Dieting after the holidays, New Year’s Resolution…call it whatever you like, cutting back and trimming the fat just makes good sense. In my opinion, any success is better than no attempt so I’m going to give it a shot. It’s a good time to go at it, if you think about it–January tends to be a bit of a social dead-zone, compared to October-December so it’s a good month to take time for you. First thing to change is the attitude and the environment. First thing to go is the online social networking. I’ve traded it in for Meet-ups. This means a lot less sitting around the house when you have to leave the house to get that socializing fix. :)
This may qualify as a New Year’s Resolution but I’m planning to try a new sport. Probably racquetball.
I’m considering replacing the MMORPGs with WII (still undecided if I want to invest the cash in a WII…)
Don’t know about you but new music inspires me to exercise.
I love candles to relax in the evening but I’m packing away the food-scented candles (pumpkin pie, cookie, vanilla, etc.) and replacing with fresh scents. I’m going to walk instead of drive when it’s pheasible and I’m breaking out the lights to combat SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder). I’ve stocked up my favorite teas that I don’t add sweetener or cream to (orange and spice, lapsang souchong, Hoji cha etc. instead of chai, Coke, or coffee) and have plenty of fresh lemon and cold water in the fridge. Got a freezer full of weight-watchers meals and a project to focus on. You know what they say about “idle hands”…they tend to graze. No large supplies of grazing snacks in the house! I have pre-cut crudites on hand for snacking. I know. Yuck. Get over it. lol Instead of a jar of peanuts, I’ve got single servings pre-measured. I’ve broken out the scale. I’m writing down everything I eat to barter. If I indulge, next day, I cut out an indulgence.
Now one thing I don’t think works well for dieting is depriving yourself of the things you really enjoy so my method is going to be to cut back on those things but go ahead and give into cravings. I’m lowering my servings and adjusting the ingredients of my favorite recipes, especially, the ones that have high sodium or are pretty fat-indulgent. A traditional New Year’s Day recipe we enjoy is Hoppin’ John. Unfortunately, it’s super fattening due to the sausage so I picked a lean substitute and tried again.
Here’s my Lean Hoppin’ John recipe, if you want to try this, adjust your proportions to taste. I like it with a spicy garlic/tomato base:
Fresh, Chopped Parsley
Fresh Minced Garlic
Jennie O’s Lean Hot Italian Turkey Sausage (diced small)
One yellow onion (diced)Hickory Smoke BBQ Sauce
Crushed Red Pepper Flakes
Black Pepper
Cooked Black-eyed Peas
Brown Rice (or wheat nuts or some other nutty texture grain)
Diced Tomato
Diced Bell Pepper (red, yellow, green…doesn’t matter)
Dice, mince, or chop ingredients in advance.
Pre-cook rice and black-eyed peas separately, and in advance.
Brown sausage, red pepper, and onion together. Then stir in your wet ingredients to make the sauce, then mix in everything else.
My husband and I like this with a lot of fresh garlic in it. You might want to omit or cut that back or cook it in the recipe. Whatever you do, don’t add it when you saute the meat, it will change the flavor (ick).
I like to leave the green things for adding last. Keeps their texture and color nice. They steam in the mix, just sitting on the table.
Some recipes have greens in the Hoppin’ John, I prefer Seasoned Collard Greens on the side:
Cooked Collard Greens
Hormel Real Bacon Bits
Goya Ham Concentrate (high in sodium so use sparingly)
A dash of Black Pepper
Posted: December 27th, 2011
Categories: Food
Tags:
Comments: No Comments.
In rhetoric, parrhesia is a figure of speech described as: to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking. The term is borrowed from the Greek παρρησία (πᾶν “all” + ῥῆσις / ῥῆμα “utterance, speech”) meaning literally “to speak everything” and by extension “to speak freely,” “to speak boldly,” or “boldness.” It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.
Michel Foucault developed the concept of parrhesia as a mode of discourse in which one speaks openly and truthfully about one’s opinions and ideas without the use of rhetoric, manipulation, or generalization. Foucault’s use of parrhesia, he tells us, is troubled by our modern day Cartesian model of evidential necessity. For Descartes, truth is the same as the undeniable. Whatever can be doubted must be, and, thus, speech that is not examined or criticized does not necessarily have a valid relation to truth.
Typical: “My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their human interests.”
- George Santayana
The above quote by George Santayana is pretty typical of your modern atheist, in my experience and it assumes a particular narrative in which the above definition of atheism actually fits within the category of atheist. I have agreed with it now and then but my default is simply say on god(s) I don’t know what we’re talking about if we don’t qualify it. I have no desire to disqualify all manner of god(s). I have far better things to do. This is not merely Ignostic. It’s a also a pragmatist position. Because I don’t think the matter is forced, momentous or crucial. IMO, these things come down to two more pertinent dichotomies: do you believe or not in something greater than yourself worthy of reverence and do you believe or not your opinion and choice matters. As a hard but fuzzy determinist and a skeptic, I try to be honest and realize my limitations create a situation of bias in which no objectivity is possible in the sense that objectivists assert it universally true. And perhaps it’s also true of everyone, I don’t know, I just infer that may be the case, which is all anyone ever does. We are all just human beings and that comes with certain biases and limitations, far as I know.
My Pragmatism
Personally (and all I assert is just my opinion), I started my rational explorations of philosophy with William James, who had a lasting influence. I only claim to be an atheist on one god and that’s the one characterized in the Abrahamic religions, all variations on Yahweh. I come out as an atheist on Yahweh because that’s the only god that was ever a genuine option to believe or not believe for me, in my deterministic experience and personal history. On all other gods, I’m calling myself “Apatheist.” In other words, I don’t care enough about them to form a genuine opinion. I’m happily ignorant about them or any and all other descriptions of what god could mean. I see this as a position of openness towards the unknown. However, both atheists and Christians see this standpoint as atheist and closed regarding the matter of belief until I actively choose to believe in gods. I disagree with that qualification and the whole either/or schema presented. In fact, I reject it so strongly, I’ve split from acquaintances from annoyance over this persistently asserted dichotomy.
