A month of blog posts

[Gonna go outside for a bit away from the computer.]

OK, that's at least one blog post for every day in November. Not sure what is was worth other than a fun challenge, but if you got anything at all out of it I'm glad.

Be well.

Not interested in Black Friday or Cyber Monday

[Not today]

The deals are often rigged to only look like a bargain, people who might want time with their families have to work on Thanksgiving Day for the early "Black Friday" specials, and generally, it's just indicative of more mindless consumerism and a frenzy for "stuff" over people and relationships.

If you get a great deal on something you really needed or wanted, or if you are happy with the extra hours working retail, shipping, or warehouse packaging, I'm not down on you. But I will pass on going out to the stores or having items shipped to me this weekend.

Be well.

Weird Al

I can't let a month of blogging go by without mentioning one of my favorite musical artists, Weird Al Yankovic. I was introduced to him in middle school by the same friend who introduced me to Pink Floyd.

Here's a number Al used to do when he first started performing, before his first album, at "coffee house" venues. Mr. Frump's voice is a visual gag as much as an audio one, as he makes the sound with air release valve on his accordion.



Be well.

How Buddhism is perceived (in the West)

[Serenity now.]

After some recent reading, I was pondering what Buddhism looks like to me from the view offered by popular presentations in Western societies, particularly in the English speaking world. This includes any materials published originally in English or translated into English which are intended to be accessible to lay people.

I wondered what Buddhism is all about from such a perspective, and I wrote down some of the initial thoughts I had on the matter. If you are interested, you can view them here:

Underinformed Speculation and Elaboration on Buddhist Teachings

Be well.

Snowfall

[A touch of snow fell on the area.]

I sometimes update a primarily photograph based blog. It currently gives an idea of what's happening with the weather here. If you want to take a look, follow the link below.

Snowfall as Thanksgiving nears

Be well.

Quick Glimpse at Globalization

[Storm rising over the city]

I'll be covering globalization this week in one of my courses after introducing it last week. Globalization is a really complex issue, so there won't be time to look at all of it. Instead we'll briefly sort through a couple of main themes. Here's an overview if you keep hearing about that term and are curious. I refer a few times to a textbook I sometimes use (though not this semester) because I find the presentation or examples used by the author for certain aspects of globalization helpful.

Brief History

While there may have been (semi-)globalized economic systems in the past, our present version begins with the colonization of various societies by Western European powers from the 1600s through the early 1900s, including the colonization and integration of larger parts of North America by the former British colonies that became known as the United States of America. The exploitation or outright seizure of resources by those colonized or displaced helped to fuel the economies of these emerging Western powers while creating conditions of social, economic, and political tension in the colonies themselves which has in turn contributed to economic and political instability in many former colonies over the centuries, especially during the 20th century. While the United States and others attained liberation in the 1700s, many colonies in what is known today as Latin America weren't liberated until the 1800s. Asian and African colonies remained under European control until well into the 1900s (the scramble to colonize Africa was still going on in the first decades of the 20th century).

Those who favor modernization theory claim that the problems of former colonies are either the natural growing pains of economic development or are caused by failure to adopt certain political and economic institutions favored by the Western powers. These developing nations need guidance and funding to modernize and grow like the US and Western Europe, so institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank, largely funded and controlled by those same Western powers, provide economic advice and loans to help reduce poverty around the globe. Many countries are unable to pay back their loans and are saddled with debt, requiring that the terms of their loans be renegotiated. This renegotiation frequently comes with strings attached concerning efforts to combat what the lenders see as waste and corruption. 

However, some of these terms follow neoliberal ideals which see any constraints on doing business and making profit as obstructions to economic growth. Under the modern neoliberal view, markets should exist for practically every area of human life, a world in which everything becomes a commodity. This includes things such as fresh air, clean water, and environmental conservation. Markets and the market value of commodities, as determined by consumer demand and the availability of a particular item, are seen as the best guide for human activity since humans are rational actors who will behave according to enlightened self-interest. Anything truly bad or destructive will be weeded out because it is impractical, unsustainable, or offense to a sufficient number of consumers. By increasing the scope of markets and ramping up commodification (turning things into commodities -- things to be bought and sold in the marketplace), economic growth will lead to increased prosperity for all, which is turn is supposed to inherently promote democratic ideals and greater individual autonomy and choice. The best chance for solutions to human problems comes from unleashing the creativity of inventors as entrepreneurs.

Critics of neoliberal policies, such as those who favor development theory, suggest that institutions such as the IMF and World Bank are misguided or inefficient and not addressing the roots of the problems generating poverty but rather are reinforcing them. The stronger critics suggest that while such institutions and their controlling member states claim to be in favor of reducing poverty, their true agenda is to continue the economic exploitation of other nations by colonizing or re-colonizing many parts of the world by economic means. The political and economic instability of the former colonies in places like Africa are attributed largely to continued interference by Western Powers. 

The broad Marxian critique of unrestrained Capitalism is also regularly applied to institutions and laws favoring neoliberal policies. These policies include cutting public welfare or subsidies supporting education, healthcare, and local (as opposed to international) economic activity. Instead, austerity policies are favored to reduce government spending. Economic activity favoring international trade, such as allowing increased foreign investment, lifting environmental protection policies, and producing goods that can be sold on the international market (rather than being used in country) are also promoted. Those opposed to the neoliberal view of economic growth claim that these measures are cruel and frequently counter-productive, making it harder for such poorer nations to get out of debt. Criticisms of such policy call for debt forgiveness, while several governments in South America, for instance, have turned more toward a socialist stance (public or government control or ownership of national resources and spending) by privatizing things such as oil fields and placing heavier restrictions on foreign investment.

