This could have been attached to the previous post but I thought it could stand on it's own. I'm reading Herman Hesse's novel "Steppenwolf" right now, and there's a portion where he talks about conflicting sets of desires within himself. He really touches on the inconsistency that seems to come with being human - although we like to say that we live by a certain set of values, ethics, or priorities, there are a number of different forces pulling us in different directions that can make our behavior inconsistent with what we believe to be our core values. That's my experience, anyway.
In Steppenwolf, the main character feels a divide within himself - there is a part of him that wants to be a part of normal (bourgeoisie is the word used repeatedly in the novel) society, that wants to live a life with priorities like family, money, and entertainment. A second part of him realizes the hypocrisy and inanity that this lifestyle would have for him. On one level, he looks down on the "normal" people because they partake in what he sees as a contemptuous, or at best ignorantly blissful, lifestyle. On another level, he envies them for their capacity to live, apparently happily, in this lifestyle. It's not just an envy though, there is a part of him that legitimately wishes to be a part of this society, or at least a society. Despite his conviction that he is an outsider, he'll even attempt to participate in events with other people in society, only to be disappointed or disgusted.
It was interesting to read about this divide...it's something I haven't thought much about. Steppenwolf is credited as being one of Hesse's most autobiographical novels - I assume this means that on some level, Hesse felt he was an outsider, and also felt the pull of many different set of values. Hesse mentions that we all, to some extent, suffer from multiple personality disorder, and I think that's an interesting way to look at it. We can arrange our values into categories - the pleasure-seeker, the spiritualist who feels slightly detached from the world, the family-loving career oriented persona...and that's just naming a few of my own!
Even if you take my great advice (aka wisdom) and take time to establish your values and take care to act in accordance with them, the truth is that you'll slip up. At the very least, I do. Not just that, but our values will change - new personalities with new set of personalities will emerge, and old sets will be changed or even discarded.
Is it denying a part of yourself to suppress a certain personality in favor of one that you feel is more important? Is that an exercise doomed to failure, with the suppressed personality slowly building power even during it's suppression until it's uncontainable? Maybe, but that's only partially consistent with my experience. We also have the opportunity to suppress a personality we don't appreciate until we no longer feel the desire to express what it stands for...to erase it, not just suppress it. Perhaps, through willpower, that gives us a path towards growth?
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Values before and after a "Quantum Change"
Men | |
Before Wealth Adventure Achievement Pleasure Be respected Family Fun Freedom Self-esteem Attractiveness | After Spirituality Personal Peace Family* God's Will Honesty Growth Humility Faithfulness Forgiveness to others Self-esteem* |
Women | |
Before Family Independence Career Fitting in Attractiveness Knowledge Self-control Be loved Happiness Wealth | After Growth Spirituality Self-esteem Happiness Generosity Personal Peace Health Forgiveness Creativity Honesty |
* Appears "pre-quantum change"
From the above video...
The list above is a list of values that shows up at the end of the linked video. Nancy Etcoff discusses the neurological and psychological factors of personal happiness - what it is, and whether or not it's reasonable to aspire towards it.
I found the above chart particularly interesting as I think it gives some concrete words to value changes that can take place in people. It's tempting to call the second set of values enlightened values or to elevate them in some other way, but I (personally) think it's important to recognize that values have a subjective worth. Either way, the learned and the interested in personal growth have a strong tendency to change their values from those on the left to those on the right.
It feels to me a lot like maturing - I discard the values I held when I was younger in favor of other values that I feel reflect who I am and more importantly who I want to be more clearly.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
About Me, June 2009 Edition
I'm very good, thanks for asking. Somehow I feel like I'm still adjusting to "normal" life after my time (8 months) overseas. I haven't settled into a lasting routine...you know, those routines that we always seem to find in life where we do the same basic things every day or every week. I got back in late March, so I think I'm overdue for an adjustment into routine.
A part of that might be due to a lingering connection I still feel with Vy, the girlfriend I had during my time overseas. If you haven't heard, we're not together anymore. It was a difficult decision and I don't want to get into details here...regardless, it's still on my mind all this time later. I wonder how much my life experiences have influenced my relationships and my personal view on relationships and priorities. It seems everyone has advice, but it also seems that in the end relationship decisions are decisions we make alone.
I've been telling everyone that I've been reading a lot, and that was true, but I've slowed down in the last few weeks. I've discovered that I love having audio books in my car, and I listen pretty much exclusively to audio books when driving alone, which is often. I'm reading "Animal, Vegetable, Mineral" by Barbara Kingsolver right now. It's good, and even though it's a topic I felt I was largely familiar with, I find myself acting very differently despite my smug feeling of superiority as I read through the book. It is primarily about the merits of eating locally grown food and supporting local farmers, and of arranging our eating schedule around what is in season (vegetables and fruits only grow during certain times of the year!). I like the book, though if you're looking for a read I recommend John Robbins "Diet for a New America", although Diet is distinctly anti-meat where Kingsolver is a little more open-minded about it. As far as other reading material, just read through some of my last posts, it's been a common topic.
Our new TV has a lot to do with my slowed pace on reading. I watch TV sometimes now, though I still can't stand watching (and don't watch) "real" TV - that is to say, something that isn't pre-recorded so I can avoid advertisements. I really, really dislike intrusive advertisements and commercials...to the point, for example, that I don't like using the TV guide because one row is dedicated to advertising. I'm not sure what it is about advertising that gets under my skin, but I can truly and honestly say that I go to great lengths to avoid it.
I also have an Xbox 360 video game system that I picked up to play online games with friends. With the new TV, that sees occasional use as a movie player...very occasional use. OK, it's only ever played two movies, and I borrowed them both from the library.
I just finished another semester of German class. I like the people in my class, though it was a little disheartening to see how little I had learned in 8 months. I have pretty high expectations for myself, just in case you came across my blog in a google search or have never listened to me in your life. I've also joined two "clubs" in Portland, the "Portland Intellectual" club and the "Portland Philosophers" club. They both meet 1-2 times a month, and I really enjoy going to the meetings. They aren't everything I could wish for - as will always happen in discussion groups, certain people tend to dominate the discussion, and most people have a greater interest in expressing their personal view than they do in understanding the views of another...but all in all they are great, and I don't know how they could be better. They are both groups of people that love to think, that love to discuss topics that have some fundamental relevance to our lives and the way we live them...and I enjoy this type of discussion.
Work is going great. I don't feel overworked, and I don't work all that many hours in a given week - very rarely more than 40. I don't really enjoy spending all my time in front of the computer. I do enjoy my actual work though, with all of its problem solving and complications. I'm in a good financial situation right now as well...I'm hoping to have saved up enough money by the middle of next year to put down a sizable down payment on a $250k-350k house.
My mom and I still live together, and I'm thinking that's how it's going to be for the foreseeable future. It can be difficult - not because of anything she does wrong, but because, well, my mother lives with me - but I'm really happy that I'm able to be a part of her life as she gets older. She has told me before she wouldn't feel comfortable living alone, and I like that it brings our family closer together. When I visit my nephews or nieces, they get to have the experience of getting to know their grandmother and their uncle, and I think that's very valuable. I hope that Mom can stay a part of everyone's lives until the end - which is still a long way away.
I still play soccer 2-3 times a week. I play pickup soccer at lunch at my gym, and I stay anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours. I keep trying to get a routine going with weightlifting, but I just really don't enjoy it at all. Tennis, on the other hand, I do enjoy. I wish Matt (my brother) lived up here so he and I could go out and hit the tennis ball around a few times a week - but he's doing other things with his life right now. He's working on putting together a vocal album (with him doing the piano and the vocals) which I personally am very excited about. I don't know where he'll be in a year, though. Anyway, my personal piano prowess is plodding forward, but it hasn't been a priority for a while.
Well, that's how I'm doing, thanks for asking. How are you?
A part of that might be due to a lingering connection I still feel with Vy, the girlfriend I had during my time overseas. If you haven't heard, we're not together anymore. It was a difficult decision and I don't want to get into details here...regardless, it's still on my mind all this time later. I wonder how much my life experiences have influenced my relationships and my personal view on relationships and priorities. It seems everyone has advice, but it also seems that in the end relationship decisions are decisions we make alone.