Atheists’ Objectivist Language
First some words related to this argument, gleaned from assorted web sources: “Agnosticism is a view concerning humanity’s knowledge of GOD: namely, that God is humanly unknowable. Etymologically, agnosticism (Gr. agnostos) means an unknowing, a profession of ignorance. The word agnostic was first used by Thomas H. Huxley (1825–1895) in 1869. Having joined the Metaphysical Society and wanting to show his opposition to the members’ extravagant claims of knowledge of the mysterious, Huxley adopted the name agnostic. The term came to designate anyone who denies knowledge of immaterial REALITY, and especially of the existence and nature of God.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning “without god”, which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society.
ἄθεος Etymology From ἀ- (a-, “not”) + θεός (theos, “god”)
Adjective ἄθεος m, ἄθεος f, ἄθεον n; second declension; (atheos)
1 without gods
2 denying or disdaining the gods (especially officially sanctioned gods)
3 generally: godless, secular
4 abandoned by the gods
(lexicography) not derived from a theonym
References: LSJ, BDAG, Strong’s concordance number: G112
With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves as “atheist” appeared in the 18th century.
Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist.
Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief.
Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that “There is no god” is a true statement.
Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deity, but does not explicitly claim that the statement “There is at least one god” is false.”
My Pragmatist Response:
The objectivist assertion is that belief in the unproven is an active position, a leap of faith, so to speak.
Philosophical objectivity, “realism,” is the conviction that reality is mind-independent and so must be rationally accepted as universally true. The strongest claim is that there is only one correct description of reality and all other conflicting posits are false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)#Objectivism
The Christian apostle Paul, an Objectivist, asserts that the Christian schema as he characterized it is true, whether you believe in it or not. However, he said if you don’t believe in it, there will be eternally negative consequences for your “soul.” “Christians” must take a leap and believe that Jesus died on the cross for them in order to find eternal salvation for their “soul” because it’s possibly a new idea to people and he’s showing them the truth and liberating them from their ignorance to save them from it, however, they must be willing to accept the dogma as he characterizes to join the Christian club. Also, by making them aware of the option, he inoculates them so that they are now forced in this schema to choose, they can no longer claim ignorance. Threats of eternal punishment make the choice momentous and the more people who join the group out of fear, the more genuine the option appears to potential converts.
Correspondingly, positive atheists agree that belief is active, something one must choose through an act of will. Self-identifying atheists, in my experience, tend to believe in free will and be Objectivists, even if they haven’t heard of that philosophical term, they assert that reality is what it is independent of human thought on the matter. The threat of repercussion for believing in gods when none objectively exist is to have wasted your life not seeing reality objectively, in short, to have died a fool who will, in the end, be disappointed and not be intellectually prepared for that disappointment. So that end seems quite a miserable one. And everyone who’s got it right will thereafter, if you are remembered, will recall that you died a fool. So there are lasting negatives, though you may not be cognizant of them after your death, the thought in life can be effective enough inducement to not believe in gods.
Belief/No Belief is a False Dichotomy or Dualism
This framing of the issue is incorrect from the start. We have no way to be objective. Humans cannot take off the human suit or human glasses to be something else or see reality “as it is.” We are not objective to be able to make that claim. When it comes to whether a person chooses to believe or not, I assume we’re talking about what adults choose. Yet, it seems to me that to believe is not always an active position for an adult to take. Sometimes the default, due to environmental influences, such as being raised in a cultural narrative that quite strict and fundamentalist regarding theistic dogma, is to believe in a world that includes a god. In that sort of culture, that god exists is an axiom, which is a self-evident truth. To disbelieve it in such an environment is to take a leap of faith to actively reject what you had previously assumed was true.
When it comes to children, yes, everyone is born with neither belief nor unbelief (and you may choose to qualify that as atheist, however that’s a meaningless win…children are just as apt to believe in a teapot in the sky), they are a blank page, to some extent (not fully) however from the day SOME people are born, they are surrounded with believers. Their world includes god as soon as they are old enough to understand someone’s being talked about that’s not visible. It’s not until they venture out into the bigger world full of diversity of backgrounds and opinions that they encounter those ignorant of what they take for granted (that the world contains god). They begin then to compare their assumptions to the assumptions of others. However, if their narrative is continually reinforced by family and community, without serious, impactful intervention, these children may grow into adults that are by default believers.
Now whereas, some children can be reared without much discussion of gods, or the discussion has influenced them toward contempt toward religion. These children may grown to become atheist adults, much in the same way that theists are raised to it. Their environment provides them with plenty of reinforcement for their rejection of that schema and they seldom become believers, that would require a great leap of faith from their perspective.
To say one’s default choice after indoctrination into a particular schema is an act of free will is not meaningful in a deterministic universe. Humans are creatures of habit, largely. Our belief corresponds to the truth of our known reality but conspicuously, not everyone else’s reality.
Atheists will trot out that there is no evidence of a diety, yet conversely, there is no evidence there is no diety. Atheists will say it falls to the believer to prove their case for the existence of a diety because by default, there is no evidence of a diety. This is back to the active/passive dichotomy and burden of truth. Truth is irrelevant. There is no truth on this topic of the metaphysical, it’s both unprovable, not disprovable–it’s a stalemate. The whole argument is irrelevant and political in nature.
The Problem of Evil
We’re used to this naysaying question, if God is so good, why does evil exist in the world? Why doesn’t God do something? Answer: God Doesn’t Exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
The problem belief or no belief presents is the moral code that is associated with each position. So, since some are potentially harmed by belief in a diety due to its associated moral code (such as women, gays, children, slaves, anyone labeled “Other” that finds even the slightest confirmation of bias in dogmatic texts), it’s just, IMO to attempt to debunk the religious schema or dismiss it outright from an ethical, multi-culturalist standpoint. It’s better to have private belief, as the American pragmatist philosopher, Richard Rorty would say, and keep religion out of the public sphere. Let people have or not have their beliefs and don’t let it become a means of coercion.
