This thou perceiv’st, which makes thy love more strong,
~ Shakespeare Sonnet number 72
To love that well, which thou must leave ere long.
What happens if you’re in love with a young woman and, with age, her beauty fades? Old love.
ɕ
This thou perceiv’st
Find evidence for a comparison of President Obama to Stalin
Upon reading my title, were you…
a) incredulous; you disagree with the premise.
b) happy; you agree with the premise.
c) curious; you already understand what this blog post is about.
d) other; because this author isn’t omniscient, (and you can stop reading now.)
This post is about logic, discourse and discussion; Not in a dry, academic sense, but in the sense that, “lack of logic, discourse and discussion is the root problem in America today.” It’s just a bonus that I have a wickedly inflammatory example to use as a framework for this post to keep things interesting and lively.
Background
The catalyst for this post was a news item which I stumbled upon via Facebook:
‘Obama socialism’ homework angers students at Cobb County high school
Knowing that the news outlet will eventually move/remove that story, at right is an image of the homework assignment in question. The original news story indicated this was from a social studies class at the high school level.
After seeing the news item posted on Facebook by a friend, I shared the link to the CBS Atlanta affiliate’s story. Two of my friends — and I mean “friends” in the real world sense of people with whom I would break bread, or to whom I would give money — joined me in the comment thread. (Names withheld here of course.) My first “wait what?” comment is the one I included with my sharing of the news item; These comments are unedited, just as they appeared on Facebook.
Craig: wait what?
I don’t see any problem. Did the verb ‘compare’ get a new definition? The first definition from dictionary.com is…
“to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences: to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.” (It’s even apropos!)
So, upon comparing the two items in question, students might draw various conclusions; The items are similar, or different, to varying degrees.
mmmmmmmmm, semantics and pragmatism for the win.
Person A: I don’t know exactly what the teacher said when setting the tone for this assignment but in the article “find evidence for a comparison” is a leading statement. Otherwise as you suggested, you just compare. “Compare (and contrast) the change in Russia during the time of Stalin and Lenin, with the change in the United States during the time of Obama.” The notion that the time period in question for the United States is marked by a shift from capitalism to socialism is plain heresay. I don’t know enough about the evolution of Russia to suggest whether that shift is also heresay. The leading and heresay reaks of a “teacher” agenda.
Craig: how does “find evidence” change the meaning of the word “compare”? …it certainly means one may not simply state opinion when comparing. But does “find evidence” bias “compare”? If the question had said “contrast” the teo, that’d be leading since contrast means highlight the diffs. But “compare” is very clearly NOT an antonym of contrast. “compare” is neutral.
Person A: I don’t disagree with your posted definition of compare. That is clear. “Find evidence for comparison” clearly suggest (to me) that the author does believe that compare is an antonym of contrast. You simply compare. if you “find evidence to compare” this suggest to me that you are looking for parallels, how are the two things similar or the same, in other words find evidence that these two things are similiar. If you simply compare two things it will be evident if they are similar or dissimilar. semantics perhaps.
Person B: What I believed to be in poor taste, and the reason I posted the article, is that there is a pretty clear motive in comparing someone like Stalin, a clearly awful figure in human history, with the current president. It is, to me, a pretty obvious dig on someone that the teacher in question just doesn’t like. If this were a purely intellectual exercise, sure. Why not. But invoking the name of ‘Stalin’ never brings up a discussion of what socialism is and what it does and doesn’t do *first*, it brings up themes of genocide and corrupt government.
Craig: I find this discussion to be very interesting. There’s something at the center here; Something which I can’t quite identify… perhaps it’s the projection of, what one assumes one knows about the teacher, onto the instructions. Why do that? I mean, wouldn’t it make more sense (as a student following the assignment, or a person generally in life) to just follow the instructions guided by your own person context?
So you see these instructions. You think about the teacher’s sub-text — whatever you think about the teacher, they’re wrong in their bias, they’re right, they’re intending satire, whatever. Then you proceed on the assignment. Why must one (who is given the assignment) “react”, when one could “converse/discuss/discover” based on the direction given.
