Now Serving caaaafffeeeeeiiinnnnnnee as a disclaimer
The middle class is shifting into reverse.
It's driving itself, wholly backwards, down a highway in Michigan. We see it pass the prosperous Flint of years past, on its way to the Flint of today that begins to grow larger in the rear-view mirror. We see that the driver is facing forwards, gazing down the road, apparently not noticing that the yellow dashes are flitting towards the horizon rather than from it. We are concerned for the safety of the passengers, as driving backwards on the highway is generally thought to be somewhat unsafe, but our concerns are wasted - the middle class rolls in a station wagon built like a tank, and even if it weren't, this Michigan highway on which the middle class drives recently installed a system that doesn't allow cars to stray from the paved path. There is absolute safety and negligible effort.
Getting off the metaphors, it's clear that the American middle class faces a significant list of problems. More and more, members of the middle class are finding themselves not only in debt, but without an understanding of how debt works. We are privy not to knowledge about world events, but rather to infinitely inferior news (which, unlike the objective reality of the world, is more or less artificial). We have a commonly held belief that work is meant to be a suffering experience for which we're compensated by a paycheck. Our apathy regarding world events, finally, translates to an apathy for participation in government. This means that we no longer see ourselves as owners of the government, but rather as subjects.
To put it most dramatically, it seems to me that we're slipping very slowly into serfdom. So when I read Peter Block's argument that we should "define ourselves as citizens," I saw a connection.
In theory, all the citizens of our Republic are joint and equal owners of the government. (If you've ever wondered why "public" sometimes seems to be synonymous with "government," that would be why.) It's no secret that this isn't the case in reality, but if we hold ourselves to that ideal, it can have a number of positive results for us. Considering ourselves citizens will familiarize us with the idea that we have a right to influence public policy, as well as the duty to do so. It reminds us that we are equal under the law, and when we see the law applied unequally based on class or race, keeping ourselves grounded in the idea of citizenship allows us to react to that unfairness with outrage, even after we've seen it so many times as to be unsurprised. A citizen demands justice; a serf accepts injustice. Or as Block puts it, a citizen acts on their values; a serf acts on the principle of survival.
Here now is another significant problem regarding the direction of the middle class. We will see if citizenship can help us address it. The world of the middle class is a world of security; our experience of mortal danger is so rare (thanks to our own efforts) that some of us never face it in the entirety of our existence. It follows that we do not expect to face mortal danger personally; it might even be said that we have forgotten our own mortality. Could there be a set of circumstances under which death becomes more terrifying?
Our mortality hasn't forgotten us of course, and while our experience of mortal danger is rare,
our experience of death is not: we are surrounded by stories of frightful disasters or terrorist plots, which each painfully remind us (having forgotten) that we will die. The way in which this fear contributes to our slide into serfdom is obvious; the role of a feudal Lord in his relationship with peasants is that of protection.
Citizenship may be able to help us regarding this by way of its duties. Where the subjects would demand the ruler's protection, the citizens demand this protection of each other. In grounding ourselves in the notion that we are all citizens, we see that the protectors of our country (the President, a significant bureaucracy, and of course the military) are our legal equals; citizens protect citizens. Again, this is obviously only true in theory, but as before, holding ourselves to an ideal enables us to continue striving for it.
25 September 2007
24 September 2007
I'm Actually Not Admitting Anything
Now Serving The Man, in the face
Descartes argues that, epistemelogically, an individual can only be certain of one thing: the individual exists. Thus comes his famous phrase "Cogito Ergo Sum," along with an excuse for high school philosophy classes to watch The Matrix. The idea is more or less that we go about our daily lives treating as certain those things which are "certain, but not really," because of course otherwise we couldn't function.
This means that what was once utterly and totally impossible is now merely "extremely, extremely unlikely" (with of course the exception of the only impossibility one can be sure is genuinely impossible, that one does not exist). Nothing about this is quite wholly agreed upon by everyone, of course, but this isn't a philosophy paper.
No, this is a list of some statements which fit the category of "extremely, extremely unlikely," dismissers of which are accused of being close-minded.
"No one has ever been on the moon."
"A secret cabal of Jews runs the world."
"Aliens landed at Area 52 and they now control the government."
"The Lions will win the Super Bowl this year."
Ah, the Lions. It amazes me every year, how they manage to convince people that they have a shot at being good. I guess sometimes the first converts don't realize that they're also the first true believers.
Enough of that, though - on with the list!
"Evolution is a false theory."
"Global Warming does not exist."
"Global Warming exists, but has not been facilitated by humans."
"The Earth is flat." (Yes, real people really advocate this belief, just like the others.)
Just a quick break here - do you suppose it's possible that, between two patently ridiculous statements, one of the statements is even more patently ridiculous than the other? If you were trying to get people to believe something patently ridiculous, would you create a fringe group that advocates something even more ridiculous to make yourself look normal by comparison?
But I digress! Back to the list...
"Creationism accurately shows how the world came into being."
