Zealots and Buddies.

A friend wrote about the different ideas of what a Christian should look like.  Now, I'm not talking about visual appearance.  This is in the more broad sense of how does one behave in the world as a Christian.  That's a fascinating question to me. 

I was raised as a Christian, in a Calvinist denomination that has a great history.  I did not get as far into the training and indoctrination as some of my friends have.  Because of that, I am not familiar with some of the more intricate aspects of Calvinism, except to say that I understand the concept of predestination and how Calvin incorporated that into his Reformation.

Nevertheless, here we are in present day.  Christians, non-Christians, agnostics, and atheists all view each other with a great deal of skepticism, trepidation, hostility, and even hatred.  This is stupid.

People who know me personally know that I mostly gave up on my Christianity a long time ago.  I self-identify as Buddhist, but I'm not really that either.  It's just the closest thing, the most accurate label, I can find from a collection of labels and ideas that are all ill-fitting.  I say that only to relate some context for the rest of my thoughts.

Frequently in discussion threads, I see Christians of two types: Zealots and Buddies.  In a discussion thread the other day, a Zealot was making a lot of noise about how Christianity was under attack by others.  I'll avoid the nonsense accusatory labels he threw around.  This Zealot was supporting an argument that any one or any group that has anything negative to say about Christianity in any way should be shunned.  The specifics are irrelevant, but the end point is that he wanted to punish a group and threaten their existence because of perceived attacks against Christianity.

Later in the discussion, a Buddy Christ came along and tried the other phrase I see frequently that asserts that being a Christian is not only a thing you do on Sunday.

And that's where I get stuck.

I assert that the Zealots take the idea of Being a Christian All Day, Every Day, very seriously, and rightly so.

I'm concerned that the Zealots are trained on, indoctrinated into, and believe in an active, activist Christianity wherein it is the duty of the believer to take action towards making the world a Christian place according to their interpretation of Christianity.

I suspect that some Zealots even get worked up over the idea of "Interpreting Christianity".  So many of them, as far as I can tell, do not allow themselves the idea that what they believe is an interpretation.  They see it as the Word of God, Divine and Infallible.  Interpretation is Blasphemy.

To these Zealots, every day is an opportunity to be a Christian, and that means, to them, spreading the Word, and Defending against Evil.

OK, so far, I'm with you.  I may not believe the same details as you, but I'm all for the idea of making the world a better place.  But once we get into the discussion of what is, and is not, a "better place" then we start to have real problems.

Personally, I'm one for real examination of history and ethics as they relate to the concept of morality.  Christianity, especially New Testament Christianity provides a fairly good, mostly consistent, loving and inclusive guideline to morality.  It's not perfect in its message, and it's not perfect in its interpretations.  But, it's a good start.

Mostly, though, I do not want it codified into my society and culture straight from the page.  I believe that is a dereliction of our duties to determine our own fate and instead rely on the sketchy translations and interpretations of allegories, legends, and parables from two thousand years ago. 

This is a difficult topic for me and you, Dear Reader, can tell because I'm all over the place on this.

Let me try to regroup as I near the end of my etude.  I find it exceptionally difficult to interface with a Christian who has taken to heart the idea of All Christianity All The Time.  I want to be able to ask questions and challenge beliefs, but this Zealot type of Christian does not allow for that, intellectually nor culturally.  And the Buddies who spend Sundays telling themselves what good Christians they are because they were an example of Buddy Christ all week long are failing their responsibility to expand the nature of Christianity by allowing each to find their own way to happiness.

The Case For Difficult Art, Part 2 of ???

I watched the conversation unfold yesterday on the newspaper's web site about Actors' Theatre.  One guy was most upset about money being spent for something was purposely offensive.  I know that there are people who feel that way, and I allow them their point of view that the artistic world is out to offend them in some way.

One comment I found particularly offensive was the assertion that artists are all liberal-minded elites who hide behind the notion of artistic freedom in order to fire some sort of destruction at society and culture.  I think this is part of the same argument about free speech, and whether or not free speech is a matter of individual, public, corporate, or governmental interference. 

Part of the argument is that the libs get to produce offensive plays all they want while ostensibly using taxpayer money to do it.  The cons assert it's a violation of their free speech that tax money supports something that is offensive to them. 

OK, so I'm generalizing here.  I know that not all conservatives feel that way, or even care about this issue.  I believe that most conservatives are more concerned about tax money being used for, well, anything more than they are about specific arts related issues.

And, I know that this one guy doesn't speak for a whole movement, segment of the population, or even a group.  He's one guy who stubbed his toe on something some time in the past and now takes out his anger and frustration on people who disagree with him for whatever reason. 

The argument for governmental support of the arts is thin, and I know that.  It's all based around an interpretation of the "promote the general welfare" clause of the Preamble to the Constitution.  In good times when the money is flowing freely, governmental support for the arts is less of an issue.  When money is tight, things have to get cut.  Arts groups complain about that as much as anyone else who is in fear of losing funding.  But, arts is seen as a luxury item and not a requirement.  Plus, it is somehow built in to the way we do business that the ones who are usually most offended by the arts are the ones who control the money.

Perhaps it's built in to artistic expression to poke at those in power.  So, by definition the artists are going to bite the hands that feed them.  One goes to a therapist to work on mental and emotional issues and it's not easy.  If you want to spend therapist kind of money on someone who is only going to make you feel good about yourself, then you might as well be hiring a prostitute.  I can give you numbers of some very good ones.  Therapists and prostitutes.

So, there is my hook, I guess.  I, as a member of the artistic community, am not out to bring down your religion, offend you personally, or denigrate the precepts of Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or Buddhism, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster).  My brethren and I translate the world around us into brief moments of interpretation.  For the record, we don't hide behind anything.  As I suggested yesterday, you put your name on a piece of creative work for production or publication, and then tell me how that worked out for you.  Putting yourself out there with something that you've created is an inherently difficult process open to all sorts of criticism, blow-back, brickbats, and shit-storms.

I am not your prostitute.  I am not your friend.  Actually, neither am I your therapist.  There are times that I will make you feel good, and there are times that I will make you very, very angry.  But you need me because I, on occasion, get it just right for you.  There's that moment when your eyes open to something new.

Shut me down today because I've done something to offend you, and you lose the voice I provide forever.  Arts organizations, theatre companies, writers, directors, producers, technicians, these are the people that make art happen (as well as musicians, painters, dancers, and so on).  Close an organization and these people go away somewhere else or into other professions.  You cannot and will not ever get them back.  For every Corpus Christi there is a Godspell, and so on.  If you want one, you get both.  That's just the way it is.  Arts are not committed to one point of view.

You need us.

The Case For Difficult Art, Part 1 of ???

Once again we find ourselves in a situation where a small arts company is being threatened with money partly, if not solely, because of the company's choice of material.  Specifically, Actors' Theatre Grand Rapids faces a challenge from a Trustee of Grand Rapids Community College.

ATGR receives money directly from GRCC's annual budget as well as various in-kind types of support including the theatre space itself and offices.  Further, ATGR is not the only organization that this particular Trustee is challenging.

Let's start with a few basics.  GRCC does have money problems of its own.  This Trustee is doing his job by 1) looking for places to cut the budget and 2) openly voicing the nature of his objection.  ATGR is always facing money problems, but they are also doing their job by being true to their mission. 

There is no way to monetize creativity and art.  The closest we can come to it is to monetize the experience of that art.  We can (literally) pay the people who transform that art from idea to representation.  And, we as consumers can pay for the opportunity to witness, to experience, that representation.  There is a money chain that goes directly from the mind of the original artist to the person who is witnessing the result.

Between those two endpoints are layers of transformation, each represented by people, individuals, who expressly or indirectly support or assist in the process.  Those internal layers are the ones who allow creativity to flow, who make it possible for a great idea to become a great experience.  Those internal layers never get the spotlight, that's not what they're there for.  Those internal layers don't care about the "meaning" of the art.  They care about the process of getting an idea from concept to realization.