I've been telling everyone that I've been reading a lot, and that was true, but I've slowed down in the last few weeks. I've discovered that I love having audio books in my car, and I listen pretty much exclusively to audio books when driving alone, which is often. I'm reading "Animal, Vegetable, Mineral" by Barbara Kingsolver right now. It's good, and even though it's a topic I felt I was largely familiar with, I find myself acting very differently despite my smug feeling of superiority as I read through the book. It is primarily about the merits of eating locally grown food and supporting local farmers, and of arranging our eating schedule around what is in season (vegetables and fruits only grow during certain times of the year!). I like the book, though if you're looking for a read I recommend John Robbins "Diet for a New America", although Diet is distinctly anti-meat where Kingsolver is a little more open-minded about it. As far as other reading material, just read through some of my last posts, it's been a common topic.
Our new TV has a lot to do with my slowed pace on reading. I watch TV sometimes now, though I still can't stand watching (and don't watch) "real" TV - that is to say, something that isn't pre-recorded so I can avoid advertisements. I really, really dislike intrusive advertisements and commercials...to the point, for example, that I don't like using the TV guide because one row is dedicated to advertising. I'm not sure what it is about advertising that gets under my skin, but I can truly and honestly say that I go to great lengths to avoid it.
I also have an Xbox 360 video game system that I picked up to play online games with friends. With the new TV, that sees occasional use as a movie player...very occasional use. OK, it's only ever played two movies, and I borrowed them both from the library.
I just finished another semester of German class. I like the people in my class, though it was a little disheartening to see how little I had learned in 8 months. I have pretty high expectations for myself, just in case you came across my blog in a google search or have never listened to me in your life. I've also joined two "clubs" in Portland, the "Portland Intellectual" club and the "Portland Philosophers" club. They both meet 1-2 times a month, and I really enjoy going to the meetings. They aren't everything I could wish for - as will always happen in discussion groups, certain people tend to dominate the discussion, and most people have a greater interest in expressing their personal view than they do in understanding the views of another...but all in all they are great, and I don't know how they could be better. They are both groups of people that love to think, that love to discuss topics that have some fundamental relevance to our lives and the way we live them...and I enjoy this type of discussion.
Work is going great. I don't feel overworked, and I don't work all that many hours in a given week - very rarely more than 40. I don't really enjoy spending all my time in front of the computer. I do enjoy my actual work though, with all of its problem solving and complications. I'm in a good financial situation right now as well...I'm hoping to have saved up enough money by the middle of next year to put down a sizable down payment on a $250k-350k house.
My mom and I still live together, and I'm thinking that's how it's going to be for the foreseeable future. It can be difficult - not because of anything she does wrong, but because, well, my mother lives with me - but I'm really happy that I'm able to be a part of her life as she gets older. She has told me before she wouldn't feel comfortable living alone, and I like that it brings our family closer together. When I visit my nephews or nieces, they get to have the experience of getting to know their grandmother and their uncle, and I think that's very valuable. I hope that Mom can stay a part of everyone's lives until the end - which is still a long way away.
I still play soccer 2-3 times a week. I play pickup soccer at lunch at my gym, and I stay anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours. I keep trying to get a routine going with weightlifting, but I just really don't enjoy it at all. Tennis, on the other hand, I do enjoy. I wish Matt (my brother) lived up here so he and I could go out and hit the tennis ball around a few times a week - but he's doing other things with his life right now. He's working on putting together a vocal album (with him doing the piano and the vocals) which I personally am very excited about. I don't know where he'll be in a year, though. Anyway, my personal piano prowess is plodding forward, but it hasn't been a priority for a while.
Well, that's how I'm doing, thanks for asking. How are you?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tao te Ching, 44
Fame or integrity: which is more important?
Money or happiness: which is more valuable?
Success or failure: which is more destructive?
If you look to others for fulfillment,
you will never truly be fulfilled.
If your happiness depends on money,
you will never be happy with yourself.
Be content with what you have;
rejoice in the way things are.
When you realize there is nothing lacking,
the whole world belongs to you.
Money or happiness: which is more valuable?
Success or failure: which is more destructive?
If you look to others for fulfillment,
you will never truly be fulfilled.
If your happiness depends on money,
you will never be happy with yourself.
Be content with what you have;
rejoice in the way things are.
When you realize there is nothing lacking,
the whole world belongs to you.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Living meaningfully: Tuesdays with Morrie edition
I recently picked up a book on tape at random from the library - "Tuesdays with Morrie". I thought it sounded interesting, and that perhaps I'd find a little-known gem that I could share with friends and family. It turns out that this book, unbeknownst to me, has already been read by everyone. Seriously, everyone I've mentioned it to has read it or can run me through at least its premise.
For those of you not in the loop, it details the story of a man too caught up in his career and life to realize that he's not living his life happily. He visits his old college professor who has been diagnosed with a Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS) and doesn't have a lot longer to live. It's about the life lessons the older man imparts to the younger. If it sounds trite or overly emotional, first...try not to be so jaded! It's an emotional, touching story, yes, but there really is something to learn: mostly due to the professor's practical wisdom - though his skills with aphorisms are also impressive. We might also learn from the drone-like everyman the author presents himself as. I have doubts as to the accuracy of his self-portrayal - it seems overly harsh, almost crafted to provide a more poignant contrast. Can the character the author portrayed transform enough to write such a wise and emotionally intelligent book? Ultimately it's unimportant, and perhaps the exaggerated portrayal widens the scope of his audience.
Mark Twain said the difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to be believable. This story could be dismissed as unlikely if it were fiction, so it's foundation in truth is fundamental. Read the book if you're interested, it's good, but let's move on to theoretical discussion.
I suppose the best place to start is with the foundation of Morrie's (our elder sage) life philosophy: Love one another. If we act from love and kindness for one another, we will have a happy life - or at least, a life we don't regret. Recognize the importance of relationships in our lives, and cultivate them. It is through our relationships with others that we can show who we are, and find happiness. Here's a few direct quotes:
So many people walk around with a meaningless life. They seem half asleep, even when they are busy doing things they think are important. This is because they're chasing the wrong things. The way you get meaning into your life is to devote yourself to loving others, devote yourself to your community around you, and devote yourself to creating something that gives you purpose and meaning.
"Dying is one thing to be sad about, living unhappily is another thing."
"The most important thing in life is to learn how to give out love, and to let it come in..."
That last point was really an important one to Morrie - he believed the foundation of our happiness was love. It's difficult for me to espouse this philosophy, even though I may agree with it: I blush just saying "Love is the answer". Maybe because it sounds imprecise or vague. It doesn't sound like someone who prides himself on his logical conclusions would say, it's too illogical, too emotional. Maybe there are too many people whose life philosophy we might quickly dismiss as misguided who say the same thing..."Love is the answer, man!" I can just imagine this line coming from a stereotypical hippie in some comedy routine, where he espouses the virtues of free love in between puffs of his joint. If there are people we disagree with who hold a viewpoint, it doesn't make the viewpoint wrong...not too mention media and entertainment aren't exactly known for historical accuracy or intellectual betterment.
It's not weak to talk about love, and it's not weak to want or to seek human connections. It's easy to make fun of, especially in our culture which holds no values sacred and no topic immune from the comic's wit. Unfortunately, it might be perceived weak to espouse the virtues of a love and caring based life. Modern society does not encourage the values that will allow us to live happily - there is instead a focus on possessions, on money, and on the trivial. It takes strength to follow a value in the face of criticism and mockery, and it takes strength to take a stand, to state your position plainly and proudly.* It takes strength to find and follow your own values.
"The culture we have does not make people feel good about themselves. and you have to be strong enough to say if the culture doesn't work, don't buy it."
Morrie had much to say in criticism of modern culture. Our culture does not necessarily have to be the way it is: culture is not just a deterministic extension of human nature. We can decide for ourselves if the things are is way that things should be. I've talked at length about the necessity of creating our own value systems - of living life the way we think is right - if we don't find a moral system that "fits". I see this idea that culture is something we can reject if it doesn't work as a similar idea (he came up with it before me).
"If you can accept that you can die at any time - then you might not be as ambitious as you are."
We really can die at any time. We'll all die someday. If you want to be happy when you die, make sure you live your life in a way that if you do die tomorrow, you won't die wishing you'd lived. Don't put off living life for the sake of anything.
Conclusions
Morrie's "one size fits-all" philosophy might seem at odds with my constant emphasis on finding our own answers. His emphasis on love might also seem separated from my emphasis on logic. I don't think this is the case. I think Morrie has provided a practical, livable philosophy. Where I primarily provide broad foundational philosophy: a how-to for value system creation, Morrie instead provides a working value system. I like his value system. I don't know if it will work for everyone, but that doesn't make it wrong. It's certainly extremely relevant in modern society - it's going to reach more people than my last post (not just because it was a bestseller).