Yet the new atheists are some of the most coercive sorts, regarding their Objectivist standpoint. Like thugs, they demand you appreciate their protective embrace and pay your tithe as a member of the atheist club. You don’t have to like it, just pay up. They’re as bad as pushy theists who back you in a corner and threaten with hellfire and damnation. Atheists threaten you with labels of irrational and illogical or just plain ignorant. You’re either an objectivist or you’re nobody in this either/or schema.
As I see it, evil is relative. Your trash is my treasure. God sends the rain to fall on both the evil and the good. IMO, the rational position is nihilistic relativism. What we have as an alternative to disorder and disharmony is cooperation. We (the largest majority of us) have the mental tools to create the sort of world in which our children are safe and happy and able to grow into well-adjusted, decent adults.
What Science Really Implies (Hint: It’s Never an Absolute) “When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it seems like two hours that’s relativity.” — Albert Einstein
If you look at the implications of science, to believe or not believe is only an active position relative to the unique experience of the individual. You can’t make a meaningful statement about what the default position is regarding all people until you admit to relativity.
This is not to say that all beliefs are true or valid. It’s just not simply an either/or dualist situation on whether the default is no belief for everyone.
In addition, there is at least one other standpoint outside of the active/passive belief schema, whether you acknowledge it as outside or not and that is the position of indifference to the question or to both believe and disbelieve simultaneously with a sort of cognitive dissonance. Increasingly, those people are referring to themselves as a type of agnostic. Now whereas you may choose to claim them as “weak, implicit atheists” if they take the zero position between belief and non-belief, however, you’re going to encounter opposition and resentment because to someone at the zero position, both theist belief and atheist non-belief both look suspiciously like a belief. So go ahead and assert your categorization schema, atheists. It’s an effective political ploy to increase your numbers.. Just know that some will always consider it in the realm of bullshit (from a philosophical standpoint).
TO “confuse our own constructions with eternal laws or divine decrees is one of the most fatal delusions of men.” [...] “the concept of fact is itself problematic…all facts embody theories…or socially conditioned, ideological attitudes.” ~ Sir Isaiah Berlin
*Live and dead hypotheses; “deadness and liveness […] are measured by [a thinker's] willingness to act. The maximum of liveness in an hypothesis means willingess to act irrevocably.”
*Option; “the decision between two hypotheses”.
*Living and dead option; “a living option is one in which both hypotheses are live ones.”
*Forced and avoidable option; an option for which there is “no possibility of not choosing”.
*Momentous and trivial option; an “option is trivial when the opportunity is not unique, when the stake is insignificant, or when the decision is reversible if it later prove unwise.”
*Genuine option; “we may call an option a genuine option when it is of the forced, living, and momentous kind.”
*Belief; “A chemist finds an hypothesis live enough to spend a year in its verification: he believes in it to that extent.”
Belief is irrelevant
IMO, an atheist and a theist both believe in the question do god(s) exist. IMO, they need to catch up. Nietzsche already said God is dead. If God ever existed, it hardly matters now. God(s) existence is merely decorous an by no means essential. But then, was it ever? It’s only when a group assumes a thug-like power over others that we feel the particular belief question is forced, momentous, and a living option, hence genuine. Otherwise, we feel free to believe or not whatever we fancy, even trivial, dead and disengenous hypothesis, such as “I’m a Mithraist because women are soulless, on par with snakes.” Or “There’s a lovely giant teapot just on the other side of the moon!”
The Moral Correctness Red Herring
The Objectivist vs. Relativist argument often comes down to what are the implications of either belief schema. The threat posed by Relativism is “anything goes” and “no accountability for our actions.” Ie. anarchy. While I may be more comfortable in a scientifically Objectivist and Humanist-ethical world, others may not be. So who wins? And by what means? The conservatives always win because the alternative is scary, or rather, they’re quite effective at making the alternative seem scary. Yet what is even scarier is an Objectivist reality. If reality has only one true description, by what right does anyone believe otherwise? And who gets to define the one true definition? The natural conclusion of the Objectivist is to force others to admit that [whatever prevailing] reality. What sort of world would that be like? And what if they get it wrong? Is there a “wrong” when might means right?
Objectivist Theists assert that humans are incapable of goodness and/or self-organization without intervention because they are mostly (99.99%) inherently sinful. Yet this problem is relieved by re-education and the punishment/reward schema.
Objectivist Atheists assert that humans are incapable of goodness and/or self-organization without intervention because they are mostly (99.99%) inherently ignorant and incorrect. Yet this problem is relieved by re-education and the punishment/reward schema.
Democratic Societies are Already Relativist, By Conception (to some extent)
Aren’t we, by allowing multi-culturalism in a Democratic society, somewhat Relativist in ethic due to our prioritization of peaceful co-existence over homogeneity? And doesn’t Objectivism, by contrast, naturally lead to hegemonic war and oppression?
In the Objectivist, Pauline religious schema, Jesus would rule the earth in the way any Taoist leader would who aspires to wu wei, action in non-action. Such peace can only come in a climate of conformity or fear of professing one’s non-conformity, which is why Christians are so war-like in spite of Jesus’ message of peace.
In the Relativist, Jewish Jesus religious schema, you don’t have an enemy, you love others as yourself without demarcating characteristics.
