Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Generosity: An Enhancement

"Freely given and freely received; freely bestowed and freely embraced. This is the way of love. For love never forces itself upon another, nor obligates another to accept what love gives. And love gives hopeful that the gift will be received and appreciated, but with no thought or expectation of getting something in return."

(For K, who was stuck on having to buy Christmas gifts.)

Well, it's officially Winter here, and my poor car has survived its first-ever winter weather accident. Unemployment is less than a week away, but we who were left behind have heavily medicated ourselves with baked goods and mirth.

The winter holidays are traditionally a time of generosity. The giving of gifts to family and friends, and the sharing of wealth and self with those less fortunate, can add meaning and pleasure to the holidays. But as with so many things that have become ritualized, something that is expected is never quite as pleasurable as something that is spontaneous.

The phrase 'freely given' has come to my mind several times this holiday season. I had thought that phrase to be pagan in origin, but googling it produces results that are largely Christian in context. The origin of the phrase is perhaps less important than the idea it conveys - there is something better about, if not critical to, the notion of giving when the giving is done without the expectation of something in return.

Too often acts of generosity come with the expectation of a reward of some kind: recognition, or reciprocation in kind. We have Christmas gift exchanges where we set limits on what can be given so that no one feels cheated by the exchange, and perhaps also so that no one feels overly prideful about the exchange. We stress equality because we do not give and receive freely.

There is perhaps no more incompatible worldview for the future of humanism than the one that treats everything as a potential medium of exchange. Human beings revolt at the idea that certain things can/should be bought, sold, or traded instead of freely given. That response may be irrational in light of evidence that anything really can be bought, sold, or traded, but it is fundamentally human to want to give. Spontaneously doing/giving something to make another person happy or in response to a genuine need feels good. Why should this be?

Why do people who donate blood without receiving compensation stop doing so when plans are revealed to charge patients for the freely-donated blood? Why does nothing kill genuine desire like the expectation of having to put out? Why does giving feel better than a commercial exchange? Why does the TSO song Old City Bar always bring tears to my eyes?

Of course the flip side to giving freely is receiving freely, without attempting to 'clear the debt' of the giver's gift. It's difficult, for example, to take a compliment without feeling obligated to return it. As a society we have evolved a whole set of unspoken rules about the expected reciprocity of giving. One of my favorite examples of this unspoken expectation of reciprocity is the persistent idea that "the cost of a wedding gift should equal the the cost of the guest's meal." (That one kept me from going to a wedding once; the bride had been very explicit about how much the dinner was costing.)

Or the third date rule. (sigh)

If there's an enhancement to be made to our notions of 'giving' and 'generosity', let it be that what we give, we give freely, without expectation of something in return. What we have been given, we receive freely, without being put under obligation. It's not always the easiest thing to do. Sometimes you have given so much that you can't help but feel as though you are owed something. But you move from 'giving' to 'trading' only when the terms of the exchange are spelled out before the exchange takes place.

In the absence of such terms, what you have been given is a gift. Take it freely, without obligation.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Right Before Your Eyes

"What is for sure is I'm gonna to go
I'm gonna to live and I'm going to learn"

They say that self-knowledge is the key to enlightenment. And there's nothing like a major life change for pushing you to answer the questions 'Who am I?' and 'What do I want?'. Imminent unemployment has pushed my coworkers and I to answer these questions in concrete terms.

It's fascinating to watch the process of self-discovery unfold. And for all the power that self-knowledge puts at your disposal, it's amazing how little of it some people have. Which leads me to a few questions - Do other people always know your better than you know yourself? Are we built to hide certain truths from ourselves about who we are, in favor of certain ideals that we've been programmed to believe in? If so, how well can the process of self-discovery take place in isolation?

I'm continuing to struggle with being honest about who I am and what I want. I've always thought - and to a certain extent still do think - that there were certain things I had to do, and certain things that it was better to be. In the past, I've had a hard time identifying what I really wanted to do because I couldn't ignore what I thought I had to do. If I'm willing to take the trouble to carefully identify what I believe, shouldn't I be as honest as possible in identifying what I believe about myself too?

Who am I?
  • INTJ - The Mastermind. (I can hear your laughter.) "Although they are highly capable leaders, Masterminds are not at all eager to take command, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once they take charge, however, they are thoroughgoing pragmatists...." "Masterminds do not feel bound by established rules and procedures, and traditional authority does not impress them, nor do slogans or catchwords. Only ideas that make sense to them are adopted; those that don't, aren't, no matter who thought of them. Remember, their aim is always maximum efficiency." "Problem-solving is highly stimulating to Masterminds, who love responding to tangled systems that require careful sorting out. Ordinarily, they verbalize the positive and avoid comments of a negative nature; they are more interested in moving an organization forward than dwelling on mistakes of the past." [Disclosure: The 'I' and the 'N' are solid; the 'T' and the 'J' are closer to the middle of the spectrum.]
  • I thrive on challenge, but I refuse to have the same fight over and over again.
  • I enjoy being creative. I especially enjoy being creative in response to challenge.

What do I want?

This is where things get more difficult. I've never had a clear goal about where I wanted to end up in life. Do I want to be a published writer/public speaker? Do I want to spend my days blissfully solving problems in an ivory tower somewhere? Or do I want to be on the front lines, taking on important issues and making a difference in real-time?

For eight years I thought that there was something that I had to say. In the process of saying it, I was surprised to discover that there was something else that I wanted to say. Over the last year or two, I've become less attached to the idea that I had to be a scientist, and more comfortable with the idea that I could do something equally important by establishing groundbreaking precedents and arguments in the field of cognitive liberty.

I'm still in the process of gathering information. (Thanks to B and M for independently pushing 'leadership'!) In terms of practical moves, I'm looking at what it takes to get an agent and/or a publishing deal for The Book. (The good news is that I have a good start on having a marketable 'platform'.) I'm also looking at gaining some experience in a legal environment to see if I have what it takes to be a lawyer. (I'm guessing it's more than just an exceptional ability to formulate razor-sharp arguments. ;)

And no worries - this blog will resume its regular schedule of philosophical musings.

Friday, December 11, 2009

A Vindication of Love (Pt II)

Some more thoughts on love, expressed in quotes...


"Sensible people are not inspired people. Sensible people, in fact, are often shortsighted people. They cannot penetrate into the secrets of the universe... To see into the core of things, you have to be transported. You have to be in love."

"In order to be inflamed intellectually, we need to be enlisted emotionally. In the absence of emotional engagement, most people do not interrogate themselves about topics for which there is no immediate or pragmatic urgency... Love makes us explore. Love makes us blaze through new subjects and new cultures; it makes us hatch new visions."




"The love between the two thinkers was not exclusive, but inclusive. It asked. It comprehended. It cherished. And it survived."

"The two philosophers began by identifying the truths about each other and ended by identifying the truths about their time."



"It is curious that only those incapable of producing great work believe that the contrary is the proper conduct: to take science, art, or politics seriously and disdain love affairs as mere frivolities."

"They knew that, far from representing an act of weakness or docility, women's love - like men's - is a struggle. It is conquest and self-conquest. Far from proving incompatible with a muscular intellectual life, it is its natural counterpart. Strong thoughts engender strong emotions. A woman accustomed to reasoning for herself is unlikely to leave courting, desiring, sacrificing, swaggering, or indeed self-dramatization to the opposite sex. She is unlikely to shrink from a fight."



"Love, for the strong-hearted and strong-minded woman, is a game like all others - albeit perhaps the most important game."

"We had played too many games for me not to try this one too."



"Still, after all they had been through together, he understood her more than any other man on earth."

"...even while lovers are striving to be truthful about their feelings to their quarry, they must hold something back for the quarry to hunt in them."

Monday, November 30, 2009

A Vindication of Love (Pt I)

From a book that I happen to be reading - "A Vindication of Love: Reclaiming Romance in the Twenty-First Century" by Cristina Nehring (2009) ...