The World Systems Theory was developed to try to place such competing views in context. Core nations (also known as first world or developed countries) control most of the economic capital and influence the focus of economic activity, whereas peripheral nations (a.k.a. developing or third world countries) have less influence and tend to provide labor and raw resources at low cost. Semi-peripheral nations occupy the space in between. The issue for this view isn't which policies promote economic growth or the welfare of people, but how the global economy is interconnected.

Day of the Doctor

I've watched Doctor Who for as long as I can remember -- literally. I grew up with the original "classic" Who.

I got to see the 50th anniversary special program "Day of the Doctor" today, one day after its official release. And I've heard the complaints.

I definitely get the criticism some make about the implicit sexism that has crept into the show, and I kind of wish that just once in a while there was more suspense and a slower place like the original run, but it did try to address many of the fan criticisms in one way or another and was entertaining with a great performance by John Hurt and a welcome return by David Tennant.

The whole ret-con of the Last Great Time War will be an issue for some, which I had to think about a little. I guess the issue isn't the continuity itself but for some it is the sweeping away of the major background driving the Doctor's character development since the show's revival.

Still, here is how I pieced together the continuity for my fellow obsessed Whovians:

1. The Doctor (believed he had) used the Moment to actually kill all the Daleks and the Time Lords with fire. He then time-locked the event so that his decision could never be undone and so that neither any Time Lord nor Dalek could escape.

2. Some Daleks, ironically, still managed to escape this fate (inadvertently?) by using a Void Ship prior to the supposed genocides by leaving time and space. They subsequently returned to reality via 21st century Earth ("Doomsday").

3. Dalek Khan managed to fly through the barrier of the Time-Lock, dying over and over and going mad in his bid to save Davros ("Journey's End").

4. Lord Rassilon scanned the future for someone or something to lock onto and used the Master as a homing beacon to get around the Time-Lock. His device for saving Gallifrey and escaping the Moment would have allowed an entire planet to move through time and space, but it apparently would have allowed the Daleks and other terrors from the war to follow in the planet's wake. This plan was foiled the Master and the Doctor ("The End of Time, Part Two"). The freezing of Gallifrey in time and out of phase prevented any other attempts at escape on the part of the Time Lords.

5. The Moment in fact had given the John Hurt incarnation of the Doctor the chance to see the consequences of his choice to kill his own people and to change it while still making it look as if the genocide had taken place. Thus it looked as though he had killed both sides and locked the conflict away to make that choice unalterable. Somehow (???) the other Doctors were all recruited to help pull off that ruse and save the Time Lord homeworld, but none of the incarnations of the Doctor other than Matt Smith's version would have remembered what had actually happened when they went back to their own time streams. In reality, Gallifrey is still frozen in time somewhere waiting to be rediscovered.

6. Rassilon ought to still have his whole "destroying time" device on hand if Gallfrey is unlocked, so, I'm not sure why the Doctor would want to free Gallifrey anyway. Yes, the original Dalek fleets from the Time War are gone, but, the Daleks were able to be reborn ("Victory of the Daleks") -- although seemingly without their time-travel tech. So at the very least it isn't a stretch to presume that the High Council on Gallifrey would want to use their own time travel tech to hunt down and annihilate their remaining foes. Unless of course the devastation to the planet means they have lost their former capabilities. That would still make the Doctor the last of the original Time Lords.

It does all fit together, but this explanation does leave quite a bit unanswered.

Next stop: Trezalore

 

The Story of Stuff

A kind of follow up to yesterday, and still a good introduction to concerns about globalized consumerism. It was made in 2007 but if you haven't seen it yet give it a try. If you find it worthwhile check out storyofstuff.org.

Climate Scientists Call For Radical Rethinking of Global Economy

I wonder how many people will see this or ponder it. I will have something on globalization in the near future. But at 29 minutes this is enough for now.

Be well.

Ten Daily Mini Habit Challenge

[Pixabay]

I am usually not a fan of the blog as generic inspiration column because it is so ubiquitous, but this sounds at least a little interesting. I will try these for ten days and see how it goes.

1. Compliment one person.

2. Think two positive thoughts.

3. Meditate for one minute.

4. Name three things you’re thankful for.

5. Do one push-up.

6. Write 50 words.

7. Read two pages.

8. Do ten jumping jacks.

9. Go outside and take 100 steps.

10. Drink one glass of water.

Be well.

How important are systems of naming and classifying things to creating our sense of what is real?

[Advertising my academic blog again.]

Last week I wrapped up a section on the mind for my blog about human nature and its connection to evolutionary and social narratives. The new section is going to tie that together with what I wrote about culture. Here is a summary about what's been covered so far, in case you might be interested:

A quick review: We've looked at how how evolution reveals patterns of organization leading to the replication of information in organisms and how these same patterns reveal the capacity for creativity at different levels of organic complexity. In other words, two essential elements for narratives that exist from single celled organisms to sophisticated multicellular forms. We've looked how perception has a sensory input from the biochemical and anatomical side as well as cultural input from the mental and social side, and how the patterns for replicating information and a capacity for creativity at the social level gives rise to narratives about the path and purpose to life. We were most recently looking at some of the building blocks of the mental and social aspects of perception and cognition.

To see where things go from there or how it began, you can start with the latest entry:

 Weaving the World Through Names and Stories

That's it for now.

Be well.

