Christmas is a complicated topic. There are those who would disagree with this assessment, and argue that it is a straightforward religious holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ.
In present-day America, Christmas is a federal holiday, and in many ways the biggest holiday of the year, celebrated to at least some extent by many non-Christians as well as Christians. It is a major economic event, largely due to the purchase and exchange of Christmas gifts, but also because of Christmas traveling, Christmas decorating, and Christmas celebrating.
Especially in recent years, controversies have erupted over the extent to which Christmas -- ostensibly a religious holiday -- is celebrated in our secular society, including our public schools and other public buildings and lands. At one time, most public schools in the United States acknowledged Christmas with decorations and Christmas programs featuring students singing Christmas songs, but this is changing, sometimes replacing religious songs with secular ones. It is easy enough to focus on the secular aspect, since a prominent feature of American Christmas is Santa Claus delivering presents to all the good little girls and boys -- which is not overtly connected to anyone's birth in a manger.
It is tempting to state that Christmas has evolved away from a purely Christian holiday, but the fact is that it most likely never was a purely Christian holiday. Many theologians doubt that Jesus was actually born on December 25, and it is widely believed that the Christian holiday was superimposed upon previously-existing holidays, especially the Roman festival of Saturnalia. Many of the things now considered to be traditional aspects of Christmas -- things such as decorating with evergreens and mistletoe -- seem to be descended from totally non-Christian midwinter celebrations.
In the last century, commercialization has transformed the observance of Christmas. For example, though we still sing of "The Twelve Days of Christmas", few Americans today realize that the song refers to the period of time BEGINNING on December 25th. With the emphasis on shopping for gifts, many now view the "Christmas Season" as ending on December 25th -- though since the celebration of Christmas has somewhat been combined with the celebration of the New Year, the "Holiday Season" may extend to January 1.
This business about "the Christmas Season" happens to be a pet peeve of mine. I do not believe in taking down my Christmas decorations prior to January 6 -- "Epiphany" -- at the earliest, and I sometimes do not put them up much before December 25. This puts me "out of sync" with my neighbors -- many of whom put up their decorations in November, and remove them by December 26, or perhaps January 1.
Yet another factor that complicates the idea of Christmas in our society is that Christmas is a traditional time for family gatherings, and represents a milestone in our lives. People who are terminally ill, as well as their loved ones, hope they can survive "until Christmas". Christmas is a time when we miss our homes and our loved ones, especially those who have recently died.
The complicated nature of Christmas in our society guarantees that each of us will view the season from a different perspective, ranging from a deeply religious holiday to a strictly commercial event to simply a major disruption in the normal routine. Anyone who claims that Christmas is solely one of these things is ignoring the reality and diversity of our lives.
This brief discussion barely scratches the surface. Whether we like it or not, Christmas is a major event for contemporary American society, and a magical, spiritual time for many. We are bound together by our stories, songs, and traditions of Christmas, and by our memories, good and bad. As for the controversies over school programs with children singing Christmas carols and people saying "Merry Christmas", I blame extremists on both sides for finding ways to quarrel over what most agree should be, if anything, a time of peace, sharing, and love, regardless of your own religious beliefs.
Truth is complicated. Merry Christmas to all!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Good
Only One Good
I try to focus on truth, and I try to label things that are purely my opinion as purely my opinion, and what I am about to state is purely my opinion, and I cannot prove it, and I cannot imagine that it ever COULD be proven, BUT it is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy.
I believe that whatever is truly "good" for me is truly good for all people, including you, and whatever is truly "bad" for you is truly bad for all people, including me. "Good" and "bad" are "relative" only with regard to the fact that one thing may be "better" or "worse" than another thing -- but things always retain their same position with regard to each other, and this has nothing to do with your point of view.
I like to visualize this concept as a numbered straight line, with perfect good at one end and perfect bad at the other end -- let's say perfect good is at one hundred and perfect bad is at zero. Anything that HAS a "good" or "bad" quality -- many things have no such attribute -- falls at some precise point on this line between perfect good and perfect bad. I do not claim to know at WHAT point it falls -- mere mortals can never know WHERE on this line a thing falls -- but this is irrelevant. The important idea is that each thing falls at one precise point on the line.
To illustrate: Imagine that a pickpocket steals my wallet, and I never see it again. It's tempting to view this scenario as "good" for the pickpocket and "bad" for me, but I believe that this event falls at some precise point on the line -- perhaps "forty-two", which would be more bad than good. Whereas it might have more of an immediate "bad" impact on my life than on the pickpocket's life, I believe that in reality this event is JUST as bad (or good) for the pickpocket as it is for me. Or imagine that the pickpocket is caught and prosecuted, and I get my wallet back with all its contents. This event would probably fall somewhere else on the line, but I still believe the outcome would be equally good or bad for both the pickpocket and me.
I absolutely cannot offer any proof that this is true, but it is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy. I claim no ability to know WHERE anything falls on the line between absolute good and absolute bad. The crucial idea is that anything with a good or bad value falls at a precise point that has nothing to do with perspective. I do not claim that this is undeniably true, but it is an important idea in my life.
The cynical and the selfish could say, "Okay, then give me all of your money and possessions and do everything you can to please ME, because that will be good for ME and therefore good for YOU." This example actually illustrates my point. It is probably NOT "good" for me to give you all my money and possessions and work to please you, and it probably will not even make YOU happy. On the other hand, this is pretty much what some cult leaders say, and perhaps sometimes it works out for everyone, and IS good.
The challenge lies in trying to do the "right" thing, the thing that will be "good" for you and for everyone else. I am not recommending that anyone think only in terms of their own self-interest -- I do not believe that will make ANYONE happy, in the long run.
I freely admit that this philosophy cannot be proven, and has various weaknesses. Some would say that since we can never KNOW what is truly "good", the whole concept is irrelevant, and there is no point in trying to do the "right" thing. I say that even though we can never know, if you THINK you are doing the "wrong" thing, you had best not be doing it.
I try to focus on truth, and I try to label things that are purely my opinion as purely my opinion, and what I am about to state is purely my opinion, and I cannot prove it, and I cannot imagine that it ever COULD be proven, BUT it is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy.
I believe that whatever is truly "good" for me is truly good for all people, including you, and whatever is truly "bad" for you is truly bad for all people, including me. "Good" and "bad" are "relative" only with regard to the fact that one thing may be "better" or "worse" than another thing -- but things always retain their same position with regard to each other, and this has nothing to do with your point of view.
I like to visualize this concept as a numbered straight line, with perfect good at one end and perfect bad at the other end -- let's say perfect good is at one hundred and perfect bad is at zero. Anything that HAS a "good" or "bad" quality -- many things have no such attribute -- falls at some precise point on this line between perfect good and perfect bad. I do not claim to know at WHAT point it falls -- mere mortals can never know WHERE on this line a thing falls -- but this is irrelevant. The important idea is that each thing falls at one precise point on the line.
To illustrate: Imagine that a pickpocket steals my wallet, and I never see it again. It's tempting to view this scenario as "good" for the pickpocket and "bad" for me, but I believe that this event falls at some precise point on the line -- perhaps "forty-two", which would be more bad than good. Whereas it might have more of an immediate "bad" impact on my life than on the pickpocket's life, I believe that in reality this event is JUST as bad (or good) for the pickpocket as it is for me. Or imagine that the pickpocket is caught and prosecuted, and I get my wallet back with all its contents. This event would probably fall somewhere else on the line, but I still believe the outcome would be equally good or bad for both the pickpocket and me.
I absolutely cannot offer any proof that this is true, but it is the cornerstone of my personal philosophy. I claim no ability to know WHERE anything falls on the line between absolute good and absolute bad. The crucial idea is that anything with a good or bad value falls at a precise point that has nothing to do with perspective. I do not claim that this is undeniably true, but it is an important idea in my life.
The cynical and the selfish could say, "Okay, then give me all of your money and possessions and do everything you can to please ME, because that will be good for ME and therefore good for YOU." This example actually illustrates my point. It is probably NOT "good" for me to give you all my money and possessions and work to please you, and it probably will not even make YOU happy. On the other hand, this is pretty much what some cult leaders say, and perhaps sometimes it works out for everyone, and IS good.
The challenge lies in trying to do the "right" thing, the thing that will be "good" for you and for everyone else. I am not recommending that anyone think only in terms of their own self-interest -- I do not believe that will make ANYONE happy, in the long run.
I freely admit that this philosophy cannot be proven, and has various weaknesses. Some would say that since we can never KNOW what is truly "good", the whole concept is irrelevant, and there is no point in trying to do the "right" thing. I say that even though we can never know, if you THINK you are doing the "wrong" thing, you had best not be doing it.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Quotations
I enjoy quotations, but there is no way to escape the problems of attribution, translation, and context.
Though people may argue about the true source of a quotation, the fact is that no one can ever be certain of a quotation's origin. Even if you were present when someone made a statement, or wrote something down, THEY might have been quoting an earlier source, possibly without even knowing it. So the best we can do is acknowledge the person who is generally given credit for being the quotation's origin -- though sometimes these attributions are widely believed to be in error. There is also the fact that many people may have independently stated almost precisely the same idea. For example, various famous musicians are credited with observing that "There are only two kinds of music -- good and bad."
Then there is the issue of translation. Julius Caesar is given credit for the famous quotation, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Julius Caesar did not speak English. Julius Caesar MAY have used the Latin words, "Veni, vidi, vici" -- which is a compelling quotation, even for someone who does not speak Latin. I do not know who first translated "Veni, vidi, vici" into "I came, I saw, I conquered". They COULD have translated it as "I arrived, I viewed, and I subjugated", but that does not seem nearly as eloquent. My point is that the translator really should share the credit for many quotations, but rarely does.
Finally, there is the matter of context. It is tempting to assume that if someone says or writes something, it is something that they themselves believe to be true. This is often a false assumption. Quotations often come from works of fiction, or a person may even be ridiculing a certain idea. Many famous quotations come from Shakespeare, and many of these are spoken by characters in plays. The fact that a character in a play states, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" does not mean that Shakespeare himself was opposed to borrowing and lending, yet the quotation is attributed to Shakespeare. (I am deliberately ignoring the scholarly questions regarding the true source of Shakespeare's plays.)
Despite the facts that we can never be sure of the original source of any quotation, and many quotations are translations from other languages, and the quotation may not represent the actual belief of the person who made the statement, quotations eloquently present ideas for further contemplation. I do my best to give credit where credit is due, but I claim no certainty.
Though people may argue about the true source of a quotation, the fact is that no one can ever be certain of a quotation's origin. Even if you were present when someone made a statement, or wrote something down, THEY might have been quoting an earlier source, possibly without even knowing it. So the best we can do is acknowledge the person who is generally given credit for being the quotation's origin -- though sometimes these attributions are widely believed to be in error. There is also the fact that many people may have independently stated almost precisely the same idea. For example, various famous musicians are credited with observing that "There are only two kinds of music -- good and bad."
Then there is the issue of translation. Julius Caesar is given credit for the famous quotation, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Julius Caesar did not speak English. Julius Caesar MAY have used the Latin words, "Veni, vidi, vici" -- which is a compelling quotation, even for someone who does not speak Latin. I do not know who first translated "Veni, vidi, vici" into "I came, I saw, I conquered". They COULD have translated it as "I arrived, I viewed, and I subjugated", but that does not seem nearly as eloquent. My point is that the translator really should share the credit for many quotations, but rarely does.
Finally, there is the matter of context. It is tempting to assume that if someone says or writes something, it is something that they themselves believe to be true. This is often a false assumption. Quotations often come from works of fiction, or a person may even be ridiculing a certain idea. Many famous quotations come from Shakespeare, and many of these are spoken by characters in plays. The fact that a character in a play states, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" does not mean that Shakespeare himself was opposed to borrowing and lending, yet the quotation is attributed to Shakespeare. (I am deliberately ignoring the scholarly questions regarding the true source of Shakespeare's plays.)
Despite the facts that we can never be sure of the original source of any quotation, and many quotations are translations from other languages, and the quotation may not represent the actual belief of the person who made the statement, quotations eloquently present ideas for further contemplation. I do my best to give credit where credit is due, but I claim no certainty.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Why
"Why" is a dangerous word. There is an episode of the innovative 1960s TV series "The Prisoner" (as I type this I realize a "re-make" has already been produced and is currently airing, but THAT is an entirely different subject) in which the title character goes up against the most fantastic, all-knowing computer on earth. He is able to destroy it by simply typing four strokes on the keyboard: W-H-Y-? The computer burns itself up just trying to fathom the question. The question "Why?" truly is overwhelming.
When two or more people disagree, the word "why" tends to become poisonous. If you ask me why I believe something, or why I do something the way that I do it, there is a good chance that rather than seeking to understand me, you have already decided that I am WRONG, and you are simply seeking to point out the error of my ways. When someone says, "I do not understand why you are doing it that way," there is a good chance that what they MEAN is, "I believe you are doing it wrong," -- when they probably truly do NOT understand.
In debate, "why" tends to be irrelevant or at least misdirected. King Lear's daughters ask him why he needs to be accompanied by one hundred knights, and his answer is, "Oh, reason not the need!" King Lear wants what he wants, and it is not his daughters' place to question him. The issue has nothing to do with WHY he wants the knights.
It is possible that we may gain valuable insights by asking WHY we feel the way we do, or why we do something precisely the way that we do it, but being unable to explain or justify our feelings or actions does not make them any less valid or proper. At the same time, offering a well-reasoned justification for our feelings or actions does not necessarily make them more valid or more proper than those with differing views.
In a less personal sense, if we ask why something happened the way it happened, or why something is the way it is, the answers will usually involve oversimplification and conjecture. Still, we may gain insight by considering the question.
There is a famous quote along the lines of "Some people look at things and ask why, I dream of things that never were and ask why not?" (This quote is generally attributed to Robert Kennedy, but he seems to have been quoting George Bernard Shaw ...) On the surface, this quote is uplifting -- though it can also be viewed as arrogant, involving the speaker's apparent claimed ability to correctly fathom the intricacies of why and why not. In truth, these questions can never be answered with certainty. Truth is complicated.
When two or more people disagree, the word "why" tends to become poisonous. If you ask me why I believe something, or why I do something the way that I do it, there is a good chance that rather than seeking to understand me, you have already decided that I am WRONG, and you are simply seeking to point out the error of my ways. When someone says, "I do not understand why you are doing it that way," there is a good chance that what they MEAN is, "I believe you are doing it wrong," -- when they probably truly do NOT understand.
In debate, "why" tends to be irrelevant or at least misdirected. King Lear's daughters ask him why he needs to be accompanied by one hundred knights, and his answer is, "Oh, reason not the need!" King Lear wants what he wants, and it is not his daughters' place to question him. The issue has nothing to do with WHY he wants the knights.
It is possible that we may gain valuable insights by asking WHY we feel the way we do, or why we do something precisely the way that we do it, but being unable to explain or justify our feelings or actions does not make them any less valid or proper. At the same time, offering a well-reasoned justification for our feelings or actions does not necessarily make them more valid or more proper than those with differing views.