* I went to a meeting for the "Intellectuals of Portland" recently, and was annoyed with a technique in the discussions: a refusal to state one's position clearly, or a refusal to admit an actual viewpoint. It's very easy to stand back and to criticize the faults or flaws of a particular stance, because every stance involves the acceptance of some things and the rejection of others. If we avoid actually taking a stance, we can avoid this criticism...but it's very counter-productive. Just because something cannot be criticized does not make it right, and just because something can be criticized does not make it wrong. Philosophy and morality are in a class of topics where the same answer can and will have multiple right answers.
One could say that I fall into the category of thinkers that I'm assailing when comparing me to Morrie. I provide broad foundational advice without actually stepping into the muck of controversy to come up with an actual system. Morrie has taken a stand, and created something good, and something controversial.
For those of you not in the loop, it details the story of a man too caught up in his career and life to realize that he's not living his life happily. He visits his old college professor who has been diagnosed with a Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS) and doesn't have a lot longer to live. It's about the life lessons the older man imparts to the younger. If it sounds trite or overly emotional, first...try not to be so jaded! It's an emotional, touching story, yes, but there really is something to learn: mostly due to the professor's practical wisdom - though his skills with aphorisms are also impressive. We might also learn from the drone-like everyman the author presents himself as. I have doubts as to the accuracy of his self-portrayal - it seems overly harsh, almost crafted to provide a more poignant contrast. Can the character the author portrayed transform enough to write such a wise and emotionally intelligent book? Ultimately it's unimportant, and perhaps the exaggerated portrayal widens the scope of his audience.
Mark Twain said the difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to be believable. This story could be dismissed as unlikely if it were fiction, so it's foundation in truth is fundamental. Read the book if you're interested, it's good, but let's move on to theoretical discussion.
I suppose the best place to start is with the foundation of Morrie's (our elder sage) life philosophy: Love one another. If we act from love and kindness for one another, we will have a happy life - or at least, a life we don't regret. Recognize the importance of relationships in our lives, and cultivate them. It is through our relationships with others that we can show who we are, and find happiness. Here's a few direct quotes:
So many people walk around with a meaningless life. They seem half asleep, even when they are busy doing things they think are important. This is because they're chasing the wrong things. The way you get meaning into your life is to devote yourself to loving others, devote yourself to your community around you, and devote yourself to creating something that gives you purpose and meaning.
"Dying is one thing to be sad about, living unhappily is another thing."
"The most important thing in life is to learn how to give out love, and to let it come in..."
That last point was really an important one to Morrie - he believed the foundation of our happiness was love. It's difficult for me to espouse this philosophy, even though I may agree with it: I blush just saying "Love is the answer". Maybe because it sounds imprecise or vague. It doesn't sound like someone who prides himself on his logical conclusions would say, it's too illogical, too emotional. Maybe there are too many people whose life philosophy we might quickly dismiss as misguided who say the same thing..."Love is the answer, man!" I can just imagine this line coming from a stereotypical hippie in some comedy routine, where he espouses the virtues of free love in between puffs of his joint. If there are people we disagree with who hold a viewpoint, it doesn't make the viewpoint wrong...not too mention media and entertainment aren't exactly known for historical accuracy or intellectual betterment.
It's not weak to talk about love, and it's not weak to want or to seek human connections. It's easy to make fun of, especially in our culture which holds no values sacred and no topic immune from the comic's wit. Unfortunately, it might be perceived weak to espouse the virtues of a love and caring based life. Modern society does not encourage the values that will allow us to live happily - there is instead a focus on possessions, on money, and on the trivial. It takes strength to follow a value in the face of criticism and mockery, and it takes strength to take a stand, to state your position plainly and proudly.* It takes strength to find and follow your own values.
"The culture we have does not make people feel good about themselves. and you have to be strong enough to say if the culture doesn't work, don't buy it."
Morrie had much to say in criticism of modern culture. Our culture does not necessarily have to be the way it is: culture is not just a deterministic extension of human nature. We can decide for ourselves if the things are is way that things should be. I've talked at length about the necessity of creating our own value systems - of living life the way we think is right - if we don't find a moral system that "fits". I see this idea that culture is something we can reject if it doesn't work as a similar idea (he came up with it before me).
"If you can accept that you can die at any time - then you might not be as ambitious as you are."
We really can die at any time. We'll all die someday. If you want to be happy when you die, make sure you live your life in a way that if you do die tomorrow, you won't die wishing you'd lived. Don't put off living life for the sake of anything.
Conclusions
Morrie's "one size fits-all" philosophy might seem at odds with my constant emphasis on finding our own answers. His emphasis on love might also seem separated from my emphasis on logic. I don't think this is the case. I think Morrie has provided a practical, livable philosophy. Where I primarily provide broad foundational philosophy: a how-to for value system creation, Morrie instead provides a working value system. I like his value system. I don't know if it will work for everyone, but that doesn't make it wrong. It's certainly extremely relevant in modern society - it's going to reach more people than my last post (not just because it was a bestseller).
* I went to a meeting for the "Intellectuals of Portland" recently, and was annoyed with a technique in the discussions: a refusal to state one's position clearly, or a refusal to admit an actual viewpoint. It's very easy to stand back and to criticize the faults or flaws of a particular stance, because every stance involves the acceptance of some things and the rejection of others. If we avoid actually taking a stance, we can avoid this criticism...but it's very counter-productive. Just because something cannot be criticized does not make it right, and just because something can be criticized does not make it wrong. Philosophy and morality are in a class of topics where the same answer can and will have multiple right answers.
One could say that I fall into the category of thinkers that I'm assailing when comparing me to Morrie. I provide broad foundational advice without actually stepping into the muck of controversy to come up with an actual system. Morrie has taken a stand, and created something good, and something controversial.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Living meaningfully in a godless world
"If there is no afterlife, what is the purpose of life? How can we find meaning in an existence without knowing there's something after this, something to live for?"
Scientific progress and better educational systems to explain them have slowly chipped away at the realm over which religion defines the rules for our reality. Somewhere in this process, our culture seems to have reached a bit of a tipping point. There are enough educated people now who openly question religion validity that it's become a mainstream issue. Instead of turning to a higher power, more people are looking within for answers first. As a consequence, more people have come to the conclusion that we may not have an existence after this life or as I personally believe, that the existence of an afterlife is unimportant to how life should be lived. This can be difficult to come to terms with, because if nothing follows life it can seem to take away the meaning of life. It doesn't. Life should be lived to be meaningful in and of itself, regardless of the existence of an afterlife.
What does it even mean, that life should be meaningful in and of itself? How is that even possible, if our life is extinguished the second we stop living? Why should we even care about making a difference in society that likely won't change much in our short time here? To me, the answer to this question is simple...almost a cop-out in its simplicity: it's a personal decision. We make our own decision about how to define meaningful. I wrote at length here about how whether we realize it or not, we're personally accountable for the decisions we make about how to live our life: this idea is simply builds off that concept to apply it on a philosophical level.
Theories abound about what the afterlife might be, but generally they share a common theme - it'll be better if you live "right". If we can let go of the idea that it's the end of our destination that is important and accept the importance of the journey itself, it becomes clear that our focus should be on life and not post-death. What does it mean that life should be meaningful in and of itself? It means an acceptance that life is its own reward. It means an appreciation and reverence for life, it means an acceptance of the potentials of our existence.
"How can we make our own priorities without a foundation? How can we know what is important and what we would find meaningful?"
The foundation for our priorities comes from our experiences and from our reason (or mind or consciousness, name it as you like). This is a very different step from the last 800 years, where religion provided societies and cultures with a shared moral foundation. We've all had different experiences and we all have different capacities and types of reason, and these fundamental differences will lead to a varied culture with different moral systems. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but this does allow religion to continue playing a role in our lives in the future - our spiritual leaders can provide well-reasoned moral foundations that can be shared among those who accept them. We can all, even now, follow an established faith or develop our own. In my experience, people willing to honestly devote thought and time to the development of their own systems generally come to share principles found across religions. This indicates a shared value system inherent in all of us: that is, these values are part of the experience of being human. The source of this shared humanity isn't material for this post, but author Joseph Campbell has a lot to say about similarities between cultural moral foundations in a number of his books (and in his Power of Myth interviews).
So if we decide to look within to find our priorities, how exactly do we do that? How can we know what is important to us? Unfortunately, that's a question I still don't have an answer for. We may all have to find our own personal solutions.
