"The empires of the future are the empires of the mind."
When I think about the future, I see a complicated web. Attempting to isolate one problem or issue to discuss is difficult, but here goes...
A couple weeks ago I had occasion to be in the pharmacy section of a large drugstore chain on a busy Saturday. And the pharmacy was handing out prescription after prescription - both at the counter and at the drive-thru. Prescriptions frequently came with verbal admonitions ('warnings') about possible side-effects. Several things occurred to me in those minutes...
1) Culturally, we have a 'there's an app for that' approach to illness, rather than a holistic approach to health.
2) Belief in the power/safety of the app is more important than understanding the actual workings of the app.
3) Our individual willingness to invoke an app is generally not equalled by our individual ability/willingness to measure its effects or critically examine the outcome.
Pause for a story...
We'll call our protagonist Lady. Lady was experiencing episodes of extreme emotion (sadness) in her life. She knew that these episodes were 1) out of character for her, and 2) did not correlate to any easily-identifiable psychological triggers. She had done a fairly-thorough assessment of her life to try to determine if there was in fact something psychological going on. Was she unhappy with her job? (No.) Was she experiencing a mid-life crisis? (No. She was mostly content with what she had.) Having talked to Lady extensively during this time, I was impressed by the depth of her introspection.
Eventually Lady began to look for a chemical explanation for these episodes. Were they tied to her menstrual cycle or birth control? (No.) Perhaps something she was eating? Through a combination of internet research and an elimination diet, she was able to isolate Chemical X as the causal agent. Eliminating this chemical from her diet also eliminated the episodes of extreme emotions. Reintroducing the chemical brought them back. Lady 1) suffered unnecessarily for a period of time, but 2) was able, through introspection and rational analysis, eliminate the source of her suffering.
This story is representative of much of what I see (and hope for) in the near future. I see a continuing growth in the realization that simply because something is available does not mean that it is safe. I see our increased reliance on pharmaceuticals and artificial chemicals bringing us to a crisis point with respect to the issue of Safety, and also with respect to the issue of Identity.
To some degree these two issues are intertwined, and there very well may be an Event in the near future that captures our collective attention and highlights this. (It's amazing to me that we still have as high a tolerance/acceptance for pharmaceutical intervention as we do, given all the stories about ineffectiveness and unintended side-effects that have surfaced.) But it is not difficult to predict that as more people gain more experience with a wider range of pharmaceuticals/chemicals and their psychological consequences, the issue of Identity will be brought to the forefront of our collective consciousness. Questions like What am I if a drug can make me do/feel this? will demand answers as never before.
The nature of human-ness, consciousness, and our sense of identity will be topics of increasing popular interest. When I think about where people will turn for the answers to these questions, I see no ready area of information. The word 'spirituality' comes to mind, but I would like to see that word replaced by something that indicates an informed, supportive environment that can facilitate introspection and self-awareness, as well as provide knowledge (scientific knowledge) about the phenomenology of consciousness. This does not currently occur in our educational system, nor in most systems of religious instruction. It is something that must be sought out and/or developed by the individual; it is not currently a part of our societal awareness. I hope that this will change, and there are promising indications that this can happen.
I predict that we will also need to increase the scope and breadth of our collective dialogue as to our responsibilities to the next generation. To what degree do they deserve (and can we impose on them) modification without representation? Several months ago I sent a letter to the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics, asking (among other things) about the status of their organization. It seems to me that their public activities (publishing, etc.) have fallen off quite a bit since the mid-2000's. I still have not received a reply. This disturbs me because I think that we are only beginning to see the complexity of the issues that will arise as neurological modification becomes more prevalent.
I should take a minute to point out my own biases in this area. I am generally hyper-aware of the cognitive effects of drugs in my system. I can distinguish and describe the cognitive effects of ibuprofen and acetaminophen, even though neither drug is intended to produce them. I came of age during the height of the 'war on drugs', and that may have predisposed me to have a negative or cautionary view of pharmaceutical intervention. (It's a possible bias; I acknowledge it.) I have a background in biology and an appreciation of the complex role that a single chemical can play within a living system. Perhaps this is why I have reservations about casually introducing a chemical into that system, especially if all of its potential effects are not know up front.
So perhaps I am projecting my own concerns into my vision of the future. Or perhaps there really will be an increasing collective movement towards understanding the conscious experience that we call 'human'. Perhaps we will take up the following questions together... Who are we when our Identity - our behaviors and the way we process information - has been visibly altered? When our conscious continuity with the past is significantly disrupted by artificial means - when we are no longer predictable in the same way as we were before - how responsible are we for those changes and the resulting actions? What responsibility do we bear to others who have lost their much of their Identity to something like Alzheimer's? Upon who, and why, and how, can we inflict attempts to modify Identity for the better, or to serve our own ends?
It's easy to tout individual responsibility (and I am very proud of Lady for the way she approached and took control of her own well-being), but this ignores the issues surrounding those who are dependent on us and who cannot make informed decisions for themselves. And it ignores the ethics of exercising power over others because we feel justified in doing so.
I guess it's pretty clear by now that I see this as one of the most pressing and challenging philosophical and ethical issue that we face in the near future. I am happy to see conferences attempting to address these issues. (I'll be at this one, and I plan to blog about it.) But so much of the thinking on these issues remains isolated within the academic/intellectual realm. So much of what is in the larger sphere - what the general public is exposed to - seems to be a reinforcement of the 'there's an app for that' mentality. Selling the app, and convincing us that we need it: these are the media images that surround us.