"For women authors in general, love - whether it be reciprocal or spurned, happy or sad, chaste or promiscuous - seems to be a public relations gaffe, a death blow to one's credibility as a thinker... To be respected as a thinker in our world, a woman must cease to be a lover. To pass for an intellectual of any distinction, she must either renounce romantic love altogether or box it into a space so small in her life that it attracts no attention."

"The reputation of a male thinker is either untouched or improved by an erotically charged biography. The reputation of a female thinker is either subtly undermined or squarely destroyed."

"Men, in other words, are defined by the missions they have accomplished, the dragons they have slain, the prizes they have won, while women are defined by the men they have loved. This is indeed unforgivably reductive..."

True that. (sigh)

I intend to return to this topic post-chaotic employment mess.

Friday, November 27, 2009

Tend and Befriend

"The dominant model of human responses to stress has been the fight or flight response.... From the standpoint of human beings, however, this analysis of stress responses is incomplete." - Wikipedia

It's been an eventful couple of weeks. Yours truly found out that her company has fallen prey to the economy, and will be closing by the end of this year. She shares this stressful state of job loss with a cohort of coworkers.

There's a part of me that tries to remain a detached observer with regard to group dynamics, and this situation is no exception. As we all move closer to unemployment, it's been interesting to see how we, individually and collectively, respond to the stress of having our jobs/income ripped away. As hinted at in the quote above, the traditional model of stress response - fight or flight - seems inadequate to describe the observed responses to this particular threat.

Indeed, the nature of the threat is such that neither fighting nor flight are really possible. There is nothing any of us can do to make the jobs come back (fight), nor can we successfully escape the threat of a lost income (flight). If I wanted to argue that the fight or flight response did explain my response to this stressful situation, I might do so in the following way... Initially, the fight response prompted me to question our right to severance. (We have none, due to the nature of our company and the reasons for its closing.) I might also say that the fight response prompted me to mobilize my resources for a campaign to regain an income. (Alternative stress response: use humor to offset tension. We are now on 'a campaign to regain our income.')

But this line of reasoning seems to me to be too much of a stretch from the original observations that led to a 'fight or flight' theory of stress response. (I generally hate overgeneralizations.) Much about our current situation and the behaviors that I have observed in myself and others reminds me of an alternative model of stress response that I only recently learned about - tend and befriend.

Tend and befriend has been presented as a predominantly female response to stress. The model was developed after Shelley Taylor, a health psychologist, realized that most of the studies leading to the fight or flight model had been conducted on male animals. I don't particularly like that overgeneralization, but I can't really use observations from my current situation to argue with it either.

The more critical difference between how the two models might be applied to the situation of job loss seems to be in the nature of the threat. Job loss may represent a range of stresses - from losing a critical component of one's identity, to losing one's friends/associates, to losing food/shelter as a result of losing income - rather than the single, immediate threat of a predator. The things that you stand to lose when you lose a job are things that come from interaction and exchange with other people. Regaining what you've lost requires setting up a replacement network of interaction and exchange. (Hello again, Facebook!)

Additionally, regaining an income requires information about potential new jobs. Surviving the threat of job loss requires interaction with other people. Whether you choose to call engaging in this interaction 'fighting' or 'befriending' probably reflects aspects of your personality/worldview more so than it reflects the actual behavior and the reasons for it. Or maybe it reflects actual gender differences in preference for a particular worldview. I have to wonder - Is there a measurable difference in success and/or personal happiness, independent of gender, that comes from internalizing one of these models over the other? "I wondered which one is right. Or, are they both right?" (q)

As to my personal application of the tend and befriend response... I believe I'll spend the better part of today 'tending' my humble abode, which is in dire need of such. I generally ignore this particular chore, but somehow I find it oddly soothing right now. Likewise, I'll probably attempt to tend/befriend coworkers and friends alike with the application of baked goods. ;)

Monday, November 9, 2009

A Multi-dimensional Assessment of Belief

"But out of limitations comes creativity."

I find myself lamenting the limitations of the standard believer/nonbeliever dichotomy. More specifically, I hate that the word 'skeptic' has come to signify a dogmatic group to which one belongs, rather than an esteemed state of critical thinking. It got me thinking about why a person holds a particular set of beliefs, and how we might more accurately identify the reasons for a person's adherence to a particular belief.

So here's today's two-bit attempt at improving the world.

Think of this as a Myers-Briggs type personality assessment. (I'll have a name for it by the end of this post.) Let me explain the dimensions...

Self <-------> Authority (Source of Beliefs)
This dimension reflects the likely source of a person's beliefs. Is he a critical thinker who examines arguments and evidence for himself before reaching a decision? Or is he content to let an accepted authority figure tell him what is right/wrong?

Diverse <-------> Homogeneous (Environmental Preference)
This dimension reflects a person's preference for social environment. Does he prefer a diverse group of friends with differing beliefs? Or is he more comfortable associating with people who possess similar beliefs and values?

Uncertain <-------> Certain (Tolerance for Uncertainty)
This dimension reflects a person's tolerance for uncertainty. Is he willing to act on information that he is not completely certain about (high tolerance for uncertainty), or is he likely to hold off on acting in the face of uncertainty?

I would argue that these dimensions are autonomous enough that a score on one scale does not necessarily predict scores on the other scales. But that's just my hunch. Certainly you could see where a person who had a higher tolerance for uncertainty might prefer a more diverse social group, but it need not follow. A person who is required by some other aspect of his life to have a high tolerance for uncertainty may actually prefer a more homogeneous social group. (There are limits to our ability to tolerate uncertainty.)

What would this scale be useful for? In theory, it could predict a person's tendency toward affiliations with belief-based groups, and their willingness to act based in support of that affiliation. A person who prefers a homogeneous social group, but who is not willing to accept 'truth' from authority, may be less likely to commit aggressive acts in the name of that group's agenda. A person who prefers a homogeneous social group, and who has a low tolerance for uncertainty, may react more aggressively to perceived threats to that group's stability, whether ideological or social.

Here's an interesting quote that I found in the blogosphere today - "We can signal loyalty to a group by showing our confidence in its beliefs. And our ability to offer many reasonable arguments for its beliefs suggests such confidence. But sometimes we can show even stronger loyalty by showing a willingness to embrace unreasonable arguments for our group’s beliefs. Someone who supports a group because he thinks it has reasonable supporting arguments might well desert that group should he find better arguments against it. Someone willing to embrace unreasonable arguments for his group shows a willingness to continue supporting them no matter which way the argument winds blow." (q) This quote suggests that parsing the reasons why a person holds a particular beliefs (especially one whose 'truth' value is questionable) might be of value in predicting their actions.

For all I know, something similar already exists. I still don't know what to call my proposed assessment, so I'm having a hard time googling for something similar. (I did find a few interesting things though.) My apologies if I reinvented your wheel.

In addition to the uses I've just described, I'd like to see people substitute this three-part self-assessment any time they feel like identifying themselves as a 'believer' or a 'skeptic' of any kind. At the very least we'll be getting a more honest picture of why you hold that viewpoint.

So... who has some grant money for me to develop this idea? :)

Friday, November 6, 2009

Between Man and Man (Pt II)

"You have to turn the sheep loose before you can start to herd them."

"Authority is easily abused. But authority can do good. It takes power to make the real changes needed in the world. A good person who is good at dealing with power can make the world a better place for everyone."

"Only thing that's on my mind is who's gonna run this town tonight."

The ironic thing about power is that everyone thinks they're good at managing it. Even me. But that doesn't mean that I'm actually good at managing it. Judgments about your own use of power are only valid when made by someone else.

Recently I was empanelled on a six-person jury in a trial for two civil offenses. In Our Fair State, only a five-person majority is required in order to convict in this situation. But we were asked to try for a unanimous verdict.