In a less personal sense, if we ask why something happened the way it happened, or why something is the way it is, the answers will usually involve oversimplification and conjecture. Still, we may gain insight by considering the question.
There is a famous quote along the lines of "Some people look at things and ask why, I dream of things that never were and ask why not?" (This quote is generally attributed to Robert Kennedy, but he seems to have been quoting George Bernard Shaw ...) On the surface, this quote is uplifting -- though it can also be viewed as arrogant, involving the speaker's apparent claimed ability to correctly fathom the intricacies of why and why not. In truth, these questions can never be answered with certainty. Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Routes
I live in a small city on the west bank of a river. To the north and east lies a city on the opposite bank of the river. To drive between the two cities, you face the question of crossing a bridge right away, and making most of the trip on the opposite side of the river, or driving along your starting side of the river and crossing a bridge close to your destination. Both routes will get you to the same destination, and both routes have their adherents, some who feel very passionately that THEIR route is "right" and the other route is "wrong". There is a third choice, crossing a bridge midway between the two cities, and making a significant part of the trip in both sides of the river, but that route is rarely used, probably because it is the least direct and most difficult.
People make the choice based on a multitude of different criteria, including speed, scenery, familiarity, weather, and the specifics of the exact starting and ending locations. Personally, I do not believe that either route is "right" or "wrong", though I generally choose the route that is most familiar to me.
Much of life, and many of our disagreements, involve debates similar to driving between these two cities. Either route will get us to the same place, but we may choose differently based on our priorities and our familiarities. This is one of those areas in which some are loathe to face the truth that there is no "best" route, since determining the best route would require first determining the criteria to use to decide the best route. To some, certain criteria are obvious; to others, different criteria are equally obvious. In the end, the least effective route is a compromise between the two, if a compromise can be found at all. Sadly, this is often the route we are forced to take, based upon the need for compromise.
We are taught since childhood to embrace compromise, that compromise is a good and noble thing. Sometimes it is, but other times it is ineffective or impossible. There is also the issue of what I call false compromise -- something that sounds like a compromise, but is not.
A true example: A teenage girl was dating an older boy who lived some distance away. The girl asked her parents if she could stay overnight at her boyfriend's house every weekend, to save on travel. The parents told her they did not approve of her spending the night at her boyfriend's house. The daughter offered a compromise: She would stay overnight at her boyfriend's house every OTHER weekend. This certainly SOUNDS like a compromise midway between the two positions, but in fact it is mostly the daughter's "route," with barely a nod toward the parents' "route."
We are sometimes offered such "false compromises" -- ideas that are presented as "compromises" but actually would require us to give up all of our priorities and embrace someone else's -- and then find ourselves appearing to be unreasonable if we reject the "compromise." We must not be mindlessly subjugated to the idea of compromise, especially since even true and fair compromises may be totally ineffective.
Sometimes the only effective way to reach a goal is consistency. When the bridge midway between the two cities is closed, you must choose to travel on the west side or the east side of the river. Either route will get you to your destination, and neither is necessarily better, but you have to choose one or the other. Once you arrive at your destination, you can re-open the debate, and perhaps take the other route on the return trip.
Unfortunately, many areas of life, including our political system, defy consistency. In a polarized, two-party system, we are almost guaranteed to swing back and forth between different philosophies. Since it is doubtful that either party is always "right", this lack of consistency has certain merit. At the same time, we will never know if certain ideas WOULD have succeeded, or been proven correct, if only given sufficient time -- if we, as a nation, had followed them consistently. In politics, the problem is compounded by the fact that we do not necessarily share even the same goals, though both sides believe the goals are obvious.
A further problem is our reluctance to accept the fact that sometimes there is no "best" route, or at least that determining the "best" route is impossible under the circumstances -- that the truth is complicated. We want to KNOW which route is best, and we also want affirmation of the idea that OUR route is best. Sometimes we just have to accept the ambiguity -- the idea that more than one route may be okay, but that in order to GET anywhere, we will have to choose ONE of them.
Truth is complicated.
People make the choice based on a multitude of different criteria, including speed, scenery, familiarity, weather, and the specifics of the exact starting and ending locations. Personally, I do not believe that either route is "right" or "wrong", though I generally choose the route that is most familiar to me.
Much of life, and many of our disagreements, involve debates similar to driving between these two cities. Either route will get us to the same place, but we may choose differently based on our priorities and our familiarities. This is one of those areas in which some are loathe to face the truth that there is no "best" route, since determining the best route would require first determining the criteria to use to decide the best route. To some, certain criteria are obvious; to others, different criteria are equally obvious. In the end, the least effective route is a compromise between the two, if a compromise can be found at all. Sadly, this is often the route we are forced to take, based upon the need for compromise.
We are taught since childhood to embrace compromise, that compromise is a good and noble thing. Sometimes it is, but other times it is ineffective or impossible. There is also the issue of what I call false compromise -- something that sounds like a compromise, but is not.
A true example: A teenage girl was dating an older boy who lived some distance away. The girl asked her parents if she could stay overnight at her boyfriend's house every weekend, to save on travel. The parents told her they did not approve of her spending the night at her boyfriend's house. The daughter offered a compromise: She would stay overnight at her boyfriend's house every OTHER weekend. This certainly SOUNDS like a compromise midway between the two positions, but in fact it is mostly the daughter's "route," with barely a nod toward the parents' "route."
We are sometimes offered such "false compromises" -- ideas that are presented as "compromises" but actually would require us to give up all of our priorities and embrace someone else's -- and then find ourselves appearing to be unreasonable if we reject the "compromise." We must not be mindlessly subjugated to the idea of compromise, especially since even true and fair compromises may be totally ineffective.
Sometimes the only effective way to reach a goal is consistency. When the bridge midway between the two cities is closed, you must choose to travel on the west side or the east side of the river. Either route will get you to your destination, and neither is necessarily better, but you have to choose one or the other. Once you arrive at your destination, you can re-open the debate, and perhaps take the other route on the return trip.
Unfortunately, many areas of life, including our political system, defy consistency. In a polarized, two-party system, we are almost guaranteed to swing back and forth between different philosophies. Since it is doubtful that either party is always "right", this lack of consistency has certain merit. At the same time, we will never know if certain ideas WOULD have succeeded, or been proven correct, if only given sufficient time -- if we, as a nation, had followed them consistently. In politics, the problem is compounded by the fact that we do not necessarily share even the same goals, though both sides believe the goals are obvious.
A further problem is our reluctance to accept the fact that sometimes there is no "best" route, or at least that determining the "best" route is impossible under the circumstances -- that the truth is complicated. We want to KNOW which route is best, and we also want affirmation of the idea that OUR route is best. Sometimes we just have to accept the ambiguity -- the idea that more than one route may be okay, but that in order to GET anywhere, we will have to choose ONE of them.
Truth is complicated.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Politics
There is one -- and only one -- central political issue/question, though it can be stated in any number of different ways. Basically, the key question is "What do the people want from their government?" or "What is the proper role of government in our lives?" or "What is the purpose of government?" That's it. Sadly and curiously, this question rarely gets asked, let alone debated.
There are sub-questions about the organization of government, and who does what, and then an infinite number of questions regarding specifics and details, but they are all off-shoots of the central issue. My fear is that many people do not ask the central question because the answers seem so obvious. The government exists to do what THEY believe it should do, nothing more, nothing less, and anyone who believes otherwise is guilty of wrong thinking, or of not thinking at all.
I freely admit that there may be profound differences between MY views on government and YOUR views on government. First and foremost, I want government to offer a certain degree of protection from forces that would do me wrong, while allowing me a great deal of freedom to go about my daily life. This includes, but is not limited to, protecting me from foreign armies, rabid animals, asteroids, and my neighbors. I also want government to ensure a certain degree of fairness in my dealings with other humans, and an honoring of agreements. At the same time, I realize the government CANNOT protect me from everything, or ensure fairness in all dealings, at least not within the framework of freedom that I desire. In this one paragraph, I have laid the groundwork for a lifetime of debates and compromises, JUST regarding these fairly straightforward goals.
I would like to point out that I have profound doubts regarding the role of government in things like schools (I am not sure the government should be involved in schooling) or highways (I am not sure the government should be involved in road-building or in most other civil engineering projects). PLEASE note that I am NOT saying the government should NOT be involved in these things. I am merely expressing my own uncertainty.
The things we DO debate in politics are often the specifics regarding the best way to accomplish our common, universally-accepted goals, which are merely implied, and are neither common nor universally-accepted. Perhaps if we acknowledged this, we could get down to substantive debate over our real and reasonable differences.
There are sub-questions about the organization of government, and who does what, and then an infinite number of questions regarding specifics and details, but they are all off-shoots of the central issue. My fear is that many people do not ask the central question because the answers seem so obvious. The government exists to do what THEY believe it should do, nothing more, nothing less, and anyone who believes otherwise is guilty of wrong thinking, or of not thinking at all.
I freely admit that there may be profound differences between MY views on government and YOUR views on government. First and foremost, I want government to offer a certain degree of protection from forces that would do me wrong, while allowing me a great deal of freedom to go about my daily life. This includes, but is not limited to, protecting me from foreign armies, rabid animals, asteroids, and my neighbors. I also want government to ensure a certain degree of fairness in my dealings with other humans, and an honoring of agreements. At the same time, I realize the government CANNOT protect me from everything, or ensure fairness in all dealings, at least not within the framework of freedom that I desire. In this one paragraph, I have laid the groundwork for a lifetime of debates and compromises, JUST regarding these fairly straightforward goals.
I would like to point out that I have profound doubts regarding the role of government in things like schools (I am not sure the government should be involved in schooling) or highways (I am not sure the government should be involved in road-building or in most other civil engineering projects). PLEASE note that I am NOT saying the government should NOT be involved in these things. I am merely expressing my own uncertainty.
The things we DO debate in politics are often the specifics regarding the best way to accomplish our common, universally-accepted goals, which are merely implied, and are neither common nor universally-accepted. Perhaps if we acknowledged this, we could get down to substantive debate over our real and reasonable differences.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Reasonable
I am not a lawyer, and my knowledge of the law is murky at best, but I believe the law often deals with the concept of "reasonable". There are concepts of "reasonable doubt" and "what a reasonable person would do".
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "reasonable" as:
1 a : being in accordance with reason {a reasonable theory}
b : not extreme or excessive {reasonable requests}
c : moderate, fair {a reasonable chance} {a reasonable price}
d : inexpensive
2 a : having the faculty of reason
b : possessing sound judgment {a reasonable man}
Unfortunately, in common usage the idea of what is "reasonable" is open for interpretation and sometimes highly debatable. For me, there is a close relationship between the concepts of "reasonable" and "debatable". It is reasonable to believe something that is debatable, whether or not it is absolutely true. The complicating problem lies in the issue of what is considered "debatable" (which most dictionaries define with phrases like "open to dispute" and "capable of being debated"). I doubt that there is ANYTHING that SOMEONE does not consider to be open for debate.
So the problem becomes deciding what a reasonable person considers to be debatable. Rather than just a confusing set of words, I believe this is a key problem for our society today. We must attempt to distinguish which ideas are reasonable and debatable, and label these ideas differently from those ideas that are totally unworthy of consideration -- keeping in mind that even ideas that first sound outrageous are sometimes worthy of careful consideration. This determination should be separated from determination of "right" and "wrong", or ideas with which we agree or disagree.
This entire discussion is related to the idea that much of what we believe is inherently correct is based on our own values rather than any inherent "correctness". Ideas that go completely against our values are not necessarily wrong, though it is easy to quickly label them as unreasonable. It is difficult to come up with examples that are not polarizing, emotion-charged, and dangerous, but I will use a fairly obscure topic. The late backpacking "guru", Collin Fletcher, proposed that a way to deal with overcrowding in our "wilderness" areas and national parks would be to make trails less accessible -- such as having the actual beginning of the trail some distance from any road or parking lot, to be reached only by pushing through the trail-less brush. This idea is opposed by those who wish to make these same trails more accessible to everyone, including those with physical disabilities. Still, I would label this idea as "reasonable" and "debatable" rather than "absurd". This is NOT to say it is a GOOD idea, or that I AGREE with it. My POINT is that the idea is not so totally wrong as to be unworthy of discussion.
This is especially a problem in politics, where people are quick to label any idea that they oppose as "absurd" or "ridiculous" or "irrational" (I could come up with more terms but I will stop). I believe we would all be better off if we were capable of acknowledging certain ideas to be reasonable or debatable, even when we ourselves deeply opposed those ideas. As a society, we need to acknowledge the difference between reasonable and totally wrong ideas -- or especially ideas that are contrary to established facts -- even when we disagree.
When we fail to distinguish between those ideas that are clearly, indisputably wrong, and those ideas with which we merely disagree, we make true communication impossible, and resolving our differences much more difficult. I find it interesting to note that even if a person were completely infallible, they would STILL need to be able to make this distinction if they wished to resolve differences with others. When dealing with other people with other beliefs, it is sometimes important to determine whether an idea is worth considering, rather than whether is it right or wrong.
I acknowledge that the question of what is "reasonable" will always remain open for debate, and especially that some people will take great offense at ideas and beliefs others consider to be "reasonable". I suppose that I am arguing that we would be better off as a society if we would all broaden our standards a bit as to what we consider "reasonable". I am NOT asking for any revision in what we consider "right" or "wrong" -- just what we consider "reasonable".
Truth is complicated.
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "reasonable" as:
1 a : being in accordance with reason {a reasonable theory}
b : not extreme or excessive {reasonable requests}
c : moderate, fair {a reasonable chance} {a reasonable price}
d : inexpensive
2 a : having the faculty of reason
b : possessing sound judgment {a reasonable man}
Unfortunately, in common usage the idea of what is "reasonable" is open for interpretation and sometimes highly debatable. For me, there is a close relationship between the concepts of "reasonable" and "debatable". It is reasonable to believe something that is debatable, whether or not it is absolutely true. The complicating problem lies in the issue of what is considered "debatable" (which most dictionaries define with phrases like "open to dispute" and "capable of being debated"). I doubt that there is ANYTHING that SOMEONE does not consider to be open for debate.
So the problem becomes deciding what a reasonable person considers to be debatable. Rather than just a confusing set of words, I believe this is a key problem for our society today. We must attempt to distinguish which ideas are reasonable and debatable, and label these ideas differently from those ideas that are totally unworthy of consideration -- keeping in mind that even ideas that first sound outrageous are sometimes worthy of careful consideration. This determination should be separated from determination of "right" and "wrong", or ideas with which we agree or disagree.