The lack of general knowledge and appreciation for biological complexity, combined with easy access to pharmaceuticals, is beginning to be socially-problematic, yet we have no targeted approach for educating children (or adults) about these issues. (Our Fair State only recently OK'd teaching birth control in sex education classes. I have never understood how perpetuating ignorance solves a problem, but that's a topic for another post...) It's easy to say that education is the answer, but I believe that the answer is going to be whatever facilitates an appreciation for the fragility and malleability of consciousness and identity. We will need to socially reinforce the idea that integrity of mind is sacrosanct. How exactly this should be accomplished, I do not know (though I have some ideas), but I do see it as the most-probable philosophical and ethical crisis point for which humanists and transhumanists should be preparing.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Future of Aging
Change is the constant of sentience.
I'm staring down the barrel of another birthday and, although it's not one of the 'big ones', for some reason I find that I am acutely aware of aging. Perhaps it's because my hair started to go gray en masse this past year. Perhaps it's the unsolicited invitation to a fertility clinic that I received a week ago, based (I presume) on nothing other than my age.
Yet, though I am faced with physical reminders of age, I don't feel old. I feel like there is so much that I haven't done, therefore I can't be getting old. I haven't been married, born children, or owned property, therefore I can't be getting old, right? Right? I know; I'm confounding physical age with a more-ambiguous trait that is the product of experience. [Insert various platitudes on 'age is a state of mind'.] But physical aging creepeth up on me and perhaps this makes for good future-fodder for the blog...
A seemingly-unassailable position of many futurists/transhumanists is that aging is a bad thing, or, at least, that it is an obstacle to be overcome. Aging, you see, is the road to death. One transhumanist says this of aging and death...
"So we tell ourselves curing aging will cause too many problems and that aging has a lot of natural beauty to it and creates a lot of meaning and that all of that is good. But I think there is one other reason. Imagine we suddenly discover we can cure aging. It’s simple, cheap, universal, and we manage to quickly adapt society to deal with an undying population. All of the impacts described by bioconservatives don’t exist, anti-aging is a glorious and beautiful time and everyone lives for centuries.
The cost is the realization that every death was preventable. That billions of people have been, in effect, tortured for decades by nature and because we could not change it we described it as beautiful and honorable. The crisis in our collective psyche would be something of unparalleled magnitude. Our species is a master at making virtue of necessity, but what becomes of our virtue when that necessity ceases to be? Does it cease as well?"
When I pause to reflect on myself, I see a heavily-modified consciousness walking around in a comfortably-owned body. The heavily-modified consciousness is a topic for another day, but the comfortably-owned body is worth discussing. Certainly that body is not perfect. It's probably quite far from anyone's definition of perfect. Knowing this, I might ask myself - Why haven't I done more to change it? Why haven't I pushed harder to lose those extra pounds? Why have I accepted the damage that has accumulated over time?
Munkittrick's question was 'Why do we accept aging?', but I do not think that the answer is as 'We accept it because we have no choice.' Certainly there are people who fight it every step of the way, with diet and exercise and (sigh) surgery. The primary objection to aging seems to be to the deterioration of the physical body and the reduction of its capabilities, yet there is a large portion of our society that is all-too-willing to engage in activities that prematurely or unnecessarily damage the body, or who at least seem unwilling to take proper care of their bodies. (That whole diet and exercise thing?) It's like we're inviting aging, and challenging it to ravish us. Do we do this because we're faced with inevitable death, and happiness can only be found in embracing, nay hastening, that outcome? I don't think so.
Age also marks various degrees of status, and life seems to be a race to get to that pinnacle age/status, followed by a prolonged battle to stay there. Evolutionary biologists will tell you that our genes are programmed to seek prime reproductive material, and that we respond to signs of physical age accordingly. Presumably this is also the source of all our efforts to camouflage our physical age. So what happens as we become better and better at hiding those signs of age? And what happens as physical age becomes further-dissociated from one's ability to reproduce? What status/traits will replace physical age as the primary determinant of desirability, and how will they be signaled? [Here I pause for extensive thought on what and how I am/should be signaling with respect to reproduction and the fact that, while I have relationship aspirations, I don't have an overwhelming desire to bear children and would be perfectly happy not doing so. Should I quit coloring my hair and display the markings of age with pride, or continue to engage in the youth-is-beauty driven attempts to 'stay young'? My introspection is messy; this post has been heavily-edited to remove most traces of it.]
It may take quite a bit of time before we evolve past our (genetic?) reaction to the physical signs of aging. In the meantime, we'll continue to fight the physical process of aging with science and technology. As we do so, we must not ignore the pressing social issues of aging that we are currently faced with, such as care and quality of life, and the right to die. We can't ignore the fact that a great many people live lives that they wouldn't necessarily want to prolong. We should strive to have a firm handle on these ethical issues before we are gifted with greatly-extended lifespans. (Fodder for future posts.)
Having managed to find my soapbox again, it's probably time to stop writing, but after spending several hours thinking about how I felt about aging, I find that I am not so troubled by my gray hair. I believe in what I've done with my life so far, and I do believe in the platitudes that say that age is a state of mind.
"None are so old as those who have outlived enthusiasm."
"People like you and I, though mortal of course like everyone else, do not grow old no matter how long we live...[We] never cease to stand like curious children before the great mystery into which we were born."