Yet of the prior category, for atheist, we have the Sam Harris variety of moral realists saying (and I paraphrase), “Isn’t it true that we already know right from wrong, don’t we just know that it’s wrong to hide women in sacks, isn’t it objectively wrong to do so?” This attitude of universal truth lends the atheist extra weight to trot out the empathy red herring, while simultaneously not displaying empathy for the mindset of the culture and individuals therein being objectified. Funny how these objectivists also tend to be suspiciously like pro-war neocons when convenient. So, it’s also funny how Objectivists always assert “free will” when it’s apparent that no free will on the nature of reality is allowed in an Objectivist schema. Pascal’s Wager always coerces people to err on the side of caution, which is to side toward self-preservation. That is not freedom. It’s instinct and habit. Pascal’s Wager for atheists is don’t believe in gods because nobody’s forcing you to and so you have nothing to lose by not taking an active belief stance and by not doing so, you don’t risk being the fool. Notice how their arguments are so often framed in such a way to make believers feel like fools?
Well, I’ll just end this by saying when you cave into the Objectivist language game, that it’s an either/or question, you admit you are forced to choose. Your concession lends the Objectivists, be they theist or atheist, it lends them power found in the mere semblance of it.
But one more note on where Agnostic belongs. Bear in mind, dictionaries are useful but not gospel. Fortunately, this one has been updated to reflect the modern usage of Agnostic (see definition #1 broadly and #2): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and probably unknowable;
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the
existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
I’d say that broader definition is arguably that agnostic holds sway at zero between belief and no belief, with shades of gray on either side. Even the grand poo-bah of atheists, Richard Dawkins, has addressed agnosticism as a position of zero between belief and no belief.
Do the two parties care about representing the interests of the American people? Or do they just care about winning?
Those of you who vote Democrat or Republican, do you really consider yourself a “lesser evil”? If not, why do you endorse a lesser evil with your vote? If you’re not evil, then not even a lesser evil representative could represent you. Find someone good for a change.
Things will never change for the better if people consider voting for evil within the realm of reasonable, just action.
Posted: September 3rd, 2011
Categories: language
Tags:
Comments: No Comments.
Does it seem to you that recent centrism is conspicuously right-leaning? It’s because they’re doing it wrong. ha. Linguist, George Lakoff explains why.
The “New Centrism” and Its Discontents by George Lakoff:
There is no ideology of the “center.” What is called a “centrist” or a “moderate” is actually very different – a bi-conceptual, someone who is conservative on some issues and progressive on others, in many, many possible combinations. Why does this matter? From the perspective of how the brain works, the distinction is crucial.
Because we think with our brains, all thought is physical. Our moral and political worldviews are realized as brain circuits with strong synapses. If you have two conflicting worldviews, you have two brain circuits that are mutually inhibitory, so that when one is activated, it is strengthened and the other is shut off and weakened. When a worldview applies to a given issue, there is a neural binding circuit linking the worldview circuit to that issue circuit in such a way that the issue is understood in terms of that worldview. The right language will activate that that issue as understood via that worldview. Using that language strengthens that worldview.
When a Democrat “moves to the center,” he is adopting a conservative position – or the language of a conservative position. Even if only the language is adopted and not the policy, there is an important effect. Using conservative language activates the conservative view, not only of the given issue, but the conservative worldview in general, which in turn strengthens the conservative worldview in the brains of those listening. That leads to more people thinking conservative thoughts, and hence supporting conservative positions on issues and conservative candidates. Material policy matters. Language use, over and over, affects how citizens understand policy choices, which puts pressure on legislators and ultimately affects what policies are chosen. Language wars are policy wars. Read the rest: http://bit.ly/hPkLzP
Do you ever wonder how people can spend so much time chasing dollars? And why are right-wing Christians, particularly, who are supposed to be all about Jesus (who advised the rich to give away riches to the poor), instead so into the politics of enriching the rich? Why are right-wingers largely against any mandate of sharing earnings to help the less fortunate? This is a standpoint I have found to be shared among not just right-wing Christians but generally, ideological capitalists, including many Libertarians.
The answer may go back to what Weber called the “Protestant Ethic,” which he claimed was the basis of modern Capitalism. Capitalism really started to take off right around the same time as Calvinism (today Calvinism’s taken the form of Christian Reconstructionism).
Here’s a video synopsis of Max Weber’s “The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” the wiki and the online book.
Basically, Weber said that Capitalism flourished due to a religious notion that there were a set number of people chosen by God to go to Heaven and that these blessed would fare better in life than those who were not chosen (and for those nothing could be done). The best indicator of how blessed you were seemed to them to be to successfully able to appear to be blessed by behaving like their ideal of God’s Chosen, ie. ascetic, hard-working, and pious. In short, they thought it was ideal to be self-reliant, amass a lot of wealth and then put the money back into business so as to make even more money. But as it was a religious idea related to asceticism, which was about self-denial, it was not spent on personal extravagances. The blessed were not decadent but they would be magnanimous on occasion. Yet, if you take away a strict authoritarian’s earnings, one will be less able to be magnanimous. If you distribute some of that wealth in an egalitarian fashion, elevating those who did poorly, that takes away one’s power as a strict authoritarian, to punish by withholding from those whose actions he disapproves of and his ability to reward those whose actions one does approve of, or that one thinks, despite their predicament may be worthy of compassion in the form of subsidy. Probably more likely those who suffer but fall into the “due to no fault of their own” category.
I think that many ideological capitalists of this variety tend to fall into the strict-authoritarian narrative. Whereas your social democrats or socialists, are more of the nurturers, as George Lakoff describes them. Which is, in my opinion, arguably a maternal vs. paternal ethos.
Before I really gave the subject a lot of thought, I used to get upset at the notion that we’re clockwork mechanisms in a huge universe machine that doesn’t care. Without meaningfulness to our actions, or in other words, a meaningfulness that’s verified by others and is true in some objective sense, the world seems like a maze of dead ends. Moral relativism denies our authority over other wills. Nihilism robs our ambitions of mojo. The source of religious thinking is anthropomorphisation: I was conceived of by loving and nurturing sentient entities and I want to believe they and all of us were born of a preceding loving, nurturing, sentient entity…that has total freedom and autonomy. The most free was asserted to be the male of our kind, because the male has greater physical capacity for brute force. Hence, God is a man. We say he’s free because freedom is power and we think that it must take a powerful force to have created everything. That’s the thing we overlook in religious thought, our Creator is the Most Free, the epitome of every freedom we can conceive of and isn’t this telling? The opposite of that is far nearer to our actual experience as human beings: we are not exempt from cause and effect, we’re more like enslaved by it and it generally galls us to admit servitude to a system without a sentient (subjective) bias, like ours and no freedom (read ultimate randomness ie. chance) and with no accountable figurehead. How then can any of us say we’re better than anyone else? How can we assert the superiority of one action over another? Where’s the value and merit in that schema? There’s none. We’re left to invent it. But isn’t that just what we’re doing anyway but giving ourselves even more authority to coerce others or reward ourselves, due to a paradigm that permits willful ignorance?
