Wrapping Up Loose Ends

Wrapping up loose ends

It’s been a little while since I’ve had a serious post. Not for lack of thought, I can tell you that much. Most recently, I’ve been struggling with the same issue brought up in the Vegas post: if we do have a soul, what does it do? When in the evolutionary time line did it come into existence? What are the mechanics with which it interacts with our body?

Anyway, these aren’t the questions I’m looking to address today. Instead, you (reader of mine) are going to run through a gamut of topics: my started but unfinished blog entries.

Let’s start rolling right away:

Doing the right thing for the right reason

There’s a conversation technique in Dilbert author Scott Adams short book, “God’s Debris”. Summarized, the technique is as follows:

Everyone enjoys talking about themselves. If you have a hard time making conversation, ask the other person questions to find out details about them: they will be delighted at the opportunity to talk about themselves. Now naturally, if you’re trying to entertain yourself in this conversation you’re going to want to talk about yourself…but you’ve got the other person’s interest. You can now steer the conversation to yourself – the other person thinks highly of your conversational ability since they enjoy talking about you, and you get to talk about yourself.

You won’t be surprised to discover that I hate this technique. It’s underhanded, it’s fake, and it sidesteps a problem by giving it a makeshift solution. The real problem is not a lack of conversational ability, it’s an inability to recognize what is interesting in other people. If all you really want to do is talk about yourself, I think the real answer is going to come from introspection and personal changes, not techniques that cater to what is essentially a personality flaw.

I like to think that when someone asks me questions about myself, they are doing the right thing for the right reason. They are asking me because they actually care, they want to know a particular fact about me. The motive is important, not just the action.


What makes a piece of art great?

What is it that constitutes greatness in the realm of art? How is it we are able to separate popularity from greatness? Aren’t works of art essentially created for purposes of enjoyment? Does an author, a painter, a sculptor have to develop a new technique in order to be considered great or is it enough to simply be extremely skilled?

Take, for example, the author John Grisham. His work is very popular, probably because it’s entertaining. I don’t think many in America have any misconceptions about him being remembered as one of the great writers of the 20th century, though. Why? What is it that he lacks that Shakespeare (for example) has?


Good will

Is being good less valuable if it comes naturally? Is it less impressive to do “good” deeds based on your environment? Is something that is good for one person merely expected for another?

Is a good deed subjective? When judging the goodness or the value of an action, is it important to take into account the individual who performs the action? Should the standard for what constitutes a good deed be contingent upon the upbringing and past actions of the individual?

There are a couple questions I’ll ignore: 1- Is there such a thing as an objective good or bad? Can an action even have value? Also, I will be ignoring the fact that wildly varying cultures will have significantly different ideas of what good vs. bad is. I’m limiting my discussion to a comparison of individuals from similar cultural backgrounds.

I want to briefly touch on an unusual question. Are we really involved in the choices we make, or is it really just a biological calculation taking place? How can anything be good or bad if there is no choice ever made? Basically, the question of free will. It’s important to recognize that the existence of free will is a spiritual dilemna much more than a rational one. Whether or not the decisions we make or the paths we choose are the result of biological processes or supernatural influence does not change the fact that the actions we take now do have a direct influence (you could say it’s correlational) on our future actions. Whether or not free will exists is unimportant: if it does not exist, we shouldn’t act any differently.

Now on to the main question: is “good” subjective? Should we hold different people to different standards based on environmental factors? To an extent, I believe the answer is yes. Anyone raised in a environment where they are loved and encouraged to be good will certainly have an easier time performing good actions. To put it simply (and using the foundation of behaviorist psychology) we will generally behave in ways that generate positive reactions. If a given behavior is rewarding, that behavior will probably be repeated (it sounds rather mechanistic, but it’s really just common sense). Often, individuals raised in harsh environments have received little or no positive reinforcement for “good” deeds and are therefore less likely to have a natural desire to perform them.


On a similar note: does being good become less valuable if you recognize that the only your doing it is for self-satisfaction? For example, does the fact that my desire to do good deeds are truly motivated by an inner desire to be the kind of person I want to be change it from an altruistic deed to a selfish one?