I'm staring down the barrel of another birthday and, although it's not one of the 'big ones', for some reason I find that I am acutely aware of aging. Perhaps it's because my hair started to go gray en masse this past year. Perhaps it's the unsolicited invitation to a fertility clinic that I received a week ago, based (I presume) on nothing other than my age.
Yet, though I am faced with physical reminders of age, I don't feel old. I feel like there is so much that I haven't done, therefore I can't be getting old. I haven't been married, born children, or owned property, therefore I can't be getting old, right? Right? I know; I'm confounding physical age with a more-ambiguous trait that is the product of experience. [Insert various platitudes on 'age is a state of mind'.] But physical aging creepeth up on me and perhaps this makes for good future-fodder for the blog...
A seemingly-unassailable position of many futurists/transhumanists is that aging is a bad thing, or, at least, that it is an obstacle to be overcome. Aging, you see, is the road to death. One transhumanist says this of aging and death...
"So we tell ourselves curing aging will cause too many problems and that aging has a lot of natural beauty to it and creates a lot of meaning and that all of that is good. But I think there is one other reason. Imagine we suddenly discover we can cure aging. It’s simple, cheap, universal, and we manage to quickly adapt society to deal with an undying population. All of the impacts described by bioconservatives don’t exist, anti-aging is a glorious and beautiful time and everyone lives for centuries.
The cost is the realization that every death was preventable. That billions of people have been, in effect, tortured for decades by nature and because we could not change it we described it as beautiful and honorable. The crisis in our collective psyche would be something of unparalleled magnitude. Our species is a master at making virtue of necessity, but what becomes of our virtue when that necessity ceases to be? Does it cease as well?"
When I pause to reflect on myself, I see a heavily-modified consciousness walking around in a comfortably-owned body. The heavily-modified consciousness is a topic for another day, but the comfortably-owned body is worth discussing. Certainly that body is not perfect. It's probably quite far from anyone's definition of perfect. Knowing this, I might ask myself - Why haven't I done more to change it? Why haven't I pushed harder to lose those extra pounds? Why have I accepted the damage that has accumulated over time?
Munkittrick's question was 'Why do we accept aging?', but I do not think that the answer is as 'We accept it because we have no choice.' Certainly there are people who fight it every step of the way, with diet and exercise and (sigh) surgery. The primary objection to aging seems to be to the deterioration of the physical body and the reduction of its capabilities, yet there is a large portion of our society that is all-too-willing to engage in activities that prematurely or unnecessarily damage the body, or who at least seem unwilling to take proper care of their bodies. (That whole diet and exercise thing?) It's like we're inviting aging, and challenging it to ravish us. Do we do this because we're faced with inevitable death, and happiness can only be found in embracing, nay hastening, that outcome? I don't think so.
Age also marks various degrees of status, and life seems to be a race to get to that pinnacle age/status, followed by a prolonged battle to stay there. Evolutionary biologists will tell you that our genes are programmed to seek prime reproductive material, and that we respond to signs of physical age accordingly. Presumably this is also the source of all our efforts to camouflage our physical age. So what happens as we become better and better at hiding those signs of age? And what happens as physical age becomes further-dissociated from one's ability to reproduce? What status/traits will replace physical age as the primary determinant of desirability, and how will they be signaled? [Here I pause for extensive thought on what and how I am/should be signaling with respect to reproduction and the fact that, while I have relationship aspirations, I don't have an overwhelming desire to bear children and would be perfectly happy not doing so. Should I quit coloring my hair and display the markings of age with pride, or continue to engage in the youth-is-beauty driven attempts to 'stay young'? My introspection is messy; this post has been heavily-edited to remove most traces of it.]
It may take quite a bit of time before we evolve past our (genetic?) reaction to the physical signs of aging. In the meantime, we'll continue to fight the physical process of aging with science and technology. As we do so, we must not ignore the pressing social issues of aging that we are currently faced with, such as care and quality of life, and the right to die. We can't ignore the fact that a great many people live lives that they wouldn't necessarily want to prolong. We should strive to have a firm handle on these ethical issues before we are gifted with greatly-extended lifespans. (Fodder for future posts.)
Having managed to find my soapbox again, it's probably time to stop writing, but after spending several hours thinking about how I felt about aging, I find that I am not so troubled by my gray hair. I believe in what I've done with my life so far, and I do believe in the platitudes that say that age is a state of mind.
"None are so old as those who have outlived enthusiasm."
"People like you and I, though mortal of course like everyone else, do not grow old no matter how long we live...[We] never cease to stand like curious children before the great mystery into which we were born."
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Back to the Future... The Prisoner's Dilemma
"Transhumanists have inherited the tension between Enlightenment convictions in the inevitability of progress, and Enlightenment’s scientific, rational realism that human progress or even civilization may fail." (q)
The thing I've always like about transhumanism is that it is focused on the future. (Regular ol' humanism seems to be largely concerned with the past, or at best, the present.) So, because this is my blog and I can do anything I want with it, I'm going to arbitrarily dedicate the month of March to blogging about the future. [Insert ooh-ing and ah-ing.]
And a good place to start is with an interesting perspective on progress vs. risk...
A common conception of the future now includes the idea of a technological singularity. Briefly, this singularity is the point at which some form of superhuman intelligence (usually conceived of as an AI, rather than augmented human intelligence) has evolved beyond our capability to understand or control it. Enter human extinction scenarios, as we start to worry that "superhuman intelligences may have goals inconsistent with human survival and prosperity."