Threatening to "kill" (or at least harm) an organization because of the nature of its work is valid, to a point.  But most of the time those who are doing the threatening fail to realize that it is the process that is more important long term than the product.  Without an army of people who know how to perform those internal steps between idea and experience, the next Great Idea stands a good chance of being unheard.

Every time someone pulls the plug on funding, for whatever reasons, the ice upon which you and I skate gets a little thinner.

There is a balance, of course, and you Dear Reader knew I was going to get to that at some point.  Money makes the world go 'round, after all, and it is not in unlimited supply.  Individuals do need to make choices about what's important to them and how they are going to pay for it.  Support between corporate organizations does get complicated when the people inside the organizations disagree about what is and isn't important.  That's fine.  That's normal in any inter-organizational relationship. 

Remember though, that all those people referenced above that stand between idea and result don't care about the message.  It is disingenuous to categorize them as malcontents, unbelievers, infidels, dangerous, solely because of the process in which they are involved.  I know that's a statement that can be taken to extremes in pretty much any direction. Do I blame the workers at a munitions plant for making the weapons that kill innocents?  Maybe.  Maybe not. 

Similarly, the arts organization itself has to understand that they do not exist without community context.  It's all well and good to bill yourself as the "edgy" outspoken one, but that is going to limit your reach, limit your audience, and self-select the way in which the experience can be presented.  It's a choice, and if the choice is to be offensive to someone over and over again, then you had better be prepared to go on without them.

The GRCC Trustee wants to cut support to ATGR and cites two shows, one in the past and one in the future, as an example of why GRCC should not support ATGR.  I suggest that he is being short sighted and disregarding the value that even difficult material brings into the society.  The professionals who work in the organization are part of the community and their work, their experience, contribute to the health of our culture. 

Difficult and challenging art makes the audience consider their own place in the world.  One does not have to be happy about everything creative.  But one should celebrate that creativity is happening at all.

Killing Someone's Pet.

There's a disturbing story in the news about a teenager who, in the course of robbing a home with another kid even younger than himself, killed the dog in the home so that it wouldn't disturb them.  The kid found a hammer in the home, a trailer really, and hit the dog on the head.  The kid says he only wanted the dog to stop barking.  When the dog stopped moving, he put it on a bed and covered it with a blanket so he wouldn't have to look at it while he and his accomplice continued the robbery.  The owner caught them in the act and the kids are now in the system.

The mother has said something to the effect that she doesn't understand what the big deal is about killing the dog.  "Dogs don't go to heaven," she says, "People do."  Well, ain't that just dandy.

Yeah, that makes me mad.  That makes me very mad.  In my Short List of Things I Believe, I have two items related to this.  First is the one that says "All death is tragic.  Not all deaths are equal in their tragic value."  The second is that cruelty to animals, especially killing them, is only one short step away from killing humans. 

My sensibilities are offended to the point of outrage about this whole thing.  I normally don't like to play with suppositions and speculations, but in this case I can't help but think what the kid might have done if it had been a baby left behind for any reason.  One that was crying and wouldn't shut up.  Yes, I have to start with the assumption that this kid probably would have left the baby alone and would have either left the trailer before committing any robbery, or would have taken some stuff and fled quickly.

The threads of details, though, continue to add up to weave a picture of a family that has no respect for life, no respect for their neighbors, and no understanding of cooperating with themselves or their neighbors.

I don't know if this is an indication of any sort of larger problem in society.  This kind of crap goes on all the time.  I wish it didn't.  Animals, pets, are generally not able to defend themselves against a determined human predator.  We have a responsibility to take care of ourselves.  We have a responsibility to take care of those who rely on us.  To kill a dog because it's in the way is deplorable.  Despicable.  Disgusting.

What sort of punishment should be applied for this killing, I don't know.  We start to get into a gray area of moral relativism when we make the argument that killing an animal is worthy of greater punishment than harming a human.  Except that I do believe that anyone who would kill an animal, someone's pet, would more readily kill a human in the right (wrong) circumstances than others who would not kill an animal.  It is an act that demonstrates a generalized lack of respect for life.

Is that different than killing a spider?  Or a mouse?  What about a mole that is digging in the garden?  Do the lives of more complex animals have more moral value to us than the simple ones?  Do domesticated animals mean more to us as individuals, or as a society, than the rodents and predatory animals?

All death is tragic.  Not all death is equal in its tragic value.

Higher-order species, the more complex animals, are not sentient in the way we consider ourselves to be.  But, they are aware.  They understand the world around them in their own limited ways.  Consider the possibility of a species more developed than ourselves examining the way we perceive the world around us.  They would be fascinated (I hope) or disgusted (I fear) by the way we operate with our limited perceptions as compared to their own. 

That is a sort of relativism maybe.  But we have to consider that it's only by a trick of fate and evolution that the ancient ape-like creatures developed cognition in the way we've come to understand it, and not the canine- or feline-like ones.  Plus, evolution isn't done with us yet.  The roaches may take over the world yet.

We kill for food.  We kill for sport.  Somehow we've come to a social agreement (mostly) that certain animals are OK for killing.  That's fine.  We are a predatory, carnivorous, omnivorous species.  But we betray the trust placed in us, and fail in our responsibility, when one of us kills a pet.

DADT, Communal Showers, Socialization and Bullsh*t.

I'm thinking again today about willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.  I have to accept that some of the ignorance isn't willful but is, instead, just unfortunate.

One of the things I'm confronting in my head is a situation were a friend tried to make the case for what it, in essence, a stall tactic.  I usually am comfortable with letting events play out on their own time line.  I dislike those who chant "Change!  Now!" with utter disregard for the context in which they demand change.  In this case, though, I have to face the reality that if the change is not implemented soon, if not immediately, then the political reality is that the environment will prevent any sort of action in the future.  Change has to happen now or it won't happen at all.

I am reminded of a child being told it is time for bed.  "Five more minutes?" the child keeps asking.  If the parent gives the child another five minutes, then another, and another, soon enough the child will have achieved his goal of staying up as late as he wanted.  Someone in this relationship needs to be the parent.

In this case, the "Five more minutes" bullshit is over.  There's no reason for Five More Minutes, and the request for Five More Minutes is disingenuous in that it's intended not for the stated case of examining the situation but is instead intended to delay action until any sort of action is impossible.

I call Shenanigans.  I call Bullshit.

I'll be clear: I'm talking about the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  It was a stupid law when it was written, and it's a stupid law now. 

In that same Five More Minutes conversation, I was asked a good question: if it's no big deal for gay and straight men (or women) to shower together, then why not have coed showers?

Well, OK.  First, I think, one does not join the military for its accommodations.  Second, we need to examine human nature and cultural socialization. 

In the Human Nature part we have to keep in mind that some things are hard wired into the human brain.  We all have a sexual nature of some sort.  Perhaps I'll get into the discussion of Gay to Straight being on a continuum and not a binary.  People are naturally sexually aroused by *something*. 

The Socialization part is that we are trained while we are children and into adulthood that sexual behavior is most widely accepted only in certain circumstances.  It is beyond rude, it is socially unacceptable to express sexuality in an inappropriate, especially unwanted, manner.

So, why not coed showers?  Mostly it's because of that social convention.  The majority of humans are on the Straight end of the scale and, as such, would experience some sort of sexual reaction to a coed shower.  Our social conventions do not train us for this situation and as such the nature would be un-checked by training and conditioning.  Would it be anything more than awkward?  In most cases, no.  In enough cases, though, the fragile constructs of personal and sexual identity would be challenged enough to cause problems such as unwanted attention, harassment, or in worst case, assault.

So, then, wouldn't this happen between gays and straights in a single-sex environment? 

I don't think so.  Same-sex socialization is very different than opposite-sex socialization.  Children are trained and conditioned to be together, separated by biological sex, from a very young age.  Even as children are developing and discovering their own internal nature of their sexuality, they learn that the environment in which they operate does not allow for, and will not tolerate, unwanted sexuality.  Guys, think of how terrifying it was to even consider the unfortunate situation of "popping a boner" in the gym shower during high school.  Misery.