"Intelligent Design accurately and scientifically shows how the world came into being."
And one last jab!
"A teapot is in orbit around the planet."
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Disregard that.
Anyway, the point of this isn't that religion is bad - the point is that we need to stop dismissing these ridiculous statements outright as "impossible." They ARE possible. Instead of immediately branding them "impossible," we should take a closer look, and then say "These beliefs are so unlikely as to be worth no consideration." And it's true. They're not worth consideration.
OH MY GOD, THE SCARECROWS ARE WALKING AND TALKING AND PREACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN!
Descartes argues that, epistemelogically, an individual can only be certain of one thing: the individual exists. Thus comes his famous phrase "Cogito Ergo Sum," along with an excuse for high school philosophy classes to watch The Matrix. The idea is more or less that we go about our daily lives treating as certain those things which are "certain, but not really," because of course otherwise we couldn't function.
This means that what was once utterly and totally impossible is now merely "extremely, extremely unlikely" (with of course the exception of the only impossibility one can be sure is genuinely impossible, that one does not exist). Nothing about this is quite wholly agreed upon by everyone, of course, but this isn't a philosophy paper.
No, this is a list of some statements which fit the category of "extremely, extremely unlikely," dismissers of which are accused of being close-minded.
"No one has ever been on the moon."
"A secret cabal of Jews runs the world."
"Aliens landed at Area 52 and they now control the government."
"The Lions will win the Super Bowl this year."
Ah, the Lions. It amazes me every year, how they manage to convince people that they have a shot at being good. I guess sometimes the first converts don't realize that they're also the first true believers.
Enough of that, though - on with the list!
"Evolution is a false theory."
"Global Warming does not exist."
"Global Warming exists, but has not been facilitated by humans."
"The Earth is flat." (Yes, real people really advocate this belief, just like the others.)
Just a quick break here - do you suppose it's possible that, between two patently ridiculous statements, one of the statements is even more patently ridiculous than the other? If you were trying to get people to believe something patently ridiculous, would you create a fringe group that advocates something even more ridiculous to make yourself look normal by comparison?
But I digress! Back to the list...
"Creationism accurately shows how the world came into being."
"Intelligent Design accurately and scientifically shows how the world came into being."
And one last jab!
"A teapot is in orbit around the planet."
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Disregard that.
Anyway, the point of this isn't that religion is bad - the point is that we need to stop dismissing these ridiculous statements outright as "impossible." They ARE possible. Instead of immediately branding them "impossible," we should take a closer look, and then say "These beliefs are so unlikely as to be worth no consideration." And it's true. They're not worth consideration.
OH MY GOD, THE SCARECROWS ARE WALKING AND TALKING AND PREACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN!
23 September 2007
Polemics
Now Serving An Ass-Kicking, Courtesy of Simone de Beauvoir
"In September 1948, in one of his articles in the Figaro littéraire, Claude Mauriac - whose great originality is admired by all - could write regarding woman: 'We listen on a tone [sic!] of polite indifference...to the most brilliant among them, well knowing that her wit reflects more or less luminously ideas that come from us.' Evidently the speaker referred to is not reflecting the ideas of Mauriac himself, for no one knows of his having any. It may be that she reflects ideas originating with men, but then, even among men there are those who have been known to appropriate ideas not their own, and one can well ask whether Claude Mauriac might not find more interesting a conversation reflecting Descartes, Marx, or Gide rather than himself. What is really remarkable is that by using the questionable we he identifies himself with St. Paul, Hegel, Lenin, and Nietzsche, and from the lofty eminence of their grandeur looks down disdainfully upon a bevy of women who make bold to converse with him on a footing of equality. In truth, I know of more than one woman who would refuse to suffer with patience Mauriac's 'tone of polite indifference.'"
"In September 1948, in one of his articles in the Figaro littéraire, Claude Mauriac - whose great originality is admired by all - could write regarding woman: 'We listen on a tone [sic!] of polite indifference...to the most brilliant among them, well knowing that her wit reflects more or less luminously ideas that come from us.' Evidently the speaker referred to is not reflecting the ideas of Mauriac himself, for no one knows of his having any. It may be that she reflects ideas originating with men, but then, even among men there are those who have been known to appropriate ideas not their own, and one can well ask whether Claude Mauriac might not find more interesting a conversation reflecting Descartes, Marx, or Gide rather than himself. What is really remarkable is that by using the questionable we he identifies himself with St. Paul, Hegel, Lenin, and Nietzsche, and from the lofty eminence of their grandeur looks down disdainfully upon a bevy of women who make bold to converse with him on a footing of equality. In truth, I know of more than one woman who would refuse to suffer with patience Mauriac's 'tone of polite indifference.'"
17 September 2007
RCAH 292 - Idealism, Intimacy, and Depth
Continuing to outline the values he feels are undervalued by society, Peter Block identifies three important qualities and their antitheses in The Answer to How is Yes: Idealism, Intimacy, and Depth. What exactly those words mean to Block requires some interpretive work on the part of the reader, as the text continues to set an exemplary standard for speaking ambiguity to power. That's not to say it has no meaning, however.
