. It just seems to me that what is false always serves to deceive or destroy in some way or another. -Tom

Summer thoughts

2005-08-03T18:26:00.000-05:00

Habits spring from our desire to be active. When asked what we’re doing, people often might reply that they’re doing nothing, but really there is no such thing as doing nothing. The truth is that people have a need to always be doing something. This realization helped me to really feel more in control of myself and what I do. I didn’t really have a job this summer, so I spent a lot of time playing games and stuff like that. At first, I didn’t really understand what was driving me to play certain games, but the game would stay on my mind and I would eventually give in to the urge to play it. Sometimes I would waste hours mechanically trying to achieve one little goal within the game without really even being aware of it. I see now that I was often playing it out of habit rather than choice. Remembering that it's just a game and trying to focus on what makes the game fun allows me enjoy the game as a whole a lot more.

If you’re going to do something, make sure that you are fully engaged in it. What I mean is do not let your activity get stuck in a cycle. This is not to say you always have to be trying new things; on the contrary patterns of events form the foundation for many life’s activities. The difference is that patterns always involve stabilization or creativity, while cycles go from one extreme to another. With cycles (such as the one I just described about mechanically try to do one thing within a game for hours) you go through phases where a certain activity dominates your life, and then later you just want nothing to do with that activity, which eventually takes you back to the beginning of the cycle. I highly recommend reading Christopher Alexander’s The Timeless Way of Building, which gives an excellent explanation patterns present in the world, and listening to Pink Floyd’s The Wall, along with this analysis http://home.mchsi.com/~ttint/, which is about the cycles of isolation we are in danger of going through in life.

Something I wrote earlier this summer, and think it's worth including:

To love someone does NOT mean trying to end the causes of their suffering. Yes, that can be an important part of it, but if that’s all you’re doing you are missing the whole point. Because YOU cannot truly end the suffering of someone else. For a long time, it seemed that a “good” life would be one in which I lead some kind of movement that would achieve some profound effect in the world; that would eliminate the cause of a lot of people’s suffering. But really such a movement is not possible, because the true cause of people’s suffering is in themselves. I know it sounds heartless to say that given the horrible conditions people face in some parts of the world, but it is key to realize the truth in this statement. You may feel bad about the poor quality of life in Africa, but realize that people are still miserable growing up in middle class families in America. Yes, it’s important that we try and help those in Africa, but realize that doing so will not put an end to those people’s suffering. What’s even more important than helping to end those horrible conditions is to try and reach people as they really are, and not just some preconceived image we have of them.

picture

2005-08-03T02:48:00.000-05:00

Sociality

2005-07-11T14:50:00.000-05:00

For a while I've thought that people can be perfectly happy in solitude (whatever the reason) but lately I've come to think that that is not quite correct. While there is a huge spectrum of people ranging from invtrovert to extrovert, all have the capacity for happiness of course. The main belief in my changing view is that of humans being social creatures. Relationships are important for all kinds of reasons such help, support, fun, growth, etc. Tom has touched upon this once before so I'll be good enough to continue it for a little.

Problems that arise between people are breakdowns in their relationships. It is for this reason that relationships can be a double edged sword. Yet the good definitely outweighs the bad in my opinion. The way in which to avoid the bad is quite simple. Realize that relationships are not about what you get out of them but what you put into them! Having the need to get something (love, acceptance, etc.) out of a relationship begets attachment, which is certainly not the path to growth. People grow by the giving of themselves (time, possessions, and so on). To take it an extreme, I once heard that man does not need [to receive] love, he needs only to [give] love.

Kinda short post, I might be able to say more on this topic but I'm done for now. Also, I'm doing much better ^_^

absence

2005-06-27T17:24:00.000-05:00

haven't been able to post in a while due to medical problems. hopefully i'll continue to do better and feel like posting some time this or next week. take care.

To Play

2005-06-13T20:13:00.000-05:00

I was playing warcraft 3 online the other day and my teamate
asked me how old I was. A rather odd thing to ask someone who's
on your team for a mere 20-30 minutes, but I answered nonetheless.
Upon hearing that I was 20, he said something to the effect of:
"wow, and you're still playing games."

Needless to say, this caught me by suprise. Not only do I play
games regularly but so do pretty much all of my friends. I'm
assuming that the kid was around 13-14, we won but he wasn't
that good...

Well his remark got me to thinking on the act of playing, whether
it be a video game, board game, in a sandbox, or what have you.
In observations, I believe that the act of playing is closely
related to happiness. I'm not saying that playing games all day
will truly make one happy, but there is a correlation I believe.