Will there be any sort of unwanted attention, harassment, or assault?  Of course there will be.  There always will be.  For a small portion of the population, the socialization is incomplete, ineffective, or plain old wrong.  Those people in those situations will always be present in some manner, and their behavior will always be unacceptable.

Here's where the ignorance plays in, I think.  A lot of people still think of homosexuality as some sort of perversion and still consider it in the same category as sexual predatory behavior.  They think that a gay person is more likely to commit some sort of assault than a straight.  I suspect that if the crime statistics carried that kind of information we'd see that's not the case.  Nevertheless, because some people think that the Gays are Out To Get Them and are Deviants and Predators, they should be segregated. 

That's Bullshit.

Rainy Morning.

The day begins with rain coming down as if to wash away the sins of the night before.  Rain with a purpose.  Rain with an agenda.  Not judgment as such, but it knows that some things need to be washed into the gutter with the rest of the debris. 

Clouds block out the sun.  No light will shine on this day until it has been cleaned up.  The sun is judgmental.  The sun does not wish to illuminate the dregs, the detritus, the damage.  The sun feels shame.  The sun sends the clouds to shield its own eyes, and to remind those below that the sun it not a given, not an absolute.  The sun sends the clouds to bring rain, to cleanse the world.

Rain falls on the houses, on the yards, on the fields, in the streets.  It soaks the ground where it can be absorbed and runs quickly off the hard surfaces where it doesn't appear welcome.  Even on the hard surfaces the rain find small purchase, small niches in which to hide, in which to assert its presence.  It will not be denied.

Rain gathers itself in the gutters of the houses and of the streets.  It gathers its individual force into a collective rush of pressure.  It sweeps up what it can find and carries it out as far as it can go.  Innocuous items, leaves, branches, dirt travel with the rain's collective force to redistribute the resources.  They fight for position in the rushing rainwater with the leftovers so offensive to the sun.  Used condoms and wrappers, baggies still stained with heroin, crack, meth, drift aimlessly down the impromptu river as if nothing was wrong, as if their life had brought no harm or dismay to anyone.  The baggies, especially, belie little evidence that they are a part of a person's personal destruction.  They are neutral and vehemently so.  The rain cannot change that fact, it can only carry it away.

Other trash falls into the rushing water.  Bags, paper and plastic, letters once carrying important news are soaked and illegible.  The ink that once represented life changing information, a tantalizing offer of success or pleasure for only $29.95, a sad explanation of failure, declarations of endless love, and of course, the admission of that endless love now gone forever, is all soaked and washed clean from the paper that was once its conveyance.  The ink dissolves into the rainwater, the paper pulps itself into a mush, and the ideas they once represented are lost in time. 

All the while, the sun directs the clouds to continue blocking its view, dispensing the rain to provide the cleansing.  It will restore its power and its energy, but not until this is done.  The sun goes from sad to angry and back again.  It withholds its immense power at times for lack of belief that it will be put to good use.  At other times in a punitive measure so as to remind its children that they are nothing without it, would not exist without it and its brothers.  It is the factory in which all things it cares for were made.  And, like a parent watching over willful children, feels exasperation when they go astray.

Clouds obscure.  Rain washes.  Sun waits.

The rain doesn't care.  It lives a life of constant change.  The sun picks it up from one place, gives it a certain amount of freedom it doesn't feel that often.  The sun has a cleansing process of its own that the rain appreciates.  It has its own impurities removed from it regularly.  It's not a perfect process, of course, but the rain appreciates the effort. 

The sun picks up the rain, gathers it together where it is needed, and puts it to work.  That it the life of the rain.  A comfortable meaningful process of movement, evaporation and coalescence, food and waste.  Rain is simple.  It is simple in its needs.  It can exist on its own, and can even adapt to any space in which it finds itself.  It does better when it is with more of its own kind, and even better when it's with others, but still it's a simple thing with simple needs.  Clean.  Feed.  Rest.  Repeat.

Rain falls with meaning, with purpose.  The day starts with its cleansing.  The day will go on with or without it.  But today, anyway, will be cleaner than it was last night.  And soon enough, the clouds will part and the sun will return.

The Future Hates Me.

I want progress, of course, and I dislike the notion that progress may not be an option.  That bothers me a lot.  It makes me feel like I'm moving backwards.  It makes me feel that I am making myself less and less prepared for an uncertain future.  Of course, the present is uncertain, and the present requires attention.  I need to learn how to allow myself to let the future take care of itself.

Of course, the problem I have with that is that if I let the future take care of itself, then I'm never going to move in the directions I want.  I do not believe that the future takes care of itself.  Further, I have a strong paranoia that the future is out to get me, it is out to block my progress in any way possible.  I believe that every step forward is a struggle against invisible opponents who want to prevent me from doing what I want, from being where I want to be, from accomplishing the things I want to accomplish.  The future is a guardian monster who wants to keep me in place, keep me servile, keep me worthless and weak.  The future does not want to see my success, my abilities, my happiness.  The future is concerned only with my pain, disappointment, and misery.  The future hates me and everything I stand for.  It is only by some miracle, no, not miracle, not grace, it is only by force of will that I am able to stand here today and claim as mine anything that I've taken, by force, from the future.

No Such Thing As Perfect.

I live in gray areas.  There are very few things about which there is any absolute.  I know this totally confuses some of the people with whom I interface, especially when it comes to political, religious, or philosophical matters.  Thing is, it also applies to the more mundane. I don't manage with absolutes.  I don't work towards absolute goals.  I like to think I'm not all that unique in that.

I suppose there's a bit of a dishonesty in here.  I say, and truly believe, that I don't work towards absolute goals.  And maybe that's true.  But I do have in my head, frequently, an ideal, an image of perfection, an absolute.  I know for myself, and maybe this is where all my neurosis come from, that I constantly compare the present to the ideal image of absolute perfection.

I consider something that I just saw on TV where Prof. Stephen Hawking asserted that there is no such thing as perfect.  The topic at hand was the distribution of matter after the Big Bang and that because the distribution was uneven, imperfect, gravity was able to pull things together.

The example was fascinating and I would love to try it some time.  Ball bearings were spaced evenly on the flat surface of the dining hall.  Five were removed, and the rest started to clump together.  I would love to see that happen.

So, it's built in to the Universe that there is no such thing as Perfection.  Maybe that's why I get so upset at my own efforts to achieve some sort of goal.  There's always something more.  There's always something else that needs to be fixed, refined, adapted.  Complicating that is the fact that all the environment is a moving target.  All influences come and go, change their shape, change their impact.  Always.

I get very nervous around people who believe in absolutes.  The first thing is that it gives me a clue as to their nature that they do not appear to have the curiosity or awareness to perceive the changing nature of reality around them. 

I understand that it is in our nature to look for absolutes.  We are pattern-seeking animals, and that has been proved in many ways.  Those of us who could recognize danger faster and with less concrete information than the others survived to pass along our genes.  The others are fertilizer.

So, it's built in to us to look for the short cuts.  I've discussed before how those short cuts can prevent you from seeing the larger picture.  But I'm also thinking today about how those kinds of short cuts lead to belief in, reliance on, adherence to absolutes.

I get exceptionally frustrated when I'm trying to evaluate a philosophical item but can't get the discussion beyond, "Someone else said its true, therefore that's what I believe".  I'll be more specific: That's what The Bible says.  OK, belief is a good thing.  Faith is a good thing.  I know there are Atheists out there who think that all faith is a delusion and a moral failure of some sort.  I disagree with them as strongly as I do any other fundamentalist.  Saying that is just as intellectually dishonest as any other absolute.  Admit that this is what you believe, and make your case, but there is no categorical proof that can be empirically tested.  It's all conjecture.  If you want to convince me, make your case.  Threatening me with Hell, or threatening me with intellectual inferiority are not going to work.  Convince me.

I got into a snit about a conservative writer who called Muslims less-than-human and Mohamed a monkey-god.  The point I want to make is that you can believe all you want, but as soon as you start calling your fellow humans less-than-human, then we're getting into some morally dangerous territory.  By way of example, the Jews in Europe were cast as "less than human" and as such a weak society allowed for mass murder.  All arguments ever made in support of slavery have included a case that the slave population was "less than human".  This is one of the places where I come close to an absolute.