We use our priorities when we make decisions in life. We look within for answers, and we use our priorities to guide us. For me, my moral priorities come from a desire to live a life that I can be proud of. I want to be able to say, "Given what I knew when I made a decision, I'm not ashamed of the choices I made". I've tried not to shirk the burden of increasing what I know so that as my life continues I can make better informed decisions. It seems I'm always learning (whether I try to or not) and it's important to use our new knowledge to re-evaluate our priorities.
Let me finish by saying that it's not necessarily better to develop your own moral system. People have devoted their lives to this, and many religions have been founded from the teachings of these individuals. A wholehearted commitment to follow the moral framework laid out in a holy book that appeals to you is just as valid as developing your own. (The book Siddhartha by Herman Hesse is a fictional work on this topic)
"Well, we're still going to die, and nothing that we do is going to matter after that. Why bother with all this?"
Yes, we're going to die. It's possible that once we die, there's nothing more. Why should we bother troubling ourselves with all of this?
The simple truth is...with awareness, it's not an issue we can ignore. Once we recognize the power we have over our own life, I don't believe we can live a contented life ignoring that fact. In essence, we're not "troubling ourselves with all of this", instead we're going down the only path that can allow us to be truly happy in our existence here. A blissful ignorance is no longer possible with the recognition of personal power.
And that, really, is why it's worth bothering. Whether or not we have an afterlife is irrelevant to our time here: all we can do is make the most of our time on earth. Ultimately, we all define how to do that in our own way.
As I mentioned earlier, my answer to making the most of our time means living a life I'm proud of - not because of the pride itself, but rather the deep-seated contentedness and happiness that comes from a life well-lived.
Have you found your answer?
Scientific progress and better educational systems to explain them have slowly chipped away at the realm over which religion defines the rules for our reality. Somewhere in this process, our culture seems to have reached a bit of a tipping point. There are enough educated people now who openly question religion validity that it's become a mainstream issue. Instead of turning to a higher power, more people are looking within for answers first. As a consequence, more people have come to the conclusion that we may not have an existence after this life or as I personally believe, that the existence of an afterlife is unimportant to how life should be lived. This can be difficult to come to terms with, because if nothing follows life it can seem to take away the meaning of life. It doesn't. Life should be lived to be meaningful in and of itself, regardless of the existence of an afterlife.
What does it even mean, that life should be meaningful in and of itself? How is that even possible, if our life is extinguished the second we stop living? Why should we even care about making a difference in society that likely won't change much in our short time here? To me, the answer to this question is simple...almost a cop-out in its simplicity: it's a personal decision. We make our own decision about how to define meaningful. I wrote at length here about how whether we realize it or not, we're personally accountable for the decisions we make about how to live our life: this idea is simply builds off that concept to apply it on a philosophical level.
Theories abound about what the afterlife might be, but generally they share a common theme - it'll be better if you live "right". If we can let go of the idea that it's the end of our destination that is important and accept the importance of the journey itself, it becomes clear that our focus should be on life and not post-death. What does it mean that life should be meaningful in and of itself? It means an acceptance that life is its own reward. It means an appreciation and reverence for life, it means an acceptance of the potentials of our existence.
"How can we make our own priorities without a foundation? How can we know what is important and what we would find meaningful?"
The foundation for our priorities comes from our experiences and from our reason (or mind or consciousness, name it as you like). This is a very different step from the last 800 years, where religion provided societies and cultures with a shared moral foundation. We've all had different experiences and we all have different capacities and types of reason, and these fundamental differences will lead to a varied culture with different moral systems. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but this does allow religion to continue playing a role in our lives in the future - our spiritual leaders can provide well-reasoned moral foundations that can be shared among those who accept them. We can all, even now, follow an established faith or develop our own. In my experience, people willing to honestly devote thought and time to the development of their own systems generally come to share principles found across religions. This indicates a shared value system inherent in all of us: that is, these values are part of the experience of being human. The source of this shared humanity isn't material for this post, but author Joseph Campbell has a lot to say about similarities between cultural moral foundations in a number of his books (and in his Power of Myth interviews).
So if we decide to look within to find our priorities, how exactly do we do that? How can we know what is important to us? Unfortunately, that's a question I still don't have an answer for. We may all have to find our own personal solutions.
We use our priorities when we make decisions in life. We look within for answers, and we use our priorities to guide us. For me, my moral priorities come from a desire to live a life that I can be proud of. I want to be able to say, "Given what I knew when I made a decision, I'm not ashamed of the choices I made". I've tried not to shirk the burden of increasing what I know so that as my life continues I can make better informed decisions. It seems I'm always learning (whether I try to or not) and it's important to use our new knowledge to re-evaluate our priorities.
Let me finish by saying that it's not necessarily better to develop your own moral system. People have devoted their lives to this, and many religions have been founded from the teachings of these individuals. A wholehearted commitment to follow the moral framework laid out in a holy book that appeals to you is just as valid as developing your own. (The book Siddhartha by Herman Hesse is a fictional work on this topic)
"Well, we're still going to die, and nothing that we do is going to matter after that. Why bother with all this?"
Yes, we're going to die. It's possible that once we die, there's nothing more. Why should we bother troubling ourselves with all of this?
The simple truth is...with awareness, it's not an issue we can ignore. Once we recognize the power we have over our own life, I don't believe we can live a contented life ignoring that fact. In essence, we're not "troubling ourselves with all of this", instead we're going down the only path that can allow us to be truly happy in our existence here. A blissful ignorance is no longer possible with the recognition of personal power.
And that, really, is why it's worth bothering. Whether or not we have an afterlife is irrelevant to our time here: all we can do is make the most of our time on earth. Ultimately, we all define how to do that in our own way.
As I mentioned earlier, my answer to making the most of our time means living a life I'm proud of - not because of the pride itself, but rather the deep-seated contentedness and happiness that comes from a life well-lived.
Have you found your answer?
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Correction on Determinism & QM
Not all that long ago, I wrote about the implications quantum mechanics (quantum theory) might have on determinism and free will.
In any case, in a one-sentence summation, what this all means is that on an atomic level, things are non-deterministic - if one could somehow retrieve a state of the universe and all it's particles at one instant in time, one could not use this knowledge to infer what state they would be in at the next moment. One could only make predictions of likelihood.
This isn't entirely true, and I feel compelled to fix it, lest my readers go forth into the world without an understanding of the latest developments in quantum theory. It is true that one can't know, given the state of the universe or any system at a given time, what state it will be in at the next time. There are however, a fixed set of probabilities that can be determined, and a smaller subset of "highly likely" probabilities. If quantum theory can be so related to the decision making process, then the implication is that there are a fixed number of paths that are possible, and a small subset of paths that are likely.
This kind of one-to-one correlation with quantum theory makes me uncomfortable, because it seems to be an artificial attempt to tie two likely unrelated systems together. It may be the case that there is a relation between the decision making process and quantum theory, but if it exists it's probably not so tightly bound as what I'm saying here.
All of this said, it's worth noting that I've honestly moved on from the topic of determinism and free will. In 2006 a friend and I discussed the topic with some detail both on our respective blogs and personally, and after the time spent reviewing the different arguments and weighing each perspective, I came to a conclusion similar to John Locke's 17th century position: the whole idea is irrelevant. Locke had different reasons for coming to this conclusion, I think that whether or not we have an extremely good illusion of free will or actual free will it all comes out to the same thing - we should make our decisions based on what we think is right.
In any case, in a one-sentence summation, what this all means is that on an atomic level, things are non-deterministic - if one could somehow retrieve a state of the universe and all it's particles at one instant in time, one could not use this knowledge to infer what state they would be in at the next moment. One could only make predictions of likelihood.
This isn't entirely true, and I feel compelled to fix it, lest my readers go forth into the world without an understanding of the latest developments in quantum theory. It is true that one can't know, given the state of the universe or any system at a given time, what state it will be in at the next time. There are however, a fixed set of probabilities that can be determined, and a smaller subset of "highly likely" probabilities. If quantum theory can be so related to the decision making process, then the implication is that there are a fixed number of paths that are possible, and a small subset of paths that are likely.
This kind of one-to-one correlation with quantum theory makes me uncomfortable, because it seems to be an artificial attempt to tie two likely unrelated systems together. It may be the case that there is a relation between the decision making process and quantum theory, but if it exists it's probably not so tightly bound as what I'm saying here.
