Economic theory

A while back a friend gave me a book called Freakonomics. Maybe you've heard of it. Apparently there is a spinoff radio show, and I heard that they even made a movie a while back. The premise is this: economic modeling - which is essentially evaluating data to determine cause and effect relationships involving human decision-making - can be used to consider any human action or desired action and thus modify our social structure to encourage or discourage said behavior. The idea is fundamentally applied behaviorism: humans respond to incentives, either positive or negative, so if you wish to understand or predict human decision-making, all you need to do is determine what the incentives are. It's a fascinating read, though nearly the whole of the book was off-colored in my mind by something that I read near the beginning.

There was this problem with a preschool wherein every day at least one parent would be late to pick up their child, resulting in extra (unpaid) work for the preschool staff. To discourage the behavior, the school instituted a $3 fee for every incident. The result: a significant INCREASE in the number of late parents. Levitt's (the author) conclusion was that the moral/social incentive was greater for the majority of parents than the meager 3$ monetary incentive. Perhaps the school might have had more luck by charging more, maybe $20 per incident? But then they would have risked driving clients away to other preschools without a charge. This situation raises my first thought: for most people, intrinsically human motivations, based on social expectations or morality, are significant, but also require a level of personal responsibility. In other words, most people inherently impose greater consequences on themselves than they are willing to accept from another party.

Here's where the story gets really interesting though. After a few weeks of this failed experiment with a financial penalty for tardy parents, the school removed the fee, hoping that the situation would return to normal. What did they find? Parents continued to be late exactly as they had been with the $3 fine. Apparently, they learned that tardiness was only a $3 inconvenience for the school, and thus they felt less inclined toward responsibility than they had when they were simply responding to their internal/intrinsic social obligations. So here is where my 2nd thought emerged: by imposing a contrived motivational scheme, you insert an artificial valuation on a thing that sticks with it.

Here, is another idea - one that is widely accepted as true: as a species we are successful in large part because of our social nature. Humans are inherently driven toward social interactions. Any real despair is invariably linked to some sort of social/emotional isolation (loneliness). Death of a friend, divorce, failure at work, etc., all carry with them a sense of separation or alienation and thus, loneliness. 3rd thought: So if we value social connection so much, whether consciously or not, we will therefore prioritize the values necessary to maintain our connections. This is a very strong motivation, and one which often transcends material or monetary incentives. We are doing society a disservice if we substitute something artificial and material.

4th thought: people no longer take responsibility for their choices once the consequences for those choices are imposed for them externally, even if that valuation is removed. This is particularly the case when the natural motivation, one that is subconsciously imperative, is replaced with something wholly contrived and lower-order in significance. When we construct a system of regulation where inherent morality could be used, we run the risk of disempowering people; removing from their conscience the need to self-regulate.

5th thought: rather than regulate, perhaps there might be a means to alter the value system of a community, such that behaviors that are undesirable to neighboring communities can be replaced with an intrinsic moral tendency.

6th and final: Since I am an educator by profession, I can't help but think about this through that lens. Grades. Let's assume that as educators we work to create and maintain a culture of learning, wherein it is socially expected that members of our community engage in a disciplined process of discovery. But then, we institute an artificial incentive scheme involving something that is at best highly subjective and at worst somewhat arbitrary - the assignment of abstract symbols representing some degree of aptitude as determined by variable metrics. What do you think the result might be? Maybe students, instead of engrossing themselves in the process of intellectual and personal development, as humans can so readily do, focus their attention on satisfying the structures and desires of their instructors. Perhaps students give up responsibility for their own process in favor of the administered incentive scheme. Maybe students resent the assigned tasks or even fail to see their value beyond appeasement of the governing authority. Maybe those students' ability to think for themselves suffers as a result.

Mental superpowers

This will begin as a departure from my usual theme(s) - quite a bit more nerdy - but bear with me as I am building toward a point that has relevance.

Last year I came up with a final exam question for my high school physics students that I thought might help them put all the complicated ideas associated with electromagnetism together to form a big picture. It's a tough and abstract topic, and my idea was to inject some fun and imagination into their studies (because imagination is required to think about something so abstract in the first place). Here is the question:

If you had absolute control over the electromagnetic force, what sorts of things could you do with your superpower? Justify your answer(s) based on your knowledge of electromagnetism.

That's a pretty hard question. I've been thinking about the answer for about 6 months (off and on). Here's a portion of what I came up with:

I could move objects at will by aligning or increasing the magnitude of like charges on objects' surfaces near one another. Air is such an object, which could be used to continue the propulsion if you don't want to fiddle with the fairly complicated task of increasing the repulsive force properly as the objects move apart from one another. The air trick would be tough, as with such low mass air particles would tend to be the things moving, but if an object were bombarded with sufficient air particles the conservation of momentum would continue the propulsion (though there would be a sort of "exhaust" wind that would result).
I could also change the physical structure of things by altering the positions and/or motions of electrons on and in those objects.
I could change the appearance of anything by altering the frequency and/or amplitude of the electromagnetic waves entering the eye (or emanating from an object(s)). This includes invisibility - from either mimicing the light from behind the object in front if it or by bending the light from the object around the viewer's eyes.
I could create super-dense projectiles by either: a) pressing the adjacent electron clouds of atoms together to create "electron degeneracy" such as is found in white dwarves, or b) crashing electrons of atoms into the protons to create chunks of neutrons and pressing the resulting nuclei together. The problem with the latter is that I couldn't propel a ball of neutrons with my power. It would just fall through the earth with this crazy density.
I could create powerful laser beams spontaneously (harmonized and directed electromagnetic waves)
I could produce nuclear explosions/radiation by increasing the positive charge on protons within a piece of very "heavy" matter flying the nuclei apart and potentially causing a chain reaction (if the nuclei are unstable enough to begin with).
I could fly apart anything at will by increasing the same type of charge on its various particles causing them to repel.
There's more, including tons with magnetic fields and electric currents, but I'll stop there to keep from boring you. Feel free to try to add to the list - I would very much enjoy that.

But there's a problem. All of these changes would require an input of energy, as they would work against the natural condition of things. In other words, you'd have to create oppositional situations from relatively balanced situations, or work against the tendencies of nature. In most cases, since we're talking about visible effects, we're dealing with macroscopic scales here, which means that a tremendous amount of energy would be required indeed. Where would this energy come from? I think you'd be pretty much impotent in the face of the conservation of energy unless you wanted to consume your body or something to perform one or two "amazing" acts.

Ok, this conclusion got me thinking about something more relevant for everyone. It seems like the problem is that making these things happen requires that aspects of nature be shifted into an oppositional arrangement. That is, you'd be altering nature's tendency to balance. This reminds me of one of my primary operating principles: conflict is universally destructive and draining. Nature is not designed for conflict, it is all about flow. Flow is collective action - cooperation.

This makes me think about what we currently do with our minds; our existing 'superpowers.' They are super, by the way. Think about it. We can conjure up thoughts and ideas, and even project them out into the universe, we can manipulate large objects (our bodies, and other things that our bodies interact with), we can imagine things that we've never experienced, we can even love.

