Straight for the Sun

The Importance of Metrics

2011-05-28T15:59:00.001-04:00

The Importance of Metrics

Lyrics:

The power of verse is in the shape of the words

As they flow out the mouth.

The metrics of sound

Coming not so much from the lines themselves

As from the articulated embodiment of the Self.

Like a living, breathing, sui-generated bell,

The knell is the shape of the flesh is the sound of the knell.

And in the tickey-tackey of a regulated line,

you find not the soul, but the mind.

The tools the mind measures with, our cells and curves,

Themselves organized, abstracted from the living fractal world,

This one-sided balance of straight crooked lines,

In which we orient ourselves with the realization of being Alive.

Now turn an eye back at that for a second for a second feature of verse,

That combinations of words can have more meanings than a first-

‘The realization of being alive’ pointing to this space inside us

and that we are all inside.

The recognition of awareness, the shared awareness of being

And Realization also meaning making real from dreaming,

And so this little phrase contains a profound truth,

And in its layered webs of reflected connections

Shines the one that’s always two:

We are here, we are moving, we are here, we are moving.

We one are two, and I am you.

And together we have never been apart,

And we separate and come together.

The realization of being alive!
There’s infinity in that phrase, I could talk in it forever,

But lest you mistake this for an exercise in acting clever

We’d best move on to the obvious objection, the question,

Isn’t my point clouded by poetic affection?

Well, I would say-

That the objection rests on the instrumental empirical assumption

Of the rational function of our communication

And an over emphasis on this material consensus

As the one reality location

When there’s every indication

That we only believe this because born in contemporary Western civilization,

And that it’s anything but a natural or granted perspectivilization.

So, yes, my riff technically was on the nature of languaging,

And whether spoken or sung, it’s almost the same thing.

Except we’ve become obsessed with giving our stories antiseptic cleanings,

When life is a mess, and that mess is the meaning,

And somewhere along the lines we’ve forgotten how to stop believing

That where we’re talking from is what our camera lenses are seeing.

So the objection doesn’t rise in the mind of a dipshit: I love Poetry,

But it takes this message and flips it,

Like you could have an objective without a subject to fill it.

The dry, and defined, we do well to an extreme,

And it’s time to re-awaken this definite life to the possible dream:

This poetry at the heart of all acts of speaking,

From The Lancet, to “hello,” to howling and weeping,

And while stretched and grown through prose we’re at the end of its rope,

And as we struggle it gets tighter and we’re beginning to choke.

We’ve practiced our scales on this umbilical noose,

And it’s time for solos of unmediated truth.

And if by the death of our pasts we’re to find birth again,

This spiraling path will lead us to become our own origins.

And while that may sound sloppy, or some kind of regression

To a culture that says ‘a simple chemical imbalance is the cause of depression,’

And in which it makes the news when a researcher says “we don’t know, exactly,

We’re a little bit surprised, our studies show that our studies may be compromised,’

And a pause. ‘It’s almost as if…our culture is a cause of that cause.”

And they’d trace that tired line of causation ad infinitum

Without a gut understanding that they’re never gonna find one causal cause

Unless they look behind themselves, to this moving place of stillness.

And though it’s still just an echoing rumor

That we might not simply be rational consumers

You can hear the first cracks and large scale shakings

Of a long taken for granted foundation of meaning making.

So as we lean over the edge of this experimental human inquiry,

Our sense making only makes sense in becoming human being poetry.

When ‘God is everything’ and ‘there is no God’ both speak of this reality,

Lines are revealed as meaningless without our intentionality.

Which is to say, our reason is a subset of our musicality.

So today, given this heavy world of apathy,

We must remember our capacity to become and overcome gravity,

Embracing this absurd body of comic tragedy.

Spoiler alert: though united everlastingly in love, we all die.

But if you play the melodies of love and death entwined,

Let your language be measured as bursts of living fire,

If you have the courage to aspire to construct of your limited life a creative act,

Accepting this sacred pact, then death is not for naught.

The world has never been built by some disembodied thought.

But by hearts and minds and eyes and feet choosing

Heartful, mindful, iambic foot like doing.

All this doing! And not a thing to do but rest.

And let each note rise as a silent ‘yes,’

Glowing like the morning of this One Turning in your breast.

Let your joyful play sing open. Open to the Love

That has gladly crawled eons of improbable labyrinths

For just this one fleeting audience with your warm and wounded heart.

I’d say ‘start,’ now! And I also mean “stop!”

Let all the burdens that you’re carrying drop.

Stop thinking, stop trying, stop just for one moment stop resisting and controlling

And live through your dying!

How to do it? What to do? How to do it what to do…

When you’re asking ‘what to do,’ and “Who am I” you’re doing it.

And when you’re doing it wrong, you’re doing it right--

And when you’re doing it right, you’re not doing a damn thing!

Shake everything off and let your empty soul sing!

And relaxing into the vibrato of the timeless and all time

You might be surprised when it already rhymes.

And whether you call your role in this symphony poetry or kung-fu knitting,

do it with the care of a blackbird sitting on a cedar limb.

And dancing to this carefully carefree hymn awakens a whole new seeing,

And the limits of lines, once binding, become freeing.

As this work: submitted with gratitude, and for the benefit of all beings.

Kaizen/Smriti Part Two (continued, obviously, from part one.)

2010-01-06T17:50:00.008-05:00

More from the third sense of 'resolution:' a resolution of what is abstract into what is practical and direct. Or: what's Eros gonna do?

Despite my natural inclination to say, 'let's wait and see' (part of the idea of Kaizen, after all, is an embrace of the possibility and reality of constantly changing vision), I do at the moment have a sense of direction/function for this, or I wouldn't be doing it.

If time is a frontier there are no more modern pioneers, except in the individual case, as one grows through that orientation of mind. I would say that our pioneers are well beyond what we call the post-modern (should you have absolutely no conception of what these terms mean, my apologies, but stay tuned, I will be elucidating the distinction I am making between the modern and post-modern much in this year), but this is not so much my interest here, as I am not on the frontier in this sense. Having left our modern settlements to those who will grow through them, a sizable edge of our culturally contemporaneous adult humanity is laying the first solid foundations of post-modern society. Men and women have been here before, but not in numbers sufficient enough to establish a city, a genuine center-of-gravity. What we have seen in the way of post-modernity up to recently has either been exclusively individual or modernity in drag.

A major conceit of this year for this blog (or until I am disabused of it) is that we are at the endpoint of our culture's process of modernity, it has nothing new or surprising for us in a collective sense; we have turned over all of its stones, and large encampments of us are headed for or have begun establishing a post-modern city and society, a place still quite wild and undefined. This, as any process of growth, will be accompanied with great pain and backsliding, much of which we are watching in front of us now, and it is far from certain that we will be able to maintain a sustainable cultural presence there. If we do, it is because we will have been able to remake what it means to be human, individually and culturally, from this level of meaning. As a microcosm of the process, a young person still pulling himself out of the traditional cultural consciousness and family embeddedness, creating for himself an individual autonomous identity, while also reaching into the realm of the post-autonomous not only intellectually but in practical everyday life, I am situated well to document this and push it along. I see in myself the potential to be a city-planner for our new culture, someone actively exploring the implications of this consciousness in this world, and my greatest culturally valuable talent is in the kind of writing I am able to achieve occasionally on this blog, as a sort of essayist and cultural critic.

Practically, that changes little about the blog; it has always been a way for me to test out ideas and present them to whomever is willing and able to sift through them. In addition, though, I plan on a greater amount of engagement (the eternal plan...) as well as using the blog in companion to what I am reading, both for school and for pleasure, allowing me to remember what arguments others are making and how they fit into my angle of attack on the world, something I am terrible at (names), while also giving me the impetus to track through reading outside of my school's curriculum.

Also, as I feel I have a pretty good working sense of a personal philosophy but few opportunities to drag it out into the light of day where it can be challenged, and the blog serves this purpose as well. Not only can this philosophy be found in the accidental, what I happen to be reading or seeing online, but it is open to reinterpretation based on this, and based on the comments and participation of you. In my perfect world everybody is so willing to throw themselves on the table, recognizing just how permeable that thin layer of pretense is that separates our outside and inside world, but as this is not the case, engage me freely as you will, knowing that what you put in in intensity I give back; it is not a demand so much as an invitation to the constant questioning that is this Kaizen/Smriti, that is so integral to the post-modern meaning-making, and so vital a weapon against complacency, one of my pet sins.

With this in mind I hope as well to write at least an entry every day, though this is not a hard and fast rule, and the effort it takes to write some of my more involved entries obviously will prevent this from happening. The idea, though, being that having this in mind constantly, starting the day by starting an entry and finishing it by finishing one will help me keep this whole shebang in mind, Smriti.

Kaizen/Smriti, a resolution, of sorts. Part One

2010-01-05T15:32:00.008-05:00

Kaizen/Smriti:

I have decided upon a slightly new direction/function for this blog in the new year, and that direction/function is best seen through the concepts of Kaizen (Japanese through English) and Smriti (Buddhist.) I am using the blog as a sort of record of my year (also guided by these concepts) and as a ground for writing.

Kaizen, which has been a favorite concept of mine for quite a few years, means making continuous small improvements. At each step, there is a pause, a looking-around, and a re-implementation of direction/protocol. The Japanese means "improvement," in the same sense English does, or "amelioration" in the Chinese (改善) but through an American-English translation of Japanese business practices has come to mean "continuous improvement."

I take "continuous" to mean "anew each moment." One will get two very different measurements of the English coastline using a mile and an inch as standards of measurement. I hope to continue to make my standard of measurement smaller and smaller, finding the possibility of fundamental change in each moment, until change and being are synonymous, at which point the game looks quite different.

"Improvement" is a trickier word. Change for the better, of what? My concept of this is something like "healthy growth," but each of these terms carries a good amount of baggage as well, if associated with the word "normative." For now, think of a blooming apple tree.

I should also note that "Kaizen" has a reactive connotation to it, finding a problem and fixing it, to which I would add Otto Scharmer's idea of "presencing," the ability to sense and bring into the present one's highest future potential, which is more active. I include both active and passive, past and future, in my concept of "Kaizen."

This could be terribly inefficient, and I certainly agree here with the old leadership maxim that to do anything even if the wrong thing is better than doing nothing, but quite aware that my disposition is towards theorizing without action I am actively training my capacity to act past theorizing, which is where Smriti comes in.

Smriti is an anglicized Sanskrit word which means literally "that which is remembered," but which has taken on a much greater importance in Buddhism. I will here use it mostly as self-remembrance, and, following Alan Watts, what I really mean here is 'awareness of awareness.' The Chinese etymology is helpful as well. 念 (nian) is usually the translation for "Smriti," and consists of 今 (jin) the character which means "today" or "now," and 心 (xin) which is the character for "mind/heart." What is the mind doing now, and now, and now. The English translation "mindfulness" carries this constant connotation as well, it is something underneath each moment in consciousness, at its most concentrated. When eating, know that you are eating, when walking, know that you are walking, when talking, know that you are talking.

Of course, a zen master may say "stop being mindful!" that is, when walking, walk. No need to know you are doing this. Ultimately I agree with this, but this comes at the end of a long process of mindfulness training, at least if one wants to embody it 'off the cushion,' or outside of a meditation retreat. Neither am I, though, at the stage of merely having the thought "I am walking," but somewhere in between. Eventually, as one remembers to become aware of what's occurring in awareness bit by bit (or word by word, action by action), one realizes that there are too many things to actually literally keep track of, and the mind relaxes and lets awareness watch experience without remarking upon it. Walking is walking, and talking talking, if only temporarily. When I am aware, I can do this, and can see my mind as it inserts that thin film between the action and the awareness. But I am not always aware of what I am doing; I flicker like a light bulb not quite screwed in.

Putting these two together, Kaizen/Smriti, you have my resolution, a New Year's resolution which is continuous; my standard of measurement already much less than a mile, it would be odd for me to try once and check back next year. Resolution is a particularly effective term here, "solution" meaning both a loosening and a fix for a problem, and "re-" being an intensifier tied to temporal repetition. Apply that 're-' to each moment, and you have the concept I am looking for with Kaizen/Smriti. A resolution, 'I will remember,' as a resolution to the problems of living, which is also a resolution of what is abstract into what is practical and direct, and a whetting of the resolution of my awareness to the smallest possible interval.

Glass House, also a project aimed at cultivation of awareness, was more to find out the ways in which I was embedded in others' meaning, the chains of culture and relation behind me, and to bring that in front of me, even if not consciously undertaken as such at the time. It was to discover what roadblocks I kept putting in front of myself, and why. In this, it was largely successful, and culminated in the understanding that the reason I was subjecting myself to such a ridiculous degree of exposure was that I wanted to be found out as a fraud, and I think of this as the natural side of having a persona and an ego, and part of the process of discovering the authentic, another way of thinking of 'Smriti.' One might call this "Thanatos," the death-urge, the desire to destroy the limitations of self at one level of being to foster greater growth.

With that constant resolution creating more and more space for authenticity, for a space where I can act freed from psychological embeddedness in my culture and relationships, in the rituals of being established as a child, comes the unreining of Eros.

For Eros, you can do your own research: Wikipedia's entry is woefully inadequate; I would start with Rollo May's Love and Will. Eros is the creative/destructive force of the universe. Whitehead called it 'negentropy' for its opposition to the physical concept of entropy, and so by 'destructive' I mean the destruction that happens naturally when a new thing is created, not the lethargy of entropy, nor the malice of evil, though I would not rule out that Eros works in ways that can appear to be evil. Personally, I think of it as the delight in guiding creation, and it has a rather specific emotional/psychological/somatic feel to it. And so, if 'Glass House' was an attempt to expose the habits of mind keeping me from expressing myself to the extent of my potential, this project is the vigilance over their impetus, and the release of and identification with Eros.

I should note that not everybody's psychological life revolves around the smothering of Eros, and so while this stage of my life involves the above, this will not be directly true for everyone, or even most people. Each person carries into adulthood their own cultural/familial directives to carry out which must be uprooted and overcome if they are ever to be an individual adult.

But for me, and for now, Kenzai, Smriti, and Eros are symbols of transformation in the Jungian sense, in that they represent for me ways of human-being-in-the-world whose outlines I can vaguely perceive but whose expression I am only barely capable of comprehending, let alone enact within my own consciousness. They represent a way of being more encompassing than my own, but not by so much that it is more than a step or two away.

And with that, 2010.

Quote #8

2009-12-17T15:48:00.002-05:00

"Questioning is the track on which the centered person moves."

-Stephen Batchelor

From someone in my program

2009-10-22T22:35:00.002-04:00

Out of its context, which was a response to a question I had posed to her-

Hydrogen and oxygen atoms bind at the level of energetic charge to embody wetness, water molecules form, vapor condenses, clouds become heavy with potential for rain, the droplets surrender to the embrace of gravity and fall to first saturate the earth and then to run together. Rivulets become streams which carve their own beds, co-creating a landscape as the drive toward more unity creates river systems moving torrents of water toward an unbounded ocean. And at every instant the system is dynamically alive; every aspect is simultaneously arising and shifting to the next phase of expression, infinitely re-turning to itself as a self-organizing, self-renewing, self-disclosing whole.

Embedded in the whole system, the wetness doesn't know itself, but what if that aspect of being could wake up and become aware of the miracle I see when a wave crashes to the shore, or a fine mist of evening fog bathes my face in its own Presence? What if the wetness had only one purpose, which was to touch my Original Face, and be praised? From that perspective praise might be in the form of my own interior awareness - I aware of wetness as wetness; and then a conversation of appreciation for the mutual caress of mist and my permeable skin where an exchange is always taking place; and then a weather report or a hydrologist’s analysis of a watershed system expressing the same capacity for self-disclosure in the form of empirical data. I suspect there is always rejoicing in heaven whenever and however we dance in the mist.

The Anxious Mind.

2009-10-07T19:05:00.005-04:00

An interesting article in the NYTimes, about research positing that anxious people are born with a predisposition towards anxiety.

There are discussions about how to deal with anxiety as well. As somebody with a fairly high level of anxiety, (historically...I don't think I'd fit in the most anxious group, but I'd certainly fit in the next one) though, there's something to be said about actively engaging your anxiety.

Over the last six years I've begun to use anxiety as a sort of red-flag. When I get anxious about something, it locates an issue I've got to deal with psychologically, and is often helpful in tagging shadow material, something I don't know that I'm worried about. This has also led me into meditation, both sitting, and energy-based (qi gong, t'ai chi, yoga, etc) and has been instrumental in my growth as a person for sometime.

My anxiety levels are much, much lower now than they were six years ago, but I'm not, as the article seems to suggest is the only cure, simply managing them. I've used them to head directly at those things that make me fearful, and as a way to locate areas of tension in the body.

I can't imagine I'd be the only one for which this would be extremely helpful.

Dreams of Intimacy

2009-10-07T17:58:00.002-04:00

So I had a dream the other night, after coming back from my retreat for school, where I fell in love with one of my classmates (I'm not entirely serious.) In the dream, I was sitting at a table in a restaurant with a classmate from college who I was actually totally obsessed with, but in the dream the two of them were conflated; it was both of them.

We were talking, and then we stood up and embraced, and I felt the most powerful intimacy, that we were both open to each other, not hiding from each other, and I think, really, this is a great way to explain intimacy--it is the feeling of not holding back, of being fully open with another person. You wouldn't find that in the dictionary, though. It's the feeling of being fully present with somebody who is being fully present with you.

I think it's this sense of intimacy that's really missing from our modern sense of the word, which too often assumes a sexual relationship. There was nothing sexual about the embrace in the dream, we were just both present to each other.

It was beautiful.

Ice and frightening.

2009-09-09T23:44:00.001-04:00

Skip maybe just to the second half if you're impatient.

One Party Democracy

2009-09-09T09:56:00.003-04:00

An Op-Ed from Thomas Friedman, which picks up on something I had been talking about here, in regards to the political differences between the US and China, and how health care is being dealt with.

Reading the title I had thought Friedman was going to talk about how much both parties are so influenced by corporate money that in effect the government had turned into a corporatocracy, but perhaps later.

READ

2009-09-08T23:39:00.003-04:00

An Op-Ed in the NYTimes, from Harold Bloom, this century's most prominent literary critic, someone himself who I need to read a few times to begin to understand.

Get Lost. In Books.

More than ever in this time of economic troubles and societal change, entering upon an undergraduate education should be a voyage away from visual overstimulation into deep, sustained reading of what is most worth absorbing and understanding: the books that survive all ideological fashions.

There is general agreement on the indispensable canon: Homer, Plato, the Bible, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Montaigne, Milton. From the 19th century until now, keeping only to English and American authors, a slightly more arbitrary selection might include Blake, Wordsworth, Austen, Dickens, George Eliot, Hardy, Yeats and Joyce in England and Ireland. Among the Americans would certainly be Emerson, Thoreau, Melville, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Hawthorne; and in the 20th century, Faulkner and the major poets: Robert Frost, Wallace Stevens, T. S. Eliot, Hart Crane.

Many of these authors are difficult and demand rereading, but that doubles their value. A freshman may have read Shakespeare before, but the richest and most available of all writers is also the most profound and elliptical. Rereading “Hamlet” and “King Lear” should teach a student Shakespeare’s mastery of the art of leaving things out.

To think well you must rely, in part, upon memory, and possessing Shakespeare and Joyce, Montaigne and Whitman means that you can recall much of the best that has been written.

Whatever our current travails, we now have a literate president capable of coherent discourse, but too many other politicians are devoid of syntax and appear to have read nothing. Aggressive ignorance in aspirants to high office is another dismal consequence of the waning of authentic education.

Harold Bloom, a professor of English at Yale and the author of the forthcoming “Living Labyrinth: Literature and Influence,” has been teaching since 1955.

The Samatha Jhanas

2009-09-08T22:52:00.003-04:00

Again, my apologies for the formatting. Go to the link at the bottom if interested.

Via Shaman Sun:

Steps leading to jhana/dhyana
There are 9 steps in concentration training leading to shamatha (pali samatha) as explained in Alan Wallace's "The Attention Revolution." What follows is a brief overivew of this map with 9 steps, 6 powers, and 4 types of engagements featured in Wallace's handbook, with additional notes on terminology from different sources (such as "Mahayanasutralankara" and "Shravakabhumi" by Maitreyanatha/Asanga,"Bhavanakrama" by Kamalashila etc.).

	Step	What is achieved	Power by which that is achieved	What problem persists	Attentional imbalances	Type of mental engagement	Quality of the experience	Involuntary thoughts
1	Directed attention	One is able to direct the attention to the chosen object	Learning the instructions (skt. shruti)	No attentional continuity on the object	Coarse excitation	Focused	Movement	Flow of involuntary thought like a cascading waterfall
2	Continuous att.	Attentional continuity to a chosen object up to a minute	Thinking about the practice (skt. asaya)	Most of the time attention is not on the object	Coarse excitation	Focused	Movement	Flow of involuntary thought like a cascading waterfall
3	Resurgent att.	Swift recovery of distracted attention, mostly on the object	Mindfulness (skt. smrti)	One still forgets the object entirely for brief periods	Coarse excitation	Interrupted	Movement	Flow of involuntary thought like a cascading waterfall
4	Close att.	One no longer completely forgets the chosen object	Mindfulness, which is now strong	Some degree of complacency concerning samadhi	Coarse laxity and medium excitation	Interrupted	Achievement	Involuntary thoughts like a river quickly flowing through a gorge
5	Tamed att.	One takes satisfaction in samadhi	Introspection (skt. samprajanya)	Some resistance to samadhi	Medium laxity and medium excitation	Interrupted	Achievement	Involuntary thoughts like a river quickly flowing through a gorge
6	Pacified att.	No resistance to training the attention	Introspection	Desire, depression, lethargy, and drowsiness	Medium laxity and subtle excitation	Interrupted	Achievement	Involuntary thoughts like a river slowly flowing through a valley
7	Fully pacified att.	Pacification of attachment, melancholy, and lethargy	Enthusiasm (skt. virya)	Subtle imbalances of attention, swiftly rectified	Subtle laxity and excitation	Interrupted	Familiarity	Involuntary thoughts like a river slowly flowing through a valley
8	Single-pointed att.	Samadhi is long, sustained without any excitation or laxity	Mindfulness, introspection, enthusiasm	It still takes effort to ward off excitation and laxity	Latent impulses for subtle excitation and laxity	Uninterrupted	Stillness	Conceptually discursive mind is calm like an ocean with no waves
9	Attentional balance	Flawless samadhi is long, sustained effortlessly	Familiarity (skt. paricaya)	Attentional imbalances may recur infuture	Causes of those imbalances are still latent	Effortless	Perfection	Conceptually discursive mind is still like a great mountain

* Coarse excitation: attention completely disengages from the medit. object. Medium exc: involuntary thoughts occupy the center of attention, while the medit. object is displaced to periphery. Subtle exc: Medit. object remains at center of attention, but involuntary thoughts emerge at periphery of attention.
* Coarse laxity: Attention mostly disengages from medit. object due to insufficient vividness. Medium lax: Object appears, but not with much vividness. Subtle lax: Object appears vividly, but attention is slightly slack.

More here at Dharma Overground.

Anxiety and Procrastination

2009-09-08T21:40:00.004-04:00

My apologies for the formatting. Not sure what's going on.

A great article I picked up from Integral Options Cafe.

Meditation has helped me greatly with this, personally. I have always
been a terrible procrastinator, and have relied on various things to
veg-out. The anxiety that comes up when I want to get something
done is the same across the board, felt when I see something I want
to eat, say, or when I have to deal with someone I don't want to talk
to, or approach someone when I'm afraid to. With observation, it
disappears (though this takes practice, and the observation often
must be fairly constant.) This in itself is a large part of my practice.
When I feel anxious, I watch the sensation, and later try and figure
out what about the situation was making me feel anxious so I can
uproot it.

Don't Delay

Understanding procrastination and how to achieve our goals.

by Timothy A. Pychyl

Giving in to feel good: Why self-regulation fails

Focusing on regulating mood can lead to self-control failure in other areas.

We give in to feel good. Give in to what? Food, shopping, drinking, smoking, gambling, and, you guessed it, procrastination. The problem is that focusing on regulating our moods and feelings can lead to self-control failure in other areas.

"Giving in to feel good" is the first part of the title of an important paper written by Dianne Tice and Ellen Bratslavsky (complete reference below). Anyone interested in knowing more about issues of the self and self-regulation should search out resources, and there are plenty, written by Dianne Tice or Roy Baumeister, or their students. I have quoted Roy's work before, and I will again given his prolific prominence as a psychologist.

Procrastinators will tell you that the task they're facing (avoiding) is difficult, and it creates bad feelings like anxiety or general emotional distress. Putting off the task at hand is an effective way of regulating this mood. Avoid the task, avoid the bad mood. This is what Tice and Bratslavsky refer to as "giving in to feel good." We give in to the impulse to walk away in order to feel good right now. Learning theorists would even add that we have now reinforced this behavior as the decrease in anxiety is rewarding.

Of course, this short-term strategy has long-term costs. The last-minute efforts that become necessary when we put off the task usually mean a sub-standard job overall (although not always, and this is a classic reward to the procrastinator and very memorable). More importantly, as Tice and Bratslavsky explain, "the final and overall level of negative affect is likely to be even greater than if the person has worked on the task all along" (p. 152). We actually feel worse later!

In fact, earlier research conducted by Tice & Baumeister across two academic terms demonstrated that procrastination caught up to students in the second term. Whereas in the first term, the non-procrastinators were more stressed, by second term the costs of procrastination became obvious for the procrastinators in terms of course performance, stress and illness.

The message of their research is clear. Putting off a task to control immediate mood results in problems later. They demonstrate this across a number of domains as I noted earlier, including eating, drinking, smoking, gambling, shopping and procrastination. When we give primacy to addressing our emotional distress, we usually do so at the cost of self-regulatory failure. They summarize this key idea with,

"People will engage in behaviors that may be self-destructive (gambling, excessive shopping, overeating, smoking, procrastinating) if the behaviors make them feel better in the short term. Thus, emotion regulation may have a special place in the field of self-control, because emotion regulation takes precedence over other self-control behaviors and even undermines other self-control efforts" (p. 154).

The message to each of us should be clear as well. If we focus on our feelings in the short term, we'll undermine ourselves in the long run.

I've been teaching my 3-year-old daughter this. A typical "lesson" goes something like this.

Me: "Sweetie, it's time to pick up your toys before we go."
[Mood now visibly changing.]
L: "I don't feel like it. I don't want to."
Me: "Sweetie, according to Dianne Tice and Ellen Bratslavsky it's not the best strategy to focus on your feelings now, it's . . . sweetie?? Where are you?"

Ok, so it is about delay of gratification, and we do (should) learn this early in life. But, the evidence seems to show that we all can (and do) act like 3-year-olds at times.

In fact, we may spend a lifetime acting like a 3-year-old, and rationalizing it to ourselves the whole time. I don't feel like it. I need to feel better in order to act. First, I need to feel better.

No you don't.

In fact, your feelings will follow your behaviors. Progress on that task will improve your mood.

For example, new research where introverts are instructed to act extraverted shows that the introverts who act extraverted also feel happier (an affective advantage of extraverts). We'll talk about this more in the near future.

For now, the message is, don't give in to feeling good, get going instead - don't delay!