This entire discussion is related to the idea that much of what we believe is inherently correct is based on our own values rather than any inherent "correctness". Ideas that go completely against our values are not necessarily wrong, though it is easy to quickly label them as unreasonable. It is difficult to come up with examples that are not polarizing, emotion-charged, and dangerous, but I will use a fairly obscure topic. The late backpacking "guru", Collin Fletcher, proposed that a way to deal with overcrowding in our "wilderness" areas and national parks would be to make trails less accessible -- such as having the actual beginning of the trail some distance from any road or parking lot, to be reached only by pushing through the trail-less brush. This idea is opposed by those who wish to make these same trails more accessible to everyone, including those with physical disabilities. Still, I would label this idea as "reasonable" and "debatable" rather than "absurd". This is NOT to say it is a GOOD idea, or that I AGREE with it. My POINT is that the idea is not so totally wrong as to be unworthy of discussion.
This is especially a problem in politics, where people are quick to label any idea that they oppose as "absurd" or "ridiculous" or "irrational" (I could come up with more terms but I will stop). I believe we would all be better off if we were capable of acknowledging certain ideas to be reasonable or debatable, even when we ourselves deeply opposed those ideas. As a society, we need to acknowledge the difference between reasonable and totally wrong ideas -- or especially ideas that are contrary to established facts -- even when we disagree.
When we fail to distinguish between those ideas that are clearly, indisputably wrong, and those ideas with which we merely disagree, we make true communication impossible, and resolving our differences much more difficult. I find it interesting to note that even if a person were completely infallible, they would STILL need to be able to make this distinction if they wished to resolve differences with others. When dealing with other people with other beliefs, it is sometimes important to determine whether an idea is worth considering, rather than whether is it right or wrong.
I acknowledge that the question of what is "reasonable" will always remain open for debate, and especially that some people will take great offense at ideas and beliefs others consider to be "reasonable". I suppose that I am arguing that we would be better off as a society if we would all broaden our standards a bit as to what we consider "reasonable". I am NOT asking for any revision in what we consider "right" or "wrong" -- just what we consider "reasonable".
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Ridicule
Ridicule is the "nuclear weapon" of civilized debate. Used effectively, ridicule can destroy almost any position or statement, regardless of the truth, logic, or correctness of the position or statement, or the truth, logic, or correctness of the ridicule. Ridicule is generally blind to attributes like truth. Due to its overwhelming destructive power, ridicule is an oft-used weapon (unlike conventional nuclear weapons).
I suspect that those observing the use of ridicule in a debate tend to believe that if a position can be destroyed by ridicule, it had some weakness or flaw to begin with. I strongly disagree. I believe that the damage done to a position is simply a reflection of the skill of the ridiculer, unrelated to the strength or weakness of the position. Furthermore, I believe that at least some ridiculers are aware of this, knowing that if they use ridicule effectively they can make even undeniable facts appear to be ridiculous.
I would hope that, as a society, we would prefer our debates to be decided on the true merits of the opposing positions, rather than on the basis of "All is fair in love and war." This does not seem to be the case.
I must hasten to acknowledge that sometimes positions simply ARE ridiculous, and it is hard NOT to ridicule them. I should also point out that I am a big fan of humor, and believe our society would be better off if we tolerated more joking about sensitive topics -- but I actually see THAT as an almost-unrelated issue.
Truth is complicated.
I suspect that those observing the use of ridicule in a debate tend to believe that if a position can be destroyed by ridicule, it had some weakness or flaw to begin with. I strongly disagree. I believe that the damage done to a position is simply a reflection of the skill of the ridiculer, unrelated to the strength or weakness of the position. Furthermore, I believe that at least some ridiculers are aware of this, knowing that if they use ridicule effectively they can make even undeniable facts appear to be ridiculous.
I would hope that, as a society, we would prefer our debates to be decided on the true merits of the opposing positions, rather than on the basis of "All is fair in love and war." This does not seem to be the case.
I must hasten to acknowledge that sometimes positions simply ARE ridiculous, and it is hard NOT to ridicule them. I should also point out that I am a big fan of humor, and believe our society would be better off if we tolerated more joking about sensitive topics -- but I actually see THAT as an almost-unrelated issue.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Values
Each of us has a probably-unique set of values. It is difficult and complicated to even define the concept of "values". Some use the term almost interchangeably with "morals", whereas for me it is more closely related to "priorities". An important part of my definition of "values" is that values are the criteria that each of us uses to distinguish "right" from "wrong". In trying to figure out how to define "values" I find that the World Wide Web contains many lists of values, often reduced to single words, such as "honesty" and "punctuality" and even "friendliness".
I cannot easily define "values", and I am certain that my internal definition does not match your internal definition, any more than my internal values match your internal values. Even if we agree that something like "friendliness" is a good thing, then there is the matter of defining "friendliness". I have a relative who I routinely accuse of gravitating toward "nosey busybodies" -- but I realize that the behavior that I define as being a "nosey busybody" could also be defined as being "friendly".
"Honesty" and "punctuality" suffer the same problems with variability in our definitions. We may embrace the value of honesty as a good thing, yet most of us place limits on our honesty, such as in situations in which we are trying to spare someone from hurt feelings (possibly because we sometimes place a higher priority on "kindness" than on "honesty"). The concept of "punctuality" varies widely between situations and cultures. In some situations and cultures, it is rude to be even a minute late, while in others it is rude to be a minute early.
At least in recent decades, Americans tend to frown on public nudity, and even pass laws against it. Other cultures do not necessarily view nudity as such a problem. In fact, there may be nothing intrinsically "wrong" about public nudity except that it violates long-held values -- though I am sure there are some who would argue that public nudity is "clearly, obviously" wrong, for a wide variety of reasons.
Perhaps the very best example of what I am trying to discuss is the placement of toilet paper on a bathroom roller. Some people do not care or notice whether the toilet paper comes over the top of the roll, or out from the bottom. For others, it is a major issue, and THEIR way is clearly "right". Some people acknowledge that their choice is simply from the way it was done at home as they were growing up, while others insist there is a logical reason why their way is preferable.
YOU may not see the position of toilet paper on the roller as an example of differing "values". If not, it is probably due to the fact that your definition of "values" is different than mine -- perhaps closer to the dictionary definition -- or that your values are different than mine.
Truth is complicated.
I cannot easily define "values", and I am certain that my internal definition does not match your internal definition, any more than my internal values match your internal values. Even if we agree that something like "friendliness" is a good thing, then there is the matter of defining "friendliness". I have a relative who I routinely accuse of gravitating toward "nosey busybodies" -- but I realize that the behavior that I define as being a "nosey busybody" could also be defined as being "friendly".
"Honesty" and "punctuality" suffer the same problems with variability in our definitions. We may embrace the value of honesty as a good thing, yet most of us place limits on our honesty, such as in situations in which we are trying to spare someone from hurt feelings (possibly because we sometimes place a higher priority on "kindness" than on "honesty"). The concept of "punctuality" varies widely between situations and cultures. In some situations and cultures, it is rude to be even a minute late, while in others it is rude to be a minute early.
At least in recent decades, Americans tend to frown on public nudity, and even pass laws against it. Other cultures do not necessarily view nudity as such a problem. In fact, there may be nothing intrinsically "wrong" about public nudity except that it violates long-held values -- though I am sure there are some who would argue that public nudity is "clearly, obviously" wrong, for a wide variety of reasons.
Perhaps the very best example of what I am trying to discuss is the placement of toilet paper on a bathroom roller. Some people do not care or notice whether the toilet paper comes over the top of the roll, or out from the bottom. For others, it is a major issue, and THEIR way is clearly "right". Some people acknowledge that their choice is simply from the way it was done at home as they were growing up, while others insist there is a logical reason why their way is preferable.
YOU may not see the position of toilet paper on the roller as an example of differing "values". If not, it is probably due to the fact that your definition of "values" is different than mine -- perhaps closer to the dictionary definition -- or that your values are different than mine.
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Definitions
A recurring theme in my writing is that words are not clear, due largely to the fact that each of us has our own continually-evolving definition of every word.
Once in college I faced a multiple-choice exam question about the precise definition of a particular scientific term. When the instructor marked my answer incorrect, I went to visit him carrying a textbook that defined the term exactly as I had defined it. He reached for a different textbook that defined the term as HE had defined it, though he admitted that he had never TAUGHT us that definition, or specified a textbook, so he reluctantly gave me full credit for my answer.
Even if we base our choice of words on precise dictionary definitions, someone armed with a different dictionary, or even a different edition of that same dictionary, can come up with a different meaning for our statements. If we use precisely the same definitions from the same dictionary, there is still the question of context and which part of the definition applies at that moment. The matter is further complicated by the fact that definitions are generally made up of even more words, each of which has its own definition.
Here is my very favorite definition, straight from my 1961 "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary" (Merriam-Webster):
"calender -- One of a Sufistic order of wandering mendicant dervishes."
The two things that make me love this definition so much are:
1) It takes a familiar-sounding word, calendar, changes one letter, and defines it in an unexpected way that has nothing to do with the passage of time or days or months of years (or even with pressing cloth, rubber, paper, etc. between rollers to make it smooth and glossy, which IS spelled "calender"), and
2) The definition itself contains words that most people will need to look up in the dictionary in order to understand.
If I start talking about a "calender", and I am talking about a wandering mendicant dervish, YOU probably can be forgiven for thinking I am talking about a document that breaks the year down into months and weeks and days. There may be some confusion, and possibly even some hard feelings, but probably we will eventually be able to clarify the misunderstanding.
The problem comes when the differences in our definitions of words are more subtle. When people listen to my mother tell stories of her youth, it is easy to describe her as a "flirt". She is appalled at being described with this word, which for her seems to include the idea of sexual promiscuity. For ME, being a "flirt" may LEAD to sexual promiscuity, but the word "flirt" does not intrinsically contain this implication (I would use a word more like "slut" if that was what I was trying to say).
The problem is amplified when people insist -- or believe without even thinking about it -- that THEIR definitions are correct and universal.
With some words, it is the very definition of the word that is controversial and causes problems, yet people refuse to acknowledge that the definition itself is controversial. Politically, we throw around "-ist" words like "racist" or "socialist" or "Zionist" without ever bothering to establish or acknowledge the subtleties and controversies surrounding the definitions.
I will often pause in a discussion to attempt to at least vaguely define my terms, but I realize I can never fully define anything, and there will always be room for misinterpretation, even if both you and I are both armed with the best dictionaries money can buy.
Truth is complicated.
Once in college I faced a multiple-choice exam question about the precise definition of a particular scientific term. When the instructor marked my answer incorrect, I went to visit him carrying a textbook that defined the term exactly as I had defined it. He reached for a different textbook that defined the term as HE had defined it, though he admitted that he had never TAUGHT us that definition, or specified a textbook, so he reluctantly gave me full credit for my answer.
Even if we base our choice of words on precise dictionary definitions, someone armed with a different dictionary, or even a different edition of that same dictionary, can come up with a different meaning for our statements. If we use precisely the same definitions from the same dictionary, there is still the question of context and which part of the definition applies at that moment. The matter is further complicated by the fact that definitions are generally made up of even more words, each of which has its own definition.
Here is my very favorite definition, straight from my 1961 "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary" (Merriam-Webster):
"calender -- One of a Sufistic order of wandering mendicant dervishes."
The two things that make me love this definition so much are:
1) It takes a familiar-sounding word, calendar, changes one letter, and defines it in an unexpected way that has nothing to do with the passage of time or days or months of years (or even with pressing cloth, rubber, paper, etc. between rollers to make it smooth and glossy, which IS spelled "calender"), and
2) The definition itself contains words that most people will need to look up in the dictionary in order to understand.
If I start talking about a "calender", and I am talking about a wandering mendicant dervish, YOU probably can be forgiven for thinking I am talking about a document that breaks the year down into months and weeks and days. There may be some confusion, and possibly even some hard feelings, but probably we will eventually be able to clarify the misunderstanding.
The problem comes when the differences in our definitions of words are more subtle. When people listen to my mother tell stories of her youth, it is easy to describe her as a "flirt". She is appalled at being described with this word, which for her seems to include the idea of sexual promiscuity. For ME, being a "flirt" may LEAD to sexual promiscuity, but the word "flirt" does not intrinsically contain this implication (I would use a word more like "slut" if that was what I was trying to say).
The problem is amplified when people insist -- or believe without even thinking about it -- that THEIR definitions are correct and universal.
With some words, it is the very definition of the word that is controversial and causes problems, yet people refuse to acknowledge that the definition itself is controversial. Politically, we throw around "-ist" words like "racist" or "socialist" or "Zionist" without ever bothering to establish or acknowledge the subtleties and controversies surrounding the definitions.
I will often pause in a discussion to attempt to at least vaguely define my terms, but I realize I can never fully define anything, and there will always be room for misinterpretation, even if both you and I are both armed with the best dictionaries money can buy.
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Stories
Stories, Memories, and Truth
It is widely believed that humans have told and re-told stories since long before there was writing, or books, or any sort of audio or video recording devices. My use here of the term "story" is intentionally vague. It is always difficult to know to what extent stories are based on truth, original fiction, or possibly earlier stories -- which may have been original fiction or based on truth. No matter how hard we try, even true stories are not totally accurate representations of past events, as they are told from a certain point of view, which can never be totally objective, and often evolve somewhat over time and to suit certain situations.
The latest research on human memory suggests that rather than accurate records of past events, our memories are constantly evolving, so that even the most vivid recollection may not be precisely accurate.
Under most circumstances, I sing the praises of truth. In some cases, though, truth is not particularly important or relevant. A story may illustrate an important concept, regardless of whether or not the story is true, just as a memory of an incident may serve as an important life lesson, whether or not the incident actually occurred as remembered. The problem comes only if one presents a fictional story or an erroneous memory as truth, especially if someone is deliberately misrepresenting the truth in order for their story to be more compelling or persuasive.
I try to be as honest as possible about the stories that I tell. Some of my favorite stories are probably pure fiction, while others seem to be based on real events or possibly-flawed memories of my own life. Now that we have access to not only spoken stories but also writing and audio and video recording devices, many of my favorite stories come from fictional television shows and movies (I believe that science fiction is the mythology of our time) -- so the story that I tell is based upon my possibly-flawed memory of something that was probably fiction, or at least fictionalized, to begin with. It can be argued that in this day and age a person should endeavor to accurately research the details of an episode of a 1960s TV series before making reference to it, but under the circumstances that seems to me to be both a waste of time AND irrelevant.
Stories and dubious memories -- of both real events and fictional accounts -- can be viewed as crossing over into the territory of hypothetical situations, where the parameters of reality are defined by the storytellers.
Truth is complicated, and sometimes irrelevant.
It is widely believed that humans have told and re-told stories since long before there was writing, or books, or any sort of audio or video recording devices. My use here of the term "story" is intentionally vague. It is always difficult to know to what extent stories are based on truth, original fiction, or possibly earlier stories -- which may have been original fiction or based on truth. No matter how hard we try, even true stories are not totally accurate representations of past events, as they are told from a certain point of view, which can never be totally objective, and often evolve somewhat over time and to suit certain situations.
The latest research on human memory suggests that rather than accurate records of past events, our memories are constantly evolving, so that even the most vivid recollection may not be precisely accurate.