What are the energy consequences of these things that we can do with our minds? Certainly, the motion stuff requires energy (just as it would with psychokinesis). We've all felt sweaty and exhausted after a hard day's labor. But what about thoughts and ideas? Does the generation of thoughts always require an input of energy, or are there some which seem to bring energy into us, to feed us? In my experience, there are certain mental exercises which seem to 'charge' me. I'm no expert, but it seems like the principles that govern the external world must apply internally: that energy is expended when thoughts are oppositional in nature, whereas when they're congruent with the flow - cooperative - they draw energy into us. Here's my hypothesis: conflict-oriented thoughts drain us, while mutualistic thoughts feed us. This applies to thoughts about the external world as well as about the internal world (both of which are really the same thing, if you ask me, but I won't get into that here). When we seek conflict, we are sapped of energy. When we attack or defend, we are drained. This is particularly true when we attack ourselves, as we must then defend at the same time.

Thoughts?

Parallel realities and 'the way'

Today, as Americans, and as humans, we negotiate 2 differing realities. First, there is the reality that we're all born into, that which operates independent of any premeditated construct: the reality of our nature. We, like everything else on earth, are evolved as components in a biological system that functions so long as all parts are synchronous. Physically inferior to most everything else, we are fundamentally social creatures. We've been ever so successful because we work together. We give and take, like everything else, and the balance sheet remains in the black because of the near-endless shower of energy from space that is collected by our selfless green companions - plants.

And then there is the reality of our social order. Entirely the brain-child of we humans, our daily grind mandates that we compete for resources, gathering for our own what we can amidst the myriad legislative controls designed to maintain a certain level of equality and social justice. And over the decades and centuries skilled entrepreneurs have whittled away at the soft spots in that legal perimeter, finding loop-holes and entry points through which to navigate toward bountiful seas. It is the fool who enters the business world of our economy with any mindset but that of the plunderer. His loss is of his own accord, as my success is my own, and damn it to everyone else if they suffer in turn.

But the seas are finite, and the bounty has thinned. In time we'll be picking through the scavenged carcases of our fellows to find morsels of limited value... If we're not careful. Many have already chosen the life of the scavenger.

Why adhere to such a destructive paradigm, when our very nature compels us elsewhere? My answer is fear. Fear of the loss of control that comes with dependence upon others. Perhaps it wasn't the motivation for our system's initial design, but it must certainly motivate the players in today's economic reality.

But together we are so much more. Together we are thoughtful. We will always have some fear, but our modern body of knowledge is adequate armament to stave off much of what plagued our distant ancestors, and the faculty of our current population, largely untapped as it is, far transcends that of those who came before. There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to find unity and empowerment through our connection (to one another and to the world around us); to reclaim the beauty that lies in our very nature, as a reflection of all of nature's beauty. Our souls know the way.

It's all about connection

We've all heard that it's more important who you know than what you know. The idea being that networking is one of the most important skills for life. I agree wholeheartedly. I take it a step further and say that I basically live for connections with others. It's just a rhetorical thought experiment, but in my mind's eye I would always trade every one of my possessions for a genuine connection with someone. You see, it has been my experience that powerful connections preclude any need to seek other things, as through connections everything that one needs can and will materialize. There's this hokey film out called "the secret," that proposes that by simply honestly willing the universe to grant you something, it will come to be. It actually works, though they don't explain the mechanism - connections (surprise, surprise). By seeking genuinely, by finding things that you want passionately, from your core, you will draw others to your cause, as people inherently enjoy a sense of purpose, and if you invite them, they will join. All of this happens quite unconsciously, of course. The interesting thing is that you cannot MAKE it so, though all things that should be will come to be, in some way, through connections. What I'm suggesting is that an effective fundamental mode of operating, one that will bring absolute fulfillment, is to seek connection in all people, indeed, all things. It is certainly my primary objective as a teacher to connect with my students, with parents, and colleagues too. I do it for selfish benevolent reasons; they are wonderful people, all of them, and our lives are mutually enriched through those relationships. I never have everything that I need. Generally, I don't even know what I need.

Interestingly, even in absolute solitude, I find myself feeling grateful for others who have allowed me to connect with them. Once I spent roughly a month living, three or four days at a time, out of a bivy sack in the mountains of central Idaho. Awaking before dawn, dusting off the frost and taking in the rich colors, smells, and vistas, I often found myself feeling deeply connected to those who weren't present. Perhaps it was because I was immersed in a very functional natural system, one in which all things are intimately connected to one another. Maybe it was the reminder of my own tendency to function like the rest of the natural world.

There are these fantastic moments when many things come together. When beliefs, or portions of them, converge to reveal a more fundamental truth. It has been clear for some time that we are (most of us) operating with deep dysfunction. I have known for many years that most of the sickening or despicable acts that I see around me are carried out by folks who see no better option for themselves. That is, I have known that people are fundamentally good, though vulnerable to fear and desperation. I have also seen how capable we are of surviving, changing our take on things in order to live with ourselves. There was a time when I was working for people who had collected empires of things in order to stack them into a wall that shut most everyone out. I didn't fully understand at the time why, but I referred to them as "disconnected." Even with their helicopters and mansions, I felt sad for many of them. They didn't seem very happy. I now believe that they share one thing with those at the other end of the spectrum, those who engage in petty crime in order to survive day to day; they are all lacking in connection. In fact, I'm starting to believe that a vast majority of those around me have a sense of isolation, at least at times, and that makes me sad. They say that loneliness is the only true sorrow. We are parts of a whole, and cut off from the others, we can not fully live. Oh, we can pacify ourselves with drugs and other...things--addictions, all, when they medicate--but genuine satisfaction will always elude us so long as we fail to invest sufficiently in connections. And as a teacher, I see students walking away from school for a lack of interest. When your only connections are with your peers, why sit in a sterile, punitive environment in lieu of developing the much more enriching connections that exist elsewhere? Perhaps worse, I see students conforming to the rigidity, building themselves up fact by fact into a fortress of knowledge. Then, they enter the world and wield the mighty machine in their head recklessly; without connection, we have no stop-gap for our own bad judgment. Without connections, we live for a selfish identity.

Consider this an invitation.

More evidence?:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

An initial attempt to communicate the big ideas

Herein, I will attempt to offer support for a growing movement in education, one that I believe to be urgent and important. Nothing is intended as an indictment, but just a collection of observations and interpretations. I have nothing but respect for those who came before, and suggest change only because change is occurring around us, and not because we have been shrouded in ignorance. I would caution the reader to consider what I propose, and accept it only after sufficient scrutiny, observation, and experimentation reveals some truth.

Because I'm no poet, I'll start with a quote from a Lebanese Arab, written in 1923. Do you know who it is?:

No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge.
The teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple, among his followers, gives not of his wisdom but rather of his faith and his lovingness.
If he is indeed wise he does not bid you enter the house of HIS wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind.
The astronomer may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his understanding.
The musician may sing to you of the rhythm which is in all space, but he cannot give you the ear which arrests the rhythm nor the voice that echoes it.
And he who is versed in the science of numbers can tell of the regions of weight and measure, but he cannot conduct you thither.
For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man.