All of this said, it's worth noting that I've honestly moved on from the topic of determinism and free will. In 2006 a friend and I discussed the topic with some detail both on our respective blogs and personally, and after the time spent reviewing the different arguments and weighing each perspective, I came to a conclusion similar to John Locke's 17th century position: the whole idea is irrelevant. Locke had different reasons for coming to this conclusion, I think that whether or not we have an extremely good illusion of free will or actual free will it all comes out to the same thing - we should make our decisions based on what we think is right.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Franklin
I mentioned in a recent post that in reading the biography of Benjamin Franklin, I had decided to avoid idolization. Somehow, the knowledge of his flaws, his "human-ness", brought about a recognition of the fundamental humanity of everyone. It wasn't that I had thought Franklin was perfect, just extraordinary admirable and especially...motivated? True to his dreams? Something along those lines. In a sense I was right.
Benjamin Franklin was an extraordinary man who led an admirable life and likely had little to regret. Perhaps his most impressive traits were his tactful diplomacy and practical wisdom. These two traits were fundamental in his work in his later years negotiating with France to ensure the colonies independence and in his contributions to the drafting of the constitution in 1787. As he grew older (and presumably wiser) he turned his considerable aptitudes toward improving the "public good" - as opposed to a period in his twenties, where it seemed he was more focused on, well, financial success.
Richard Beeman recently wrote a book detailing the creation of the constitution: Plain, Honest Men. The Making of the American Constitution*. He discusses the compromises made by both sides to create it (including the compromise on slavery, which he presents disparagingly from my understanding). Franklin, 81 at the time, was a voice strongly in favor of compromise. His many years as a diplomat had taught him a lot about policy making. Statements like (paraphrased) "I have learned that men hotly expressing their viewpoints and their inability to change them rarely leads to a productive debate helped to put things in perspective for a number of men, who, like many I know, had their own flaws" really helped to nudge the political debate in a productive direction.
I won't be summing up his lifetime of achievements here (at least not in this post) - I just wanted to clarify is that Franklin led an exciting and productive life: I didn't mean to vilify him in my last post, he just happened to be the catalyst for one of my many personal revelations.
* This book review is by Walter Isaacson, the same author who wrote the book on Franklin that I, well, listened to. He also wrote the Einstein book! *
Benjamin Franklin was an extraordinary man who led an admirable life and likely had little to regret. Perhaps his most impressive traits were his tactful diplomacy and practical wisdom. These two traits were fundamental in his work in his later years negotiating with France to ensure the colonies independence and in his contributions to the drafting of the constitution in 1787. As he grew older (and presumably wiser) he turned his considerable aptitudes toward improving the "public good" - as opposed to a period in his twenties, where it seemed he was more focused on, well, financial success.
Richard Beeman recently wrote a book detailing the creation of the constitution: Plain, Honest Men. The Making of the American Constitution*. He discusses the compromises made by both sides to create it (including the compromise on slavery, which he presents disparagingly from my understanding). Franklin, 81 at the time, was a voice strongly in favor of compromise. His many years as a diplomat had taught him a lot about policy making. Statements like (paraphrased) "I have learned that men hotly expressing their viewpoints and their inability to change them rarely leads to a productive debate helped to put things in perspective for a number of men, who, like many I know, had their own flaws" really helped to nudge the political debate in a productive direction.
I won't be summing up his lifetime of achievements here (at least not in this post) - I just wanted to clarify is that Franklin led an exciting and productive life: I didn't mean to vilify him in my last post, he just happened to be the catalyst for one of my many personal revelations.
* This book review is by Walter Isaacson, the same author who wrote the book on Franklin that I, well, listened to. He also wrote the Einstein book! *
Monday, April 20, 2009
Shattering Idols
I'm going through Ben Franklin's biography - something I'm long overdue for, given my support of the man. He really accomplished so many spectacular things in his life.
What's interesting, though, is that he's human.
My 20s have really been a period of enrichment, maturation, and realizations. Introspection has helped me to recognize my limitations and flaws - I've never had a problem finding my strengths or confidence. There was a time when my recognition of these flaws was discouraging and disheartening. It's frustrating to deal with "minor" problems like motivation and bad habits when there are "more important" things you want to do with your life (please excuse the use of quotes - they're meaningful, but won't be explained here).
Experience and education have brought me another kind of knowledge - the knowledge of the humanity of everyone. Be it Einstein or Franklin, Paulo Coehlo or Stephen Covey, everyone has more than just personal demons to overcome - we all have personal flaws that we do not overcome. We all have weaknesses, and likely share weaknesses...and many of the most successful people never truly deal with them - their success comes in spite of personal flaws, or at least regardless of them.
I will no longer idolize people. I will admire people for their achievements. I might strive to match their determination or some other commendable quality, but I will not look up at them with naivete or deference to their superiority. I will look to my side, and attempt to see the man or woman who has done something extraordinary.
What's interesting, though, is that he's human.
My 20s have really been a period of enrichment, maturation, and realizations. Introspection has helped me to recognize my limitations and flaws - I've never had a problem finding my strengths or confidence. There was a time when my recognition of these flaws was discouraging and disheartening. It's frustrating to deal with "minor" problems like motivation and bad habits when there are "more important" things you want to do with your life (please excuse the use of quotes - they're meaningful, but won't be explained here).
Experience and education have brought me another kind of knowledge - the knowledge of the humanity of everyone. Be it Einstein or Franklin, Paulo Coehlo or Stephen Covey, everyone has more than just personal demons to overcome - we all have personal flaws that we do not overcome. We all have weaknesses, and likely share weaknesses...and many of the most successful people never truly deal with them - their success comes in spite of personal flaws, or at least regardless of them.
I will no longer idolize people. I will admire people for their achievements. I might strive to match their determination or some other commendable quality, but I will not look up at them with naivete or deference to their superiority. I will look to my side, and attempt to see the man or woman who has done something extraordinary.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Determinism and Quantum Mechanics
I've spoken at length in the past about determinism and free will, and the different philosophical views of various intellectuals on both sides of the camp.
As I learn a bit about quantum mechanics and it's implications, I'm intrigued and struck by the very relevant philosophical implications. I'm certain I'm not the first to notice it, and I'm also not educated enough in either field to make a truly useful analysis. Allow me to nevertheless speculate briefly on some of the consequences.
First, let's get a quick basis in quantum mechanics as relevant to philosophy. Observation of an object or a particle changes certain properties about it. This sounds unusual, but we don't have the time to run into the why or the how (and I guess no one can really explain the "how" anyway). Perhaps the simplest conceptual exercise is noting that it's impossible to know the position of an electron at any given point in time (or it's momentum). We can only predict a range of values.
If classical physics applied to atoms, atoms would collapse due to the magnetic attraction between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electron. Electrons aren't all in some amazingly coincidental orbit of the nucleus that pits them at just the right speed and distance to not "fall in" - electrons just operate with a different set of rules.
One other point of some relevance is that particles (presumably of any type) that come into contact with one another form a kind of bond (commonly referred to as entanglement) with one another. Although they are separated by space, through the measurement of one particle one can therefore "know" the position of another particle. I place know in quotes because it's actually a complicated process, and perhaps infer is a better word. The fact remains that it's the process of measurement that allows this to happen. No actual instantaneous change takes place in the non-measured particle. *1
In any case, in a one-sentence summation, what this all means is that on an atomic level, things are non-deterministic - if one could somehow retrieve a state of the universe and all it's particles at one instant in time, one could not use this knowledge to infer what state they would be in at the next moment.*2 One could only make predictions of likelihood. This is a seemingly grievous blow to the deterministic models of the universe stating that we currently live in the only possible consequence of the arrangement of atoms in the big bang all those years ago.
*1: I wonder at the implications of this even as I strive to understand it fully. If this were the case, and somehow the separated particles could be contained, could we develop some kind of practical application from this faster than light speed (literally instant) knowledge of particle location?
*2: I feel compelled to reiterate that it's impossible to know the state of the universe at any given state in time, because it's impossible to know the location and momentum of a given particle - it's only possible to measure one at a time.
As I learn a bit about quantum mechanics and it's implications, I'm intrigued and struck by the very relevant philosophical implications. I'm certain I'm not the first to notice it, and I'm also not educated enough in either field to make a truly useful analysis. Allow me to nevertheless speculate briefly on some of the consequences.
First, let's get a quick basis in quantum mechanics as relevant to philosophy. Observation of an object or a particle changes certain properties about it. This sounds unusual, but we don't have the time to run into the why or the how (and I guess no one can really explain the "how" anyway). Perhaps the simplest conceptual exercise is noting that it's impossible to know the position of an electron at any given point in time (or it's momentum). We can only predict a range of values.