Under most circumstances, I sing the praises of truth. In some cases, though, truth is not particularly important or relevant. A story may illustrate an important concept, regardless of whether or not the story is true, just as a memory of an incident may serve as an important life lesson, whether or not the incident actually occurred as remembered. The problem comes only if one presents a fictional story or an erroneous memory as truth, especially if someone is deliberately misrepresenting the truth in order for their story to be more compelling or persuasive.
I try to be as honest as possible about the stories that I tell. Some of my favorite stories are probably pure fiction, while others seem to be based on real events or possibly-flawed memories of my own life. Now that we have access to not only spoken stories but also writing and audio and video recording devices, many of my favorite stories come from fictional television shows and movies (I believe that science fiction is the mythology of our time) -- so the story that I tell is based upon my possibly-flawed memory of something that was probably fiction, or at least fictionalized, to begin with. It can be argued that in this day and age a person should endeavor to accurately research the details of an episode of a 1960s TV series before making reference to it, but under the circumstances that seems to me to be both a waste of time AND irrelevant.
Stories and dubious memories -- of both real events and fictional accounts -- can be viewed as crossing over into the territory of hypothetical situations, where the parameters of reality are defined by the storytellers.
Truth is complicated, and sometimes irrelevant.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Hypothetical
Hypothetical Situations
There are physical "tools", like a hammer or screwdriver, and there are more abstract tools, like mathematics. One of the most valuable "mental tools" for me has always been the "hypothetical situation." I am defining a "hypothetical situation" as a situation defined not by reality but by one or more persons, for the purpose of examining ideas. The KEY attribute of a hypothetical situation is that, unlike the "real" world, all the variables can be defined and controlled, or altered and re-defined at will, since the hypothetical situation exists only in the form of ideas.
It is important to note that while more than one person can participate in the creation and modification of a hypothetical situation, all must agree on the attributes of the given situation throughout the process in order for the tool to function effectively. For example, if I say, "Imagine a city where everyone can fly," and you say to yourself, "That's ridiculous -- in MY imagined city, no one can fly," then the process has broken down, and we are dealing with two DIFFERENT hypothetical situations -- which has some value, but not for mutually examining ideas together.
Actually, I find that hypothetical situations are becoming less and less useful, and one of the reasons is that many people fail to grasp the basic concept that ALL of the parameters of the situation are user-defined. If I say, "Imagine that you could instantly transport yourself between locations. How fast could you get to the grocery store?" many people will respond, "Well, it takes me about twenty minutes to drive to the grocery store," since they deem the entire hypothesis "unrealistic." One of the POINTS of a hypothetical situation is that it does not have to comply with currently-understood principles of reality; only the realities defined in the hypothetical situation.
In my opinion, though, the KEY reason that hypothetical situations are becoming less and less useful is that we are becoming so polarized and opinionated that we are afraid to examine abstract ideas, for fear we will come upon conclusions that contradict our ideas about the "real" world. For example, if I say, "Let's examine a hypothetical middle-eastern country," then many, if not most people are instantly suspicious of what ideas I am trying to promote. As I go on to define my hypothetical country, they try to decide what country I am "really" talking about -- maybe Iraq, maybe Iran, maybe Israel. Their ideas about these "real" countries, and their ideas about WHICH country I am "really" talking about dramatically color their thoughts about my "hypothetical" country, losing most of the benefits possible from using a "hypothetical" situation.
It's all very sad. We are either incapable or unwilling to examine ideas which might somehow reflect badly on the ideas that we already embrace. I'm not sure whether "incapable" or "unwilling" is the greater tragedy.
There are physical "tools", like a hammer or screwdriver, and there are more abstract tools, like mathematics. One of the most valuable "mental tools" for me has always been the "hypothetical situation." I am defining a "hypothetical situation" as a situation defined not by reality but by one or more persons, for the purpose of examining ideas. The KEY attribute of a hypothetical situation is that, unlike the "real" world, all the variables can be defined and controlled, or altered and re-defined at will, since the hypothetical situation exists only in the form of ideas.
It is important to note that while more than one person can participate in the creation and modification of a hypothetical situation, all must agree on the attributes of the given situation throughout the process in order for the tool to function effectively. For example, if I say, "Imagine a city where everyone can fly," and you say to yourself, "That's ridiculous -- in MY imagined city, no one can fly," then the process has broken down, and we are dealing with two DIFFERENT hypothetical situations -- which has some value, but not for mutually examining ideas together.
Actually, I find that hypothetical situations are becoming less and less useful, and one of the reasons is that many people fail to grasp the basic concept that ALL of the parameters of the situation are user-defined. If I say, "Imagine that you could instantly transport yourself between locations. How fast could you get to the grocery store?" many people will respond, "Well, it takes me about twenty minutes to drive to the grocery store," since they deem the entire hypothesis "unrealistic." One of the POINTS of a hypothetical situation is that it does not have to comply with currently-understood principles of reality; only the realities defined in the hypothetical situation.
In my opinion, though, the KEY reason that hypothetical situations are becoming less and less useful is that we are becoming so polarized and opinionated that we are afraid to examine abstract ideas, for fear we will come upon conclusions that contradict our ideas about the "real" world. For example, if I say, "Let's examine a hypothetical middle-eastern country," then many, if not most people are instantly suspicious of what ideas I am trying to promote. As I go on to define my hypothetical country, they try to decide what country I am "really" talking about -- maybe Iraq, maybe Iran, maybe Israel. Their ideas about these "real" countries, and their ideas about WHICH country I am "really" talking about dramatically color their thoughts about my "hypothetical" country, losing most of the benefits possible from using a "hypothetical" situation.
It's all very sad. We are either incapable or unwilling to examine ideas which might somehow reflect badly on the ideas that we already embrace. I'm not sure whether "incapable" or "unwilling" is the greater tragedy.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Questions
Questions are complicated things. I believe that questions are generally under-rated, at least in our society, where we tend to focus on answers rather than questions, and on solutions rather than problems. The key to advancing knowledge is generally finding and asking the right questions, rather than coming up with the right answers. At the same time, anyone wanting to manipulate information can achieve the most success by manipulating the questions rather than the answers.
People often use questions as a rhetorical device, suggesting an answer from within the question rather than actually seeking an answer. Raising a question can be viewed as making a statement, especially when the question is related to an emotional issue. Personally, I often find myself having to clarify that, "I do not know the answer, and I am not suggesting an answer. I am truly asking a question!"
Unfortunately, in our polarized, opinionated society, it is commonplace that the questions themselves take on a power of their own. Questions become accusations, and accusations imply guilt. While we officially embrace the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty", anyone whose name is linked with something is to a certain extent forever tainted, even if it is eventually revealed that they had nothing to do with it.
As a consequence, we become afraid to raise the questions, or questions that might be worthy of at least cursory consideration get quickly pushed aside in an attempt to minimize their impact. This hinders communication, and limits the advancement of knowledge and understanding.
I do not have an solution to this. I am merely pointing out a problem.
People often use questions as a rhetorical device, suggesting an answer from within the question rather than actually seeking an answer. Raising a question can be viewed as making a statement, especially when the question is related to an emotional issue. Personally, I often find myself having to clarify that, "I do not know the answer, and I am not suggesting an answer. I am truly asking a question!"
Unfortunately, in our polarized, opinionated society, it is commonplace that the questions themselves take on a power of their own. Questions become accusations, and accusations imply guilt. While we officially embrace the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty", anyone whose name is linked with something is to a certain extent forever tainted, even if it is eventually revealed that they had nothing to do with it.
As a consequence, we become afraid to raise the questions, or questions that might be worthy of at least cursory consideration get quickly pushed aside in an attempt to minimize their impact. This hinders communication, and limits the advancement of knowledge and understanding.
I do not have an solution to this. I am merely pointing out a problem.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Problems
The latest research indicates our memories are not particularly reliable. Instead of accurate snapshots of our past, they evolve over time. Still, there are memories that take on importance as a sort of reference point for an idea, whether or not the memories accurately depict the past. This is all an introduction to the fact that I have vague memories of a specific episode of the 1960s TV series "Combat!" which may not be particularly accurate, but have remained to illustrate an important principle in my life.
The series dealt with a squad of American soldiers in Europe during World War II. As I remember it, one episode dealt with German snipers hiding unseen in trees, killing members of the squad as they passed. One American soldier, new to the squad, became increasingly agitated as the story progressed. He finally confessed that, although the snipers were camouflaged and hidden in the trees, he could clearly identify them, but for some reason (I believe it was religious) he could not bring himself to cause them harm, so watched powerlessly as other members of the squad were killed by the unseen snipers (which HE could clearly see). Eventually he was convinced to go into the forest with someone else, who could not see the snipers, and the soldier who COULD see the snipers would tell the other guy where they were, and that other guy would shoot them, and then there were no more snipers and the episode ended.
Whether or not my memories of this episode are accurate, it has always illustrated to me the idea that certain people have certain talents, and sometimes things that are easy or obvious for them are difficult or impossible or hidden from others. Perhaps we all have rare talents. It is well-documented that certain people have incredible math skills, able to almost instantly perform complex calculations that are difficult for others. Others can quickly solve any Rubik's cube. I am fair at math, but slow, and struggle with Rubik's cubes.
One talent that I seem to possess has always reminded me of the "Combat!" episode with the snipers hidden in trees. I can spot PROBLEMS. This does not seem like much of a talent, and certainly not unique. What makes it a talent is that often problems that are obvious to me seem difficult for others to see. For some, this is a dubious "gift" since I have no special abilities when it comes to finding SOLUTIONS. Like having the "gift of tongues" without the "gift of interpretation of tongues", or inventing a sound recording device without inventing a sound playback device. Still, often correctly identifying the problem is the key step in the process of solving it.
If nothing else, my own self-perception of having the gift of clearly seeing problems may provide some personal justification for writing this blog. Perhaps I can spot a problem that someone else has been having trouble seeing clearly, or at least provide some small insight that assists someone in utilizing their own talents more fully.
The series dealt with a squad of American soldiers in Europe during World War II. As I remember it, one episode dealt with German snipers hiding unseen in trees, killing members of the squad as they passed. One American soldier, new to the squad, became increasingly agitated as the story progressed. He finally confessed that, although the snipers were camouflaged and hidden in the trees, he could clearly identify them, but for some reason (I believe it was religious) he could not bring himself to cause them harm, so watched powerlessly as other members of the squad were killed by the unseen snipers (which HE could clearly see). Eventually he was convinced to go into the forest with someone else, who could not see the snipers, and the soldier who COULD see the snipers would tell the other guy where they were, and that other guy would shoot them, and then there were no more snipers and the episode ended.
Whether or not my memories of this episode are accurate, it has always illustrated to me the idea that certain people have certain talents, and sometimes things that are easy or obvious for them are difficult or impossible or hidden from others. Perhaps we all have rare talents. It is well-documented that certain people have incredible math skills, able to almost instantly perform complex calculations that are difficult for others. Others can quickly solve any Rubik's cube. I am fair at math, but slow, and struggle with Rubik's cubes.
One talent that I seem to possess has always reminded me of the "Combat!" episode with the snipers hidden in trees. I can spot PROBLEMS. This does not seem like much of a talent, and certainly not unique. What makes it a talent is that often problems that are obvious to me seem difficult for others to see. For some, this is a dubious "gift" since I have no special abilities when it comes to finding SOLUTIONS. Like having the "gift of tongues" without the "gift of interpretation of tongues", or inventing a sound recording device without inventing a sound playback device. Still, often correctly identifying the problem is the key step in the process of solving it.
If nothing else, my own self-perception of having the gift of clearly seeing problems may provide some personal justification for writing this blog. Perhaps I can spot a problem that someone else has been having trouble seeing clearly, or at least provide some small insight that assists someone in utilizing their own talents more fully.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
"I think"
In high school, and possibly at other points in my formal schooling, I had a running argument with more than one instructor over my use of phrases such as "in my opinion" and "I believe" and especially "I think". It's always dangerous and extremely inaccurate to try to state the positions of those with whom you disagree, but I believe their objections were based upon the ideas that these phrases "weakened" your writing, and were unnecessary since anything YOU wrote was clearly YOUR opinion or YOUR belief or what YOU thought.
My opposition was based on the idea that sometimes a person writes their own opinions, beliefs, and thoughts, while other times they state facts -- and it is important to distinguish between the two, and it is important to acknowledge that each of us knows the difference. (I freely acknowledge that since we can be certain of NOTHING, including our own existence, the very idea that there ARE facts is open for debate. Still, I find "facts" to be a useful concept, given that we seem to exist among facts in a factual world -- whether or not we actually DO.)
Neither my instructors nor I ever backed down -- one of them wrote something like "I THINK you were a good student" in my high school yearbook -- and now that my writing is not regularly critiqued by them, I rarely have to face the issue directly. I believe, though, that the issue is becoming more important, as increasing numbers of people appear to be losing sight of the line between opinion and fact.
This is manifested in a number of ways. For one thing, we have a certain denial of facts. Many people take the position that if I believe one thing, and you believe something completely different, then we are both entitled to our beliefs, and they are both equally correct, including with regard to situations where these beliefs involve basic, provable facts, like whether the earth is flat or round.
Our society seems to be moving toward the belief that "facts" are determined by opinion polls and majority votes. If 52% of people BELIEVE something to be true, then it is true. This logic is actually ONLY correct in terms of speaking about what the majority believes to be true, and nothing else. For example, if 52% of Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln was our best President, then we can accurately state that the majority of Americans believe Abraham Lincoln was our best President. The fact that the majority BELIEVES he was the best President does not mean that he WAS the best President (actually determining the "best" President is impossible, since it will always involve personal opinion).
I suspect that some of the blame for this blurring of the line between opinion and fact falls on the increasing availability of information. Since we now have relatively easy access to great amounts of information about most topics, we are emboldened to consider our opinions to be just as valid as any other person's opinions. Millions of Americans feel free to pronounce an accused criminal "guilty" or "innocent" prior to any sort of trial. We become more and more politically polarized, as both sides are CERTAIN that THEIR side is correct -- and they use the outcome of polls and votes as "proof" that THEIR side is "right".
Perhaps this blurring of the line between opinion and fact is also the predictable outcome of people being taught since grammar school NOT to label their own pure opinions as opinions, but to state them as facts.
My opposition was based on the idea that sometimes a person writes their own opinions, beliefs, and thoughts, while other times they state facts -- and it is important to distinguish between the two, and it is important to acknowledge that each of us knows the difference. (I freely acknowledge that since we can be certain of NOTHING, including our own existence, the very idea that there ARE facts is open for debate. Still, I find "facts" to be a useful concept, given that we seem to exist among facts in a factual world -- whether or not we actually DO.)
Neither my instructors nor I ever backed down -- one of them wrote something like "I THINK you were a good student" in my high school yearbook -- and now that my writing is not regularly critiqued by them, I rarely have to face the issue directly. I believe, though, that the issue is becoming more important, as increasing numbers of people appear to be losing sight of the line between opinion and fact.