So... 1) The Singularity will (probably) be the result of man's work in deliberately advancing computer intelligence to this point. 2) There's a very good chance things won't end well for us once this intelligence gets outside of our control. Probably a better chance that they won't end well than that they will, though I'd like to see a statistical analysis on that.
There are two approaches to avoiding our extinction at the hands of an uberintelligence... 1) Don't make an uberintelligence! 2) Convince yourself that your uberintelligence will be different and/or incapable of harming humanity, and blissfully go about creating it.
Enter the Prisoner's Dilemma... (The classic version of this dilemma is presented below.)
"Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?"
Now I'm going to overlay the structure of the Prisoner's Dilemma to the issue of the Singularity.
There is currently insufficient advancement in the technological realm to support an artificial intelligence that would be capable of reaching 'singularity'. In order to ensure that this critical state of technological development is not reached, each 'player' must forgo certain potentially beneficial advances in computer technology/algorithms. This is the only way to ensure that no participant suffers with respect to negative consequences of a technological singularity. If one player defects from that objective and begins to experiment with AI, he may wind up with a 'better' short-term outcome for himself (in terms of job, prestige, etc.), but in a very real sense, he is willing to risk the potential futures of every other player (and the rest of us). He is gambling, and his rewards may come at the expense of everyone else. He is the betrayer in the Prisoner's Dilemma. (And don't buy that "devoted his life to improving the lot of humanity" crap.)
In some sense, this argument can be made about the development of any potentially dangerous technology. And so we must weigh our belief in progress vs. the risks that progress represents. If the history of progress has shown us anything, it is that there is always going to be somebody who is willing to plunge on ahead, perhaps out of deluded self-confidence, or in search of glory/fame, or just because s/he can, risks be damned. The rest of us are just along for the ride. I'll echo Hughes at this point...
"Remaining always mindful of the myriad ways that our indifferent universe threatens our existence and how our growing powers come with unintended consequences is the best way to steer towards progress in our radically uncertain future." Unfortunately, wisdom is largely the product of hindsight.
"We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented." Welcome to the month of March in my blog, wherein I'll try to do some of this.
But today I'm still bothered by two things...
The thing I've always like about transhumanism is that it is focused on the future. (Regular ol' humanism seems to be largely concerned with the past, or at best, the present.) So, because this is my blog and I can do anything I want with it, I'm going to arbitrarily dedicate the month of March to blogging about the future. [Insert ooh-ing and ah-ing.]
And a good place to start is with an interesting perspective on progress vs. risk...
A common conception of the future now includes the idea of a technological singularity. Briefly, this singularity is the point at which some form of superhuman intelligence (usually conceived of as an AI, rather than augmented human intelligence) has evolved beyond our capability to understand or control it. Enter human extinction scenarios, as we start to worry that "superhuman intelligences may have goals inconsistent with human survival and prosperity."
So... 1) The Singularity will (probably) be the result of man's work in deliberately advancing computer intelligence to this point. 2) There's a very good chance things won't end well for us once this intelligence gets outside of our control. Probably a better chance that they won't end well than that they will, though I'd like to see a statistical analysis on that.
There are two approaches to avoiding our extinction at the hands of an uberintelligence... 1) Don't make an uberintelligence! 2) Convince yourself that your uberintelligence will be different and/or incapable of harming humanity, and blissfully go about creating it.
Enter the Prisoner's Dilemma... (The classic version of this dilemma is presented below.)
"Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?"
Now I'm going to overlay the structure of the Prisoner's Dilemma to the issue of the Singularity.
There is currently insufficient advancement in the technological realm to support an artificial intelligence that would be capable of reaching 'singularity'. In order to ensure that this critical state of technological development is not reached, each 'player' must forgo certain potentially beneficial advances in computer technology/algorithms. This is the only way to ensure that no participant suffers with respect to negative consequences of a technological singularity. If one player defects from that objective and begins to experiment with AI, he may wind up with a 'better' short-term outcome for himself (in terms of job, prestige, etc.), but in a very real sense, he is willing to risk the potential futures of every other player (and the rest of us). He is gambling, and his rewards may come at the expense of everyone else. He is the betrayer in the Prisoner's Dilemma. (And don't buy that "devoted his life to improving the lot of humanity" crap.)
In some sense, this argument can be made about the development of any potentially dangerous technology. And so we must weigh our belief in progress vs. the risks that progress represents. If the history of progress has shown us anything, it is that there is always going to be somebody who is willing to plunge on ahead, perhaps out of deluded self-confidence, or in search of glory/fame, or just because s/he can, risks be damned. The rest of us are just along for the ride. I'll echo Hughes at this point...
"Remaining always mindful of the myriad ways that our indifferent universe threatens our existence and how our growing powers come with unintended consequences is the best way to steer towards progress in our radically uncertain future." Unfortunately, wisdom is largely the product of hindsight.
"We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented." Welcome to the month of March in my blog, wherein I'll try to do some of this.
But today I'm still bothered by two things...
- If much of the work on AI is driven by a desire to avoid the negative consequences of a technological singularity, why don't we simply stop working on trying to produce an artificial intelligence that's capable of reaching a singularity point? (The argument seems to be 'Well, somebody's going to do it; it might as well be me because I can do it better/safer.')