Tomorrow is the Transgender Day of Remembrance

[Kristen Beck, former navy seal, US military veteran, and Bronze Star recipient. Does she not deserve the gratitude and respect of her fellow citizens and the right to live as the person she is rather than who some insist she be? Photo by Kristen Beck.]

Trans* people are those whose sense of gender identity and related forms of gender expression don't match the rigid man/woman binary found in places like the United States.

They are not confused, they are not perverts, and they are not creeps.

But they are still treated with hatred, fear, derision, mockery, and so on to the point that many are beaten, killed, or commit suicide. Hence the Day of Remembrance.

I am not going to launch into a lecture here about the social construction of--

Oh heck, I have something I wrote not long ago about gender in a comment for Facebook, so I'll share that:

One of the main stumbling blocks in our understanding of gender is the reification of culturally conditioned social labels. We are already know that sex (biology shaped by gonadal steroids) exists along a spectrum, and the current consensus of social science identifies gender as a social construct and resulting social performance based on cultural expectations of sex.

What we don't know is how hormones, the brain, consciousness (including agency), and the social landscape interact in human development to produce the categories we associate with gender -- gender identity, gender performance (according to established gender roles), etc, let alone categories of related subjects like sexual orientation.

We can't even be sure that our gender categories are adequate and accurate because of the heavy weight of conventional wisdom and the heat of debate over the issue (kind of reminds me of the depths one can plunge for the history, philosophy, and science of terms like "gene" and "species").

While we wait for (or rush out to participate in) research to clarify the issue, we can reasonably assume that however many axes around which (what we generally think of as) gender pivots, there will be spectra of variation as with sex. We also know that gender dysphoria and gender discrimination can cause depression and self harm, with suicide resulting from cruel forms of social control (bullying, discrimination, feeling isolated, feeling like you are a mistake or that there is no place for you in the social landscape, etc) as a leading cause of death among trans* individuals.

In other words, while the subject is indeed fascinating and worthy of the kind of collaborative interdisciplinary work on the human condition at which anthropologists excel, we don't need to wait for the biocultural verdict on the taxonomy of gender and its influences/causes to advocate and adopt compassionate and humane attitudes and policies for trans* and potentially trans* individuals.

If a pre-teen does indeed "grow out of it", what is the harm of having a happy childhood identifying with what is culturally defined as the "wrong" toys and clothes? If a teen is suffering because of their bodily changes as seen through the lens of gender dysphoria, is it unthinkable to use hormone blockers to slow puberty until a clear decision can be reached on whether to pursue surgical options?

My observations of the trans* debate is that it is primarily rooted in the cultural norms and categories of a society that conflates sex and gender and traditionally limits both to a rigid binary. I think informed social policy and scientific debate on gender is a great and necessary thing, and we can all use a good shake-up of our assumptions about the subject, but I for one always need to remind myself that at the center of such anthropological debates are real, living, thinking, feeling people. Kindness is always the right answer for that subject.

I would add that, since this was aimed at students and scholars of anthropology, I didn't feel the need to explain or give examples of how gender is socially constructed, and how much of what we assume to be sex-based differences are really gender-based. Examples from history and cross-cultural comparisons demonstrate this repeatedly.

But humans assume that the worldview they grew up with is a mostly complete and highly accurate picture of reality and don't like things that don't fit inside the boxes into which they've learned to place things. That which exists outside or between these categories make people upset and may be viewed with suspicion, fear, disgust, or contempt.

Hence a non-macho, or small, or homosexual male is "queer"*. And if your gender (how you act, live, dress, etc) doesn't match the expectations of your sex (gonads, sex hormones, genitalia, etc) you are often viewed and treated with similar scorn. If you try to alter aspects of your sex to fit your gender identity, the disrespect and harassment can intensify. Hence the aforementioned violence.

If you are moved to compassion and charity, and agree that kindness is the right response in the face of such discrimination, be active in supporting equality through bills such as ENDA.

Be well.



*Check  out the last paragraph in this article for a more descriptive take as well as my response to such attitudes.

Not going to make my Goodreads challenge

[This is about how many books I'm supposed to read.]

I like taking the Goodreads' book challenge, but I am afraid that I am too far behind the pace for the goal I set for 2013 to catch up. I will keep trying though.

Why does everything I read have to be long or complex?

I need some children's books...

Be well.

Live 1974 version of You've Got To Be Crazy

I've loved Pink Floyd's music since a friend introduced me to them in middle school in the mid to late eighties. The album Animals captures a lot of the qualities that came to be associated with the band's classic sound and themes, and I was struck how some of those 70s tinged themes seemed to become relevant again in the last decade. The album serves as an indictment of the shortcoming of an unjust, greed drive society. 

I was listening to the Pink Floyd Channel on Sirius XM and heard the above track, which would, with a different sound and other changes, become the song "Dogs" on Animals. I'd never heard it before and really love how it's done, so I searched for the specific live recording.  Enjoy this early version of the song with its steel breeze feel. 

Affective states, adaptive scenarios, and how biology and culture are framed in anthropological debate

[Intellectual type stuff ahead.]

Facebook surprises me sometimes when halfway (or more) intelligent or respectful threads emerge on complex or contentious topics. But it does happen! So I got involved just a bit. The issue was whether a particular affective state (in this case a particular emotional response) was adaptive and whether one could test a hypothesis for its evolutionary origins. Part of it was also whether every aspect of human life should have some kind specific evolutionary explanation.

My comments are stitched together here:

Speculative philosophy informed by science is useful and inevitable, as are generalized summaries of experimental results integrated into a broadly accepted metaphysics. But they can be misrepresented and over-used. The grey area between these things and the actual scientific processes of observation, correlation, and explanation, and experimentation seems inevitable as well. And on a related note, the price you pay for trying to have a theory that consumes everything is the risk of intellectual indigestion.