If this story had been about a kid failing (or getting a zero etc) for showing evidence why the President is different, THEN I’d have an issue.
Person C: I’m on board with Craig on this. The language of the assignment was pointed, but whether it is inflammatory is based on the views of the reader. In the end, the assignment may have left an impression of what the teacher’s viewpoint may be, but it does not direct the student to provide a conclusion that conforms to that viewpoint. It may just be a happy accident, but this assignment provides the opportunity for the offended students to confront a differing or even opposing viewpoint and argue rationally against it rather than hiding the fact that viewpoint exists. I have to say that the idea that the principal pressured the teacher to withdraw the assignment and then disavow the teacher as a “fill-in” was a cop-out…better to work with the teacher to reword the assignment to preserve the intent– including providing a potentially inflammatory topic–and make sure the students understand they are to express their opinions on the matter and argue their points freely.
Craig: I still agree with my initial thoughts. But, I’m changing my position…
I don’t believe *high school* students possess the same strength of individual thinking that I have. (Which is not meant to be derogatory. I’m simply trying to peel away my bias in assessing the issue.) So the teacher holds an increased responsibility to present work/questions/assignments in a way that ensures the primary goal of the work/Q/A is education.
The core of the assignment is clearly legit: “find evidence for a comparison of A to B”. But the context and connotation brought by the actual examples is too strong. If the teacher had added just the slightest nudge, something like, “You may find evidence for your comparison to support the similarities or differences of these two cases,” then I’d stand to my original position. Or, if the class had been a debate class, or college level social studies, then too it would be fine. However, as it was written, in a high school social studies class: It’s too biased.
(I also agree with the comment that the administration handled it wrong. But that’s an entirely different cup of tea.)
Logic, Discourse, Discussion
I hope you were struck by the dissection of ideas; the point and counterpoint; the sifting of wheat from chaff. That comment thread hosted some enlightened sparring! (*serious* Yes, I’ve awesome friends.) I’d venture that my friends put some honest thought into their conception of the word “compare”; Is it, in fact, NOT an antonym of “contrast”? …and would high school students be capable of thinking around their teacher’s bias in the manner Craig claims they should? …what is the burden of responsibility of the teacher? …of a high school teacher? …in a social studies context?
Never mind that I actually changed my mind as a result of the discussion. (Although, the fact that I did is apropos of something I mentioned before.)
Here’s my point
If you present your ideas in a logical fashion, perhaps with a flourish of passion or a touch of panache, while honestly thinking, “I hope they change their mind, but I’m open to changing my own.” … then bravo! You are a member of a society. Thank you for putting your shoulder behind our great American society.
If you open your mouth and spew hatred, vitriole, or can only speak in emotional platitudes. Congratulations! You are a part of the problem.
ɕ
Is our patriotism moral?
Certainly, patriotism can take an explicitly amoral form: “My country, right or wrong.” But even strong traditional patriots can accept moral limits on the means we use to advance the cause of our country. They may agree, for example, that it’s wrong to threaten Canada with nuclear annihilation to obtain a more favorable trade agreement.
But the moral problem for patriotism arises at a deeper level. Suppose the question is not about blatantly immoral means but simply about whether our country should flourish at the expense of another? Suppose, for example, that at some point Saudi Arabia, now allied with China, threatened to curtail our access to its oil, thereby significantly reducing our productivity and tipping the balance of world economic power to China.
~ Gary Gutting from, Is Our Patriotism Moral?
Elsewhere, this is 4unyio1. — slipbox
First off, I want to be clear that I support our troops. They should have the best training, the best commanders, the best weapons and the best physical/psychological support during and after their service. If we’ve committed our people to a mission, right or wrong, our people deserve our unqualified support.
It’s the administration, and the highest levels of the military, of which I am critical.
I know a lot of people who cheered patriotically when our troops invaded Iraq and Afghanistan — I stared in disbelief thinking: That’s bad. We just invaded a sovereign country. Yes, it was certainly a run-down, backwards country led by an explitive — but a sovereign country none the less.
I hope no one decides we need to be straightened out… oh, wait, the cold war. We narrowly dodged that bullet didn’t we. Oh, and now China, . . . maybe we should get our own stuff in order before we nationally act as if we know what’s best for the world?