[Disclaimer: I'm going to grossly overdramatize my (internal monologue) here to make a point. Though this was not what was running through my mind at the time, the fact that I can think about it this way now indicates that similar knowledge/feelings may have existed in my subconscious at the time. I have nothing but respect for my fellow jurors, especially The Dissenter, who held out for two hours against the onslaught of my brilliant logic and dynamic personality. ;) ]

Once the jury was sequestered, our first task was to appoint a foreman. (Not It! Never be the face of authority.) So I quickly sized up the situation and nominated the person who turned out to be The Dissenter. He was quick, confident, and articulate, and there were no objections. Aside from me, he was probably the most dynamic person in the room. [What an ego, eh? ;) ]

Unfortunately, the first thing he wanted to talk about was something that the defense attorney had mentioned in his opening statement but never during the actual trial. Anything said in the opening or closing statements cannot be considered as evidence. (Silly sheep! Tricks are for kids!) Yours truly feels compelled to pipe up and stop this nonsense before it goes too far. He resists me. I persist. (Fight me! Do it! Bring it!)

[Disclaimer: I like to fight/compete/argue/debate with a worthy opponent. I can kick ass and take names, and I'm good at it. And I like it. Fear me.]

At this point, I realize that someone else (Me!) is going to have to take charge of this discussion, but not in an overt or disruptive way that destabilizes the group dynamic. The first move? Take control of the white board. [Did I mention that I once went to a literary costume ball as The Art of War?] Give everyone your visual of the situation. There were two offenses, each of which was comprised of two elements. We were all in agreement with the first element in each count, and after only a brief discussion, we were in agreement on the second element of the second count. I diagram this for us to reinforce a sense of accomplishment and unity, and to emphasize our point of disagreement - the second element of the first offense - in order to focus the discussion.

The wording of the second element of the first offense was deliberately vague, and as a result we had to come to an agreement not only as to what 'under the influence' and 'impaired' meant, but also whether or not the defendant had been demonstrably impaired. The evidence left enough room for argument on this point, though five of us rather quickly agreed that the defendant was impaired. The Dissenter held out at this point, not out of stubbornness, but because he actually wasn't sure.

And now we deliberated. And by 'we', I mean mostly him and me. (Bring it!) While we both got a little loud, we both heard each other's arguments and responded to the arguments rather than something else. [Nothing but respect for you, dude. Not many people can handle me when I get going. I won't presume to speak for you, but I enjoyed our deliberation.]

Eventually, with the help of the juror next to me, we finally convinced The Dissenter that the defendant had been impaired. I won't rehash all the arguments that were employed, except to say that they were brilliant! [Geez, squash the ego already!]

What's disturbing to me is that it was easy for me to take charge of that situation. And I did it because I thought I was the best-qualified, smartest, and most competent person in the room. [Damn, woman! How did your ego get that big?] I knew enough about human behavior and group dynamics to be able to manipulate the situation and do it. And I was relentless in applying every argument at my disposal to winning - er, convincing The Dissenter that I/we were right. And I liked it. And because the rest of the group was on the same side as me, I was perhaps more focused on convincing The Dissenter that he was wrong than I was on considering the fact that he might be right. [I still don't think he was right. I'm just saying...]

And for hours afterward I was still wound up in that weird way you get wound up after you've fought and won. This disturbed me more than anything - the intensity of the whole thing, and the fact that I liked it.

Almost everyone thinks that they'd be great at handling power. Hell, I'm sure a great many of us think that we're the 'most qualified' to have such power, whether in the workplace or in a group dynamic. But once you have a certain amount of effort invested in getting power or in obtaining a certain outcome, it becomes increasingly difficult to back down from your position. Not that you should want to, but that status and the ability to direct future actions are now attached to your actions, and attempting to hold your position/power may be more about your status than it is about doing the right thing. For some inexplicable reason, power feels good, and when you have it, it's hard to give it up.

In our culture we routinely elevate people to positions of celebrity/influence - in the realms of spirit and science, as well as other realms. We allow the media to build these people up to us as authorities who are worthy of respect, and we give it to them. [Journalists scare me.] We hand them power, without realizing that power changes a person, and there are very few people who can handle it well. Ironically, we also rely on the media to tell us when these authorities have over-stepped some perceived boundary in thought or conduct, and we allow the media to destroy our ability to trust or respect these same people.

An individual is always fallible. An idea may have merit (or not), but too often we choose to focus on the individual instead of his/her ideas. It's easier. It settles that need that most of us have to be dominated. It gives us someone to fight against. It's easier to set up and get excited about contests between man and man than it is to get excited about a contest purely between ideas. But the individual will always make mistakes, and we will cheer and move on. The individual is always fallible.

Rather than choosing between men in whom you will put your trust, choose between ideas. Choosing between ideas is much harder to do. You will want to use the easy cues of the personal charisma and charm of the individual in order to make judgments about his/her ideas, but personal attributes are misleading. And the individual may have an agenda. You are always better off doing the hard work of choosing between ideas, rather than choosing between individuals.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Between Man and Man (Pt I)

"Pity those who seek for shepherds instead of longing for freedom."

Back in the days of the Coffee Evangelist, I had started to make a list of the things I believed. It's been well over a year now, and I only remember one thing from that list - I believe that no man should place himself between another man and God.

Now, the atheists among you will no doubt read that as an indictment against the notion of priests and organized religion. And it is. But it is also an indictment against anyone who would use any appeal to authority as a way to tell another man what to think about God.

Before I read The God Delusion, my thoughts about it were pretty much limited to "Poor sap. He actually thinks it's about God." After I read The God Delusion, I had to wonder if Dawkins didn't understand the more fundamental truth of things - It's not about God. It's about power over one's fellow man, and man's desire to be reassured that someone smarter/wiser/holier than himself has figured things out and can tell him the answers. You'll remember that TGD begins by describing Dawkins' perceptions of Einsteins' views on God/religion. You'll remember that I was heartily annoyed that Dawkins peppered his book with similar claims about great scientists - He was an atheist, and he was smarter/wiser than you. Do you really think you know better than him? (Sorry Dawkins, but it smacked of that whether you said it openly or not.) For all the convincing arguing Dawkins did about the evidence (or not) for God, he still couldn't resist putting in the appeals to an authority greater than himself.

You see, it's really not about God. God is an unanswerable question, because a fundamental aspect of the idea of God is that S/He is outside of our realm of experience. I have nothing against debating the merits/existence of God if you feel you need or want to do that. But do it respectably, by discussing the only thing you truly have - your own ideas, thoughts, and experiences - without resorting to a tally of which respectable person falls on which side of the debate. (Well done on that point, Horgan.)

And decide if your real problem is with God, or with organized religion (Man). Because I'm betting that almost everything you think you know about God actually came from Man. Even those tablets of inscribed stone/gold that are supposed to have come directly from God. Unless God dropped those tablets at your feet, your knowledge of them came from Man.

I wish that God were something intensely personal. I wish that each man (and of course I mean woman also) questioned the unknown aspects of his universe on his own and decided what to believe based on his own thinking and experience. I wouldn't presume to tell someone that he can't feel the presence of God, or the peace that passes understanding, except to say that if he finds these experiences too distressing, there's probably a medication that can help with that. But when one man thinks his vision of whatever is out there is superior to that of others, then the problems start. When one man becomes convinced that he must share that vision, he becomes an authority, at least on that topic. (And I know what some of you are thinking. Yes, that goes for scientific visions too. Even mine.)

When one man becomes convinced that he must defend his vision, he is no longer working for his own understanding - he is fighting for the loyalty/respect/right to influence other people. And once you are in that position, it's very hard not to resort to appeals to the authority of others who shared your vision. Because you have tasted power, and it tastes good. (Pt II will be about my recent experience as a juror, and let's just say... sometimes I scare me.)

Authority is an inescapable consequence of organized group activity. Any time there is a division of labor - such as is required for a civilized society to function - or task specialization among members of a group, one member comes to know things that the others do not. He becomes a trusted authority in that thing in which he specializes. People come to him when they need advice or information about his area of expertise. And this system can work well, because we usually recognize how it enhances our collective strength. We can't all be doctors - who would put out fires?, etc. I just don't think that our knowledge or ideas about God are something that we need to trust to others. God shouldn't be an acceptable area of specialization. You might specialize in the history of the idea of God, or the reasons people want to believe in God. But you do not and should not claim to specialize in God. You do not and should not claim to have any special authority from God.