- What benefits do we expect to derive from the creation of an artificial intelligence that outweigh the potential risks? (Maybe I should read this...)
Update 03/05/10: I don't intend to do a lot of debating about the issue of AI, but I'm more than happy to give you access to both sides of the story. Heck, if I hadn't come of age in the era when computer languages were still ridiculously simplistic, I might have been intrigued enough by the idea of AI to work on it myself.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
If I Could Change the World
"There is one thing more powerful than the armies of the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
No, I'm not at 'church' this morning. I decided it was time to pick up the Humanist reading program again instead. On the table for consideration were two books - The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, and How to Love.
The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness is a major work by Erich Fromm. I've owned it for some time, but have studiously avoided reading it. How to Love is a new mini-book by Gordon Livingston, M.D. that I came across at the library. Major tome on man's capacity for evil, or practical advice on how to have a better life? Hmm...
As much as I love everything I've ever read by Fromm, I had to go with Livingston. Naturally, I also had to over-think all my reasons for that decision. :)
Livingston wouldn't have won if I hadn't been impressed by something (besides the title) when I scanned his book. He had me with this... "Happiness, like art, can be difficult to define, but it is clear that an essential component of a fulfilling life is the quality of our closest relationships... One would think, therefore, that every high school curriculum would contain at least one course devoted to forming and sustaining close relationships." (Yes! Yes! Yes! Agree with me that more psychology should be taught in high school! You win!)
Still, this doesn't sufficiently address the reasons why I've put off reading The Anatomy for so long. In thinking about this decision, I discovered that I hold a somewhat conflicting set of beliefs.
First - You don't end evil/sin by talking about evil/sin. This is something that always bugged me about the Lutheran church services that I had to attend as a kid/teenager - if you keep telling me that I'm evil/sinful, instead of teaching me how to be better, how do you expect me to be a better person?
Second - It is necessary to recognize the warning signs that might lead someone to commit an evil act if you want to prevent such things from happening. This requires an extensive study of the history of such acts, with the aim of deconstructing and understanding them.
The second belief kicks us firmly into the realm of academics - people who have special training, and who can study such things with a degree of detachment. But what is the value/effect to the average person of immersing him/herself in such a 'study' of evil?
Perhaps I simply have no expectation of gaining something valuable/useful from reading The Anatomy. 500+ pages of man's inhumanity to man sounds fairly depressing. (Okay, the 40 pages on benign aggression sounds intriguing.) And how does having this knowledge make me a better person or help me exert a better influence within my limited sphere? Not seeing it.
Upon reflection, I also have to wonder what motivated Fromm to write The Anatomy... Published only seven years before his death (in 1980) at the age of 79, and followed only by To Have or To Be? and a work on Freud as works published during his lifetime, I have to wonder if he had grown increasingly disenchanted with humanity's prospects. Was he seeking personal understanding in writing this book, which would be understandable, given that his lifetime spanned two world wars and that this work was in progress during the Vietnam War? Perhaps he saw it as a necessary contribution to a world plagued by violence.
But when forced to make a decision about what to immerse myself in, I choose something more positive and hopeful. Again. Maybe The Anatomy will win out one of these days, but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, How To Love...
No, I'm not at 'church' this morning. I decided it was time to pick up the Humanist reading program again instead. On the table for consideration were two books - The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, and How to Love.
The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness is a major work by Erich Fromm. I've owned it for some time, but have studiously avoided reading it. How to Love is a new mini-book by Gordon Livingston, M.D. that I came across at the library. Major tome on man's capacity for evil, or practical advice on how to have a better life? Hmm...
As much as I love everything I've ever read by Fromm, I had to go with Livingston. Naturally, I also had to over-think all my reasons for that decision. :)
Livingston wouldn't have won if I hadn't been impressed by something (besides the title) when I scanned his book. He had me with this... "Happiness, like art, can be difficult to define, but it is clear that an essential component of a fulfilling life is the quality of our closest relationships... One would think, therefore, that every high school curriculum would contain at least one course devoted to forming and sustaining close relationships." (Yes! Yes! Yes! Agree with me that more psychology should be taught in high school! You win!)
Still, this doesn't sufficiently address the reasons why I've put off reading The Anatomy for so long. In thinking about this decision, I discovered that I hold a somewhat conflicting set of beliefs.
First - You don't end evil/sin by talking about evil/sin. This is something that always bugged me about the Lutheran church services that I had to attend as a kid/teenager - if you keep telling me that I'm evil/sinful, instead of teaching me how to be better, how do you expect me to be a better person?
Second - It is necessary to recognize the warning signs that might lead someone to commit an evil act if you want to prevent such things from happening. This requires an extensive study of the history of such acts, with the aim of deconstructing and understanding them.
The second belief kicks us firmly into the realm of academics - people who have special training, and who can study such things with a degree of detachment. But what is the value/effect to the average person of immersing him/herself in such a 'study' of evil?
Perhaps I simply have no expectation of gaining something valuable/useful from reading The Anatomy. 500+ pages of man's inhumanity to man sounds fairly depressing. (Okay, the 40 pages on benign aggression sounds intriguing.) And how does having this knowledge make me a better person or help me exert a better influence within my limited sphere? Not seeing it.