Initially promoting idealism, Block explains it as the opposite of cynicism*, continuing to argue that we've lost track of what we really value. In prioritizing power (to use my own words), we set everyone up to not only do what is strictly "practical," but to expect the same from others, and this creates a system in which all of our desires are commercialized (not just material desires, but desires for our lives) and our institutions fail due to the presumption of self-interest.
"Practical" can be interpreted a number of ways and, in this context, needs explication. As Block uses the word, "practical" means "what is most effective for increasing my power" (i.e. that which is expedient, has a good payoff, increases my status, is more convenient, etc.). He thereby appears to argue that applying reason is equivalent to being pessimistic, even identifying himself as "unrealistic," as if to say that realism is actually bad.
It seems wiser to me, however, to not throw out practicality or reason off the bat, nor mistake them for pessimism. If we have lost track of our real values in the way Block says (something that I think is true for many people, if not necessarily the majority), then we should reclaim those real values - our idealism; our desire for things as the way they should be - and then set goals based on them, which would be pursued using reason and practicality. What's practical for achieving a goal based on personal values may not be practical in the sense that it increases an individual's power. In other words, we can remain practical while still adhering to the core of Block's quality of idealism.
One sentence in the text struck me as essential to the entire concept: "We are acting on our deficiencies rather than on capacities." This reveals an underlying current of negativity vs. positivity in Block's writing - not in their vernacular sense of "good" and "bad," but more in the sense of affirmation and refutation, with positive referring to what is and negative referring to what is not.
I can't seem to determine whether Block is suggesting that we should abandon negative thought, or merely that we favor it too heavily. Either way, it's uncontroversially true when he says (in not so few words) that our society prioritizes negative thought.
This heavily invokes Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a triangular representation of human needs, with the highest priorities being on the bottom. Indeed, nearly all of the physiological needs in Maslow's Hierarchy are negative: breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping, excreting, and maintaining internal stability are all for the sake of not dying. The only positive physiological need hierarchy is the need for sex.
Block's idealism argument could either reject or agree with Maslow's Hierarchy. In rejecting it, Block would simply argue that some or all of the other need categories (self-actualization, esteem, love/belonging, and safety) are as important as physiological needs, and that we've misguidedly suppressed them. In agreeing with the hierarchy, Block's argument could remain potent considering that we expect modern civilization to provide for all our needs, and that at least in the industrialized world, we may be able to give everyone the ability to satisfy the entire hierarchy.
Concerning intimacy, Block's writing becomes the most specific and coherent. Accordingly, I find myself reacting strongly, whether I agree or disagree, to his intimacy-related arguments, and have enjoyed this chapter the most of those I've read so far.
He begins the discussion of intimacy by explaining that he means something specific by it: reclaiming the value of empirical senses, for their own sake. A return to intimacy means a return to aesthetic values and taste - a consideration for and sensitivity to the nuances of sounds, sights, smells, and textures around us. It also means an emphasis on human contact.
It's here that I find the argument problematic. While I agree that human contact is more valuable than society as a whole gives it credit, I don't believe it's entirely appropriate to blame technology for the lack of it, as Block does. Because technology allows us to communicate more expediently, the argument is that it replaces communication that required human contact previously, and this removes too much human contact from our lives.
In "Language Death," David Crystal argues in favor of the preservation of the world's languages. In response to the argument that we could communicate more expediently by sticking to a single lingua franca, he states: "...if one language does, through some process of linguistic evolution, become the world's lingua franca - a status which most people feel is likely to be held by English - it does not follow that this must be at the expense of other languages." Similarly, the use of new technology to facilitate communication merely allows us to spend less time on the communicative logistics of life. I would argue that technology must be used responsibly, and it's our responsibility to ensure that we spend time in physically proximate social settings. If we were to replace these with technological social settings (as Block feels we are doing), it wouldn't be the "fault" of our technology.
Continuing with David Crystal's "Language Death" to counter Block's anti-technological argument: "A world in which everyone speaks at least two languages - their own ethnic language and an international lingua franca - is perfectly possible, and...highly desirable. Because the two languages have different purposes - one for identity, the other for intelligibility - they do not have to be in conflict." It is indeed evident among the generation most comfortable with new communications technology that real social interaction is alive and well. In the dormitories, people regularly visit each other or go out together. Pick-up sports aren't uncommon, and there is definitely plenty of physical contact of all varieties. These are the people who are the most exposed to the communications technology that is supposed to turn us into zombies, and yet it's this exposure that has desensitized them to the novelty of it. Once it's no longer anything out of the ordinary, it's not abused (this becomes something similar to the proverbial argument for removing a taboo, e.g. "familiarity with alcohol will reduce alcohol abuse").