Reference

Tice, D.M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good: The place of emotion regulation in the context of general self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 149-159.

Quote #7

2009-09-08T21:19:00.002-04:00

Lord, grant that I might not so much seek to be loved as to love.

-St Francis of Assisi

I read an interesting take on this quote today from the 99th Monkey rephrased like this:

Grant that I might not so much seek to be loved (and understood) as to love (and understand.)

Wow, "real" America is batshit insane.

2009-09-03T11:00:00.000-04:00

Three Articles from Esquire:
Is Obama a Fascist?
Obama Birther's Movement Quotes
Obama Birth Certificate Update

"It was pus exploding from a wound."

This is frightening because it really is the end for these people. They have no power other than guns, and no recourse but to violence. While that is a scary thought, the upside is that if they do lash out, that could be the end of the influence of the whacko-right in the country. They are wounded.

Creativity, a baby's world, and happiness.

2009-09-03T08:00:00.000-04:00

Occasionally I get behind in my blog reading, and sometimes this creates fortunate coincidences. Like, now.

First, an article in Scientific American about how babies see the world. (both SciAm and the Shambala Sun articles are off Integral Options Cafe.)

"As adults when we attend to something in the world we are vividly conscious of that particular thing, and we shut out the surrounding world. The classic metaphor is that attention is like a spotlight, illuminating one part of the world and leaving the rest in darkness. In fact, attending carefully to one event may actually make us less conscious of the rest of the world. We even know something about how the brain does this: connections from the prefrontal part of the brain both enhance our perception of the attended event and inhibit our perception of other events. And there is a chemical basis for this, too. When we pay attention to an event certain brain chemicals called cholinergic transmitters make a small part of the brain more flexible and “plastic”, better at learning, and simultaneously other inhibitory transmitters actually make irrelevant parts of the brain less flexible.

If you look at baby’s attention you see a related but very different picture. Babies and young children are much worse at intentionally focusing their attention than adults. Instead, they seem to pay attention to anything that’s unexpected or interesting – anything they can learn from. We say that children are bad at paying attention but we really mean that they’re bad at not paying attention – they easily get distracted by anything interesting. And young brains are much more generally “plastic”, more flexible and better at learning than adult brains. Young brains are bathed in the cholinergic transmitters that enhance attention in adults, but the inhibitory transmitters that damp consciousness down haven’t yet come on line. If you put all that together it suggests that babies consciousness is more like a lantern than a spotlight – that it illumines the entire world around them.

Finally, you can think about what adult experience is like when we put ourselves in the same position as babies. When we travel for instance, we are suddenly surrounded by an unexpected new world and, instead of just focusing on the important things, we take in lots of information at once. That actually makes us more vividly conscious of our surroundings, not less. I think that for babies, every day is like first love in Paris."

Also, on play and pretending:

"...they seem to use their imagination the way that creative scientists do. One of the big new ideas about how babies learn is that they use what computer scientists call “Bayesian inference”. That means that you imagine lots of different possibilities and test how likely each possibility is.

When we have a theory of the world, we can not only say what the world is like now, we can also explore what would happen if the world was different. We can ask what would happen, for instance, if there was a rocket that traveled close to the speed of light. In fact, the ability to imagine these possibilities is one of the biggest advantages of understanding how the world works. Because we imagine, we can have invention and technology. Its actually play, not necessity, that is the mother of invention."

In a second article from Scientific American, researchers look at a way to increase creativity, and find that making something psychologically distant from oneself (anything not happening here, now, and to oneself is psychologically distant) increases creativity around the problem, which makes sense. How playful would you feel if you were trapped in a room slowly filling up with water? You'd probably be freaking out.

It also accords with the candle study, explained in the video below from TED talks:

Basically, people have to figure a simple task out. There are two groups, one given money if they complete it quickly and one not given any money. Classically, you'd expect the group given money as a reward to do better, but they do worse. See, the task they have to do involves some creativity. Giving people money apparently takes away some of their playfulness. (The talk is actually on motivation and the twenty-first century work place. I might talk about it in a later post, it's good.)

One more from TED: something I've put up before:

Finally, an article from the Shambhala Sun on happiness.

Now we can get to the point. It seems to me that the mode of consciousness described in the first article is not unique to babies, we're just educated out of it, at least when we're facing concrete and tangible problems, but we have access to it at anytime, and can certainly train to enhance it (the guys on "Who's Line is it Anyway"come to mind). Of course, the restricted, focused consciousness is just as important, we'd never become adult without it, but we're losing something when we ignore it, something that (as the first video explains) is increasingly needed in our world, and which might be linked to happiness. Or perhaps over-reliance on the focused method of consciousness, the "get-the-loot" consciousness, as the article puts it, causes us to ignore those million little things that are uplifting in the day.

Indeed, though the article in the SS doesn't present it in this light, we need both of these kinds of consciousness to be successful, and in meditation are training both: a simultaneous rigid focus on an open and innocent ("virgin", the article says,) state-of-mind. This could be why both the first and the last article are concerned with paying attention. Children are paying attention to everything, and if you're unhappy, maybe you're just not paying attention.

But children are not enlightened, nor are they all-in-all more conscious than adults (well, healthy adults.) The combination of the two is something attained through growth. As the SS article says, the "get-the-loot" mindset is always looking for something exterior, an experience or thing, while happiness comes from the inside. Babies don't have this, they aren't differentiated from their environment yet.

Remove the pillars of your belief in this world and look around a little bit, at least every once in a while, I guess is the take-home message.

Dark Flow, and limits to knowledge

2009-09-02T22:58:00.003-04:00

An oddly written but interesting blog entry about something called "Dark Flow."

The phenomenon is pretty interesting in itself, apparently hundreds of millions of stars are all rushing (relatively) towards one spot on the outer edges of the known universe, something no one saw coming (hence, "Dark.")

I'm more interested, though, in the reaction:

"This is giant on a scale where it's not just that we can't see what's doing it; it's that the entire makeup of the universe as we understand it can't be right if this is happening. Which is fantastic! Such discoveries force a whole new set of ideas onto the table which, even if they turn out to be wrong, are the greatest ways to advance science and our understanding of everything."

Which, I think, is spot-on. Too often we assume that our models of the world are correct, and we fight to keep them. Rarely does something come along that beggars some sort of contrived explanation.

I think one of the hallmarks of integral awareness (though it is in the healthy scientific consciousness that it first pops its head up) is the knowledge that we don't really know anything, except that we're here, and here is us.

Tarantino and the Ol' Switcheroo

2009-09-02T22:53:00.004-04:00

I walked out of "Inglourious Basterds" about an hour ago. If you haven't seen it and think you might, I wouldn't read this now, but I would give the film four stars, out of four. Go see it and come back.

Violent, yeah? Oddly enough, I went to go see this movie with my mom, honestly can't tell you the last time I've seen a movie with her, let alone in the theater. In any case, all my mom would say was "that was so violent." (She'd never seen a Tarantino film before. She actually suggested this.)

Of course, that was the point- the violence was grotesque, and it served the purpose of the film, which was humanitarian. There's a juxtaposition of the violence of the movie (fairy-tale) and the violence the Nazis perpetrated in real life. This movie was a scalping of the Nazis, doing exactly what Goebbels had thought he was doing to film (there's the one line about beating the Jews at their own game.) It dehumanizes them in the worst way, because its dehuminization is a fantasy. Hitler's face getting blown off in the end, all the Nazis getting raked by machine gun fire, is the last laugh, it is the vengeance of the Jew that the main female character proclaims as she taunts the theater-goers to stare into her Jewish face (which is, of course, perfectly blonde-haired blue-eyed aryan.)

But doesn't the violence dehumanize us as much as the Nazis are dehumanized, and so tear apart the whole point of the movie? Again, no, it's a fanciful fiction, which makes the real violence of WWII that much more horrific. Hitler can portray himself as beautiful. In our film, he is disgusting, pimply and old, wearing a cape, a cartoon. That's what you get for being a supreme asshole.

Well, again, I've just seen this an hour ago. It still hasn't quite sunk in, and there's much more in the movie, but that was my first take. What do you think?

Mythic Religion and Containment of the Power Ego

2009-08-31T16:13:00.003-04:00

A great post from Integral Options Cafe:

The Benefits of Religion

from Integral Options Cafe by WH

Yesterday morning I was being a slacker and not doing homework, so I watched Top Gun, which was on some cable station or another. I really dislike Tom Cruise so I had never seen this flick, but I had heard that it offered a great object lesson in memetics.

Maverick (Cruise's character) is a hot-shot young pilot, but he is very cocky and takes too many risks to show off his skills. Eventually, through no real fault of his own, his best friend and co-pilot dies on a training mission.

Iceman (Val Kilmer) is the rival pilot, equally as talented, but he flies within the rules of the Navy pilots training program, one of which is to never leave your wingman. Iceman eventually wins the Top Gun competition among the pilots in training. Maverick eventually submits to the military structure and saves Iceman in a real life firefight.

Maverick represents an ego-centered memetic stage of development, while Iceman represents a more authoritarian memetic stage. The film demonstrates through (melodrama and bad acting) that the power-drive of the ego needs some strong containment within authority structures to allow it to reach its potential.

By now, you may be wondering what this has to do with the benefits of religion.

Over the weekend, a video made the rounds online of a pastor up in Tempe (just outside of Phoenix) saying he hates Barack Obama and wished him dead. This same man and some of his congregation had shown up at Obama's speech a little more than a week ago armed with assault rifles and handguns.

Here is the video:

Popout

This video has resulted in a lot of despair about the role of mythic religion in our culture. You can read some of the discussion the video generated at my friend Stuart's Facebook page.

Many people feel that mythic religion has outlived its usefulness, or that it is no longer an appropriate developmental response to a complex world. This is not wrong, but it is only a partial truth. In fact, the mythic worldview is losing its power, and that is partially why those infected with a more malignant version of this developmental meme are reacting with fear-based violence.

However, not all religion is bad, and not all religion is malignant. As is the case with the military structure portrayed in Top Gun, mythic religion offers a structure to contain the power-drive of the raw ego. But mythic religion is only one form of religion (and here we are talking specifically about Christianity, not Islam, Judaism, or other religions). There are many rational, egalitarian, and even some integral stage Christians. It is not Christianity that is the problem.

The problem, rather, is that some of the people who adhere to a fundamentalist religious dogma also adhere to a very rigid and hateful form of ethnocentrism. The result is a profound fear of the other, and the other is anyone who does not share their specific values and beliefs about the world.

In the example of this clown up in Tempe, the other is Obama - because he is liberal, because he holds some postmodern relativist values (a woman's right to choose what happens to her body), and quite possibly because he is black. The Phoenix metro area is already well-known nationally for its fear/hate of all people who are not them, as Sheriff Joe Arpio demonstrates on a regular basis.

When religion in this country isn't infected with this ethnocentric hatred, it performs valuable roles in society. It has been inner city churches that have done the most to help those involved in the tribal and ego-based power drive of gang culture grow out of that. Even Malcolm X, although his faith was Islam, found containment for his power-drives in the authoritarian structure of religion.

In the same way that sports teams or the military provide that rule-bound structure to contain the raging egos of young men, so does mythic religion. When well-meaning but misguided liberals worked to disempower inner city churches in the sixties and seventies, it was the the neighborhoods that suffered for the lack of religious authority.

And none of this even touches the benefits that religion has for its believers. Churches provide community, comfort, and certainty. While we may not share their values or beliefs, most of these believers are good citizens. The few hateful people should cause us to condemn the whole religion.

It's strange that I find myself, an atheist, defending religion so often against other atheists. This is not the first time, and it likely won't be the last that I make these arguments, so I guess it part of what this blog is about - an integral approach.

Moment of Zen, Kennedy Shrug

2009-08-30T21:19:00.002-04:00

At Orbit48.

Not sure how to embed this, so you'll have to head there. But it's worth it.

Quote #6

2009-08-30T21:03:00.003-04:00

Mencius speaks to Republicans blocking health care reform:

"Talk is easy when you don't have to get the job done."

-Mencius

From The Useless Tree, an excellent blog on Chinese philosophy in the present day.

Seeking truth from whatever...

2009-08-30T20:56:00.004-04:00

From Jottings from the Granite Studio, a great Chinese scholar's blog. The last conversation is hilarious, and I have had innumerable conversations like it myself. (Qiu Shi, btw, means "seeking truth." For those of you who have never been to China, this is what happens when you're not taught culturally to think critically. Chinese people think, with few exceptions, that if they could just explain things correctly without the pesky western journalists lying and distorting things, everyone would love them. Shadow projection? Recently having lunch with my Chinese mom, she said to a friend about Japanese people, "they just don't like Chinese people." That's how I translate it, because that's what she meant. Literally, though, she said, "they just don't understand Chinese people," as if that would automatically turn them around.

"

For what it’s worth, David Bandurski and his team at China Media Project absolutely rock, and today’s commentary and translation of a bit of whiny blather from Qiu Shi on “people being mean to China” or some other such spray of sputum and self-pity is just the latest in a line of great posts. For what it’s worth, someone desperately needs to alert the editors of Qiu Shi as to the dangers of inadequate nutrition…poor sods seem to be suffering from a serious case of irony deficiency.

Leaving aside the whole point that very few people in the Chinese government understand, are willing to understand, or even want to understand how the media actually functions outside of PRC…the mother of all “dead horse” topics…There is this blissful piece of ineffable twaddle:

But in developed nations like the United States, some people now voice surprise at seeing that Chinese have mobile phones just as they do, and they ask ridiculous questions like, “You Chinese use mobile phones too?” Their understanding of China is trapped in the 1970s.

Yeah, maybe…but for every nameless American who “expresses surprise at Chinese using mobile phones,” I’ll give you 10 Beijingers who can’t wrap their skulls around the notion that a foreigner could read/speak/understand Chinese or is able to use chopsticks without jabbing themselves repeatedly in the eye socket.

A: “Oh, you can use kuaizi!?!?!? You are really lihai! Did YOU knOW that “kuaizi” is what we Chinese people call chopsticks!”

B: “Why thank you. In the nine hours I just spent at the Number One Archives going over a decade of Qing Dynasty court documents, the word kuaizi did not appear once. Thank goodness you told me that because otherwise I’d have had to eat with my toes.”

A: “Really, how did you read the material? It is all in Chinese!!!!* Did they translate them into English for you?”

B: [sound of head banging against table repeatedly]

(And yes, I’ve had this EXACT conversation. Many times.)

————-

*I’ll save the reaction when I say, “Yes, it’s in Chinese, but the really GOOD stuff is in Manchu” for another post.

Open Information and China

2009-08-30T20:48:00.002-04:00

"China has become a dead-zone for any business planning on building an international online presence."

This is one of the two things (the other being pollution and lack of life) that I could not stand living in China.

From a great blog post at Chinasolved.com. So good, I'm posting the whole thing:

China’s Fractured Web Part III – Myths and Realities

At the time of this writing, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are still unavailable in Mainland China. YouTube has been blocked since March of 2009, and Facebook and Twitter have been dark for almost a month. There is no indication about when - or even if - the blockade of these sites will be lifted.

First, let’s put a couple of myths to rest.

Myth 1 – It’s just a minor inconvenience that just about anyone can get around.

Myth 2 – These social media sites are all just kid’s stuff. True, 90% of the bandwidth used by Twitter, Facebook and YouTube seems to be devoted to college-boy pranks and sophomoric banality - but that is rapidly changing. Twitter is being used as a news feed, marketing platform and communications-tool by serious, grown-up businesses. Facebook is emerging as one the best ways to build and maintain an online professional or customer groups – and a great advertising platform. YouTube videos, embedded in private sites, puts professional quality broadcasting within the grasp of small & medium sized businesses everywhere. The impact of China’s blockade is relatively minor for now, but business applications for the Google, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are growing fast. Businesses interested in marketing to or from China are going to find themselves at an increasingly significant disadvantage.

Myth 3 – It’s temporary. YouTube has been blocked since March 2009, and Facebook & Twitter have been down for over a month. In the 24-7 world on online commerce, that level of service interruption is total. YouTube may come back someday (or it may not), but no IT or Marketing department will ever again be able to rely on the platform in China. The same goes for Twitter and Facebook. Even Google has been restricted and hobbled to the point where it is not a 100% reliable business tool in China. For business owners the bad news is already in the market and they are responsible for finding a way around it. No one can claim ignorance about a risk that has already been demonstrated.

Myth 4 – It’s not a business issue. The 20th century benchmarks for international trade were how many containers or freighters one nation sent across the water to another. In the 21st century, it will be about data, viewers and users. The few big sites that have been blocked and hobbled in China are powering thousands of small businesses and driving the future of online commerce. China has become a dead-zone for any business planning on building an international online presence.

Myth 5 – Chinese replacements already exist. Sites like Tudou, Youku, Xiaonei, Kaixin, Baidu and a host of others already replicate the functionality of the blockaded sites – so it’s easy to say that the problem has already been essentially solved by the marketplace. Indeed, if it were possible to link Twitter and Xiaonei or Facebook and Kaixin, this argument would be valid – and represent an exciting opportunity. But the fact that the two internets are developing in isolation and segregation from one another creates diseconomies of scale. Companies wishing to bring their online presence to China will have to duplicate budgets and content – and overcome substantial hurdles as far as quality control and due diligence. Multiple platforms that cannot integrate with one another raise the hurdle rate for business and makes marketing to or from China so expensive and risky that it is now beyond the reach of most small business.

Towards Universality, Again.

2009-08-30T20:45:00.002-04:00

From an entry on the Kill the Buddha blog:

"I’ve written too many novels, many too many, and as I get older I regret that when I was starting out, some forty years ago, I didn’t trust a vision of universality enough."

Signs that we are beginning to cope with the limits of postmodernism and resolve its distaste of Universals.

What is Integral Theory?

2009-08-30T20:40:00.002-04:00

Explaining to a friend, I got a pretty good succinct explanation: "Integral Theory is the consolidation of all areas of human thought into one."

While not descriptive, it at least gets the idea across.

Quote #5

2009-08-30T08:00:00.000-04:00

"The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."

- Abe Lincoln

Quote #4

2009-08-29T08:00:00.000-04:00

"Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain."

- JFK

Appropriate considering my post here and his younger brother's recent death.

Quote #3

2009-08-28T20:00:00.000-04:00

"The man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned in no other way."

-Mark Twain

Killing the Buddha

2009-08-28T15:27:00.003-04:00

A couple of days ago I found this wonderful online magazine. I'll let their manifesto speak for itself:

Manifesto

Killing the Buddha is a religion magazine for people made anxious by churches, people embarrassed to be caught in the “spirituality” section of a bookstore, people both hostile and drawn to talk of God. It is for people who somehow want to be religious, who want to know what it means to know the divine, but for good reasons are not and do not. If the religious have come to own religious discourse it is because they alone have had places where religious language could be spoken and understood. Now there is a forum for the supposedly non-religious to think and talk about what religion is, is not and might be. Killing the Buddha is it.

The idea of “killing the Buddha” comes from a famous Zen line, the context of which is easy to imagine: After years on his cushion, a monk has what he believes is a breakthrough: a glimpse of nirvana, the Buddhamind, the big pay-off. Reporting the experience to his master, however, he is informed that what has happened is par for the course, nothing special, maybe even damaging to his pursuit. And then the master gives the student dismaying advice: If you meet the Buddha, he says, kill him.

Why kill the Buddha? Because the Buddha you meet is not the true Buddha, but an expression of your longing. If this Buddha is not killed he will only stand in your way.

Why Killing the Buddha? For our purposes, killing the Buddha is a metaphor for moving past the complacency of belief, for struggling honestly with the idea of God. As people who take faith seriously, we are endlessly amazed and enraged that religious discourse has become so bloodless, parochial and boring. Any God worth the name is none of these things. Yet when people talk about God they are talking mainly about the Buddha they meet. For fear of seeming intolerant or uncertain, or just for lack of thinking, they talk about a God too small to be God.

Killing the Buddha is about finding a way to be religious when we’re all so self-conscious and self-absorbed. Knowing more than ever about ourselves and the way the world works, we gain nothing through nostalgia for a time when belief was simple, and even less from insisting that now is such a time. Killing the Buddha will ask, How can we be religious without leaving part of ourselves at the church or temple door? How can we love God when we know it doesn’t matter if we do? Call it God for the godless. Call it the search for a God we can believe in: A God that will not be an embarrassment in twelve-thousand years. A God we can talk about without qualifications.

Killing the Buddha insists that if religion matters at all it matters enough to be taken to task. We believe it’s high time for a new canon to be created, and that the Web is just the place to collect it. We refuse to accept the internet as a world wide shopping mall. We know intuitively it can be a sort of Talmudic cathedral, a tool of transcendence made of words. We’re here to build it. If the end result looks more like Babel than the City of God, so be it. Babel, after all, came close.

Thanks for reading.
- The KtBniks

Pifas in the news!

2009-08-28T12:52:00.001-04:00

An article in the Times about Philly art, including PIFAS!

In related news, Gavin Riley at PIFAS tonight, 9pm, 5 dollar donation.

Health Care with Chinese Characteristics?

2009-08-28T04:39:00.004-04:00

This morning waking up from a nightmare a fairly bitter and ironic thought struck me: health care reform would get passed in China.

Of course, the type of sweeping health care reform that we need in America with the type of coverage that we're talking about never could actually get passed over there- most of the populace (900 billion peasants) has never had anything resembling the type of care Americans with decent health care are accustomed to, and the political system is not in the business of giving away gobs of money and or services, and is corrupt beyond anything most Americans could imagine.

The thought was not realistic, just something of an amusement. Chinese leaders are said to be contemptuous of the weaknesses of democracy, and this whole issue is a prime example of why: this health care debate is a whole mess that never would have happened in their country. They don't realize that the strengths of our system lie in these very weaknesses, but that's not for this discussion.

To be sure, our democracy is ideally healthier than their "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" by ten, but that presupposes certain things, some of which have been in the balance for some time, such as a media disengaged from power, and some of which have come up short, such as education. (Shout out to Nate for this.)

Our sort of democracy presupposes an educated electorate, and by educated I mean up to the ability to think critically, rationality. Far from being rational, human thought is predicated on emotions, growing on their root. It is a human capacity, a possibility, but not an inevitability. It is something that people must be educated into, though I don't necessarily mean formally so. One does not teach rational thought like one teaches about the American revolution, one teaches rational thought in how one teaches about everything. It is cultural, not a subject.

Not that there aren't rational arguments in any direction on this debate. There are. But most people are not reacting against a public plan from some disinterested intellectual perch. They are reacting against a fear of change coming from people unlike them whom they don't trust. They reject a public option because they don't like black presidents, they are terrified of socialism, they are fearful of becoming a minority in their own country, and all of this could be summed up by saying they're terrified that they are losing their voice, and so their power. They are not alone; their fear is being drummed up by the greed of people who are benefiting from the current system and likely to benefit from any arrangement without a public option in the future, but the fear is there, and is accessible because of a lack of rational thinking. Democracy is born in rationality, and needs it to flourish. (For the Integral out there we are obviously talking about SDi 5 v SDi4.)

I feel as if these people who are de facto with the insurance companies on this have never actually had to deal with them before, having their coverage dropped for nothing, getting seventy percent of the allotted (already only one third of what's necessary) maximum reimbursement per week because their psychologist isn't in the network (someone I know), or having to sift through claims and do paperwork with most of their energy and all of their out of bed time during chemotherapy.

My family has gone through it as well. When my brother got Hodgkins disease in 2003, we routinely received letters from the insurance companies that his medication wasn't covered. Yes, for cancer. Even with excellent health care provided to employees of New Jersey (my mom), we had to jump through hoops. Thankfully we weren't one of the thousands affected by "rescission," which means cut from the rolls for some technicality just as we needed care, a practice illuminated in this excellent Nicholas Kristof piece. In it, Kristof talks about a health care executive that saw the light as he was preparing response propaganda for the Michael Moore film "Sicko," and testified in Congress about the methods used by insurance companies to purge the sick from their rolls. It's a sort of short tell-all, and it shows the depths of depravity of the system we have, if not necessarily all of the people operating it, and just how desperately we need reform.

But how?

I am praying that, as Howard Dean said, Obama has been rope-a-doping the Republicans, displaying that they're not really interested in sitting down and working out the kind of reform that we need, and therefore should be largely ignored. I'm looking for one of those powerful speeches to come just before the fall legislative session begins, outlining the necessity of reform, pushing the public plan as the only legitimate option, and calling out the opposition, all in a straightforward and rhetorically excellent manner as only Obama can do.

But as I said, I'm at the point of praying, and am not a religious man.

As lofty as my love of the country grew when it elected a black man with "Hussein" in his name, so hard will it crash back into tempered cynical realism if we get change all insurance companies can believe in, as evidence of it not mattering who you vote for, or why. For the economy, for the people, for business, and as a moral imperative, we need reform. I trust Obama knows this, but we're all seeing that he's somewhat uncomfortable leading against hard-nosed opposition. (Enneagram 9 with a 1 wing? Anyone?) It still isn't impossible, but make no mistake: this is the defining event of his presidency, and his life.

It's almost enough to make one wish for a government that could just magically take all the cars off the roads and shut down all the factories in the area for some large international event, contrary opinions be damned. Don't be afraid, America: it's not socialism, it's socialism with Chinese characteristics.

And Here's an Article Saying Much the Opposite of the Last

2009-08-27T23:29:00.003-04:00

From Wired, Happy 150th, Oil! And So Long!

I tend to agree with this one more, and they note the economic cliff we're headed for if we have no way to transition from oil, whenever that day does come.

Thanks to Richard M. for the link.

What Peak?

2009-08-27T22:53:00.005-04:00

If you dislike oil, do read this, an op-ed from Michael Lynch, an energy consultant. It tries to pop the theory of peak oil, at least in the short term.

But I'm not really writing about peak oil. Whether or not Mr. Lynch's logic is correct, the point of the idea of peak oil is that at some point in the future, oil will run out. Our entire energy system has to be prepared before this happens, or, especially if it happens during a period of exponential growth, we'll be screwed economically; it will bring everything down. This is going to happen one day. It may not be today, or tomorrow, or ten or even fifty years, but it is inevitably going to happen if humans are still around and we don't have any other way to power our machines. Oil is finite, and we are using more and more and more of it. Yes, putting significant economic resources into fuel programs which will create fuel still more expensive than oil makes little sense, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be working towards it gradually.

But in any case, I'm not writing about peak oil, I'm writing about this: this is pretty good news, and I, reading the article, felt bad about it.

This is good news! Oil powers the world's economy. Unless you are looking forward to dying of starvation or exposure or in a resource war or of any number of effects of the collapse of our civilization (and yes, there are some of you out there I know) this is good news. And yet, there is the feeling that it pushes off the golden age, a time when energy comes entirely renewable and people smile at each other on the street.

For sure, the effects of oil on the emission of CO2 can't be ignored, and this is probably why many people would be predisposed to disagree vehemently with this article.

I can't say that it's true, either, but I sure can't say that it isn't. (Brazil has recently found a bonanza of oil off of its coast.) And that's sort of the point. My feelings on the issue are entirely irrelevant. How many people, though, read the article and said, "fool!" or "well it's about time somebody made some sense," not because this is the definitive word, but because there is none. Experts disagree on this, as they do on everything.