Upon reflection, I also have to wonder what motivated Fromm to write The Anatomy... Published only seven years before his death (in 1980) at the age of 79, and followed only by To Have or To Be? and a work on Freud as works published during his lifetime, I have to wonder if he had grown increasingly disenchanted with humanity's prospects. Was he seeking personal understanding in writing this book, which would be understandable, given that his lifetime spanned two world wars and that this work was in progress during the Vietnam War? Perhaps he saw it as a necessary contribution to a world plagued by violence.
But when forced to make a decision about what to immerse myself in, I choose something more positive and hopeful. Again. Maybe The Anatomy will win out one of these days, but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, How To Love...
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Good Without God
"What do you call an atheist with children?
A Unitarian Universalist."
Something has been bugging me for awhile now. It started while I was reading Greg Epstein's new book on Humanism - Good Without God. (By the way, far and away the best book on Humanism I've read to date.) He describes humanism and atheism as evoking a negative image for a large segment of the population, simply because they are 'godless' and the assumption seems to follow that a godless person cannot be a good person.
The fact the Epstein relayed this perception didn't bother me as much as the fact that, despite being eager to read his book, I didn't feel comfortable taking it with me to my temp job and reading it there. That brought home to me that there is a serious PR problem with being seen as 'godless'. Now, I'm not saying that I would have been overtly harassed, as happened when I took The God Delusion to my previous job to read, but rather that I simply didn't want that 'strike' against me in developing/maintaining relationships with my coworkers.
The statement I quoted above was something that I heard during one of the UU services I attended a few weeks ago. The discussion had turned to a similar issue - making life easier for one's children by giving them a 'church' they could identify with when asked 'And where do you go to church?' It was simply easier than being known as the one who doesn't go to church, especially in more-conservative communities.
Whether we agree with it or not, the perception is out there that one can't be good without God, that we would digress to the very worst forms of selfishness and exploitation without some sort of threat to prevent us from doing so. How do you combat that perception? Is it necessary to form supportive communities that teach humanistic values (such as the Unitarian Universalists do)? Is it necessary to be seen publicly as someone who is actively trying to sublimate his/her baser instincts for the common good (perhaps by attending such 'churches')?
While public affiliation with a group that encourages good behavior is no guarantee of such behavior actually being displayed, it does seem to imbue upon the attendant of such congregations a sort of 'benefit of the doubt' when it comes to judgments about his/her capacity/willingness to behave morally. We simply don't like or trust someone who doesn't respect a common authority when it comes to determining what is moral.
What then is a humanist and/or atheist to do? What is as reassuring to others of our morality as the common fear of immortal vengeance? (We'll skip over the contradiction wherein the biggest part of Christianity is salvation from such vengeance without having to perform good works/be good. In light of that, this whole argument should go away, but the perception that godless people aren't as good is still with us.)
Maybe it's time to start treating this like a PR war. And I mean more than simply laying claim to now-dead famous people who were atheists/humanists/UUs/etc. I mean being examples of positive virtues, rather than of negative attitudes/actions. For some time now I've followed a catch-all humanist blog feed in hopes of finding something to inspire this blog. What I've found is largely simple repetition of the same stories/commentaries attacking religion in many of the individual blogs. So not inspiring. There are two ways to approach a PR war - attack your 'enemy', or paint a better picture of yourself. We regularly decry politicians who engage in 'attack ads' during political elections; why should people feel any differently about a 'humanism' or atheism that is perceived primarily through its attacks on religion?
Epstein's book was filled with examples of positive actions and organizations that are affiliated with humanism. I hope to explore a few of these and report on them in this blog. In the meantime, try to remember that people, like moths, are attracted to light. I've taken a couple of Christians with me to the UU 'church', and they were both impressed with the atmosphere and values it reflected, even though God was absent. Would that more of humanism and atheism put their emphasis on good, instead of God.
A Unitarian Universalist."
Something has been bugging me for awhile now. It started while I was reading Greg Epstein's new book on Humanism - Good Without God. (By the way, far and away the best book on Humanism I've read to date.) He describes humanism and atheism as evoking a negative image for a large segment of the population, simply because they are 'godless' and the assumption seems to follow that a godless person cannot be a good person.
The fact the Epstein relayed this perception didn't bother me as much as the fact that, despite being eager to read his book, I didn't feel comfortable taking it with me to my temp job and reading it there. That brought home to me that there is a serious PR problem with being seen as 'godless'. Now, I'm not saying that I would have been overtly harassed, as happened when I took The God Delusion to my previous job to read, but rather that I simply didn't want that 'strike' against me in developing/maintaining relationships with my coworkers.
The statement I quoted above was something that I heard during one of the UU services I attended a few weeks ago. The discussion had turned to a similar issue - making life easier for one's children by giving them a 'church' they could identify with when asked 'And where do you go to church?' It was simply easier than being known as the one who doesn't go to church, especially in more-conservative communities.
Whether we agree with it or not, the perception is out there that one can't be good without God, that we would digress to the very worst forms of selfishness and exploitation without some sort of threat to prevent us from doing so. How do you combat that perception? Is it necessary to form supportive communities that teach humanistic values (such as the Unitarian Universalists do)? Is it necessary to be seen publicly as someone who is actively trying to sublimate his/her baser instincts for the common good (perhaps by attending such 'churches')?
While public affiliation with a group that encourages good behavior is no guarantee of such behavior actually being displayed, it does seem to imbue upon the attendant of such congregations a sort of 'benefit of the doubt' when it comes to judgments about his/her capacity/willingness to behave morally. We simply don't like or trust someone who doesn't respect a common authority when it comes to determining what is moral.