Let me say it again - God is an unanswerable question, by definition. Talking about God only shifts our attention away from the real problems that prompted us to think about God in the first place. (I can't believe I'm writing yet another post that talks about God. Really. It annoys me.) And those problems are between Man and Man. Even those problems that appear to have no origin in the actions of Man (e.g., natural disasters) can be alleviated somewhat by the efforts of Man. And because Man is a creature of diverse ideas, he will argue and fight for the right to lead other men according to his vision of how these problems should be solved. But his vision should never be confused with God's vision. Even if he believes God may have communicated something to him, he is the one communicating it to you. And he is a man. You are never being asked to choose between God and Man; you are being asked to choose between man and man. Even when you are choosing between your own experience and the experience of others - man and man.

At some point, you will follow someone whose vision or charisma or other attributes you admire. But never give up the right to question that person, or their actions. Never let them convince you that their position is unassailable, or their authority is beyond reproach.

I know what you're thinking - "You're sounding a little preachy there, missy." And in Pt II I'll tell you exactly why you should never unthinkingly give me power or authority.

Friday, October 30, 2009

By Heresies Distressed (Pt III)

"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way."

Recently I attended a talk on the state of science education in Our Fair City. (My apologies if you choked on something when you saw the link. ;) I live under a pretty big rock sometimes, so I really didn't know what to expect from this talk, save that I thought the emphasis might be on teaching the process of critical thinking, rather than facts about science. And there was a good deal of valuable discussion on that point.

But the main point of discussion was the teaching of evolution in the classroom. Now, Our Fair City is pretty liberal, so I didn't think that this was a problem in our area. But apparently there is a survey out there somewhere that did not give Our Fair State a favorable ranking in science education. And apparently this has a great deal to do with how evolution is taught.

Yours truly was displeased to learn that science education has become synonymous with evolution. [Mini-rant begins.] Science is so much more than that. It is, first and foremost, a process of thinking critically about the evidence in front of you, whether that evidence be a fossil, the light from a star, or the behavior of an individual. Science is not a club you join, or a replacement for spirituality. (The chief doctrine of Buddhism is "Be ye lamps unto yourselves." As in, think critically about what's in front of you, and don't follow along like a sheep. So science does not have a monopoly on critical thinking.) And while science is also a community, it should not be a community that allows its actions to be dominated by an anti-religion agenda. [Mini-rant over.]

During all the back and forth about evolution vs. creation, yours truly was wondering 'Why doesn't the idea of evolution distress me? How did I get to this place?' I didn't get there by simply switching the authority to which I pledged my allegiance. I didn't get there through fear, or peer pressure. I got there by embracing and nurturing the power to ask questions and answer them for myself. I questioned authority, and found it lacking. I also found that authority didn't particularly care if I got hurt when I followed it, and therefore I was often better off thinking for myself.

My next question was 'Why aren't more people doing this?'

"One of the basic human desires is the desire to be dominated. Dictatorships and cults arise from the desire of certain communities to be dominated by some powerful figure. Our primate relatives often live in small packs dominated by one unquestioned leader. Maybe this is how we're programmed to respond. In any case, a dictator doesn't come into power by his personal force alone. He comes into power when people want to be led, when people want to transfer responsibility onto some supposedly greater person.

It's very convenient to be told what to do. You no longer have to think for yourself. You no longer have to make your own decisions. That can be a tremendous relief. It's why some of the smartest people in the world often fall prey to the kookiest cults. They're just tired of being responsible for themselves." - Zen Wrapped in Karma Dipped in Chocolate, Brad Warner (2009). (Good book. Worth the read.)

Assuming that it is advantageous to be a critical thinker, how do you go about giving people (especially children) the ability to be independent thinkers? How do you give them the desire to be independent thinkers? What can you do to influence the next generation if you are neither parent nor teacher? And how do you do it without simply becoming another 'authority' to which they transfer their allegiance? (More thoughts on this are forthcoming.)

Monday, October 26, 2009

Free To Be... Neurodiversity vs. Cognitive Liberty

“There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.”

I hereby point you to a recent series of posts on neurodiversity and cognitive liberty, beginning with a post by Casey Rae-Hunter, who identifies himself as an adult with Asperger's, and continuing with his follow-up post, which aims to clarify how neurodiveristy differs from cognitive liberty. The discussion is summarized in a post by George Dvorksy that fed to the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.

Rae-Hunter's Principles of Cognitive Liberty... [My comments are bracketed.]

"1. Cognitive liberty is the basic right of an individual to pursue potentially beneficial psychological/neurological trajectories. If the individual is unable to make these choices themselves, than it is the right of their closest family members to make them, provided they are not coerced by the medical establishment or prevailing social strata. [I don't agree that the last sentence is a forgone conclusion. A non-family advocate, such as a case worker, may do more to actually advocate for the individual in many cases.]

2. Cognitive liberty recognizes that information and education are key to making informed choices. In the absence of such information, cognitive libertarians will advocate for the fullest range of data in when considering treatment options or lifestyle planning.

3. Cognitive liberty recognizes the range of psychological profiles in both the neurotypical world and otherwise. Until and unless an individual's psychology can be determined as infringing on another individual's cognitive liberty, they are free to pursue or not pursue strategies for conventional adaptation, possible enhancement or any other cognitive application — actual or postulatory.

4. Cognitive liberty recognizes the right to pharmacological experimentation, within existing legal structures. Where those structures are not beneficial or unnecessarily inhibit potentially useful individual research, cognitive libertarians reserve the right to challenge legal frameworks (and, where appropriate and with full comprehension of the punitive risks, step beyond them).

5. Cognitive liberty recognizes the essential function of the governmental regulatory apparatus, but places others' cognitive liberty ahead of the societal, legal or bureaucratic status quo. Through education, research and advocacy, cognitive libertarians can and should present information to policymakers that will enhance governmental comprehension of current and emerging issues. Where decisions are made, they must be transparent and open to debate.

6. Cognitive liberty is not an outlier of the neurodiversity movement. It is a separate, but complimentary effort to enhance understanding about the range of possibilities in self-directed cognition."

This is definitely a good start to defining the objectives and guiding principles of cognitive libertarians, but I would like to illuminate one point that may have gotten lost in the initial discussions.

The issues of neurodiversity and cognitive liberty are not restricted to autistics and those in the autism spectrum, though you might be forgiven for thinking that. Dvorsky attempts to extend the discussion a bit by referring to forced modification of sociopathic tendencies, though his support for the idea of cognitive liberty dodges a bit here - "I am admittedly on the fence with this one. My instinct tells me that we should never alter a person’s mind against their will; my common sense tells me that removing sociopathic tendencies is a good thing and ultimately beneficial to that individual. I’m going to have to ruminate over this one a bit further…" (George, dude! I expect a follow-up post from you on this. Give it plenty of thought.)

Potent threats to cognitive liberty can also come from a variety of social pressures faced by 'normal' people, as discussed in a recent posting here, or from the idea that anything that can be classified as a mental pathology should be treated according to current medical guidelines.

We are constantly redefining what it means to be human. Some of these ideas still distress us 150 years after they first appeared. And we now have it within our grasp to artificially change how we express our humanity. It is up to us to make sure that this technology serves our highest ideals about humanity, not our lowest fears.

"One way or another, we all have to find what best fosters the flowering of our humanity in this contemporary life, and dedicate ourselves to that."

Thursday, October 15, 2009

By Heresies Distressed (Pt II)

"Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood."

Some days ago I asked the questions - "Is there any area of the human condition which science should not explore and report upon with complete impartiality? Should social considerations have a role in determining what areas science is allowed to investigate, and how the results should be disseminated/used?"

After watching the NOVA special on Darwin, I got to thinking about the impact of Darwin's work. Darwin was portrayed as being worried about a very specific implication of his work. His work brought man and animal into the same sphere (those creatures subject to certain types of natural law), and struck a blow to the idea that Man was created in God's image and therefore fundamentally superior to animals. And while the NOVA special didn't portray this aspect of Darwin's thinking in great detail, it did convey that this was an important concern for Darwin. Perhaps his concerns were more for himself - as he undoubtedly knew that he would be vilified for suggesting something so abhorrent - or perhaps he did spend some time thinking about how the broader social consequences that would come with a wider acceptance of this idea.