ɕ
Spectator-itis
No, a problem only arises when instead of being a supplement to your life—an occasional relaxing indulgence–passive amusements become a substitution, a way to feel better about something you personally lack.
~ Brett McKay from, Viewers vs. Doers: The Rise of Spectatoritis
…
And this is the real danger of spectatoritis run amok—it allows us to experience vicariously the virtues of others, without having to cultivate them ourselves.
Elsewhere, this is 4uaovi2. — slipbox
…also my thoughts about One’s Legacy.
ɕ
Debate
Is there any way to make genuine debates — sustained back-and-forth exchanges, meeting high intellectual standards but still widely accessible — part of our political culture? (I leave to historians the question of whether there are historical precedents— like the Webster-Hayne or Lincoln-Douglas debates.) Can we put our politicians in a situation where they cannot ignore challenges, where they must genuinely engage with one another in responsible discussion and not just repeat talking points?
~ Gary Gutting from, A Great Debate – The New York Times
Elsewhere, this is 4unyae1. — slipbox
ɕ
Sonder
The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows — sonder
Urban Dictionary: sonder
sonder – Wiktionary, the free dictionary
The realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own — populated with their own ambitions, friends, routines, worries and inherited craziness — an epic story that continues invisibly around you like an anthill sprawling deep underground, with elaborate passageways to thousands of other lives that you’ll never know existed, in which you might appear only once, as an extra sipping coffee in the background, as a blur of traffic passing on the highway, as a lighted window at dusk.
ɕ
For whom the bell tolls
Meditation #17 By John Donne From Devotions upon Emergent Occasions (1623), XVII:
Nunc Lento Sonitu Dicunt, Morieris
(Now this bell, tolling softly for another, says to me, Thou must die.)Perchance, he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. The church is catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all. When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me; for that child is thereby connected to that body which is my head too, and ingrafted into that body whereof I am a member. And when she buries a man, that action concerns me: all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God’s hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another. As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness.
There was a contention as far as a suit (in which both piety and dignity, religion and estimation, were mingled), which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined, that they should ring first that rose earliest. If we understand aright the dignity of this bell that tolls for our evening prayer, we would be glad to make it ours by rising early, in that application, that it might be ours as well as his, whose indeed it is.
The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that this occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world?
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by it, and made fit for God by that affliction. If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current money, his treasure will not defray him as he travels. Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it. Another man may be sick too, and sick to death, and this affliction may lie in his bowels, as gold in a mine, and be of no use to him; but this bell, that tells me of his affliction, digs out and applies that gold to me: if by this consideration of another’s danger I take mine own into contemplation, and so secure myself, by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security.
Ever notice how drinking’s like war?
Ever notice how drinking’s like war?
~ Moxy Früvous, from The Drinking Song
Cup o troops oe’r the guns
Til the end of our health
A campaign ‘gainst myself
Armed with bourbons and scotches and rums
Elsewhere, this is 4a1060. — slipbox
Mercy
Mercy is refraining from ridiculing or abusing the young men who lost 91-0. Mercy is complimenting them for their effort. Mercy is treating them like athletes and competitors after such a loss. Mercy is applauding when they return to the line time after time against hopeless odds, and when they return to practice again the next day. Mercy might be sitting down with them and telling them about times you lost badly and how you felt and how you got up again. Mercy is pointing out to other kids the character it takes to keep trying under such circumstances, and challenging them to have character like that. Mercy is teaching kids how to deal with the adversity they will certainly face in their life.
It is not merciful to teach them they have a right not to lose badly.
~ Ken White from, «http://www.popehat.com/2013/10/23/what-does-mercy-look-like/»
ɕ
You are probably wrong most of the time
Q. Can you prove that I’m wrong?
Yes, but, you’ll have to agree in advance what proof looks like, otherwise you could just move the goalposts after the game.
Q. How come I have so much evidence that I’m right?
That’s confirmation bias. Your brain carefully files away all the reasons you might be right, and disregards all the reasons you might be wrong.