If classical physics applied to atoms, atoms would collapse due to the magnetic attraction between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electron. Electrons aren't all in some amazingly coincidental orbit of the nucleus that pits them at just the right speed and distance to not "fall in" - electrons just operate with a different set of rules.
One other point of some relevance is that particles (presumably of any type) that come into contact with one another form a kind of bond (commonly referred to as entanglement) with one another. Although they are separated by space, through the measurement of one particle one can therefore "know" the position of another particle. I place know in quotes because it's actually a complicated process, and perhaps infer is a better word. The fact remains that it's the process of measurement that allows this to happen. No actual instantaneous change takes place in the non-measured particle. *1
In any case, in a one-sentence summation, what this all means is that on an atomic level, things are non-deterministic - if one could somehow retrieve a state of the universe and all it's particles at one instant in time, one could not use this knowledge to infer what state they would be in at the next moment.*2 One could only make predictions of likelihood. This is a seemingly grievous blow to the deterministic models of the universe stating that we currently live in the only possible consequence of the arrangement of atoms in the big bang all those years ago.
*1: I wonder at the implications of this even as I strive to understand it fully. If this were the case, and somehow the separated particles could be contained, could we develop some kind of practical application from this faster than light speed (literally instant) knowledge of particle location?
*2: I feel compelled to reiterate that it's impossible to know the state of the universe at any given state in time, because it's impossible to know the location and momentum of a given particle - it's only possible to measure one at a time.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Understanding the theory of relativity
As I mentioned in my last post, I'm reading a biography on Einstein. Not surprisingly, a good portion of the book is devoted to the portion of his life where he developed the theory of relativity - commonly simplified to the equation that relates energy and mass, E=mc². There's more to it than this - read on if you're interested in getting Aaron's simplified summary (or you can go to the wiki for a much more detailed explanation, or just read a book or two :).
Special Theory of Relativity
The theory of relativity was actually developed in two stages, starting with the Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein would not fully complete the general theory of relativity until 10 years after the release of his special theory of relativity. The reason it's called the relativity theory (as far as I can tell) is that it exposes a relativity in a number of measurements that were previously thought to be constant - specifically, it outlines the relativity of time, mass, and dimensions. This means that time, mass, and dimensions are all relative depending upon the observer. There is no absolute or correct frame of reference, though on Earth we all share a frame of reference which allows us to experience time, mass, and dimensions similarly.
Despite all this relativity, the speed of light does not appear to be relative to the observer. A useful method of comprehending this is by imagining you're standing by the rails for an oncoming train at night. The train has a headlight at it's front end, and the train is speeding towards you at 200 mph. The light from the headlight of the train will still be measurable as the constant speed of light - 299,792,458 meters / s (186000 miles/second). It does not travel faster even though it's being broadcast from a source that is moving relative to you. This would not be the case if the conductor threw a water balloon at you from the moving train. The water balloon would slow down quickly due to air resistance, but it's initial speed would be the speed of the train + the speed of the conductor's throw. Ouch.*1
The reason the speed of light appears to be non-relative is because as an object approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases and time slows (decreases) relative to an observer. Light is moving at the maximum speed allowed in our universe at any given moment. Light (photons) have no mass, so the increase in mass is irrelevant.*2 The current belief is that it's impossible for an object with mass to be accelerated to the speed of light, and it's impossible for a massless object to not move at the speed of light. *3
Time changes depending on your frame of reference, which makes time relative. As a consequence, time passes differently for objects moving at extremely different speeds. This is, to an extent, common knowledge at this point. We've likely all heard of the experiments where a clock was sent into space and orbited at high speed while a control clock was left on the earth...and the clocks having different times when they are brought back together. A less discussed consequence is relativity of simultaneity - that is, that something that appears simultaneous for one observer will appear so to an observer moving at a high speed. Thematically, this is easy to understand, though it seems counter intuitive.
Perhaps the most difficult consequence of relativity to accept is that is changes the perceived dimensions of an object. Time being slowed is unusual, but time is already somewhat abstract, so conceptually it's not that difficult to accept. An increase in mass is unusual, but not groundbreaking. Accepting that an object will have different dimensions (it decreases in length relative to the direction of movement to the observer's frame of reference) is the most difficult for me to accept or understand.
As a final point (which may not have been introduced until Einstein later developed the general theory of relativity), there's an interesting thought experiment to help us comprehend our universe and hopes to answer the question of a finite or infinite universe (both of which seem impossible). The universe is, in a sense, both. It wraps around itself, so that traveling far enough in a single direction will eventually bring you back to where you started. This is difficult to imagine in a 3-dimensional world...and that's what the thought experiment is for!
Imagine a 2 dimensional being on a 2 dimensional world - for example, a dot on a piece of paper with no thickness, only a surface. As it stands, the dot can travel to the edges of the paper, and, well, find an end. Now imagine the paper is curled to create a sphere. To us, this paper becomes a 3-dimensional object, but to our 2 dimensional dot, there is no change. He doesn't know the paper "curves" in a way he could never understand. In addition, there are now no more edges to his universe. That was the explanation Einstein gave for our universe - sadly I don't yet know enough about physics to see where this theory is at currently.
I may try to simplify the General Theory of Relativity in a later post (the primary difference is that it encompasses gravity) but I don't feel that I understand it sufficiently yet.
*1 - This would not be true if the sum of the velocities of the train and the power of the conductor's water-balloon throw exceeded the speed of light, due to the velocity addition formula.
*2 - The Large Hadron Collider is a particle accelerator. What it does is increase the velocity of a two protons to near the speed of light (greatly increasing their mass relative to us) and then run them into each other. The plan is to observe the effects of this collision)
*3 - Light (photons) can be slowed when it enters a refractive substance. When photons slow, they gains mass (from atoms in the refractive substance). This new particle, a photon with mass, is called a polaritron. Light has been slowed to 38 miles per hour.
Special Theory of Relativity
The theory of relativity was actually developed in two stages, starting with the Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein would not fully complete the general theory of relativity until 10 years after the release of his special theory of relativity. The reason it's called the relativity theory (as far as I can tell) is that it exposes a relativity in a number of measurements that were previously thought to be constant - specifically, it outlines the relativity of time, mass, and dimensions. This means that time, mass, and dimensions are all relative depending upon the observer. There is no absolute or correct frame of reference, though on Earth we all share a frame of reference which allows us to experience time, mass, and dimensions similarly.
Despite all this relativity, the speed of light does not appear to be relative to the observer. A useful method of comprehending this is by imagining you're standing by the rails for an oncoming train at night. The train has a headlight at it's front end, and the train is speeding towards you at 200 mph. The light from the headlight of the train will still be measurable as the constant speed of light - 299,792,458 meters / s (186000 miles/second). It does not travel faster even though it's being broadcast from a source that is moving relative to you. This would not be the case if the conductor threw a water balloon at you from the moving train. The water balloon would slow down quickly due to air resistance, but it's initial speed would be the speed of the train + the speed of the conductor's throw. Ouch.*1
The reason the speed of light appears to be non-relative is because as an object approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases and time slows (decreases) relative to an observer. Light is moving at the maximum speed allowed in our universe at any given moment. Light (photons) have no mass, so the increase in mass is irrelevant.*2 The current belief is that it's impossible for an object with mass to be accelerated to the speed of light, and it's impossible for a massless object to not move at the speed of light. *3
Time changes depending on your frame of reference, which makes time relative. As a consequence, time passes differently for objects moving at extremely different speeds. This is, to an extent, common knowledge at this point. We've likely all heard of the experiments where a clock was sent into space and orbited at high speed while a control clock was left on the earth...and the clocks having different times when they are brought back together. A less discussed consequence is relativity of simultaneity - that is, that something that appears simultaneous for one observer will appear so to an observer moving at a high speed. Thematically, this is easy to understand, though it seems counter intuitive.
Perhaps the most difficult consequence of relativity to accept is that is changes the perceived dimensions of an object. Time being slowed is unusual, but time is already somewhat abstract, so conceptually it's not that difficult to accept. An increase in mass is unusual, but not groundbreaking. Accepting that an object will have different dimensions (it decreases in length relative to the direction of movement to the observer's frame of reference) is the most difficult for me to accept or understand.
As a final point (which may not have been introduced until Einstein later developed the general theory of relativity), there's an interesting thought experiment to help us comprehend our universe and hopes to answer the question of a finite or infinite universe (both of which seem impossible). The universe is, in a sense, both. It wraps around itself, so that traveling far enough in a single direction will eventually bring you back to where you started. This is difficult to imagine in a 3-dimensional world...and that's what the thought experiment is for!