With that said, Block offers compelling examples of technology being abused. The anecdote of the Las Vegas restaurant with what was essentially a bio-dome does strike me as obscene, and the terminator gene is likewise horrible and terrifying (in addition to having the stink of economic injustice, if the likes of Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland are in control of all new harvests). Relationship-building websites sound very unethical as well, but the nuance with all of these anecdotes is that they're just that, anecdotes. The fact that he uses these to support his argument are proof that his feelings on each anecdote are in the majority (they appeal to common ground), and people who still use technology quite often would agree that these instances constitute abuse.
Block continues to be atypically concise in his criticism of intimacy being used as a marketing strategy. The dangers of reducing such a major element of the human existence to a marketing strategy are obvious, as he points out, even without the immorality of such a deceitful perversion. I would add to his concerns that the reduction of our intimacy to demographics and measurable categories can be seen in mainstream news-media that try to cover a broad amount of material (Time, Newsweek, CNN, Fox, etc.), where it sometimes seems like the entire world is defined within the rules set by media gatekeepers. They practice the oversimplification of news and avoidance of anything that won't be understood or valued by the lowest common denominator of viewers, and I believe this contributes to Block's problem of fading intimacy.
One final interesting note about intimacy is that in talking about it, Block sees the problem as one that did not previously exist. With his other criticisms of the status quo, he seems to be advocating a shift to something never-before-seen; this chapter stands out so far as uniquely advocating the old ways.
Regarding depth, Block argues both that we undervalue introspection and philosophizing, and that we "need to take time to relax." I find the first argument agreeable, with some nuances; the other is a tired cliche that overestimates the problem.
I certainly agree that our culture doesn't place enough value on introspection, amateur philosophy, or intellectualism. I find it absurd that policy advice from Universities, for example, is considered "ivory tower" or "unlrealistic;" this policy advice is coming from the people who have the most knowledge about the topic! We could return to Maslow's Hierarchy and identify these as the least-prioritized human needs that are under "self-actualization," but I would here have to disagree with both Block and the hierarchy: intense introspection and consideration of philosophy isn't something that everyone can benefit from or is inclined to.
I don't merely believe that we've been socialized out of intellectualism (it's considered unattractive for women of all colors to be intellectual, uncool or unachievable for black men, etc.), but also that some people are not intellectual by nature, and philosophy or introspection are not part of their human experience. We should not judge them less-than-human, consider them to be "missing out," or find it problematic that they're not heavy thinkers. With that said, the socialization that discourages intellectualism must certainly stop as Block argues.
The other element of depth discussed in the chapter was that people have come to worship speed, and apply it even in situations when they don't need to. It seems to me that this amounts to a tired argument (no pun intended), that Americans don't relax enough. Where Block is coming from - the white-collar business world - this might certainly be true, but as with some of his other criticisms, he paints with too broad a brush.
There are many parts of America where people are able to lead productive lives while still taking time to slow down and relax, and plenty of people who might relax even a little too much. Just because there are a number of people who take their laptops and cellphones on vacation with them, it doesn't mean everyone or even the majority do. If there were some sort of comprehensive data provided - something that showed we have an extraordinary count of heart attacks or strokes, combined with a high proportion of people with depression, a high average laborer output, etc. - then this would be something to actually address as a problem with society; otherwise, "people need to take time to relax" is really just good advice.
*"optimism" and "cynicism" seem to be words with a wide variety of meanings. In the case of cynycism, the word comes from the name of a movement in Greek philosophy whose proponents tried to "live like dogs," which had little to do with expecting undesirable outcomes or viewing the world as an unpleasant place. (They advocated rejecting the material world and living shamelessly; legend has it Alexander the Great offered their founder Diogenes anything he wanted, and the latter replied "Stop blocking my sunlight, I'm trying to read.") In this text "cynicism" seems to be the belief that everyone will act in their own self-interest, and that there's no other way to live.
Initially promoting idealism, Block explains it as the opposite of cynicism*, continuing to argue that we've lost track of what we really value. In prioritizing power (to use my own words), we set everyone up to not only do what is strictly "practical," but to expect the same from others, and this creates a system in which all of our desires are commercialized (not just material desires, but desires for our lives) and our institutions fail due to the presumption of self-interest.
"Practical" can be interpreted a number of ways and, in this context, needs explication. As Block uses the word, "practical" means "what is most effective for increasing my power" (i.e. that which is expedient, has a good payoff, increases my status, is more convenient, etc.). He thereby appears to argue that applying reason is equivalent to being pessimistic, even identifying himself as "unrealistic," as if to say that realism is actually bad.
It seems wiser to me, however, to not throw out practicality or reason off the bat, nor mistake them for pessimism. If we have lost track of our real values in the way Block says (something that I think is true for many people, if not necessarily the majority), then we should reclaim those real values - our idealism; our desire for things as the way they should be - and then set goals based on them, which would be pursued using reason and practicality. What's practical for achieving a goal based on personal values may not be practical in the sense that it increases an individual's power. In other words, we can remain practical while still adhering to the core of Block's quality of idealism.