~ “Proper discord” from, You’re Wrong: an F.A.Q. | Proper Discord
Elsewhere, this is 4upoyo1. — slipbox
ɕ
Three types of human rights
My point is simply this: unless you are an extreme outlier, you do believe in all three types of human rights; Whether you prefer the term “Natural Law”, “God given rights”, or something else, you think that there are ethical norms that are not merely pragmatic but objective and true. Therefore government is not merely “something we all do together”, but potentially a destructive force that can commit evil. Finally, it is not only meaningful, but almost mandatory – if one is to say anything of interest – to take great care to distinguish between “is” and “ought” when speaking of rights.
~ “Clark” from, «https://www.popehat.com/2013/08/23/three-meanings-of-the-word-rights-atheists-are-confused/»
ɕ
Everyday craftsmanship
Over time, the ideal of craftsmanship was cordoned off to just the technical arts. Physicians and legislators no longer thought of themselves as craftsmen, but as philosophers and natural scientists who were more concerned with the theoretical as opposed to the practical. Such a shift is a shame, for the principles of craftsmanship truly do apply to every man, whether he makes furniture or crunches numbers. Below we take a look at how these overarching principles of the traditional craftsman can apply to all areas of your life, no matter your profession.
~ Brett McKay from, Measure Twice, Cut Once
Elsewhere, this is 4uaome1. — slipbox
ɕ
Importance of the afterlife
Consider a hypothetical scenario. Suppose you knew that although you yourself would live a long life and die peacefully in your sleep, the earth and all its inhabitants would be destroyed 30 days after your death in a collision with a giant asteroid. How would this knowledge affect you?
~ Samuel Scheffler from, The Importance of the Afterlife. Seriously.
Elsewhere, this is 4unyte2. — slipbox
ɕ
Finding meaning in the mundane
Everyone here has done this, of course. But it hasn’t yet been part of you graduates’ actual life routine, day after week after month after year.
But it will be. And many more dreary, annoying, seemingly meaningless routines besides. But that is not the point. The point is that petty, frustrating crap like this is exactly where the work of choosing is gonna come in.
~ David Foster Wallace
Elsewhere, this is 4a799. — slipbox
It occurs to me that I’ve no idea who gave the commencement address at my graduation. After a bit of digging…
Robert W. Galvin, chairman of Motorola, delivered the main address yesterday to the 1,150 graduates at the 125th commencement of Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa.
Mr. Galvin received an honorary Doctor of Engineering degree.
~ from the May 31st NYT archives listing several school’s commencement addresses.
ɕ
The over justification effect
Self-perception theory says you observe your own behavior and then, after the fact, make up a story to explain it. That story is sometimes close to the truth, and sometimes it is just something nice that makes you feel better about being a person.
~ David McRaney from, The Overjustification Effect – You Are Not So Smart
Elsewhere, this is 4uyote1. — slipbox
ɕ
The weight of the past
This is not to say that nostalgia is our inescapable fate. The lesson I am trying to draw from reflecting on the examples of Snowden and the N.F.L. is not that the thrill ends early. Rather, in their extremity these examples bring out something else. For most of us, as our lives unfold we simply do not, we cannot, know whether we have peaked in an area of our lives — or in our lives themselves — in ways that are most important to us. The past weighs upon us, not because it must cancel the future, but because it is of uncertain heft.
~ Todd May from, The Weight of the Past – The New York Times
Elsewhere, this is 4unyte1. — slipbox
ɕ
Infrastructure, suburbs, and the long descent to ferguson
The short version is that as the climate degrades and fossil fuels become simultaneously more expensive and less useable, each generation inherits from its more prosperous ancestors an infrastructure that it can’t afford to maintain. Society muddles through from year to year — sometimes even seeming to advance — until some part of that poorly maintained infrastructure snaps and causes major destruction. The destroyed area may get rebuilt, but not to its previous level. The resulting community has less infrastructure to maintain, but is also less prosperous, and so the cycle continues into the next generation.
~ Doug Muder from, Infrastructure, Suburbs, and the Long Descent to Ferguson
Elsewhere, this is 4uweia1. — slipbox
He draws heavily from John Michael Greer’s The Long Descent.