Time to break it down. People have jobs in order to survive. Fair
enough. Yet it is a fact that over 50% of all Americans (I'm not
sure about the rest of the world, but I would guess >50%) are
not happy with their job. This stems from mainly it being a crappy
job or people's lives are consumed by their jobs. I will be focusing
upon the latter.

Obsession with work is easily staved off if one finds an activity
at which they can play, even better, several activities! This in
itself helps to diversify a person's life and prevent obsession with
one sole thing. So while play isn't the answer to all problems, it
certainly can give someone to look forward to. The possibilities of
play are actually endless as well; everyone has a game or activity
available for their age and interests. Games need not be merely
shooters on a console but can engage the mind in puzzles, strategy,
memory, and imagination. The solving of problems or engaging of
imagination are very much needed in many fields of work from
physics to writing. Next time you're feeling bored or down on life,
try picking up a game that will stimulate you.

------------------------------------------------------
endnote: this one didn't flow us nicely as i like, so here's a wrap up.
playing is not just an activity for kids but for all people. ever heard
psychologists talk about an "inner child?" this is related. playing
help keeps a sort of naivety that can help one make better decisions
and view life with a different perspective. in fact, this ties in with
seeing, which tom and i have touched on before and doubtless
will again.

as marshall likes to say, just remember, all things in moderation.
while habits and tradition can be good for giving structure to a
lifestyle, variety can keep things interesting. striking a balance
is the beauty of life.

Parable: Label Makers

2005-06-06T21:13:00.000-05:00

note: not mine, from a good book called The Song of the Bird by Anthony DeMello. i'll write some later this week since there's been a demand for them :P

------------------------

Buddha once held up a flower to his disciples and asked each of them to say something about it.

One pronounced a lecture. Another a poem. Yet another a parable. Each trying to outdo the other in depth and erudition.

Mahakashyap smiled and said nothing. Only he had seen the flower.

------------------------

author's additional commentary:

If I could only taste a bird,
a flower,
a tree,
a human face!

But, alas, I have no time! My energy is spent deciphering the label.

--------------------------

my commentary:
pretty straightforward i think. the parable observes how society likes to give labels to mostly everything (pretty, ugly, normal, strange, etc). perhaps people would get along more if we stopped judging/labelling persons and things and instead simply accepting them as who or what they are. the world is full of differences, learning to accept and respect them is a step towards seeing.

Success

2005-05-23T19:13:00.000-05:00

Thanks to being out for the summer, I have had a good deal of time to contemplate on what exactly success and work are. It is quite amusing to me to realize the social stigma that has been attached to "doing nothing." While I certainly do not condone lounging around one's home for the entirety of their time, taking a good portion of the day to do so is in fact a healthy activity.

The act of doing nothing is commonly thought of as not "working" at a job; Keep in mind the context of summer. A staggaring number of people are not happy at their jobs. If one is not happy, then it is certainly understandable that one would not work with much, if any, fervor in their profession. The mandatory attendence of such professions is made so only out of the necessity for survival; any other reason, such as greed or lust, are superfluous.

So then why such the negative connotation on not "working" when so many are in fact experienceing negative livelihoods while "working"? This boils down to the topic of success. To succeed in today's society is to achieve what has been tagged as important. Such items include
money, power, and fame. If given the choice between working in neonatal care (babies) for $55,000 and working for a tabloid for $100,000, most would go with the latter. Obviously, this choice would be made for the money. But let us consider the highly hypothetical jobs. One includes helping with the bringing of new life into the world. The other involves printing libel and invading the privacy of "important" people. This choice is absurd and stems from the societal values of success.

Although not everyone is to blame for these ideals, they are drilled into us at an early age. When most impressionable, we are bombarded with media telling us that celebrities and sports stars are the "important" people because they are wealthy or famous. We are told in school that good grades are vitally important for college acceptances. Graduate from a good college in order to get a well-paying job. Why not graduate in order to get a fun and enjoyable job?

Sure people need enough money for food and shelter, but anything past that is extra. "Time equals money" or "money will bring happiness" are two of the most hated phrases to me. For most people, money will bring attachment. As I have previously touched, attachment is the sure path away from happiness. I encourage all adults to first take care of their basic needs and those of their families, but then to take care of themselves. Finding a job that is enjoyable will reflect in your daily life with your family, affecting them much more than mere dollars can. To those still in the care of a family, enjoy your time as a child. Pursue your interests with vigor and work on finding inner peace so that you may touch all those with whom you come into contact. As an adult with true happiness, the necessary steps to survive will all fall into place effortlessly.