One sentence in the text struck me as essential to the entire concept: "We are acting on our deficiencies rather than on capacities." This reveals an underlying current of negativity vs. positivity in Block's writing - not in their vernacular sense of "good" and "bad," but more in the sense of affirmation and refutation, with positive referring to what is and negative referring to what is not.
I can't seem to determine whether Block is suggesting that we should abandon negative thought, or merely that we favor it too heavily. Either way, it's uncontroversially true when he says (in not so few words) that our society prioritizes negative thought.
This heavily invokes Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a triangular representation of human needs, with the highest priorities being on the bottom. Indeed, nearly all of the physiological needs in Maslow's Hierarchy are negative: breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping, excreting, and maintaining internal stability are all for the sake of not dying. The only positive physiological need hierarchy is the need for sex.
Block's idealism argument could either reject or agree with Maslow's Hierarchy. In rejecting it, Block would simply argue that some or all of the other need categories (self-actualization, esteem, love/belonging, and safety) are as important as physiological needs, and that we've misguidedly suppressed them. In agreeing with the hierarchy, Block's argument could remain potent considering that we expect modern civilization to provide for all our needs, and that at least in the industrialized world, we may be able to give everyone the ability to satisfy the entire hierarchy.
Concerning intimacy, Block's writing becomes the most specific and coherent. Accordingly, I find myself reacting strongly, whether I agree or disagree, to his intimacy-related arguments, and have enjoyed this chapter the most of those I've read so far.
He begins the discussion of intimacy by explaining that he means something specific by it: reclaiming the value of empirical senses, for their own sake. A return to intimacy means a return to aesthetic values and taste - a consideration for and sensitivity to the nuances of sounds, sights, smells, and textures around us. It also means an emphasis on human contact.
It's here that I find the argument problematic. While I agree that human contact is more valuable than society as a whole gives it credit, I don't believe it's entirely appropriate to blame technology for the lack of it, as Block does. Because technology allows us to communicate more expediently, the argument is that it replaces communication that required human contact previously, and this removes too much human contact from our lives.
In "Language Death," David Crystal argues in favor of the preservation of the world's languages. In response to the argument that we could communicate more expediently by sticking to a single lingua franca, he states: "...if one language does, through some process of linguistic evolution, become the world's lingua franca - a status which most people feel is likely to be held by English - it does not follow that this must be at the expense of other languages." Similarly, the use of new technology to facilitate communication merely allows us to spend less time on the communicative logistics of life. I would argue that technology must be used responsibly, and it's our responsibility to ensure that we spend time in physically proximate social settings. If we were to replace these with technological social settings (as Block feels we are doing), it wouldn't be the "fault" of our technology.
Continuing with David Crystal's "Language Death" to counter Block's anti-technological argument: "A world in which everyone speaks at least two languages - their own ethnic language and an international lingua franca - is perfectly possible, and...highly desirable. Because the two languages have different purposes - one for identity, the other for intelligibility - they do not have to be in conflict." It is indeed evident among the generation most comfortable with new communications technology that real social interaction is alive and well. In the dormitories, people regularly visit each other or go out together. Pick-up sports aren't uncommon, and there is definitely plenty of physical contact of all varieties. These are the people who are the most exposed to the communications technology that is supposed to turn us into zombies, and yet it's this exposure that has desensitized them to the novelty of it. Once it's no longer anything out of the ordinary, it's not abused (this becomes something similar to the proverbial argument for removing a taboo, e.g. "familiarity with alcohol will reduce alcohol abuse").
With that said, Block offers compelling examples of technology being abused. The anecdote of the Las Vegas restaurant with what was essentially a bio-dome does strike me as obscene, and the terminator gene is likewise horrible and terrifying (in addition to having the stink of economic injustice, if the likes of Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland are in control of all new harvests). Relationship-building websites sound very unethical as well, but the nuance with all of these anecdotes is that they're just that, anecdotes. The fact that he uses these to support his argument are proof that his feelings on each anecdote are in the majority (they appeal to common ground), and people who still use technology quite often would agree that these instances constitute abuse.
Block continues to be atypically concise in his criticism of intimacy being used as a marketing strategy. The dangers of reducing such a major element of the human existence to a marketing strategy are obvious, as he points out, even without the immorality of such a deceitful perversion. I would add to his concerns that the reduction of our intimacy to demographics and measurable categories can be seen in mainstream news-media that try to cover a broad amount of material (Time, Newsweek, CNN, Fox, etc.), where it sometimes seems like the entire world is defined within the rules set by media gatekeepers. They practice the oversimplification of news and avoidance of anything that won't be understood or valued by the lowest common denominator of viewers, and I believe this contributes to Block's problem of fading intimacy.
One final interesting note about intimacy is that in talking about it, Block sees the problem as one that did not previously exist. With his other criticisms of the status quo, he seems to be advocating a shift to something never-before-seen; this chapter stands out so far as uniquely advocating the old ways.