ɕ
Selling Out
If you think you can buy your way to individuality, well, you are not so smart.
Since the 1940s, when capitalism and marketing married psychology and public relations, the market has been getting much better and more efficient at offering you something to purchase no matter your taste.
~ David McRaney from, Selling Out
Elsewhere, this is 4uyose2. — slipbox
ɕ
Confirmation bias
If you are thinking about buying a new car, you suddenly see people driving them all over the roads. If you just ended a long-time relationship, every song you hear seems to be written about love. If you are having a baby, you start to see them everywhere.
Confirmation bias is seeing the world through a filter, thinking selectively.
The examples above are a sort of passive version of the phenomenon. The real trouble begins when confirmation bias distorts your active pursuit of facts.
~ David McRaney from, Confirmation Bias
Elsewhere, this is 4uyoco2. — slipbox
ɕ
Abandon all hope
Less well known is Prometheus’ second gift. In Aeschylus’ “Prometheus Bound,” the chained Titan is pitilessly interrogated by the chorus. They ask him whether he gave human beings anything else. Yes, he says, “I stopped mortals from foreseeing doom.” How did you do that, they ask? His response is revealing: “I sowed in them blind hopes.”
Elsewhere, this is 4unyaa1. — slipbox
ɕ
Busy is an addiction
The issue, just like exercise, is that each time you build, the high becomes slightly harder to achieve. Part of your hormonal reward is based on the fact the thing you just built has never been built before. It’s novel and your brain commensurately rewards the new because it has learned after millions of years of evolution that doing so is collectively good for our species.
~ Rands from, Busy is an Addiction
Elsewhere, this is 4uraai5. — slipbox
ɕ
Conspiracy theories on facebook
Do you believe that the contrails left by high-flying aircraft contain sildenafil citratum, the active ingredient in Viagra? Or that light bulbs made from uranium and plutonium are more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly? Or that lemons have anti-hypnotic benefits?
If you do, then you are probably a regular consumer of conspiracy theories, particularly those that appear on the Italian language version of Facebook (where all these were sourced). It is easy to dismiss conspiracy theories as background noise with little if any consequences in the real world.
~ Alessandro Bessi et al, from Science Vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives In The Age Of (Mis)Information
If you win the rat race, you’re still a rat
Don’t ever confuse the two, your life and your work. That’s what I have to say. The second is only a part of the first. Don’t ever forget what a friend once wrote to Senator Paul Tsongas when the senator had decided not to run for reelection because he’d been diagnosed with cancer: “No man ever said on his deathbed I wish I had spent more time at the office.”
Don’t ever forget the words on a postcard that my father sent me last year: “If you win the rat race, you’re still a rat.”
Elsewhere, this is 4ubaie4. — slipbox
From Maria Popova’s A Short Guide to a Happy Life: Anna Quindlen on Work, Joy, and How to Live Rather Than Exist.
ɕ
The other is a disease
This distinction holds for adult reading too. The dangerous fantasy is always superficially realistic. The real victim of wishful reverie does not batten on the Odyssey, The Tempest, or The Worm Ouroboros: he (or she) prefers stories about millionaires, irresistible beauties, posh hotels, palm beaches and bedroom scenes—things that really might happen, that ought to happen, that would have happened if the reader had had a fair chance. For, as I say, there are two kinds of longing. The one is an askesis, a spiritual exercise, and the other is a disease.
~ C.S. Lewis from, C.S. Lewis on the Three Ways of Writing for Children and the Key to Authenticity in All Writing
Elsewhere, this is 4ubaie2. — slipbox
ɕ
Switch to slow mode
Being in Fast Mode leads to constant switching, and constant busy-ness. It leads to overwork, because when do you switch it off? It leads to exhaustion, because we never give ourselves breathing room.
Learn to recognize when you’re in Fast Mode, and practice switching to Slow Mode now and then. It’s essential to doing all the things that are really important.
~ Leo Babauta from, The Brain’s Fast Mode
Elsewhere, this is 4uzewo1. — slipbox
ɕ
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy
The Misconception: You take randomness into account when determining cause and effect.