This is manifested in a number of ways. For one thing, we have a certain denial of facts. Many people take the position that if I believe one thing, and you believe something completely different, then we are both entitled to our beliefs, and they are both equally correct, including with regard to situations where these beliefs involve basic, provable facts, like whether the earth is flat or round.
Our society seems to be moving toward the belief that "facts" are determined by opinion polls and majority votes. If 52% of people BELIEVE something to be true, then it is true. This logic is actually ONLY correct in terms of speaking about what the majority believes to be true, and nothing else. For example, if 52% of Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln was our best President, then we can accurately state that the majority of Americans believe Abraham Lincoln was our best President. The fact that the majority BELIEVES he was the best President does not mean that he WAS the best President (actually determining the "best" President is impossible, since it will always involve personal opinion).
I suspect that some of the blame for this blurring of the line between opinion and fact falls on the increasing availability of information. Since we now have relatively easy access to great amounts of information about most topics, we are emboldened to consider our opinions to be just as valid as any other person's opinions. Millions of Americans feel free to pronounce an accused criminal "guilty" or "innocent" prior to any sort of trial. We become more and more politically polarized, as both sides are CERTAIN that THEIR side is correct -- and they use the outcome of polls and votes as "proof" that THEIR side is "right".
Perhaps this blurring of the line between opinion and fact is also the predictable outcome of people being taught since grammar school NOT to label their own pure opinions as opinions, but to state them as facts.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Arrogance
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "arrogance" as "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions". In their online thesaurus, they call it "an exaggerated sense of one's importance that shows itself in the making of excessive or unjustified claims" and give two antonyms, "humility" and "modesty".
Modern Americans have a complicated relationship with the concept of arrogance. At most times, in most circles, to call someone "arrogant" is considered a criticism, while to call them "humble" or "modest" is considered praise. Yet we also praise "self-confidence" -- which I consider to be a close cousin of arrogance -- and embrace phrases such as "Fortune favors the bold" (credited to the Roman epic poet, Virgil). When compared with citizens of other countries, Americans are sometimes described as "arrogant", which we deny while insisting that this is "the greatest country in the world".
In examining the Merriam-Webster statements on arrogance, I suppose it is a matter of degree, including the "overbearing manner" and "the making of excessive or unjustified claims". If someone is the best at something, and knows they are the best, and claims to be the best, then I suppose this is not "excessive or unjustified", though there is still the issue of the "overbearing manner", which may be largely in the eye of the beholder. Certainly many of our world leaders and celebrities may be viewed as arrogant, but perhaps it all comes down to where you draw the line between arrogance and confidence. OR perhaps we claim to embrace the idea that arrogance is "bad", while actually being drawn to it.
I have been thinking about the idea of arrogance as it relates to having a personal blog. I already have several web sites, with the basic goal of sharing specific information with the rest of the world, including information about musical groups and information about family history (which is targeted mostly at members of my extended family, rather than the entire world). These web sites do not seem particularly "arrogant" to me; people might want access to the information, and the web sites provide it. A blog sharing my personal musings about ideas, rather than specific information, moves toward more questionable territory. The idea that I somehow believe the entire World Wide Web community should have access to these musings, or more specifically that ANYONE should spend their time viewing these musings, is troublesome. I tell myself that the blog is an outlet for ME, and no one is under any obligation to visit it, and I do not particularly make any claims about its value ... yet it still feels intrinsically arrogant.
This remains troubling a month into this blog. I will attempt to deal with it more in a future entry that I plan to call "Problems".
Modern Americans have a complicated relationship with the concept of arrogance. At most times, in most circles, to call someone "arrogant" is considered a criticism, while to call them "humble" or "modest" is considered praise. Yet we also praise "self-confidence" -- which I consider to be a close cousin of arrogance -- and embrace phrases such as "Fortune favors the bold" (credited to the Roman epic poet, Virgil). When compared with citizens of other countries, Americans are sometimes described as "arrogant", which we deny while insisting that this is "the greatest country in the world".
In examining the Merriam-Webster statements on arrogance, I suppose it is a matter of degree, including the "overbearing manner" and "the making of excessive or unjustified claims". If someone is the best at something, and knows they are the best, and claims to be the best, then I suppose this is not "excessive or unjustified", though there is still the issue of the "overbearing manner", which may be largely in the eye of the beholder. Certainly many of our world leaders and celebrities may be viewed as arrogant, but perhaps it all comes down to where you draw the line between arrogance and confidence. OR perhaps we claim to embrace the idea that arrogance is "bad", while actually being drawn to it.
I have been thinking about the idea of arrogance as it relates to having a personal blog. I already have several web sites, with the basic goal of sharing specific information with the rest of the world, including information about musical groups and information about family history (which is targeted mostly at members of my extended family, rather than the entire world). These web sites do not seem particularly "arrogant" to me; people might want access to the information, and the web sites provide it. A blog sharing my personal musings about ideas, rather than specific information, moves toward more questionable territory. The idea that I somehow believe the entire World Wide Web community should have access to these musings, or more specifically that ANYONE should spend their time viewing these musings, is troublesome. I tell myself that the blog is an outlet for ME, and no one is under any obligation to visit it, and I do not particularly make any claims about its value ... yet it still feels intrinsically arrogant.
This remains troubling a month into this blog. I will attempt to deal with it more in a future entry that I plan to call "Problems".
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Letters to the Editor
I enjoy reading "Letters to the Editor" in our local newspaper. I enjoy the letters for various reasons. I am interested in peoples' opinions. Sometimes I am amazed that ANYONE is concerned enough about THAT topic to write a "Letter to the Editor".
Often the letters deal with familiar controversies. Sometimes I consider them to be the most eloquent writing I have encountered regarding a particular issue, while others are barely coherent. Occasionally, there will be a letter-writer who obviously feels very strongly about the issue, but after reading and re-reading their letter, I cannot discern which side they are vehemently supporting. Some letters seem to me to be making a careful, logical, iron-clad case for one side of an issue, but then reach the opposite conclusion from what I had expected.
This brings up the troubling fact that people with opposing views may appear to use precisely the same facts and same logic and same arguments to come to opposite conclusions, while being incredulous that anyone could possibly hold the opposing belief.
This further leads to the idea that in our opinionated, polarized society, many people judge ideas at least partly based on the apparent source of the idea. An idea expressed by someone from "our side" makes good sense, while the identical idea put forth by someone from "their side" is preposterous. I hasten to admit that there is a certain logic to this. An idea expressed by someone with whom we tend to agree will logically be initially viewed in a more favorable light than an idea expressed by someone with whom we tend to disagree. This is one of the shortcuts we use to manage life. Since we cannot know everything, or be experts on everything, we build up a circle of those whom we trust, and accept their ideas less critically than we accept ideas from those outside our circle of trust.
When reading "Letters to the Editor", it is difficult to not glance first at the name of the letter-writer, and often these names are familiar, and often you can guess which side they will support, and, indeed, whether their letter will be worth reading. I suppose that in a perfect world, I would read every letter, no matter what, and never know the names or views of the writers until I finished their letter. Life is too short for that.
In a perfect world, it would be enlightening to realize that those with whom we disagree sometimes make excellent, valid points, and that sometimes information that seems to point to an inescapable conclusion points just as easily to an opposing conclusion. Sadly, this is not a perfect world.
This especially applies to the world of blogging. Unless a blogger takes steps to mask their opinions, eventually anyone reading the blog will come to a realization of whether the blogger is on "their side" or "the other side" and at that point, true communication becomes much more difficult. It might be enlightening for both you and me if you could read each entry in this blog, and especially on controversial subjects, without pre-existing knowledge of my opinions or point of view, but that cannot last for long.
At the same time, one of the whole POINTS of communication, and one of the points of READING a blog, is to try and figure out "where a person is coming from" and what they are trying to say, gradually increasing your understanding of their ideas. To read or hear every word from a fresh perspective would be enlightening, but probably also counterproductive.
This gets even more complicated when you include the idea that life is short, and no one has time to read every letter to the editor or every blog entry -- though there may be something to be learned from even bad ideas. In the end, I guess all I can suggest is that if you do decide to take YOUR valuable time to listen to someone or read a letter to the editor or read this blog, you should try to understand what they are actually trying to communicate, rather than what you expect or believe they are trying to communicate.
Truth is complicated.
Often the letters deal with familiar controversies. Sometimes I consider them to be the most eloquent writing I have encountered regarding a particular issue, while others are barely coherent. Occasionally, there will be a letter-writer who obviously feels very strongly about the issue, but after reading and re-reading their letter, I cannot discern which side they are vehemently supporting. Some letters seem to me to be making a careful, logical, iron-clad case for one side of an issue, but then reach the opposite conclusion from what I had expected.
This brings up the troubling fact that people with opposing views may appear to use precisely the same facts and same logic and same arguments to come to opposite conclusions, while being incredulous that anyone could possibly hold the opposing belief.
This further leads to the idea that in our opinionated, polarized society, many people judge ideas at least partly based on the apparent source of the idea. An idea expressed by someone from "our side" makes good sense, while the identical idea put forth by someone from "their side" is preposterous. I hasten to admit that there is a certain logic to this. An idea expressed by someone with whom we tend to agree will logically be initially viewed in a more favorable light than an idea expressed by someone with whom we tend to disagree. This is one of the shortcuts we use to manage life. Since we cannot know everything, or be experts on everything, we build up a circle of those whom we trust, and accept their ideas less critically than we accept ideas from those outside our circle of trust.
When reading "Letters to the Editor", it is difficult to not glance first at the name of the letter-writer, and often these names are familiar, and often you can guess which side they will support, and, indeed, whether their letter will be worth reading. I suppose that in a perfect world, I would read every letter, no matter what, and never know the names or views of the writers until I finished their letter. Life is too short for that.
In a perfect world, it would be enlightening to realize that those with whom we disagree sometimes make excellent, valid points, and that sometimes information that seems to point to an inescapable conclusion points just as easily to an opposing conclusion. Sadly, this is not a perfect world.
This especially applies to the world of blogging. Unless a blogger takes steps to mask their opinions, eventually anyone reading the blog will come to a realization of whether the blogger is on "their side" or "the other side" and at that point, true communication becomes much more difficult. It might be enlightening for both you and me if you could read each entry in this blog, and especially on controversial subjects, without pre-existing knowledge of my opinions or point of view, but that cannot last for long.
At the same time, one of the whole POINTS of communication, and one of the points of READING a blog, is to try and figure out "where a person is coming from" and what they are trying to say, gradually increasing your understanding of their ideas. To read or hear every word from a fresh perspective would be enlightening, but probably also counterproductive.
This gets even more complicated when you include the idea that life is short, and no one has time to read every letter to the editor or every blog entry -- though there may be something to be learned from even bad ideas. In the end, I guess all I can suggest is that if you do decide to take YOUR valuable time to listen to someone or read a letter to the editor or read this blog, you should try to understand what they are actually trying to communicate, rather than what you expect or believe they are trying to communicate.
Truth is complicated.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Complicated
On the fictional TV series, "Chicago Hope," one of the main characters was killed, but returned a few episodes later to visit a good friend. The friend, knowing he was dead, found this visit to be somewhat troubling, and peppered him with questions about the nature of life and death, the afterlife, the universe, and other great mysteries. To most of his questions, the dead friend would answer, "It's complicated." Predictably, the still-living friend found this answer to be unsatisfying. (Note: I was not a huge fan of "Chicago Hope," and perhaps my memory of this episode is somewhat vague ... but it was, after all, a fictional TV show.)
Often, the most honest answer to a question is, "It's complicated." Yet we are trained, or perhaps born, to dislike and distrust this answer. We demand "straight answers," and accuse people of "being evasive" if they attempt to offer the truth rather than give a brief, but inaccurate, reply. Like it or not, we live complicated lives in a complicated world, or at least SOME of us live complicated lives. Perhaps a key problem is our tendency to impose our own standards on other people. Things that may seem straightforward in our lives my be complicated in another person's life.
The entire universe is complicated. Many things are simultaneously complicated and simple, which, in the end, is perhaps the ultimate complication. This is not necessarily what people want to hear. People have a tendency to want to know right and wrong, true and false. "Just the facts." In a conflict, we want to know which side is right and which side is wrong. We want to know why things happened the way they did, and we want a brief, simple explanation of why things happened the way they did. Sometimes, a brief, simple explanation is accurate enough, but other times there is no way to be both accurate and brief. It's complicated.
To say something is complicated is not to say that there is no explanation, or that there are no answers, or that there is no truth. It means merely that the explanation or answers or truth may be difficult (or even impossible) to discern, state, or fathom. Comprehension might take a few minutes effort, or more than a single lifetime. For someone expecting or demanding a "Yes" or "No", even an explanation lasting a full minute might be more than they are willing to try to understand.
One of the problems with living in "the information age" is that with easy access to so much information, it is easy to consider yourself an "expert" on many complicated topics. Often only the true experts realize just how little they know about the topic, or just how complicated it truly is.
So how do we function in a complicated world where we will never know all the answers? Appropriately, the answer is complicated. As humans, we can probably never fully understand anything. To function, and to keep our sanity, we rely on generalizations, simplifications, and assumptions. We also intuitively realize that total understanding is unnecessary. For example, we need not understand gravity in order to enjoy its effects, or carry on our daily lives.
Still, we should remember that the underlying truth behind the simplifications is often complicated. When we seek to label things such as emotions or relationships, for instance, the truth is almost always complicated, and words such as "love" or "lover" are simply the tip of complicated icebergs. While we have a need to try and view the world in simple terms we can cope with, these simple terms may give only vague approximations of truth.
A key point to remember is that different things are complicated for different people, and when someone tells you something is complicated, you probably are in no position to insist that it is simple. Basic questions like, "What do you do for a living?" or "How many pets do you have?" may seem straightforward enough, but for some people the only honest answer is "It's complicated." And if you disagree with me on this, I have an obvious response:
It's complicated.
Often, the most honest answer to a question is, "It's complicated." Yet we are trained, or perhaps born, to dislike and distrust this answer. We demand "straight answers," and accuse people of "being evasive" if they attempt to offer the truth rather than give a brief, but inaccurate, reply. Like it or not, we live complicated lives in a complicated world, or at least SOME of us live complicated lives. Perhaps a key problem is our tendency to impose our own standards on other people. Things that may seem straightforward in our lives my be complicated in another person's life.
The entire universe is complicated. Many things are simultaneously complicated and simple, which, in the end, is perhaps the ultimate complication. This is not necessarily what people want to hear. People have a tendency to want to know right and wrong, true and false. "Just the facts." In a conflict, we want to know which side is right and which side is wrong. We want to know why things happened the way they did, and we want a brief, simple explanation of why things happened the way they did. Sometimes, a brief, simple explanation is accurate enough, but other times there is no way to be both accurate and brief. It's complicated.
To say something is complicated is not to say that there is no explanation, or that there are no answers, or that there is no truth. It means merely that the explanation or answers or truth may be difficult (or even impossible) to discern, state, or fathom. Comprehension might take a few minutes effort, or more than a single lifetime. For someone expecting or demanding a "Yes" or "No", even an explanation lasting a full minute might be more than they are willing to try to understand.