Believe all you want.  That's the point of belief.  Once you start to act on those beliefs, then the rest of society gets to evaluate your actions and judge you on your beliefs.  I think I've said that before.  Perhaps a lot.  It is categorically unacceptable to denigrate another person, another population, and cast them as "less than human" for any reason whatsoever.

No Reward Without Risk.

It's Friday and I should be thinking and writing about things more fluffy than I think I am today.  A number of things happening in the world in general give me a constant sense of irritation (See Calculating the Irritation Threshold).  One virtual exchange this morning clicked over the magical Volume Under The Curve and got me going.

On my Short List of Things I Believe is an item that talks about Risk and Reward.  The sentiment is that the Human Life is not meant to have Reward without facing Risk.  It's in our nature.  Of course, it's also in our nature to be comfort-seeking and to maximize any advantage that has been given us.  So, again, there's a balance that must be struck.

I am personally, morally, ethically, philosophically dismayed at how over my lifetime Risk has been removed from the Reward equation.  As with most things, I blame the Boomers.  The Me Generation has grown up into positions of power carrying with them the ideals and beliefs they developed as adolescents and young adults.  Here in the 21st Century, we're still fighting with each other about what happened in the '60s.  The "If it feels good, do it" that was prevalent in the '60s and into the '70s has morphed into a culture of entitlement.  I deserve this Reward for no reason other than I can take it. 

The system is rigged.  Winners continue to win because they can eliminate Risk from their environment.  They're (collectively) smarter than the individual, have access to resources to prevent the individual from getting in to the game, and in general don't care about much except themselves, and their immediate environment. 

It's easy to proclaim the virtues of a free market economy when you're sitting on a pile of cash. 

Like my previous post, hold your fire before you start yelling various -isms at me.  I'm equally disgusted with those who are struggling economically and yet demand that they get some sort of Reward as well.  It's easier to see the disparity of Risk and Reward when the Risk is that the next night's bed may be a cardboard box in some hidden corner of the city.  Nevertheless, even on this scale, Reward without Risk is unacceptable.

Soak the Rich is not an acceptable solution either, is what I'm trying to say.

Aggregation of wealth and opportunity to those who took little or no risk to get it is morally bankrupt and should be socially unacceptable.  A family as every right to pass on wealth, luxury, and opportunity to its children if they've accrued it.  Successfully navigating Risk for that much Reward should be, well, rewarded. 

My point is that the children, then, must take on Risk of their own.  It's not enough to play at life with someone else's money, even if that someone else is your own family.  Work for it.  Take Risks.  Put that wealth and opportunity to good use.  The nasty idea of redistribution continues to have presence in society as an overreaction to the hoarding of wealth and opportunity.

I cannot see how any of the political and social thinkers I encounter today take that into account.  The cheap and easy answer seems to be that one should get out of the way and let the market happen.  Evidence shows, though, that the market will work to protect itself in extreme ways.  The market has no motivation for openness and full disclosure.  A free market in that sense would tie itself up in knots with various schemes, deals, alliances, to minimize Risk and maximize Reward.

This isn't a game of Survivor we're playing here.  It's not 39 days of Outwit, Outplay, Outlast, after which we can all go home, someone wins a million dollars, the next person wins one hundred thousand, everyone gets paid AFTRA scale or better, and life goes on. 

My life affects yours.  My neighbor affects mine.  His family affects his.  Their friends affect them.  We are not required to "look out for each other", but we are required to understand that if someone's life falls apart, then we're all a little worse for it.  Similarly, if someone succeeds wildly, we're all a little better for it.  The stagnation of wealth and opportunity is the stagnation of society.  If you believe in American Exceptionalism, then BE Exceptional.  ACT Exceptional. 

There is no fate but that we make.  If we make no fate, it will be made for us.  If we Risk nothing, we are rewarded with hollow Rewards.  Look for the decay in American culture and you will find the rot of complacency.

Pierce the Corporate Veil.

I'm having a moment today where I'm concerned about the way American society views corporate entities.  I'm also concerned about this on a global scale, but I'm going to start more locally.

Basic Business School 101, Day 1: A corporation is created to aggregate the collective actions of individuals.  It is created in a way so as to have it's own identity separate from those individuals.  It is, by this definition, an individual actor in the legal, social, cultural, and political arenas.  It has rights that are conferred on itself as an entity, and it has responsibilities that go with those rights.

Some of this is about my thoughts that I'd take the discussion of Rights a lot more seriously if it were in conjunction with a discussion of Responsibilities.

A lot of argument takes place about what are the rights and responsibilities of a corporation.  Like people, a corporation generally acts in what it believes is its own best interest.  It is selfish.  By design, it is selfish.  Even corporations that are set up to serve a need, like a non-profit, is selfish in that it will behave in ways that will advance its agenda.

OK, I'm getting into an infinite loop here.  I need to back off and come at this again from another angle.

We have the natural individual entities of Humans which, as noted elsewhere, have certain inalienable rights that are among them Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Then, next to that, we have these artificial entities that also have rights.  The question is, how do the rights of the artificial entity compare to the rights of the Human.

I suggest that the Rights of the corporate entity are subservient to the rights of the Human.

I know that's going to get some of you all up in arms about various "-isms".  Fine.  But I challenge you to think this through with me.

The purpose of the corporation, as noted above, is to aggregate the efforts of individual humans for the purpose of achieving some goal in ways that are more efficient than individual efforts.  In this case, the Whole is greater than the sum of its Parts.  But that only relates to the efforts for which it was created.  Yes, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that "Making a shitload of money" is a reasonable and legitimate reason for creating a corporate entity.

Here's the problem, though: By definition, this artificial entity has more societal mass than any individual, even a group of individuals.  Feel free to apply all the Classical Newtonian Physics to this concept.  The larger mass has more gravity.  The larger mass has more momentum.  The force of the larger mass has outgrown its boundaries of existence.

These artificial entities have usurped Rights to themselves that do not belong to them.  The Human must have Rights that supersede the Corporate.

Corporations are, by definition, Second-Class Citizens in our society and must be treated as such.  At the intersection of Human Rights and Corporate Rights, the Corporation has the Yield sign.

Now, again, before you start yelling various -isms at me, I am not at all calling for an end to corporate existence.  As noted above, the corporate entity exists in order to provide efficiency and improve the operation of the system.

Two things have happened that bother me greatly.  First, the Humans in this equation have gotten lazy about asserting their influence on the Corporate.  Second, the Corporate Veil has become the Corporate Steel Wall.

The corporate is a hivemind just like everything else.  It behaves in ways that further its goals.  But it's still the humans that make those decisions.  Those humans may or may not react to influence in their own personal lives.  But, share holders, leaders, managers, donors, external influences must take up their own Responsibilities if they want their own Rights protected.

Basically, if you don't like the way that a corporation is behaving, then it is your responsibility to say something about it.  Of course, the corporation has its own Right to do as it pleases.  The point is that the balance will be struck eventually.  Corporate Rights are subservient to Human Rights, but not Sublimated to them.  Find the balance.

On the other side, it has become far too easy for the individuals that make up the corporate entity to hide within it.  It is called the Corporate Veil.  I can take legal action against the corporation, but not against the people inside it.  I say that's gone too far.  People make the decisions, not the artificial entity.  Hold the individuals responsible.

I See What You Did There.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)
15A Awolowo Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.
Nigeria.
http://www.efccnigeria.org



Attention:

The Federal Government of Nigeria through provisions in Section 419 of the Criminal Code came up with punitive measures to deter and punish offenders. The Advance Fee Fraud section deal mainly with cases of advance fee fraud(commonly called 419) such as obtaining by false pretence through different fraudulent schemes e.g. contract scam, credit card/ATM card scam, inheritance scam, western union transfer scam, EFCC compensation scam, FBI investigation scam, compensation scam, job scam, loan scam, lottery scam, “wash wash” scam (money washing scam), marriage scam. Immigration scam, counterfeiting and religious scam.