As to the specific type of study that might test the idea of loneliness as adaptation, I am sure one could extrapolate out from a proxy representing key variables or processes, but it would need to be really clever. If you could assign a marker for loneliness to non-human primate behavior in an appropriate taxon, you might have the start of something. But that is one really huge "if". Does anyone know if this adaptive loneliness idea has literature attached to it beyond "it appears it may be beneficial so it is probably an adaptation"? How do the authors frame their argument?

Brief notes about ideas I am going to forget

[I get ideas from time to time. Some are even good ones.]

Here are some thoughts related to my current writing project about human nature that I will want to think more about later. I'm saving them here for now and inviting people to think about them and share their thoughts if they wish.

1. Many emotions measure the distance between preference/expectation and perception.

Regret is how things were versus how they could have been. Disappointment is how things were/are versus how they should have been. Satisfaction is how things were matching how things should have been. Anticipation is how things might be matching how thing should be. Dread is how things should be versus how they could be. And so on.

2. Human sociality is largely based upon our own perception of our social image in our subjective sense of reality.

In other words, people construct a sense of reality based on their experiences and choices and assume that it is reality itself. There may be an acknowledgement of subjectivity on ones own part as well as that of others, and certainly because we share experiences through direct exposure and through language we have something of an inter-subjective sense of how things are. Yet our own inner sense of how things are is still unique and what we rely upon most, sometimes accepting and sometimes rejecting new perspectives offered by others.

When it comes to the essential need to be a social being, we may have different preferences that are culturally and individually informed about certain details of our social image, but core needs remain in terms of being acknowledged and accepted as part of a larger sense of social validation. Yet, since we see the world at larger, including its social dimension, from a personally subjective point of view, we still see ourselves, including how we think others see us, based on our own sense of things.

This is similar to Charles Horton Cooley's conception of a looking glass self, wherein we shape our sense of who we are as well as how we act based upon how we think others will see us. But I'm saying that as we do this our idea of how we think others will perceive and judge us is to a significant degree our own projection. Surely informed by social interaction, but nonetheless strongly personal.

I was thinking of this in terms of social media like Facebook and Twitter. On one level, we post things for others to see and react to and are mindful of what people may think. Thus we shape and craft an image we think sends the right message about who we are to our audience. A good example of the looking glass self idea. Yet we also seem to want or need to validate and approve of our own sense of self even if we aren't sure if anyone is actually paying attention.

3.  ...

Anti-Miminum Wage Contra Statism?

[Is the symbolism too subtle?]

I recently had a chance to observe some comments on social media when someone posted something supporting an increase in the national minimum wage in the United States. The reactions included claims of socialism as well as fears of creeping statism in the name of compassion.

Rather than getting into an extended debate over the issue, which rarely has any potential or opportunity for serious or legitimate discussion on places like Facebook, I chose to pose the following questions instead:

1A: Is anything that questions neoclassic economic theory and neoliberal economic policy automatically now labeled "socialist", and, is that supposed to be a warning or fear marker rather than a policy critique?

2A: Is the potential loss of jobs for youth entering the workplace worth more than the well-being and dignity of those who need to support themselves and their families at minimum wage jobs?

2B: As a corollary to the last question, is the only money in play from a low wage worker-vs low wage worker in a zero sum game, or is it OK to look at the money in CEO salaries and corporate profits as part of the equation as well?

3A: Does anyone disagree that the current legal and cultural climate sets up corporations as somewhat amoral "persons" whose primary overriding goal and responsibility is to increase the monetary value of the business to shareholders?

3B: Do the potential employee and employer represent two individuals with equal power who meet face to face to discuss the social and monetary value of the employee's labor, the value of the employer's business, capital, and product, and what a fair and livable arrangement would be in terms of work schedule, salary, benefits, and so on until a mutually satisfactory arrangement is reached and legally bound in a contract?

3C: If not, what forms of recourse should a current or potential employee have to counter the ability of the employer to demand more value from the worker's labor than the worker receives in useful compensation? To arbitrate a fair and livable arrangement?

3D: Is not the goal of immediate, short-term corporate profit and the power of the employer relative to the worker going to tend toward lower wages, fewer benefits, and an unfair and unlivable arrangement?  Do not labor unions and legal protections help to balance out the interests of such myopic profit motives?

3E: Are there not corporations and cooperative-based businesses that pursue long-term benefit to community and worker above the profit motive yet still make money? If so, why shouldn't the legal and cultural climate favoring the less generous and sustainable business practices be criticized, restricted, and ultimately replaced?

3F: For those who favor the libertarian style solution to corrupt and unfair business practice, do you assume that employee and employer have equal power? That the employee has multiple readily available options of equal value to choose from? That these choices, if they exist, do not carry additional burdens? That being fired (for objecting to workplace conditions or questioning compensation) or quitting in protest has no social repercussions and no effect on gaining future employment (especially in the same industry)? And even if these things were true, is there no ethical obligation to those who must suffer until the situation resolves itself by such Laissez-faire principles?

3G: If, based on the last question, workers do not have the social, cultural, and economic freedom to choose their way out of a bad employment situation (either doing so with great difficulty or peril or simply lacking any viable options), or if it is not ethical to let people suffer until Laissez-faire principles eventually intercede and improve working conditions and employment options, does not the government have the obligation to intervene? Especially since the welfare of the people is one the primary duties of government in the US Constitution?

"Holy Minimalist", huh? OK. I'll bite.