This, of course, is a rather inflammatory issue, or at least a litmus test, but I feel that for most questions of opinion the majority of folks would react in a similar manner. There's no real consideration for the merits of the argument, or that one's previous position might not be solid. Who's to say that anybody's right, anyway?

Problem, singular, and integral (theory) solutions.

2009-08-27T18:26:00.005-04:00

I've been saying this for years!

An Op-ed from Thomas Friedman. Beyond the corniness of Friedman, this is something that really needs to be said (which I guess could be true of much of Friedman's posts.)

The point of the article:

"We’re trying to deal with a whole array of integrated problems — climate change, energy, biodiversity loss, poverty alleviation and the need to grow enough food to feed the planet — separately. The poverty fighters resent the climate-change folks; climate folks hold summits without reference to biodiversity; the food advocates resist the biodiversity protectors...

'We need to stop thinking about these issues in isolation — each with its own champion, constituency and agenda — and deal with them in an integrated way, the way they actually occur on the ground,” argued Glenn Prickett, senior vice president with Conservation International. “We tend to think about climate change as just an energy issue, but it’s also about land use: one-third of greenhouse gas emissions come from tropical deforestation and agriculture. So we need to preserve forests and other ecosystems to solve climate change, not only to save species.'"

Notice the word "integrated" above. As I struggle to explain Integral Theory to everyone, one thing I keep coming out with is that it's mostly a different way of looking at things, a different set of lenses through which to look at the world, one which tries to take into account that reality is unified.

What this means is that if there's a problem, it's most likely either one of viewpoint, or one of orientation.

How can a change of viewpoint change everything?

Well, remember when fire was magic, some random event or act of the gods? Of course not. Every advance that we make occurs because of a shift in viewpoint, a greater, deeper, or wider understanding, or a more encompassing, more connected worldview.

There are no problems in the Universe. You have problems. There are two ways to eliminate them: externally and internally. If you no longer care about something (internal) it's not a problem. If you remove the external cause of the problem, it's not a problem. Both are important. You won't be a very good human if you ignore the external reality of problems. You'll probably starve to death. But you also won't be a very good human if you don't grow past some of your problems. You'll be waiting for your mother to feed you, and you'll starve to death. Both are shifts in viewpoint: you either change your view of what you are and what your relationship to the world is, or you change the way you look at the outside world, which changes what you can do to it and in it.

The shift in perspective that Friedman is discussing is from one where each act in the universe, or process (a series of acts and reactions through time) is basically unrelated to each other (SDi 5) to one which recognizes that every act has consequences for every other ongoing process, or that every process and system is linked to each other (SDi 6). You could also view this in terms of input and output, in the movement from an understanding of inputs and outputs occurring separately to one where every output is a different process' input, creating cycles.

Much of where modernity has gone awry is in disrupting cycles between the output of one and the input of another, creating waste, which doesn't exist in the natural world.

This is not to say that man has no right to tinker with what's there: as mentioned in the end of the article, we can make nature better, or rather, better for us, which is the process of solving problems externally. (Very simply, making a roof underneath which to hide from the rain.) What we need to understand is that instead of creating a different framework to solve every problem we have, we already have been given the perfect framework within which to work, we just need to recognize it as such.

Meditative visuals when tired. Lucid dreaming?

2009-08-25T17:34:00.004-04:00

Recently when I have been tired I have noticed a fascinating phenomenon- I am not usually a visual person, that is, it is sometimes difficult for me to maintain mental images in my head. However, I have been meditating quite a lot recently, and when I have been tired, especially if I am not going to sleep but just resting my eyes, I have been paying attention to the shapes and colors playing behind my eyelids. The greater my focus, and greater my relaxation, (I am often meditating casually as I rest) the more real they appear, like the images that can guide you into dreams directly from waking, something I have frequently experienced since the time I was young. I have either been waking up to jot it down or falling asleep, but my goal is to be able to enter lucid dreams from this state, which I'm pretty sure is possible even though I have been as yet unable to control them.

Violent Right?

2009-08-24T21:01:00.004-04:00

An article from Sunday's NYT by Frank Rich.

Rich, if you don't read him, is an excellent columnist, funny, scathing, sarcastic, and all in the straightforward service of screaming that the Emperor's got no clothes on. He is sharp and lucid as glass when it comes to historical analogies as well, which comes out in this article quite a bit.

One subtle undertone of the column is that the Right, for whatever reason, seems to be legitimized in the US in a way the Left never would be. Perhaps it is that huge swaths of the country are rural, or the sort of suburban sprawl metros that maintain a rural twang even as they reach a million people. Maybe it has to do with our pledge towards liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And surely there's something in it of the protestant ethos of individual responsibility and accountability and belief in a personal soul, which tends the "life" omitted above and that happiness to refer strictly to one's own, and which informs even our atheists' senses of self.

But whatever it is we surely would not be in this situation if there were an equal balance of Left and Right in this country, at least in so far as what is acceptable in the public discourse, or what is weighing down the levers of power. There does honestly seem to be a virtual tie in terms of the private views of the citizenry, wobbling back and forth every few years, but could you honestly imagine a scenario where far-left zealots caused enough of a stink to get anything on the ropes, let alone something (we're not even considering single-payer here) fairly centrist? They are ostracized, not eulogized as the equally imbalanced recent protesters have been, even with much grumbling about how incorrect their take on the contents of reform are. As Paul Krugman writes, it's almost insanity that the Right's 'government is satan always' rhetoric hasn't died off after the actual policies grown from it have failed beyond failure. The question isn't why the right is so loud- they're loud because they've got amplifiers. But why do they have amplifiers in sober thinking people?

That for some reason seems to be at the heart of this whole matter. America has been the greatest force of progressivism in the last two hundred and thirty-three years, through fits and starts, and yet it's as if every positive step is taken against the weight of a begrudging dragging boulder, and mitigated by terribly insensitive acts that would cause, I'm sure, quite a few people to blanch at the first clause of this sentence.

Maybe it's just energy- America and her people are both energetically progressive and energetically conservative, and we get the best and worst of both. Thanks to that. Without it the world would probably either be a right or left dystopian hell. But we could sure use a burst of progressive energy now.

And we'll need it seriously if we're going to get over the money, without which the situation just doesn't add up. Things are going the way they are because of money, and I think the real disenchantment with Obama now isn't just because of the flagging of the public option, it's because the only thing that could possibly be behind it is gobs of questionably earned money. I, for one, voted for the man mostly because I thought he could be the kind of rare person to point this out and step around it, which is really the only way to make this work in the long run. As an optimist I hold out hope, since the O-man's pattern so far has been staying out of the fray until everyone thinks the game is up, descending, and laying down the law, no strings attached, which is why so many people look to him as a sort of savior figure. The race speech, the clearest example of this pattern, is much less important in the long run than the current debate, but Obama must know this as well. My confidence in him would be destroyed if a bill passed that screwed me (no income no health insurance 27 year old male) but it remains, waiting for the man to work things out. He certainly has the ability to. It would be a shame if he didn't realize that, and it will ruin his presidency if he doesn't act on it.

Perhaps it's coming. Lefties are fairly outraged by all the blabber about the impossibility of passing real meaningful reform in the face of a bullying insurance industry, and if history is a guide the right is about to become more and more violent, something which can only discredit them (much of what Rich is saying.)

And Washington is not a campaign. That is, he'll need all the prodding from the left and discrediting of the right he can get to sort this out. A speech isn't going to cut it.

It's ironic that I lived through eight years of W and am only contemplating finding a Canadian woman to marry with a Democratic president.

Wide Moments

2009-08-22T13:49:00.003-04:00

For you, what is the most natural trigger of reverence or awe?

What I mean is that when looking up at a sky full of stars, my mind hushes and melts into that expansiveness without my doing anything, a reminder of how grand it is to be alive and aware of it.

Coming home from Beijing I will no longer take that for granted; for sure the lack of stars in my life for the past seven months is the reason I noticed this. The stars and being surrounded by the smell of foliage at night bring me great peace.

On my birthday I woke up early and went to watch the sunrise on the seashore. It was overcast, so you couldn't see the sun over the horizon, but all of a sudden over clouds far away the sun came up a brilliant magenta color I'd never seen before, off the periwinkle of the clouds and the slate of the ocean, it was magnificent.

Also while hiking recently some friends and I were perched on the peak of a mountain in New Jersey watching the sun settle over mountains west, and the silence.

Again, for me, the stars are the most powerful, but all three of these recently have stuck in my mind. What, if anything, does it for you?

Quote #2

2009-08-22T11:58:00.003-04:00

We are here and it is now. Further than that all human knowledge is moonshine.

-H.L. Mencken

Quote #1

2009-08-17T08:00:00.000-04:00

"Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal."
-- T.S. Eliot

A translation of this I would give is: "Amateurs borrow, professionals steal."

Round Two

2009-08-12T16:09:00.002-04:00

I'm home!

Fresh Air! Full internet access! Books! Friends!

I haven't written on this site in more than three months because of the Chinese government's net nanny and my inability to get around it consistently, but here it goes.

There will be some changes to the blog, and I will be experimenting with quite a bit in the next year.

1- I would like to lighten up. There will be lengthy essays, there will also be cartoons, if they're apropos.

2- Something like Chycho.com (an interesting anarchist website) I would like to begin to create a web of meaning/information for Integral Studies, so quite a few posts, especially in the next few months or so, will be smaller chunks of a larger integrated whole, and may not make sense as-is. They'll be marked.

3- While one of the reasons for having this blog has always been to test out ideas and get them down on paper, as I am heading into a program in Integral Studies and trying to pen out a book, this will increase. Comments and criticism will be treated like VIPs.

4- Trying to pare my thought down and get direct. Nail me, if you like, for verbosity.

Okay!

What does it feel like to be Integral, and what are we doing?

2009-05-05T22:09:00.007-04:00

Warning: Jargon.

Originally, this was a reply to a question on Open Source Integral, "What does it feel like to be Integral?" It deals with the question, as well as with what Integral is and what it's doing, also touching upon Ken Wilber's role in "integral." It's slightly modified.

To answer the question directly, integral probably feels different a little bit to everybody going through it, though I'd suspect there are quite a few similarities. There's an openness to experience, much less resistance (and so anxiety) to life and what's around, but the only real way I can say it is that I feel much more like myself: less like I have to act, and so much more willingly an actor, because it's fun. Maybe in short it's just that: simply more myself. I believe that's probably true for most, though what you've got to grow into and what blocks you need to remove are certainly different for everyone. A large part of the transition into integral for me has been allowing myself to open up to my emotions (though I would not say that's true for everyone,) and so life has become fuller; again, I feel like I'm more me more of the time now, and noticeably, joyfully so. Along with that there's the openness mentioned: all this richness and open emotion flows in and out. I'm much more aware and accepting of it, and much lest graspy or resistant to it-- that is, this fullness is equally a wonderful emptiness--there's an embracing and simultaneous awareness of what the mind would consider exclusionary opposites, for example, a grounded solidity in the midst of hundred-cycle-per-second change. When I do get anxious over something, or feel a tension in my body (1,000 times a day) I'm aware of it very quickly, and can note where it's coming from internally/externally, largely releasing it. There's also, for me, a marked sense of autonomy that comes from the release of anxiety about personal agency, along with a greater comfort in actually relinquishing any control over to the second by second rhythms of the world.

Other than that, I have to lightly disagree with a slightly dismissive tone in this thread [at OSI] in regards to Wilber. I do not worship Ken Wilber, though perhaps I used to, when I was jealous of him for the first couple of years after I'd read him for the first time. (Haven't we all been?) I'd love to have come up with AQAL, but actually coming into an integral level of being, rather than merely intellectualizing it, that's just not there anymore. I'm myself, and so better at that than KW could ever be, and joyous about it, because we're the same thing, and what's in store for me is just who I am. How could anyone else do it? Still, I feel much of the conversation here is bashing on or devaluing Wilber without a real appreciation. I certainly don't think that you have to understand Wilber to be integral (or even have ever heard of him) but you have to at least wrestle with him until you can definitively say where he goes awry. Some of the comments expressing a common sentiment against certain aspects of Wilber's variety of integral I think Wilber would whole-heartedly agree with, because he makes them explicit himself. They're not missing from his theory, they're in it.

In any case, I sympathize with the orignal poster, who mentions that a large awkwardness with the theory is the clunkiness and large amount of jargon. The language problem reminds me of my students here in China. In order to become comfortable speaking English they've got to learn a whole deal of commands and other 'class-functional' words just so we're using as little Chinese as possible (like, "what does that word mean,") that are usually more complex than their English level. There's so much to learn before you even get to really using it for yourself, and so i would suggest that the third-personness of the original poster's previous integral experience was because he hadn't gotten to the point where he'd internalized it, and that the yearning to do so from a personal standpoint likely shows that he's growing much more wholly into an integral awareness/living. It was third-person because 'not-you,' not because of any weakness in the theory (of course third-person,) but because he was still acclimating to the a gigantic instruction manual, so to speak. Anyone at an integral level of consciousness ought to recognize much of KW's work without having to talk and debate so much about it. I did much the same thing as he did, but never quite despaired about it. Now I see it as my intellectual understanding (where I could arrange and understand all that outside of me) helped to pull me up into an overall integral level of consciousness, beyond my simple verbal/rational mind.

In addition, there are quite a few areas where the main stream of Integral theory needs some retuning, in the very least as far as presentation is concerned. For example, the word "evolution." Evolution means reorganization of self in order to adapt to a changing environment, and so technically, yes, the higher up the spiral you go, the more evolved you are. Human evolution is taking place not only at the physical level, but at the mental level, and faster. Of course, for "8s," who are supposed to be tuned into how their actions are taken at each level, this word can't possibly be the right one. Talk about someone as being more evolved and you turn off most of the "lower tier," not just the greens. It's elitist in the worst way. This, of course, is only an apparent elitism-- the word as it's used within the integral culture is not a judgment of overall worth, but fitness, but try telling that to someone you're calling "less evolved." Is there a solution to this? I usually say people "with" a level 8 consciousness rather than "who have," but still. "Higher/lower," or "later/earlier," you're still going to run into the problem. In the trajectory of the universe, you see a clear trend towards systems of greater complexity which become better and better able to replicate and then improve themselves over time, from the primordial soup to humans, and then within the human mind. So how to say this without offending? This is what we're doing now, trying to figure out a way to pass this knowledge down the spiral in the best and most helpful way possible to facilitate further growth. But I also find that many integralists have a far less than humble attitude, and watching them speak about "higher levels" and this and that, one gets the sense that they are making overall value judgments, and are PROUD of it, which I think would be a mistake, something that may turn off quite a number of people who would otherwise be helped greatly. There's a technical term for the professors in college who lord their superiority of knowledge over their students rather than give them a patient, friendly hand: assholes.

But what would integral be without Wilber? Along with the above idea of a bottom-to-top development certainly anything that could legitimately be called integral has to deal with the four quadrants, that is, that every 'thing' that exists has four aspects, which are epiphenomenal, and yet separable. Why? I have spent years tracking this down, and the shortest answer is that reality is contradictory, that is, since the mind cannot grasp reality in thought, what is real will always seem to be contradictory, because the mind can't follow both logical conclusions. Too quickly because it's a different discussion and because you all likely know what I mean anyway: zero, one, and infinity are all actually three different conceptual ways of looking at the same thing, which is existence, consciousness. Try to think about one absolutely without the others: it doesn't work. A world of oneness without second would be a void with no differentiation, but even here the concepts collapse: that void would be infinite, that is, the void (0) of oneness (1) would still be infinite. Similarly, everything has an inside and an outside reality that are different and yet entirely the same, a plurality and individuality that are separable and inseparable. Ask "yes, but where's the last (ultimate) oneness," or "where's the lowest denominator," and you're thinking, and you'll never quite get it like that. The lack of any possible logical end in itself points to the truth in this. Without zero, no one, without inside, no out, without plurals, no singulars.

Similarly, I see a great difficulty in any integralism without the concession that reality is non-dual. It seems the very foundation of integral thought and life. The looseness and freedom and wonderful bursting emptiness of integral life comes with the experiential knowledge that the categories are only artificial approximations, and that every line drawn is only another way of illuminating the great unity, of which you are both a part and the whole.

So where are these complaints coming from, really?
What is Integral? What are we doing here?

Integral Theory (and the Integral Life) I think, is directed towards health, wholeness. That's the endgame, right? Integral Theory is a sort of map, a map of our species and our thought, but ultimately it only has use as a tool for our growth, as individuals and as a kind. That is, it is the first attempt at what the conveyor belt to a realized culture that Wilber sometimes talks about might look like. I feel as if many people here are critical of Wilber merely because it's the first time the whole map has been put together, and so, for lack of detail, their home isn't on it.

But there's rejection here where there could be shivering excitement. There's plenty of inference here about integral life beyond or outside Wilber, but I haven't really seen any thing concrete mentioned. We want to know what you're doing! If there's something missing, go live it! We're on the frontier, yeah? We're on the frontier of manifested consciousness as far as we can tell, so be pioneers! Wilber's model seems sparse only if you aren't filling in the gaps with your own engaged life. Of course there's so much to be done without him: he's only one person! His ILP box set perhaps seems like a poor representation of the possibilities of the integral life, but it's not meant to be definitive, it's meant to be suggestive, and that's made explicit. You have to engage with your own life to find the best ways to exercise and challenge yourself in every facet. How? Well, here's one example, the box set, (which I don't and haven't used) play around with it. (play)

The integral wave of consciousness is in its first stage as a mass phenomenon (not just isolated individuals), which means that you and I are determining what it is and means concretely and not just in the abstract, right now, but also means that 1- a lot of people are just coming into it from green and 2- b/c of this we're only starting in a large way to paint integral over structures which come from much earlier forms of consciousness. Hell, even the level-five worldview is still just opening over much of the world. Every person/culture that goes through it leaves their paw print. I feel like Wilber is being criticized for both not making the map more lush and interesting when he can only illuminate the views from his integral life and provide a larger framework, and also for laying the groundwork too thoroughly, as if telling you that when you're in college you'll have a great time, take a number of classes, be there for most likely between three and five years, meet plenty of interesting people, grow greatly personally and intellectually, etc. etc. preempts anything fun you'll actually do. We're all growing into greater recognitions of what reality is. That growth will be one-hundred percent personal, though the recognition is eternal. We may not have named this world, but it's ours for the making.

But that world will be colored within this framework, at least as long as it takes to start to flesh the higher levels out, when we can see where the holes are. The truth, I feel, is that if we are to succeed in getting through the problems the world is facing today, we're doing it through Wilber's influence or we're not doing it at all.

So what are we doing? We've lived in a valley all our human life, sending explorers up and over the mountains occasionally, but not caring as a species (or needing, or able) to go see it. Wilber was not the first out there, but he was the first to come back and explain to a large group of us just what was to be gained outside of our valley and how to do it, and how some of the major explorers did it before us. In any case, we're the first sizable chunk of the population to have camped in the gigantic and fertile plain on the other side. So what do we do? Not a rhetorical question. Let's get some answers.

For me, at this point, I am trying to explicate to my understanding what integral is and means, both within the community, and to the rest of the world. I believe that we are in a transition period in the movement, between when the news really got out with Wilber and when there will be a core and sizable group of people at an integral level, and that it's crucial to get to the next stage: having a fair number of people with influence, or power, or authority, operating and creating at an integral level of consciousness before too long. Much of what I do on this blog is aimed at using real life examples to illuminate integral theory and promote, flesh out, and examine integral thinking. I am also doing the internal work necessary: rounding off my weaknesses and fears, augmenting my natural talents, meditating, etc. etc.

One thing I think very important is to have the language debate. Is there a way to discuss this in depth in terms more intuitive, or is there a point at which you just simply have to explain the theory (I've gotten this down to about a five minute spiel that works pretty well) outright? Unfortunately many people here, rejecting the language, reject the theory, it seems.

How do we keep this alive? Keep it going? I think it will have it's own natural momentum, whether here on the web or somewhere else, or (most likely) with no real centralized base, but spread all over the place. But the most important thing is that you bring your energy to it, of course. You don't have to write ten pages, but keep up with others, offer pointers or criticisms, and take it out to the world. Engage.

One more minor point off another comment: I agree that some of Beck's (and Wilber's) takes on the spiral are off-putting and need adjustment, but "second-tier" is certainly not bogus. There is a huge gap (I call it usually the existential gap) between the realization that the world is without inherent meaning (green 6) and that that's a good thing (Yellow/Teal 7.) Second tier consciousness, while characterized by many things, is rooted in the knowledge that we are both the subject and the object, and I don't think this is something that, on a tactile (and so effective) level, anyone on a six and lower can quite get. It is a leap.

Thinking Integral (Response to Shaman Sun)

2009-04-30T05:23:00.006-04:00

I just read this piece the other day on a blog called Shaman Sun.

It's basically evaluating the totemic role Ken Wilber and AQAL play within "Integral Theory." Wilber's work has been criticized for several different things, some of them raised in this article, including, mostly, 1- it is too complicated, 2- it is too simplistic, and 3- it confuses the map with the territory, that is, it pretends itself to be life, and not merely representative of it.

I will try to defend his approach, as I see each of these arguments as perhaps not groundless, but at least misguided.

For number one, I have to admit I find it frustrating trying to explain all of the jargon involved in integral theory, but have been able to work out a five-minute version. Much of what I'm trying to do is explain this way of looking at reality simply, trying to get people to grasp some of it. Of course, to really get into it, some of the terminology is unavoidable; that is, it's there for a reason: it's certainly possible to explain, say, the difference between someone with a pre-conventional and post-conventional level of consciousness, and even why they may be confused by someone with a conventional level of consciousness, all without using spiral dynamic nomenclature, but to do the roundabout over and over again in every article or post or conversation is a real pain in the ass. I also suspect that any academic theory has much the same problem, which is what makes professors often such boring people outside of the classroom. Just kidding.

It is difficult to get to the meat and bones of an academic theory because the complexity is fairly high. However, just as with any theoretical "step-up," say, from pre-calculus to calculus, where there are a necessary group of skills/ terminologies to be mastered at the lower level in order to manipulate them at the higher one, once the terms are familiar, and what they stand for internalized as experiential knowledge, they are no longer so daunting. Certainly I am not the only Integral Student to see levels and lines and stages and states everywhere I look every day. BUT NOT LITERALLY (complaint number three.) I actually do think that for the complexity of our world, Wilber's model presents a remarkably simple, and yet accurate theory. Which brings us to-----

Number two- it's too simplistic. "With all the complexity in the world, all the randomness and messiness and infinite variety, how could a model ever get it right?" I actually think what Wilber's theory does so brilliantly is make room for all of the mess. It doesn't include it all, that would truly be too complex, but it makes room for it. It took me until the release of "Integral Ecology" to see a practical example of what Wilber talks about when he says that so much more research is needed, and that the AQAL framework can be applied to different areas of research, the operative word being "framework." AQAL itself may not be so messy, but it's just the outline. Integral Ecology (which, disclosure, I have only read a summary of and listened to an hour-long talk about between one of the authors and Wilber) takes that framework and then tries to see the messy study of ecology through it (there are over two hundred different "ecologies.") If it succeeds, it does what any good framework does: takes all that messiness and gives you a method of relating all the different pieces together in a (post?) logical way.

As for complaint number three, "but this isn't the world!" (closely related to the above) it seems to come from a relativistic standpoint used to making this objection against any system of thought. I am, however, still brought to near-confusion when I hear it, since Wilber says so clearly and directly that this map, and any map, is just a map, and enjoins the interested to personal practice beyond intellectualizing and philosophizing. It seems to me to be a keystone of the theory: enter into your own life to see, as it must be experienced. Along with the above, that's where the messiness comes in. Nobody is a level five. No society is at some particular level. It's all fluid. Another connected keystone is that reality is non-dual, and so, just as with the messiness above, it must be remembered that a) all of this applies to you and can be realized directly and b) all of the lines are, if not arbitrary, somewhat artificial. It is, in other-words, built-in to the theory.

Why has this been missed? Perhaps because explicating the framework itself has been Wilber's intention, and that this labor is so large that little room is left to mention the above, though it is slipped in quite often. If it takes five thousand words for a discussion that's the bulk of the chapter, and then there's one twenty word sentence in the chapter saying, "oh yeah, don't forget, this is only a map, you've got to observe how it actually fuctions in real life."

As for Manuel DeLanda, I must conceed ignorance of his work. It sounds interesting and it's certainly integral, but what do we mean by that word? AQAL is comprehensive. It is an integral theory in that it tries to tie everything together. But, there is another way to use the word "integral," and that is, "at the first stage of second-tier thought (Yellow/Teal in Spiral Dynamics SDi.)" DeLanda seems to be a lower-right quadrant (that is, based on the external nature/behavior of groups of people (or whatever holon you're looking at)) theory coming from the stage seven (integral) level of human consciousness. It is in this a way a huge improvement over previous views assuming the coherancy/individuality of holons, but is not integral in the broadest sense.

I do agree that the postmodernists come as a reaction against, a call that the Emperor's got no clothes, something important and necessary before you actually consider what the Emperor looks like naked, and that they had less to offer in this respect.

And no, Wilber doesn't exactly detail the relationships between every thing, other than to say that "it's all actually the same thing," but this is the key insight. Without this, there'd be no question of detailing, investigating, and discovering all of the details, because there'd be no one looking, and nowhere to hang them. Certainly Shamansun's call at the end for "a more dynamic theory of social science [to] emerge in the 21st century, one that is more analogous to the messiness [of] biological evolution," is to be heeded. But the theories that emerge, and continue to emerge, will be within the general framework established by Wilber, at least until it's fleshed out enough for us all to see what's there, and what's missing.

On "Enlightenment Therapy" in the Times.

2009-04-28T10:34:00.009-04:00

As soon as I saw the title, Enlightenment Therapy, I knew I was going to blog about it, I just didn't realize it'd take a few days to digest, or that it would be so personal. After all, it's about the marriage of Freud and the Buddha; what integral blogger could resist?

Reading the article, though, there were a few things that hit home, and I put it down to think it over. Again, this is a fairly personal post, just a warning.

There are two main characters in the story, The zen master/ patient, and the zen student/ therapist. Their names are Lou Nordstrom and Jeffrey Rubin, respectively.

The first hint that this might be a challenging piece for me was '“The agonizing absence of internal unity made me suicidal,”' I've never been suicidal, but boy do I know some about the agonizing absence of internal unity. I always feel torn. Only rarely do I get a glimpse of something I'm finding other people take for granted. I have a sense of self, of course, of being a separate being (I am human,) but rarely do I ever know just exactly what it is I want. It turns out that Mr. Nordstrom and I share quite a few personality traits, and the further I read the more I became worried that I was falling into the same trap that Nordstrom had.

'He sought to protect himself against the trauma of further abandonment by pre-emptively abandoning himself. If he wasn’t there in the first place, he wasn’t in a position to be cast away. The Zen concept of no-self was like a powerful form of immunity.' Unfortunately, I have not spelled out yet my working theory of mind, so bits and pieces will have to be explained as I come to them. In any case, I do the same thing. The drama in one's mind is created by oneself,* and so while I was never physically abandoned by my parents, I have always been terrified of abandonment, rejection, separation, call it what you will. The solution? Effacing myself, preemptively abandoning, rejecting, separating. Afraid that the world would reject the "real" me, I just don't speak up, giving no opportunity for what I want so badly, to be accepted, valued, heard. Again, psychological drama.