What then is a humanist and/or atheist to do? What is as reassuring to others of our morality as the common fear of immortal vengeance? (We'll skip over the contradiction wherein the biggest part of Christianity is salvation from such vengeance without having to perform good works/be good. In light of that, this whole argument should go away, but the perception that godless people aren't as good is still with us.)
Maybe it's time to start treating this like a PR war. And I mean more than simply laying claim to now-dead famous people who were atheists/humanists/UUs/etc. I mean being examples of positive virtues, rather than of negative attitudes/actions. For some time now I've followed a catch-all humanist blog feed in hopes of finding something to inspire this blog. What I've found is largely simple repetition of the same stories/commentaries attacking religion in many of the individual blogs. So not inspiring. There are two ways to approach a PR war - attack your 'enemy', or paint a better picture of yourself. We regularly decry politicians who engage in 'attack ads' during political elections; why should people feel any differently about a 'humanism' or atheism that is perceived primarily through its attacks on religion?
Epstein's book was filled with examples of positive actions and organizations that are affiliated with humanism. I hope to explore a few of these and report on them in this blog. In the meantime, try to remember that people, like moths, are attracted to light. I've taken a couple of Christians with me to the UU 'church', and they were both impressed with the atmosphere and values it reflected, even though God was absent. Would that more of humanism and atheism put their emphasis on good, instead of God.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The Winner Stands Alone
Trust me, I have enough charisma and ego to be dangerous.
This post relates to humanism in that it discusses (again) the perils of having any movement/idea be too-closely connected to a specific person. But first the set-up...
My search for local humanists took me to a local Unitarian Universalist Society where the humanists were meeting. Being the inquisitive sort (and having nothing better to do on a Sunday morning), I started attending this 'church' with no God. They have something that resembles a church service - meeting every Sunday morning, music, a choir, and a presentation on a particular topic. (Today's music was all Beatles songs, which is appropriate, I guess.)
Today's topic was the Maharishi Effect, as presented by someone who had first-hand experience with the TM (Transcendental Meditation) program. I know of the Maharishi Effect, but have no first-hand experience with the training, or real knowledge of the whole TM movement. (I should also point out that I have not read Gilpin's book, so I'm only going on what I understood of his opinions from what he said today.) Yours truly was completely unaware that the TM movement was largely the product of one person, or that said person came to have so much power as a result of his teaching/ideas. [Start keeping track of the irony points anytime...]
My question to Gilpin had to do with the modern-day TM/Maharishi movement, which is associated with scientists, and what ethics had (or had not) have been taught as a part of the TM training. After learning that the Maharishi had adopted a very authoritarian attitude towards ethical considerations, I guess I wasn't too surprised by all the other revelations about the Maharishi's accumulation of personal power. And I started to wonder which came first - the belief in one's own merit, or the desire for power?
I don't know anything about the Maharishi (other than what was told to me today), but the same pattern of 'teacher/leader accumulating influence leading to his/her own self-destruction' has been repeated often enough in history. You have to wonder if the whole thing is inevitable once you start down that path... The whole thing also reminded of something from a book I'd read - The Ways of the Mystic, by Joan Borysenko. While 'mystic' in this book is firmly associated with God, the points she makes about the varieties of mystical feeling are applicable even to humanistic mystics.
I profiled as someone whose secondary path was Path Three. I'll spare you all the details of what that means, and skip to what this whole thing reminded me of...
Suggestions for the Path-Three Mystic:
1) Beware of power. "It has been said that power has the ability to corrupt." (Nuf said there.)
2) Beware of charisma. "People are naturally attracted to charismatic, or gifted, individuals. If you take this attraction personally... you may end up in unwanted personal entanglements. The attraction that people feel for you may also take a sexual form." (No comment.)
3) Seek conscious communion with God. (Or something higher than yourself.)
4) Take time for yourself. "A person with passion and charisma is generally busy and in demand... but you will last longer if you take time out to rest and care for yourself physically and emotionally. ...Some of the best creative ideas come in leisure moments when our own minds are quiet..."
5) Nurture your relationships. "... Becoming isolated and out of touch is a hazard for a Path-Three mystic... [O]ur friends and loved ones are best able to give us feedback about where we may be going off-track."
6) Cultivate a sense of humor. "... Taking yourself too seriously is a growing is a sign of growing pride and conceit... No matter how wonderful your contribution may be, you are still just one more Bozo on the bus." (That last line should be a bumper sticker.)
7) Cultivate patience. "What most people consider patience is actually impatience stretched to the limit. Even dreams and ideas that are fully formed may take a long time to get into circulation. Have faith. ...Perhaps the hardest lesson to learn is not to be attached to the results of our actions." (I love that first line!)
Having reread/typed all this out just now, I have to wonder... Would this advice have saved the Maharishi (assuming he needed saving from something)? Would the impact of his teachings be any different today had they not been so closely associated with him personally? (I'm thinking of the ethics question again.) And perhaps the most disturbing question of all... Do we need to see our leaders/teachers fall, in order to remind us not to rely on others for truth/power?
This post relates to humanism in that it discusses (again) the perils of having any movement/idea be too-closely connected to a specific person. But first the set-up...