Perhaps Darwin was also motivated to share the beauty he found in understand new laws of the universe - "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." (q) Perhaps he keenly felt the obligation of a scientist - to measure and report. And he was pressured by the need to publish for priority.

The purpose of this post isn't to pass judgment on Darwin, but rather to get at answers to the questions I was asking. Darwin simply provides a compelling case study with which to attempt to answer those questions. After a week of ruminating on what I had watched, I find myself stuck on this thought... While Darwin gave the world valuable evidence for a valid new scientific perspective, what he (arguably) didn't do was to give man anything that alleviated any form of suffering. (One could even argue (although I won't attempt to) that Darwin's ideas have thus far proved to be a cause of additional suffering.) 'That is not the purpose of science,' you exclaim, and of course you're right. But where does the scientist's responsibility to add to the common knowledge of mankind meet his/her responsibility to enhance the collective good of mankind?

Do scientists simply have an obligation to discover and report? Or should they be asking themselves critical questions, such as... Are people suffering needlessly for lack of this knowledge? Would I want my children to have this knowledge, and why?

Assuming Darwin were free from any perceived need to publish for priority, how would he have argued the answers to these questions with respect to his ideas?

We cannot say that there are no other fundamental challenges awaiting us with respect to what it means to be human. The science journalist quoted in the previous post recently posted about free will. He chooses to reject a common scientific perspective - the idea that free will is an illusion - for the following reasons... "Free will works better than any other single criterion for gauging the vitality of a life, or a society. To me, choices, freely made, are what make life meaningful. Moreover, our faith in free will has social value. It provides us with the metaphysical justification for ethics and morality. It forces us to take responsibility for ourselves rather than consigning our fate to our genes or God." I'm sympathetic to the last point, as I've found acceptance of responsibility for one's own actions to be an important criterion for happiness. Does this mean I think that scientists should not persist in challenging the notion of 'free will'?

It's more accurate to say that I hope that scientists who are working with ideas that challenge fundamental notions about what it means to be human will stop to consider the broader social implications of their research, and perhaps even to answer the questions posed above, before proceeding to publish for a lay audience. Not because they are not correct to enhance our collective knowledge, but because we have collectively done such a poor job of receiving that knowledge. (More on that point in a future post.)

Friday, October 9, 2009

Free To Be... Cosmetic Neurology

(This one's for the 'friend' who recently offered me some of her prescription drugs.)

"We live in a culture that believes medication can solve almost any problem."

"The last thing a person concerned with brain power should do is gamble with using chemicals that influence her brain in ways that we do not understand."

- From a November 2009 Glamour article on 'sharing' prescription drugs.

Ignore the really large cup of coffee on my desk. I don't need it to write well, but it helps. This is the extent of my sympathy with chemically-tailored cognition.

The irony is that I will argue long and hard for cognitive liberty - your right to "the absolute sovereignty of [your] own consciousness." But the current trends towards accepting the expanded use of 'smart drugs' make me nervous.

Maybe it's because I was inundated with anti-drug messages during my formative years. There was a war on drugs that included some fairly-effective propaganda aimed at teenagers and young people. Apparently that message doesn't apply to these drugs.

In her Glamour article on the (apparently) common practice of sharing prescription drugs, the author includes statements like this - "While most experts agree that unsupervised pill popping is always risky, some have actually suggested that stimulants such as Adderall, Ritalin and Provigil should eventually become more available to people as study and work aids. In an editorial published last year in the scientific journal Nature, seven leading experts in medicine, science and law argued that using these drugs to boost mental performance was the way of the future. 'Cognitive enhancement has much to offer individuals and society,' they said." While the article continues on to describe the potential downfall of this type of drug use, we are left with the feeling that the scientific 'stamp of approval' has already been given via the quote from Nature. (That Nature article gets around.)

And the cover story of the current issue of Scientific American tackles the same issue. (Boo! for not making the whole article available online.)

On principle, I object to the fact that the average reader has no access to the actual science that is being used to support various arguments for or against cosmetic neurology, and must rely on secondhand reports and media coverage for information.

But my stronger objection is this... The current practices of cosmetic neurology and cognitive enhancement include plenty of unregulated activity, as illustrated by the Glamour article. The danger is that this activity will/has become so prevalent that it establishes new norms to which others are then obliged and/or pressured to conform.

And therein lies a paradox - How do you argue for the cognitive liberty of the individual when the exercise of that liberty may result in a decrease in liberty for those who follow? Should my children by obligated to take 'smart drugs' to stay competitive in school? Should I be obligated to take antidepressants to maintain a new standard of 'normal' behavior in my workplace?

And while there may currently be no explicit policies in place to mandate this type of drug use, our ideas about what is 'normal' are slowly and surely being altered to conform to new ideas about what is possible. "Our boss has started getting on my case for not being as productive... [as the guy] using unprescribed modafinil to work crazy hours..." (q) Hidden in every article referenced in this post are warnings about the unknown consequences of long-term, unprescribed, or unapproved use of prescription drugs for cosmetic (non-disease treating) purposes. Yet who will have the patience to wait for definitive scientific findings? And who will want to accept that s/he does not have the right to 'dope' his/her brain, especially if the practice is prevalent among peers?

"If we can improve cognitive systems in disease, can we also do so in health? Should we?" - Cosmetic neurology: The controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood. Anjan Chatterjee, MD (2004).

I like my current state of cognition. I'd like the freedom to keep it as it is. If your freedom to change your state of mind interferes with my freedom to not change my state of mind, then we'll have to throw down. In the meantime, let's all make informed choices.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Six-Word Memoirs

"What is better than telling stories?"

The human condition in six words.

"Six-Word Memoirs: The Legend

Legend has it that Hemingway was once challenged to write a story in only six words. His response? “For sale: baby shoes, never worn.” Starting in 2006, SMITH Magazine re-ignited the recountre by asking our readers for their own six-word memoirs. They sent in short life stories in droves, from the bittersweet (“Cursed with cancer, blessed with friends”) and poignant (“I still make coffee for two”) to the inspirational (“Business school? Bah! Pop music? Hurrah”) and hilarious (“I like big butts, can’t lie”)."

Ooh, a challenge. Must write some.

  • Sought knowledge. Bought college. Still searching.
  • The word 'normal' no longer applies.
  • Randomness refined. No equations. Pure mind.
  • Honesty in anonymity. Scattered specificity. Hidden.
  • This couldn't have been an accident.

Yours as comment; I dare you.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

By Heresies Distressed (Pt I)

"Censorship is the height of vanity."

Yet yours truly has actually spent a great deal of time considering the idea that there are some things which perhaps should remain, let's say, 'out of sight' of the general public. I've been having this debate with myself for years with respect to certain ideas/areas in science. Not because I want to see science censored, but because the dissemination of scientific work doesn't always result in (immediate) progress in bettering the human condition. And if it has the potential to make social conditions worse, does the scientist bear a responsibility to censor his/her work?

The immediate impetus for this post was the realization that NOVA was airing a two-hour program tonight called Darwin's Darkest Hour, with the teaser "Charles Darwin must decide whether to make the theory of evolution public." And that reignited my internal debate about the responsibilities of science and the scientist.

Given the respect accorded to science in our society, the generally high inability to think critically about science possessed by a majority of people, and the tendency to apply scientific results inappropriately when creating public programs/policy, one can reasonably ask - Is there any area of the human condition which science should not explore and report upon with complete impartiality? Should social considerations have a role in determining what areas science is allowed to investigate, and how the results should be disseminated/used? (If you are a scientist, chances are that you found that last question offensive. Read on.)

A science journalist recently stated: "First, I think at least one topic is beyond the pale. Claims that certain races are innately less intelligent than others are so noxious—with so much potential to exacerbate racism–that I disapprove of their dissemination; in fact I’d like to see research on race and intelligence discontinued, because it has less than zero social value."