Regarding depth, Block argues both that we undervalue introspection and philosophizing, and that we "need to take time to relax." I find the first argument agreeable, with some nuances; the other is a tired cliche that overestimates the problem.
I certainly agree that our culture doesn't place enough value on introspection, amateur philosophy, or intellectualism. I find it absurd that policy advice from Universities, for example, is considered "ivory tower" or "unlrealistic;" this policy advice is coming from the people who have the most knowledge about the topic! We could return to Maslow's Hierarchy and identify these as the least-prioritized human needs that are under "self-actualization," but I would here have to disagree with both Block and the hierarchy: intense introspection and consideration of philosophy isn't something that everyone can benefit from or is inclined to.
I don't merely believe that we've been socialized out of intellectualism (it's considered unattractive for women of all colors to be intellectual, uncool or unachievable for black men, etc.), but also that some people are not intellectual by nature, and philosophy or introspection are not part of their human experience. We should not judge them less-than-human, consider them to be "missing out," or find it problematic that they're not heavy thinkers. With that said, the socialization that discourages intellectualism must certainly stop as Block argues.
The other element of depth discussed in the chapter was that people have come to worship speed, and apply it even in situations when they don't need to. It seems to me that this amounts to a tired argument (no pun intended), that Americans don't relax enough. Where Block is coming from - the white-collar business world - this might certainly be true, but as with some of his other criticisms, he paints with too broad a brush.
There are many parts of America where people are able to lead productive lives while still taking time to slow down and relax, and plenty of people who might relax even a little too much. Just because there are a number of people who take their laptops and cellphones on vacation with them, it doesn't mean everyone or even the majority do. If there were some sort of comprehensive data provided - something that showed we have an extraordinary count of heart attacks or strokes, combined with a high proportion of people with depression, a high average laborer output, etc. - then this would be something to actually address as a problem with society; otherwise, "people need to take time to relax" is really just good advice.
*"optimism" and "cynicism" seem to be words with a wide variety of meanings. In the case of cynycism, the word comes from the name of a movement in Greek philosophy whose proponents tried to "live like dogs," which had little to do with expecting undesirable outcomes or viewing the world as an unpleasant place. (They advocated rejecting the material world and living shamelessly; legend has it Alexander the Great offered their founder Diogenes anything he wanted, and the latter replied "Stop blocking my sunlight, I'm trying to read.") In this text "cynicism" seems to be the belief that everyone will act in their own self-interest, and that there's no other way to live.
13 September 2007
Separation of Church From - wait, "from?"
Now Serving an unfinished Rough Draft, and bad philosophy jokes
I'm finding "from" to be one of those words that sounds odd when you really look at it. That's not at all the reason why I used it in the title of this post. But it's time to do some old school philosophy - philosophy that's done because of having time on your hands. (The kind that's a little amateurish, too, unless you yourself are old school enough to be founding the subject...)
~
The separation of church and state is generally understood to be a two-way wall, preventing each side from interfering with the business of the other. But when there's talk of religion interfering with government, it almost always seems that we're talking about those sneaky Evangelical Christians implementing sinister plots of theocratic purpose. I have yet to see any consideration of the idea that the whole of American religious beliefs, acting in unison, might interfere with the government. It follows obviously that I've neither seen any consideration of that idea without its being immediately judged a bad one.
So, going against every bone in my very secular body (eh, it's late), I'd like to entertain, without passing judgement upon, the idea of a national council representing all (or most) American religious beliefs.
I use "religious beliefs" rather than "religions" to clarify my meaning: Atheism and Agnosticism are no more religions than black and white are colors, but they're certainly beliefs regarding religion. (This should additionally make clear that beliefs*, as I use the word, may be based in fact as well as faith.) So this national religious council would not be limited to religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.; Atheism, Agnosticism, Secular Humanism, and all manner of beliefs regarding religion would have a place on the council.
With that in mind, we come to the first objection: if all religious beliefs are represented, doesn't this council actually represent every single American, and thereby become an absurdly redundant expansion of government? Again, the meaning of "religious beliefs" should be clarified: not all people are involved with their own religious belief. There are millions of casual Christians who hardly ever attend church, atheists who have gone their entire lives without significant religious exposure, and Jews who are confused every time their dad calls to wish them a happy new year outside of January. (Sorry dad!**) I maintain that this kind of casual belief doesn't really constitute a belief at all: casual believers (as I use "casual") necessarily haven't considered the possibility that their beliefs are wrong, are not regularly involved with their belief-groups, and have not experienced a significant spiritual experience (or in secular cases, have not experienced a significant epiphany related to their belief). There are ambiguities with that definition, but they do not hinder its service of my argument. Regardless of where we draw my definition's line on the spectrums of regularity and significance, it's uncontroversial that some people exist who meet all of those criteria.
(I should clarify that a true believer can be unchallenged, irregular or inexperienced - as per the criteria above - but cannot be all at once.)