From Wiki:
“Nietzsche criticizes the concept of free will both negatively and positively. He calls it a folly resulting from extravagant pride of man; and calls the idea a boorish simplicity. The latter probably relates to ordinary-man’s visions like there is a God which (after the ellapse of eternal waiting) creates the world and then waits and observes (being, however, still “beyond time”): and then he is surprised and subdued by what I do (and well, I am too!).
Next, he shows that it represents an error of causa sui (X is a cause of X – whereas “cause” should mean something beyond):
The desire for “freedom of will” in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one’s actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui, and, with more than Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness.”
We fear chaos because chaos is the thing outside of our control. In a deterministic system, however, there is no chaos in that sense, there’s just what we know and what we don’t know. There’s the view that we can be objective and predict the inevitable future (our fate) if we have the data, and then there’s the view (my view) that we will never have all the data or the ability to reason objectively while we are confined to human form. Sometimes I wonder if everything hasn’t already happened in an instant, in that split second of the Big Bang, but we’re just experiencing it all this way and it feels and seems different than it is. I always set such ideas aside as pretty irrelevant. I can only act on what is, as I see it. This is my world and it begins and ends with me. Presumedly, so does every creature’s. But who or what am I? Do I have a beginning and an end? I don’t experience either. That there was a beginning and that there will be an end to me is merely inferred.
I was a religious thinker once. Was raised to it, even though my father introduced critical thinking into my education at an early age, he’s conservative and that’s an attitude that tends to default to the traditional view of things. After some experimentation with religion and philosophy, and following my thoughts to their conclusion, in a universe that contains no god-like entities that I see and know, I have to admit, Nihilism is the logical conclusion, comfortable or not. There’s no warrant for faith that my human needs for meaning and value translate into the unknown. We only just got off this rock to see the pale blue dot from space and now we think we know enough to judge what’s true and real, objectively? In light of the fact that no gods (harbingers of objectivity) have introduced themselves to me or anyone I know, are the products of our imagination a reasonable substitute for what we grasp in good ol’, tried and true common sense cause and effect? If we should build systems wherein we enforce constraints on one another’s will, and feel justified to mete out rewards and punishments, shouldn’t we opt for humility first before rushing to judgment? Shouldn’t we admit first, at least to ourselves, that we don’t know what we don’t know? What we don’t know includes the why. Without knowing why things happen, how can we judge human actions objectively?
Is human will self-justifying? We want to believe the answer is yes. Except when the wills of others would impinge upon our own sense of freedom. We tell ourselves we choose to serve but why do we choose it? Isn’t it simply inevitable that, given our history and predilections, in combination with circumstance, that we’d choose thus? The semblance of randomness in the universe seems due to our limited perception and narrow interests as humans. Though we jumped off the rock into outer space, we haven’t jumped out of the human into outer space. Some may have had their individual mystical experiences, but I mean verifiably, in the empirical sense. In being, in living, in wanting to continue purposefully, we have an agenda that involves our finite human predicament. It skews and weights the data according to our values. We don’t see the whole picture of cause and effect and perhaps many don’t even want to.
“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft
Some say that quantum theory brings an uncomfortable uncertainty to determinism. I don’t deny that. I just act on what I can say seems more likely to me. I don’t think the scientific community have reached a concensus on the nature of reality in regards to the free will question, it’s really in the realm of metaphysics. Scientists tend to just admit when they don’t know something and leave the question open. Well, I am picking a side for purposes of addressing the topic of free will because it has a huge impact on the sort of society we create and how we behave within that structure, how we feel license to treat others. In forcing my hand to take a side, I say, even if something can arise out of nothing as quantum theory implies, it doesn’t mean a break from the causal chain. We may simply not know the cause, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. Determinism is the larger idea and quantum theory can perhaps find its place within it. Or who knows what the future will result. This is the best guess I have at present.
But scientific skepticism isn’t the main cause of my disbelief in free will, it’s also atheistic. I think the common notion of “free will” is a human invention that only has meaningfulness within a religious paradigm. Booting religion, it naturally follows for me that I should doubt the notion that justifies it.
Experience (simple results of gravity for example: if I jump off a bridge, will I fall and splash?) tells me that we’re part of that science, we’re also a product of a chain of events. Most people really don’t deny cause and effect in general, we just don’t like the idea of being ruled by this principle and not ruled by their will as if it’s a standalone phenomenon. Our choices seem meaningful but I think that semblance is skewed because of a perception that’s limited in scope. The “meaning” of our choice, emotional component aside, is the *reason* for the choice and the reason is the *cause* of the choice and we’re incapable of comprehending the *complete* cause of our actions. If we can’t grasp why we’re choosing something, then this choice isn’t freely made in the religious sense because freedom of will implies total autonomy, hence ownership and responsibility. That we simply do not have. I don’t own the whole blame for my bad decisions, influencing factors also share the blame and we know this, which is why we also tend to punish both the child culprit of a prank and the one who egged him on and instigated it. We try to liberate ourselves from our parents’ crimes…but not from their money, of course. Not from any benefit, only from the stigma. But we are not blank slates. I don’t own the whole merit of my successes because influencing factors shared in the cause of it. My father taught me to reason, to think critically, so I can’t take all the credit for what I am and think and do. If I win an Oscar, I’d thank my parents first. Or whomever else helped along the way. We biasedly behave as if all these contributing forces matter when we’re being magnanimous. We demand that we not be forced to admit all that should be thanked or blamed. But the fact is, my choices aren’t just about me. If only an action could reveal the tale of everything that fomented and comprised its inevitability…we’d end this parade of vanity.