At first blush, I find the idea that any scientific knowledge should be censored to be offensive. I don't want anything to be kept or hidden from me because you think I can't handle it. I find it offensive when someone tells me that I shouldn't read The Bell Curve or The God Delusion. (Full disclosure: These are the only books that I have been actively hassled for reading. Hassled by well-educated friends, whose spontaneous reaction upon seeing me reading these books was 'I can't believe you're reading that', followed by an extensive rant on why that was unacceptable, and (in one case) a recommendation that I read something more 'normal', like Nora Roberts.)

But you don't truly understand a point of view until you can sympathize with it. An infamous hacker chick once vented about how the next 'Darwin' might be put off from going public with any similar ideological/scientific leap, because the social consequences might be a net negative. (If you are wondering how this has any relevance now, consider this essay about one area of science that is waiting to 'find its Darwin'.)

In a weird twist of irony, much of the fiction I've been reading lately also deals with the battle between knowledge and ignorance, and various rationales for failing to disseminate knowledge. I have resolved nothing new in my ongoing debate, save that I'll be watching NOVA tonight with this quote in mind...

"We wander through our lives and then we die. But for all of us there is one moment, one crucial point, where we have to make a decision between what's right and what's wrong, between different visions of who we might be."

Monday, September 28, 2009

The Courage to Become (Pt III)

"Man has eaten from the tree of knowledge; he has not died, as the serpent had correctly predicted; he has become as God."

I found it amusingly ironic that Kurtz, in his haste to establish secular humanism as a viable alternative to traditional religion, suggested that humanists should adopt Prometheus as their patron saint. His greatness? "He was a champion of human-kind known for his wily intelligence, who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals."

If I'm not mistaken, stealing from God is the opener for 3 major religions. It is the first deed of note that Man performs after being created - stealing from God by eating forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.

If you're curious, no, there's no other (apparent) reason why Kurtz nominated Prometheus. Just the simple fact that he had the balls to steal something of value from a God who didn't want him/us to have it. Notably, Prometheus and Adam and Eve were all punished for their actions. Yet the stories of taking what we should not have from something greater than ourselves in order to advance have lived on, through the millennia of our collective history.

Which leads me to wonder if we don't retain the notion of 'God' as a cognitive marker of that which is greater than us. As a way to stoke our collective imaginations with stories of unlimited power and knowledge, and what one does with such abilities. Sure, but you can get that in good science fiction, you say. True, but good science fiction is rare, and perhaps we don't yet have enough of it to compete with the collective imaginings of our vast ancestry, who referred to what they imagined was greater than them simply as 'gods'.

For if we cannot imagine what is greater than us, what inspires us to strive and become something more? What holds back the apathy that accompanies the notion that we are simply a genetic program executing itself?

I was more than a little disappointed (for reasons I'll reveal in a future post) when The God Delusion began by seeking to establish Einstein's views on religion/God. As if Einstein would/could somehow invalidate or validate religion or atheism. A similar pattern followed throughout the book - seeking to establish the legitimacy of atheism by claiming various great scientific figures as atheists, or as sympathetic to atheism. These men did what, exactly? Oh, right, they teased the Universe into giving up Her secrets for the good of mankind. They found Knowledge that Man did not yet have, and they took it. (I doubt that Dawkins had in mind to give us a parallel story of Man's struggle to become something greater, but it's amusingly coincidental nonetheless.)

If you've read You Shall Be As Gods (and I hope you will, especially if you think that The God Delusion is the summit of the argument against traditional religion), then you may have come to see religion as (among other things) the story of Man's struggle to strive, challenge, and become that which is greater than He is. That struggle continues today, but we are in danger of missing the goal for all the fighting we do over the correct 'path' to the goal.

"What matters today is not the difference between believers and nonbelievers, but that between those who care and those who do not care."

Friday, September 18, 2009

You Shall Be As Gods

"For centuries the 'brightest minds' on earth had ignored the ancient sciences, mocking them as ignorant superstitions, arming themselves instead with smug skepticism and dazzling new technologies - tools that led them only further from the truth. Every generation's breakthroughs are proven false by the next generation's technology. And so it had gone through the ages. The more man learned, the more he realized he did not know."

"The stuff of magic and myth was fast becoming reality as the shocking new data poured in, all of it supporting the basic ideology of Noetic Science - the untapped potential of the human mind."

"The Buddha said, 'You are God yourself.' Jesus taught that 'the kingdom of God is within you' and even promised us, 'The works I do, you can do... and greater.' Even the first antipope - Hippolytus of Rome - quoted the same message, first uttered by the gnostic teacher Monoimus: 'Abandon the search for God... instead, take yourself as the starting place."

From The Lost Symbol, by Dan Brown (September 15th, 2009).

(quiet chuckle)

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Humanism for the Individual

They told me to be a light in the darkness. They did not tell me to drag people kicking and screaming out of the darkness.

(I know, I know - you want the Erich Fromm-y goodness. It's cooking, I promise. But I need to clear something up first.)

If there's a foundation stone to my set of beliefs, it's individual responsibility. My feelings on individual responsibility could be a set of essays unto itself, but I bring it up now because it's critical to understanding what I said earlier. What I said earlier was, admittedly, phrased badly, as is wont to happen when one doesn't calm down before one writes something.

My objection to humanism being confounded with atheism and rabid skepticism was not born out of my feelings for those ideas, but rather of the images of the behavior that they conjure up. Those behaviors are things that I've witnessed, and at some level I know that they don't represent the behavior of all people who hold those beliefs. Nonetheless, they left a bad taste in my mouth, so to speak, when it comes to the ideas that were behind the behaviors.

At the heart of this is the idea that we need to 'save' people from bad ideas. We are justified in doing whatever it takes to 'save' them because we are right and they are wrong. We are fighting the good fight and they wallow in ignorance and will thank us someday. Even if they don't, we are fighting to make the world a better place for the future and the future will thank us. No one ever says 'Hey, I'm feeling cranky today and I'm gonna blow steam by picking on/mocking some (fill in group name). It's okay because I'm right.' The ideas behind these behaviors change, but the behaviors are always the same.

This way madness lies.

Core to the notion of individual responsibility is not only the idea that I take responsibility for my actions, but also that I don't take responsibility for your actions. I don't try to 'save' you, save that I might devote my life to creating something that can educate others. But I do that because of what I believe in, not because I think that I must assume responsibility for you, or that my voice is worth more than yours. (Here the idea of 'individual responsibility' meets the idea of 'equality'. And while no one will overtly say that they don't believe that all men are equal, they will frequently demonstrate that, by virtue of their education or social standing, they really think that they do know more and are therefore better in some critical way that allows them treat others as inferior.)

What I said was not about the ideas behind atheism or skepticism, although you wouldn't know it from what I actually said. :) It was about behavior, and the idea that we have to 'save' people from bad ideas by using whatever tactics we can.

Curiosity usually wins out in the end with me, and because I would like not to have such a visceral reaction to the words 'atheism' and 'skepticism', I'm going to try to engage those ideas in my own way - starting with finally reading The God Delusion, as I understand that Dawkins is the godfather (so to speak) of modern atheism. Who knows what I'll think after I've read that book. I probably won't talk about it here, because I don't think that the power of humanism is the result of rejecting the idea of a God, but rather of embracing the fact that we are all human, and we are all here now, and if we won't help ourselves, a deity probably shouldn't think enough of us to care either.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

The Courage to Become (Pt II)

"Because we cannot tolerate greatness in our midst, we do all we can to destroy it."

"Others see their possibility in the reality of you. Be, therefore, a model to all the world."

Many years ago, during a summer internship, I learned 'The Rules' of Corporate America. Only two of those rules have remained with me through every subsequent job. They are - It's more important to be liked by your co-workers than it is to be good at your job. - and - Being good at your job can keep your from being liked by your co-workers. Presumably the second rule has something to do with the idea that stellar performance only serves to highlight less-adequate performance, and subsequently raises the bar for everyone else. (There's going to be a point in a minute. Hang in there.)