Having distinguished between casual and true believers, and having limited our national religious council to the representation of true believers, the council is no longer a repetition of existing government. It does face a new problem, however, which may be at the heart of the matter: if the council only represents true believers, it necessarily gives true believers more power than casual believers. Is that something that we want?
~
That's not the end of the essay, but it seems that my leisure time is at an end: I need to get some sleep, and that last question opens up a can of worms that might be more accurately described as a can of graboids. And if you're wondering where to follow those asterisks (now there's a funny word), I couldn't figure out where to put them, the essay not having reached its end. So I saved the, uh...you know...what do you call the thingies that asterisks lead to? Yeah, they're in a TextEdit document waiting for me to finish up here.
12 September 2007
11 September 2007
Disney Gave Me Unrealistic Expectations About Sports
Now Serving Nostalgia, in Violation of Health Codes
The first three months of the year
are in my man-made Anniverse.
Oh, sore and raw time,
I still have a shrine for you.
It ends where I was born,
where my parents were crowded out
to look on miserably
while I walked the overlap of growth and death.
After a great loss, they say
the football team is "hungry."
It's the nuance they miss that
sometimes they're not starving; they're starved.
The first three months of the year
are in my man-made Anniverse.
Oh, sore and raw time,
I still have a shrine for you.
It ends where I was born,
where my parents were crowded out
to look on miserably
while I walked the overlap of growth and death.
After a great loss, they say
the football team is "hungry."
It's the nuance they miss that
sometimes they're not starving; they're starved.
09 September 2007
All Your Internet Are Belong to Us
Did you know? Every time Alberto Gonzalez masturbates, God kills a civil liberty.
Peacepipes are long, heavy and swingable
A cell phone bill to protect consumers? Preposterous!
And here's the kind of thing that you'll soon see to stop it, thanks to the likes of AT&T: http://www.handsoff.org/blog/ That would be a website for a completely fake grassroots organization, the kind that lobbying powers create all the time to get what they want, which will soon be the defeat of this cell phone bill.
Sometimes...
"My mom will probably hate reading this, but more than the paycheck or the camaraderie of the locker room, I will really miss the violence." -Princeton grad and former NFL lineman Ross Tucker
And here's the kind of thing that you'll soon see to stop it, thanks to the likes of AT&T: http://www.handsoff.org/blog/ That would be a website for a completely fake grassroots organization, the kind that lobbying powers create all the time to get what they want, which will soon be the defeat of this cell phone bill.
Sometimes...
"My mom will probably hate reading this, but more than the paycheck or the camaraderie of the locker room, I will really miss the violence." -Princeton grad and former NFL lineman Ross Tucker
08 September 2007
RCAH 292 - What Matters
I'm initially at a loss to answer the question, "What Matters?" This alone gives some credence to the argument of Peter Block: that we don't prioritize things that matter enough. It also highlights what seems to be Block's strongest handicap, which is the ambiguity of his writing in The Answer to How is Yes.
To answer Block's questions, we first have to grasp exactly what he's talking about. Frequently using words with controversial or multiple meanings, making generalizations, and staying wholly in the abstract, this text requires some charitable reconstruction. With that in mind, we can take the questions Block presents and articulate the arguments within them.
1. There is more than one acceptable method to accomplish a given task, and our doubts are hindrances to our achieving well-being.
2 & 3. We universally prioritize expediency, and fail to evaluate the amount of commitment - not just in time and money, but in emotional capital - we're willing to make to a given task.
4. In order to enact change, we must take responsibility for our own contributions to the problem and potential solution, rather than dwell overlong on the failures of others.
5. We place too much value on tangible, measurable results, and not enough on personal meaning or things that matter.
6. The experiences of other people are relied upon overmuch in the evaluation of a plan or change, and we should concern ourselves more with what we're trying to achieve.
The underlying theme of all these arguments is a one-dimensional spectrum of sorts in which practicality is pitted against "the experience of being a human being and all that entails," Block's definition of what matters. Despite an abundance of blanket statements to the contrary, Block maintains that practical concerns are valid - just overdone, whereas we spend too little time on philosophical or abstract concerns.
We can return to the original question now with some idea of what that question's meaning is. There can be a personal element to it - with "what matters" varying from person to person - but in the context of this book, it refers to human creativity, ethics, and ideals. Applying that question to my own values - as all way-of-life philosophies should be tested - the answer would be "to pursue political justice, appreciate the experience of life, and weigh every action against those long-term goals." All these are concepts I already aim for; in as much as The Answer to How contributes to them, it helps their cause.
To answer Block's questions, we first have to grasp exactly what he's talking about. Frequently using words with controversial or multiple meanings, making generalizations, and staying wholly in the abstract, this text requires some charitable reconstruction. With that in mind, we can take the questions Block presents and articulate the arguments within them.
1. There is more than one acceptable method to accomplish a given task, and our doubts are hindrances to our achieving well-being.