I think my main skepticism regarding the concept of free will comes down to realizing the biasedness of human perception of causality: I feel that my will begins a new chain of cause and effect because I, for whatever reason, bias that the cause begins with *my* choice, that my will is the cause and I own my will. I’m wrong. My will has a cause unknown. I also am skeptical of the common conception of “self.”
This guy’s argument for one condition in which free will exists, IMO, is still no more free will than the other examples of no free will. However, it will more likely produce a paradigm shift outcome.
The old woman had left almost all of her possessions behind and now found herself walking alone through the worst part of town. She tried not to look out-of-place as she passed under a bridge and past bundled figures warming hands around a barrel fire. She saw a tiny, three-legged dog tied to a signpost, attempting to warm or comfort itself against its master–a dead vagrant curled up over a steamy sewage grate. On impulse, she risked stopping, long enough to free it. Weak from hunger, the creature was docile and grateful upon release, so she took pity and tucked it into her jacket, out of view. She tarried just long enough to offer it some bread from her satchel. The dog gobbled the bread greedily in surprisingly few bites. She continued on her way, unnoticed by the barrel-warmed silhouettes or anyone else, keeping to the shadows where possible, careful not to let her footsteps resound too loudly off the empty streets and abandoned warehouses.
Two young men waited for her. They were standing on the shoreline beside a small boat. This part of the river reeked of raw sewage. They’d chosen it to lessen the odds of encounter. There was also a young woman and a boy, already waiting in the boat. When the old woman arrived, she was recognized and helped into the boat by the larger man, who could not resist letting slip a punitive, “You’re late.” The smaller man stepped directly into the boat, careful not to step into the filthy water. The larger one dislodged the boat from the bank. He had no choice but to get into the water, which was up to his waist before he got in and proceeded to quietly row them away from the shore, into the liquid darkness that stretched endlessly away from the city lights.
No one glanced behind to see the cityline fade from view. The quietude of the sleeping goliath they’d left behind was oppressive; every inch of its quiet–fraught with the possibility of exposure and capture, and yet, they were resigned to their lot either way. Their silence was more a gesture of solemnity than a result of fear. They moved along now, out of necessity, leaving behind a place that was once their home but that now rejected them to their peril, worse, would soon prey upon them. No, they did not look back or even say goodbye in their hearts.
The man (who’d pushed the boat) rowed until they’d reached a safe distance from shore, then he gave the other a nod and that one started the engine. They’d departed in the early evening so the most perilous leg of the trip would be hidden in darkness. As they moved away from the land mass, the sky overhead became clearer and the stars and moon shone brighter, reflecting off the water. When the engine started with its loud hum, it startled them, even though they’d heard the man pulling the cord to start. Now the water that parted for the bow of their rickety, little craft, rejoined behind them in crashing confusion, splashing against the small raft of supplies that trailed behind, secured by ropes.
Showing confidence at this distance, the larger man (the one who’d pushed and rowed and smelled the worst of them), lit a lamp and they were a beacon out on the vast, black sea. They warmed their hands against the lamp. “The worst is over,” he said, but their looks told, they were not convinced. “Don’t look so glum,” he exclaimed, “We are off to find our destinies. How many can say they know for certain where it’s not to be found?” He laughed. The young mother smiled. He saw that the boy was not smiling and touched the boy’s chin and smiled at him purposefully. “Smile Boy. For your mum. We men must be brave.” Boy smiled, half-heartedly, and glanced sheepishly over at the smaller man, who nodded in agreement.
***
The sun was up now and the old woman was awakened by gulls calling to each other. Boy was the first to notice the dog. “What’s its name,” he asked, scratching its head as it lay cradled against her breast, just inside her jacket.
“I don’t know its name, I just found it on the way,” she said, smiling. “Do you want to name it? He seems to like you.” Boy warmed at the notion and sat back now, thinking up a good one.
“Is it a boy or a girl,” he asked.
“I don’t know, actually,” she said, and opened her jacket slightly to let in the morning light. “It’s a boy.”
“Oh, what happened to its leg,” asked Boy.
“I can’t imagine,” she assured him. “He seems fine. I don’t think it hurts him.”
“Oh, good,” he replied, somewhat relieved.
“Have you thought of a name yet,” Old Woman asked.
“No, not just yet,” he said. “Can I hold him?”
She consented but added, “Be careful he doesn’t fall or jump into the water,” as she handed the tiny, three-legged dog over to Boy.
The smaller man was awake now. “What’s that you have there,” he asked Boy.
“It’s hers but she said I could hold him. She said I could name him too.”
“What’s that, a dog?” chimed in the larger man, visibly annoyed. “Who said you could bring a dog along? You don’t even own a dog, Old Woman.” She replied nothing, but sank back into her place. “Look, it’s only got three legs, how will it swim,” he chided. “You may have condemned this dog to death, you know.” She again, did not reply. The boy hugged the dog to his chest and pet its back, whispering in its ear to ignore the mean man. “Don’t feed the dog our food,” said the man, looking each of them in the eye before glancing down at the dog. “And where will it go? It will have to go to the toilet sometime. It already stinks.”
“You stink,” boldly countered the boy, telling the truth. The mean man raised his hand as if to strike and the boy recoiled. Everyone was looking at the man differently now. He was half-standing up in the boat and it rocked agitatedly. He sat back down and fumed, unsure what he was so annoyed about, he knew there should be enough food.
“It’s the principle,” he replied out loud. “You should have asked me, Old Woman,” he fumed, “This is my boat. I say who or what comes along.” She tried not to glare back at him in response. She knew his name all too well but in her heart she would always call him “The Brute” as she had thought secretly since he was just a small child, once he’d grown large enough to bully someone smaller, he often did.