The other day I picked up a book called Tomorrow's God. (I am insatiably curious about alternative views of theology and spirituality.) Due to a well-placed library bar code, I did not realize (until I began reading it) that this book was written by the author of the Conversations with God series. Naturally it quickly became clear that this book was written as a dialogue with God. As far as I can tell so far, the author believes that he was having a conversation with God, or at least it wasn't ever made clear that the author was using dialogue simply as a literary technique. Okay. I occasionally like to indulge in the idea that I'm having a dialogue with the Universe. (The Universe is an amusing conversationalist, with very clever and subtle ways of letting me know that it knows more than I do.) So I'll read this book until I can't take it anymore, or until I reach the end.

I'm about 150 pages into it so far, and now I'm driven to read it because so much of what the author is saying (as 'God') is what any good humanist philosopher would say. (Indeed he has formed something called Humanity's Team, which I haven't investigated yet.) And I'm wondering, with increasing force - Why did the author feel the need to attribute this wisdom to God? Why couldn't he claim it as a legacy of his own thinking and studies? [Disclaimer: Apparently the 'proof' that this wisdom originates from God is in the last chapter, which I haven't read yet.]

I have a theory about this, which goes back to the idea that we don't easily tolerate greatness. If we do tolerate it, we do so by wanting to own it, dissect it, and understand it. And because we also have a tendency to equate greatness with infallibility, we are happy when 'greatness' self-destructs, and we armchair-quarterback the hell out of its mistakes. We also frequently judge our own self-worth by our proximity to greatness, rather than our own accomplishments and sense of satisfaction.

Indeed, Walsch (the author) discusses his perception of others expecting him to be in a place of "high consciousness" all the time. But perhaps this is related to his other fear - "... if I say that I am making this all up, they'll lose their faith in you, in me, and in this whole process." In other words, he fears that our reaction to these ideas is dependent upon our perception of their source. A humble man who claims to talk to God is more easily tolerated than a simple person who dares to say 'I think I might see a better way.' 'God' is more infallible than Man, therefore a more credible source. I don't claim to know what the author was experiencing while writing these books. I can only say that, so far, the ideas in this book frequently reflect the wisdom of our time, culture, and history, with no ideas that I haven't seen before. I don't doubt that the author wishes for a better future for Mankind.

And this brings me to the point. Perhaps one reason we cling to the notion of 'God' is because it provides an excuse for greatness and a defense against the hostility that man visits upon his fellows when he perceives them as a threat to himself. Of course, some have used the idea of being 'touched by God' as an excuse for vile acts as well. Somehow though, overall, we are usually more tolerant of that which makes us look good by comparison, than we are of that which makes us look bad. (Psychological threats - those which impact our beliefs about ourselves and our world - are frequently met with more hostility than purely physical threats.) I would also argue that we frequently suppress our everyday abilities for 'greatness' out of similar fears.

Fans of Erich Fromm may be able to guess where this line of thinking is going next, but for now I'll end with this quote...

"Your friends need what you can be when you are no longer afraid, when you know who you are, and why you are, and what you want. When you are no longer looking for reasons to live, but can simply be."

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Humanism as the Next Step?

Tell me, without digressing into what you don't believe in, why and how I can/should be good and do good.

(This is really all I'm asking of humanism. I don't need humanism to tell me what to think about chiropractors, as I found in Paul Kurtz's The Courage to Become: The Virtues of Humanism.)

There's a reason why I don't join things, and I hate '-isms' - you never like all of what you find, and you will be judged by the worst of it as well as the best. I don't like the fact that humanism is (perhaps hopelessly) confounded with atheism and rabid skepticism. I didn't know until today that the American Humanist Association was behind the creation of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). This does not make me happy...

It's my contention that certain aspects of 'paranormal' human experience represent aspects of the human condition that science does not yet completely understand. They are 'supernatural' only in the sense that our ideas of 'nature' do not yet have an adequate explanation for them; they are not 'supernatural' in the sense that their explanation must appeal to something unknowable and beyond the realm of science.

Yet the idea that we must do away with everything about our experience that science has yet to fully claim or explain is so entrenched in some humanist literature as to make humanism appear to be an untenable proposition for the future. The idea that science has adequately described our full range of experiences is also untenable. If humanism is to be a viable ethical and philosophical guide for the future, it must be prepared to accept scientific findings that may radically alter our understanding of what it means to be human. So far I have seen little that indicates that humanism will be adaptable in light of such findings.

Perhaps the trick to appreciating humanism is to go back to the sources of humanistic ideas - those writers who weren't concerned with establishing the '-ism', but with thinking and writing about human experience and ideals. And yet, in reading books specifically dedicated to establishing the humanist ideology, I find that I am getting closer to knowing what I believe.

This quiz from Humanism As the Next Step (Lloyd and Mary Morain, 1998) was quick and helpful...

How to Decide Whether You are a Humanist

1) Do you believe that we will continue to learn more about the past, present, and future of planet earth and its inhabitants? (YES)

2) Do you believe that humans are a part of nature (YES) and that there is no God or supernatural power especially concerned for their welfare? (NO)

3) Do you believe that religions' sacred scriptures and ethical and moral systems were the creations of mortals and that these have served different purposes at different times and places? (YES)

4) Do you believe that the kind of life we live and the helpful and just relationship that we have with other humans is of primary importance? (YES)

5) Do you feel our environment needs to be taken care of and protected for future generations? (YES)

6) Do you frequently experience joy and comfort and an undefined mystic sense from the realization that you are part of nature and of all that lives? (YES)

7) Do you believe that the meaning of life is that which we give it? (YES)

8) Do you recognize that many philosophical questions such as, "What is the meaning of life?" and "Why am I here?" are irrelevant when our existence and experience are viewed as processes within the totality of nature? (NO - What we choose to embrace as 'meaning' or 'purpose' has a very powerful effect on how we structure our goals and choose our behaviors. Therefore these questions are not irrelevant.)


And now I think I need to spend some time bathing my brain in the writings of Erich Fromm.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

The Courage to Become (Pt I)

"Better the illusions that exalt us than 10,000 truths."

So far my exploration of humanism has left me... underwhelmed. The premise of this blog is that we can be better than this. The inevitable question that follow is - Why aren't we? We exalt violence in the name of realism. We encourage immediate gratification and consumption as an anecdote to a plethora of psychological and societal ills. We sacrifice the future for the present in ways too numerous to count. Why aren't we any better than this?

I'm too cynical, you are saying. (Perhaps.)

Or perhaps I'm just wondering how much of our destructive behavior is driven by our beliefs about what we really are. I'm wondering what reasons humanism (and especially the newer, more secular/atheistic humanism) gives us for behaving in accordance with ideals and virtues that often require sacrifice. In short, I'm throwing all my doubts about reality of the human condition at this thing called 'humanism' and seeing what survives.

After reading the Humanist Manifestos, I couldn't help but notice that they all seemed rather reactionary. Especially Humanist Manifesto II, which was written 40 years after the first one, and after we had witnessed "the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable." While HM2 presents itself as "a vision of hope," it very explicitly tears away certain notions that, for better or worse, may enable us to sacrifice for something higher than ourselves. In doing so, it represents a significant deviation from its predecessor.

If I believe that this body is all that I am and ever will be, then its survival becomes paramount. I will see the world in terms of threats to my physical survival. And there is no reason why my survival should not take precedence over yours. HM2 states "we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species." They might just as well have said "we have found no purpose or providence, divine or otherwise, for the human species, save survival." And if "[w]e strive for the good life, here and now," what incentive do we have to divert any of our resources to others, save that such actions may possibly buy us the goodwill of our fellows?

While HM2 extols empathy, compassion, and "the cultivation of feeling and love" as desirable virtues, it fails to provide a reason why these things should be cultivated, especially if their cultivation would threaten one's survival. Are we now saying that I can reasonably be expected to sacrifice some portion of my life for yours, and that this is desirable and will ultimately be rewarded, though presumably only by intangible and perhaps posthumous praises? What reason have you given me for behaving thusly, save that you recognize that these traits are something you want others to express? Why are these held up as ideals, rather than strength and power? (It's possible that I watch too much science fiction.)