This is to officially announce to you that some scam syndicates were apprehended in Lagos, Nigeria few days ago at western union agent office when they were about to pick up some money sent to them by their scam victims and they were handed over to our Investigation Department, after several interrogations and tortures your name, email address and contact details were among those mentioned by the scam syndicates as a victim of their operations.

After our investigations a meeting was held between the Board of Directors of The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and it was agreed that the sum of fifty thousand US Dollars (US$50,000) should be transferred to you out of the funds that Federal Government of Nigeria has set aside to compensate everyone who have sent money to fraudsters in Nigeria, because your name and contact details were among those mentioned by the scam syndicates.

Right now we are working hand in hand with Western Union and Interpol to track every fraudsters down. The purpose for this is to regain the lost glory of our great country Nigeria and to also show the entire world that this government is highly ready to fight corruption, in 2007 we were rated as one of the most corrupt countries in the world and it is never a good title. Do not respond to their e-mails, letters and phone calls any longer they are scammers and you should be very careful to avoid being a victim to fraudsters any longer because they have nothing to offer you but to rip-off what you have worked hard to earn.

Important: Please do not send your email address and password to anybody. Take note of this because there are lots of fraudsters out there claiming to be your email administrator requesting for email address and password.

If you have already done that before it is strongly recommended that you change your password immediately or register a new email address.

***Please note that we will NO LONGER be liable for any loss, cost or expense, whatsoever, suffered or incurred by You in connection with the fraudsters. Be warned!

We have deposited your cheque at Western Union Money Transfer agent location EMS Post office Lagos, Nigeria. We have submitted your details to them so that your fund can be transferred to you. We have insured your fund for security reasons and to avoid misappropriation.

Contact the Western Union EMS agent office through the email address stated below inform them about this notification letter and the transfer of your fund;

wu_ems_agent@post.com

Yours sincerely,
Adams Smith
EFCC FRAUD MONITORING UNIT
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)

******************************************************************************************************************
Please note that some fraudsters are claiming to be the Executive Chairman, Chief Mrs. Farida Mzamber Waziri (AIG rtd.) or staff of The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission have recently been sending phony e-mails/letters and also calling unsuspecting persons, with intent to defraud them. It is important to note that these fraudsters are
criminals engaged in Advanced Fee Fraud known in Nigeria as 419. Every day, people throughout the world are falling victim to scams of one kind or another.
But remember - if it sounds too good to be true, it is probably a scam. In the circumstance, we unreservedly advice you to dissociate yourself from all correspondence and transactions entered into based on evidently fraudulent and fictitious claims.
******************************************************************************************************************

Calculating the Irritation Threshold.

We've talked about tolerance a lot lately.  That made me think of something that I've worked with for a long time.  I call it Area Under the Curve.

The unauthorized biography of Bill Gates tells a story about one of billg's personality quirks.  He's known to say, frequently, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard."  Well, when one says that as often as billg does, then one has to start questioning the veracity of the statement.  I mean, "ever"?  Really?  Each day the new Stupidest Thing is more Stupid than the previous?

The author explains how billg's mind works.  There is a certain attenuation over time in billg's consideration of The Stupidest Thing Ever Heard.  As time passes, the Stupid Value naturally decreases by some fraction.  As Time goes to Infinity, the Limit on Stupid approaches zero.  As such, each new day, each new hour, each new moment brings a new opportunity for something else to supplant the most recent Stupidest Thing as the new Stupidest Thing.

Elegant simplicity that could only be developed by a programmer.  Even back in the days when the world didn't really know what a programmer was.

So, that started me thinking.  I'm assaulted with Stupidest Things all the time.  There are days when each tick of the clock brings something new and Stupid.  That's got to have an effect on me.

After some careful self observation and soul searching (drinking) I determined that I am not inclined to react to each individual Stupid Thing as it assaults my sensibilities.  Rather, I am inclined to respond to the residual effect of the most recent Stupid Thing assaults combined.  Everybody has a limit, as the saying goes, a point at which patience runs out: over the edge, end of the rope, straw that broke the camel's back, those sorts of things.

So, I've figured out that it is some collection of Stupid Things that goads me to a reaction.  But how?  Basic math.

Consider the present moment in time as (0,0) on an x-y grid.  I know, it's math, but this will make sense.  The X-axis measures time with the future on the right and the past on the left.  I know that makes the past, with which we are most concerned, negative numbers for X, but you're all smart people: get over it.

On the Y-axis, measure the value of the Stupid Thing as some level of assault on my sensibility.  A little Stupid Thing will have a small spike on the Y-axis, a monumental assault on my sensibilities will have a very large spike.

As time moves forward on the X-axis, those spikes move into the past.  Connect the dots of those points, and suddenly you have a line that represents a level of irritation over time.  Beautiful.

Math and Physics geeks will immediately see where I'm going with this (and its inherent flaw, which I will address).  Whenever you have a line over some zero-value baseline, the first thing one should try to do is calculate the area under that line (curve) to see how much "stuff" you've carved out in your graph.  Yes, it's calculus. 

Use a certain "lookback" period (beyond which the data are irrelevant) and you can calculate the value of residual irritation based on the area under the Stupid Things curve.  When that area calculation reaches a certain value, you can expect me to do something really unacceptable like yell at a random minion, put a hole in a wall, quit my job, or tell my boss to go fuck himself.  Yes, those are all real examples.

There's a problem with the straight-up lookback period, though.  It doesn't take into account the signal attenuation.  The value of the Stupidest Thing decays over time.  So, in this model, there's no accounting for the decay of the spikes as time moves to infinity (the values should approach zero).

Enter a third axis.  (Math and Physics geeks, smile knowingly.  You knew where I was going with this.)  Floating above our x-y grid is a plane that represents the signal attenuation value at any time.  When it is flat (parallel and non-intersecting), there is no attenuation.  However, dip this attenuation plane towards the negative-X side of the graph and it will, eventually, intersect with the x-y at some point.

Now, instead of a two-dimensional area-under-the-curve calculation to predict when my head will explode at you, it is a three-dimensional VOLUME-under-the-curve. 

If you want to keep me from randomly biting your head off then you have to do one of two things: make sure you do not bring me something that is going to be the Stupidest Thing I've Ever Heard, which would generate a new data point spike, and risk exceeding the Irritation Threshold.  Or, make sure that the Attenuation Plane is at a steep enough angle that recent Irritations quickly decay to zero.

There you have it.  "Be brief.  Be bright.  Be gone."

It's Not About Tolerance.

This was a productive week for me in terms of writing.  I was able to latch on to a few ideas and make them stick long enough for me to actually crank out some readable things.  I'm kind of proud of that.  No, I am proud of that. 

Of course, I'm falling into the trap, now, of wondering if what I have to say is really all that worth while anyway.  It's the thing about how the population divides into those people who question themselves and those who do not.  I am one who does. 

What right do I have to voice my opinion about, well, anything, since I'm not really an expert in the things that I write about?  Even the things I am really good at, I hesitate to call myself an expert or to give anything other than gentle advice. 

That's a paradox, too.  I know that when I've had departments or people to manage, I'm quite all right with telling them exactly what I want done and how I want it done.  But I tire of that.  If I wanted to do the job myself, I would have taken the job.  I have minions because I *don't* want to do the job myself.  I prefer the method of giving people the tools they need to be successful, point them in the right direction, and let them figure it out for themselves.

Yes, that's in contradiction with a lot of my opinions about the role of government in our daily lives.  No, the government should not be micromanaging us and telling us individually what we should and should not be doing.  My support for things like Universal Health Care is based on the role government can take on as the tool to combine individual risk and provide societal reward.

But, I do not want to digress into that.

I tire of the discussions on the web site comments sections.  Regardless of the actual content of the article or editorial, the same people read into it what they wish and quickly drive the conversation into the same ditches.  It's remarkable to me how quickly the comment discussion diverges from the points being made in the original post.