'“The Zen experience of forgetting the self was very natural to me,” he told me last fall. “I had already been engaged in forgetting and abandoning the self in my childhood, which was filled with the fear of how unreal things seemed...I always had some deeper sense that I wasn’t really there, that my life and my marriages didn’t seem real...I began to realize this feeling of invisibility wasn’t just a peculiar experience but was maybe the central theme of my life.' Again, check, and check.

'...that subconsciously I want the depth of my suffering to be witnessed by someone. I want to be seen for what a strange fellow I am. As a young guy I got off on the sense of being different. There was some arrogance and elitism in it. The positive spin of the surreal nature of my childhood was that there must have been some special destiny for me. To give up tenure, to become a monk, I embraced an aggrandized narrative.' While some of the words I'd use are different, the feeling, again, is the same, "embracing an aggrandized narrative." There's the desire to be noticed and accepted as being different, because special.

“Re-entry is difficult,” Nordstrom admitted. “I feel I’m going to be blindsided — that I’m being set up. The record suggests that’s what tends to happen to me.” [That is, entering life emotionally is just begging to be hurt.]

“Do you hear your language?”

“Yeah.”

“That’s what tends to happen to me.”

“What do you hear — that I sound like a victim?”

“There’s no agency in there — to see that is to open to the possibility of feeling less the victim in your life.” [Perhaps why I'm overly drawn to the opposite archetype, like James Bond. The ultimate anti-victim. There's more than this though, there's also the fear of agency, the fear of my own ability to do things.]

“I know this intellectually. I’ve had this sense of being a victim, a marked man for a long time — marked for bad things and marked for great things.” [I have never felt marked for bad things, though I certainly have always felt marked for great things. Reading this, though, makes me realize that yes, actually, I have always felt fated to meet some wretched tragic end. In my fears, by bloody violent murder at the hands of a random stranger, or by plane crash, mostly. Of course, the one must have its reciprocal. Silly me not to have connected them.]

“I wonder if that isn’t a compensatory fantasy which hides a deeper pain. It’s not that ‘I was horrifically abandoned, unconscionably neglected,’ it’s ‘I have a special destiny.’ ”[This is harder for me because, again, I was never abandoned, I just feel that way. I suppose it's the same narrative, though: I have been overlooked and ignored, but everyone will see in the end how big of a mistake that was when I turn out to be the best Baseball Player / Doctor / Author / Musician / Artist / etc. etc. (fill in fantasy of the year. Some, of course, are fairly outdated.)]

“Yes,” Nordstrom said. “As a boy I consciously constructed this idea that I’m in a situation that makes no sense whatsoever. The only meaning I can glean from it is that there may be some kind of completely different life in store for me. There will be a compensation. I am owed.” [So, for this life to make sense, there has to be a surprise ending. The narrative itself assumes the legitimacy of the ego's drama. They are epiphenomenal, sides of the same coin, or cube. 'I was hurt, but if I bear this hurt, endure it, in the end I'll get my reward.' Notice the words "consciously constructed." Without the original slieght, though, the narrative makes no sense, and one's life has been wasted. The older and older one gets, the more rests on this false narrative. Quite a lot in here, one of these days I'll get that theory of the mind up.]

“What comes to mind with ‘owed’?”

“I’m entitled. That feeling got me through high school. It’s why I excelled at sports and studies.”
[Opposite for me. It's what caused me to coast through on abilities without any work, because I didn't have to. I'm me, after all, and in the end, oh you'll see.]
“It also killed you.”

The thought hung in the air.

“Why do you think I say that?” the psychoanalyst said.

“Because it’s true?”

“No, because it’s led to a passive detached relation to your own life. It’s robbed you of your human birthright. It’s like you are waiting for Godot. It keeps you in a virtual life. Do you get that? Do you feel that emotion?” [This is where the similarity really battered me. Just around the bend is the miracle that's going to change my life. It's something I'll stumble on, not work for. I've always been this way (until recently, more later.) There's always something hidden up the road, past a bend, that is, it's never something I'm concerned with at the moment, of course, that's going to super-duper change my life.]

'“I don’t know why I constantly deprive or deny myself positive experiences,” Nordstrom said after a while. “There is a perverse self-destructiveness. It’s like the theme from the movie ‘The Pawnbroker’: if my life is in good shape, then my history makes no sense. . . . When I broke my hip the first time, before I fell, I thought, Don’t move, turn on a light, then I thought, Screw it, and I fell.”' Again, the narrative (history in Nordstrom's words) has to be true, because if it's not, one's life makes no sense. If one's life is miserable, the narrative, and the ego it reinforces, makes perfect sense.

'“Stay with that ‘screw it’ voice: are you saying nothing that happens to you that’s good is going to make a difference?”

“There is something I know that I really want that I’m never really going to get. It may be mother. It may be mother.”

“Maybe your pessimistic stance is a defense against that shattering realization. Maybe you see your life as a Faustian bargain: I will not have hope demolish the hope that one day what I want will come.”

“My least favorite word in the English language is ‘hope.’ ”

“And in the meantime you’re knee-deep in it!”'

The ego is a mesh of paradox, that's why it survives so well. Tackle it one way, well, it wasn't ever like that anyway. Nordstrom rejects hope of ever getting what he really wants, because to get it would negate the hope that is that final reward. Hating hope is the surest sign of how dependant you are on it.

Reading this article threw me out of whack, to say the least. Was I fooling myself? Was I only trying to do in a more aggressive and radical way exactly what I was trying to cure myself of? Sitting on this a few days, I've reaffirmed what I've been doing, though this article was certainly a wakeup call. Perhaps because I was born later, perhaps because my childhood was not traumatic, but I'm not running away from life into meditation. Far from it. The further I've gotten along in my self-directed course of growth, the richer and fuller my life has become, the more I've taken responsibility for my life and its direction, the more active I've been able to be to pursue and complete real, practical goals, and the happier and more emotionally engaged I've been. I have not been doing what Nordstrom did, quite the non-opposite. Rather than throw myself into meditation as a solution, or rely only on analytical accounts of the mind, I've been practicing meditation to give me more energy and insight into the ego so that as I heal it I can return more mindfully to meditation, and so on and so forth.

Of course, the basic structure of my ego remains, and I haven't fully reconciled its contradictions in health. I'm thankful that this article revealed this to me, and I'm thankful to you as well, whoever is reading. Even if nobody, getting all of this onto (electronic) paper is extremely helpful. It's real.

'Rubin was convinced that “the marriage of Buddha and Freud” would benefit both disciplines. “When you combine the best of Buddhism and psychoanalysis,” he told me one day last winter, “you get a full-spectrum view of human nature focused on both health and spiritual potential as well as on the psychological forces we struggle with and the obstacles we unconsciously put in our way.”'

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*That is, while you can always draw external correlations to prove your fears, a different person would draw different correlations from the same external conditions. Beaten by a mother, one child develops to fear abandonment, another to fear loss of control, and both point back to the same event.

NWO or Decentralization?

2009-04-28T09:55:00.004-04:00

As often, a thoughtful piece in the Times by David Brooks. (For those of you who might be wondering, no, the Times is not the only thing I read online, I just happen to be getting out from under a huge backlog from my Chinese test, and since I do read the Times everyday, I often find things in it to write about.)

He's talking about centralization vs. decentralization of power in globalism with the swine flu as background. As I said, it's a good piece, though I have a couple of issues with it.

Firstly,
'we don’t face a single concentrated threat. We face a series of decentralized, transnational threats: jihadi terrorism, a global financial crisis, global warming, energy scarcity, nuclear proliferation and, as we’re reminded today, possible health pandemics like swine flu.'

This I disagree with fairly wholeheartedly. With the exception of the swine flu, each of these problems could be argued as one multi-headed problem. The very problem is that the current global power structure doesn't work. But that's minor.

The major issue I have with the article is that it opposes these two arrangements of power, decentralization and centralization, as if we have to choose one of them. Brooks, to his credit, chooses decentralization. I agree with him on this as strongly as I disagree about the multifarious nature of the world's problem. Power must be localized, as local as possible, that is to say, the individual and his or her person-to-person connections must be in charge. If not, as Brooks says, '...If the response [to the swine flue] were coordinated by a global agency, those local officials would not be so empowered. Power would be wielded by officials from nations that are far away and emotionally aloof from ground zero. The institution would have to poll its members, negotiate internal differences and proceed, as all multinationals do, at the pace of the most recalcitrant stragglers.'

These person-to-person connections must of course operate under the rule of law, or you'd get rampant corruption. But Brooks' example of a photo of New York City Health Department officials is a reminder at the opposite side of the spectrum of why localism works, or why the U.S. won out over the highly-centralized U.S.S.R. 'The photo is the very image of a focused, local response. People are wearing polo shirts and casual wear — intensely concentrating on the concrete incidents in their own backyard.'

What's to argue with?

There's got to be somewhere the buck stops. You need a Constitution and a Bill of Rights guaranteed by a Federal Government with power for there to be a civil rights movement, for example. Without one overarching power, there will never be perfect peace. This power must be aggressively limited to allow an open society to develop, but it also must exist to settle differences and set directives for the world's countries.

In fact, for local power to be as powerful as it can be, there needs to be some centralization of power. If, say, Europe does hold back on its vaccines, the U.S. would need some more. But there's a reason we don't have as many, and for the U.S. to put resources towards something it wouldn't need without the artificiality of national borders, and that's a waste.

Brooks writes about centralization as if it means soviet-style planning. But without centralization we'll end up a loose confederacy unable to tackle any of our increasingly global issues.

The Future of Social Media: The Open Web

2009-04-27T23:56:00.004-04:00

Good blog post here about the future of the web and social media.

It's interesting for a few reasons, even though it's mostly directed at large companies. What I find most interesting is the potential for this kind of interface to lead to a much more open society, something identified here as "Transparency." This has been on my mind recently with this post at the Far Eastern Economic Review, about the near impossibility of producing "hard news" in China. Anyone who has been following China knows of its burgeoning and noisy online community, however. Could direct person to person reporting overcome the collusion of the government and industry? I'm optimistic.

In any case, the potential for this kind of application to create smart-mobs is huge.

Why practice? Flourishing/ Stretching

2009-04-27T00:36:00.006-04:00

Had a hard time naming this post, but it's an idea that's been conking around in my head for a while, kicked into focus by an article I just read called The Fine, The Good, and the Meaningful, in The Philosopher's Magazine, via a blog I read called Integral Options Cafe.

Basically: since everything is in a constant state of flux (that is, every thing,) each thing is either growing, or dying. If you take "thing" to mean, say, "My French Language Aptitude," then it's easy to see that either one is practicing their French, or slowly losing it (something I can attest to personally.) There is no "constant state," only a continual balance. Following this, unless one is getting better and better, actively practicing, one will get worse, even with practice. That is, it's not enough to just practice, one needs to continually practice just outside of their level of comfort, in something I call "The Quick of Practice."

In a bodily sense, this is why I feel to be truly content as a person one must exercise their body and their bodily awareness. The body is made to move. Let it. Harness it, be aware of it, and you will become happier and happier. The body is like the soil for the tomato plant in the passage below. With a really unhappy body it's much harder to be happy emotionally. The good news is that once you've started paying attention to the body instead of a neutral resting state you begin to feel a subtle happy playfulness throughout it anytime a stronger feeling (like pain, or sadness, or joy) isn't present (and even sometimes as a discernible background if they are.)

As far as one's life goes, unless one pushes against one's limits, however you want to think of that, one is floating through life without living. Part of the point of the article, and something that I agree with, is that the idea of human life, the goal if you will, is to flower. This doesn't by any means denigrate the majority of people who never truly flower, or people who have yet to, it is merely to say that nobody goes to Washington D.C. in the summer to watch the Japanese Cherry trees photosynthesize.

And, of course (something I am overly aware of teaching here in China) this continual pushing of limits can't literally be continual. A wave must draw back and forth to wear a cliff away. The body needs rest, like a peak needs a trough. Balance. Push out a little too far, heal. Healed, you're able to push out a little further.

So, then, why practice? In a certain way, there are two phases to human life: socialization, or the mostly mandated period of learning before adulthood when one picks up, consciously and not, the rules and skills valued by their society, and post-socialization, when one is an adult. In this second period the opportunity exists to continue self-directed growth, though many do not. But adulthood is not a plateau. You either grow, or die (a maxim of evolution?) With evidence recently that intelligence is flexible and can be increased, even speaking only of one's brain power the case is clear for practice. While children have the most energy and time to study any number of skills, the paradox is that it is not until one has become a self-realized adult that one can really begin to push the boundaries of who one is and what one can do. Practice, in adulthood, becomes not merely the acquisition of skills, but the conscious engagement with life itself.

The below is from the article.
'Flourishing is a biological term, which etymologically connotes flowering – that is to say the healthy, vigorous unfolding of the capacities peculiar to each species. For a tomato plant, flourishing is quite simply its production of strong leaves and shoots, and then its coming to maturity and bearing rich and succulent fruits. But what are the fruits of human life?

The Lotus Eaters are contented enough – but, as it slowly dawns on Odysseus (or Ulysses), there’s something disquieting about them – they never do anything, just loll around eating the lotus (perhaps the ancient Greek equivalent of reaching for the valium). The moral drawn by Homer, and Tennyson, is that the truly happy life must be one where we are stretched. '

Controlling/Managing the Chinese people?

2009-04-25T07:50:00.006-04:00

I'm a little late on this due to my 24-hour weekend working cycle, but if you hadn't heard about Jackie Chan's recent remarks in China: here's a short debate in the Times about it.

There's a mini-debate in Chinese watching circles about whether or not the word he used would best be translated as "managing," rather than "controlling." The word under discussion, "Guan," (“管”) , usually does mean "managing" but this seems fairly unimportant given the context of insulting Hong Kong and Taiwan for being "chaotic" while speaking to an audience including high-level Central Party members. Certianly the essence was "China needs Authoritarianism."

Much of what I found interesting, as often happens with China blogs on the NYTimes, were the comments. Without getting too much into it, There seem to be two sides of the debate, a sure way to miss the meat of the argument entirely: Chan is a moron (or is in it for the money) and Chinese people yearn to be free, or Chan is right, Chinese people have been successful under the control of the Central Party, and would fall apart if not. Unfortunately, of course, little attention is paid to the arguments themselves, and more is paid to ad-hominem attacks on people writing. Basically, everyone in the comments is either rabidly pro-China, or anti-Chinese government. Notice also the conflation here: most of the pro-Chinas take any criticism of the government by foreigners (in public, published places) as being anti-China, as in the country (something the government actively inculcates), even though among themselves, and in private, they are often quite critical of the government.

All of this friction, for an integral thinker, should point to competing vMemes, through even the debate about whether Chan was cynically only doing this for CCP approval. So what's the deal here? Anyone watching China knows the friction created is largely between the up-and-coming 5s in the country and the authoritarian 4s. Moreso than in most cases, the power of the 4s has been used to help foster in some respects the emergence of the 5s as a powerful new class, and for this often the new capitalists in China are the most vocally in favor of the government. Nonetheless, there are plenty of 5s in the country that see right through this, and Gordon Chang is right when he says that voices of online protesters and self-organized groups to aid victims of the BeiChuan earthquake last year to help the survivors before even the governement did displays the yearning and capability for a more open society.

The biggest mistake in all of this whole thing is locating this with something inherantly "chinese." Chan's words "we chinese" make it seem as if there's some sort of essence in the Chinese people that makes them incapable of democracy (something Beijing promotes against reality and the benefit of its own people) and will always do so.

Of course, some of what he's saying is correct. China is still mostly at an authoritarian 4 level, and much of the country is still at a 2. Creating a "one-person, one-vote" system would be likely disasterous at this point, as one of the commenters notes, drawing comparisons with some African countries, and south-east asian. Democracy is not the cure of all ails. However, it ought to be clear that it is the only successful way to run a fully modern country is through a representative democracy. Even if you cannot establish democracy at the highest levels of government, at the local level it ought to be implemented, something which will give the populace experience with it for later down the road. Of course, for all its unintentional help, the CCP is rabidly anti-democratic, which is to say the small concessions made to democracy in village elections are unlikely to be expanded.

The word "chaos" is also interesting. Here, Chan notes the 4s fear of chaos/anarchy, one made stronger by chinese memories of the cultural revolution. Will China ever be able to embrace the kind of "chaos" Chan finds in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and become stronger as a result, or will the party simply not be able to let go this far? Much of the question of whether or not China will be able to fully transform itself into a modern country rests on this. Control only goes so far.

Supportive community, longer life.

2009-04-24T02:22:00.004-04:00

An article on the "Well" blog in the times.

The article talks about several studies indicating that having a strong social net makes people significantly more healthy. Not just a little bit:

'In 2006, a study of nearly 3,000 nurses with breast cancer found that women without close friends were four times as likely to die from the disease as women with 10 or more friends. And notably, proximity and the amount of contact with a friend wasn’t associated with survival. Just having friends was protective.' !!! Four times as likely is pretty significant.

If you think about humans as being social animals, as if we were all really just one big human, this makes a great deal of sense. One ant, after all, has almost no purpose, and anything cut off from its support (like a plucked flower) has a short life expectancy.

What does it mean in the long term?

I think that people are going to gravitate more and more towards supportive, open communities, ones that (unlike the communalism of level 6 greens) allow the individual to make his or her own choices, while providing a fluid and open support structure. For more, see this post.

The family may well be on it's way out, not as the bedrock of human culture, but as the discreet bedrock of human culture. Tribes were basically no more than enlarged families; as humans advanced, those 'tribes' became smaller and smaller, interacting with a larger and larger culture. Another way to track this movement would be to say that starting at tribes, where the family/culture unit was the same (the tribe,) the general size of a culture expanded greatly to include huge nations, and the size of the family unit shrank greatly to include, as an extreme, a family of four. Obviously, this is rough, and general. Plenty of extended families are very close. The next step is to extend the size of the cultural unit to include all of humanity, and to shrink the size of the family unit to the individual. But that'll look much better than it sounds like at first:

As the article says:

'Friendship has a bigger impact on our psychological well-being than family relationships'.

Why? My theory would be that family relationships tend to be far more structured, and rigid, than healthy friendships. 'In a six-year study of 736 middle-age Swedish men, attachment to a single person didn’t appear to affect the risk of heart attack and fatal coronary heart disease, but having friendships did. Only smoking was as important a risk factor as lack of social support.' (ONLY SMOKING!) Over the years, semi-healthy to unhealthy spousal relationships may well solidify around a few major interchanges, which would mean much of both of the people involved in the relationship would be closed off from their partner, not allowing an honest exchange of the kind mentioned by one of the subjects of the article when she says it's easier to talk to her friends about the disease than her doctor.

Friendships, however, are much more equal, dynamic, and open, because we view them as being different: "friend" in any case is such a loose term, that instead of approaching your friend as your "friend" you're more likely to approach them as being a person. Contrast this with your Father, or Mother, or even siblings. It's much harder to see these people objectively as people without the heavy baggage these relationships necessarily bring.

What I mean by the individual becoming the "family" unit is not that an individual becomes isolated from the rest of the world, far from it. It is saying that as we begin to become actually comfortable with the idea of individuality for people of all races and sexes/sexual orientations, is that people will become much more consciously free and aware of the relationships they form with other people, and that those relationships will undoubtedly change in nature over time as the individuals do, and that these relationships will constitute that individual's "family," a group that obviously may also include actual relations.

What this ought to create is a culture where both the individual's rights and wishes are respected, and where each individual is embedded within their chosen community/communities as active and valued members, all within the larger human global being. Again, this is far from isolating, in fact, we in the west might be coming to the last wave of that kind of social isolation.

Humans used to be isolated families. Then they became tribes. Then Nation-States, and Nations under God, then Nations of Individuals (with varying de facto rights) under the Law. We are on the way to a Planet of United Individuals, though there's a hell of a long way to go. We'll get there though. Look left, look right. No man is an island.

'Last year, researchers studied 34 students at the University of Virginia , taking them to the base of a steep hill and fitting them with a weighted backpack. They were then asked to estimate the steepness of the hill. Some participants stood next to friends during the exercise, while others were alone. The students who stood with friends gave lower estimates of the steepness of the hill. And the longer the friends had known each other, the less steep the hill appeared.'

A swap in thinking about car batteries, and gasoline.

2009-04-22T01:57:00.003-04:00

Profile in NYTimes magazine of Shai Agassi, an Israeli/American entrepreneur, interesting for a few things.

Agassi, by the way, started a software company that was bought by SAP when he was 30. For 400 million dollars. He was also being groomed for the CEO position, but he resigned to do this.

For the skeptics, the solution to "range-anxiety" and charging times for batteries is at the bottom of the post.

1-"Conscious Capitalism."

'The only way to get consumers to use electric cars, Agassi realized, was to solve the problem of refueling. That meant, to begin with, that some entrepreneur would have to build networks of recharging spots, going country by country. As he crunched the numbers, what really struck Agassi was how lucrative a business like this could be. Powering a car by electricity — even relatively expensive “clean” energy like wind or solar — costs far less than powering it by gasoline. The Tesla all-electric sedan, for example, uses about 1 cent of electricity per mile. A comparable gasoline car uses 16 cents of gasoline per mile. And with the United States market for automobile gas at roughly $275 billion, Agassi figured that a company controlling a world network of charging stations would become so profitable so quickly that it could subsidize its customers’ electric cars, much the way mobile companies give out free phones to people who sign two-year contracts. The electric-car business, in fact, could function like the mobile-phone industry: you could pay, say, $10 for 1,000 miles, $20 for 3,000 miles, or perhaps a few hundred a month for unlimited driving.'
'“If I can give you miles in a more convenient, cheaper way than gasoline, you will take them,” Agassi says. “If your neighbor is driving an electric car and paying me only $30 a week for the electricity, you’re going to buy an electric car, too. If I do it without killing your kids and the planet, then it won’t even matter if it’s cheaper or not; you will just do it.”'

Captitalism isn't changing, it's just meeting some new people. It has always made sense to do things cheaper, that's the essence of the market, efficiency. Concious capitalism comes with the exponentially increasing ease of access and transmission of information; a growing "senstitive" consciousness plugged into global information and concerned about poverty, the environment, human suffering, and with an expanded identity including life in general as well as other groups of humans and a sense of responsibility for the wellbeing of one's self and world; along with the decreasing ease of access/ efficiency and political problems associated with energy use, all added to the existing structures of markets. The tools are the same, the people using them different, more plugged in. As with the cars above, it doesn't work if it doesn't make any money. While this, just a few years ago, would have seemed absolutely contradictory, and even today is only beginning to earnestly emerge, you can make money and save the world at the same time.

'Agassi regards the various gasoline-based “range extenders” in electric cars with undisguised contempt. Indeed, he regards cars that rely on any oil at all with a certain amount of derision — not merely because they cause greenhouse gases, but because from his perspective, oil simply isn’t a very efficient way to store energy. To Agassi, it is enormously wasteful both in terms of physics and of economics. Far better to simply trap the sun’s energy with solar arrays — or wind, which is generated by the uneven heating of the earth by the sun — and put it directly into a car’s batteries.'

This brings us to the second interesting point:

2- "Sustainable means Efficiency."

The history of civilization is based much on how expensive and efficient fuel is. From wood, which had to be gathered by many people or chopped down, to sunlight, which can be converted into electricity at an extreme opposite of human labor per joule, freeing other people to do much more of what they'd like. This is also one reason farming, which is labor intensive, relies so heavily on cheap gas, and also why you see great shifts in the dynamics of a society, especially the relative levels of poor, middle or merchant class, and rich, when there are agricultural revolutions. If we can produce entirely renewable, clean energy we may just be able to actually get the whole world to a decent standard of living, cleaning up our water and air as we go, not as opposed to making a profit, but while making a gigantic one. That's the connection that's been missing. Money is abstract value. The more efficient an enterprise is, the more value they can produce and the less they have to waste on production. If you think of the entire human race as one enterprise, then the connection between energy efficiency and total output becomes clear. With clean energy, we'll be able to make more value than we ever have before, and, just as cotton was once a luxury for want of the massive amounts of labor needed to put into its production, so one day not too far away (the market works quickly) may we be able to forget the days when decent food, a clean change of clothes, and a comfortable house were dreams for huge portions of humanity.

Of course, Agassi's firm itself may not succeed (though if you read the whole article you'll see that they have all the right ingredients) but there are hundreds if not thousands of companies out there trying to be the next big thing in cars, and whichever one gets there first is going to succeed, because it makes economic sense. Here's Agassi's biggest idea:

'...Agassi realized he needed one more breakthrough: some way to rapidly charge a vehicle. No drivers, he knew, will tolerate a two-hour wait to recharge when they’re on a 500-mile haul. Then one day, he and an automotive engineer were chewing over an impractical method for quickly replenishing batteries. The engineer wondered aloud: Wouldn’t the fastest way to charge an electric car be to simply replace the battery?
It was, Agassi says, his “aha” moment. The auto industry’s conceptual error, he says, is in regarding the battery as a built-in component of the car, like a gas tank. Instead, you could think of the battery as more analogous to gas itself — an entity that goes in and out of a car as needed, owned not by the driver but by the company that sells you the fuel. Think of the problem that way, Agassi realized, and the recharging company could refill its customers’ cars using battery technology and the existing electric grid without making any radical new technological innovations. The solution to electric cars lay not in re-engineering the battery but in re-engineering the car.'

And over the horizon?

2009-04-22T01:35:00.003-04:00

Transitions?

An article in the Times magazine about a group trying to organize sustainable communities for what they believe will be an awesome and coming crash of our civilization. It's more interesting as a look at where we are now than as where we may be twenty years in the future.

The thrust of the movement:
'“Sustainability,” Hopkins recently told me, “is about reducing the impacts of what comes out of the tailpipe of industrial society.” But that assumes our industrial society will keep running. By contrast, Hopkins said, Transition is about “building resiliency” — putting new systems in place to make a given community as self-sufficient as possible, bracing it to withstand the shocks that will come as oil grows astronomically expensive, climate change intensifies and, maybe sooner than we think, industrial society frays or collapses entirely.'

'For a generation, the environmental movement has told us to change our lifestyles to avoid catastrophic consequences. Transition tells us those consequences are now irreversibly switching on; we need to revolutionize our lives if we want to survive.'

'It was all surprisingly easy to imagine. Lately, an apocalyptic bile has been collecting in the back of America’s throat. Our era has been defined by skyrocketing line graphs, and it’s easy to wonder if we have finally pushed something just a little too far and are now watching everything start to teeter over. Maybe it’s not our dependence on oil, but the carbon we have plugged up the atmosphere with. Or global population. Or credit derivatives. We’re all starting to career down the other side of that hill — which hill, specifically, is up to you. But it’s the shadowy side, and none of us can see the bottom.'

What makes this different from any other apocalyptic movement? Its dovetail with conscious capitalism and rising Level 6 sensibilities in the mainstream.