On Meditation

2005-05-08T15:51:00.000-05:00

The exercise of meditation is one that can be very beneficial to people. Note my emphasis on can. Humans ultimately decide what to take with them. Hopefully this short essay shall help those who are open and interested in learning.

This summer, I have adopted an almost daily routine of meditation. I find that like many things, repetition is key. But first let us start with: Why even meditate? It is used for many things such as relaxation, clarity of thought, reaching nirvana/enlightenment, prayer, and honing the Self. Despite one’s reason for meditating, the results will be positive physically, mentally, and spiritually when performed correctly.

It can be performed incorrectly you might ask? Absolutely! This brings us to the next point: How to meditate? Physically, one’s positioning does not matter in the slightest. I would recommend a sitting position, however, standing works just fine. Lying down is probably an invitation for sleep in our sleep-deprived society. A quiet place is naturally preferred as well.

Now, when actually in meditation, closing your eyes helps with internal focus. From here, there are several avenues to take. One which I enjoy is to focus my thoughts on my goal in life and to let them flow from there. Another way is to not even focus on a goal but to simply clear you mind and relax.

Lastly, there is focus on the spirit and oneness of life. Start out by aligning mind, body, and spirit if you feel that they are not already one. Decisions are made on three different levels, the mental, the physical, and the spiritual. If a person is not at peace within, then a discord is reached and decisions are different and disharmonious. Unfortunately, people tend to neglect this aspect of ourselves and even in their discord, people will listen to the mind or body almost all of the time, ignoring the spirit.

After one has reached a state of contentment within, it is time to move outward. During the second part of the meditation, join your oneness with the oneness that is larger; the cycle of life, all living things, the universe, God, Nirvana. Whatever the name, everyone and everything are interconnected. Meditation is a very useful tool to realizing this. After this level of awareness(!) is reached, one’s actions will be not only the best for themselves, but also for the Whole as well.

For beginners, meditation can be frustrating at times. It is important to remember to not force anything. If your thoughts wander, let them wander; they do so for a reason. While focusing on a goal is helpful, do not attach your happiness to reaching that goal. Think upon meditation not as a means to and ends but instead as a process. Enjoy the process, enjoy life.

Expectation

2005-05-07T01:19:00.000-05:00

All right, forget my exam; I'm in a writing mood.

Today, it seems a lot of people spend time doing something just to "relax" or "escape from reality for a while." I know I have throughout the past 10 or more years. But why do we feel the need to relax? Surely no one would say that it would be good to spend all their time relaxing and escaping from the world. A desire to escape from reality can't be a fundamental part of our humanity, can it? What is it that we feel the need to escape from?

I believe the answer is that our attempts at "escaping from the world" are an attempt to deal with the relationships we have in which we have to fulfill the expectations of others. We naturally hate being in this position, I think. Hasn't everybody hated having to do what seemed like a very silly and pointless homework assignment at some time? We hate having to base our actions on the expectations of others, because it sometimes forces us to go against what we naturally want to do. So then the question is, how do we deal with being in this position that we hate being in?

It seems to me we deal with this situation by taking the other role in the relationship in other aspects of our life. Isn't this what we are doing when we play a video game or watch a sitcom "to relax"? Just like the teacher who says "I will accept those students who complete this certain assignment" or "work in this certain way", aren't we really saying "I will accept anyone who also watches this TV show" or "plays this video game"? I realize now this is exactly what often motivated me to spend time playing a video games and look at sports on the internet. We deal with what we hate by becoming it. In order to deal with the expectations others put on us, we in response find our escape in being the one who lays down the expectations.

Okay, I won't say anthing else yet, because I don't want posts to be too long and complicated and all and I think I've said what I wanted to say. (And I really need to start thinking about my exam in 11 hours.)

Games

2005-05-04T16:34:00.000-05:00

What really sometimes scares me is that I could spend life doing nothing but playing games. I realize that the only reason I want to play the games is to establish relationships with other people, but this does not really end my desire of playing them. Of course, that’s all life is to many people, a series of different games: mimic what the teacher says, gain the approval of a group of people, etc.

But now, I see the foolishness in this. When a relationship is based on a game, it misses the point. Games are something that we can learn from and enjoy together. But the instant you start to play a game of any kind for the purpose of developing a relationship with someone else, you are necessarily imposing an expectation on them. This completely turns the purpose of games upside down. The presence of an expectation necessarily excludes the ability to learn from a game. All of sudden the game becomes about meeting the expectation rather than learning something about life. Relationships should never be built upon expectations, but rather a mutual trust and desire for understanding. This is the type of relationship we all truly desire.