Does it become less meaningful to do apparently altruistic deeds if the motivation includes self-satisfaction? Is there a difference between a good selfish deed and a bad one?

I think the answer that comes most naturally is that there is a definite difference between a selfish deed and an altruistic one…the problem is not getting the answer, the problem is the method that shows why.

State of the Union Summary

Purportedly, I have good "summarizing" skills. So I went ahead and highlighted what I felt were the key points of Bush's State of the Union speech for my readers who didn't have time to listen to the hour long speech but still wanted to know what the basics of it were. Anything in italics is personal commentary, feel free to ignore it.

The text of the speech can be found here:

State of the Union 2007

The State of the Union speech

1. Balance the Federal Budget
1. Eliminate deficit in the next five years
2. Stop the process of “earmarking” (Earmarking is a process of attaching
   addendums to Bills after they have been approved).
3. Find “some way” to fix Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare
2. Reauthorize the (horrible, misguided and ineffective) No Child Left Behind Act
3. Reform Federal Health Insurance Subsidies
1. Adjust tax structure for families and singles with Health Insurance (first 15k
   or 7.5k non-taxable respectively)
2. Provide monies to states who give free health care
3. Expand Health Savings Accounts, help Small Businesses, reduce costs and medical
   errors (how would the government do this?), and encourage price
   transparency.
4. Medical Liability Reform
4. Immigration
1. Double the size of the border patrol + new infrastructure/technology (bah,
   don’t believe it’s necessary)
2. Establish a temporary worker program so that foreigners can cross the border into
   the US to work. (It’s interesting to me, because most people who are
   worried about illegal immigration are worried that foreigners will “take
   all of our jobs” – sort of like a reverse fear of outsourcing. Bush is
   saying he wants to make this easier – he wants to increase border
   security to protect us from…yeah, you guessed it. Terrorists. Also to
   stop criminals and drug dealers. I’m not claiming that these are not
   important, but I don’t believe our current method is effective – at
   stopping the problems it hopes to stop or at dealing with the concerns of
   most Americans when it comes to illegal border crossing).
3. Somehow resolve the status of current immigrants to the country (legal or
   no?)
4. Reform immigration laws to encourage the American “melting pot”
5. Reduce dependence on foreign oil
1. Increase development and distribution of alternative energy sources. I will
   give Bush credit here – instead of instantly talking about how he wants
   to increase internal oil drilling he instead discusses the importance of
   developing alternative energy sources. There is no mention of government
   funding of any kind of research.
2. Reduce gasoline usage by 20% in the US in the next 10 years (increase fuel
   efficiency and quintuple current mandatory renewable fuel goals).
3. Double the capacity (heh capacity, not the amount of oil) of our current
   oil reserves.
6. Homeland Security
1. “Yet one question has surely been settled: that to win the war on terror we
   must take the fight to the enemy.” Bush makes this statement when
   discussing the current debates about whether our current course is
   correct. It’s obviously wrong and conveys a false dichotomy: either we
   fight on their territory or on ours. I am not convinced (and I don’t
   believe I’m alone in thinking so) that a fight must take place at all.
2. It’s important for America to stay on the offensive. It is not easy for
   terrorists after 9/11. He lists a bunch of examples of failed terrorist
   plots.
3. General anti-Al Qaeda anti-Hezbollah rhetoric. In short: “Al Qaeda are bad and
   evil. They want to rule the world in a totalitarian manner and will kill
   anyone and everyone to do it.” Fairly long, and also incriminates Iran
   significantly (as Iran houses the Hezbollah). I think it’s interesting
   to revisit the article I posted recently about the world opinion on US
   foreign policy. It’s widely believed that the US is making itself less
   and not more safe – this doesn’t make it true of course, but it does give
   a more impartial picture of how other countries view the US’ actions.
4. It’s important for the US to support democratic leaders in other countries so
   that it’s possible for them to lead their countries in such a way that
   the terrorists cannot exist inside of it.
5. We will stay in Iraq until our original goals are met.
6. We are sending an additional 20,000 troops, the majority going to Baghdad.
   4,000 marines are also being sent (with orders to “find and clear out”
   the terrorists. Ha, clear out).
7. If we leave early, the terrorists win.
8. Bush moves to establish an advisory council on the War on Terror (we all
   know how much Bush listens to advisory councils).
9. Increase the size of the Army/Marines by 92,000 in the next five years. Also,
   create a Civilian Reserve Corps which consists of civilians with special
   skills to serve on missions abroad.
7. Foreign Policy
1. To whom much is given, much is needed (ha, it’s the Rand Communist pay
   scale!).
2. Continue the fight against HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa.
3. Asks for $1.2b over five years in funds to combat malaria in Africa.
4. Continue to fund the Millennium Challenge Account (haven’t heard of it.
   Apparently, it’s exists to support countries who need help and have democratic
   governments).