'...most people in Sandpoint presumably hadn’t heard anything about Transition. But the ones who had often found a way to interpret the movement as extensions of their own visions. Having watched second- and third-home owners, retirees and tourists rush into Sandpoint, many latched on to Transition’s vague promise of building a better, quainter community. A minister told me she was glad that Transition wasn’t “a greenie, hippie, far-out thing.” But Michael Boge, the City Council president, seemed to complain of exactly that, telling me he didn’t understand why the group had to cheapen a good idea by “inventing a new word for it and wrapping themselves in that catchphrase.” (The new word Boge objected to wasn’t “Transition”; it was “sustainability.”) Still, Boge, who owns five drive-in restaurants and is active in a long-distance motorcycling club called the Iron Butt Association, told me that he felt allied with Transition’s ideals. “I’ve bitched about this to my friends for years: we need to make a concerted effort to get off fossil fuels,” he said. “And I truly believe that with the country and God behind us, we can do it.” Transition was a prism, offering a slightly different view of Sandpoint depending on how each person turned it, but always shooting out lots of rainbows.'

As noted above, though, this is does not exactly appear to be an integral movement, but more of a snapshot of what's emerging from (more and more) mainstream 6s.

For example, in response to a woman asking if they couldn't just make a rule to cremate everybody:'“Well,” Millard said, “it takes a lot of energy to cremate people. Besides, now we’re getting into rules.”' Straight-up 6.

There's more in this to believe that this is more of a reaction against the evils of modernity than an actual constructive growth into the future:

'Millard’s sketch happened to look a lot like the master plan of Fourierism, one of the most popular secular utopian movements in American history. In the early 1800s, Charles Fourier, a Frenchman, proposed, in a series of jargon-filled writings, a self-sufficient community model called a “phalanx.” A central estate or “phalanstery” would be surrounded by tradesmen’s workshops, cultural institutions and farmland. Fourier was horrified by what he saw at the outset of the Industrial Revolution. His fears may sound familiar: that dishonest lending and capitalism in general would lead to the enslavement of humans by big companies; “industrial feudalism,” he called it. And, not unlike Transition, he aimed to overhaul society one phalanx at a time. Fourier claimed to have reduced all possible human personalities to a number of essential types. From there, it was simple math. He calculated that if precisely 1,620 men, women and children were collected in a 6,000-acre phalanx, they would — all by merrily following their individual passions — end up satisfying all the phalanx’s essential needs. “The new amorous world,” he wrote, would rise out of “the new industrial world” by the force of “passional attraction.”

Transition insists that initiatives be completely bottom-up organizations. There’s no central oversight, and the movement is expected to evolve slightly differently wherever it springs up. The trajectory of each initiative shouldn’t be controlled too tightly even by its local leaders; Step 11 in the handbook is really more of a mantra: “Let it go where it wants to go.” Like a Fourierian phalanx, a Transition Town should be the product of the passions of its residents — all of its residents, equally. Unlike Fourierism, though, Transition doesn’t claim its method is mathematically guaranteed to succeed. It simply posits that our best hope is to “unleash the collective genius of the community” and hope all the right pieces spill out. “We truly don’t know if this will work,” Rob Hopkins asserts in a mission-statement-like document called the “Cheerful Disclaimer!”'

There's even the sense that the founders of the group want this to happen, which makes sense. Because society today has so recklessly shit in the salad bowl, it's all going to come crashing down, taking everything despicable with it. This is not to say that anyone is consciously aware of this, but 'Transition’s message is twofold: first, that a dire global emergency demands we transform our society; and second, that we might actually enjoy making those changes.' Why in the world would we enjoy this? because humans naturally should enjoy living in this sort of world, so tossing off all of the old barriers to natural humanity would make us all really happy.

Another hallmark of first-tier thinking here is that there's no conception that when things get tough resources-wise, things are going to get rough violence-wise. There's no thought about level 3s coming in to take over whatever sustainable resources a place like this has created; the overall vision is just of people coming together and living peacefully in sustainable communities because that's the way people naturally are. This narrow, if innocently-optimistic-and-lovely-in-its-own-way view of human nature is a call sign of the green 6s. It isn't, however, how everybody is approaching the project: '“Some people on the food group want to feel good,” he told me, “and some people want to figure out how to feed 40,000 people in case the trucks stop rolling.”

Michael Brownlee, the keynote speaker from Boulder, sat silently in his chair during the charter-school meeting. That night, he told me that the unflinching cheeriness of everyone involved made him optimistic. But he also worried that people didn’t yet understand that “just because you’re passionate about a particular issue like transportation or water or local food doesn’t mean that you have the skills to do the research, analysis or planning around that issue.” He later added, “If I knew how to convey how serious, how urgent the situation is without sending people into fear and helplessness, it would take a great burden off of me.”'

All in all, though, despite the limits of level 6, there are quite a few important contributions being made here. After all, we only have one planet:

'Now, maybe because our various crises have escalated, or because it costs so much to disappear into your own parcel of wilderness, opting out no longer feels like a possibility. One of Transition’s more oblique arguments may be that we can’t escape anymore. We have to work together to remake the places where we already live.

Lanphear told me, “As long as we get the work going in the right direction, it doesn’t matter who gets the glory or the credit.” Richard Kühnel chose to see it in an even more positive light. He told me, “I feel whoever wants to participate and whose ideas are aligned with ours, that’s who the Sandpoint Transition Initiative is” — whether those people know it or not.

What Reuter said he felt was wonderful about the Sandpoint Transition Initiative was how quickly it was rejuvenating people’s faith that the changes they craved were worth working for. “To say the group has only created a community garden so far really isn’t sufficient,” he told me. “It’s something really more substantive: they’re bringing people to the process.” It was easy to argue that at the initiative’s core, in place of any clearly defined philosophy or strategy, was only a puff of enthusiasm. But Reuter seemed to argue that enthusiasm is an actual asset, a resource our society is already suffering a scarcity of. “There’s just something happening here that’s reviving people’s civic sense of possibility,” he later said. “Politics is ‘the art of the possible,’ right? I think what the Transition Initiative is doing is expanding what’s possible in people’s minds. It is expanding people’s ability to dream bold. And that’s what we need to do: dream bold. Because people have been limited by their own imaginations.”'

Why Isn't the Brain Green? / HAPPY EARTH DAY!/ The Emerging Integral World

2009-04-19T09:25:00.006-04:00

(a short apology to those of you who are not familiar with Integral Theory. I try to use as little jargon as possible, but sometimes it doesn't work. I will be putting up posts soon for cross-reference of technical terms.)

Why isn't the brain green?
An article in the New York Times.

The short answer is that while we all have the capacity for global-level concern, most people have not developed to this capacity. Humans 20,000 years ago had no need to think globally, and so biologically there's nothing that would make a human "green." Even asking the question is a little odd; why in the world would we have developed a concern for the environment millennia before we had invented/discovered the concept? Embedded in the question is the assumption that being green is a good thing for the brain absolutely, as if somehow the brain ought to be green, but this is like saying that a bacterium ought to be concerned about the health of the human host. Humans aren't bacteria on the world, of course; it is a comparison of scale, and the difference between the two, that humans have the ability to understand their reality mentally and alter their behavior based on it, is important. Human evolution is primarily taking place not biologically, but conceptually or memetically, or if you insist, mentally, though the last word is not quite precise enough. The brain isn't green because it's not a biological necessity. "Greenness" is something that becomes necessary only when the human organism is acting on a global level. Fortunately, unlike bacteria, we might be able to stop ourselves from being so biologically/physically successful that we destroy the conditions permitting our own physical existence.

And to the article, which has a number of interesting points:

Firstly, nobody seems to care about the environment this year.

'At the top of the list [naming American citizens most pressing worries] were several concerns — jobs and the economy — related to the current recession. Farther down, well after terrorism, deficit reduction and energy (and even something the pollsters characterized as “moral decline”) was climate change. It was priority No. 20. That was last place.'

Something in this is reminiscent of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. You can't be worried about something largely intangible (at this point, at least) if you don't have a job or a house or food to eat, and so in a recession, there's no climate change. The article glosses over this without mentioning this hierarchic (holarchic) aspect. 'Weber’s research seems to help establish that we have a “finite pool of worry,” which means we’re unable to maintain our fear of climate change when a different problem — a plunging stock market, a personal emergency — comes along. We simply move one fear into the worry bin and one fear out." It's not that our pool is finite, though, it's that more pressing physical fears trump the abstract ones, or, SDi level one problems (not having food, say) trump any problems at the higher levels. If you're so hungry you're digging through rancid garbage heaps you're probably not too concerned about expressing the unique snowflake of yourself through romantic photos of the rain.

Of course, much of the impetus of the article is that Climate Change, far from being something abstract and in the future, is coming to a neighborhood near you. Until it does, for most people, it's just not a real problem; that is, "Climate Change" will never be a problem, higher food prices from desertification of agricultural land will be a problem, and even more directly, having less money from spending more on food will be the problem. The higher up the spiral you are, (the higher your cognitive/memetic level) the more real the problem is to you, which is to say no problem is ever abstract. No matter how you try and make the problem seem a problem, without direct apprehension of a problem, there simply isn't one. The article describes this in the following way:

'There are some unfortunate implications here. In analytical mode, we are not always adept at long-term thinking; experiments have shown a frequent dislike for delayed benefits, so we undervalue promised future outcomes. (Given a choice, we usually take $10 now as opposed to, say, $20 two years from now.) Environmentally speaking, this means we are far less likely to make lifestyle changes in order to ensure a safer future climate. Letting emotions determine how we assess risk presents its own problems. Almost certainly, we underestimate the danger of rising sea levels or epic droughts or other events that we’ve never experienced and seem far away in time and place.'

The problem isn't real for most people. Even if they can cognate it, or, say, have an emotional reaction to the idea of their children growing up Mad Max, unless it holds their attention it'll be gone soon, as they fall back into their operative consciousness.

'And even if we could remain persistently concerned about a warmer world? Weber described what she calls a “single-action bias.” Prompted by a distressing emotional signal, we buy a more efficient furnace or insulate our attic or vote for a green candidate — a single action that effectively diminishes global warming as a motivating factor. And that leaves us where we started.'

The "we" in this article used over and over again is intended as "us humans," but I'd propose that it actually shifts back and forth, mostly covering 5th-level rational operating humans, people at around the same basic level as the NYTimes itself, no coincidence. Articles like this could be taken as evidence of the push of a large number of the "East-Coast rational-liberal" demographic, again, NYTimes readers, into the 6th level memes, or at the least as a record of the struggle moving between 5 and 6. The single-action bias noted above is seen when somebody is trying to make a change in their life, and brings us back to the question of the article, "Why isn't the Brain Green?" "We" want it to be, so "we" do a few things to pull us in the direction, though obviously the "we" hasn't fully arrived there yet. One practices and practices and practices behavior one knows is beneficial, and, with persistence, can eventually make that behavior part of their daily consciousness. One tries and tries and tries again over a number of years to eat more healthily, and eventually five years down the road, even if one hasn't reached their original ideal, not only eats more healthily, but does it naturally, without thinking or struggling, enjoying it. This is the process the above is chronicling: people's actions as they try to do something they think is better than what they are but don't yet own it. There are plenty of people who live every decision in their lives with a full environmental consciousness. They just aren't the mainstream.

Interestingly, the title of the article itself relies on an "Overdrive 5" mentality that we are the brain, that all behavior originates in the brain. Of course, had the title been, "why isn't the mind green?" the answer would have been, "because some people's mind's aren't." In either case, "greenness" is something learned/ grown into, it is not a given, except as a potential.

So what do we do as integrals if we don't want the world to warm into hell?

Most often, people think of the problems as technical. But, as climate change is being caused by people's behavior, so must human behavior be the basis for combating it. As logical as that seems, 'the notion that vital environmental solutions will be attained through social-science research — instead of improved climate models or innovative technologies — is an aggressively insurgent view.'

So, what changes are we talking about? Obviously, the more people at a level 6 or higher in the world, the more likely that, naturally, things will be handled in a more environmentally-sustainable way. Equally as obvious: we're not going to get there any day soon. Interestingly, the article takes a rather integral framework for dealing with this problem.

'If you don’t think or feel there’s a risk, why change your behavior? In response, researchers like Leiserowitz have investigated messages that could captivate all different kinds of audiences. Reaching a predominantly evangelical or conservative audience, Leiserowitz told me, could perhaps be achieved by honing a message of “moral Christian values,” an appeal possibly based on the divine instruction in Genesis 2:15 to tend and till the garden.'

To deal with the problem integrally, we need to give incentives to every level of development to create a sustainable (not merely environmentally so) sound community. For 5s, the emphasis can be on the business opportunities of conscious capitalism. As mentioned above, religious 4s could be persuaded that it is God's desire that they take care of the Earth.

This goes back to the beginning and the list of people's priorities of concern: there is no singular problem, there are many manifestations of one problem, and they need to be dealt with as one problem with many heads. Integrally tackling Climate Change means improving our economies and the stability of our societies, it means dealing with energy, and terrorism by helping to cultivate healthy societies in other parts of the world, it even means re-instilling and fostering a sense of moral community, though it would likely look a little different than the ideal of those who answered the above survey with "moral decline," even if grounded by the same basic sentiment.

The author of the article is a little skeptical about this at first, saying that some of these practices being researched (what the main content of the article is) seem to manipulate the natural decision making process, but comes to the conclusion that there is really no natural decision making process; one cannot make a decision in an absolute vacuum. I'd add that the "nudges" the author talks about are done by every society that has ever existed; it's called "acculturation." The difference here is that we are becoming conscious of this, and of how to manipulate this, which most of the best leaders were likely quasi-aware of in any case. One of the biggest factors, the article mentions, is whether decisions are made individually, or in a group.

'The subjects in half of the 50 test groups would first make their decisions individually and then as a group; the other half would make group decisions first and individual ones second. Weber and Handgraaf were fairly confident, based on previous work, that the two approaches would produce different results. In Amsterdam, Handgraaf told me, he had already seen that when subjects made decisions as a group first, their conversations were marked far more often by subtle markers of inclusion like “us” and “we.” Weber, for her part, had seen other evidence that groups can be more patient than individuals when considering delayed benefits. “One reason this is interesting is that it’s general practice in any meeting to prepare individually,” Handgraaf said. Or, to put the matter another way: What if the information for decisions, especially environmental ones, is first considered in a group setting before members take it up individually, rather than the other way around? In Weber’s view, this step could conceivably change the decisions made by a corporate board, for example, or a group of homeowners called together for a meeting by a public utility. Weber’s experiments have also looked at how the ordering of choices can create stark differences: considering distant benefits before immediate costs can lead to a different decision than if you consider — as is common — the costs first. Here, then, is a kind of blueprint for achieving collective decisions that are in the world’s best interests'.

The most interesting of these "nudges," as mentioned above, is the group dynamic.

'“We enjoy congregating; we need to know we are part of groups,” Weber said. “It gives us inherent pleasure to do this. And when we are reminded of the fact that we’re part of communities, then the community becomes sort of the decision-making unit. That’s how we make huge sacrifices, like in World War II.”'

As a more concrete example of this type of thinking:

'In 2005 and 2006, Orlove observed how the behavior of the region’s poor farmers could be influenced by whether they listened to crucial rainy-season radio broadcasts in groups or as individuals. Farmers in “community groups,” as Orlove described them to me, engaged in discussions that led to a consensus, and farmers made better use of the forecast. “They might alter their planting date,” he said, “or use a more drought-resistant variety of seed.” Those in the community groups also seemed more satisfied with the steps they took to increase their yields.'

Some of the feel of this is coming from the transition between level 5 memes, which are individualistic, and level 6, which are communitarian, but the thrust of this seems to be integral: everybody makes an individual decision, there are no decisions mandated by the collective, but one's individual decisions are made in the context of an open, fluid, and continual conversation with the community. It is possible to encourage individual thinking and innovation without devolving into groupthink, a staple of an unhealthy manifestation of level 6.

Another interesting quote:
'“Remember when New York tried to enforce its jaywalking laws?[...]You can’t enforce stuff that people don’t believe should be done.”'

This sums up much of the article: unless it's organic, change, and policy to help produce it, doesn't work. Taking a much wider view, all of this is natural, just as the nudging is a natural part of the decision making process. Societies get to a certain point, then they clean themselves up. There's nothing you can do to push that process along artificially. This, however is often taken as a level 5 mantra when confronting environmentalism: business will naturally get cleaner, just leave it alone! That is the thrust of the following Op-Ed from John Tierney, also from the Times: "Use Energy, Get Rich, and Save the Planet!" Of course, the backlash is also natural, that is, the environmental movement itself is natural, not simply some freakish reactionary outgrowth to late stage-capitalism, a point the Tierney Op-Ed doesn't make explicitly.

While this is and has been true, we're not dealing with relative levels of environmental cleanliness between countries, we're dealing with one non-interchangeable world. In the past, a country could clean up after industry became cleaner, because the pollution could be diffused throughout the rest of the planet and eventually eliminated through natural cycles, like plants cleaning air. The scope, now, is bigger. Not only are we (as a planet) making pollution on a much larger scale than one hundred years ago, we are doing it as a whole planet, not individual countries, and the worry is that there will be a point beyond which the life on the planet won't be able to clean it up again, and that this point will be here before the 2060 that Tierney says could well be the end of carbon even without policy pushes. Additionally, when rich counties got richer, they often got cleaner not just from cleaning up industry, but from moving it to other areas of the world. But where do high-polluting factories go when China and India get rich? And then after that?

What die-hard level 5s often miss in the environmental debates is that when a canary dies in a mine, nobody is worried ultimately about the canary. The difference between the canary, and, say, the 400 or so dead zones on the ocean floor, is that we have no choice but to go on living in the mine.

So, there will be a day when everybody up and down the spectrum of humanity feels the environment is, in one way or another, the biggest issue we have to deal with. That's what we're trying to avoid.

'“Increasing personal evidence of global warming and its potentially devastating consequences can be counted on to be an extremely effective teacher and motivator,” she wrote, pointing to how emotional and experiential feelings of risk are superb drivers of action. “Unfortunately, such lessons may arrive too late for corrective action.”'

Still Kickin'

2009-04-03T07:41:00.002-04:00

I am not dead, for anyone wondering. I have a Chinese literacy test in two weeks, and am bearing down for it, so don't expect anything for the next couple of weeks.

But the week of the twentieth, look for some shit. There are like twenty things open on my browser to write about.

So for now, just a note on how circumscribed some of the kids' minds' are that I teach. In one of my twelve-year-old students books recently there was a question about what you might change in your life if you could, and I opened it up and asked him what he could do if he had magic powers. His first response?

"I would go to school...very fast!"

Trust in Play.

2009-03-12T21:52:00.005-04:00

I seem to be on an education/creativity kick recently. Here's another TED talk about creativity and productivity, quick on the heels of this one, itself following this post about schooling vs. education.

The most interesting thing of this all, I think, is near the end, when he says that an environment of trust is necessary for play, which I can't agree with more. I would link this idea to the fact that as one becomes more and more centered and identified with their consciousness, their attitude often becomes much more playful. Ken Wilber has used the analogy of a dream. When one is in a dream, one's attitude towards the surroundings is often anything but trusting, quite the opposite. When one becomes lucid in a dream (an experience I think most people have had at least a few times) one is given the freedom to play. You know it's a dream, so there's the trust that nothing can go wrong, and it becomes seriously fun. When one realizes enlightenment or has a satori, the world is seen for what it is, and life is free to be fun.

This also speaks to why children with supportive parents can grow up to be emotionally successful people. They trust their parents (and with good reason) and so are able to experiment and play around with who they are and what they can do so that when they are adults it is easier to face any sort of circumstance.

What's the shift when large groups of people across the planet start to experience the universe as being fundamentally benign? We're beginning to see, in fits and starts.

Trust in play. Trust in Creation.

Fully interactive data world.

2009-03-10T22:22:00.002-04:00

This is way too cool.

I don't usually put something up here unless I have something to say about it, but this is just too cool. Imagine, instead of having to go to a computer, that computers, the internet, etc, were simply transposed over the world we live in, like living simultaneously in a computer and in the real world.

Dope.

The Silent Gap

2009-03-10T09:31:00.004-04:00

An important part of Integral Theory, in short:

Reality is unified (A-dual,) mind creates duality. This can be experienced, and is the gateway to all esoteric knowledge.

A good introduction to this as a meditation here. The music is a little iffy, and the guy also kind of funny, but if you do what he says, you ought to figure out what's being talked about.

While most people identify with the voice in their head, they don't realize a) there are usually at least two competing voices, especially about anything important and b) you are not these voices, but the observer of them. The more and more familiar with the stance of the observer, the more and more you identify with it and disidentify with the voices in your head, the more rich and full your life will be, and the easier it will be to see just how insane and unreal the mind is on a day to day basis.

Do Schools Kill Creativity?

2009-03-05T05:59:00.006-05:00

Close on the on the heels of a post about schooling vs. education, a wonderful and funny talk from Sir Ken Robinson on TED about the same issue.

Advocating an open-ended approach to education that fosters creativity as being just as important as literacy for a world which fundamentally changes every five years or so, Sir Robinson talks about many things I've noticed here in China, specifically, that children aren't afraid of being wrong, that is, they'll have a go at it, whereas by the time kids are adults, they're terrified of giving the wrong answer. Even young children here won't take a stab at something if I haven't already told them the answer, something that frustrates me to no end. I'm not just saying wild stabs in the dark, but also having all the tools to put the answer together but without the answer itself, kids are extremely reluctant to try and figure out what the answer might be, especially in my first few classes with them.

"We are now running national educational systems where mistakes are the worst things you can make, and the result is that we are teaching people out of their creative capacity."

This is a feature of bureaucracism, subject of another recent video on TED, from Barry Schwartz, which hits many of the same notes, but from a moralistic standpoint. When people are not allowed to be individuals making decisions, but are handed lists to teach/ do in a rote manner, society, in the long run, is much worse off. "Three Strikes You're Out," is such an example, but so is much of what Robinson is talking about with "No Child Left Behind." You prevent disasters, perhaps. But you also prevent any real sort of progress and personal energy, which I can attest to firsthand, living and teaching in the birthplace of bureaucracy.

Thanks to Cyriac for the heads-up.

The Coming Great Reboot

2009-02-24T20:38:00.001-05:00

This talk, from Juan Rodriguez via TED Talks, is pretty fascinating, as a rational account of the coming crash and post-crash, which he calls a re-boot.

It is interesting to compare and contrast different versions of the coming reboot, to see how it's interpreted in different metaphors, especially considering none of them are going to be a hundred percent right. (That is, the future will lie somewhere between all of them.)

His idiom is fairly close to what I'm fairly sure is going to happen: in the short term, we're going to have a huge SNAFU. But we will emerge an entirely different animal, in a very different world. I do not share Juan Rodriguez's marriage to the objective sciences, however, and so I put the emphasis on a leap in consciousness, which you can find evidence for all over the web (click on this Peter Russell talk to see an example of what I'm talking about- it's quite clear and talks science, so don't be afraid.) Science is, of course, part of the future. It's just not the whole story.

People in enough numbers are starting to directly experience adual reality, that is, they are coming into direct contact with the ground of being, that pretty soon there should be a tipping point.

Bioengineering, coupled with robotics, has become sophisticated enough that we are coming to a tipping point.

The similarity in these two, the thread that ties them together, is that we're entering an age of conscious control of our reality. Now, control is a sticky word, and I don't mean by it what a ten-year old would, it is a much more detached control, one that requires a relinquishment of the smaller and petty identification of self that we usually think of as being "controlling." In any case, hold onto your butts. Things are already starting to get interesting. Aren't they?

Schooling vs. Education

2009-02-18T03:15:00.003-05:00

I have written quite a few times about the Chinese education system and the structure of Chinese society, and the double-bind the people seem to be in: there's recognition that something's wrong, that there needs to be a jolt of individuality in the country, but the system's so entrenched that it's basically impossible to succeed without it (of course, the objection could be raised that talk of individualism is lip service. Let's assume, here, that it's not.) Here's probably my best one. Here's another.

Here's a terrible essay written by a high-schooler in relatively poor AnHui province. (Terrible because moving, not written poorly.)

Two days before I read that I was in class with a High-schooler in his second year. He brought in his winter homework for me to check. It was amazing for a few related reasons. Firstly, it was pretty high-level English, though with quite a few vague usage mistakes on the parts of the (obviously) Chinese compilers. And, he got most of it right. had it been a test, he would have scored in the 90s. But the most amazing thing of all is that this kid basically can't say a complete English sentence without mangling it, pausing for an inordinate amount of time, or simply stopping in the middle.
After finishing checking half of his homework, (which took me 80 out of our 100 minute class) I put the book down and asked him if he thought what we were doing was helpful, or a good use of time.
The most astounding thing was that in the book itself, there was a passage about the difference between schooling and education, starting off with "It's common to think of kids going off to school to start their education, but many experts say going to school interrupts a child's education.." and then going into a short comparison of education vs. schooling, a dichotomy I would call Life Experience vs. Formal (Institutional) Education. At the end, it was clear that the authors came down firmly on the side of Education as being helpful for society, and schooling as... well... not so much. There was even a passage that said "High-schoolers know that what they learn in politics class is not relevant to the political issues of the day." (Really???) When I asked my gf about this, she said, "I hated politics class in highschool, because everything is bullshit." Though this was all framed by the initial "In The United States of America..." it was obviously pertinant to the Chinese education system.
Outside, it was the 15th, last, and second most important day of the Spring Festival, what we call the Chinese New Year. Fireworks were going off everywhere. People were eating special food for the celebration. And here it was, 8pm, and this poor kid was trapped in a room basically watching a high-paid English instructor check little red marks in his book. I called to his attention the irony of all of this.

The Chinese Education system is about 80 percent schooling, 20 percent education, I'd say. It's really good for a few things. It's great for learning how to do math problems, or fill-in-the-blank English problems. It's great for creating a cowed populace of robots. (Cynics would likely say that's the point.) It's probably not so great for creating great earth-changing people. Even the Chinese people who are doing big things in China are doing so mostly in a Western style. (Like, say, real estate developers educated in England.)

It will happen, though. It might be happening now. We just haven't seen it yet, I don't think. And someone's got to tell the kids to forget their homework and play during their vacations. Loss to "Intellectual Knowledge" - 5%. Gain in Experience, understanding and comfort in life? 80%.

The above percentages have been thoroughly researched.

Happy Niu Year!