The Truth: You tend to ignore random chance when the results seem meaningful or when you want a random event to have a meaningful cause.
Elsewhere, this is 4uyote2. — slipbox
ɕ
Thriving in uncertainty
Yet from the first encounter, the theories unraveled in the face of situations that could never have been predicted. The most respected generals in the world were made to look like amateurs. Their faith in abstract planning blinded them to the reality of the situation. It took years of conflict before they began to really adapt to the reality of their situation.
~ Kyle Eschenroeder from, 5 Tools for Thriving in Uncertainty
Elsewhere, this is 4uaoto1. — slipbox
ɕ
A just cause? A just war?
We’re supposed to be thinking people. We’re supposed to be able to question everything.
There are things that happen in the world that are bad, and you want to do something about them. You have a just cause. But our culture is so war prone that we immediately jump from “This is a good cause” to “This deserves a war.”
You need to be very, very comfortable in making that jump.
~ Howard Zinn from, «http://www.progressive.org/zinnjuly09.html»
ɕ
Overcoming the distraction habit
One of the insidious things about the distraction habit is that we often don’t even realize it’s happening. It sneaks up on us, like old age, and before we know it we’re addicted and powerless.
But actually we’re not powerless. The power we have is our awareness, and you can develop it right now. Pay attention to what sites you visit, how often you’re looking at your phone, how long you’re spending in front of a screen all day.
~ Leo Babauta from, An Addict’s Guide to Overcoming the Distraction Habit – Zen Habits Website
Elsewhere, this is 4uzedi1. — slipbox
ɕ
Trying not to try
My guess is that we have all experienced this combination of effortlessness and effectiveness at some point in our lives. While we are completely absorbed in chopping and sautéing, a complex dinner simply assembles itself before our eyes. Fully relaxed, we breeze through an important job interview without even noticing how well it’s going. Our own experiences of the pleasure and power of spontaneity explain why these early Chinese stories are so appealing and also suggest that these thinkers were on to something important. Combining Chinese insights and modern science, we are now in a position to understand how such states can actually come about.
Elsewhere, this is 4unaiu1. — slipbox
ɕ
Reckon the worth of each day
The largest portion of life passes while we are doing ill, a good share while we are doing nothing, and the whole while we are doing that which is not to the purpose. What man can you show me who places any value on his time, who reckons the worth of each day, who understands that he is dying daily? For we are mistaken when we look forward to death; The major portion of death is already passed. Whatever years be behind us are in death’s hands.
~ Seneca
Elsewhere, this is 4a191. — slipbox
Long was I Marcellinus!
Nevertheless I shall brave this danger and be bold enough to show [Marcellinus] his faults. He will act in his usual way; he will have recourse to his wit, – the wit that can call forth smiles even from mourners. He will turn the jest, first against himself, and then against me. He will forestall every word which I am about to utter.
Elsewhere, this is 4ulele2. — slipbox
Many of Seneca’s letters are pretty obtuse after all this time. But this one… this one jumped out at me as being really apropos of modern life. And, uh, painfully on point for myself.
ɕ
Point “B”; the me of tomorrow
Over the last few years it seems I have — finally! — learned some key lesson about pace; the idea of enjoying the journey. The idea of focusing on what I can control. The truth that some of these projects I will not finish, some places I will not see, and some people I will not manage to spend enough time with. These ideas are patently obvious and unequivocal, but learning the Lesson, and deeply and truly making it part of your work-a-day life and personal philosophy takes effort.
When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.
Years ago I started journaling as a form of self-reflection. It enables me to look back. Sometimes it’s a travel log, but mostly it’s a “this is what I was thinking” log, a glimpse at what I was working on, inspired by, or frustrated by. After a large amount of writing and thinking I gained enough perspective to start removing some things, and changing others. I learned to say ‘no’ to some things I would have taken on in the past, and learned how to rearrange other things to make more space.
I always wonder why birds stay in the same place when they can fly anywhere on Earth. Then I ask myself the same question.
But only recently have I found myself turning more often to look forward, rather than back.
What would the best possible version of myself do?