“I will take care of everything, don’t worry about the dog,” said Old Woman now, finally finding her voice. “See, it makes the boy happy. Don’t make the boy cry now.” Boy was near tears.
“Eh! Don’t even start Boy. I can’t abide crying,” he said, leaning back now and looking away, toward their destination. Seeing The Brute was through, Boy did not cry, instead he moved closer to Old Woman and they shared affection for the dog between them, which now had been made even more precious by the man’s condemnation. The Brute leaned over the boat’s edge and rested his chin on one hand, the other dragged through the water like an oar, pushing and pulling the water against the side of the boat. In this way he fell back asleep, as it was still very early in the morning. He dreamed of vast schools of fish and a sea of stars.
***
On the third evening, the rope to the extra supply raft, came loose. The younger man swam out to retrieve the raft, but capsized it and everything was lost except the water jugs, which were tied around the raft edges. Although he succeeded in retrieving and tying the rope back onto the boat, he became tangled in a fishing net that had fallen into the water, weighted down with supplies. It pulled him down with purpose, to sink him and the tangled mess to the ocean floor like cement shoes. After a few minutes of frantic struggle to reach the hands reaching out to save him and with the raft and boat mere feet away on either side of him, he succumbed to exhaustion and sank beneath the dark waves. The young mother and Boy were devastated by his loss. Old Woman seemed to be in a state of shock for some time afterward. The Brute, however, just shrugged it off. Of more concern to him, the majority of their supplies were lost and the fishing net could have made all the difference, especially if they should drift off course. Fortunately, they’d had some food in the boat with them but it would not last long enough. He divided the smaller man’s food between them. “He won’t need it,” he said.
Boy was crying, and of course, The Brute could not abide it so he tried to distract him.
“Hey now,” he said, “He would not want you to cry, Boy. Listen, I have a riddle for you that he once told me when we were just boys ourselves. Maybe you can solve this one, eh?”
“The Moon is my father,
the Sea is my mother;
I have a million brothers,
I die when I reach land.”
The boy thought hard, glad to be distracted from his sadness, but he didn’t know the answer and the last line, I die when I reach land, was too real of a possibility to give much thought.
“A wave,” replied the mother, sensing the boy’s growing distress. She glared at The Brute for his callousness.
“Yes,” exclaimed The Brute, laughing. Boy and his mother managed a smile but Old Woman watched him dully in the lamplight, her eyes–black chips reflecting the lamp flame.
***
Old Woman had fed the dog her food and rationed herself a more meager share than as planned. She grew fainter by the day, while the dog grew stronger. As promised, she’d tended to it and it had proved to be no inconvenience to anyone. Shortly after her food had run out, The Brute’s food ran out as well. Accustomed to robust meals, he’d been reluctant to ration and ate as he felt he deserved. He grew meaner with the slightest onset of hunger, saw Old Woman weakening and refused to follow. “You should throw that dog overboard, Old Woman,” he said cruelly, “Or I may eat it tomorrow.” Boy cried out and protested but The Brute simply slapped him to shut him up. No one had expected it but now it was done and over with. Boy whimpered quietly while his mother shushed him and stroked his hair.
Seagulls passed over head unaware of the drama in the tiny boat, which was nothing but a speck on a vast sea, teeming with life, all oblivious to their despair.
***
The Brute did not eat the dog the next day. He watched it sullenly, jealous of the attention it received, but the other three had joined together in solidarity, daring him to strike any one of them. This was not communicated to him directly. They three passed the dog around, petted and fed it, in spite of him. Whether they cared for the dog or not, none of them wanted to see the dog harmed in any way, much less eaten, and in truth, neither did The Brute. He felt he was still a long way from that point but the nagging pain and constant aggravation of hunger wore at his sense of propriety.
***
“We are nearly there,” he declared some days later, as darkness fell. He lit his lamp again as he always did for an hour or two at nightfall. They were all encouraged, even Old Woman, who was now near death. The young mother and Boy doted on her, trying to make her more comfortable and shared the last of their food with her.
The Brute sat upright, leaned into the lamplight, and said in his usual, menacing tone, “I expect you all to repay me for this favor I have done for you, saving you from the oppressors and from your own stupidity. You would have died back there on your own. You must realize that I have saved all of your lives and so now, I own each of you. Remember this when I ask something of you. I should never have to remind you. You see me, you remember what I did for you, what I risked and endured so that you could live and be free, start a new life here. Remember that a good man died so that you may live.” They all nodded. He made sure Boy knew he meant him too. Boy had a long life ahead of him, many favors may be extorted. Cowing the others was merely staging for Boy’s benefit. If he saw they did not question, Boy would not question, at least, not entirely.
The water grew choppier now and although it was too dark to see it, they could feel they were approaching the new shore. On impulse, Boy blew out the lamp. Their eyes adjusted to the darkness slowly, but soon they saw the shadowy outline of the new land against the sky. “There,” said Boy, pointing. “I see a town. That must be a town.” The little dog barked. It was the first they’d heard it bark and they all laughed, excited now to be so near the end of their journey.
The Brute lit a match to relight the lamp, but before he’d succeeded in doing so, he was quite suddenly torn from the boat and drug down into the water, by what, they did not know. Somewhere out there, he buoyed back up and gasped for breath. The lamp toppled and fell. Oil spilled out and caught fire from the match ember, where it had fallen. The three of them and their dog, moved to the far end of the boat where the mother splashed water over the side to put out the fire. The Brute was struggling in the water, now somewhere off the bow. Voices, shouts, and splashes of impact. Confusion, all looking wildly around, straining the vision to readjust to darkness, seeing retinal-burn spots instead, from the recent flames. The Brute’s voice was occasionally interrupted as his head must have plunged under the water. Drawing on dim recollection of the language she’d known in her youth, Old Woman made out, “[Curse] you foul foreigners! Damn you! You are not welcome here. Go back to the hell you came from!” Then it quieted and those who were left in the boat, they knew now that The Brute had succumbed to the depths. It was too calm now, too good to be true, to believe the aggressors had gone, left them to finish the last of the journey to freedom, unhindered. Weren’t two lives enough payment for passage to this new shore?