Of course, a lot of the original posts, especially the editorials written by the readers, are ill conceived and poorly written anyway.  They leave way too much room for interpretation into their amateurish ambiguity, and as such are quickly overrun by the trolls.

And I do not want to let myself get into that trap.  What do I know, really? 

I have to remind myself that the value is in the discussion itself.  Nothing that I say, or that anyone else says, is fixed, concrete, immutable.  There is no Categorical Imperative or Metaphysical Certitude about anything.  And I'm OK with that point of view.  Many of the trolls are not.  They seek Certitude and find it for themselves in their Religion.  Note that I am not using the word Faith for that.

The trolls use Religion to justify their own belief system.  They will tell you it's the other way around, and maybe it is.  But it is my own belief that those who are close minded about anything are those who have never had to confront a crisis in their own lives in some way.

Now, that doesn't make sense.  Let me try that again.

It's easy for people to listen to someone else and say, "Yes, I agree with that."  It's not easy for people to say "This is what I believe" when asked.  Repeated instruction and rote learning make most people comfortable with "knowing" whatever it is that it being taught to them.  Live in a world of black and white, and the idea of colors doesn't even make sense, doesn't even come to mind.  Live in a world where a particular expression of human nature is defined as anathema, and the idea that it is part of the human experience is unconscionable. 

A new thread appeared in some of the recent discussions: tolerance of intolerance.  I dislike the word "tolerance" for a lot of reasons.  I tolerate a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I like them.  It also implies that I would actively change it if I could.  It's an implied acquiescence and that is distasteful to me.  I tolerated a President with whom I disagreed on just about everything.  As such, I took action in response to that.

It's not about Tolerance.  It's about Understanding, Comprehension, and Acceptance.

Worst Scam E-mail Ever.

WESTERN UNION HOLDINGS INC.
WEBSITE: WWW.WESTERNUNION.COM

Dear Valued Client,

We are officially writing you this mail as a result of our just concluded finding regarding you and the Fraudsters who victimized you as they in return ripped you off your hard earned money as a result of false promises that you do have some funds/ATM Card with them, however, we have partially and unknowingly been in line to have helped you remit your funds to this Fraudsters without due investigation which at most times are not appreciated by most of our Customers who intend to send money abroad, but yet, we still accept the fault as it is our duty to be interested in the safety of our patronizing Customers which you happen to be one of them.

The Global Crime Fighting Committee along with Money Transfer Companies, which also included Money Gram (MG) had instructed that this process of Reparation be carried out to all Victims, as a medium of showing how much we care about you and feel concerned and pity for your great lost. To this extent, we have been mandated to pay you the sum of $150,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand United States Dollars Only), which is intended to be sent to you via Western Union on a daily basis of $5,000 for a whole month till the total fees is remitted. For further enquiry, you are advised to respond to this mail.

Please to help us issue this payment to you, we urge that you detail us with your Pick-up details such as;

Receiver's Full Names:
Receiver's Full Address:
Receiver's Direct Phone Number:
Receiver's Country:

This data's are needed because we need to have them filed and also to have it presented to the Global Crime Fighting Committee for confirmation of Reparation. Please after this, we'll urge you to be very careful when dealing with people you have never met and be conscious of letting out your hard earned money too., As we hope and pray that you'll learn from your mistakes and seize to fall into such trap with your Reparation Prize, however, kindly contact the below person who is in position to release your payment to you.

MR.DAVID
western union department
E-mail:(wu_payingoutlet@live.com)

This Reparation prize valued at $150,000.00 only attracts the sum of 270 GBP to be paid as the dispensation fees, once this is received, there shall be no further demands from you, and that will be all you need do to get your fund along with the required information above. NB: Please be informed that this is no kind of a joke, and that this mail is only and strictly intended to those who are willing to be Compensated as we do not hope to get response if you are not ready to ad held to this processing as been stipulated by the Western Union Board of Directives. So, be advised to response back with the perspective of sending down your details and be prepared to settle the processing cost, for without this, your mail will not be treated.

Sincerely,
Dr. Micheal Martins.
Western Union Dept.
www.westernunion.com

An n-Squared Collection of Banana Slugs

I'm not sorry that I've chosen the career path that I have.  I'm extremely upset about some of the things that have happened along that path, which I may or may not detail later.  I understand now, understood when I chose this path, that the money isn't the answer.  None of us are in these traditionally low-paying jobs for the financial rewards.

So, that begs two questions: First, if not for the money, why, then are we here? And second, if the things we do are important, have importance, have value, why, then, are we paid significantly less than others?

I'm all for science and technology.  People who have the ability to expand knowledge, apply knowledge to practical solutions, should be justly rewarded.  I note as I write this that I chose the word "justly" and that struck my as odd.  Is there an un-just reward?  Yeah, I think there is, and I know I have a lot to say about that, but that's not the purpose of what I'm thinking about right now.

What concerns me from this morning's reading is that the professions that contribute to the health, well-being, foundation of society and culture are the ones who typically get screwed in the money game.  I'm thinking especially of teachers.

Of the others on the list of best- and worst-paid professions, I know that some are just naturally going to be a financial challenge.  It's built in to the system.  Actors and directors, on average, are underpaid and unemployed because, on average, most of them suck.  Talent, hard work, and persistence are rewarded.  Persistence more than talent and hard work.  Same for musicians.

I recall a conversation I had with a friend last week about teachers and the crap they are facing right now in terms of budget cuts and the future of the profession.  I noted that I dislike the idea that teachers, as a whole, have some sort of cushy job that isn't all that hard and, as such, don't deserve to be paid all that well.  I am dismayed that some of the (valid) criticism of modern teaching has been inflated to smear the whole profession and the professionals who practice it. 

Insert your favorite argument about teachers' unions, charter schools, home schooling, parochial schools, and decline and fall of western civilization here.

The problem is, as I may humbly point out, that we as a society and culture have neglected our responsibility to educate. 

Universal Public Education, kindergarten to high school, was developed to support the Industrial Revolution.  The purpose was to give a student, a future member of the working society, just enough education to work at the mill.  (Insert Monty Python "We Had It Tough" sketch here.)  The "Elites" had access to what we still call higher education, and a tradition of pursuing it. 

Times change, economies and societies change, requirements change, and minimum standards of behavior and acceptability change.  But we are still turning out students who are no more prepared to compete in today's challenges than the ones we produced a hundred years ago.

So, what does that get us?  We have multiple generations, now, who believe that they are, each, the center of the Universe.  OK, I'm a little harsh on that.  When the requirement for functioning in society was no more challenging than knowing which button to push and lever to pull at work, and whether it's socially acceptable to kiss on the first date, the whole idea of Critical Thinking was less than unimportant.  It was useless and dangerous.

We as a society, American society and World society, no longer have the option of disregarding critical thought. 

One would think it's a paradox that in a world of now (almost) seven billion people that the intellectual skills of each individual is more important than it was when the population was significantly smaller.  I suggest that the paradox is resolved by considering Metcalfe's Law: The value of a [network] is proportional to the number of nodes [elements] in it, squared.  V = n^2.  As the population grows, the value of what we do, and the impact we can have on each other, grows.  I know it still looks like a paradox: one person squared is still one person, and it would seem that as n increases to infinity that the value of each individual element approaches zero. 

The intellectual value in considering the contribution of the individual is that an n-squared collection of banana slugs is still just a mess of invertebrates waiting to be squashed under the wheels of some car.  An n-squared collection of well educated, critical thinking, culturally aware, humans makes for a more interesting place to live.

Not Really a Retraction.

I waded into an area where I am not as prepared as I should be yesterday.  And, perhaps, it's not a matter of "should" be in as much as the purpose of my writing is to explore these areas where my knowledge is incomplete, or my thoughts not fully formed.  Ha!  Freudian slip typo there for a moment,  Instead of typing "formed", I wrote "normed".  Peer pressure is insidious.

The first place where I tripped myself up was by showing species ego.  In the thought experiment of expanding the Christian creation myth out into practical applications, I indicated that we Humans are the only ones who could know God.  Well, in the Christian faith, of course that's not true.  One friend reminded me of the verse that reads "Consider the lilies of the field... " and so on.  The Bible makes it clear that God and Jesus are aware of and concerned for all of creation.  I agree.