There is a difference between remembering and learning. Most of those who were charged with the education of my generation didn’t seem to understand this, or else they valued remembering over learning. This was even more true for my father’s peer group and, I imagine, still more so for his predecessors. Remembering is a skill, to be sure, and one with particular value, for it helps us piece things together (we must first survey the pieces). But the product of that construction – understanding – is a different matter altogether. Remembering has specific application, and otherwise has value only during this process of synthesis; information is incidental and almost always has an expiration date. Understanding, however, changes us forever. We change every time we discover new truths for ourselves, passing landmarks on our intellectual journey. In this way, we move past our old selves and our old truths, constructing ourselves anew. But perhaps the most important part of this process is the struggle that comes with assembling new truths. The terrifying experience of departing from the bedrock of previous understanding in order to consider a new, perhaps better picture for our reality, is one that affords us a powerful opportunity. Through fear, uncertainty and setbacks, we persevere, rising up with a new sense of our capacity for risk-taking and problem solving. This is how I suggest we conceive of learning, and the details of this process are as unique as each of us. As a science teacher, I make it my mission to teach students to pursue truth--their own truth--through empirical methods. I work to encourage them to seek truth on their own terms, so as to challenge themselves to take risks and refine their method for approaching problems. My goals for students go far beyond the content of the courses that I teach. I seek to support their personal development; to prepare them for the never-ending barrage of novel challenges that life will most certainly present them with.

This is a strong departure from the educational paradigm of the past century, whose motivating force was principally fear: fear of failure, and fear of our own weaknesses (fear of fear). For this, we have constructed artificial incentives, carrots and sticks, to herd the flock through the sieve of educational content standards. Those who pass through, having demonstrated an ability to satisfy their instructors’ contrived metrics, move on to refine their academic technique, perhaps making a few discoveries along the way, but just as likely gaining little in the way of an expanded worldview. Those unfortunate enough to be caught in the sieve built of someone else’s idea of truth, having little skill in acquiring knowledge about a static reality that is researchable in books, flounder in judgment of their inadequacy, groping for an identity not rooted in information treasure-hunting and “point” acquisition.

It has frequently been remarked that no matter how much money and resources we put into public education, we have little change in the outcome for students. This problem is very complex, and I think reflects a larger social quagmire that most educators are reluctant to address, but I propose that one aspect to the solution is a shift in education (and society) away from a material game of acquisition toward a deeper, more transcendental kind of educational nurturing. I don’t propose that we abandon the idea of knowledge altogether, but rather that we allow knowledge to be the byproduct of peoples’ development and refinement of their techniques for acquiring understanding. I believe that good knowledge is inevitable if we seek truth effectively.

The universe is chaotic. We are floating in a frigid airless expanse full of scorching radiation and giant projectiles. To make matters worse, things are continuously changing; weather is marginally predictable, resources run out, geological events alter the face of the planet, suns explode, the universe expands... Our existence is extremely tenuous, or at least it seems. A natural reaction to this is one that we, in our civilization, embraced some millennia ago: to create safeguards against the forces of change--to remove, or at least reduce, the unpredictability of the natural world. Such has been the charge of technological innovation, and we have had great success, at least in the short-term. We have managed to control the cycles of water in order to maintain a steady supply of food. We have developed ways of tapping into chemical energy stored in the earth to keep our towns lit at night and our homes a comfortable temperature. We have made the necessities of life so consistently available that people have time now to fret over what sort of shoes might go best with their new designer handbag. From our perspective, the chaotic has become rather static, though that is largely illusory. While we work hard to control the natural order, natural systems quietly busy themselves patiently assembling a counter to our structures. Soils deplete, the atmosphere changes, forests turn to desert, and rivers fill with soil. Eventually, all of man’s greatest creations are destined to be overwhelmed by the transitory nature of all things.

There is a major psychological consequence for this shift toward an artificially controlled ideal. In a static reality the universe is knowable; it is possible, in theory, to acquire a grasp of all that is, to become knowledgeable. And we have been at it for some time now. We hold in high regard those who are best at knowing, and feel ashamed of what we don't know. Naturally, our educational system reflects this. We are taught to seek knowledge, operate within a structured, rigid construct, and pursue a particular ideal character, regardless of our individual uniquenesses. We are assessed only on our organizational skills and our mental capacity for, and dedication to, collecting details. Meanwhile, genuine understanding and the tools to acquire understanding are often neglected entirely. With our sense of self now reliant upon knowledge, we cling to our internal libraries of static information, protecting them, occasionally to our detriment.

This mental game of acquisition has a physical parallel; there is a material outcome of this training. In the tangible world, many of us in our society find ourselves obsessed with objects. Our civilization is built on the idea of a life full of stable and secure possessions, cordoned off from others. We are protective of what is ours, and fence in our corner of the world, mirroring the confining and limiting nature of our intellectual reality.

And people face prejudice and discrimination based on the sorts of acquisitions they've made. Most subsets of culture have their own ideal image of success, complete with brand names and unique knowledge. There are private unofficial clubs whose job it is to keep possession of the great many things that have been collected by members over the generations (and some quite official ones). And there are similarly isolated groups who've been disenfranchised out of pursuing these things because the tools to acquire them are either alien or deliberately kept out of reach. Our obsession with things has lead to a modern caste system, maintained, in part, by a mythology that involves transcendence - the American dream.

There is a conflict. We are products of the universe, and the universe is continuously in flux. Our nature is to work within this chaotic sea of change, but yet we fight to control it, and ourselves, and we waste a tremendous amount of energy doing it. We limit ourselves to something static and almost immediately obsolete in the quest to bolster an ego whose foundation is unnatural.

But there is another way. We can choose to value the pursuit of understanding and wisdom, with no judgment for where one might find themselves on that journey. We can live for the journey, rather than comparing ourselves to some artificially constructed end product. We can teach our children the processes by which they might seek understanding, and trust them to find their own truths, in their own way. We can embrace diversity, flexibility, and the artistic nature of exploration.

I heard something beautiful the other day from a professional on the cutting edge of science education. She said, "if you're not comfortable with uncertainty, then you cannot do science. In other words, the process of pursuing truth is an uncertain one, and nothing but your own validation (or that of your collaborators) will guide you along the way. And this gets right to the essence of the matter. Rather than seek a discrete set of information as evidence of success, a scientifically proficient student would simply have a refined method by which she seeks truth. She would be able to state, with confidence, her conclusions, whatever they might be, and include a summary of her uncertainty. If her method were well-developed, then she would likely encounter some quality knowledge, but that knowledge would be almost incidental. What is much more valuable is the ability to distill truth, and to navigate in unknown territory. Her life will almost certainly be studded with innumerable obstacles that she will need to negotiate, and the greater her skill, the more she will gain from each challenge. Further, the kinds of knowledge that she acquires will have a greater likelihood of possessing ingenuity and artistic beauty, as it will reflect every stage of her unique journey.

I talk about science because it is the area that I study. But this is only one road and one skill set. There are paths for all of us, though the unifying idea is the search - the journey. If we honor each person's path through life, we can begin to do something bold and transformative for society.