I heard this NPR story on the drive home from work last night and now I am interested in looking into some of this music. That is all.

Thoughts of Tanzania

[Nyakahanga Designated District Hospital, Karagwe District, Tanzania]

 Today I was continuing to lecture about the AIDS epidemic and specifically how it is playing out in Sub-Saharan Africa. The crisis involves economic issues, infrastructure, working with local customs and traditions, and a number of other factors.

This made me think of my brief one month visit to a more rural part of northern Tanzania, the Karagwe District in the Kagera Region. I was assisting with the guidance and instruction of students participating in a research-oriented study abroad project with an emphasis on community health. Naturally I thought of the hospital (the entrance to the ground shown above) that was at the center of much of what we did.

Mixed in with the lecture was a discussion of the economic challenges posed by having otherwise healthy, working-age adults to sick to work or in too many cases deceased because of diseases like AIDS. And then there is the social and personal cost. All of which is represented by the larger number of AIDS orphans in hard hit areas of Africa.

Having met some of those sick parents as well as children orphaned by AIDS, and greatly helped by organizations such as the local AIDS Control Project, discussing this and related topics took on a much different feel and tone that went beyond the basic academic analysis and reflection.

But my thoughts aren't just of poverty and disease, which is a part of every human community, but of the amazing people I had to good fortune to meet and the perspective I was able to cultivate way from the Western cultural and media bubble that even season travelers often fail to escape. I am wondering about what changes may have come in the couple of years since I was there, and what has remained the same. Whether the dreams and wishes we heard about are still alive in the hearts of those who shared them, and what the future hold for the communities we visited. It is too easy to generalize or romanticize about far away places and memories, so I leave you with footage that may portend that future from one of the schools we visited.


[Children from a school in the Karagwe District of Tanzania.]
Be well.

Science may be headed for a bad case of indigestion

[Yeah, it's just supposed to look complicated.]

The line between science, a philosophy of explanation making and verification, and scientism, the belief that everything (or everything that matters) can and should be understood scientifically, is becoming weaker in the public consciousness.

The effect of attempting to apply science in domains of explanation to which it is not suited distorts the perspective and integrity of both science and the subject being investigated. Just to be clear, that's not good.

Sometimes when someone brings up scientism, the reaction is that people are afraid of the light of scientific scrutiny being shone in some places for fear of what it might reveal. That may be true in some cases.

Yet science is only one lens for explaining things. It's particularly suited to questions whose evidence is empirical (therefore measurable) and whose properties are consistent or patterns are predictable. To make a scientific approach fit some domains of investigation, the degree of extrapolation and assumptions necessary to find suitable evidence makes the whole enterprise shaky. If we assume W is related to X in this way, and that X affects Y in this way, and Y is connected to Z just so, and... and... and...

Some things are just poorly suited to scientific scrutiny. Which is not all just measurements and logic by the way. Someone has to decide which assumptions logic is to work with and which measurements matter. Moreover, creativity and artistry, strange thinking and though experiments considering what seems impossible and absurd are also necessary and profitable in the scientific enterprise. The image of everything unfolding meticulously step by step, moving inexorably toward a more and more accurate picture of reality is highly misleading.

Plus, there is more to life than just explaining the things we encounter and the mental boxes we put them in as we name and describe them. The experience of things, of life itself, is also important. To the degree science can enhance such experiences, it is a worthwhile endeavor. But science and its theories cannot replace such experiences.

Now no doubt some who read this will assume I am anti-science. This is untrue. In fact, anyone who really understand and appreciates science should be worried about the influence of scientism, not just among some scientists and popularizers of science, but the influence on public at large.

This is where the eating metaphor comes in. The more people want to cram everything down science's throat, the more frustrated they will be when science gets indigestion from trying to consume too many questions and areas of life experience. If this happens, the regurgitation on the part of the professional intellectual community, the rejection of prior attempts to scientize areas that were clearly not appropriate for the scope of scientific investigation, could cause a loss of trust in the science brand.

If scientific researchers are willing to admit they are entering difficult terrain, emphasize the tentativeness of their assumptions, and do so in the public eye, trying to see what science can or can't offer additional areas of inquiry sounds both reasonable and exciting. Just watch what you eat.

Economies of appreciation and human growth

[What is the value of artistic expression?]

Current economic philosophy is rooted in large measure in debates about human nature that took place between Scottish, English, French, and German philosophers between two and three hundred years ago.

Those individuals were echoing debates that have been going on for much longer, debates about whether humans are intrinsically "good" (caring, empathetic, generous, cooperative, altruistic, etc) or "evil" (indifferent, cruel, selfish, greedy, manipulative, etc), and to what degree external circumstances and choice could draw out or strengthen different social qualities.

Whether intentionally or accidentally evolved or imbued by some unseen force, humans have a capacity for various social states and qualities. In adaptive terms, this can be cast a conflict between gene-centric selection (focused on the immediate benefit of the individual) versus group-centric selection (focused on the benefit of individuals as part of a larger social collective). [1]

Contemporary postmodern industrial societies tend to construct their economic perspective on 1) status/wealth as reward, 2) uncertainty of worthiness, 3) scarcity of virtue, 4) abundance of resources, and 5) belief in meritocracy. I'll review these briefly before challenging their effectiveness at creating a just society full of actualized and productive citizens.

1. Status/wealth as reward has two meanings. One is that the best way to motivate someone is to offer them money or other items associated with higher social status. The other is that those who already possess such forms of wealth in abundance must deserve what they have as a reward for their own efforts or value or that of their immediate ancestors.