Walk the Earth with eyes turned skyward.
Point A to point B, efficiently.
Close the gap.
ɕ
Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.
~ Agent ‘K’, in Men in Black, (1997 film)
Elsewhere, this is 4a330. — slipbox
Shut up about the universe
In one spot in the part of the universe we can see—and probably in an infinite number of spots in the part of the universe we can’t—there’s a small blue-green planet with thin film of bio-matter on it. Among other things, this film supports some bipedal mammals who like building things they can set on fire.
Elsewhere, this is 4usisu1. — slipbox
Douglas Adams meets irreverent atheist. Many smiles. Much like.
ɕ
§6 – I Choose To Fall!
I’ve now read the entire book several times, and Chapter 6 never ceases to inspire!
Three thoughts:
I may not be the strongest. I may not be the fastest. But I’ll be damned if I’m not trying my hardest.
~ unknown
It ofttimes requires heroic courage to face fruitless effort, to take up the broken strands of a life-work, to look bravely toward the future, and proceed undaunted on our way. But what, to our eyes, may seem hopeless failure is often but the dawning of a greater success. It may contain in its debris the foundation material of a mighty purpose, or the revelation of new and higher possibilities.
…
Failure is often the turning-point, the pivot of circumstance that swings us to higher levels. It may not be financial success, it may not be fame; it may be new draughts of spiritual, moral or mental inspiration that will change us for all the later years of our life. Life is not really what comes to us, but what we get from it.~ Chapter 14, “Failure as a Success”, from Self Control, Its Kingship and Majesty, by William George Jordan, 1907
The application in the Ways is to falls in life. To be able to take a disaster or a great failure, with the whole personality, without shrinking back from it, like the big smack with which the judo man hits the ground. Then to rise at once.
Not to be appalled at a moral fall. Yet it is not that it does not matter. The judo man tries by every means not to be thrown, but when he is thrown it does not hurt him and in a sense it does not matter. It matters immensely, and yet it does not matter.
‘Falling seven times, and getting up eight.’
~ “Falling”, from Zen and the Ways, by Trevor Leggett, 1978
ɕ
Parkour as a technology of the self
I’m working on a crazy idea as a side project. Totally unrelated, I’m reading Julie’s CinéParkour. I’m just reading along this evening, and I get to this paragraph. This is so apropos of my train of thought these past few weeks.
Mind.
Blown.
Traceurs are active subjects within dominant power relations who use parkour as a technology of the self; an active transformative tool, to create and understand themselves and move away from fixed notions of identity and behaviour. Through a process of critical thinking and self-awereness traceurs problemitise and set ethics by which they adhere to. Parkour becomes a ‘practice of libery’, where traceurs practice freedom as a lifestyle, based on inventions and styles, that create ethics centered around creative environmental interactions and connections, to reclaim the body as an autonomous vehicle, away from the dominant notion of ‘bio-power’ and other dominant discourses.
~ Julie Angel, from CinéParkour, pg 152
‘technology of the self’
‘freedom as a lifestyle’
‘ethics centered around creative environmental interactions and connections’
‘reclaim the body as an autonomous vehicle’
ɕ
The Myth of Sisyphus
But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
Elsewhere, this is 4a597. — slipbox
Half-hearted, lazy effort
As we get older, failure is not so inconsequential anymore. What’s at stake is not some arbitrary grade or intramural sports trophy, but the quality of your life and your abiity to deal with the world around you.
Don’t let that intimidate you, though. You have the best teachers in the world: the wisest philosophers who ever lived. And not only are you capable, the professor is asking for something very simple: just begin the work. The rest follows.
~ Ryan Holiday, from The Daily Stoic
Elsewhere, this is 4uliwo1. — slipbox
ɕ
Parkour: the spectacle, the practical, the philosophical, and where competition fits in
The question is, do we want parkour to be a thing that is a casual part of more people’s lifestyles, like walking a dog or riding a bike? Or do we want it to be a pursuit only the able and passionate need bother even try?