2009-01-31T02:52:00.000-05:00

I certainly was not preparing to write about the Chinese New Year at 8 in the morning, not after a night spent chasing fireworks around town until two booming in the Niu year (Niu =牛, which means ox, or cow.) Add in jet lag from arriving here in Beijing two days ago, and you could understand why I’d be excited about getting a real nice night’s sleep. I should have known.
It’s hard to describe the sound, though I’m sure any one reading this has heard fireworks. Imagine the end of a gigantic fireworks display, except you’re in four corners Arizona and each state has their own display for their respective corner. Add in the “cracklers,” which are as to our little cracklers like a tarantula is to a picture of a spider drawn by a four-year-old, and you have a foothold. Loud, continuous. Our fireworks displays have the pace of moderate rock, with some climaxes of sixteen notes on the snare drum. This is more like jungle trance: 240bpm, and all sixteenth notes, directly next to your apartment building, which is a concrete wall in a giant sound rebounding maze. In war, sitting under a tin roof in a furious hail, while shots from automatic rifles scream around you mixed in with an occasional chorus of mortar fire, you would hear that same mix of percussion, but the anxiety would likely not give you space to listen, or hear.
Hear, as opposed to see, being operative. Despite the night bringing out all varieties of exploding colored lights and streaming jets of sparks, in the day, it’s all about the noise. Vaguely, and I don’t at the moment of writing have the internet so I will not confirm this, I remember that fireworks in the superstitious mythos that is the Chinese motivation for doing all things are supposed to frighten off evil demons, and so their powers are needed the most at the end of the old/beginning of the new year, I suppose because demons have off from work during this time as well and are disposed otherwise at their offices. Most of the fireworks that go off during the day are either the aforementioned cracklers, or large M-80 style noisemakers, which is not to say they are not present during the night, merely that any association of “fireworks,” with “pretty,” or “majestic,” is purely a nighttime phenomenon.
As is the association of “fireworks,” with “children.” While kids certainly enjoy the fireworks, they’re not setting them off. Most of what I have seen in the last two days of setting off fireworks has been single men, by themselves, usually in their forties or beyond. It’s a little creepy, their approach to the task eerily robotic. But that is not to say there is nothing childlike about it.
In fact, one of the greatest things about being here at this time is the sense of wonder and simple joy on people’s faces, from the young to the old, as they watch and hear fireworks blast off all around them. It is as if the stodgy no-fun discipline of the rest of the Chinese year were simply a show, and the time off (just about everyone has a week off, at least) and periodic unexpectable bursts of sound act as just enough of a counterweight to keep everyone aware that life is fun, the burst of sound behind a young woman making her grasp for her ears in her winter coat and turn her beaming laughing face towards her companion, blurting out something like “oh that surprised me!” If this seems like an extreme reminder, it should only go to hint at what the other 360 days of the year are like.
There is, after all, a reason this is a tradition held so strongly. If (and I think this is true) the more rigid a society is, the more unflinching its rituals must be honored, each holding up its own inch of the society, then the Chinese adherence to tradition becomes clearer. I realized this week an interesting way of putting the difference between American and Chinese culture. In America, if we say, “it’s just a tradition,” we mean that there’s no solid reason to keep doing it, and if for one or another reason, we have to or want to do something else, it’s not that big of a deal. It’s just a tradition, after all. In China, “it’s just a tradition” means, “even though no one knows why we do it this way, this is the way it is done, so it is how we must do it.” This became clear for me when I asked my girlfriend why it’s so important to eat dumplings the first day of the New Year, (and noodles the second, and on and on…that’s how specific some of these are) and she responded, “I don’t know, it’s just a tradition.” There’s a great pride in the Chinese traditions, and the sense that this is what brings Chinese together as a people, something that not only creates but also in a sense is their cultural identity. Evangelical Christians have the literal word of God in the Bible; this is what gives them their identity. But the Chinese have only Chinese-ness, and so all of these rituals, all of the history, the shared sense of hard work and study as children, and the reverence for their ancestors come together to create the sense of identity. While all these internal factors are true for Evangelicals as well, at least they can point to the book to cover it all up. Chinese only have this, which is likely a factor making them so aware of the boundaries between “us,” and “them.” You’re either Chinese, or you’ll never be, and will never understand. (Because you don’t eat dumplings on the New Year?)
There’s another interesting contrast between our two societies I have noticed but have not so far been able to find an example for: the difference in degrees and places of freedom that society allows. One might think that China and America are simply at two ends of a spectrum, Americans being more or less “free,” and Chinese not, but this is a gross over-simplification. Exhibit A: in the public square last night, there were probably 2-3 thousand people, all setting off fireworks, and very very few cops, or authorities of any kind. In the square, it was absolute anarchy, which is not to say chaos, only that the crowd had its own logic. In the middle was a huge open space, around which people were gathered. Most of the fireworks were set off in the middle of the square, and all went well. It was all done privately, by the people. Juxtapose this to a fireworks display in America, where people aren’t involved in it at all, except as spectators. The point I’m trying to make is that while in America the range of activities allowed people (by society, I’m not exactly saying by law) is broader, there is almost always still a set of rules one must abide by. In China, the range for free activity is greatly circumscribed: 360 days of the year, there is no spring festival, and you can’t choose when to have off. However, within this circumscribed area, when allowed, you can do 100% as you please. I had noticed something similar when teaching in a primary school: between fifty- minute classes there is a ten minute break of complete chaos you’d never see in America, and students run as fast as they can wherever they’re going, unless it is with the whole class. In America, you don’t run in school, only on the playground. In America, if the students were allowed to go ape for ten minutes between classes they might never calm down. But, this is China. As soon as that class bell rings (actually a twenty second song) kids are in their seats, if not ready to learn, then at the least orderly. Again, I don’t quite have an explanation for this, other than to say perhaps it is the tradeoff for circumscribing free space so totally: within that space, freedom is also total. But they’re trained well: when the bell rings, kids are sitting, when the lights in the square went off (at 12:10) people began to filter out in droves.
Another fascinating social phenomenon is the yearly four-hour pageant, broadcast all over the world, and without commercial interruption, that precedes the 12 AM turn of the year (in a way it’s odd that they’re so westernly precise about the exact time the year turns when they are using the lunar calendar, but, such is modern China.) This year the theme was overtly a celebration of the last thirty years of economic reforms, which have brought the country great wealth. In this generally tame and traditional setting (one song featured the lyrics “Mao ZeDong has to lead us” over and over again…actually that may have been the Beijing pageant the next night, but same idea) where the comedy acts were snow-white and everything family friendly, one act stood out: a dance/rap routine featuring a man, a woman, and a ten-year old. It was overtly hip-hop inspired in fashion and in music, and it stuck out precisely because the older generations find the hip-hop fashions of the youngest generation revolting. Far from an embrace of hip-hop, however, this seemed to be far more a way of acknowledging the youth culture and bringing it in ever tighter into the fold of society, defusing any element of rebellion and individuality. It was, after all, only a display, lasting ten-minutes in a four hour program, a way for China to say, “don’t forget, kids, what’s underneath the adidas pants.” Oh, there was break dancing. But the kid was wearing a helmet.

Mistakes are systematic.

2009-01-07T14:05:00.002-05:00

Mistakes are systematic; excellence, brilliance are individual.

What I mean by this is that people tend to make the same mistakes as large groups of other people, and that they fall into a few easily recognizable categories. I mean this in the broadest sense possible: in anything one could possibly make a mistake in, from cooking eggs to managing money to much larger life decisions, the mistakes made are basically the same from person to person. However, mastery of any of these is personal. That is, if grandma's recipe is delicious (I'm talking out-of-this-world-delicious), it's because she made it according to her own circumstances, and adjusted where necessary. If you mimic her recipe, it'll taste good, but it won't be the same. It'll be missing the intangibles. Now, if you take that recipe and use it as a base, learn the basics, and then adjust according to your taste and circumstances, and do it a thousand times until it's just right, your recipe will be out-of-this-world-delicious as well.

The less complicated this is, the less difference there will be between individuals, walking, say, or cooking eggs, though still, mistakes will be systematic, and brilliance will be individual.

But the more complicated the subject is, living one's life, for example, the greater the appearance of difference is between individuals, though they are making systematic mistakes (and so, the more and larger mistakes there are to be made) and the more infinite and incalculable the difference will be between those who do it well.

So, learn form others' mistakes, but know that ultimately at some point in your life you'll get to the point where models and predecessors are entirely unhelpful, if you're good at what you do. Unfortunately, if they're even aware of doing it, most people follow the examples of others too closely, and you get whole industries that build up around following in others' footsteps, parsing their words and actions and ideas for meaning, rather than just taking the leap to do it for one's self. Unfortunately, because the world would be much more diverse if this were not the case, and it would be easier in contrast to see what the tie that binds is. It's not bad, though, it's just the way we do things.

As a practical example, take playing the guitar.

At first, if you don't have a teacher (not necessarily a literal person) you'll suck, hardcore, and for a long time. However, following his or her example, you'll learn how to play, mostly things that have come before. But, if you only stick to the known, stick to playing in the styles of the master's, and playing their songs, you'll be no more than a recording of someone else, and you'll never be quite as "them" as they were. Think about how many really good guitar players there are out there (not to mention how many infinite more mediocre ones there are) and then think of how many truly great, unique ones there are. Getting stuck in others' ruts is not the only reason there aren't a billion immortal guitar players, another reason is just lack of practice, but it's one of them. The mistake is thinking that you ever could copy someone a hundred percent. Without their body, their mind, their past, how is that possible? Your fingers are unique, the guitar you're using is different, if only very subtly, and you are a different person. It's impossible! Use examples to learn from, but never forget that they are only examples, and you are you.

So, if you find a teacher (of anything) that tells you the way they do it is the only way, be very skeptical. They're probably caught in someone else's wake. Don't, however, make the opposite mistake of rejecting all examples and sliding back to the stone-age. One needs to get as high (or far) as possible on the path of others before striking out for one's self. When to do it? It really doesn't matter. Just be aware of it, and you'll know.

Also, be aware of the above, that it is impossible to walk in the literal footsteps of someone else, just as it is impossible to shape your fingers in the same way as your guitar teacher's and that every step includes your own individuality necessarily. Learn every stage, then play with it. When you've learned as much as anyone can teach you, if you've been playing your own tune and making the practice your own, you shouldn't find it so difficult to jump at the end.

Integral Academic Healing

2009-01-04T21:47:00.003-05:00

This article is a perfect example of the need for integral thinking.

Basically put, anthropology is divided into two camps: the right-handed (objective) approach, evolutionary anthropology, and the left-handed (subjective) approach, social anthropology.

The simple dividing line between them is whether people's behavior can best be explained in terms of animal mate-finding drives, in an entirely impersonal sense, or whether behavior must be viewed through the lens of culture.

Of course, this seems almost silly. Can't it be both?

That's the problem; each side claims basically to have the "inside-track" on why humans REALLY do what they do, and so they are both wrong. There is no possibility of separating evolutionary drives from human culture, or (at least as far as humans are concerned) vice-versa.

That's the basic story. Now to the article, to illustrate the issue better.

"The schism between the two is simple but deeply ingrained. Academics in the subject clearly align themselves with one side or the other; once that choice is made it defines their career."

-Firstly, the schism is as simple as is possible, do you ignore the subjective or the objective, and as deep as possible, the most basic division. Secondly, the "once that choice..." part shows a basic problem within academia at the present time: it's not just that your field is interesting, or helpful, it's that your field is right, and everyone else's field is only properly viewed from one's own, and this often dismisses fields entirely. Not only cross-field, but, as here, within one field.

"A lot of anthropologists are interpretivists; they are interpreting what they see. They're not working within the framework of the scientific method," says Ruth Mace, professor of evolutionary anthropology at University College London. "That's all well and good, but why should we be more interested in one person's interpretation over someone else's interpretation unless we have got some commonly accepted grounds for testing competing hypotheses?"

-There's a little too much in here. Humans are always interpreting, even math is an interpretation, that is, 2+2 is an abstraction, with correlates in our experience of reality. Denigrating somebody as an interpretivist is forgetting that you can't really use the word "reality," without the qualifying "our experience of..." Dr. Mace also isn't counting a rather thorough, and evolutionary, means of testing competing hypotheses: bunk gets junked. That is, the best and most likely hypotheses pass on, in the long term, because people start to agree with them because they work better, let alone the fact that commonly accepting grounds is a form of interpretation. Of course, she has a point in the end, and that is that it is certainly worthy and important to ground understandings in the world of experimental data. It's just not a litmus-test for validity.

"The scientific method is a common currency across all scientific disciplines, most of the social sciences included. In that way, disciplines can speak to each other."

-An example of the "all through my field" way of looking at things. As Dr. Ingold says, "They already assume they have the correct answer."

Now, it's not all bleak. The integral idea is growing in the world, and mostly from the ground-up, that is, not with the explicit help of people grounded in integral theory, but because it's practical, and leading/fringe thinkers in their respective fields are beginning to understand the limits of choosing either one (interior reality) or the other (exterior reality.) Dr. Whitehouse, the main example in the article, being one of them, along with the Royal Anthropological Institute. Dr. Barton's quote exemplifies this, " I don't think there's any future for an anthropology that doesn't combine the different approaches and perspectives." That, of course, has been the integral call for quite some time, substituting "understanding of humanity and its/my/your interaction with reality" for anthropology. (Though ironically in a way that could be thought of as being anthropology, I think we can mostly agree the scopes of these two projects are rather different.)

Of course, looking at the comments below, this magical age is still far-off, and of course, won't happen for at least another generation, as things change most not when individuals change their mind, but when generations die off. However, if a truly integral understanding can begin to pull all of this together, it could be a catalyst. That, of course, is in danger of falling into the same trap: everything must be viewed from an integral perspective, or it's not valid. This is not what I mean. The integral perspective itself is, of course, not really a single perspective, it's the injunction to state the weaknesses clearly just as you state the truths of your work and viewpoint. Every concept and argument is resting on a point of impossibility, there is nothing without caveat. Even the caveat. So live your life.

Global Weirding.

2008-12-01T17:14:00.003-05:00

Two things. One: Simply disgusting.

That's about

Two: Really?

There are no acorns in the American Northeast.

About the second, again, nobody knows what's happening. It'd be nice if we could go back to a place where we weren't just waiting to see what would happen as a result of fudging around with the environment. (See my post titled "unintended consequences.") Of course, we can't and things are pretty weird. Did we do it? NOBODY KNOWS.

Somewhat troubling

2008-12-01T11:55:00.002-05:00

A report in the Washington Post today.

A little troubling. If you can answer the following question in a different fashion, I'd be very happy: why military, if not for population control / martial law?

Oh, come on you far--out paranoid, if there were a terrorist attack on the country, wouldn't we need twenty thousand (at least) soldiers to help out?

No, not soldiers. A terrorist attack would NOT be an invasion. I can't see a reason, beyond population control, that you couldn't do what the military is here to do with a corps of trained citizen volunteers, like volunteer firemen. Logistically, yes, it might be a little more difficult. But it avoids having the military active in the country (in large numbers,) which is just an open invitation for trouble. I guarantee that if they are ever used (why are they there if not to be used) there will be abuses times a billion. Perhaps (but only perhaps) it is better than, say, using Blackwater, at least it's out in the open.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it could.

And that's more troubling to me than a terrorist attack. Terrorists do not win when they attack. But they'd win if we deployed the military in response to one.

Myths about Liberals

2008-11-27T12:38:00.003-05:00

Here's a wonderful list of liberal talking points for the Thanksgiving table, a re-branding of the word, if you will.

It's odd why you need the political trade winds to shift so much before any of these come to light. Three years ago, you'd have heard few people on any sort of mainstream media defending what it is and means to be liberal, but since 2006, and then crescendoing after the liberal's wet dream, Barack Obama, was elected president of the united states, you've heard a lot more of this.

Happy Thanksgiving!

The Meaning of Life.

2008-11-27T08:00:00.000-05:00

From Wikipedia.

I just like how it says, "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject."

Whoever that is, I'd like to meet them.

Peter Fenner, Radiant Mind

2008-11-26T16:06:00.004-05:00

Peter Fenner gives about as good, simple and natural an explanation to the space of consciousness as just about anyone I've come across.

A short dialogue, here.

More on the "End of America."

2008-11-26T15:20:00.002-05:00

If you don't have time to watch the video, here's a nice synopsis of Naomi Wolf's 10 steps to closing a society.

The main thing I want to say, connected with yesterday's post about unintended consequences, is that the powers that Bush put into play during his presidency are still valid.

Obama may restrain himself from using some of them, (say, signing statements) but to truly ensure the survival of American democracy, we have to expressly remove certain of these powers, like the ability to declare anyone an enemy combatant, or to use the national guard as a police force, things any president would love to have in an emergency, and keep afterwards.

The question to be determined in Obama's first year or so is, what is he working for? If it is for the good of American democracy, we should see an unequivocal reversal of many of the president's arbitrary and un-american war powers. If it is for the capitalist class, expect no rescinding of these powers, instead some soft words and talk of how it's unecessary to change anything at this point, for whatever concocted reason.

We're in some shit.

Unintended Consequences

2008-11-25T15:42:00.003-05:00

An article on National Geographic.

Real quick: unintended consequences. Any system is in a constant state of cyclical flux, (feedback loops, if you will) that is in balance at any point in time. The more complicated the system, the less obvious the connections between individual constituents of the system. For example, the dynamic of a two-child family is more complex than the heating system of their house, and the operation of their society is infinitely more complex than the family.

The more complex the system, the less likely it is that consequences of changing one element can be predicted.

We're seeing this across the board when it comes to climate change, which is why certain pundits now prefer the phrase "global weirding" to "global warming."

Again: 1- the earth's ecosystems are about as complex as they come.
2- We are seriously screwing with them.
3- Anybody who does not take this uncertainty (or, looking at historical examples of assuredness in the face of complete unknowability, the relative certainty of disaster) as the number one most important thing in any talks about climate change has the race handicapped poorly.

Of course, we're not just fudging with one or two things at a time here. We are fudging with everything in the global ecosystem, upon which humanity is precariously balanced. Who knows what's going to happen? Nobody. But, rather than write it off and say, "well, whatever happens isn't likely to be that big," we should be saying, "we're in a balance that has suited us well for thousands and thousands of years, and the likelihood of a new balance being in our favor is probably small."

It's ironic that this conservative value is so outside the mindset of the majority of today's political conservatives.

And, though this is an environmental example, it relates to almost every human choice. At the outset, options may appear clear, but one can never correctly judge what the consequence of the first choice will be. Instead of blindly trudging forward through ever changing circumstances, we need a much more flexible way of operating, one that makes a choice, looks at what happens, and only then moves on. Kaizen: my favorite Japanese word.

Two interesting clips, in tandem.

2008-11-25T00:43:00.001-05:00

Animals on the Underground.

Too cute.

Pareidolia

So what does it mean, man?

Four Philosophical Questions on the BBC

2008-11-21T12:53:00.005-05:00

This is a response to a piece on the BBC's website, containing four knotty philosophical questions. I can answer each of them to my satisfaction, so I'd like to put my answers out there.

It would be helpful to read the original piece, as I'm not going to put the whole, lengthy questions here.

1- Should we kill healthy people for their organs?

No. While, in all three cases, the phrase "saving five people by killing one" applies, in the first case, "Bill" is in no jeopardy. It would be wrong to kill someone healthy who is not in danger of death against his will. In the second case it is not immoral to kill the individual, because all six people are already in jeopardy. If you don't kill one of them yourself, that person will die anyway, whereas Bill is in no such danger.

Now, in the third case, while the choice of which track to set the train rolling down seems to be taking someone who is not in danger, the single person tied to the alternate track, and killing him/her, it is not equivalent to Bill's case because Bill isn't tied to any train tracks! So, although in both cases you appear to be making a deliberate choice sacrificing one person (kill Bill for his organs, flip the switch to kill the individual on the tracks) to spare five people, the fact that the individual in the train example is tied to active train tracks places him or her in a danger that Bill is not in. I think this is why most people intuitively answer that it is not okay to kill Bill, but okay to let the train kill the individual tied to the tracks, and okay to kill the one hostage to set the five free.

2- Are you the same person who started reading this article?

The dichotomy between the statements "everything is constantly changing" and "nothing changes" is false, as the two statements of truth are only apparently different. In reality, all of these concepts we think of as being fundamentally opposed (say, motion and stillness, or freewill and fate) are different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, "being." Concept and language view separate phenomena, and the mistake is to say that they are separate, and therefore NOT UNIFIED. The paradox in "everything is in constant change" is, of course, that that rule itself is not subject to change, but this paradox doesn't mean there's something wrong with the world, or that this truth itself is wrong, it's pointing to the inability of language to grasp the nature of reality as being constantly changing, continuously unchanging, both constantly changing and unchanging, and neither changing nor unchanging, and all necessarily so. There is no possibility of "being" being anyway other than this, a can of worms for another time.

Similarly, the dichotomy between the subject and the object is conceptual/ perceptual, and built into the structure of reality, but not itself ultimately real. Again, reality is neither subjective nor objective, it is both at the same time. Everything in the phenomenal world is in constant change and only a part of the whole, and also at the same time ultimately the same as what does not change, being itself. The sense of unchanging identity comes from this center of your unchanging being, and this does not change, though everything phenomenal is fluid and changing.

So, what you think you are is totally different from what it was at the beginning of the article, and even from moment to moment. What you actually are, everything, has not changed.

3- Is that really a computer screen in front of you?

Closely related to the above, this question hinges on the belief in some "thing" that is "real," as opposed to "things" that are not real.

There is no "independent" check on your senses because there is no true "independence." There is no "thing" in the universe with any reality separate from the reality of the rest of the universe, a sticking point of materialism. There's no getting outside the system, because everything conceivable in any time point in space or dimension is the system.

But it's not just that it's impossible to verify what's really really real (say, where exactly the buck stops,) it's that the idea of something being really really real independently is mistaken.

Basically, the sentence "There is a computer screen in front of me" loses any meaning if it is meant in an ultimate sense, and not a practical one. Practically, there is a computer screen in front of you, right now. Ultimately, reality doesn't work this way.

4-Did you really choose to read this article?

Again, closely related to the above two questions.

All of these "stickler" questions come at the logical conclusions of two seemingly obvious lines of thought.

Again, we're placing too much emphasis on the "really real, independently real, truly and ultimately real" nature of our concepts and what they refer to. Free will and determinism are not contradictory, they are two ways of looking at determination of process, and are each shortcuts.

All is the Universe, and you are this as well, so, whatever you do is determined, ultimately, by whatever it is that determines everything, and that is also what you are in any real sense, so, really, you have ultimate free will, enough to seriously frighten most people. Saying that all of your choices are pre-determined doesn't rule out that you determined them yourself, but, again, our concept of the free agent of choice is only a shorthand. On the other side of the coin, let's say that the result of a choice is one of two extreme possibilities, either at that moment the universe splits and BOTH happen, ultimately meaning that every infinitely small moment creates an infinite amount of second-moments, and so on (which, though it seems perhaps counter-intuitive that there could be infinite to the infinite worlds out there, is less so if you remember the fact of infinity), or only one thing happens, and all the other possibilities fall back into nothing. Either way is entirely handcuffing the very free will affirmed above. Either every choice is played out in every possible fashion, in which case who "you" are is just an accident of whichever line you happen to be watching, or you can never un-choose what has happened, and can't say whether (since there is only one universe) what happened ever actually had a choice option, both deterministic in their ways. At the end of the day all of this conjecture is meaningless, it all rests on the incorrect assumption that free-will and choice are different possibilities. Things happen. You are a part of what makes them happen, in fact what "you" are is also what this is, so you have free-will, and further, you are not different from what is happening. Even the idea of acting on something different from you is mistaken, it is practical. There is also never any real alternative to what is, so there is no free will. These are both true at the same time, and really, neither of them is true at all, they're only ways of talking, of wrapping words (though not fruitlessly) around something that cannot be corralled. The universe is not what it appears, and, it is. Everything is oneness, everything is nothingness, oneness is nothingness.

Okay, feel free to add your own thoughts.

Hmmmmmm, I knew that tasted fishy.

2008-11-20T16:36:00.003-05:00

An excerpt adopted from "Fast Food Nation," by Eric Schlosser.

Two things I want to say:

1- When you have to over compensate for doing something it should be clear that the original thing is probably the result of ridiculously tortured thinking, and a better and more efficient solution is out there: exhibit A here, you need to add chemicals to processed foods to make them taste like real food (or, for that matter, to keep them from decomposing.) Solution: eat real food. Food that needs chemicals to taste like food is not, in the first place food. This is entirely different from spicing, which you'll surely notice if you read the article.

exhibit B, an example from Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma:" waste products at factory farms. Where waste used to be used as fertilizer, it is now too far from farms to be used as such, and, in the gigantic quantities that you accumulate when your feedlot consists of tens of thousands of animals, is poisoning the water supplies for hundreds of miles. In addition, chemical fertilizers must be used to replace the nutrients in the soil no longer naturally replaced by "waste."

This is not just silliness, it is indicative of a way of thinking that is destroying the very things humans need for their survival. Five hundred years ago, there was no such thing as waste. When there is only so much on the planet to make waste out of, isn't there a predestined end to that?

2- If you want to know what you're eating (say, if you're vegan, vegetarian, keep kosher, halal, etc., simply conscientious) it's impractical if not entirely impossible to do this and eat any processed foods. As an example: I bet you didn't know (if you hadn't read this book or the article) that you've ingested parts of thousands if not millions of bugs called "Dactylopius coccus Costa" whose dessicated shells are used as red and pink coloring in such obviously meat laden products as pink-grapefruit juice and Dannon Strawberry Yoghurt.

Oh yeah, not to mention that we really have no clue what most of the thousands of chemicals the average person ingests on any given day actually do to the long-term health of the human body.

Things aren't this complicated, and there's hope on the horizon. People are finally starting to realize, in large numbers, that things aren't this complicated in the real world.

We just make it that way.

Smile! Ten Things Science Says Will Make You Happy!

2008-11-20T16:09:00.004-05:00

From Yes! Magazine: 10 Things Science Says Will Make You Happy!

The title, deciphered, means "10 things supported by scientific research that people who tend to be happy do."

Of course, there's the problem of cause and effect, that is, does this MAKE people happy, or do happy people just tend to do these things more often?

My observation about this comes from experience with number seven: Smile, even when you don't feel like it. A few months ago I had been in a funk for a few days, when, in reading a website about Tai Ji to refine my form, I saw a note: Qi Gong Practice: Smile!

Don't just smile, break out a achingly wide happy-smile, like a proud papa watching his son learn how to ride a bike, the article said, giving step-by-step instructions as if it were a complicated movement in Tai Ji. Doing this, it's hard not to feel happy, or at least to bring that sensation of smiling in contact with whatever and wherever in your body isn't feeling the smile. Repeat. I found that as I smiled, as I remembered to smile, whatever sensation of unpleasantness was in my body was relaxed away, and whatever unnaturalness I had felt about smiling similarly left, and that it was hard to stop smiling! Right now as I write I'm having the same problem: smiling makes me feel too good! I'm literally beaming, for no reason at all, just because I smiled once, purposely and concentratedly, at the beginning of writing this, and I just can't stop.

This dovetails into the first recommendation: Savor everyday moments. Just stop and smell the roses, as it were, or watch children playing. That smiling might just come back of its own accord. That bursting happiness from smiling any other time of the day will also help you to focus on just what's in front of you, the breathtaking beauty of the terribly mundane.

So, is it one, or the other? Does being happy make you do these things, or do these things make you happy?

As with everything, it's both. Being happy makes you do these things freely and joyfully, which makes you happy, which makes you do these things freely and joyfully. What a world!

Really, of course, remembering to smile, remembering to appreciate the littlest moments, is what awareness practice is, and is all about. There is nothing wrong with the world. We get caught up in ourselves, and neglect this simple and ever-present sensation of joy that is the base of everything else.

So, if you are alone, (don't want to look foolish, now,) smile, uncompromisingly, smile as wide as you can, let your eyes come together at the sides, your scalp pull back, and open your mouth up and smile! Then, repeat as necessary.

Barack Obama, and Freedom

2008-11-05T16:03:00.005-05:00

Fair enough to say that no one will know exactly what last week's election means for a long, long time. Perhaps this is part of the reason that I've had such trouble articulating what effect it has had on me, and what it has made me feel, beyond an incredible giddiness, and an outpouring of emotion. I think I have finally figured out just why Barack Obama moves me as much as he does, and it starts with the words in his victory speech that moved me the most, playing with Lincoln's (second?) most famous excerpt from the Gettysburg address, that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," has not perished from the face of the Earth.