My search for local humanists took me to a local Unitarian Universalist Society where the humanists were meeting. Being the inquisitive sort (and having nothing better to do on a Sunday morning), I started attending this 'church' with no God. They have something that resembles a church service - meeting every Sunday morning, music, a choir, and a presentation on a particular topic. (Today's music was all Beatles songs, which is appropriate, I guess.)
Today's topic was the Maharishi Effect, as presented by someone who had first-hand experience with the TM (Transcendental Meditation) program. I know of the Maharishi Effect, but have no first-hand experience with the training, or real knowledge of the whole TM movement. (I should also point out that I have not read Gilpin's book, so I'm only going on what I understood of his opinions from what he said today.) Yours truly was completely unaware that the TM movement was largely the product of one person, or that said person came to have so much power as a result of his teaching/ideas. [Start keeping track of the irony points anytime...]
My question to Gilpin had to do with the modern-day TM/Maharishi movement, which is associated with scientists, and what ethics had (or had not) have been taught as a part of the TM training. After learning that the Maharishi had adopted a very authoritarian attitude towards ethical considerations, I guess I wasn't too surprised by all the other revelations about the Maharishi's accumulation of personal power. And I started to wonder which came first - the belief in one's own merit, or the desire for power?
I don't know anything about the Maharishi (other than what was told to me today), but the same pattern of 'teacher/leader accumulating influence leading to his/her own self-destruction' has been repeated often enough in history. You have to wonder if the whole thing is inevitable once you start down that path... The whole thing also reminded of something from a book I'd read - The Ways of the Mystic, by Joan Borysenko. While 'mystic' in this book is firmly associated with God, the points she makes about the varieties of mystical feeling are applicable even to humanistic mystics.
I profiled as someone whose secondary path was Path Three. I'll spare you all the details of what that means, and skip to what this whole thing reminded me of...
Suggestions for the Path-Three Mystic:
1) Beware of power. "It has been said that power has the ability to corrupt." (Nuf said there.)
2) Beware of charisma. "People are naturally attracted to charismatic, or gifted, individuals. If you take this attraction personally... you may end up in unwanted personal entanglements. The attraction that people feel for you may also take a sexual form." (No comment.)
3) Seek conscious communion with God. (Or something higher than yourself.)
4) Take time for yourself. "A person with passion and charisma is generally busy and in demand... but you will last longer if you take time out to rest and care for yourself physically and emotionally. ...Some of the best creative ideas come in leisure moments when our own minds are quiet..."
5) Nurture your relationships. "... Becoming isolated and out of touch is a hazard for a Path-Three mystic... [O]ur friends and loved ones are best able to give us feedback about where we may be going off-track."
6) Cultivate a sense of humor. "... Taking yourself too seriously is a growing is a sign of growing pride and conceit... No matter how wonderful your contribution may be, you are still just one more Bozo on the bus." (That last line should be a bumper sticker.)
7) Cultivate patience. "What most people consider patience is actually impatience stretched to the limit. Even dreams and ideas that are fully formed may take a long time to get into circulation. Have faith. ...Perhaps the hardest lesson to learn is not to be attached to the results of our actions." (I love that first line!)
Having reread/typed all this out just now, I have to wonder... Would this advice have saved the Maharishi (assuming he needed saving from something)? Would the impact of his teachings be any different today had they not been so closely associated with him personally? (I'm thinking of the ethics question again.) And perhaps the most disturbing question of all... Do we need to see our leaders/teachers fall, in order to remind us not to rely on others for truth/power?
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Art of Loving (Pt I)
"One other frequent error must be mentioned here. The illusion, namely, that love means necessarily the absence of conflict. Just as it is customary for people to believe that pain and sadness should be avoided under all circumstances, they believe that love means the absence of any conflict...
Real conflicts between two people, those which do not serve to cover up or to project, but which are experienced on the deep level of inner reality to which they belong, are not destructive. They lead to clarification, they produce a catharsis from which both persons emerge with more knowledge and more strength. This leads us to emphasize again something said above.
Love is possible only if two persons communicate with each other from the center of their existence, hence if each one of them experiences himself from the center of his existence. Only in this 'central experience' is human reality, only here is aliveness, only here is the basis for love. Love, experienced thus, is a constant challenge; it is not a resting place, but a moving, growing, working together; even whether there is harmony or conflict, joy or sadness, is secondary to the fundamental fact that two people experience themselves from the essence of their existence, that they are one with each other by being one with themselves, rather than by fleeing from themselves. There is only one proof for the presence of love: the depth of the relationship, and the aliveness and strength in each person concerned; this is the fruit by which love is recognized."
- The Art of Loving, by Erich Fromm
Real conflicts between two people, those which do not serve to cover up or to project, but which are experienced on the deep level of inner reality to which they belong, are not destructive. They lead to clarification, they produce a catharsis from which both persons emerge with more knowledge and more strength. This leads us to emphasize again something said above.
Love is possible only if two persons communicate with each other from the center of their existence, hence if each one of them experiences himself from the center of his existence. Only in this 'central experience' is human reality, only here is aliveness, only here is the basis for love. Love, experienced thus, is a constant challenge; it is not a resting place, but a moving, growing, working together; even whether there is harmony or conflict, joy or sadness, is secondary to the fundamental fact that two people experience themselves from the essence of their existence, that they are one with each other by being one with themselves, rather than by fleeing from themselves. There is only one proof for the presence of love: the depth of the relationship, and the aliveness and strength in each person concerned; this is the fruit by which love is recognized."
- The Art of Loving, by Erich Fromm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