Imagine a 2 dimensional being on a 2 dimensional world - for example, a dot on a piece of paper with no thickness, only a surface. As it stands, the dot can travel to the edges of the paper, and, well, find an end. Now imagine the paper is curled to create a sphere. To us, this paper becomes a 3-dimensional object, but to our 2 dimensional dot, there is no change. He doesn't know the paper "curves" in a way he could never understand. In addition, there are now no more edges to his universe. That was the explanation Einstein gave for our universe - sadly I don't yet know enough about physics to see where this theory is at currently.
I may try to simplify the General Theory of Relativity in a later post (the primary difference is that it encompasses gravity) but I don't feel that I understand it sufficiently yet.
*1 - This would not be true if the sum of the velocities of the train and the power of the conductor's water-balloon throw exceeded the speed of light, due to the velocity addition formula.
*2 - The Large Hadron Collider is a particle accelerator. What it does is increase the velocity of a two protons to near the speed of light (greatly increasing their mass relative to us) and then run them into each other. The plan is to observe the effects of this collision)
*3 - Light (photons) can be slowed when it enters a refractive substance. When photons slow, they gains mass (from atoms in the refractive substance). This new particle, a photon with mass, is called a polaritron. Light has been slowed to 38 miles per hour.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Relationships
Why is it that people get married? I don't mean "Why does marriage exist" but rather, what are the reasons that we choose to live and likely share our life with another person?
Naturally, reasons vary from person to person. There are a variety of practical reasons to marry someone you're in a relationship with, but they are rarely cited as the actual "raison d'etre" for the finalization of a marriage. Generally speaking, the primary reason people will cite is love (that's not necessarily a bad thing!).
It does, however, warrant clarification. As I've experienced life, I've often heard a philosophy - especially among the more intellectual married - that love has very little to do with feeling. Often, initially, it has a lot to do with feeling, but a lasting love is based upon effort, persistence, and choices. Love, to cite the overused idiom, is a choice. Some days, it's a more difficult choice than others.
Love as a choice makes sense to me. It's not and likely never will be a universally shared view...but part of maturity is learning to accept that there are multiple answers to many questions, and that life experiences and genetics can and do create situations where different answers to the same question are correct for different people. For me, love as a choice is not only the way I want it to be, it's the only possibility I can accept. It's as apparent as 2 + 2 = 4. I'd argue that my "faith" in that possibility reinforces it for me and talk about how we create our own realities...but I won't talk about that in this post.
What is the motivation behind a choice for love? What is it those in a relationship look for in a lifetime partner? I've been struggling with this question for quite a while, after I chose to end my semi-successful relationship overseas not because I was unhappy, but because I made a decision that it wasn't the type of relationship I wanted to have.
It's more than a little audacious to compare myself to Einstein, but I'm reading his biography right now. His experience in relationships was, to me, quite interesting. Let me tell you about them.
Einstein's first serious relationship was with beautiful woman a few years older than him while he was in his late teens. The woman was gracious, caring, and deeply infatuated with Einstein. She was in no way Einstein's intellectual equal, and on an intellectual level was completely unsatisfying for the young physicist. He broke off the relationship, much to her dismay. Einstein wrote a letter to her father apologizing for ending the relationship because he knew what an effect it would have on her. He felt a lot of guilt; my personal feeling on the matter is that the guilt was due to his complete inability to return any kind of love. The limerence (now an accepted concept for me) went away, and nothing was left for him. She, sadly, had a nervous breakdown shortly after her relationship with Einstein ended.
Einstein's second serious relationship was with a fellow classmate from his University: Maric. Maric was able to have intelligent discussions with him about topics that interested him greatly. They also shared a a bit of an "outsider" attitude and a general disrespect for authority. They dated through their university years, but Maric was unable to graduate from the advanced physics course and therefore unable to continue to graduate school.
Maric and Einstein were married, and their relationship still had a strong tie to their shared intellectual interests. As one might predict, this foundation proved shaky. Over the next 10 years, Einstein continued his schooling, formulated theories, met with the most intelligent and most highly regarded physicists of the world as he attempted to complete his theory of relativity and a related theory about the wave/particle properties of light. Maric stayed home and raised their children, shutting the door to any opportunity for her to keep any kind of pace with Einstein. Not surprisingly, she basically dropped out of the academic world completely.
This relationship did not function well. Both Einstein and Maric were eventually unhappy - Maric dissatisfied and depressed, Einstein annoyed and seemingly uninterested.
Einstein divorced (eventually, you're getting the short story here), and remarried a non-scholar (his first cousin Ilse, actually). Ilse was not educated, and wanted nothing more from life than a husband and to take care of the household and to support her husband. I can't tell you how this relationship ended...I'm still in the middle of the book. At the very least, there is some happiness in the relationship.
Are relationships with a strong intellectual component doomed to run into difficulties due to the realities of family-raising and a woman's undeniably heavy role in that process? Given, this is a single example of a rather unusual case, but the fact is that that if we choose to grow in life (as opposed to stagnating, surprisingly a common choice), we all change in different ways. Relationships that form due to shared interests will likely find that over the course of time one or both individuals will disagree at a fork, and go different ways. The shared interest will not always be there.
Is it a better answer then to take Einstein's path? Give up on attempting to find a partner that can satisfy intellectual needs (let the social and possibly work environments deal with that), and instead focus on finding a partner that you get along with in a domestic environment? There is no right answer...I'm only seeking my answer.
Naturally, reasons vary from person to person. There are a variety of practical reasons to marry someone you're in a relationship with, but they are rarely cited as the actual "raison d'etre" for the finalization of a marriage. Generally speaking, the primary reason people will cite is love (that's not necessarily a bad thing!).
It does, however, warrant clarification. As I've experienced life, I've often heard a philosophy - especially among the more intellectual married - that love has very little to do with feeling. Often, initially, it has a lot to do with feeling, but a lasting love is based upon effort, persistence, and choices. Love, to cite the overused idiom, is a choice. Some days, it's a more difficult choice than others.
Love as a choice makes sense to me. It's not and likely never will be a universally shared view...but part of maturity is learning to accept that there are multiple answers to many questions, and that life experiences and genetics can and do create situations where different answers to the same question are correct for different people. For me, love as a choice is not only the way I want it to be, it's the only possibility I can accept. It's as apparent as 2 + 2 = 4. I'd argue that my "faith" in that possibility reinforces it for me and talk about how we create our own realities...but I won't talk about that in this post.
What is the motivation behind a choice for love? What is it those in a relationship look for in a lifetime partner? I've been struggling with this question for quite a while, after I chose to end my semi-successful relationship overseas not because I was unhappy, but because I made a decision that it wasn't the type of relationship I wanted to have.
It's more than a little audacious to compare myself to Einstein, but I'm reading his biography right now. His experience in relationships was, to me, quite interesting. Let me tell you about them.
Einstein's first serious relationship was with beautiful woman a few years older than him while he was in his late teens. The woman was gracious, caring, and deeply infatuated with Einstein. She was in no way Einstein's intellectual equal, and on an intellectual level was completely unsatisfying for the young physicist. He broke off the relationship, much to her dismay. Einstein wrote a letter to her father apologizing for ending the relationship because he knew what an effect it would have on her. He felt a lot of guilt; my personal feeling on the matter is that the guilt was due to his complete inability to return any kind of love. The limerence (now an accepted concept for me) went away, and nothing was left for him. She, sadly, had a nervous breakdown shortly after her relationship with Einstein ended.
Einstein's second serious relationship was with a fellow classmate from his University: Maric. Maric was able to have intelligent discussions with him about topics that interested him greatly. They also shared a a bit of an "outsider" attitude and a general disrespect for authority. They dated through their university years, but Maric was unable to graduate from the advanced physics course and therefore unable to continue to graduate school.
Maric and Einstein were married, and their relationship still had a strong tie to their shared intellectual interests. As one might predict, this foundation proved shaky. Over the next 10 years, Einstein continued his schooling, formulated theories, met with the most intelligent and most highly regarded physicists of the world as he attempted to complete his theory of relativity and a related theory about the wave/particle properties of light. Maric stayed home and raised their children, shutting the door to any opportunity for her to keep any kind of pace with Einstein. Not surprisingly, she basically dropped out of the academic world completely.
This relationship did not function well. Both Einstein and Maric were eventually unhappy - Maric dissatisfied and depressed, Einstein annoyed and seemingly uninterested.