There were other moments, seeing the first-family-elect step onto the stage for the first time was another, but this moment made me choke up the most. I think this is why:

I believe in American exceptionalism. I think that America introduced something new into world politics, something fundamentally new. This does not mean, of course, that I support every interpretation of this, far from it. I think most of the problems we get into involve some romantic idea of American righteousness, and so while I don't and cannot support "my country right or wrong" thinking, I do think that America introduced something critical for the future wellfare of mankind, something that no other country could have, and something that is slowly leaking out elsewhere (I do not think another country in the world could have elected Obama, (or an equivalent) for those who disagree with the "slowly" part of that) and something that is overwhelmingly beneficial for humankind and civilization.

Obviously, I am an idealist.

Over the last eight years, my idealism has been tempered by a great deal of cynicism and skepticism, (not two words for the same thing, though there are overlaps in certain situations) two other modes of thought that I am quite comfortable with, despite my core of idealism. What the idealist loves about our country, the cynic/skeptic is terrified we are losing, or have already lost. This has not been partisan (i.e., I'm not simply "anti-republican") rather it has been the fear that certain philosophies of governing embraced by the current administration have been threatening to government for the people. The road to fascism is paved with good intentions. Fascism, here, means government that uses its power to subjugate its own people. Not culturally, mind you: I would argue that conformity to cultural practices and, say, death camps, are two entirely different phenomenon. Culture is, at the same time, much more benign a form of "subjugation," if you wish to call it that, and much more insidious, built into the fabric of what people's identities are. But it is not being billy-clubbed for talking negatively about the government. I am following Naomi Wolf here. For a laundry list talk about the road to fascism, watch the following, or read her book, "The End of America."

In any case, for me, this has been the most important thing about the Obama candidacy, and the election. It is the key element that holds everything else in together: the appearance of an unabashedly rational, intellectual candidate; the major step taken for civil rights; the potential return of moral and political authority to america; returning america from the brink of modern-day laissez-faire economics; the face of america returning as being young, optimistic, inclusive, practical, idealistic (at the same time,) humble, etc. etc. opposed to the face we've seen in the last eight years; the excitement and participatory level in politics; the understanding of the importance of issues (the economy, energy, and the environment,) as trumping divisive politics (and the media, by the way;) the emergence of an interconnected citizenry plugged into the media but not dependent upon it: all of these aspects, and more, I see as the natural outcome of a (relatively) free and (relatively) open society in crisis.

Had McCain won the election despite the popular push for Obama apparent in everything and in nearly every demographic and the above, it would have been a symbol to me that the American Dream, not of a chicken in every pot, but of the enshrined ability to say and be and feel whatever one wants, and the belief that this leads to a better world for all, was either being threatened by the powers that be, or was dead already, killed when we all weren't looking.

It is, in a word, the ability to freely agree or disagree without repercussion.

America brought the sense that a country and its government are separable, and that patriotism is not love of government, but love of country, something, under the Bush administration, that was smeared two hundred years into the past. In China this has been one of the most dumbfounding aspects for me, that there is no separation, theoretically or practically, between what "the government" is and what "the country" is. There's an awareness, sure, and a line I often get from people who start interrogating me about how America could be so stupid (often a line of questioning starting with Iraq and Bush) is that "okay, okay, American people are good people, Chinese people are good people, but governments everywhere are bad." Of course, what I couldn't say, because I had had no evidence for it, was "when the people are good, and allowed a large degree of participation, the government can't but be good as well." I have some evidence for that now.

Are we being hoodwinked? Is Obama a Manchurian candidate working to support a global elite against (an important word) the citizens of the planet? A quick reversal of tone and policy by his administration in the areas that Bush has done the most and potentially permanent damage to the fabric of the country would do much to silence those two voices, skepticism and cynicism, so essential to freedom, and well-trained in the last eight years.

It is up to us to keep watch, and our power to keep the world moving towards an open and free society, inclusive and supportive of all. It is our power. And power concedes nothing.

The Rule of Law and China

2008-10-18T00:02:00.002-04:00

A great article in the New York Times about the Chinese legal system.

Some pertinent highlights for what I want to talk about:

'As with the school collapses, the milk scandal involves a web of complicity linking company executives to government officials. Those connections make sorting out responsibility a delicate political task. Rather than allow the courts to weigh in, officials prefer to press complainants to take compensation, said Teng Biao, a lawyer in Beijing who is collecting material for a possible class-action lawsuit. “Traditionally in China, politics is always higher than the law,” he said.

“To protect Sanlu is to protect the government itself,” he added. “A public health crisis like this not only involves Sanlu. It involves many officials from authorities in the city of Shijiazhuang up to the central government. It involves media censorship, the food quality regulatory system and the corrupt deal between commercial merchants and corrupt officials.”'

'Many lawyers find it hard to ignore the entreaties of provincial judicial bureaus or lawyers associations, which they are required to join. Those groups are controlled by the Ministry of Justice, which ultimately makes the rules for licensing lawyers.'

'There was no outright ban on class-action lawsuits, but the association put in place onerous rules, including a requirement that lawyers report conversations with clients to the judicial bureaus[.]'

When I talk with people about China, and they mention democracy, I always say that it's a long way off, and far from the most important thing at this moment. Democracy, as we have seen in Iraq, is not a cure for what ails ya, it is a structure ensuring stability that can be functional only after many props are inserted for it to rest on, and one of the most important, and the one I always mention to people, is the Rule of Law. Rule of Law, basically, is the idea that no one is higher than the law, and that everyone respects the decisions of the law and of due process.

The law has to be basically respectable, of course, or no one would follow it.

As the above quote makes clear, this is definitely not the case in China. Things in China run on a personal basis, not an impersonal one, and the Law, if it is to be effective, must be impersonal. No one above it, and no one below (an ideal the West still has not entirely mastered.) I have written about this before, here.

A student and I discussed this a week ago, and, astoundingly to me, the Chinese reaction to the crisis is, "we should trust the government to handle it and to do what's right." Seeing as how the government is largely, though not entirely responsible, this struck me as foolish. Without a recourse to change, of course, there's little the Chinese people can say. Still, the reaction isn't so much, "we're powerless to do anything, we have to hope the government can help out," it's still "the government will do what's right." There's little sense in China of government ever being the problem, even with people who agree that the Mao years of Communist rule were devastating to the country.

There's also a sense that the government, as monolithic as it may appear in the west, is actually made up of fairly separate entities, and that the local government may not be on the people's side, but the central government will still do what's right, and that's the case here as well. Along with an increasing openness in the media and what's allowed to be reported on, it gives Chinese people the sense of progress.

How long will it continue though, until something bursts? Will the government ever really be able to put the law above the party, or, say, turn the army over to the country, instead of having a private Communist army? Watch and learn.

A way of thinking about Dennett's theory of consciousness: a vote, and decision making.

2008-10-08T11:53:00.003-04:00

I was just thinking about an article I wrote about here when I thought of a much better (and topical) metaphor for the way consciousness works in the human brain according to Daniel Dennett.

For the non-clickers:

(From Dennett:)

'"I claim that consciousness is not some extra glow or aura or "quale" caused by the activities made possible by the functional organization of the mature cortex; consciousness is those various activities. One is conscious of those contents whose representations briefly monopolize certain cortical resources, in competition with many other representations. The losers—lacking "political clout" in this competition—quickly fade leaving few if any traces, and that’s the only difference between being a conscious content and being an unconscious content."'

(From myself:)
"Basically, there is no "little man" of consciousness sitting in your brain, editing what comes in and then sending it up to "you," a separate medium, to become conscious content. It is the sum total of the activities of the neurological system that is consciousness itself."

It was the term "political clout" that got me thinking about this, along with a few weeks of staring at polls every day, and a metaphor popped into my head, more helpful perhaps than the negative example of the little man in explaining what (I think) Dennett means: the vote for president.

What Dennett is saying, with this analogy, would be, "the final determination of who becomes the next president of the United States (the outcome of the process, or "consciousness,") is not some extra capital "V" vote, (quale or aura,) it is the activities of millions of voters voting. This may seem like no more than a tricky accounting method, but the distinction is important. It is also fairly obvious when talking about a vote, but perhaps not so much when talking about our own consciousness. There is no president in your head, no controlling piece that decides what to do and what to show, what becomes conscious and what not, but millions of separate components all clamoring for attention (millions of voters with their own individual preferences and requirements.) When they reach a critical mass, they "monopolize certain cortical resources," and you become aware of something.

In fact, when we choose a president we are basically doing what everybody intuits we are doing
and what Dennett says we are precisely not doing: putting a "little guy" in charge of it all at the top of the head who makes the decisions. We choose an arbitrary point (the first Tuesday in November on a four-year cycle) to gather the input of all these little contributors, and then, ceremoniously and ritually assign, for the next four years, the one person that was able to align himself most broadly with the contributors, the voters, to the job of "decider."

There is some feedback, in terms of media and public opinion polls, but for the most part this is not what is happening in our brains: it's what we think is happening. What is really happening, according to Dennett, is more as if there were a constant election, not for a representative but on issues of state, and whenever a person decided to throw his or her vote in a different direction, her or she would do so, and whenever a voting level reached some critical threshold, it would be enacted, or changed, say, at 65% approval a new law would be passed, or at 30% disapproval something would be revoked.

In this way, the brain is a tyrannic democracy.

Some other random thoughts that sprang from this idea:

In this light it becomes much more apparent how ritualized government is, how we try to approximate power and make it more practical and benificial to the most people, and how that changes over time due to the evolution of social and religious (ritual) beliefs, as in how a King, standing in for God, makes decisions that are the best for everyone in the kingdom in aggregate top-down, versus how a president, standing in for a symbolic unity of the country and the opinions of the people, makes decisions informed by the will from below (the people) and not imposing them from above (this is an ideal, obviously a certain current president feels somewhat more like a king according to this way of thinking, at least at times.)

Similarly, what we call the "ego," is no more than a fiction we put in place as a shorthand way of understanding the millions of little bits of information inside, outside, and created in the relation between inside and outside. As noted in my earlier blog, this is why I think buddhist philosophy would be quite comfortable with Dennett's work.

This is why government is ritualistic, the ultimate power is never coming from it, it is legitimized only in so far as it reflects the will of God, or the will of the people, the ultimate powers. What we call the ego is a puppet standing in for the real thing, standing in for "will," (wherever you think that is coming from, an entirely different discussion) acting out ritually as if in a play. It is, first and foremost, an abstraction.

This idea of a threshold being met that changes everything is rather prevelent in nature, and seems to be one of the key ways in which things work. (Chronicled from a slightly different angle in Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink.) Neuron firings are a good example. Neurons constantly exchange ions coming in and out of their cell bodies, and electrical gradients are constantly changing, without triggering a change in the cell. But as soon as a critical charge is reached, as soon as the electrical gradient is overwhelmingly positive, for example, the electron fires.

Anyone who has watched a baby grow or learned something new him or herself (especially as an adult, when you tend to be more aware of these types of things) would likely be familiar with this as well. Practice (as discussed in the book Mastery) alternates between brief periods of incredible progress, followed by long plateus where nothing seems to change. I have noticed this playing the guitar, and also learning Chinese, as well as in practicing tai ji/ qi gong. Every day for four months it seems like I can't string two freaking sentences together, and then, as if by magic, two weekends ago, I'm babbling along without stopping, my accent got better exponentially, and my accessible vocabulary improved. I had, of course, been working on all of these things the whole time, but they didn't show any tangible improvement, or any steady improvement, until they all did all together all at once.

Think of it this way, perhaps: you are on a certain "level" of your practice, and there are 100 buttons. You need to push 70 of them to move on to the next level, but you also need to learn a certain technique to push each one individually, and learning each takes time and practice, and the buttons only stay depressed a certain amount of time. As you get better and better at pushing certain buttons individually, more and more stay depressed, until finally it "clicks," you've gotten 70 of the buttons depressed simultaneously and suddenly you're in a whole new world, you're on another level, and you have to start all over again exploring from here. Of course, on this new level, the options open to you are much much wider. And, of course, this is a only a silly analogy, though there may be some truth to it.

The worry about global warming stems from this idea. People aren't concerned that gradually, over the next hundred or two hundred years, things will change. Those concerned are worried because in a comparative instant, thousands of species will go extinct, the earth will become five degrees warmer, sea levels will rise in the meters, and floods will inundate lands. Again, not in isolated and separate incidents, but basically all together. The havok that this will wreck on civilization is one thing, but it may knock out the whole species. We just don't know, we don't know what will happen after the moment of change.

There's a variety pack for you to chew on.

Shining

2008-10-06T03:17:00.004-04:00

The above is the best video I've seen of a band that I saw last Thursday night in Beijing that blew my face off. They were absolutely revelatory, and I mean that literally. The best part in the video, I think, comes around 5:22 seconds in and lasts for twenty or thirty seconds. I've just been watching it over and over again.

Chinese Nineties Kids （九零后）

2008-10-05T09:46:00.004-04:00

I had an interesting conversation recently with an old-china hand about the kids growing up in China today, and his opinion and mine match pretty well: they suck.

Now, some of this may just be crotchety-old-timerism, as he is older than I am, and I myself am a generation removed from these brats, but of course, as my opinion, I think some of it is warranted.

I've written a couple of things about these kids before since I find them fascinating, here, about some of my students and how they don't have any time of their own, and here, about the phenomenon of having a country of single children.

The way my conversational partner put it was that "if you were born in the 40's in China, you had a fascinating life [though not always a great one], if you were born in the 50's (60's, 70's) you're living a fascinating life, even if you were born in the 80's you'll live a fascinating life, but if you were born in the 90's, your life is shit!"

That's in quotes but is certainly not verbatim.

The charge against the kids is that they have no roots, care for nothing but money and personal comfort etc, etc, and as far as I can tell this is true. They are pampered more or less by their elders (sometimes two sets of grandparents and of course their parents) but have little of a real emotional connection to them, are given complete free reign to do as they please within rigidly defined boundaries (you should see these kids in restaurants it's terrifying, but, of course, when seven am rolls around they're off to class lock-step,) grow up isolated from any historical sense of their culture other than what is purely sentimental (of course, sentimentalism seems to be the common thread of modern Chinese culture, a harsh but only slightly exaggerated comment) part of which is that the concept of hardships is really no more than a concept. (We are talking mostly about urban lower-middle class to upper class kids, of course.) There's much more here that I won't go into depth about but, basically, these kids suck. The above, of course, are just theories as to why, you'd have to actually see them and their behavior to really understand what I'm saying. Those of you who have seen them probably agree. I actually give them some slack, I think they're growing up in a real twisted environment. My girlfriend (Chinese) is harsher on them than I am.

On a hike on the great wall, I saw some chalking done by some (obviously) 90's kids that said, basically, "there is no love, there is only fooling people." This is a typical sentiment, I feel, from them. Of course, seeing the culture they've grown up in, it's hard to argue that, from their point of view, it could appear any other way. More later, perhaps.

But this is where it gets interesting.
Apparently, according to the old-China hand, the PLA (People's Liberation Army, which would be the Army of China if it didn't belong exclusively to the Communist Party, a distinction only a naive foreigner would make) commissioned a study some years ago about what the effect of China's rise would be in the world, undergone by the intellectuals, and freed of any official pressure (the warping effects of pressure are applied after the study is published,) that found that China's rise into the world order would start seriously conflicting with other countries in the late 2020's and the 2030's, right at the time when these twits would be taking over the country. After this period, China would be an established world power, and the balance would be restored, but during the period of troubles, the idiots would reign.

Because of the arch-conservative nature of the central party, I am hoping this will not entirely turn out to be true, but certainly that generation will be the ascendant one during this time period, which is just great for everyone concerned.

I just can't wait.

Conservativism and Liberalism

2008-10-01T05:22:00.006-04:00

The following article was sent to me by a friend a few weeks ago, having had an interesting and busy few weeks I have not had time to reply to it, but I finally have some time to sit down and hammer this out. The article is by Stanford economist Thomas Sowell, and its basic point is that liberals are dreamers who are unwilling to see the world for how it is, and that the more experience one has with the world, the more conservative one becomes, barring the sort of buffers (judicial/ academic tenure, trust funds) that keep one from actually facing the real world.

Here is a David Brooks column that came out around the same time I received the Sowell piece, coincidentally. Brooks basically (and oh so gently) says that Sarah Palin is a bad idea, and actually unintentionally provides an argument that McCain would not be a very good man to have sitting next to the big button. More on that below.

Firstly, though, I think the Sowell argument has a terrific number of holes in it, the main one being that the article somewhat assumes that the world is static. While there may be certain unescapable realities, (like the need to defend yourself and country, at least for this millenium) the world has changed quite a bit in, say, the last hundred years, and Sowell fails to take into account that most of these changes a) have been overwhelmingly positive and b) would never in a million years have been allowed if conservatives ran everything. Just as one particularly relevant example, take civil rights. Sowell is a black man, and a hundred years ago, there'd be no chance in hell that he would be able to express his opinion in such a manner.

There is, of course, the argument that the economic progresses spurred on by conservative policies is what ultimately led to the country's social progress. While partially true, this argument misses several things. Firstly, broad social progress was made in many countries without the type of relatively laissez-faire economic system the United States has. Secondly, many of the tangible and legal gains made socially occurred before the Reagan administration and only later started to filter into becoming mainstream culture, and thirdly, even with economic progress, there have still been fights over social equality, it's not like it just happened smoothly or magically.

I will admit that without economic stability much of the social progress we've seen would have been impossible, and yet this is far from a cause of the effect.

Liberals may tend to imagine that things can change overnight, and that human nature is entirely dependent on circumstance, both true weaknesses, and they have a tendency to believe that inequality is simply a matter of reapportioning, which is also extremely dangerous and mistaken. But there are very few mainstream political liberals in America who still subscribe to the above, while there are quite a few conservatives that subscribe to an equivalently extreme ideology in power in the country.

Sowell ignores in his examples maybe the one best popular figure who was sheltered from experience, someone who got through college and then graduate school, and even business life, on the wings of his family: Dubbya. As if. As if being a trust funder would make you automatically liberal, as if most of the people who have to work themselves to go through college and had a tough life automatically would be conservative because of their experience in "the real world," as if experience automatically meant disappointment, or that the harder the life, the more conservative the fellow. All of this is garbage.

If we take (as I think Sowell does) conservativism to mean the political trait of steady-as-it-goes-ism, and liberalism as being the trait of using the engine of government to effect change in society, than there's good reason why the older one gets, the more conservative one gets beyond wising-up (though certainly this does happen.) As I've mentioned before, change is generational and not as often individual, that is, change in society doesn't come because most people want it to, it happens naturally as new generations are born into different circumstances, and the more different their circumstances the faster the wheel moves. This can be disquieting when one can't get a grip on their own society, it can feel like one's lost...(like, say, certain older people writing letters instead of email.)

The above definitions are necessary because we do not live in a static world. Certainly Sowell is not defending the 1750's brand of conservatism, what were called the loyalists in the revolutionary world, right? Saying that conservatives stand for slow change effected by people may seem to take the burden off of this argument, and while there is a strain of conservatism that believes, perhaps heartily, in this, in fact the vast majority of people who are culturally conservative don't advocate any sort of progress towards equality in opportunity but are more likely to react (hence reactionary) against it violently, tipping their hands off as to how they really feel. (See ex-Majority leader Trent Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond being elected president and how that would have kept so much of today's "mess," from ever happening. While again theoretical conservatives are more likely to say that change is a slow process coming from below, in practice this is simply not true.

Experience may well make you examine your beliefs, or disappointment, at least, but that does not mean one will necessarily become conservative, or that those who are conservative have, on average, more of this kind of experience than everyone else. Some kids are idiots, and idealistic, but often kids are stupid in the opposite direction from the left. Kids are blind, but sight does not necessarily improve with age, and one can be blind and walk in many directions.

Another reason people "become" conservative is that as they get older, and have to take care of themselves, they become less concerned with the state of society and more concerned with their own house, not because they've changed their mind about anything fundamental, or because the experience of paying bills every month has made them realize that poor people are lazy, but because things that seemed important earlier in life just aren't so much anymore. It's not becoming conservative so much as losing a system of beliefs never acted upon in a change of situation. Again, this experience is not of the "oops, I made a mistake" variety, just the "oops, I don't actually really care that much about what happens outside of my door as I used to think I did because everyone else did." I think this is probably the line of thinking closest to Sowell's, and yet I see no need to label this process "experience" generically, nor do I imagine that leaving college equals, somehow, disappointment, and that the result is a more mature, wise, realistic adult.

The biggest problem with the Sowell essay, beyond the specific argument, and with others of its type, both on the left and on the right is that, as we've seen time and time again over history, in the last hundred years, and even recently, no side or party is ever right about anything, since an ideology carried forth to its extreme basically always brings the worst things possible. This is what the generation in college (or me, and others informally polled near my age) was so excited about at the beginning with Obama. There is a way that includes certain things that Thomas Sowell would undoubtedly agree with that the die-hard liberals of his age would not that have been shown to be effective, that also includes age-old talking points of the left, and this way is inaccessible from either side exclusively, which has been the promise of Obama, whether or not he can carry that through. In a way, this could ideally be the pinnacle of American government, the compromise between two competing ideas that makes everyone better off. Brooks' article brings up an even more interesting point about the ability to bring conflicting views into agreement and take action.

And this is also basically the best argument I can think of for transparency in government. Transparency creates more record and more fact, and less spin. The more secrecy there is, the more is kept hidden or obfuscated, the easier it is to distort what's happening, in any circumstance.

Prudence is one of the qualities Brooks talks about, but how surreal is it that the candidate who fits Brooks' bill as displaying "the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation... [the] ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events — the things that go together and the things that will never go together...the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight" is clearly Obama? This is Obama's strongest point as a potential president, and his weakest as a candidate (or at least it ties into his weakest point as a candidate: being unable to boil it down simply, quite likely a structural impossibility.) I've been saying the whole race that this critical ability, so clearly lacking in our current president, is what's needed and what this man has. He may not have governmental experience, but he certainly has this trait of being able to take in multiple points of view and reconciling them. Brooks' words are so similar to some of the profiles of Obama that they could have been cut-and-pasted from them. Clearly, either Obama has experience or prudence does not necessarily come from it. The candidate with the type of experience Brooks talks up has become brasher and even more impulsive the longer the campaign has gone on, taking leap after leap only to come back a few days later and leap in the other direction.

Another side note on this, I've been getting mail lately that's pointing out how much of a disadvantage Obama is running with, partly, though not entirely, due to race. McCain is running with some baggage that would have destroyed any black man immediately (like, say, graduating at the bottom of his class, divorcing his first wife, having a wife who approproiated painkillers from her own charity, Palin's unwed teenage daughter, etc.) while Obama's life story, tacked onto a McCain type character, would be an instant president-maker. Just imagine how different the news organizations and the far right would have reacted if it were Obama's daughter and not Palin's who was pregnant. I don't think anyone with anything like an objective point of view would be able to say with a straight face that it would be able to be turned into a positive in the almost farcical way it has for Palin. This is bullshit, pure and simple, and, for all their experience, it is not likely to be something a conservative today would care too much about bringing up as an issue, or as something that might need to be examined in our collective psyche. But it does.

Are they really that bad?

2008-09-16T03:42:00.004-04:00

This has been puzzling me for sometime.

The picture to the right is of two of the posters for the Paralympics in Beijing, like the posters for the olympics, placed in the subway. The one on the left is of a wheelchair basketball player, obviously, and the one on the right, though at first it looks like there might not be anything wrong with the judoists, shows two blind people squaring off, which you can tell if you look closely at the one in blue's eyes. All well and good. There are about eight of these, give or take, and they're all mostly like this: clearly disabled folk, sporting. There's one of a sprinter with only one leg, one of a fencer in a wheelchair, etc. etc.

And then there's this:

Since my usual pace through the subway is so quick that I don't have the time to rigorously investigate every advertisement, I just assumed for a while that there must be something wrong with this guy's arms, or something. After a few days of spot-checking as I raced past it, though, it was clear that nothing was wrong.

I have since found out that deaf and blind people play soccer in the Paralympics, but does that seem like a good thing to represent visually on a poster?

In anycase, since China's soccer team is absolutely terrible, the fact that the man on the poster looks normal begs the question. Are they really that bad?

The Paralympics, and "Cultural Difference."

2008-09-06T02:39:00.013-04:00

The paralympics have begun!

Interestingly enough, "para-" in paralympics does not stand for paralyzed, or paraplegic, as I'd assumed before looking it up on Wikipedia, "para-" instead coming from the Greek, and meaning, "besides." So, it means, basically, an athletic competition to take place besides the Olympics (as in, next to.)

Of course, this was just quick thinking. Originally it did stand for "paraplegic," but the inclusion of people with other disabilities made this unsuitable. That's a pretty lucky coincidence, or it would be if the root of "para-" in paraplegic were not the same. But it is.

Anyway, from the official hooplah here you'd think that the Paralympics were as much of a big deal as the Olympics. (I don't mean to be dismissive, I am merely noting that in spectators, number of sports, number of participating athletes, number of advertising dollars spent, etc. etc., the Olympics overshadow their disabled brother.) I have no recollection of this being the case in Atlanta, and of course, there are basically no news stories about athletes or television coverage, what have you, in the western newspapers, unless a story makes a headline for a different reason (say in an article in the Times recently about the benefits the Paralympic athletes get as opposed to those the Olympic athletes get from the USOC.)

At first, I just thought this was China, well, being China, going graciously over-the-top as a host. They are, after all, trying to win us over. (And win over us, but that's a different matter.)

But, as I've been thinking about it, though the above is certainly still a part of the reason for the overwhelming coverage (the games are on T.V. and are similarly unavoidable on the newspapers and newscasts, plus, in Chinese, the Olympics aren't over yet, by which I mean the Olympics and the Paralympics are considered as one big event rather than, as in English, two entirely separate, if related, ones) I've come up with some other possible reasons.

China, as I've mentioned, is trying basically to pull itself one-hundred and fifty to two-hundred years forward in a generation, plus maybe a half. Part of process is acculturation. Party Elites have to do quite a lot of tugging in many different arenas to do this, since it is so drastic, and one of the areas is in manners, basically. There has been a significant improvement in the spitting all over the place, though you still see some egregious examples, like while walking in the subway tunnels, or (not kidding) hocking one up and spitting it out on the inside of the subway car door. That, of course, doesn't count on the streets, where I am far less grossed out. Lining up, too, is a fraction better than it is in Shaoxing, though mostly, still, the line is a foreign concept, and I usually just wait until everyone else is on the Subway before getting on, since, as I am accustomed to waiting for everyone to get off before I get on, I wouldn't get on before everyone else anyway. (Figure that one out, and you should chuckle.) So, I actually half-agree with the statements of the Director of the Paralympics for China below, when he mentions "cultural difference."
Beijing withdraws advice on disabled
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 29, 2008

Olympic organizers said Thursday that they had withdrawn parts of an English translation of a guide for volunteers because of "inappropriate language" used to describe disabled athletes. Zhang Qiuping, director of the Paralympic Games in Beijing, did not offer an apology and attributed the problems to poor translation. "Probably it's cultural difference and mistranslation," Zhang said.