2 & 3. We universally prioritize expediency, and fail to evaluate the amount of commitment - not just in time and money, but in emotional capital - we're willing to make to a given task.
4. In order to enact change, we must take responsibility for our own contributions to the problem and potential solution, rather than dwell overlong on the failures of others.
5. We place too much value on tangible, measurable results, and not enough on personal meaning or things that matter.
6. The experiences of other people are relied upon overmuch in the evaluation of a plan or change, and we should concern ourselves more with what we're trying to achieve.
The underlying theme of all these arguments is a one-dimensional spectrum of sorts in which practicality is pitted against "the experience of being a human being and all that entails," Block's definition of what matters. Despite an abundance of blanket statements to the contrary, Block maintains that practical concerns are valid - just overdone, whereas we spend too little time on philosophical or abstract concerns.
We can return to the original question now with some idea of what that question's meaning is. There can be a personal element to it - with "what matters" varying from person to person - but in the context of this book, it refers to human creativity, ethics, and ideals. Applying that question to my own values - as all way-of-life philosophies should be tested - the answer would be "to pursue political justice, appreciate the experience of life, and weigh every action against those long-term goals." All these are concepts I already aim for; in as much as The Answer to How contributes to them, it helps their cause.
06 September 2007
A Great Man Said, "Don't Vote With Your Wallet"
Intersectionality ~ the notion that an individual's human experience is a unique intersection of their various group classifications.
Anti-Essentialism ~ comprehension of the difference between the universal experience of a large group (e.g. women), and the experiences of sub-groups (e.g., where "women" intersects with "black," or "upper-class," etc.) within that large group.
sesquippedalophobia ~ fear of large words.
*BANG!*
Anti-Essentialism ~ comprehension of the difference between the universal experience of a large group (e.g. women), and the experiences of sub-groups (e.g., where "women" intersects with "black," or "upper-class," etc.) within that large group.
sesquippedalophobia ~ fear of large words.
*BANG!*
04 September 2007
The Residential College in the Arts and Humanities Exposes You
Now Serving Numi Gunpowder Green Tea - Try it with your favorite rifle for loads of antioxidant fun!
Yes, one could learn about Kapucha Toli (Stickball)! It's an awesome sport, and you should learn about it.
I think I will wear eye-liner on a regular basis. If any man asks whether I'm gay, I will overtly undress him with my eyes.
Yes, one could learn about Kapucha Toli (Stickball)! It's an awesome sport, and you should learn about it.
I think I will wear eye-liner on a regular basis. If any man asks whether I'm gay, I will overtly undress him with my eyes.
03 September 2007
Back in Action with Google Terrorist (tm)
Edit: Now Serving an Absent Mind
Feeling that they aren't in enough trouble over potential misuses of Google Earth, the folks over at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway have laid an easter egg in the latest GE update. I like to call it Google Terrorist; it's a new flight simulator that allows users to fly all over God's green earth, or at least satellite images of it.
It's actually a lot of fun; I'm flying towards the Pacific as I write this. But what fascinates me the most is that, with 3D buildings turned on, one can practice flying F16 Vipers into such landmarks as the Empire State Building, the Pentagon, and the White House.
One almost has to think that Google is looking for a fight. What do they think will happen when a major news network (especially Fox) stumbles upon this gem of a story? "New Google Program Tons of Fun! Web 2.0 is awesome! More at Eleven!" I don't think so. This has the potential to make Grand Theft Auto look like Barbie Fashion Designer.
...no, I've never played Barbie Fashion Designer.
...
...except maybe to help my sister when she was stuck.
...
...GODDAMN THIS PINK HIGH-HEEL LOADING SCREEN, TAKE ME TO THE FRIGGIN' FASHION SHOW ALREADY!
...
...man, I still haven't reached the Pacific yet! This is supposed to be Mach 2? Hrm...
Feeling that they aren't in enough trouble over potential misuses of Google Earth, the folks over at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway have laid an easter egg in the latest GE update. I like to call it Google Terrorist; it's a new flight simulator that allows users to fly all over God's green earth, or at least satellite images of it.
It's actually a lot of fun; I'm flying towards the Pacific as I write this. But what fascinates me the most is that, with 3D buildings turned on, one can practice flying F16 Vipers into such landmarks as the Empire State Building, the Pentagon, and the White House.
One almost has to think that Google is looking for a fight. What do they think will happen when a major news network (especially Fox) stumbles upon this gem of a story? "New Google Program Tons of Fun! Web 2.0 is awesome! More at Eleven!" I don't think so. This has the potential to make Grand Theft Auto look like Barbie Fashion Designer.
...no, I've never played Barbie Fashion Designer.
...
...except maybe to help my sister when she was stuck.
...
...GODDAMN THIS PINK HIGH-HEEL LOADING SCREEN, TAKE ME TO THE FRIGGIN' FASHION SHOW ALREADY!
...
...man, I still haven't reached the Pacific yet! This is supposed to be Mach 2? Hrm...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