One of the problems with living in "the information age" is that with easy access to so much information, it is easy to consider yourself an "expert" on many complicated topics. Often only the true experts realize just how little they know about the topic, or just how complicated it truly is.
So how do we function in a complicated world where we will never know all the answers? Appropriately, the answer is complicated. As humans, we can probably never fully understand anything. To function, and to keep our sanity, we rely on generalizations, simplifications, and assumptions. We also intuitively realize that total understanding is unnecessary. For example, we need not understand gravity in order to enjoy its effects, or carry on our daily lives.
Still, we should remember that the underlying truth behind the simplifications is often complicated. When we seek to label things such as emotions or relationships, for instance, the truth is almost always complicated, and words such as "love" or "lover" are simply the tip of complicated icebergs. While we have a need to try and view the world in simple terms we can cope with, these simple terms may give only vague approximations of truth.
A key point to remember is that different things are complicated for different people, and when someone tells you something is complicated, you probably are in no position to insist that it is simple. Basic questions like, "What do you do for a living?" or "How many pets do you have?" may seem straightforward enough, but for some people the only honest answer is "It's complicated." And if you disagree with me on this, I have an obvious response:
It's complicated.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Roscoe
I have been doing this blog for three weeks now, and I may be reaching the point where the preliminary disclaimers and legal statements are out of the way, and I can get down to actually "blogging" -- whatever THAT turns out to be. Perhaps I am looking at this the wrong way, but I see it as laying a foundation -- not necessarily much fun, but important for everything that will follow.
During those three weeks, the world continued to turn, there were some interesting political developments, local instrumental music groups began their "school-year" season, and Roscoe the cat slipped off somewhere to die. (WARNING: If you would prefer not to read details of a cat's final illness, stop here.)
I have many animal friends, and I am becoming too familiar with animal deaths. Roscoe showed up last fall, full grown, and was friendly and lovable, though he had an unfortunate tendency to "spray" inside. I thought perhaps having him "fixed" would help, but it turned out he had already been fixed in his life before he arrived here. Still, he was a very good cat.
The most notable thing about Roscoe's death was that it took so long. Roscoe had been diagnosed with terminal, inoperable, untreatable, "wildly malignant" cancer at the end of May/beginning of June, with a projected life expectancy of less than one month. The cancer was under his tongue, so it would interfere with his eating, and he drooled a lot and smelled bad -- I took him to the vet for what I assumed was an infected tooth, and that's when the cancer was discovered. The vet prescribed pain medication to be given every other day, and Roscoe took it without complaining much, and never seemed to acknowledge any pain. He would sometimes bleed, and sometimes quite a lot. Occasionally, he would look like a child who had stuck his face into a bowl of ketchup.
His appetite declined over time, or perhaps the pain and difficulty of eating with the cancer under his tongue made it not worth the effort. I am not getting any compensation for stating that he developed a special fondness for Friskies "Mixed Grill" flavor, though towards the end he would mostly sniff at it and walk away. He enjoyed ripping into unopened bags of both dry cat food and dry dog food, and he would eat some of what he tore into. He liked to eat fish and drink milk, though sometimes the milk would get pretty bloody.
I suppose I should mention that he lost a lot of fur and looked awful, and we advised the neighbors of his situation, lest they become alarmed at the site of this smelly, bloody, fur-losing cat. I am happy to point out that even in this condition, children loved him, though their parents might cringe when they cuddled him. I should also mention that his life perhaps could have been prolonged with tube feedings, if that had seemed like a good idea.
Perhaps later in this blog I will discuss animal euthanasia. For now, I will just say that Roscoe continued to live life on his own terms and to the fullest for months after he was expected to be dead. Most nights, he would sleep inside, but for the last few days he preferred staying outside. By the evening of September 17, he was thin and weak, and I spent a long time petting him after he had some milk, and then he got up and took off in an unusual direction. I have not seen him again.
During those three weeks, the world continued to turn, there were some interesting political developments, local instrumental music groups began their "school-year" season, and Roscoe the cat slipped off somewhere to die. (WARNING: If you would prefer not to read details of a cat's final illness, stop here.)
I have many animal friends, and I am becoming too familiar with animal deaths. Roscoe showed up last fall, full grown, and was friendly and lovable, though he had an unfortunate tendency to "spray" inside. I thought perhaps having him "fixed" would help, but it turned out he had already been fixed in his life before he arrived here. Still, he was a very good cat.
The most notable thing about Roscoe's death was that it took so long. Roscoe had been diagnosed with terminal, inoperable, untreatable, "wildly malignant" cancer at the end of May/beginning of June, with a projected life expectancy of less than one month. The cancer was under his tongue, so it would interfere with his eating, and he drooled a lot and smelled bad -- I took him to the vet for what I assumed was an infected tooth, and that's when the cancer was discovered. The vet prescribed pain medication to be given every other day, and Roscoe took it without complaining much, and never seemed to acknowledge any pain. He would sometimes bleed, and sometimes quite a lot. Occasionally, he would look like a child who had stuck his face into a bowl of ketchup.
His appetite declined over time, or perhaps the pain and difficulty of eating with the cancer under his tongue made it not worth the effort. I am not getting any compensation for stating that he developed a special fondness for Friskies "Mixed Grill" flavor, though towards the end he would mostly sniff at it and walk away. He enjoyed ripping into unopened bags of both dry cat food and dry dog food, and he would eat some of what he tore into. He liked to eat fish and drink milk, though sometimes the milk would get pretty bloody.
I suppose I should mention that he lost a lot of fur and looked awful, and we advised the neighbors of his situation, lest they become alarmed at the site of this smelly, bloody, fur-losing cat. I am happy to point out that even in this condition, children loved him, though their parents might cringe when they cuddled him. I should also mention that his life perhaps could have been prolonged with tube feedings, if that had seemed like a good idea.
Perhaps later in this blog I will discuss animal euthanasia. For now, I will just say that Roscoe continued to live life on his own terms and to the fullest for months after he was expected to be dead. Most nights, he would sleep inside, but for the last few days he preferred staying outside. By the evening of September 17, he was thin and weak, and I spent a long time petting him after he had some milk, and then he got up and took off in an unusual direction. I have not seen him again.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Policies
I have been doing some reading recently regarding blogs, bloggers, and "Codes of Conduct." There seems to be some concern in some circles that blogs may incite or encourage violence and a general lack of civility. At the same time, there is not necessarily any effective way to regulate this, AND you don't want to stifle freedom and creativity.
As I learn more about blogs and blogging, I have been surprised to realize there are quite a few legal as well as ethical and moral issues related to blogs. I am doing my best to deal with the legal issues in what seems to be "standard, accepted" fashion, with a legal notice posted separately from my blog "policies". I will strive to maintain a legal blog.
Though many of the legal issues related to blogs are still being sorted out, copyright infringement is a major problem. Since YOU own any comments that you place on MY blog (unless you have posted another person's already-copyrighted material), you have the legal right to ask me to delete anything that you have posted. Therefore, I have to have some way to identify you, so I will know it is YOU if you ask me to remove something, SO I will have to have some sort of contact information. Since I am new to all of this, I cannot predict exactly how the system will actually work.
As far as general rules and conduct goes, I will probably strive to keep this blog "G"-rated. I personally am not much of a fan of profanity -- I can see where it may have its place, but it tends to get over-used and therefore loses impact.
I have no problem with disagreement and civilized debate. In fact, I encourage it. I believe the world would be better off with more honest and open debate -- but it needs to be an attempt at true communication, and not just blind name-calling. I also encourage people to stay "on topic" -- one of the things that gets in the way of communication is countering a statement with an argument that is completely off topic. (On the Internet, there are also the annoying off-topic references to things like dating web sites and weight-loss products, which I will attempt to keep off this blog.)
I am a big fan of honesty, but there is often no way to determine whether a person is being honest. I am also a fan of privacy and anonymity. The bottom line is that I always encourage everyone to keep their private matters private, but try not to lie. For example, if you don't want to say where you are from, fine, but don't say you are from Colorado if you are from Indiana. There is no way to regulate this, so all I can say is that I hope you do not lie, and that I do not plan on telling any lies. I also encourage you not to violate the privacy of anyone else, including me. If you try to post personal information about someone other than yourself, I will do my best to censor it. This includes just about ANY information about ME, in case you are someone who knows me or knows information about me.
My "Privacy Policy" should be obvious. I will never sell or otherwise distribute your e-mail address, nor will I send you any mass e-mails of any kind, but depending on how everything works out, I will probably contact you before I post anything from you, just to make sure the e-mail address is valid. I do not believe ANYONE should be allowed to sell or distribute your e-mail address without your specific consent. However, as stated in the "legal" section, in cases of alleged or suspected illegal content in any comments you post, I will reluctantly share contact information with any requesting authorities.
This is all uncharted territory for me, and will probably evolve.
As I learn more about blogs and blogging, I have been surprised to realize there are quite a few legal as well as ethical and moral issues related to blogs. I am doing my best to deal with the legal issues in what seems to be "standard, accepted" fashion, with a legal notice posted separately from my blog "policies". I will strive to maintain a legal blog.
Though many of the legal issues related to blogs are still being sorted out, copyright infringement is a major problem. Since YOU own any comments that you place on MY blog (unless you have posted another person's already-copyrighted material), you have the legal right to ask me to delete anything that you have posted. Therefore, I have to have some way to identify you, so I will know it is YOU if you ask me to remove something, SO I will have to have some sort of contact information. Since I am new to all of this, I cannot predict exactly how the system will actually work.
As far as general rules and conduct goes, I will probably strive to keep this blog "G"-rated. I personally am not much of a fan of profanity -- I can see where it may have its place, but it tends to get over-used and therefore loses impact.
I have no problem with disagreement and civilized debate. In fact, I encourage it. I believe the world would be better off with more honest and open debate -- but it needs to be an attempt at true communication, and not just blind name-calling. I also encourage people to stay "on topic" -- one of the things that gets in the way of communication is countering a statement with an argument that is completely off topic. (On the Internet, there are also the annoying off-topic references to things like dating web sites and weight-loss products, which I will attempt to keep off this blog.)
I am a big fan of honesty, but there is often no way to determine whether a person is being honest. I am also a fan of privacy and anonymity. The bottom line is that I always encourage everyone to keep their private matters private, but try not to lie. For example, if you don't want to say where you are from, fine, but don't say you are from Colorado if you are from Indiana. There is no way to regulate this, so all I can say is that I hope you do not lie, and that I do not plan on telling any lies. I also encourage you not to violate the privacy of anyone else, including me. If you try to post personal information about someone other than yourself, I will do my best to censor it. This includes just about ANY information about ME, in case you are someone who knows me or knows information about me.
My "Privacy Policy" should be obvious. I will never sell or otherwise distribute your e-mail address, nor will I send you any mass e-mails of any kind, but depending on how everything works out, I will probably contact you before I post anything from you, just to make sure the e-mail address is valid. I do not believe ANYONE should be allowed to sell or distribute your e-mail address without your specific consent. However, as stated in the "legal" section, in cases of alleged or suspected illegal content in any comments you post, I will reluctantly share contact information with any requesting authorities.
This is all uncharted territory for me, and will probably evolve.
Legal Stuff
I am not a lawyer, and I am new to blogging. Until recently, I would not have realized there needed to be a "Legal Stuff" entry on a blog, and it seems unfortunate. Still, we live in civilization with laws for the welfare of all (I am not going to debate this statement at this point).
Most of my legal info comes from the World Wide Web, especially an article called, "Copyright Explained: I May Copy It, Right?" (http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/07/07/copyright-explained-i-may-copy-it-right/) This article is extensive and sobering.
According to my understanding, anything anyone creates and posts on the Internet is automatically copyrighted. Anything I write is MINE, anything you write is YOURS. I am responsible for what I post, and you are responsible for what you post. Anyone reading this blog should be aware that they may find material on this blog that is offensive or inaccurate. There are legal gray areas, and I may incur some liability for comments posted on this blog. Therefore I reserve the right to delete comments or keep them from appearing in the first place, without written notice or explanation.
Since you are responsible for any comments you post, and have the right to ask me to remove them, I must have some way of verifying that it is indeed YOU who are asking me to remove them. Therefore, I must collect at least basic contact information before allowing any of your comments. Also, since I share liability in cases of alleged or suspected illegal content in any comments you write, I will reluctantly share this contact information with any requesting authorities.
I am new to this, and both my own knowledge and the laws are constantly evolving, so I would expect that this legal notice will evolve as well. Laws are complicated.
Most of my legal info comes from the World Wide Web, especially an article called, "Copyright Explained: I May Copy It, Right?" (http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/07/07/copyright-explained-i-may-copy-it-right/) This article is extensive and sobering.
According to my understanding, anything anyone creates and posts on the Internet is automatically copyrighted. Anything I write is MINE, anything you write is YOURS. I am responsible for what I post, and you are responsible for what you post. Anyone reading this blog should be aware that they may find material on this blog that is offensive or inaccurate. There are legal gray areas, and I may incur some liability for comments posted on this blog. Therefore I reserve the right to delete comments or keep them from appearing in the first place, without written notice or explanation.
Since you are responsible for any comments you post, and have the right to ask me to remove them, I must have some way of verifying that it is indeed YOU who are asking me to remove them. Therefore, I must collect at least basic contact information before allowing any of your comments. Also, since I share liability in cases of alleged or suspected illegal content in any comments you write, I will reluctantly share this contact information with any requesting authorities.
I am new to this, and both my own knowledge and the laws are constantly evolving, so I would expect that this legal notice will evolve as well. Laws are complicated.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Punctuation
There is a rule of American grammar that states "In the United States, periods and commas go inside quotation marks regardless of logic."
For question marks and exclamation points, the rule is "Whenever we have to use a question mark or an exclamation point with a sentence that ends in a quotation, we follow the dictates of logic in determining where the question mark or exclamation point goes. If it is part of the quotation itself, we put it inside the quotation marks, and if it governs the sentence as a whole but not the material being quoted, we put it outside the quotation marks."
For decades, I have considered this rule to be stupid, and contrary to clear communication -- periods and commas should also follow logic. In light of my strong opinion, I often consciously disregard the "rule". This brings up a separate problem. Anyone AWARE of the rule, reading my earlier sentence, in which I deliberately placed the final period outside the quotation mark, may consider me to be simply careless or uneducated, rather than a stubborn free-thinker. So, in practice, I follow the rule when I worry more about being viewed as careless or uneducated, and I disregard the rule when I worry less (about being viewed as careless or uneducated).
I have only recently learned that this is apparently an exclusively-American rule, and does not apply in other English-speaking countries. So now I can just claim to be doing the "global" thing, and I will probably disregard the rule even more in the future.
By the way, the REASON for the rule seems to have to do with earlier printing presses, and the fragility of the tiny commas and periods. This is not much of a factor in the modern world, but for unknown reasons (probably tradition), the rule persists.
In blogging, I expect I will largely disregard the rule, but I doubt that I will be consistent, since sometimes I will still worry about being viewed as careless or uneducated.