Many academic-minded students have all but mastered the skills required to achieve success in that environment. They say and do the things required to achieve good marks, which requires significant organization (both physical and mental) and prudent communicative reservation. But these same people might have little or no ability to deal with situations with which they are unfamiliar. A colleague recently completed a linear study of a group of high school kids with which he worked for four years. He gave them a well-developed assessment of reasoning skills (Lawson’s) at the beginning of 9th grade, at the end of 10th grade, and then again at the end of 12th grade. He then compared their results to their grades in science and their overall GPA. Most alarmingly, he found 0.0000 correlation between reasoning skills and GPA for all three assessments. As you might imagine, their GPA also had nothing to do with their improvement in reasoning, and perhaps most surprising, their science performance also had no relationship to either their reasoning or their improvement in reasoning.

Perhaps the best example of what I’m talking about might be art. If you wanted to teach a person how to paint, you wouldn’t necessarily just tell him to reproduce a particular painting. While this might be a useful exercise, it will not help him become an artist. What is more important is that he learn skills: certain sorts of brush strokes, how to use different brushes, how to mix paints in a variety of ways, etc. And when he does something that you didn’t teach him, you wouldn’t scold him, but praise his creativity. You also might want to help him find images that are inspiring, or learn how to connect his technique with emotions or his imagination. The point is that if he is going to create something that has meaning for him, he need only learn a set of skills/processes, and then move forward in his own way. He should practice the creative process until he finds his certain knack for self-expression. And even then he might find that sculpting affords him a more ready avenue for artistic expression. Such is the case with every form of learning. The best thing we can do for students is to help them refine their process, to help them learn the skills that will lead to the development of their own methodology, which will hopefully then be a sound one (if it isn’t working, we can guide refinements). With this equipment their journey can be full of adventure, challenge, and passion, rather than stress, fear, and disappointment.

We are killing our kids’ inherent tendency to explore. Human beings are seekers by nature, and all of us have a unique quest. We explore and figure out, driven by our personal passions toward an unknown destination. We are not meant to compromise, and there is no excuse for compromise in today’s world - where we have the means to satisfy every person’s basic needs such that their minds can be liberated for the journey. I’m not saying that every person is destined to be a monk or wandering mystic. There are some of us who, without external influence, would find ourselves working as accountants or electricians. There is a lot of satisfaction to be found in that work. I’m not even suggesting that this paradigm shift would necessarily alter anyone’s life choices in any significant way. All I’m saying is that it would change the spirit in which many of us do things. We would be driven by the empowerment that comes with making choices for ourselves, rather than by the impression of necessity. Most every challenge in our lives could be an opportunity instead of an inconvenience.

Here are some of the possible changes that would take place in the world if we stopped fighting to control possessions and embraced the journey, the chaos, so as to finally begin working with the nature of things instead of against it: [to be inserted later… the list keeps growing]

I propose that we shift our paradigm. We should move from a vision of the world as discrete, static, and controllable to one that embraces the continuous flow of things. Our innovation has been sorely limited by an insistence on a sessile attachment to what came before (while history is very instructive, it is certainly not deterministic). Our capabilities have been bridled by an artificial perimeter to our reality, and those who have broken out of the box have either been heralded as genius-heroes or crucified for their heretical objection to their contrived containment (or both). We have shown what we can do when we put our minds to something, now the next step of our social evolution is to step back away from our egos, view the world and ourselves as we truly are, and return to the endless flow of change.

Obscenity

Ever notice how popular romantic comedies or otherwise good-spirited entertainment these days almost universally features very wealthy people, often with little explanation as to how they manage to be very wealthy? Also, take a look at similar genre films from the 80s and note how they generally featured middle class folks - blue collar workers or perhaps academics (who don't make much more than blue collar folks). When I was a kid, every one of my teachers had a house, and most of them had spouses who didn't HAVE TO work to support their families, which included, on average, 2 kids. I am a teacher, and a new father. There is no way that I will ever be able to buy a home for my family, unless my wife also works and earns at least as much money as I do. And even then, we could never buy in the communities in which we have lived recently. But let's say that we sacrifice much; we eat frugally, take no vacations, use public transportation, entertain ourselves cheaply or for free, and work a lot of overtime. I'm sure that with careful budgeting we can eventually scrape together enough to buy a modest house, and we might be able to pay it off by the time we're in our 70s or so, so long as we don't try to pay for our son to go to college, or have another kid. In the mean time, what kind of life have we lived? We spent minimal time with our son and enjoyed ourselves even less - save for the joy we get from our work... hopefully. Now, maybe it's not so bleak as it seams. Perhaps I'm just feeling a little overwhelmed right now and I'm not seeing something that will become clear later, but for the time being, it sure seems to me that a person has to sacrifice something, or a lot, in order to have a modicum of security. All I would like is a little house, a reasonable schedule, and no fear of eventual poverty. As it stands, I don't know whether illness, serious injury, banking fine print, or whatever might cast us down into a very uncomfortable situation.

But let me back up a little here. I had a student this year who remarked (I'll paraphrase), "you're a really smart guy. Why are you wasting your time teaching? You don't have to be smart or talented to teach. You could be doing something much better." After some probing, I learned that "better" to him meant "more profitable." This got me thinking... I chose teaching as a career because I love people. I love connecting with people, and I love the idea that I can do something to improve the lot in life for at least a sliver of the population. I am dedicated to teaching, and it is not an easy job. I would say that, on average, while teaching full time, I am 'working' in one form or another, a good 70 hours per week. And there is really no break in the summer, when I find myself reflecting on the efficacy of what I did the previous year, planning new approaches that might improve my results. I can say that I have a passion for the work, and I think that as a result I am fairly effective. Now, my dedication has no financial incentive. Money is an abstraction that has been made a necessity by the structure of our society. It seems that if a person can find something that (s)he enjoys doing and does well, something that society needs done, that they should expect to be able to live a decent life while doing it. The fact that there are many professions for which the compensation is much more modest than teaching, and/or the expectations are such that those folks have no chance of living a balanced, healthy life (my cousin works for John Deere, and is expected to work, high pressure, in the office 12-15 hours/day for his salary), is cause for alarm.

There is a sickness in our "civilization," and we are not the worst off, though we might be the most obscene. Nowhere else is wealth so highly concentrated, and yet the facts of daily life so atrocious for a majority of the citizens. This represents horrendous mismanagement of resources. To make matters worse, many of our best minds are being squandered, either through their application to commit financial crime, or because they are not being nurtured (in the case of some of our brilliant poor). If you grow up in this country in a situation that isn't privileged, the American dream will not likely become a reality. You will find yourself poorly educated, without adequate health care, under-qualified for decent work, and eligible only for ridiculous sorts of loans if you want to invest in yourself or your ideas. The middle class is about dead.