The Chinese-language version of the text remained online and was nearly identical to the English, using essentially the same stereotypes to refer to the disabled. A section dedicated to the disabled says: "Paralympic athletes and disabled spectators are a special group. They have unique personalities and ways of thinking." To handle the "optically disabled," the guide advised: "Often the optically disabled are introverted. They have deep and implicit feelings and seldom show strong emotions." It added, "Try not to use the world 'blind' when you meet for the first time."

Regarding the "physically disabled," the guide said: "Physically disabled people are often mentally healthy. But they might have unusual personalities because of disfigurement and disability." It went on: "Some physically disabled are isolated, unsocial and introspective; they usually do not volunteer to contact people. They can be stubborn and controlling; they may be sensitive and struggle with trust issues. Sometimes they are overly protective of themselves, especially when they are called 'crippled' or 'paralyzed.

The bit about "mistranslation" is pure crap, and usually "cultural difference" (you have no idea how often this comes up) is a desperate excuse for, say, why it's perfectly appropriate to arrest two women in their seventies for "disturbing the peace" when all they had done was apply for a permit to protest during the Olympics. (If you haven't been following that story, they were released a week after being sentenced to a year of "labor reform," with no further penalties, which also probably includes being under surveillance to a greater or lesser extent for the duration of their natural lives.)

But in this case, strangely, I actually think the guy's actually right. In the mad rush to modernize, the culture (which always lags behind the edge of innovation and social change) has been scrambling to figure out what's going on. One of the biggest changes in the west over the last two-hundred years is the changing relative importance of intellectual and physical labor. Two-hundred years ago, all you needed to be a worker was a strong back and a stupid mind, which of course favored young men. As work became less and less physically oriented, it opened up opportunities for older people (I mean, late-thirties and up,) women, and the physically disabled to enter the workforce, and, as they became more valuable to society, mistaken notions about these groups of people's intrinsic value began to change. But, in the west, this has taken a few hundred years, and lots of fighting. China still has not reached this level, either in percent of workforce engaged in mind work and not manual, or in valuing those who are not "the man," in this case, Han Chinese men.

The gap between most people's thoughts (let alone the more rural part of the population) and the guide for volunteers, then, is still rather large, and the document, even if somewhat infuriating to westerners, actually represents some sort of progress along these lines, even if it's hard to believe that as a westerner. The document, in a way, splits the difference between the cultural mind of the West and the East. Of course, since people have fought for so long to elevate the cultural conception of the disabled in the west, having an official document like this come along and enshrine stereotypes feels like regression. Again, though, this is mostly the effect of juxtaposition.

Having said that, one of the preparations for the Olympics was getting all the cripples out of sight. When I'd first gotten here it was rather common (like a few times a day) to see horribly disfigured people, some who'd obviously had work-related accidents, others with birth defects, pan-handling on the streets. So, obviously, enlightenment is coming slowly. It's another mind-numbing Orwellian contradiction, that is, that a McDonald's could have a poster outside advertising specials and marking it as a Paralympic sponsor, where just a few months ago a man who had his face burned off by something was begging for the equivalent of less than two pennies on the bench next to the store. Where did they go, exactly? I'd really like to know.

They haven't come back quite yet. But the workers have. They're pretty unmistakable. And their camps, say, next to the light rail tracks, are also rather obvious.

To be cynical, the blitzing news coverage and hangover news about the Olympic Champions and all gives the almost straight-forwardly government run news the opportunity to talk about this and relish in the distraction rather than move on to other things, like the fact that the central government just admitted that "maybe" some of the schools that fell over in the SiChuan earthquake only fell over because of "possible" faulty construction, (though no mention of corruption and why those schools were so faulty. It was blamed on the lightening fast growth.) So China's changing after all. "Maybe."

I had a conversation with one of my students recently about Sarah Palin recently that led to some of the above. In some ways, it appears as if there's been progress, and in others it's the same old China.

My student was amazed that Sarah Palin was warmly supporting her daughter (obviously she is not very familiar with the American political process) instead of being visibly angry with her. I tried to explain to her that support is exactly what this young woman needs at this point, and getting angry at her would help no one, leading to bitterness etc. at the perfectly wrong time. In China, she said, a seventeen year old would be kicked out of school immediately for this, along with the boy who got her pregnant. I was trying to get her to see the point of view that that's a terrible terrible punishment, taking away their only means of bettering their lives and supporting their child, and I think she understood that, but the dominant feeling was still, they've done something terribly wrong, they have to pay for it.

Again, very Chinese. Everyone is one huge happy family. But if you step out of line, even a little bit, you're thrown to the dogs.

My girlfriend, when I laugh about people spitting in the subway, always says the same thing "they're definatly not from Beijing," and she, modern as she is, holds a fair amount of contempt for anything not Beijing (or QingDao recently, because of a vacation we took there that was great.) Family matters stay in the family, city matters stay in the city, and country matters stay in the country. If you're in, we love you, but if you step the littlest bit out of line, you're an outsider, and you're never getting back in.

I don't necessarily advocate high-schoolers having sex (not since I graduated highschool, anyway) but they do it. It takes the most draconian of social controls to keep this from happening commonly (it still does happen in China, though it's about as hush-hush as possible) and there's always a trade-off.

So the question is, what are they losing by denying this urge?

Personal and Impersonal relationships, and cultural development

2008-09-01T03:35:00.006-04:00

I was talking today with one of my students when I realized something I think is rather interesting, and it opened up something I've been saying about the differences between China and America.

There's a well-known phenomenon among people doing business in China, which is, basically, they have to meet with the Chinese groups that they're doing business with several times a year, having a few meals together and going out on the town, to keep up and maintain a relationship, where in the West a once-yearly conference would be sufficient to maintain a healthy working relationship. It's also well-known that Chinese people put a great emphasis on "guanxi," which means "relations," or "connections," but in a very different way. Put simply, it's basically what we would call nepotism, or preferentialism, times a thousand or so. You do something for me, I'll do something for you. The legal system, and business, basically runs on a series of bribes.

People write this off as just being a feature of "Chinese culture," but I disagree.

I had asked my student to write me a short story and tell it to me for class as homework, and she chose to relate a problem she was having. She had recently bumped into an old college professor, and they had a pleasant conversation, at the end of which they said they'd see each other again to have dinner, and exchanged information, and her professor said he'd call her to arrange things further. But he still hasn't.

This bothered her, as it was not behavior she understood, or could tolerate. At the end of her short story, she said that this was just an example, and that it was becoming something very common in modern day China, and also asked me how to deal with people like this, and how to deal generally, when (in her words,) "society needs the trust of people and honor people."

As I began to explain to her it dawned on me what the problem was here, and it's not "Chinese culture."

Traditionally, Chinese society has been very closed, but not merely to foreigners. It applies equally as well within Chinese society. You belong to a village, and know everyone in the village, but someone from the next village might as well be from Mars. In this system, everything, business and all, is run on the basis of personal relationships.

In the modern world, though, this is basically impossible. You simply interact with too many people on a daily basis to have a personal relationship with them. Most relationships are impersonal, in the sense that you could exchange one person for just about anyone else with the same basic results. A waitress-client relationship, for example (or, a more extreme one, the relationship between a customer at McDonald's and the cashier) is entirely impersonal.

But this is not a difference between western culture, which prefers an impersonal business relationship, and China, which prefers a personal one. All relationships were personal before the modern age, before the age of the rule of law. Western villages and towns, and even cities, relied much more on personal relationships than we do today. The problem, or the only problem, is that China is trying to move their whole society from operating entirely on the personal level of relationships to the impersonal level as quickly as possible (or rather, introducing the idea that a relationship with a person need not necessarily be a personal one,) where the west has had hundreds of years of this experience. While much has already shifted in the direction of impersonality, there is still a clinging to an outmoded way of doing things, which is reflected in the croneyism and bribery necessary to move up in the country. For this, and for so many other reasons, China is fascinating as a whole country of people are pulled forward at lightening speed. Rather than a (not always, of course) smooth transition between two very different value systems, and ways of handling social interaction, it is as if China is taking the two and placing them directly next to each other, an awesome social experiment.

One of the things holding this back is the relative paucity and non-existent tradition of rule of law. In the west (as an ideal) the law applies equally to all. China's society is much more dependent on the unwritten undercurrents of society, and success is still often a case of currying favor with the right people. You cannot impeach a Chinese president.

And, of course, judging people based on connections and relationship works in some circumstances, and has worked for the majority of the history of civilization. There's a reason this is the "Chinese way." Under a certain system (that is, when you can reasonably assume familiarity with everyone you interact with, and when there's no impartial framework of law under which to work) it would be stupid to hire strangers you don't know or have any reason to trust to work for you, or, say, to head to the next town over for a bowl of noodles.

Personal relationships, it should be noted, have not been destroyed, and this is part of what complicates things. It's just that their scope is circumscribed. Normally, if you and your son have a fight, you're not going to call the police or hire lawyers. If there's a falling-out with friends, say, if a friend steals another friend's laptop, the problem is likely to be handled on a personal level, with friends taking sides, and having, possibly, someone or the other shunned from the group, something that was very common in Chinese practice traditionally. The worst punishment possible was being banished from your village. Famously, there is no room for an outsider in a Chinese village. It was, more or less, a death sentence.

In the west, I think we are "facing," a different sort of problem. We've gotten so good at doing things in this way that, in large numbers, people don't have enough personal relationships, or their personal relationships aren't satisfyingly deep. We are coming to understand that we must treasure and work to maintain these relationships with the people that matter to us, even though we would certainly not revert to a society based entirely on these relationships. Notice, of course, that it's basically impossible to jump from the older model to the post-post-modern model immediately. You need to establish rule of law and a healthy impersonal society before you begin to face the problems with impersonality. The Chinese are just starting to embrace the strengths of doing things this way. We have done things this way successfully for a long time, and are just starting to address the problems.

Of course, none of this excuses the behavior of the professor, it only points out that western people don't really see this as a problem which causes a great deal of angst. The professor simply gets placed in the lump of people with whom you have an impersonal relationship with, or in other words, in the group of people with whom you are not going to expend energy to keep up a good personal relationship with. In modern society, there are too many people to interact with to have a personal relationship with everyone, and so one chooses who is "in" and who is "out." Chinese people are only starting to learn (in a cultural values sense, obviously certain Chinese people are adept at this, and of course the level to which one's relationships are personal is dependant on the individual person) that not every relationship need be a personal one, and this, though more natural than it may appear, will take some time to set in.

But it will. The doors have been opened to modernity, if only (as I would argue) slightly, and eventually those that won't, for example, hire the best candidate because their cousin's son is also a candidate, are going to fall behind to the companies that hire based on skill and talent. But, no matter how fast China is trying to do this, it takes time, because power always prefers itself.

God and Science, and Daniel Dennett

2008-08-20T09:37:00.010-04:00

***10-9 See an update to the below (concerning visualizing Dennett's theory) here.

I am using as a jumping off point for this post this interview of Daniel Dennett in the Magazine "Search."

From the article:

"I claim that consciousness is not some extra glow or aura or "quale" caused by the activities made possible by the functional organization of the mature cortex; consciousness is those various activities. One is conscious of those contents whose representations briefly monopolize certain cortical resources, in competition with many other representations. The losers—lacking "political clout" in this competition—quickly fade leaving few if any traces, and that’s the only difference between being a conscious content and being an unconscious content."

Basically, there is no "little man" of consciousness sitting in your brain, editing what comes in and then sending it up to "you," a separate medium, to become conscious content. It is the sum total of the activities of the neurological system that is consciousness itself. This summary is unfairly short, as Dennett says, so for those of you interested in reading more, you can go here, a site at Tufts University with many articles by Dennett that make this point more clearly and more in depth.

I think that Dennett is 100% right here, and yet I think he makes the same mistake that everyone else makes when talking about religion (which, while the quote above doesn't directly deal with, the article does,) confusing religion with the existence of "God." In the non-dual view of being the idea of a separate "God" that is above and beyond the world, transcendent to it, is seen as laughably impossible in the face of the fact that separation is a conception, an appearance. This, substituting "God" for "consciousness" and "the events of the universe" for "the activities of the neural system" could well give a post-post-modern conception of God. This, I think, is an idea that is emerging, and I do not think it conflicts with anything that Dennett says in this article, or the scientific materialists, though they would all dislike the word "God."

When he says that everything is open to the investigations of science, he is perfectly right, and when he calls "Darwinism a 'universal acid,' cutting through every aspect of science, culture, religion, art and human thought," he is also right. But, I still claim that he is wrong in rejecting religion. The spirituality (a word I dislike) of the future does not reject science, nor its findings. The spirituality of the future does not rely on dogma or myth or literal interpretations.

"Consciousness has arisen from the unwilled, unordained algorithmic processes of natural selection," or, in other words, not from the hand of God. Again, there's nothing to disagree with here, it is the historicity of the dogmatic and literalist claim that God is a real "thing," like a toaster, that necessitates the high board of science. God does not perform magic, and any God worth believing in would not need to.

When God is viewed or understood as simply "being," the metaphors of religion make a lot more sense, even ones as clearly literalist as "God created the world." Well, yeah, the world is here, so, being created it. Of course, the wording of this favors the mythology of God, that some giant man like thing created the world in the way you or I would draw a picture. Created here could be understood better as "the flood created a problem for getting through the center of the city." It's not like the flood meant to do this. It's impersonal.

Is God impersonal? Yes. And no. You're a person, aren't you? So God is personal. But the totality of everything, this is impersonal.

The irony is that, in attacking the idea of a separate unitary self-center of consciousness, Dennett is affirming something that the world's esoteric religions have said since the time of the Buddha, and perhaps earlier in Vedanta: "you," do not exist. What you think you are is only a thought, and the reality is much simpler than that.

When Dennett says that there is no truth that religion can claim as its own without science, he is both right and wrong. In the exoteric sense, he is right. Science has domain over everything in the material world. But in the esoteric sense, science has nothing to do to prove or disprove being. It can do neither, being is self-evident. But what it is, what we are, is so obvious that we miss it constantly. As Einstein said, the fish will be the last one to discover water. In the way I think Dennett is using the term, as in "objectifiable exterior phenomenon," I think he is incorrect. No matter what science gets to about the happenings inside one's brain, you cannot experience what someone else experiences. Even if you could "see" what someone else were seeing, or "feel," it, it would be different, because "you" are doing it, with all the different history and the different system for experience you have. Experience is not falsifiable, nor is it provable. This is precisely beyond the realm of science, and something which religion has always dealt with, in both exoteric (mythological) and esoteric (contemplative) strains.

The problem is that anything "non-scientific" gets lumped in with "mythology," or, to put it slightly differently, any attempt at describing interiorality is seen as necessarily involving supernaturalism. There may be no "privleged center" in consciousness, something, again, esoteric branches of religion would be familiar with, but that doesn't discount subjectivism itself. The objectivist description of the world, perfectly legitimate at that, is not an explanation, and cannot exist without subjectivity. What is the sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? What's in a mirror when no one's looking?

This is not to say that reality needs intelligent aware and conscious beings, far from it, it is just to say that without subjectivity, there is no objectivity. Obviously this uses the word slightly differently than the conscious subjectivity we're used to , but it's none the less valid.

The direct experience of being without an object, the experience pointed at by the esoteric traditions, is shrugged off by science as being equivalent to boogeymen.

There is this fundamental problem between duality and what Dennett argues, that there is no Cartesian duality, and yet I would say that they are only two metaphors for looking at the same thing, like the heads and tails of a coin are actually still both only parts of the coin. There is an interiority in consciousness. But this does not make it dual, since it is entirely inseperable from the exterior occurances of consciousness. They do not arise separately, and they are not independent.

In a Vedantic sense of enquiry (or, for that matter, Cartesian,) the only thing that cannot be doubted, that can actually be proved and believed, because self-evident, is being itself, or, in the human mind, awareness of being. What was before the big bang? Whatever it was was the only thing real, the only thing unchanging, the only thing not subject to the laws of impermanence. What was it? Nothing. Nothingness. This is simultaneously everything, it is all that is real. And, the world is this as well. In the Hindu formulation, the world is illusory, Brahma alone is real, the world is Brahma. The argument between Cartesian duality and materialism is missing the point. Against the Cartesians, there is nothing special and separate, no "privliged center." There are not two things. But, against the materialists, that nothingness is not different from existence, is existence itself, and is the consciousness, the open space within which all else happens, and, it is not material.

There is a new world view emerging, one that believes as strictly as Dennett does in the rigorousness of science, and yet makes room equally for the interior experience of consciousness, the subjectivity that is impossible to describe or prove or disprove, except in the first-person perspective, where it is self-evident. I am. I have no proof that you have an interior, but at the very least, I am, or, rather, am-ness.

This worldview, as Dennett says, must pass through the tests of Darwinism, and science. The Religions of the future cannot be ones that believe in the things science shows are impossible. Oddly enough, believers of one mythological system find others absolutely ridiculous, and yet this does not shake their faith in their own ridiculous stories in the least bit. Lao Zi was not 900 years old when he was born. Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth. There is no Garden of Eden, especially not one that looks exactly like a 17th century English manor's garden.

The myths are beautiful, but they are not true. They are stories, rife with meaning, and are as such not exactly fiction, but they are not true.

The worry about science is not really that it can explain God, but that it can explain God away, and it has explained away quite a few things that believers in former times thought of as being sacrosanct, that is, they thought of as providing a pillar for belief of God, but it can never explain away being itself, which is the ground for all of the mythological religions, and the contemplative. The myths arose because there is no rational explanation for any of this, and again, science is really describing things more than explaining them, at least at the deepest levels. But there's no need for words in the contemplative experience. There's no room for them. Whatever form religion takes in the future, to be legitimate, will be centered on the contemplative.

This, it should be noted, is a far cry from what is called "new-aged spirituality" (a term from which my prickling disgust for the word "spirituality" likely comes.) New-aged "spirituality" is a reversion to beliefs in magic, more or less.

Another article, by Sandra Blakeslee, in the magazine "Science and Spirit," on the neurological basis for spiritual experience, highlights what I have been talking about.

There is still an over-reliance on the external viewpoint, and the point of view (I believe mistaken) that these external and objective interactions cause the experiences rather than correlate with them, but it is an improvement on several things. The structures of one's internal consciousness certainly impact your spiritual experience, so, where a Muslim will see Mohammed, a Christian may see Christ, even though what is happening to them is, at its base, and neurologically speaking, the same.

Of course, the science which crows so loudly (and correctly) as it trumpets, say, the fossil record, also trumpets when it sees neurological signs of meditative activity, as if the experiences undergone can be explained away by science. Yes, breakdowns happen, and this is what the meditative traditions have always asserted. The fact that there's a biological basis for this should have been obvious except for those that thought the literal hand of god reached down from his (likely rather large) throne in the sky and touched one's forehead with a golden finger. Of course, I am downplaying that this viewpoint may be prevalent, but still, the main idea is that the scientific proof of different and abnormal brain states during these activities certainly does not reduce them to being no more than "fireworks in the brain." But, it is not that the biological activity creates this, it is that the release of the constraints and constrictions of one's mind unveils this ever-present experience of reality. It is the same as the Buddhist tradition has always maintained; you're not reaching enlightenment, you're getting rid of everything else. Or, if your mind is a room, you don't need to add furniture to get what you want, you need to throw it all out of the room. Or, as Meister Eckhart wrote, "If you empty yourself, God has no choice but to fill you."

And, of course, there is no "God," as such.

Refocus

2008-08-20T02:12:00.006-04:00

Trying to get this up everyday has been interesting, but I feel I have gotten a little off track. Writing everyday (or every few days, depending on my work schedule) naturally leads to a less in depth sort of article, and leads to a week of articles whose entries are only vaguely connected, which was not my goal. Originally, I had planned to use this site to write slightly longer passages tying all of these seemingly disparate things together. To do that, I have decided not to bother writing a passage every day, and instead come out with one, moderately long passage every week, tying together certain things out in culture with a new framework to understand them in, which was the goal of this blog anyway, to try out certain thoughts in writing and test them before readers.

So, look for a blog post every Sunday (or early in the week,) giving you a whole week to look it all over at your leisure.

Thank You,

Love ya'll.

Bolt

2008-08-17T11:08:00.004-04:00

For those of you that didn't see this live, this is was a truly wonderful moment, one I think actually encapsulates some of the greatness of sport. This one, obviously, is more impressive.
'What?' You say, 'he's celebrating like an idiot, he added time to his total because of this, and his showboating makes his competitors look like chumps. How does this reflect well on sports at all?'

I actually think his reaction came more out of surprise than anything else. I think, like the rest of us watching, when he saw just how far ahead he was (or couldn't see, couldn't see anyone near him when he glanced side to side,) he was in awe, and he just started doing what was natural, and what a lot of the rest of us were doing, which was jumping up and down and saying "holy crap did you just see that!! That was the finals, right? How the hell did that just happen?"

This is different from Leon Lett's showboating that lost the Cowboys a touchdown back when they played the Bills for the first time, because, while that is a rare occurance for Leon Lett to be sure, he didn't have it in the bag, in the first place (the ball was stripped from him and he didn't get to score a touchdown) and in the second place because the whole "game" (race) was over.

It's also really different from what women's (and possibly men's, but I've never seen a men's indoor volleyball game, I'm sure I will soon) volleyball players do after every single freaking point, like that one point is the most important thing in the world. They run around like rabbits, or five year olds, and they hug and slap each other like they've just won, well, something actually significant.

Bolt's (what a great name) run was significant, and he trounced the competition by so much that I don't think any of them could possibly be sore about it. They simply didn't have a chance. It's not like, when one team wins by an inch and then freaks out and rubs it in the loser's nose like they're a thousand times better. This guy actually was a thousand times better, AND THESE ARE THE FASTEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD! That's why I think what he did was incredible, and why the pictures of him floating above the track as he highsteps it at the end are absolutely beautiful, even if he was, just a little bit, saying, "wow, I'm the best thing in the world."

Haha, also, look at the number two guy (the one to Bolt's right.) I don't know if he's so excited because he just won the silver medal behind superman, which basically makes him the fastest human, or because he just saw what Bolt did. Probably the first, but it kind of looks like the second.

Have fun and run relaxed.

Summertime, and the living is, crap.

2008-08-15T12:22:00.003-04:00

Interesting assumptions break down here for me all the time. At the beginning of the summer, I had been talking to my students about what summer is like in China. At first, I was really confused, but the more and more I dug into it, the more I understood my students inability to understand what the heck I was talking about.

Summer, I have always felt, is a magical time. Things just feel different. BBQs, the freedom of being off from school, (or taking long weekends at work,) going to the beach, or camping, or a lake, drinking a beer outside with friends, playing frisbee in the park or basketball, the fourth of July, ice cream parlors... this is really just the beginning. In short, summer is really different. I tried to get my students to talk about this earlier in the summer, with mostly black stares coming back.

It turns out, summer is no different in China than the rest of the year, and actually, kind of worse for all concerned. There are few individual vacations, everyone has the same national holidays off, and kids, while they aren't in school, are pressured by parents to take more outside of school classes, (like my English class,) plus, they still have to do a few hours of homework every day for their regular school (this was a real surprise to me) and they don't get to see their friends. Plus, it's too hot. All of this adds up as the answer "nothing" to the question, "what's special about summer in China?"

Kids actually like school, really really like school. They get to play with their friends, and, since there's no alternative, they don't know anything else. You might have liked school too if "not school" actually meant more work and less play with your friends. School, for them, is life, and so, since they like life, they like school.

Keep this in mind as you read about China, about how families aren't grieving after the earthquake (see my last post,) or about the post "A beautiful but disturbing day."

More from the Times Today

2008-08-15T11:43:00.005-04:00

Two more quick op-eds from the Times today.

One, from David Brooks, a real strange one about Chinese grief in the aftermath of the Earthquake- I have little to say about it, other than it struck me as just as weird, but that there are perhaps two unfair points: first, directly after the earthquake the drama was huge, and there was a great deal of grief, much of it put down forcibly by the Government, so calling Americans whiners is not entirely fair, though Chinese people don't whine and moan so much at the little things. It gets beaten out of them as kids. (Not necessarily literally.)

And one from Paul Krugman. Krugman's is a post on nationalism and the economic effects of the Russian invasion of Georgia. China is, of course, an overly nationalistic country, but this worries me less than Russia does, for two reasons. Russia has a democracy in name, but has power vested in a very small member of elites, most of whom see the country along the lines of a military power. Also, Russia has not until recently had an overly strong nationalistic sense, or a sense of nationhood, which is one reason why lawlessness and mobsterism prevailed after the USSR broke down. No one in the USSR (or few) actually loved the USSR, and so its breakdown did not lead smoothly into a strong Russian state. That has taken some time to emerge, and emerge it has. But, the problem is the Russians are just starting, as a nation, on this level of development. It takes quite a long time to really go through it to get to the point the west did after the enlightenment. The point is, Russian nationalism is here to stay, and much of the citizenry will be behind it one hundred percent, ignoring rational cooperative concerns for the honor of the Motherland. (Much of this is based on a theory of development I did not myself invent but subscribe to that I will surely be talking about later.)

This contrasts with China, whose leadership, though all agreed on one thing (the continued and unquestioned rule of the CCP) are more cautious, fractured, and numerous than the Russian leadership. China, though strong in her own country (and as Krugman points out, that includes in their minds Taiwan, though recent deals make a military takeover much more unlikely in the short term and hopefully in the long term) and ruthless, are not as likely to go off on somebody else. This is not absolute, of course, and no one knows what will happen as the country matures, but I still feel better about this than about Russia.

The other thing about China is that its genuine and heartfelt nationalism has been rooted and has been expressing itself for some time. Along with that, the western-philes of the country have been undertaking their own Enlightenment, and while this will take a long long time to find a true root and expression in the mainstream culture, it has already started expressing itself in the highest halls of power. (Though is by no means the dominant force in Chinese politics, far from it.)

What may be interesting is a Russia jostling with its neighbor China, both rising world powers and nationalistic neighbors.

But in any case, while nationalism can be healthy, just as self-confidence can be healthy, and is a necessary step for any country or group of people, helping them find an identity, it does not necessarily bode well for world peace, even as interconnected as our economies have become.

So what's the solution? I do not know, but for some time have been thinking of a global organizing body, much more powerful than the U.N. The U.N., of course, has done some good, but its structure is not equipped for the world we live in. Membership, of course, would be voluntary, and governments would only be allowed to participate that exhibited certain features, like direct democracy practices such as having elected officials, and the ability to depose them, a strict rule of law, the ability for direct citizen participation, etc. etc., perhaps on a sliding scale, (the U.S. would not be among the ten highest, if I can remember correctly that would be Denmark) as well as including considerations of population for power-wielding. This could be dangerous, of course (new world order, anyone?) but if a Rule of Law were established, and the countries joining were already culturally proficient in rule of law, there's no reason to believe that this would become an oppressive system. Nor would it exist to threaten other countries national sovereignty. It could merely be a system, a big party, with its doors wide open to anyone who wanted to join, urging countries forward in development. This, of course, is only the slightest sketch.

But perhaps this is just more junk.

Yes. I read the Times compulsively. It is a fault.

And I really know nothing. I am only trying to provoke thought.