As I think about it, I realize there are MANY grammatical rules, especially regarding punctuation, that I believe sometimes impede rather than clarify communication ... and my goal will usually be clear communication. I will not throw out ALL the rules -- throwing out ALL rules of grammar and punctuation may be witty or clever or artistic, but it does not necessarily aid in clearer communication.
If you have waded through ALL these Disclaimers, THANK YOU.
For question marks and exclamation points, the rule is "Whenever we have to use a question mark or an exclamation point with a sentence that ends in a quotation, we follow the dictates of logic in determining where the question mark or exclamation point goes. If it is part of the quotation itself, we put it inside the quotation marks, and if it governs the sentence as a whole but not the material being quoted, we put it outside the quotation marks."
For decades, I have considered this rule to be stupid, and contrary to clear communication -- periods and commas should also follow logic. In light of my strong opinion, I often consciously disregard the "rule". This brings up a separate problem. Anyone AWARE of the rule, reading my earlier sentence, in which I deliberately placed the final period outside the quotation mark, may consider me to be simply careless or uneducated, rather than a stubborn free-thinker. So, in practice, I follow the rule when I worry more about being viewed as careless or uneducated, and I disregard the rule when I worry less (about being viewed as careless or uneducated).
I have only recently learned that this is apparently an exclusively-American rule, and does not apply in other English-speaking countries. So now I can just claim to be doing the "global" thing, and I will probably disregard the rule even more in the future.
By the way, the REASON for the rule seems to have to do with earlier printing presses, and the fragility of the tiny commas and periods. This is not much of a factor in the modern world, but for unknown reasons (probably tradition), the rule persists.
In blogging, I expect I will largely disregard the rule, but I doubt that I will be consistent, since sometimes I will still worry about being viewed as careless or uneducated.
As I think about it, I realize there are MANY grammatical rules, especially regarding punctuation, that I believe sometimes impede rather than clarify communication ... and my goal will usually be clear communication. I will not throw out ALL the rules -- throwing out ALL rules of grammar and punctuation may be witty or clever or artistic, but it does not necessarily aid in clearer communication.
If you have waded through ALL these Disclaimers, THANK YOU.
Privacy
I like privacy. I love privacy. I am willing to admit that I have an extreme, possibly unnatural need for privacy.
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines privacy as:
1 a: the quality or state of being apart from company or observation : seclusion
b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion
2 (archaic) : a place of seclusion
3 secrecy
I like the Wikipedia statement:
"Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively."
In fact, after glancing over it, I recommend the entire Wikipedia entry on Privacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy).
Privacy is a complicated topic. The Wikipedia entry emphasizes that the meaning of "privacy" varies in different contexts, and that different cultures and individuals have differing "boundaries and content" of what is considered private. This variability compounds the problem that it is difficult to justify or explain one's need for privacy. Foes of privacy can always ask, "Why do you NEED privacy?" and argue that, "If you aren't doing anything WRONG, then you don't need PRIVACY." Lawmakers and lawyers have an ongoing debate regarding "The right to privacy," and many laws are written and revised governing the boundaries of privacy.
As I have already admitted, I have an extreme need for privacy. There must be some reasons, but I do not know them, and I do not particularly care about not knowing them. The fact is that I need privacy, I want privacy, and I do not believe there is anything wrong with needing and wanting privacy.
To the extent that people have gathered together and become "civilized", some loss of privacy is inevitable. Loss of privacy is a trade-off that we make in order to live among other people. Personally, I suspect I could be happy as a stereotypical old-time "mountain man", living for years without encountering other humans (I did say STEREOTYPICAL; I am not sure whether there were many true cases of mountain men living for years in solitude). Nowadays, in most parts of the world this has become impossible. In the USA, there are taxes and other dealings with "the government" and "laws" that make at least some form of human contact legally mandated, if not inevitable.
Actually, though, my personal desire is NOT for the total privacy of a totally isolated life. I just desire MORE privacy than many or most others in our society in our time. It is this issue of each of us having differing needs for privacy that adds to the difficulty.
For example, I am very private about my comings and goings. When I have chosen apartments, one of my primary criteria has been being able to get to my particular apartment without having to pass any OTHER apartments where the residents could observe my comings and goings. I do not want people to know whether I am "home" or not, or in general to know where I AM.
There is a relationship between privacy and anonymity. Last night I went to a store. I was happy that most people in the world did not know where I was during that time. Other people at the store could perceive that I was at the store, but that did not particularly bother me, especially since I had little knowledge of them and they had little knowledge of me. I was, to a large extent, anonymous, though I did not take any particular steps to conceal my identity. If someone broadcast on the radio the fact that I was at that store at that time, I would have had a strong negative reaction, just as I would if that news appeared the next day in the local newspaper.
This brings up the point that it is easy to argue, "What difference does it make if the newspaper publishes the fact that you were at the store last night?" I cannot offer a logical, eloquent reply, other than "It makes me feel bad, really bad," which is a dramatic understatement.
A key point regarding privacy and living among others is the idea of each of us deciding for ourselves what information is revealed to others, and to whom. I believe that I should be the one who decides who knows that I went to the store last night, and any information about what I did there. You'll notice that I have not mentioned what store I went to, or what I did there -- that information is none of YOUR business -- but I did make the conscious decision to reveal to you that I went to the store.
The topic of privacy is immense and expanding. New technology -- such as the Internet, cell phones, and GPS systems -- have raised new concerns, as have increasing worries over global terrorism. There are some who state emphatically that the very notion of privacy has become obsolete and perhaps a bit quaint -- we should all simply face the fact that we neither have nor are entitled to any real privacy. While there may be some underlying truth to this view -- with sufficient resources, entities such as governments and large corporations have access to vast amounts of "private" information about each of us -- the fact remains that at the moment at least the vast majority of my neighbors do not know that I went to the store last night, and this is important to me.
At this moment, I have never sent a text message, nor "twittered", nor been on "Facebook" or "MySpace", but I understand that all of these might be viewed to cast further doubts on the notion of privacy -- although an important point is that in general the individual retains at least some control over what is shared.
An age-old problem, accentuated by these new technological developments, involves "second-hand" information -- the extent to which YOU share information about ME with others. This gets very complicated, and there are no clear lines or answers. Suppose a friend accompanied me to the store last night, and had no reservations about revealing THEIR trip to the store to all of society. They might also choose to reveal who accompanied them, and who they talked to at the store, and what they saw purchased at the store -- all of which violates MY desire for privacy.
We can return endlessly to the argument, "What does it MATTER who knows that you went to the store, or what you purchased," but I will always respond that it matters to ME, and that it is none of YOUR business. In this case, there is the follow-up argument, "But your friend CHOSE to share with ME the info that THEY went to the store, so it IS my business," and THIS is where it gets complicated, more so by new technologies.
I repeat, there are no clear lines or answers. One of the ways I have always handled the situation is by attempting to choose friends and associates who have similar views on privacy to my own, or at least respect my views and attempt to accommodate them. Since I myself do not know precisely how I will deal with the privacy aspects of any situation, I cannot expect anyone to necessarily match my response, and sometimes friends will end up sharing information that I would prefer they had not shared. That is part of having friends, and living among humans. On more than one occasion, however, I have eventually decided that my friendship with certain individuals too often involved compromising my desire for privacy, and as a result decided to limit my contact with those individuals. Some might view this as extreme. We each have our own priorities.
I run headlong into my own strong feelings about privacy when I attempt to keep any sort of journal or blog. Certain people are very important to me, and integral parts of my life, and it is difficult to delve very deeply into my life or feelings without encountering ideas involving these other people. This has sometimes completely prevented me from keeping a journal or blog, but now I have decided to try. I will inevitably make mistakes, revealing information about both myself and others that both myself and others may regret. For this I humbly apologize.
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines privacy as:
1 a: the quality or state of being apart from company or observation : seclusion
b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion
2 (archaic) : a place of seclusion
3 secrecy
I like the Wikipedia statement:
"Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively."
In fact, after glancing over it, I recommend the entire Wikipedia entry on Privacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy).
Privacy is a complicated topic. The Wikipedia entry emphasizes that the meaning of "privacy" varies in different contexts, and that different cultures and individuals have differing "boundaries and content" of what is considered private. This variability compounds the problem that it is difficult to justify or explain one's need for privacy. Foes of privacy can always ask, "Why do you NEED privacy?" and argue that, "If you aren't doing anything WRONG, then you don't need PRIVACY." Lawmakers and lawyers have an ongoing debate regarding "The right to privacy," and many laws are written and revised governing the boundaries of privacy.
As I have already admitted, I have an extreme need for privacy. There must be some reasons, but I do not know them, and I do not particularly care about not knowing them. The fact is that I need privacy, I want privacy, and I do not believe there is anything wrong with needing and wanting privacy.
To the extent that people have gathered together and become "civilized", some loss of privacy is inevitable. Loss of privacy is a trade-off that we make in order to live among other people. Personally, I suspect I could be happy as a stereotypical old-time "mountain man", living for years without encountering other humans (I did say STEREOTYPICAL; I am not sure whether there were many true cases of mountain men living for years in solitude). Nowadays, in most parts of the world this has become impossible. In the USA, there are taxes and other dealings with "the government" and "laws" that make at least some form of human contact legally mandated, if not inevitable.
Actually, though, my personal desire is NOT for the total privacy of a totally isolated life. I just desire MORE privacy than many or most others in our society in our time. It is this issue of each of us having differing needs for privacy that adds to the difficulty.
For example, I am very private about my comings and goings. When I have chosen apartments, one of my primary criteria has been being able to get to my particular apartment without having to pass any OTHER apartments where the residents could observe my comings and goings. I do not want people to know whether I am "home" or not, or in general to know where I AM.
There is a relationship between privacy and anonymity. Last night I went to a store. I was happy that most people in the world did not know where I was during that time. Other people at the store could perceive that I was at the store, but that did not particularly bother me, especially since I had little knowledge of them and they had little knowledge of me. I was, to a large extent, anonymous, though I did not take any particular steps to conceal my identity. If someone broadcast on the radio the fact that I was at that store at that time, I would have had a strong negative reaction, just as I would if that news appeared the next day in the local newspaper.
This brings up the point that it is easy to argue, "What difference does it make if the newspaper publishes the fact that you were at the store last night?" I cannot offer a logical, eloquent reply, other than "It makes me feel bad, really bad," which is a dramatic understatement.
A key point regarding privacy and living among others is the idea of each of us deciding for ourselves what information is revealed to others, and to whom. I believe that I should be the one who decides who knows that I went to the store last night, and any information about what I did there. You'll notice that I have not mentioned what store I went to, or what I did there -- that information is none of YOUR business -- but I did make the conscious decision to reveal to you that I went to the store.
The topic of privacy is immense and expanding. New technology -- such as the Internet, cell phones, and GPS systems -- have raised new concerns, as have increasing worries over global terrorism. There are some who state emphatically that the very notion of privacy has become obsolete and perhaps a bit quaint -- we should all simply face the fact that we neither have nor are entitled to any real privacy. While there may be some underlying truth to this view -- with sufficient resources, entities such as governments and large corporations have access to vast amounts of "private" information about each of us -- the fact remains that at the moment at least the vast majority of my neighbors do not know that I went to the store last night, and this is important to me.
At this moment, I have never sent a text message, nor "twittered", nor been on "Facebook" or "MySpace", but I understand that all of these might be viewed to cast further doubts on the notion of privacy -- although an important point is that in general the individual retains at least some control over what is shared.
An age-old problem, accentuated by these new technological developments, involves "second-hand" information -- the extent to which YOU share information about ME with others. This gets very complicated, and there are no clear lines or answers. Suppose a friend accompanied me to the store last night, and had no reservations about revealing THEIR trip to the store to all of society. They might also choose to reveal who accompanied them, and who they talked to at the store, and what they saw purchased at the store -- all of which violates MY desire for privacy.
We can return endlessly to the argument, "What does it MATTER who knows that you went to the store, or what you purchased," but I will always respond that it matters to ME, and that it is none of YOUR business. In this case, there is the follow-up argument, "But your friend CHOSE to share with ME the info that THEY went to the store, so it IS my business," and THIS is where it gets complicated, more so by new technologies.
I repeat, there are no clear lines or answers. One of the ways I have always handled the situation is by attempting to choose friends and associates who have similar views on privacy to my own, or at least respect my views and attempt to accommodate them. Since I myself do not know precisely how I will deal with the privacy aspects of any situation, I cannot expect anyone to necessarily match my response, and sometimes friends will end up sharing information that I would prefer they had not shared. That is part of having friends, and living among humans. On more than one occasion, however, I have eventually decided that my friendship with certain individuals too often involved compromising my desire for privacy, and as a result decided to limit my contact with those individuals. Some might view this as extreme. We each have our own priorities.
I run headlong into my own strong feelings about privacy when I attempt to keep any sort of journal or blog. Certain people are very important to me, and integral parts of my life, and it is difficult to delve very deeply into my life or feelings without encountering ideas involving these other people. This has sometimes completely prevented me from keeping a journal or blog, but now I have decided to try. I will inevitably make mistakes, revealing information about both myself and others that both myself and others may regret. For this I humbly apologize.
Self-plagiarism
The wikipedia entry on "plagiarism" defines "self-plagiarism" as "the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one’s own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work." Wikipedia goes on to discuss the issue, including the question of whether there can even BE such a thing, and, if so, under what circumstances is it unethical. (The wikipedia entry on plagiarism is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism)
This seems to me to be a very complicated topic. On one extreme, it seems obviously wrong if, for example, a person is getting paid to write articles for a magazine, and writes the same article for every issue (though they MIGHT be making some sort of philosophical point). On the other extreme, a person who becomes well-known for coming up with a particularly revolutionary new theory could easily end up writing about that same new theory in many different articles, and, if that person comes up with a good way to state a complex theory, it does not make sense to use different words in every article just for the sake of "originality". A person famous for the telling of a particular story may even be CRITICIZED for coming up with a new wording of the familiar anecdote.
Self-plagiarism is a particularly dubious concept when applied to the world of blogging. A person may write different blogs with different audiences, yet choose to share the same thoughts with both. Especially if a person struggles to come up with the correct words to express complex thoughts, it seems foolish NOT to use the very same words to express the same thoughts at another time or location. Another problem associated with blogging is the fact that, unlike a "hard-copy" book or magazine article, blog entries can be constantly revised, so the issue of where or when a particular passage was "first" used may become difficult to determine.
Most people seem to agree that under most circumstances you have a right to re-use your own words. The issue seems to be whether or not you ACKNOWLEDGE re-using your own words. With that in mind, I freely admit that many of the ideas stated in this blog will be identical, similar, or hopefully improved versions of ideas I state elsewhere.