We are heading toward a sad, dark place visited by many societies throughout history on their way toward a brutal self-destruction. Even those who are profiting from this deteriorating arrangement are in danger, and if they think they can insulate themselves with the ever-growing disparity between themselves and the masses, they are delusional. History does not favor injustice. Only by cooperating can people succeed in the long run. Isolation and separation are the tricks of the doomed. Before too much damage has been done, we will have to re-evaluate and re-build ourselves. IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOCIAL JUSTICE, A MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING, AND TO DO IT SUSTAINABLY. All we have to do is commit to it. Mainly, those with all the power have to commit to it - a difficult thing considering all that they will have to "give up." I put that in quotes because they will gain so much more, but that which they will gain is not given much value in the current scheme, while that which will have to be given up is highly prized, though without actual value. There is no price tag on human dignity.

A new(?) vision for understanding

Maybe I'm taking it too far, but I've started to suspect that one fundamental piece to many of our troubles is a habit of mind that is essentially a social appendix. That is, a characteristic of our society which was once useful and is now potentially problematic. I'm referring to the industrial mindset, dating back to the 19th century. We are still producing citizens that would excel in an industrial society, but now we have a new environment demanding a new mentality. The age of industry has been replaced with a new era, and it is time to change our way of doing things to keep pace, and to avoid disaster.

During the industrial revolution, we lept ahead of much of the world economically in part because of a wealth of resources, but perhaps more so because of a new approach to business: the factory model. Mass industry brought with it the assembly line, which simultaneously helped us to become a world leader by lowering cost and increasing production, and changed the selection pressure for social success. The blue collar worker was spawned and his temperament was uniquely reliable; his focus especially narrow. He was a specialist of the lowest order (eventually), brilliantly talented when it came to attaching a U-17 flange to a D-90 steel pipe, but knowing little at all about the final product that required this particular operation (along with a multitude of other, similarly specific tasks). His was, ideally, not a questioning mind, but an obedient and disciplined one, with an eye for precision, and a profound stamina. And our educational system both helped to create and maintain this, by adopting a model that emphasized those traits. This was no conspiracy. As with the schools today, teachers, parents, and peers alike wanted for the kids growing up to be marketable as employees, so their model was encouraged.

There were others in society though: executives, politicians, planners - a population unto itself and wholly outside the ranks of the blue collars - among whom innovation, big-picture ideas, questioning, creativity, and individualism was fostered, and strangely it became these few titans whose iconic faces represented the whole of our nation. These free minds carried the baton for America - the land of the free - while the majority, the foot soldiers tasked with the actual building up of our great nation, continued to live a life of intellectual subjugation.

Well times have changed. With the success of the workers rights movement, the titans of industry have exported most blue collar jobs to places where people can be hired to work as drones for as little (monetarily) as possible, while our resources have been depleted or protected and we've had to rely increasingly on cheaper, more plentiful booty overseas. The strength of America has come less and less from our manufacturing sector. We have had to get creative to maintain our standard of living, relying on innovation and cleverness to find new ways to bring in capital. Some have chosen to apply sophisticated algorithms to global financial markets to redistribute perceived resources toward America. Others have gone the route of the great innovators of old, and come up with new and improved technologies that can be exported as ideas to those other foreign manufacturers. But whatever the case, we have started to become a global brain trust. It is still subject to debate as to whether this can carry us.

Regardless of the very ugly past that is responsible for it, our country is blessed now with a fantastic diversity of peoples. The cultural milieu is rich and this confluence of many perspectives lends itself to some potentially brilliant innovation, if only we can find a way to cultivate it. At the same time, those with the means to do so, do all they can to extract revenue from domestic sources: from us. If you happen to be selling something for which you have to create a market, (that is, something that is not intrinsically valuable) it turns out that the most effective environment in which to do this is one where the citizens are isolated from one another. Intimate communities rarely fall victim to one blunder en mass, whereas picked off one by one, an entire population can become a market for something that is fundamentally without value. It is the mentality used by most every predator on the planet: isolate your prey from the group. The relic programmability of industrial workers does wonders for this as well, since repetitive directives leave us wanting without understanding why. Also, it seems to be the case that artificial value can be enhanced by altering the perceived environment toward one in which the product is suddenly more valuable. Such is the case for much of our media, and ironically it is that same media that is charged with creating that environment. Indirect self-promotion through the output of an artificial environment in which that same output is deemed a necessity. I could go on...

All this information is very confusing for someone who has little to no training in either the methods being employed on them or the more general skill of independent evaluation. As has always been the case, the graduate of an industrial-model education is ideally suited to cater to the free-thinking class. But we have largely moved past the industrial era, at least in America. It is time that we create a system that promotes the sort of production that we really need now: ideas. We should embrace our global role as a brain trust, and make it not the odd dropout who generates the next big thing, but tap into that arsenal of perspectives that is our population.

Years of programming have taught people that they should know, that knowing is the standard measurement of a person's worth. This drives a pipeline of pseudo information pumped into the heartland of our country, designed to serve the ego need to be in the know by cramming complicated issues into simplistic boxes. We lap it up because it feels better to have a sense of understanding than it does to be uncertain and skeptical. Religious fundamentalism has a similar origin and appeal. We would be better people if we were to conquer our fear of ignorance so that we can come to grips with the ignorance that we all have and face that terrifying uncertainty. The nature of the world and universe is quite chaotic. Change is the paradigm of reality. As much as we'd like to be able to nail down the now that we're dealing with; as appealing and knowable a static existence is, to know the world is to know change. This, as you can imagine, compounds our ignorance when it comes to 'things,' products. Processes, on the other hand, can get us much closer to understanding, even if we'll never completely 'know.'

I propose that we re-structure society to foster this new collective consciousness. That means that we must change how we think of education. Here is how the evolution might look:

1st pillar: cater to the basic needs of the citizenry. That is, needs for survival (food, shelter, health care). Duh. We have long ago moved beyond a life with perpetual threat of death. Our capacity for production and distribution is such that all people can be served this base level of dignity. There is no excuse for the situation as it stands. This, I acknowledge, is likely the hardest part of my plan. Perhaps we can just start with America here.

1st stage: change the emphasis of schools from product to process, teaching kids how to be creative, thorough, cooperative, and confident (or how to achieve confidence); to pursue understanding rather than knowing. In doing so, people will learn how to get what they need, how to organize their lives and how to acquire information critically. Not to say that information should be made irrelevant. Rather, it should be the framework for teaching critical thought, with skepticism and questioning even of fundamental premises encouraged. The importance of knowledge rather than skill becomes significant only when students begin to specialize, at which point they will need the foundation upon which to build their personal exploration. But early on, through compulsory schooling, the process and skills are far more important than any specific information. They are, after all, flooded with information at all times, and if they don't know what to do with that, then they'll find themselves pawns in a game that they're not aware of.

2nd pillar: cater to the second major human need - connection to one another. This, too can be taught, in schools, and in communities (the two will eventually be seamlessly integrated together). Which brings us to the 2nd stage:

2nd stage: fully integrate education and community to promote social connections, identification with the needs of others, and connection to the history of their fellow citizens. Accomplished initially through total school transparency and open communication, but advancing further by bringing educational experiences to all community members, culminating in the execution of education by all, supported by education professionals who are charged with bringing new and innovative techniques and ideas to the group.