No, now the boat tipped, violently, and capsized. All their possessions sank away. They could not see each other. They dared not cry out. Old Woman went under first, as she could not swim. She released the dog, which proved that with only three legs, it could swim better than she–well enough to keep its head above water and moving along slowly. It headed toward shore. The mother grabbed hold of Boy and pulled him in the direction of the shore and they swam toward it, after the dog and passed it by. When they’d dragged themselves out of the water, trying not to cough up inhaled water, they ran toward some brush and waited to let their eyes adjust to the darkness further. They had to be sure the aggressors were not around. The mother then started in the town they’d seen from the boat. Boy pulled her back and whispered, “But the dog, ma! Anima. I named him Anima.”
“He’s alright, honey, he can find us but he’ll be alright anyway. Dogs do fine on their own,” she whispered back.
“But ma, I didn’t tell him his new name, how will he know when I call him? And Nanna! Where’s Nanna? I named him after her,” he whispered again but too loudly. He wouldn’t take another step.
The mother shushed him and pulled him to her in a hug. “Honey, Nanna went the other way. She’ll meet up with us later. That was the plan, if we got separated, we all meet in town. They will both find us. Just come and shush before they catch us. I know the way.” He consented, believing her unquestioningly, and let her lead the way.
Old Woman drifted beneath the waves, drug back by the undertow. Somewhere near, The Brute also tossed about. As they left their bodies, they found each other in the ether and embraced. The Brute was still angry, confused, and found expression in the raging wind. Old Woman quieted and comforted him. She was the water lapping against the shore, now ebbing, now flowing back. She was forgetting Old Woman and remembering something she’d forgotten long ago. She was transfixed by it.
The little dog made its way to the shore eventually and collapsed on the sand. It whimpered, as it was now alone and afraid.
“I’m sorry,” said The Brute to the dog. It could not hear his voice, only the wind. It lay down and waited for Old Woman or Boy to join him. Old Woman was growing fainter as each wave washed against the sand and now she became the sound of foam sinking and being absorbed by the sand. The Brute sensed her leaving and was afraid. He called her from where the dog lay. She remembered Old Woman and came to him.
“This dog will sit here and wait for you until it starves,” he said.
“Yes, you’re probably right,” she replied.
“We should urge it along.”
“Alright,” she said. She comforted the dog, warming the air around him. The Brute became a fish briefly, that threw itself onto the shore and so the dog ate.
“We should follow the boy,” said The Brute.
“Yes,” said Old Woman. And The Brute made the wind down the beach sound like voices. The dog, thinking he heard Boy, followed them. He hopped along on his three legs and tired easily. It had been a long journey. He wanted to sleep but something kept urging him along and finally, he found himself at a door in a small town, and heard voices now, coming from inside. He scratched at the door. The voices quieted and it opened. An unfamiliar woman stood at the door.
“Whoa fella, who are you? What a funny-looking animal,” said the new woman. The little dog barked and Boy burst toward the door and hugged the dog.
“Anima,” he exclaimed. “I forgot to tell you your name.”
Boy and the dog were happy now.
The Brute was still there. He said, “I’m sorry,” to Boy but he did not hear him.
Old Woman was there and she said, “I love you,” to Boy and he didn’t hear her either.
“We should watch after him,” said The Brute.
“For a while,” said Old Woman and she warmed the coals in the fireplace. The Brute curled into the toilet for a nap.
The ultimate proof of [the meaninglessness of the compulsion toward self-sacrifice] is that of the superego at its purest. The ultimate proof of it resides in the very “irrational,” meaningless character of this gesture – the superego is an injunction to enjoy, and, as Lacan puts it in the first lecture of his Encore, joissance is ultimately, that which serves nothing.
Žižek, Slavoj(1999)’The thing from inner space on Tarkovsky’,Angelaki,4:3,221 — 231
Recently, someone said physics expert said to me “philosophers don’t know shit.” In light of the fact that science is now being paraded as a substitute for religious morality, I have to say that only philosophy can truly help us to make sense of it all. I have long thought that religion was at the root of many of our social and economic problems, having created them, reinforced them, while simultaneously condemning people because of them. Meritocracy is the basis of right-wing morality regarding capitalism and everything that entails from what school you may attend, to how much health care you may receive, to how much love and appreciation you can realistically expect due to your accomplishments and socio-economic status. That is the right-wing view. There’s another religious view that favors an egalitarian society where people have everything they need and work together to make society work and work out better for everyone concerned. Yet religious ideas are not required for either standpoint to perpetuate and flourish. Even after we’ve eradicated something like slavery, certain vestigial attitudes regarding race and fairness persist under other guises. Thomas Pogge calls us out and says that we have a moral responsibility to to address those remnants of an unjust system, that we have to rethink all our structures and attitudes about those structures in order to actually have a just and fair system. I completely agree. http://www.truthout.org/yale-philospher-thomas-pogge-past-and-future-global-poverty/1303930954
Dieting after the holidays, New Year’s Resolution…call it whatever you like, cutting back and trimming the fat just makes good sense. In my opinion, any success is better than no attempt so I’m going to give it a shot. It’s a good time to go at it, if you think about it–January tends to be a bit of a social dead-zone, compared to October-December so it’s a good month to take time for you. First thing to change is the attitude and the environment. First thing to go is the online social networking. I’ve traded it in for Meet-ups. This means a lot less sitting around the house when you have to leave the house to get that socializing fix. :)
Here’s my Lean Hoppin’ John recipe, if you want to try this, adjust your proportions to taste. I like it with a spicy garlic/tomato base:
Some recipes have greens in the Hoppin’ John, I prefer