2. Uncertainty of worthiness is sometimes applied to those who inherit, but it tends to apply to those who are not wealthy or those who are entering the ranks of the wealthy, especially those who don't have sufficient wealth to insure that their status is secure. In other words, poorer people are seen as suspect in virtue and in any value they might possess or contribute to society. So you have to work hard and make a socially recognized and valued contribution (however that is defined) in order to demonstrate your own personal worth, to yourself and others. If this does not come with a reward of monetary wealth, the worth demonstrated may be in some ways noble but ultimately of a lesser value.

3. Scarcity of virtue goes hand in hand with the idea that humans are basically depraved and need either grace or good works to overcome their baser inclinations. They need to be domesticated, educated, and refined in order prize and acquire virtue and then to demonstrate their worthiness. Again, this is applied most regularly and forcefully against the poor and disenfranchised who must go above and beyond in their efforts to prove themselves to be of value and deserving of increased status and wealth.

4. Abundance of resources is the notion that everyone could become wealthy if their virtue and worth would but allow it. Therefore, the fact that so many people are not wealthy demonstrate their flaws. A slightly more sophisticated version of this blames political efforts at promoting equality for impairing the development of virtue by creating a "culture of dependence". Virtue must be acquired through hardship and overcoming adversity, not through having one's path smoothed out by others. Other political policies are harmful because they limit private ambition in the name of protecting people and the natural environment, thus keeping those who would otherwise be financially successful from demonstrating their worth and acquiring the commensurate wealth.

5. Belief in meritocracy is rooted in a sense that everyone has more or less the same starting resources and opportunities in life and that virtue can trump even unfair advantages held by the less virtuous and unworthy. This is a common trope in contemporary popular fiction.  This belief helps hold the others together, and its unraveling can lead to the rapid questioning of the basic economic assumptions that modern market and workplaces rely upon.

Let's get to unraveling.

Musings on similarities and distinctions among different religions

[Beautiful shading]

In addition to my more recent blog about the academic approach to examining human nature, I've also got a much older one where I consider different issues related to religion and spirituality.

At the latter, I've recently reflected on the debate about whether religions are really just the same or whether there are important differences that shouldn't be overlooked.

If that kind of thing interests you, take a look.

Surgery scheduled

[Hopefully my surgery won't be at a veterinary hospital]

So my not immediately crisis inducing but ultimately serious medical condition has been made more concrete by the actual scheduling of corrective surgery. This is to take place in almost exactly one month.

My age and overall health suggest I should be an excellent candidate for optimal surgical outcomes and recovery. And, just as before when I actually found out about the problem and the looming possibility of a major operation, I'm still not bothered.

My letter from Korea and other forgetful things

A couple of weeks ago I was going through documents and other items that accumulate here and there to properly refile and organize what seemed important and to throw out the rest. This included re-packaging a collection of old correspondence ranging from 1992 to 2006. In doing so I came across the envelope in the picture above from Korea.

Now, technically, I don't really know anyone in Korea. Sort of. I'll explain.

I had visited and commented on the blog of an American in 2005 who liked to write about her life and Buddhist practice. She announced to everyone she was moving to Korea to live as a Buddhist nun. She left contact info for people who wanted to write her.

Now, I can't recall if she asked for us to send something, like a photocopy of a favorite passage from a book or something, and I'm not sure what I sent, but I wrote her figuring she seemed like a decent person who would be lonely and perhaps experiencing culture shock.

The letter I found and show above was her reply. Inside were a couple of photocopied pages, a photo/postcard, and a smaller envelope inside.

As you can see from the back of the smaller envelope, it was never opened.

There is something poetic or emblematic about this. I had enough interest, sociability, and friendliness to begin an act of kindness, then I somehow lose track of the whole thing.

Very bad form indeed.

I freely admit I am bad about "keeping up" with correspondence and also in maintaining some kinds of relationships where out of sight is out of mind, and this example shows how much I need to work on such issues. Mea culpa.

But now I wonder -- after seven years, should I open it now? I have no idea where this person is or how to find or reconnect to her. I barely knew who she was even then, and it's likely she wouldn't remember me at all. Yet even if responding isn't possible or desirable at this point, should I see what it says or just leave it alone?

Life is odd sometimes.

OK, a lot.

Gwenny and the piece of toast

 

This is one of my dogs. Her name is Gwenny. Not long ago she got one of two pieces of over-heated toast I was sharing with her and her "brother", Poo.

Only she didn't eat it.

It was in her mind some kind of trophy. She carried it around everywhere with her like a prized toy. She loves showing off special gifts.

"Did you see this?"

"Did you how special this is?"

"Can you see how great it is that I have this?"

"Want to sniff it?"

"Did you see this?"

Not sure how long she would have carried it around with her if it hadn't been traded for something else and tossed in the garbage.

Just one of those quirks of behavior that dog lovers get a kick out of. And a cute pic.

Be well.

Show your love of liberty and justice -- support ENDA

[Liberty and justice for all?]

At the end of yesterday's blog post I briefly mentioned ENDA, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which is making it's way through the US Senate. As the title of the bill suggests, the law prohibits workplace discrimination because of factors such as gender-identity and sexual orientation.

While the bill is going to pass the Senate and the President is ready to sign it, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, released a statement through a spokesperson yesterday declaring that he "believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs." Later his office added that Boehner believes the bill is unnecessary because such workplaces protections are already protected under existing law.

The claim that federal law already guarantees such protections is not tenable, and most states don't have such explicit protections. If such legal protections already existed, then the possibility of lawsuits for unfair labor practices based on gender and sexual orientation would also exist. So the two statements eat each other.