3rd pillar: provide many outlets for every person to express themselves creatively. Teach people that their unique brand of thinking and approaching challenges is valued, and offer as many ways as possible for them to communicate their experience. Not to say that this trumps basic social courtesy, but allow a buffer within which each of us has the freedom and training to share what is uniquely ours.

3rd stage: Our society fully embraces the changing, infinite, and utterly unknowable preferring to pursue understanding through the exploration of processes. Information is relegated to its rightful place as (nearly always) temporary scaffolding that we use to elevate ourselves to a point where we can consider a new perspective and discover the next tower of discovery. This objective of understanding pervades all of society, such that our education, as is the case now (though many of us reject the idea that we're still being educated after a certain age because that is to admit ignorance - see final paragraph), is occurring constantly and productively right up to our death, mutually benefiting everyone in their dual roles as instructors and students.

community part 83

Thought: One of the major issues facing education (and indeed society) these days is the change away from the local, small-scale, community focused citizen to the large scale, specialized, professional citizen of the world. The inclusion of millions into one's extended 'circle' invevitably leads to a decrease in personal/shared responsibility in most, and lends itself to a sense of individualism permissible or even justified by anonymity and isolation (people don't have to commit to you so your relationships decrease in intimacy, and you don't have to consider how you're affecting them as much). A foundation of all productive enterprise is social, and intimate relationships with others is what determines our degree of social satisfaction.

We are incredibly motivated by our social interactions, and indeed when we look at many of the great historic figures touted for their skill and effect towards large scale peace, they are all people who found ways to feel intimately connected to ALL people.

Another thought loosely on the same vein: The standards for employment in our society need to change. 40+ hour work weeks are not sustainable, and don't serve to maintain healthy communities. Communities require communication; channels should remain open and be perpetuated such that all members of the community can feel connected to one another. The fatigue that results from long hours "on the clock" works against this.

Empowerment is also essential. The spirit of a community withers without a strong emphasis on the arts, such that creativity can become an integral component of everything that takes place. Only then can people feel perpetually fulfilled. Balance, communication (connection), creativity; the 3 pillars of strong community.

What is it all for

We, almost all of us, work and strive toward some end. We struggle to achieve some...thing(s).. goals; visions of what the future should look like. But what do we get in the end? Is the struggle worth it? Is our vision of ourselves one that brings anything meaningful?

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately. No... I've been doing a lot of .. not thinking lately. Soul searching maybe. Seeking sounds better. And this particular chapter began with these questions. It's taken a while, but I believe that I just had a breakthrough and that I now have something to say about the subject that's worth sharing:

Too often these visions of our own future are cluttered with unnecessary details. When we work with things - honing our skills, developing talents and such, we tend - at least in the circles that I run in - to get lost in those things. That is, we lose sight of the actual good that those skills can provide. It's easy to do, because the real value of things has nothing to do with those things at all. [I have to be careful here, as these thoughts are difficult to express in a way that is sensical - let me try to come up with an example] It is so easy to think that the purpose of say, mowing a lawn, is to have good looking grass. It is easy to think that designing a classroom lesson is expressly for conveying knowledge. It's easy to think these things because it just makes "sense" that you do something so that you might have something to show for it. Well, I'm here to announce, to whomever is ready to hear it, that that is not why you do something.

When we are TRULY LIVING, everything that we do, we do for the art of it. Many of us are not truly living... most of us at any given moment.

Whether we know it or not, we are beings in pursuit of artistic expression - in all forms.

Each action, done right, is itself a priceless art form.

True art is life acknowledged by itself.

Life, artistically performed, is a gateway to all of the beauty in the universe.

That gateway exists inside every one of us, and inside every thing, and inside every action, should we choose to see it.

No choice is above or below any other.

No thing is above or below any other.

All is perfect and beautiful.

This is true love (forgive me for some sentimentality here) - unconditional and unlimited, and we are all capable of this ACT.

This is the only act that has any payoff in the end, and there are infinite roads to it.

Nothing is a mistake, there is just doing art or learning to do art.

And, to make matters... better, we will all live art eventually, even those who seem farthest from it. It is inevitable.

When we fail to see this beauty, we are waiting... not living. I am guilty of waiting for almost the entirely of my life. I believe almost all of us are. There may have been a few who were/are fully immersed in life - divine ones. But all of us have that experience from time to time. We are all occasionally completely present in the universe, and in those moments we are, too, divine.

I believe we should devote ourselves to living artfully. I feel that the best choice we can make is to embrace whatever choices we make and exist completely in them.

I think that all of us are infinitely more than we give ourselves credit for, and that regardless of what it might look like, we can all achieve more than any THING could ever amount to.

If this makes no sense, perhaps this idea is too soon for you. All real truths are at least somewhat paradoxical.

This is the most truthful thing I think I've ever said.

A political rant

A response to a "tea party" advocate who complained about our spending and our taxation, claiming that taxation hurts the economy and national debt hurts the economy. That seemed like a contradiction to me and I couldn't help myself. As always, I invite any comments:

The debt problem is bipartisan. The most expensive periods in our recent history were overseen by republican administrations. Not to say dems do anything much better (we're still spending like fools), but the answer isn't republicans. Don't let the "tea party" propaganda convince you of that. They don't offer a real solution. Your own statement is a contradiction, which makes sense because it's their talking point. You can't complain about our debt AND taxes. Taxes is how governments raise money to get out of debt. There's no solution there. Our economy isn't dependent on us spending so much as it is on us profiting from other countries' resources (and our own, though those are less profitable because we insist on some reasonable level of compensation and responsibility for the extraction). That imperial profit scheme is reliant on corporate multinationals, which the government needs to tax in order to pay for our services. That's how it has worked, more and more, for the past century, as we have switched from our domestic resources to those of other countries. Which is why we're in these expensive wars with no end. Which is the real reason why we're in debt. The imperialism game has gotten really expensive lately, which is to say, we're losing the game lately. What we need is a real revolution. Grass roots. Transformation of our society on an individual and community level. We need to seek domestic sustainability, fiscal sustainability (and, by default, environmental too), and turn to our innovation as the source of international relations and exchange. America needs to become the brain trust that it can be and has been in the past. No more petty fruitless bickering with the likes of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh antagonizing and drumming up irrational fear. Trust one another, at least locally, and lean on one another so that we can be more effective, like voltron.

morality of profit

Consequences of Achieving the American Dream

I worked for a moving company once. It was in my early 20's, I'd just moved to Anchorage, Alaska, and it seemed like a solid source of income for the summer. This place had a bunch of young misfits boxing up and delivering people's earthly belongings. They were a fun group, but perhaps the most memorable acquaintance that I made was with a soft-spoken, middle-aged, black man named Jerry. Over the course of the summer, information about Jerry gradually leaked from my co-workers. As it turned out, this unassuming guy had kept his nose to the grindstone, double-shifting as a mover and long shoreman for 30 odd years, even started his own little freight company, and had amassed a small fortune.