Einstein divorced (eventually, you're getting the short story here), and remarried a non-scholar (his first cousin Ilse, actually). Ilse was not educated, and wanted nothing more from life than a husband and to take care of the household and to support her husband. I can't tell you how this relationship ended...I'm still in the middle of the book. At the very least, there is some happiness in the relationship.
Are relationships with a strong intellectual component doomed to run into difficulties due to the realities of family-raising and a woman's undeniably heavy role in that process? Given, this is a single example of a rather unusual case, but the fact is that that if we choose to grow in life (as opposed to stagnating, surprisingly a common choice), we all change in different ways. Relationships that form due to shared interests will likely find that over the course of time one or both individuals will disagree at a fork, and go different ways. The shared interest will not always be there.
Is it a better answer then to take Einstein's path? Give up on attempting to find a partner that can satisfy intellectual needs (let the social and possibly work environments deal with that), and instead focus on finding a partner that you get along with in a domestic environment? There is no right answer...I'm only seeking my answer.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The most important thing...
I've often thought (and probably said more than once, over the years) that my most crucial realizations in and about life are the most difficult to share. I think this is a trait shared by many thinkers of many languages. Surprisingly, this difficulty is not caused by an inherent complexity; it's an unambiguity, a clarity, a base simplicity. When spoken aloud or shared, they simply sound trite or basic - sometimes like a simplified version of the moral to a children's fairy tale, other times elementary and obvious.
I want this to be clear before I share one of my crucial realizations with my many, many blog readers out there.
It is a truth of unequivocal importance. It's one of the few moral absolutes I would strive to impart to any children I might have, and it's a fact that I recognize every day.
My first and most important resource is myself.
What do I mean? I mean that for every decision we make in life, the only resource we have comes from within. That's not to say we can't rely on other people, find or worship a greater power, or have any of a variety of forms of dependency or cooperation. It is to say that our only mechanism for evaluation of outside resources (such as other people or a higher power) is our own. We can use whichever moral standard we wish, but it is a choice before it becomes a method.
For example, it's not wrong to be a Christian and believe whatever you want to believe - as long as you recognize that your faith is due to your own choices, as long as you recognize that it is, on some level, a decision. Resources aren't necessarily only logical: you can give as much or as little value as you want to the non-material, the unprovable, feelings and intuition, or any other resource you want to place your trust in. All that is required is that given your knowledge and experience, your choice is the choice you believe is the right one.
A wholehearted and conscious recognition of one's own role in one's own life is a responsible decision. It removes the possibility for some excuses...but opens the door for others. Realistically, any type of lifestyle is justifiable with this philosophy, so long as you can convince yourself that you're doing what you believe is best given your resources. Consequently, this isn't a useful tool in evaluating the motives or actions of others. It can only be used on the self...and only then with a stark honesty to the self few people are willing to muster.
With an acknowledgment of this truth it is consequentially true that self-improvement (especially education) is an invaluable boon. As you gain more knowledge and capability, you gain a greater capacity to make informed decisions about your life. There's nothing wrong with accepting a moral doctrine from an established entity, and often it's the most efficient decision to make - but the more knowledge you have to work with, the better skills you will have to evaluate not only which entity you wish to follow, but also how to classify ambiguous situations.
As life continues, we all grow and change. As I pass through my early 20s (still young, by many standards) I seem to find many people my age already in a rut of some kind - either sticking with decisions made years ago by a younger, less experienced self or looping through a perpetual cycle and stagnating. Physiologically there are reasons for this, but that doesn't mean it's in any way unavoidable. Re-evaluate your life decisions using the only resource you truly have: yourself.
I want this to be clear before I share one of my crucial realizations with my many, many blog readers out there.
It is a truth of unequivocal importance. It's one of the few moral absolutes I would strive to impart to any children I might have, and it's a fact that I recognize every day.
My first and most important resource is myself.
What do I mean? I mean that for every decision we make in life, the only resource we have comes from within. That's not to say we can't rely on other people, find or worship a greater power, or have any of a variety of forms of dependency or cooperation. It is to say that our only mechanism for evaluation of outside resources (such as other people or a higher power) is our own. We can use whichever moral standard we wish, but it is a choice before it becomes a method.
For example, it's not wrong to be a Christian and believe whatever you want to believe - as long as you recognize that your faith is due to your own choices, as long as you recognize that it is, on some level, a decision. Resources aren't necessarily only logical: you can give as much or as little value as you want to the non-material, the unprovable, feelings and intuition, or any other resource you want to place your trust in. All that is required is that given your knowledge and experience, your choice is the choice you believe is the right one.
A wholehearted and conscious recognition of one's own role in one's own life is a responsible decision. It removes the possibility for some excuses...but opens the door for others. Realistically, any type of lifestyle is justifiable with this philosophy, so long as you can convince yourself that you're doing what you believe is best given your resources. Consequently, this isn't a useful tool in evaluating the motives or actions of others. It can only be used on the self...and only then with a stark honesty to the self few people are willing to muster.
With an acknowledgment of this truth it is consequentially true that self-improvement (especially education) is an invaluable boon. As you gain more knowledge and capability, you gain a greater capacity to make informed decisions about your life. There's nothing wrong with accepting a moral doctrine from an established entity, and often it's the most efficient decision to make - but the more knowledge you have to work with, the better skills you will have to evaluate not only which entity you wish to follow, but also how to classify ambiguous situations.
As life continues, we all grow and change. As I pass through my early 20s (still young, by many standards) I seem to find many people my age already in a rut of some kind - either sticking with decisions made years ago by a younger, less experienced self or looping through a perpetual cycle and stagnating. Physiologically there are reasons for this, but that doesn't mean it's in any way unavoidable. Re-evaluate your life decisions using the only resource you truly have: yourself.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Healthy Legislation
Link to senate hearing...I didn't watch the whole thing.
This is a link to a senate hearing with "integrative medicine" representatives Andrew Weil, Mehmet Oz, Dean Onish and Mark Hyman. It's simply an exploratory meeting, but the four doctors clarified what they felt was a major problem with the American Health Care system: a focus on disease management rather than illness prevention. The major suggestions revolved around better education: mostly in schools.
According to the initial speaker, Obama urged Congress to pass a new health related bill, and Obama also hoped for a focus on prevention. I don't know that this exploratory committee will be take things further, but I certainly believe it's a step in the right direction...and the kind of common sense legislation that will be largely supported by many Americans, especially those not following their party line. The "party line" condition is necessary only because I foresee the Republican party opposing this legislation, if it somehow becomes popular, with some variant of "The government shouldn't tell us how to live". If you're reading my blog, I'd hope you don't need me to point out the straw man. I suppose secondarily they could attack one of the doctors with claims of "quackery", which is almost a legitimate argument (ad hominem for you fallacy lovers). Almost legitimate because, if their proposed health solutions are ineffective, that's a valid reason not to use them. I personally don't think that's the case, and I think this is a perfect example of when the government should step in: not to do what's profitable, but to do what's necessary.
Slight off-topic: Obama, since taking office, has governed in a method I agree with. I don't agree with every decision (ie, I'm not convinced of the viability of the economic stimulus) but I appreciate the transparency and accountability he attempts to bring to the office and to our highest levels of government.
This is a link to a senate hearing with "integrative medicine" representatives Andrew Weil, Mehmet Oz, Dean Onish and Mark Hyman. It's simply an exploratory meeting, but the four doctors clarified what they felt was a major problem with the American Health Care system: a focus on disease management rather than illness prevention. The major suggestions revolved around better education: mostly in schools.
According to the initial speaker, Obama urged Congress to pass a new health related bill, and Obama also hoped for a focus on prevention. I don't know that this exploratory committee will be take things further, but I certainly believe it's a step in the right direction...and the kind of common sense legislation that will be largely supported by many Americans, especially those not following their party line. The "party line" condition is necessary only because I foresee the Republican party opposing this legislation, if it somehow becomes popular, with some variant of "The government shouldn't tell us how to live". If you're reading my blog, I'd hope you don't need me to point out the straw man. I suppose secondarily they could attack one of the doctors with claims of "quackery", which is almost a legitimate argument (ad hominem for you fallacy lovers). Almost legitimate because, if their proposed health solutions are ineffective, that's a valid reason not to use them. I personally don't think that's the case, and I think this is a perfect example of when the government should step in: not to do what's profitable, but to do what's necessary.
Slight off-topic: Obama, since taking office, has governed in a method I agree with. I don't agree with every decision (ie, I'm not convinced of the viability of the economic stimulus) but I appreciate the transparency and accountability he attempts to bring to the office and to our highest levels of government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