I also fell into a more difficult tautology by saying, in effect, Humans have Intelligence because Intelligence makes us Human.  Well, that's a niece piece of circular logic.  The point I was making is that Intelligence makes us the superior and dominant species on this planet.  Biological and evolutionary pressures require that if it were not Humans who developed Intelligence, then some other species would and we Humans would move a notch or two down the food chain.

I have to back off from that some.  A more critical and less forgiving analysis of evolutionary pressure and biological imperatives does not come to the conclusion that Intelligence is a requirement for the planet's ecosystem.  Again, I blame my species ego in thinking so.  Just because we Humans have developed Intelligence, that does not make it any sort of requirement.  Of course, without a decent example of exobiology, we can't really tell.  For the moment, I will cite Earth's history and the several million years where high-order animals existed and Humans with Intelligence did not.  In fact, there's a case to be made that we are a destructive infestation (Agent Smith).

The last piece that I need to explore was the idea of accidental vs. inevitable.  One friend challenged me directly on the idea that some event cannot be both accidental and inevitable.  Perhaps I am unclear in my language, and perhaps I am unclear in the idea I'm trying to express.

Consider an anvil placed atop a (thick) sheet of ice.  Further, consider that the sheet of ice is suspended in some way so that there is space beneath it.  Lastly, consider an egg placed beneath the suspended ice and anvil. 

Now, place the whole setup in a room at room temperature.  It is inevitable, based on what we know about Science (physics, chemistry, et alia), that the anvil will fall through the ice and crush the egg.  The variables of the environment make the precise time of destruction (mostly) unknown.  That is what I mean by accidental. 

I'm looking up "accident" and see that it comes from a root that does seem to encapsulate the way I'm trying to use it.  It implies "chance" which I think is what I'm trying to say.  Inevitability does not remove the element of chance at some level. 

This is the philosophy of fractals, if I may phrase it that way.  I can zoom out or zoom in and regardless of the level of detail at which I'm examining the world, there will always be a pattern, and some element of chance. 

I do have a strong tendency to believe in soft-determinism.  I've often said that what seems to be Free Will is not much more than our consciousness not being able to process all of the precedent variables that contribute to the current moment.  If we were able to see the whole of history laid out behind us, any decision made in the moment would seen "inevitable".  We do not have that capacity.  We make decisions and interpret our world as best we can with limited processing capacity, and imprecise tools of observation.

I don't know if we as Humans are limited in any way.  Certain physical limitations are mostly agreed upon.  We stand, generally, between 5 and 7 feet tall because of the force of gravity versus our biological need to stand above our predators (and prey), and our need to be more nimble than they.  But, when we get into the ideas of what are we capable of observing, interpreting, and intellectually analyzing, then we have a problem.  We know there are things we don't understand and can't explain.  But, we don't know why, in some cases, we can't reach that understanding.

Knowledge is a Gift.

The larger point is that the purpose of education is to prepare the student for his place in the world.

By convention, I tend to use the masculine gender so as to avoid the literary clutter of having to write "his or her" all the time.  And, for the record, "their" is not a suitable substitute in that is fails the singular vs. plural test.

Technical training as an element of education is valid and important, but it should not be the sole purpose of instruction.  Children, and especially young adults in the typical College Years, are going through basic biological development that must be encouraged, maintained, cultivated, supported.  The human brain continues to develop until around the age of 25.  At that time, sadly, it immediately begins deteriorating and so begins the long downward spiral into senility.  Some people get there more quickly than others.

Focusing exclusively on technical training, or even societal dogma, during college produces people who will not be well equipped to interface with the rest of the adult world.  Even if a college has a point of view, it is important to prepare the students for a world where that point of view is not going to be prevalent.

This links to my Short List of Things Believe item that includes the phrase, "Make your case."  A student ill prepared to confront differing opinions will not be able to make their case other than the intellectual equivalent of "It's so because my Mom said it is." 

I'm all for carrying on tradition, for cultivating faith, for developing a world view that conforms to the norms of a particular society.  But, I'm also for developing generations of new thinkers who will enter that society, will observe the traditions, and evaluate the norms with new eyes.  Each generation must go through the process of evaluation.  Each generation must ask themselves if we have progressed towards the things that we hold most dear. 

Of course, that opens a huge question about what are the things we hold most dear?  A significant population holds dear the belief that same-sex love is anathema.  This is, obviously, a problem.

Let me use the allegory of Genesis for a thought experiment.  God created the Universe in some manner and created humans (allowed humans to come to be) in that Universe.  Humans were given a choice: remain ignorant of the ways of the universe, and as such the Mind of God, and live a life of bliss and stagnation.  Or, God said, choose Knowledge and enter into a life of hardship, where the rewards are few and hard won.  But, that knowledge allows humans to develop, to challenge themselves, to seek truth.  It was only by choosing Knowledge that God gave humans the path to know His mind and purpose. 

Three and a half billion years after the first amino acids bumped into each other in a puddle of goo to make the first proteins, and, say, a million years after our first nearly human ancestors started to develop a cerebral cortex, and about ten thousand years after the last ice age, humans as we know ourselves today look at our place in the universe and question our relationship to God.

God gave us Knowledge, and gave us Science as the tool to discover the intricacies of that Knowledge.  It is not by accident that we are curious creatures.  It is built in to us.  We tell each other stories as part of our DNA.  We cannot avoid it.  Without it we would become food for some other animal that does have the ability and willingness to question his surroundings and to improve on his existence.

Today, we are children of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.  I know that those periods of history are long past, and perhaps it's time for a New Enlightenment.  But, the point is that we, as a species, came out of the Dark Ages and made a deal with ourselves: Science and Reason are the tools we must use in order to move into the future.  Faith is a part of society, and is indeed a part of Humanity, but it is not the only thing.  Faith will not cure disease.  Faith will not bind atoms into molecules.  Faith will not supplant an imperfect Mankind with some sort of demi-god. 

Science and Reason are the gifts of God in the same way that Faith and Culture are.  To place one above the others, to deny one at the expense of any other, is to tear down the whole of what God gave Man in the original choice.  Christians often interpret the Garden of Eden story as Original Sin.  Perhaps it is better viewed as God's way of showing us the path to Him.

Response to Hope College Commencement Address

I'm reading the commencement address from Hope and considering the main themes of the Compound Interest stewardship ideals, and the Four Promises.  Of course, I'm reading this in the context of how Hope's administration has decided to maintain the policy statement that forbids support for homosexual student groups and activities.  From my point of view, it's another element in the larger entrenched hypocrisy.  Of course, from their perspective, it would be hypocritical to allow for sanctioned support of LGBT student groups when their elements of faith decry their existence as abhorrent in the Eyes of God.

And that's where I continue to run into philosophical trouble.  At what point do you offer support and assistance to a group of people even when you disagree with them?  Hope is, by definition, both an institution of higher learning, and at the same time an institution affiliated with the Christian Church, particularly the RCA. 

The RCA has modified their position on homosexuality in a way that begins to acknowledge the science behind human sexuality.  That has not filtered down into the local churches, nor to Hope. 

Holland is a very "conservative" place.  That's fine.  And Hope is always going to be a "conservative" school.  That's fine.  There has to be a point, though, where the idea of Human Rights aren't reserved solely for those who meet a certain standard of behavior.

That's the tip of the iceberg for a much larger discussion about how Americans are starting to fall into the subtle racism and xenophobia that says "Rights belong only to the Righteous."  That's not how the idea of The New World and America grew out of the Enlightenment. 

It is part of our social contract that Rights belong to everyone, that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are God Given and Inalienable.  That phrase and that idea did not come out of an intellectual void.  Locke made it very clear that Life, Liberty, and Property were the province of the Citizen.  Further analysis developed it into the idea that Pursuit of Happiness was a more apt description of that Right, and that these Rights were not only for Citizens, but were indeed for all people.