Years earlier, I had worked in Sun Valley, Idaho, helping to facilitate a weeks-long banquet for some of the wealthiest people in the world. There, the annual Allen and Company retreat was a much anticipated event. Locals lined up to catch any drippings that overflowed from the cash cornucopia rolling through town. I was one of those - living off the fat of kings. I began to wonder what events or choices had brought these rich people to their position in life and later learned of some of the atrocities that their respective business operations had lead to. I grew suspicious of the very wealthy, a mindset that remained for years. And then I met Jerry. I began to see that the circumstances that lead to financial success were not so fixed or rigid; that acquired resources need not come at a heavy cost to others. More importantly, I learned to empathize with the profiteer. I saw how people often feel entitled to wealth when the sweat of their labor stains every dollar. Before that summer, I thought of profit quite negatively, but Jerry was irresistibly respectable. He was meagerly educated, but he was hard-working, cautious, gracious, and frugal, and he was going to retire soon, a wealthy man. I wondered if some of the Allen and Company group had had a similar experience. I wondered whether their wealth began with hard work and deserved success; if the adverse fallout of their transactions might go unnoticed by them for some other, justifiable reason, or if I had been right all along - that the pursuit of profit can blind us from the real and complete effects of our actions. Finally, I wondered whether any of them, from Jerry, with his humble success story, to the billionaire CEOs in Sun Valley, had ever stopped to consider what their actions said about their own personal character, or if they had simply started down a path and eventually lost sight of their larger purpose, like so many of us do. Our American mythology is riddled with tales of pioneering individuals who face remarkable odds and battle their way to a life of plenty. The imagery conjured up in these stories is often of overcoming external obstacles with perseverance - the competitive spirit. It has become standard American dogma to espouse competition as synonymous with freedom - we are feisty after all. In America, we have the freedom to "make it" by carving out a big slice of the pie. But nowhere do the stories go further, describing the consequences of achieving the American dream.

Asked whether profit is moral, and I immediately think about a wresting of resources (taking slices out of the pie). Clearly, there are some who feel that profit is as natural as breathing; that even discussing its morality is a nonsensical or wasted exercise. Others find the idea of profit repulsive, on the grounds that profiting creates both 'winners' and 'losers,' while all people are entitled to certain human dignities which are inevitably denied to some who happen to be on the wrong end of the exchange. And then there are those who fall in the middle, claiming that perhaps some profit is fine so long as all people are assured the opportunity to live in relative safety and comfort. I don't wish to debate this particular issue. I see plenty of examples of individuals from all over this spectrum. Rather, I feel that there is a deeper issue, one that underlies any discussion of the morality of wealth creation and distribution: the issue of context. If we are to analyze the morality of profit, we must understand the value system that brings about profit in the first place, since only in a system of shared values can we agree on what is moral.

Profit is the byproduct of competition, so this is really about the morality of competition. Since morality is measured against one's value system, it would serve this discussion to describe the values associated with the competitive model. I will attempt to outline the values underlying both ends of the spectrum, from "profit is absolutely and always moral" to "profit inevitably leads to humanitarian atrocities."

In the extreme case of absolute free-market competition, which moralizes virtually any profit, the requisite values are harsh and divisive. Atop the list is individualism. In the absolute pursuit of profit, each individual is responsible for his/her personal outcome, and should not expect others to contribute to his/her success unless it serves those individuals as well. Further, in order to prevent any cooperative opposition, one is rewarded for isolating others from one another. Next, since all wealth is derived, directly or indirectly, from natural resources, natural resources must be considered commodities. Also, in order to prioritize personal competitive achievement, one must think only in time frames shorter than one or two human lifetimes.

In absolute competition, internal exchanges of resources tend to be cyclic - passing from hand to hand and eventually back again - or else pile up conspicuously in the hands of the most successful individuals. Acquisitions from afar, on the other hand, serve the dual function of being both less noticeable and more favorable for local citizens. Separating from distant people also helps to justify their losses as the inevitable outcome of competition, and helps to alienate them. Separation from others, once again, supports the competitive model.

One of the most highly touted values associated with absolute free-market competition is that everyone has an equal opportunity. According to the model, an individual's success is determined by their choices. Poor people are poor because they made bad choices. This value is debatable since it assumes that the differences between peoples' achievement is even a point of discussion. An alternative is the assumption that individuals simply have variable abilities and thus, one's outcome is the product of their intrinsic 'worth.' In any case, there must be some justification for the disparity that results from competition.

From what I was able to gather during my months with Jerry, I would have to say that despite his success in profiting from people's need to transport goods, this list of values is far from his own. Rather, I think he might identify with the equal opportunity and individual responsibility values, but not necessarily the resources as commodities or imperialism values. Such is likely the case for most Americans, who might subscribe to some of these values, or at least variations of them. As far as the Allen and Company billionaires, I imagine that perhaps a few of them would identify with this entire list of values, or else their choices might point to them, even if they consciously claim otherwise. Instead they might use the classic "it's just business" justification for any contradiction between their stated values and their professional choices.

As a teacher, a member of a socialized institution, I find myself surrounded by individuals whose values are quite contrary to those from the competitive model. While there is certainly a spectrum of teachers, and there is even a strong element of competition embedded in our academic institutions, there seems to be a significant tendency toward non-competitive values for which virtually no profit is moral. I will call this the communal or cooperative model, and attempt to describe the values associated with absolute cooperation.

First and foremost, the communal model emphasizes cooperation and connection, even with distant peoples. Communities, as systems of individuals, function best when each member contributes to the good of the whole, and the more inclusive the whole, the greater the body of talent/resources on which all can draw. Cooperative behavior, as we have seen to great effect in our industrial society, can lead to incredible efficiency. Also highly valued in this model is sustainability. Since the communal mode focuses on the well-being of the group, all decisions must consider the long-term consequences for the community. Perhaps the backbone of the communal/cooperative model is the idea that all individuals have equal inherent worth despite varied circumstance or abilities. In order to work for the common good, one must value all members of the community equally. As soon as a person starts to value themselves above or below another, competitive values emerge. Further, in this model no one person or thing can truly be considered independent of the whole.

The only examples of this sort of value system that I'm aware of are in cases with aboriginal peoples, and even then I'm almost certain that they contend with nearly perpetual occurrences of individuals violating these values. In order to maintain this system, everyone must sacrifice a degree of their autonomy, which is a lesson that doesn't come easily to most people and certainly doesn't jive with the traditional American attitude.

Whether or not either of these ends of the spectrum is feasible, I would challenge the reader to consider where they stand. One of the real freedoms that all of us have is the freedom to choose our own value system, which is what makes moral arguments both extremely complicated and often very heated. I wonder, however, whether many of us ever stop to consider the implications of our values. I know that in my case, values arose quite passively, as the product of both my upbringing and my life experiences. I imagine that for many this is also the case - circumstances bring about beliefs. But we are not prisoners of our circumstances. We have a choice. I suggest we take a moment to figure out where we stand, whether our choices agree with that stance, and whether our values reflect our best self.

praise for individualism?