For those of you aching for satire, this is kind of funny. Highlights:

"First of all, I lied about the reasons for war in Iraq. It never had anything to do with WMD, or with 9/11...and I apologize for misleading you."

"I'm sorry I [authorized the NSA to wiretap phone calls], and that I did it without telling anybody, and that I've been abusing my presidential power...and I'm sorry I broke the law doing it."

"I know torture is wrong...it was a mistake, and I also apologize to anyone who was tortured because of me. Especially the innocent guys, which we now know was pretty much all of them."

Vegas and The Soul

Vegas assaults your senses. The most extreme assault takes place on vision: everyplace you go everywhere you look there’s something screaming for the attention of your eyes. Flashing lights, scantily clad women (and an equal number of scantily clad men…apparently there’s a strong market here for male strippers), and any number of unnatural and bright colors. Honestly, amidst the visual cacophony that results from the "visual screaming" nothing really stands out. It’s like sitting in a room with hundreds of people who are all screaming at the top of their lungs for your attention – not much gets through.

-----------------------------

So, if we have a soul, what exactly does our soul do? In what way does our soul interact with our human body?

It’s extremely unlikely that a soul is behind anything with a physiological explanation. The issue (for me) is…more and more things are beginning to have a physiological explanation. What aspects of life does our soul have control over? I suppose the question is…if we have any kind of free will, which decisions do we make? I won’t say that I don’t care about the science behind the soul-body interaction, but in this particular case I’m only concerned with the results of said interaction. In which areas does it fall outside of the body and outside of the rational mind to the area of the soul to make a decision?

Short: What to do about Iran

The way the article is written certainly conveys a pro-war attitude, but it's still interesting.

BBC Article: What to do about bullish Iran

Edit: Ha, amusing. Lots of disapproval of US foreign policy by, well, the foreign world.

Views of US Global role 'worse'

Thoughts and Farewells

As I drove home from dropping a friend off at the airport, it began to snow. The radio DJ had just announced that I'd be listening to Mozart's adaptation to a number of small minuets. Traffic was just starting to pick up - so many people start their day so early.

The snow was spectacular.

My drive had a serene feel. I had a newfound freedom which the slowly drifting snow and the joyful compositions seemed to proclaim. The snow had only claimed the outer edges of the street and some of Portland's ubiquitous roadside foliage: my path seemed almost clearly marked.

-------------------------------------------------

I watched The Prestige last night. One thought, in particular, really got me thinking. A younger Christian Bale (playing a stage magician) is explaining a trick to a youth. He explains, most importantly,

"Now, you must never give away the secret to this trick. People are going to beg and bribe you, trying to find out how you do it. The truth is, the second you tell them, you become nothing to them. Once they know the secret, the mystery is gone and you are worthless."

In the world of "magic" this is likely true. I wonder how many people think this idea is valid in real life -- that it's important to keep their secrets about why they behave the way they do, lest they become boring and ordinary through being understood. Keeping secrets like this feels like a "trick" to me -- a method for someone who wants to interact with the outside world by proxy. It places a focus on appearing to be something we're not...and I don't respect that.