Hope is a private institution.  It does not have to answer to anyone, really, other than itself.  Its behavior as an institution is degrading its reputation, alienating a specific segment of the population, and neglecting its responsibility to adhere to the governing Church's policies.  But, most importantly, it is ignoring its essence of purpose by allowing hatred, fear, and prejudice to guide its path.

Homosexual students are on the Hope campus.  The question is frequently asked why would they come there if they know they are not welcome?  Frankly, I don't know, except to say that the benefits outweigh the detriments.  Also, and maybe this is the key to the answer, those students don't see their sexuality as anything that could, would, or should exclude them from their own Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.  To them, it's just not a big deal.  There's no need to segregate themselves into some other educational system because, wait for it, they are no different from anyone else.  Being "gay" doesn't preclude one from being able to participate in a vibrant academic society.  In short, it's only the "straights" who are making a fuss about this, and that fuss is rooted in a collection of words that were written down some five thousand years ago to codify an oral history that had persisted for close to two thousand years prior to that, then translated and re-translated into and out of several dead languages, and without the context of the original history.  But for a few examples of misguided translation, the Biblical injunction against homosexuality could have just as easily be interpreted today as instructions on how to prepare your bed for sleep.

The historical context has been lost in the Bible itself, although not in other contemporaneous sources.  And the science of human sexuality has advanced its knowledge beyond the pervasive and historical prejudices.  Fear is not an option.  Denying the investment in student life while on campus is perpetuation of a myth abhorrent to Man and God.

There Is No Evolutionary Benefit To Peaceful Coexistence

I have a real hard time engaging the haters.  Further, I have a hard time finding the right way to relate to them.  I dislike categorically writing off a whole segment of the population with such a broad generalization, but I can't think of any other way to think of them. 

The hypocrisy drives me nuts.  There's not way to break through the hatred to find a hook on which I can hang an argument that might make a difference.  I suppose I need to remember the discussion we had a few weeks ago that said that the purpose of such an argument is not for the opponent, but for the audience, the spectator, the lurker who might be watching and not participating actively. 

I know that as I was growing up, and even well into my young adulthood, I did not understand anything about, well, sexuality in general.  I was afraid of my own sexuality, and I absolutely did not understand what it was to be gay or lesbian.  Those words didn't even exist in my thinking.

It took time even after college to understand.  It's during that time that I was introduced to gay and lesbian friends, and that they weren't "different" from me after all.  That's an experience that most of the haters will never have.  I fear that the cycle of hate and hypocrisy will continue for generations to come.  It may never change.

It's natural for humans to fear the other.  I've written about that before.  Further, it's natural for humans to resist external pressure to change the way we see things, the way we relate to things.  The biological imperative is to develop a standard that works and adhere to it.  Anything that deviates from that standard is considered a threat. 

That's when we get into reaction and overreaction.  Anything can be a threat, and anything can be a threat to the standard.  Some people over react to a threat in ways that are irrational.  And therein lies the problem.

There is no rational argument in opposition to an article of faith.  Faith is completely irrational.  It is, by definition, irrational.  The haters, though, don't even recognize that.  They are wrapped up in some sort of set of instructions and call that their world.  The grasp on those instructions is so tight that any challenge to that world view is considered an affront, anathema, a threat of the most high order.  As such, they feel, the response must be swift and overwhelming.

We are a species built for violence.  We are the most effective, although not efficient, hunters on the planet.  We take what we want and damn the consequences.  As such, we hold no special place in our heart for the other, for the opposition, for anyone or anything that falls outside the standard of what we believe.  We react to those threats with violence.  We close our minds to alternatives and we challenge the opposition to a fight. 

We are developed enough to, mostly, offer these challenges on an intellectual level rather than a physical one.  But, it's still about protection of territory.  You, the other, are not allowed here.  You are unwelcome.  For now, I will prevent your access to my territory with societal barriers.  In the past, I may have prevented your access with weapons. 

I know that I want to fight.  I suppose that is one of the places I get most confused.  It makes me no "better" than the haters.  I see the way that some of the arguments are constructed and my first thought is that's the most stupid, illogical, irrational, hypocritical thing I've ever seen.  When I try to engage the argument, I see that there is no way to enter into dialog, and that makes me angry.  And instead of being able to come up with stronger and stronger arguments, I get frustrated and the desire to take up arms becomes prevalent.  I want to line up the haters and bitch slap every one of them.  If I could remove them from my society, I would.

And that's what makes me no better than them.  And that's why I, and others like me, will never prevail.  While the haters are willing to cloak themselves in a protective armor of unthinking, I am willing to let them coexist.  Where they would remove me and those I stand for from their sight, I would let them stand with all their offensiveness.

There is no evolutionary imperative for tolerance and peaceful coexistence.  It's not built in to the human DNA.  Peaceful coexistence is a choice, and a very hard one.

Context is Content

So, my friend Meg has linked her blog to Facebook and I'm getting to see what she's writing on a more regular basis.  She's a little older than I am, but we seem to be going through the same kinds of mid-life soul searching.  What is it that we really mean for ourselves and for each other?  Why, when we had the chance, or chances, in the past did we miss all sorts of opportunities to educate ourselves, to explore the world, to figure out something that we may not have known before?

So, I guess, the point is that we have the chance now.  We're older, more experienced, better able to understand opportunities that are before us, and how to take advantage of them.

I'm not sure that makes much of a difference.  The jaded, bitter, cynical, pessimist in me thinks that the only thing different is that our experience lets us know more quickly and more clearly when we are in the process of failing.

Does that suck?  Yes, it does.

I've been writing this whole exploration of purpose, intent, will, and influence.  The themes that keep coming up for me are the various conflicts between personal, individual, significance and the larger existential meaninglessness. 

I'm alone here, and that means I get to spend a lot of time with my cats.  Cats lead a life that is both simple and complicated.  They have very basic needs: food, water, a place to poop, that sort of thing.  But they are demanding of me and of each other.  They desire engagement and entertainment.  They want to explore.  I can tell that this apartment is too small for all three of them.  If they could have their way, each of them would want to have as their own space something that is even larger than what we all have to share.  So, we all compromise.  Is there something I can learn from that?  I don't know.  I suppose there is, but I'm not a cat either.  I want things that are more abstract than food, water, space, and a place to poop.

I still am struggling with how I see myself in the world, though.  Here at this phase of my life, I'm with Meg and wondering if I'll ever know. 

I said to someone the other day that context is content.  My point was that the environment in which something takes place dramatically alters, impacts, contributes to, is a part of the action, event, thought.  Thoughts and actions do not take place in a null space.  I think a lot of people, a lot of smart people, forget that.  It's reassuring to think that I can conceive of a thought, refine it into a statement of belief of some sort, and call it The Truth because I can do all that in some sort of mental pure space.  There is no mental pure space.  None.  At all. 

That starts me on the path of questioning whether there is any sort of ideal for thought, action, behavior.  Or, do we only have an extended, elaborately constructed, pervasive environment of moral relativism and intellectual self-delusion?

If everyone thinks that they are "right", then someone must be "wrong". 

I refer to Item #51 on my Short List of Things I Believe, "The Hivemind is always self correcting."  The point of that is twofold, and it's left worded with the ambiguity left in it purposefully.  It's a statement of action in that the Hivemind is always in the process of correcting itself.  It's also a statement of description in that the Hivemind is an object that posses the attribute of being self-correcting. 

So, we as individuals carry around our elaborately constructed ideas of self, and what we personally consider to be the Platonic Ideals of Truth, Beauty, and Chair.  (Yes, that is from a discussion in college about whether or not Plato's Cave Allegory meant that there existed somewhere an Ideal Chair of which all chairs we encounter are merely shadows.)

I keep coming back to this conflict because I feel like I'm still trying to resolve something in myself, something in my environment, something in my relation to the world around me.  For whatever reason, somehow I don't "fit".  I've not had a job that I've enjoyed for close to 10 years now.  I'm nine months into being back in my childhood hometown and as much as I find it emotionally pleasing for several reasons, I still have not, again, found a place to put myself to work, a place to fit.  And that bothers me.  A lot.