Reverence for the capacity for self-sacrifice flies in the face of the presumed goal of this non-theistic, non-transcendental vision of humanity - survival. Yet who among us would want to live in a world without compassion or altruistic behavior?

Perhaps we simply cling to these ideals for psychological comfort, not unlike the comfort we can derive from the belief that there is a loving God who has done all this for our ultimate benefit. And after all, what we believe the rules should be doesn't always predict how we actually behave. (Ex: There are the legal rules for driving, and then there are the rules that you follow if you are actually driving. The discrepancy is huge, yet almost everyone is aware of it and behaves accordingly.)

Do we derive courage by embracing these ideals of human behavior, and the rare instances when we witness them in action? Do we derive enough courage to display these ideals ourselves, in the face of a threat to our survival? Or do we require something more? Something that explicitly tells us that we do not need to fear the death of the body? Are we only truly emboldened to sacrifice ourselves and our resources if we are sustained by a vision of something of ourselves persisting beyond this life?

What gives us the courage to become what we hold up as the ideal human being? In the rush to do away with the abuses perpetuated by religious power structures, are humanists also unnecessarily seeking to rid the world of powerful ideas that enable us to behave in the very ways that would bring about a self-actualizing, peaceful world community?

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Becoming Enlightened

"It is better to find new ways of presenting spiritual truths, new words with which to name them."

"The true mystic does not look to other men for enlightenment, does not fix his gaze outward but inward."

- Paul Brunton (the greatest mystic you've never heard of, with many excellent ideas on rational mysticism)

After my last post, it occurred to me to compare self-actualization to enlightenment as an 'ultimate' human state. One is the product of psychology, the other a product of spiritual tradition. One is embraced by humanists, the other... not so much. Which produces a better final state? Which represents a better goal?

Self-actualization
  • "to become everything that one is capable of becoming"
  • "the only real motive a person has"
  • "the final level of psychological development"
  • "People that have reached self-actualization are characterized by certain behaviors... They embrace reality and facts rather than denying truth. They are spontaneous. They are interested in solving problems. They are accepting of themselves and also others and lack prejudice."

Enlightenment

  • "'awakening' to the truth", "full liberation from delusion", "cessation... of suffering"
  • "conscious awareness of an ultimate reality"
  • perceived to be obtainable by various forms of self-denial and/or routine-disrupting behavior
  • an end state recognizable only by others who are 'enlightened'

I've had a few issues with the idea of 'enlightenment'...

1) It seems like a long car trip to an unknown destination, which begets the inevitable questioning - 'Are we there yet? Are we there yet?'

2) So you understand the ultimate nature of reality. What do you do with that knowledge? How does it make you a better person?

3) What good is Enlightenment if you cannot weep at the suffering of others? And if you can weep, do you not suffer as well?

Self-actualization, on the other hand, is a process of becoming. It never stops, because there are always new things to learn and become. It lacks the fixation on an unknown destination, allowing you to get on with things. It doesn't require a specially-qualified teacher to get you there, or specific exercises to be undertaken. It is an outcome that can be achieved by anyone, rather than a quasi-mystical state whose attainment may depend on the state of your soul.

I have never had the benefit of religious/Buddhist tutelage on 'enlightenment', so perhaps I am missing something, or have misrepresented something. But as I see it now, self-actualization has my vote for 'best goal to strive for'.

[Aside to our dear Follower - I'm probably going to lose my internet connection soon, so postings will be infrequent for awhile.]

Friday, July 31, 2009

Burning Bright

"No individual has any right to come into this world and go out of it without leaving behind him distinct and legitimate reasons for having passed through it."

In the last couple of weeks I've come dangerously close to deciding that I knew what I believed. Upon further examination, what I wanted was to believe that I had acceptable answers to the following questions - Why am I here? What should I strive for? How should I prioritize my time and resources? What kinds of risks should I take, and why?

It occurred to me to wonder how humanism deals with these questions. And so I began a more systematic application of the google-fu...

Humanist Manifesto I (1933)
  • "...the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now."
  • "...aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life."
  • "...seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them"

Humanist Manifesto II (1973)

  • "The ultimate goal should be the fulfillment of the potential for growth in each human personality..."
  • "...will tap the creativity of each human being and provide the vision and courage for us to work together."
  • "Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task."

Humanist Manifesto III (2003)

  • "We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known."
  • "We aim for our fullest possible development..."

I've cherry-picked some quotes that seem to illustrate an accepted goal or purpose that humanists can agree on - self-actualization, and the realization of an environment that supports the same opportunity for growth in all human beings. I've stated elsewhere that I believe that the purpose of life is to learn and grow, individually and collectively, so I'm pleased that this is an objective that humanists support so strongly.

What is perhaps less clear is where my responsibility to my own self-actualization should step aside in favor of efforts to help others achieve the same. Herein arises a division of thought that is fundamental, and for which there appears to be no objective resolution. Here is where we are called upon to examine our beliefs about the nature and value of compassion, the relationship of self to other, and the health and well-being of the collective weighed against the health and well-being of the individual.

Is it in my enlightened self-interest to route a portion of my time and resources towards bringing others closer to self-actualization? And if so, how big of a portion?

Who burns brightest - he who fuels others, or he who fuels himself?

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Defending Your Life

"Certified son-of-a-gun
Learns life lesson 101.
Don't fly too high on your own supply
Get burned by the sun."

Hey, we have a 'follower' now. (waving to follower)

So I've been doing a lot of thinking about risk-taking. Actually, I've been doing a lot of introspecting and reflecting about my own willingness to take risks. (Let's face it - thinking in the abstract is all fine and good, but at some point you need to take stock of yourself and match the theory to the reality.)

It's easy to tout romanticized notions about risk-taking and courage, and people like to think they know how they would act in a given situation. I subscribe pretty heavily to the theory that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, so I look to my own past behavior in an attempt to identify what factors are more likely to enable/encourage me to take risks.

For example, the sky-diving story... If you are thinking of doing something that other people might look down upon (especially if it fails), it is eminently easier to decide to do this thing if you can convince someone else to do it with you. Yes, my decision to jump out of a perfectly good airplane was made easier by the fact that I was able to convince my new friend to do it with me. Perhaps this says something about my need for validation, or perhaps it just says that I thought the experience would be worth more if it were shared. ('We just jumped out of an effin' plane! How badass are we!' doesn't work when you substitute 'I' for 'we'. Nobody wants to hear it.)

Despite the fact that New Friend bailed on the skydiving trip at the last minute, I persisted in recruiting her for similar adventures. And she persisted in bailing at the last minute. After the mid-winter, too effin' cold, hip-deep snow, camping mis-adventure, I gave up on her. And though I had gone ahead and done these things without her, they never meant as much to me as other adventures I had shared with other friends.

So what is it about having a co-conspirator that increases one's willingness to engage in risky behavior? (Once New Friend had proved to be an unreliable co-conspirator, I ceased to engage in adventures of this magnitude.) Individual risk-exposure doesn't change with the presence of a co-conspirator. (My likelihood of crashing into the ground when my parachute doesn't open is no different when I go by myself than when my friend agrees to jump as well.) This leads me to suspect (in my case anyway) that the potential social costs of engaging in risk-seeking behaviors were at least as important as the potential physical costs. You can only stray so far from the herd before you are no longer a member of the herd. If you take a few of them with you though, you can start a new herd. ;)

As far as I've been able to observe directly (in myself and others), having a co-conspirator does increase one's willingness to engage in risky behavior. That statement almost has the 'well, duh!' quality that one would expect of a well-known fact. Yet I'm struggling to come up with a name of a theory that adequately explains why this should be so. Is it a function of choice-validation and having support when called upon to defend your decision? Is it a function of mitigated social costs - would we all engage in riskier behaviors if there was less social cost associated with them?

There must be an academic study or theory somewhere that adequately addresses this issue, but my google-fu appears to be inadequate for the task of finding it. So the take-home message today is simply this - I'm more likely to jump if you are jumping with me.