This seems to me to be a very complicated topic. On one extreme, it seems obviously wrong if, for example, a person is getting paid to write articles for a magazine, and writes the same article for every issue (though they MIGHT be making some sort of philosophical point). On the other extreme, a person who becomes well-known for coming up with a particularly revolutionary new theory could easily end up writing about that same new theory in many different articles, and, if that person comes up with a good way to state a complex theory, it does not make sense to use different words in every article just for the sake of "originality". A person famous for the telling of a particular story may even be CRITICIZED for coming up with a new wording of the familiar anecdote.
Self-plagiarism is a particularly dubious concept when applied to the world of blogging. A person may write different blogs with different audiences, yet choose to share the same thoughts with both. Especially if a person struggles to come up with the correct words to express complex thoughts, it seems foolish NOT to use the very same words to express the same thoughts at another time or location. Another problem associated with blogging is the fact that, unlike a "hard-copy" book or magazine article, blog entries can be constantly revised, so the issue of where or when a particular passage was "first" used may become difficult to determine.
Most people seem to agree that under most circumstances you have a right to re-use your own words. The issue seems to be whether or not you ACKNOWLEDGE re-using your own words. With that in mind, I freely admit that many of the ideas stated in this blog will be identical, similar, or hopefully improved versions of ideas I state elsewhere.
Words
For those who live in the company of other living things, communication is very important. Even those who live in total isolation might wish to record their thoughts for future reference. Though it is possible to communicate and record thoughts with pictures, sounds, and other methods, this blog will rely mostly on written words.
Words are not clear. Every word has an infinite number of subtle variations in meaning, and some words have profound variations in meaning. When we string words together in phrases or sentences, this infinite number of variations gets multiplied exponentially. Since every person has their own continually-evolving internal definition of each word (dictionaries are great, but their definitions do not match each person's set of internal definitions), it is virtually impossible for any given sentence to mean precisely the same thing to two different people, since both would have to somehow pick precisely the same set of meanings from those infinite numbers of possible meanings. For that matter, it is probably impossible for even one person to pick precisely those same meanings two times in a row, so even when we read or hear what we ourselves have written or stated we cannot be sure precisely what we meant at that moment. Still, for now, words seem to be the best we can do -- our most precise means of communication (though many times a look or a gesture will suffice). Perhaps someday we will master more precise methods, such as direct transmission or recording of thoughts.
The real danger in the use of words is that because of our great familiarity with the process, and the lack of a better alternative, we tend to THINK of words as clear and precise. Indeed, they work well enough for most purposes most of the time, but we fail to remember that words are just approximations of thoughts. They can never be precise representations of thoughts.
Words work better under some circumstances. People who are familiar with each other, or share similar points of view, may have a greater tendency to use the same meanings of words than people who are strangers or have opposing points of view. (Oral communication, as opposed to written, allows the use of inflection and other means of communication, such as gestures, facial expression, and tone of voice, to increase the likelihood that words will clearly transmit the underlying thoughts.) Feedback between two people offers each a chance to clarify and ask for clarifications.
All of this assumes that people are using words in an attempt to clearly represent thoughts. If someone chooses to use words to deliberately mask or muddy their thoughts, or chooses to deliberately misinterpret someone else's words, then the process of communication quickly becomes hopeless. This often happens in politics and arguments -- one side blindly repeats and argues with the other side's WORDS without ever understanding or attempting to understand the underlying meaning, or perhaps deliberately misunderstanding, all the while insisting that they are correctly stating their opponent's beliefs.
When you agree or disagree with my words, what you are actually agreeing or disagreeing with is YOUR interpretation of my words, rather than my underlying thoughts. You can never know my actual thoughts, and I can never know your actual thoughts, no matter how hard we struggle to communicate. All we can do is give it our best effort, while remaining aware that we can never fully succeed.
This is not to say that words have no meaning, or that words are so vague that they can be construed to mean ANYTHING, or that it is impossible to tell a truth or a falsehood. A lie is still a lie -- though even the definition of a lie is subject to interpretation. (Just for the record, I consider a lie to be any DELIBERATE falsehood -- a person who makes an untrue statement is not telling a lie if they themselves believe it is true.) Words are probably the best we can do, and we can do a lot with words ... but they ARE subject to misinterpretation.
I am aware of the irony of using written words to discuss the insurmountable difficulties associated with the use of written words, and I am aware of the irony of having a written blog when I believe that words are not clear. Perhaps it is a mistake.
Words are not clear. Every word has an infinite number of subtle variations in meaning, and some words have profound variations in meaning. When we string words together in phrases or sentences, this infinite number of variations gets multiplied exponentially. Since every person has their own continually-evolving internal definition of each word (dictionaries are great, but their definitions do not match each person's set of internal definitions), it is virtually impossible for any given sentence to mean precisely the same thing to two different people, since both would have to somehow pick precisely the same set of meanings from those infinite numbers of possible meanings. For that matter, it is probably impossible for even one person to pick precisely those same meanings two times in a row, so even when we read or hear what we ourselves have written or stated we cannot be sure precisely what we meant at that moment. Still, for now, words seem to be the best we can do -- our most precise means of communication (though many times a look or a gesture will suffice). Perhaps someday we will master more precise methods, such as direct transmission or recording of thoughts.
The real danger in the use of words is that because of our great familiarity with the process, and the lack of a better alternative, we tend to THINK of words as clear and precise. Indeed, they work well enough for most purposes most of the time, but we fail to remember that words are just approximations of thoughts. They can never be precise representations of thoughts.
Words work better under some circumstances. People who are familiar with each other, or share similar points of view, may have a greater tendency to use the same meanings of words than people who are strangers or have opposing points of view. (Oral communication, as opposed to written, allows the use of inflection and other means of communication, such as gestures, facial expression, and tone of voice, to increase the likelihood that words will clearly transmit the underlying thoughts.) Feedback between two people offers each a chance to clarify and ask for clarifications.
All of this assumes that people are using words in an attempt to clearly represent thoughts. If someone chooses to use words to deliberately mask or muddy their thoughts, or chooses to deliberately misinterpret someone else's words, then the process of communication quickly becomes hopeless. This often happens in politics and arguments -- one side blindly repeats and argues with the other side's WORDS without ever understanding or attempting to understand the underlying meaning, or perhaps deliberately misunderstanding, all the while insisting that they are correctly stating their opponent's beliefs.
When you agree or disagree with my words, what you are actually agreeing or disagreeing with is YOUR interpretation of my words, rather than my underlying thoughts. You can never know my actual thoughts, and I can never know your actual thoughts, no matter how hard we struggle to communicate. All we can do is give it our best effort, while remaining aware that we can never fully succeed.
This is not to say that words have no meaning, or that words are so vague that they can be construed to mean ANYTHING, or that it is impossible to tell a truth or a falsehood. A lie is still a lie -- though even the definition of a lie is subject to interpretation. (Just for the record, I consider a lie to be any DELIBERATE falsehood -- a person who makes an untrue statement is not telling a lie if they themselves believe it is true.) Words are probably the best we can do, and we can do a lot with words ... but they ARE subject to misinterpretation.
I am aware of the irony of using written words to discuss the insurmountable difficulties associated with the use of written words, and I am aware of the irony of having a written blog when I believe that words are not clear. Perhaps it is a mistake.
Disclaimers
There are three or four preliminary points I need to try and make to anyone reading a blog that I write. Unfortunately, since one of my most basic beliefs is that verbal communication is inherently unclear, I tend to use a LOT of words in an effort to make it less likely that I will be misunderstood. Sometimes I will state and overstate things that might seem obvious, because I do not want to assume they are obvious in case they are not, and also because I believe that even though they may seem obvious, they are often ignored or overlooked. If this style seems "wordy", tedious, preachy, or is otherwise unappealing to YOU, I am sorry. At least for these foundation points, that is how I probably will write. Please be assured that this is due to my awareness of my own struggle to be clear, rather than anticipation of some inadequacy on your part. Still, I am also painfully aware of instances in which a person spent fifteen minutes trying to make a point, only to have someone seize upon one phrase and decide they had fully understood the speaker's intent from that one phrase, despite protestations to the contrary from the speaker, and I find this to be among the most incredibly frustrating phenomenons in human interaction. If it takes someone fifteen minutes to make a point, perhaps their point is a bit more complicated than a single phrase -- or perhaps not. You can never know without listening for those entire fifteen minutes, and life is short, and perhaps it is not worth your time.
Anyway, for those who are short on time, perhaps you are at the wrong blog. Briefly, here are the key starting points I am about to try to make (but I will not be held responsible if you decide not to bother to read the expanded versions to follow):
1) Words are not clear, and can never be clear
2) I do not worry about plagiarizing myself, so anything written by me in this blog may have already appeared elsewhere, or may appear elsewhere in the future
3) I DO worry about my own privacy and the privacy of those with whom I associate, and I shall endeavor to protect both
4) I believe the grammar rules about always placing periods and commas inside of quotation marks are stupid and obsolete, and I shall feel free to disregard them.
I would also like to point out that I favor clarity and honesty over grammatical and other "correctness". When speaking, if I believe there is a chance the word "knight" will be confused with the word "night", I often pronounce the "k". This may sound ridiculous, but people understand that I am not talking about "nights". (In a future blog entry, I hope to include a similar story involving someone speaking about the large intestine.) In typing, or e-mailing, or blogging, if I want to stress a particular word or phrase, as I would in speaking, I tend to use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS rather than underlining or bold face or italics. This is due primarily to the fact that I have been involved in writing computer programs since the late 1970s (when I tended to use all caps, all the time) and as things have developed over time, using all capital letters has remained the easiest method for technology to handle, offering the highest likelihood of accurate reproduction across different systems and media (though this is becoming less of a problem, and my views may already be obsolete -- just like worrying about periods outside of quotation marks).
Finally, I do not claim that any of the thoughts and ideas recorded here are original, eloquent, profound, or relevant. They are "original" in that they ARE my thoughts, but others may have had the same thoughts before, and may have stated them more eloquently. "Profound" and "relevant" are in the eye of the beholder and the situation. I hope that this blog is a worthwhile experience, but life offers no guarantees.
Anyway, for those who are short on time, perhaps you are at the wrong blog. Briefly, here are the key starting points I am about to try to make (but I will not be held responsible if you decide not to bother to read the expanded versions to follow):
1) Words are not clear, and can never be clear
2) I do not worry about plagiarizing myself, so anything written by me in this blog may have already appeared elsewhere, or may appear elsewhere in the future
3) I DO worry about my own privacy and the privacy of those with whom I associate, and I shall endeavor to protect both
4) I believe the grammar rules about always placing periods and commas inside of quotation marks are stupid and obsolete, and I shall feel free to disregard them.
I would also like to point out that I favor clarity and honesty over grammatical and other "correctness". When speaking, if I believe there is a chance the word "knight" will be confused with the word "night", I often pronounce the "k". This may sound ridiculous, but people understand that I am not talking about "nights". (In a future blog entry, I hope to include a similar story involving someone speaking about the large intestine.) In typing, or e-mailing, or blogging, if I want to stress a particular word or phrase, as I would in speaking, I tend to use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS rather than underlining or bold face or italics. This is due primarily to the fact that I have been involved in writing computer programs since the late 1970s (when I tended to use all caps, all the time) and as things have developed over time, using all capital letters has remained the easiest method for technology to handle, offering the highest likelihood of accurate reproduction across different systems and media (though this is becoming less of a problem, and my views may already be obsolete -- just like worrying about periods outside of quotation marks).
Finally, I do not claim that any of the thoughts and ideas recorded here are original, eloquent, profound, or relevant. They are "original" in that they ARE my thoughts, but others may have had the same thoughts before, and may have stated them more eloquently. "Profound" and "relevant" are in the eye of the beholder and the situation. I hope that this blog is a worthwhile experience, but life offers no guarantees.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Hello world!
I did not plan to begin this blog today. I planned to begin this blog SOON, but not today. Then I got up this morning and noticed the date, and thought, "9/9/9! Seems like a good date for new beginnings."
Later, I logged onto the Internet, and found that people around the world have been anticipating this date -- though not necessarily positively, depending on culture and tradition. It knocks some of the wind out of my sails to realize that millions of other people noticed the date long before I did, but I suppose it is still as good a day as any to begin a blog.
I freely admit that I do not know much about blogging, and I am sure I will make mistakes, and perhaps this entire blog is a mistake.
I am writing this blog because my dog died. Actually, there were three things that happened together last winter: My dog was dying, I was made aware of a blog page dealing with the subject of whether or not dogs go to heaven, AND I found myself with some time to kill on a high-speed Internet connection. After my dog "up and died," I found myself driven to just WRITE. Random stuff, philosophical stuff. Not necessarily worth writing, or worth reading, and not necessarily related to the subject of dead dogs -- but including a response for the page about whether dogs go to heaven, which I will attempt to post there any day now.
One of the things that has kept me from blogging in the past -- or from most writing, for that matter -- is that I believe strongly that words are never clear, and always leave room for misinterpretation. Therefore, before I go any further, for my own peace of mind I will post disclaimers and prefaces about anything I write here or elsewhere. This brings up the fact that I am actually beginning TWO blogs today -- one here, and one at another site on another "host" since I do not know enough to know which host I will prefer. (Full disclosure: I have already tried some "practice blogs" to try and figure out technical aspects of the process, like the fact that the newest posts appear at the TOP of the page rather than the bottom.) For now, I plan to place many of the same posts on both sites, though the sites seem to have different organizational schemes that will keep them from ever being identical. Over time, I suspect the two sites will diverge, but it's hard to know what to expect.
It's ALWAYS hard to know what to expect. Truth is complicated.
Later, I logged onto the Internet, and found that people around the world have been anticipating this date -- though not necessarily positively, depending on culture and tradition. It knocks some of the wind out of my sails to realize that millions of other people noticed the date long before I did, but I suppose it is still as good a day as any to begin a blog.
I freely admit that I do not know much about blogging, and I am sure I will make mistakes, and perhaps this entire blog is a mistake.
I am writing this blog because my dog died. Actually, there were three things that happened together last winter: My dog was dying, I was made aware of a blog page dealing with the subject of whether or not dogs go to heaven, AND I found myself with some time to kill on a high-speed Internet connection. After my dog "up and died," I found myself driven to just WRITE. Random stuff, philosophical stuff. Not necessarily worth writing, or worth reading, and not necessarily related to the subject of dead dogs -- but including a response for the page about whether dogs go to heaven, which I will attempt to post there any day now.
One of the things that has kept me from blogging in the past -- or from most writing, for that matter -- is that I believe strongly that words are never clear, and always leave room for misinterpretation. Therefore, before I go any further, for my own peace of mind I will post disclaimers and prefaces about anything I write here or elsewhere. This brings up the fact that I am actually beginning TWO blogs today -- one here, and one at another site on another "host" since I do not know enough to know which host I will prefer. (Full disclosure: I have already tried some "practice blogs" to try and figure out technical aspects of the process, like the fact that the newest posts appear at the TOP of the page rather than the bottom.) For now, I plan to place many of the same posts on both sites, though the sites seem to have different organizational schemes that will keep them from ever being identical. Over time, I suspect the two sites will diverge, but it's hard to know what to expect.
It's ALWAYS hard to know what to expect. Truth is complicated.