Toward the end of this school year I was talking with Mr. Webb (I believe that I included a student or two at one point) about a tendency that some people have to be critical of most everything - to look upon all options with distaste. He hypothesized that this is due, at least in part, to the safety of this position: it is easy to dissect virtually any idea to the point where flaws are readily apparent. In other words, it is very easy to find something wrong with pretty much anything if that is what you're looking for, since all things are ultimately highly complex. On the other side, the pro- to this bitter con-, there is great risk. If you openly decide that you like something, you are identifying with it, in essence advertising that "I am the sort of person who likes this thing." For those nay-sayers, eager to dislike, it is now easy to conclude that you are as distasteful as your naive preferences. Lack of identification--criticism--, therefore, is the safe position, involving no risk-taking.

Last night, I was discussing this idea with one of my college friends when he proposed a link between this and the 'mob' mentality. He suggested that people feel much more comfortable getting behind something (approving) when there is a large group in agreement since that same critic who claims that you are a fool for your preferences is now denouncing the entire group. Safety in numbers.

Thus, once again, the lone wolf faces exceptional challenges. But what about when the lone wolf is onto something? (s)he is now in a perfect position to engage in a form heroism, since heroism, after all, requires that one face fears and challenges.

the separation of self

So, since my junior year of college (96-97) I've kept up a study of philosophy from time to time. Over the past 6 years I've gotten pretty into the eastern stuff, and a lot of it resonates with me, largely because it seems like the underlying truths to many western ideas as well (though those are so often cloaked in layers of interpretation and pointed vernacular). One of the big ideas that fascinates me is the notion that in the real reality, not the one that has passed through our sensory filter, we, all people, all things, all lack-of-things (space), and even time, are all connected, we are all one. In Buddhism, this is the essence of Buddha, in Taoism, this is the Tao (though in both cases my generic one-line description only scratches the surface of these 'beyond words' notions). As a side-note, there are some theories in physics that assert the same claim about the underlying unity of reality. So, with this whole parenting thing I've done a lot of reading and apparently babies are born without the ability to distinguish themselves from the world around them. There is no separation. They perceive everything as themselves. They also have no notion of cause and effect, which, of course, is another term for time... but yet they most certainly perceive. They can almost immediately distinguish between their mother and anyone else. They very deliberately move toward their food source and they are certainly aware of their physical needs. This state of awareness persists, apparently, for some time. This raises two (+) questions:

1) Are humans born Buddha (or whatever name you choose to use)?
2) How can one perceive without distinction between self and "other?" In particular, what is Mother to such a being? Assuming no sensory distinction between forms, what remains?

goal setting

Something that I've been working on lately

I often hear all this hubbub about goal setting. Goal setting is a great tool, but it can sometimes interfere with your performance in the present, as it can be a distraction to think about where 'this' is going. It is certainly true that a goal can be a motivator, but I suggest that when setting goals, be sure to not get attached to them. Let them depart when it is their time, so that you can fully embrace the path that presents itself.

change

Every 7 years or so your body has completely recycled itself. The rates of cellular reproduction and cellular death are pretty much the same for most of your life. People are literally re-born in slow motion continuously. Life--reality--is ever-changing, ever-renewing. I often look back and recognize the person I was just some years ago as distinct from who I believe myself to be right now. Life is a process. So often we focus on products - goals. In fact, our society is structured around the idea of goals. "making something of yourself" is touted as the utmost freedom afforded by American life. That statement, "making something of yourself," implies a timeline with a destination, which in turn implies that there is some goal, some future self that you should set out to 'achieve.' Achievement is overrated. I say live instead of achieve. No acquisition will replace this moment, and with an emphasis on those moments ahead, these moments pass away. As beautifully painful and exquisitely sinister as this moment might be, it is a work of art that is exactly as magnificent as each of you. You, after all, don't exist except right now, and you will never again exist as you do now. 7 years from now you will be completely different. Life is process... not product.

persuasive illogic

I was listening to a commentator who had opinions about Obama's delivery style. He said that the president used one of 2 tones when discussing the health care bill with the general public: 1) political - describing the spirit of the thing in terms that would invoke feelings or, 2) graduate level seminar. I then listened to an example of his graduate level seminar prose and heard nothing too confusing. He didn't use any complicated terms, specialized rhetoric, or unfamiliar acronyms. He just moved through a logical argument. The commentator was saying that Obama needed to teach the public about the plan, using language that "everyone could understand."

I then looked at some headlines from a popular American "news" source and saw virtually no news. Everything was drenched in commentary with little or no concrete evidence to support it. Later, I noticed a commercial for some gum, which implied that chewing on the artificially sweetened processed petroleum wedge would teleport you to a place where beautiful people are attracted to you and you cease to experience discomfort. Later, there was this other ad suggesting that taking a "dose" of some certain yogurt every day would solve all of your bowel problems. Nothing explaining the why, just a bunch of persuasive statements.

This seems to be the case with almost all popular sources of information these days: nothing concrete, just persuasive commentary without evidence.

In our school district, the K-12 science teachers are embarking on a mission to move our emphasis a little away from content and a little toward methodology. We are going to be teaching argumentation using evidence. I am already doing it with the conceptual physics courses that I'm teaching, but the vision is that everyone will be proficient logicians by the time they leave high school.

In thinking about this undertaking, I realize that we have to fight a drumbeat of illogic that pours from all other unsolicited instructors. We are social creatures and move with the flow of society, but the flow has been artificially hijacked by the loudest voices through the "innovation" of mass media. Persuasive illogic is winning people away from reason.

a creative piece by Alex Furnas

I just thought this was hilarious and exceptional:

1. My special place is the theater in Factoria. It is a pretty cool theater. It always has something fresh to bring to the table. I live close to Factoria so I can walk down and watch good movies like the Tooth Fairy and Alvin the Chipmunks: the Squeakquel. Cats are always hating on Factoria Cineplex because it keeps breaking and the screens aren’t very big, but Lincoln Square and Crossroads can both go suck it, because Factoria is the real beeswax and it can’t be topped in cinematic enjoyment. Last weekend I watched The Book of Eli, and I know none of those other theaters could have displayed Denzel’s sexy beard and shaved head the same. I felt like I was right there shooting bad guys and listening to Motown with him. Now I’m best friends with Denzel Washington and we go out and chill all the time. That is why Factoria Theater is the place to be.

2. My favorite character from a book or movie is Nicolas Cage. I can relate to Nicolas Cage’s daily life and experiences. I get really pissed when there’s iguanas on my desk but nobody else can see them, and I know if Nicolas Cage was real, he would know exactly how I feel about it. One time the world got blown up by a solar flare, but if people listened to me they could have stopped it. Nicolas Cage went through the same shit one time. Whenever Satanic witch cults try to get fresh with me and put bees on my face, I know the only solution is getting in a bear suit and punching them like Nicolas Cage did. Thanks to Nicolas Cage, I now know that there’s a national treasure buried under DC and I can only find it by stealing the Declaration of Independence. If it weren’t for Nicolas Cage, I wouldn’t know what to do if John Travolta stole my face and pretended to be me. Also, I am Ghost Rider.

First post

I suppose I should start with the most pressing topic currently: the nature of knowledge. I say pressing, as if there is some kind of a time crunch, but rather it is more like the kind of pressure that you get when you plug up a hose, in that there's been a lot that has encouraged thoughts about this in the past year or so...