But let's get back to the initial press release. There are two important things that are being explicitly said.

First, it is saying that LGBQT* rights aren't worth protecting. How can a lawsuit for equal protection and freedom from discrimination be frivolous unless the rights and protections themselves are viewed as unimportant? While one could argue that people could use the law to file false suits, how is that an argument against protecting people's rights? Does that mean we should repeal all workplace discrimination law to reduce frivolous lawsuits, or is it just the LGBQT* community (and maybe women and minorities) who don't count under the eyes of the law?

Second, it is saying that corporate profits are more important than the rights and legal protections of citizens. If  promoting or defending rights costs too much or is too much of an imposition to the business community, it isn't worthy doing. The fact that states with such protections haven't seen a spike in related frivolous lawsuits takes the stale air out of the "too costly" argument anyway.

So why would Boehner make such arguments against ENDA?

It is possible that Boehner and his fellow GOP House members believe these things. If so, vote for them at your peril lest your rights and legal protections be deemed too costly one day.

It is also possible, and more likely, that this is an extension of the culture war waged by the religious far right through their members and proxies elected to the House and Senate, with the redundancy and cost arguments as translucent cover for religion-based bigotry. Liberty and justice in the United States isn't supposed to be guaranteed at the whim of a particular religious sect or movement, let alone its political arm, which is why such motivations have to be given the pretense of legitimate cover.

It is also possible, of course that both of the preceding possibilities are true. Moreover, it's increasingly likely that US citizens will come to believe that one or both are true. If the Republican Party wants to change its image, it is going the wrong way here.

If you don't think that a particular religious movement or unfounded arguments about financial burdens should trump fair and equal protection under the law, then urge your representatives in Congress to support ENDA.

Be well.

Being a feminist

[Does she deserve equal opportunity and the same legal rights as men or not?]

There has been quite a stir over a recent graph that was made to dispel false notions of what feminism is. Some of the blow back I've seen really doesn't make sense. Some of it is faulting the simplicity of the graph, but some of it is the result of challenged privilege.

Privilege as it used in the social sciences and equality studies refers to the way that some groups  are more often given a pass on certain behavior, allowed extra rights and freedoms, and so on, simple because of their social identity. Maybe it is because someone is in the majority religion or ethnicity. Maybe it is because someone is a certain gender or sexual orientation (that is heteronormative male).

The converse is that there are those who are not privileged. Those folks may simply lack the same passes and extra opportunities the privileged receive, which is still a form of discrimination, or they may be mocked or openly oppressed.

Privilege is really hard to see if you have it, because either you assume that the inequality is natural and justified (so it isn't a bad thing) or because you don't face the discrimination yourself. In the latter case, privilege can easily become invisible. You assume everyone is treated fairly, and unfair treatment or practices are rare and not very serious.

This means that complaints about privilege, whether it is mild or severe, are seen as whining, weakness, or even asking for "special rights". After all, if everything is fair, if some group is asking for more recognition, liberty, etc, then they must want something extra, right? Plus, you know someone who is in a privileged group who has had it rough or who was surpassed by someone is the supposedly non-privileged group, so it all has to be an exaggeration or something that only existed in the past.

Except that privilege isn't just about individual anecdotes, it is about systemic and structural bias in cultural attitudes and social institutions. And this is what people of privilege have the hardest time seeing and acknowledging.

Trying to change the system is seen by those denying or defending privilege as reverse discrimination, which itself is a nonsensical term. Basically the idea is that other people are, again, getting "special" rights or are trying to punish those who have been benefiting from privilege. In some cases, those in favor of maintaining privilege lament the attack on what amounts to their supposed freedom to discriminate.

Moreover, there is a tendency to see a group seeking equality not only as asking for "extra" or "special" rights, but to get up or over on those who have privilege. To somehow control or dominate them. Because equality just doesn't compute. Someone's going to be over someone. Those women are man-hating femi-nazis, don'tcha know?

Autumn Chill

[This is what it felt like when I got out of bed today]

Today was the second day in the "new" clock time after the yearly end of Daylight Savings Time. I think "Fall Back" really means "Fall back into bed after silencing your alarm because your body still thinks it's an hour earlier and it happens to be really cold outside."

But that's just lazy and ungrateful thinking, so I put it aside and appreciated having a place to sleep indoors (even if poorly heated) and a blanket to make me more comfortable. And food, and generally good health, and the ability to feel and experience things, even things I may sometimes judge as good or bad (or non-judge as neutral).

It may have been in the mid-twenties at sunrise this morning, but a cold fall sunrise had its own beauty. While I was having my simple breakfast, the following song started playing. I am not sure I have heard of the artist before, but the music blended with the view outside and the temperature to create an interesting experience/perspective:




A kind of long view perspective, not in images or words but more of a felt thing. It's fascinating to me how the mind puts different elements together like that to create and also subtly influence our sense of reality.

Whatever my own problems, there are others who are suffering more than I am and beyond just the immediate suffering there are elements being put into place today that will determine how many and who will survive and thrive or flail and fail in the immediate and long term of our particular societies as well as our emerging global civilization.

Remembering this isn't at all about never having fun and being a dour scold or fusspot. But being grateful at the start of the day, remembering how quickly we judge and shape our experiences reflexively and often without realizing we are doing it, and considering that each of us can make choices that will have real impacts on our own quality of life and that of others, now and in the future, isn't about pessimism or a grim sense of duty or obligation.

It is a chance to recognize what we can do this day, to have the motivation to do it, and having made that resolve or actually having carried out our action, to be able to appreciate everything else without tension or unease. It is a realization that we do have the ability to make things better and also that everything doesn't depend on any one person doing it all.

I know, I know, it sounds like some lame motivational speech like the kind of stuff that floats around social media like stale platitudinal flotsam. That wasn't what I was going for. Really. Honest. It just kind of came out that way.

Yet it is true. I think we might feel better living in a more conscious way where we make the best of each day, appreciate it for what it is and offers, and make thoughtful choices based on those options. And to recognize that we often have more options than our habitual conditioning allows us to perceive.

But here is something you don't often get in those half-hearted faux-tivational blog posts and speeches. I am terrible at actually doing any of the things I just wrote about. I really, truly don't do it most of the time. Either I don't think of it because I am distracted by my routine unthinking or I just don't feel up to "appreciating" whatever it is that I can perceive that the day is offering. That's likely because I am having some self-centered tunnel vision.

There is a reason why gratitude and waking up to your life's blinders involves practice, whether religious or secular in description. Making it all out as being cheery and optimistic can be anathema to someone who is in an emotional or mental stupor, or worse, who has succumb to anxiety or depression. And while the goal may be to embrace and appreciate all things, there's nothing wrong with starting off with one or two things for a month or twelve.

I see I am rambling again, so I will violate all the official and unofficial advice on how to write a "successful" blog post and just stop writing at this very spot.

Happy Diwali! We need a New Enlightenment

[Pretty lights]

Yeah, I know, I just did a holiday post a couple of days ago. But this one is a festival of lights from India known as Diwali, so that means a pic candles lighting up the darkness.

This is a common theme of fall and winter holidays, marking the growing length of night and in the northern hemisphere the increasing cold. Whatever there other religious and cultural significance, Chanukah later this month and Bodhi Day, Christmas, Kwanza, and the rest in December also celebrate the theme of light shining in the deepest dark, hope in the midst of shadows of despair, and wisdom revealing itself in the heart of ignorance.

In other words, it was a way for people in a pre-industrial agrarian society to acknowledge and transform the situation they were facing each fall and winter, when having shelter and enough to eat was more important than ever. Prior to gas and later electric lamps, the world was truly dark when long nights fell save for your candles and lanterns here and there.

Certainly the whole "hope and wisdom" angle is still something those of us in the age of perpetual artificial light can acknowledge. And the value of light itself may still have special meaning for individuals who are still impacted by the change of season, like people suffering from seasonal affective disorder. I am not a SAD sufferer myself but I know one or two people who are.

One of the things we have ignored so well over the last century or two is that we are a part of our physical, ecological, and social environments. We evolved within them as a species, we develop and live within them as individuals. We do not exist apart from them.

I don't just mean we can't live without them, which is true enough. I mean that who we are, biologically and socially, is to a significant degree dependent on these environments. The belief that we can alter these environments to suit whatever our cultural values or collective desires dictate without real consequences is absurd and dangerous.

There are many ways our species, in either ignorance or arrogance, has altered how we exist by altering our environment. Some such as global warming and the destruction of biodiversity, get lots of press but relatively little serious commitment by nation-states and the globalized politico-economic systems to which modern nations are bound. Others, such as the affect of being taken off of a natural light cycle, are on the verge of breaking into the broader popular consciousness.

I don't know about you, but I dear reader think we could use some wisdom and inspiration. A new Enlightenment that combines the best of traditional cultures, modernism, and post-modern critique, drawing on all sources of human compassion and insight.

We need that kind of Light, and we need it now. Learn how to shine and how to see the light in others. That's what I wishing you for any and all of these holidays.

Be well.

Another year older

[Not the author...yet]

Age is a tricky thing. Most of us think of chronological age when we talk about how "old" we are. Yet the development or aging of our bodies don't all run at the same speeds. Not everyone has the same intellectual, emotional, or social maturity.

Depending on the ways you are aging and cultural/personal assumptions about which ages are "good" vs. "bad" or "better" vs. "worse", how you respond to reminders of your chronological age such as birthdays can vary quite  a bit.

Are you happier to be older and wiser? Are you sad to "lose" your youth? Or do you just ignore such questions because you are so focused on or distracted by other things?

As for me, I think that the discovery of my uncertain health status so close to my birthday makes me think a little more about getting older and where my life is, but I had been thinking about the latter for over a year so it doesn't come as some huge revelation. Maybe that will come in time.

Perhaps, though, I am simply not awake as so many sacred traditions put it. Might be worth it to work at that with some actual commitment and consistency. But in the mean time it is a cold, sunless, rainy Saturday and I am off to do celebrate in small, simple ways.

How dull, right? No sagely wisdom. No humorous freakout or perspective on life now that I am a certain age.

I don't think you wake up with that stuff. I've been blogging and writing in different online spaces for fifteen years, and this site is just one of the latest. There will be plenty of stuff to read, but not just because I am observing the anniversary of my birth.

Be well.

All Saint's Day

[Not quite all of them here...]

All Saint's Day was a way for the Church (note the big "C", as in the universal church, as in prior to all the schisms) to honor all of the saints who didn't get their own feast day as well as those who are unknown, such as the hundreds of anonymous martyrs who died when Rome outlawed the worrisome new atheistic cult.

Now, you may have no spiritual or cultural connection or affinity to any form of the Christian tradition, but you can still celebrate the date. How many people have died in the name of fearless love and merciful justice, to witness a greater truth about life even at the risk of their own? How many labored, were imprisoned, tortured,  or died anonymously?

Do you value their sacrifices to make a better world?

So go on and take a day to honor them.