~ Amy Vhan from, «https://fallingleavesandabird.com/2016/11/29/parkour-spectacle-competition/»
ɕ
All past time is in the same place
For remembering makes everything “just now,” doesn’t it? Just now I was a boy, sitting in the house of Sotion the philosopher; Just now I began to argue cases; Just now I stopped wanting to argue them; Just now I ceased to be able. The rapidity of time is boundless—and is more evident when one looks back. For though it goes at breakneck speed, it glides by so smoothly that those who are intent on the present moment fail to notice it passing.
~ Seneca
Elsewhere, this is 4a837. — slipbox
Letter 52: On choosing our teachers
You may be sure that this refractory nature, which demands much toil, has been implanted in us. There are obstacles in our path; so let us fight, and call to our assistance some helpers. “Whom,” you say, “shall I call upon? Shall it be this man or that?” There is another choice also open to you; you may go to the ancients; for they have the time to help you. We can get assistance not only from the living, but from those of the past. Let us choose, however, from among the living, not men who pour forth their words with the greatest glibness, turning out commonplaces and holding. as it were, their own little private exhibitions, – not these, I say, but men who teach us by their lives, men who tell us what we ought to do and then prove it by practice, who show us what we should avoid, and then are never caught doing that which they have ordered us to avoid.
Elsewhere, this is 4ulele1. — slipbox
ɕ
The majesty of calmness
The man who is calm has his course in life clearly marked on his chart. His hand is ever on the helm. Storm, fog, night, tempest, danger, hidden reefs— he is ever prepared and ready for them. He is made calm and serene by the realization that in these crises of his voyage he needs a clear mind and a cool head; that he has naught to do but to do each day the best he can by the light he has; that he will never flinch nor falter for a moment; that, though he may have to tack and leave his course for a time, he will never drift, he will get back into the true channel, he will keep ever headed toward his harbor.
Elsewhere, this is 4uaoma1. — slipbox
ɕ
Finding Stillness
This is pretty common. Thinking isn’t the problem, but the struggle comes when we’re constantly spinning stories in our heads and getting caught up in them.
~ Leo Babauta from, Finding Stillness
Elsewhere, this is 4uzesi2. — slipbox
Hear! Hear!
ɕ
If We Are Not Just Animals, What Are We?
To cut the story short: By speaking in the first person we can make statements about ourselves, answer questions, and engage in reasoning and advice in ways that bypass all the normal methods of discovery. As a result, we can participate in dialogues founded on the assurance that, when you and I both speak sincerely, what we say is trustworthy: We are “speaking our minds.” This is the heart of the I-You encounter.
~ Roger Scruton from, If We Are Not Just Animals, What Are We?
Elsewhere, this is 4unyoi5. — slipbox
ɕ
How Our Certitudes Keep Us Small
The Tree of Valid Supposition grows here with branches disentangled since time immemorial. The Tree of Understanding, dazzlingly straight and simple, sprouts by the spring called Now I Get It.
~ Wislawa Szymborska from, Polish Poet and Nobel Laureate Wisława Szymborska on the Creative Power of Uncertainty
Elsewhere, this is 4ubawi1. — slipbox
ɕ
On the shortness of life
Relax the straitened limits of the time which is allotted me. Show me that the good in life does not depend upon life’s length, but upon the use we make of it; also, that it is possible, or rather usual, for a man who has lived long to have lived too little. Say to me when I lie down to sleep: “You may not wake again!” And when I have waked: “You may not go to sleep again!” Say to me when I go forth from my house: “You may not return!” And when I return: “You may never go forth again!” You are mistaken if you think that only on an ocean voyage there is a very slight space between life and death. No, the distance between is just as narrow everywhere. It is not everywhere that death shows himself so near at hand; yet everywhere he is as near at hand.
~ Seneca
Elsewhere, this is 4a891. — slipbox
Beauty and Strength
I strive to be a Stoic
“When cynicism becomes the default language, playfulness and invention become impossible. Cynicism scours through a culture like bleach, wiping out millions of small, seedling ideas. Cynicism means your automatic answer becomes ‘No.’ Cynicism means you presume everything will end in disappointment.”
Caitlin Moran on Fighting the Cowardice of Cynicism – The Marginalian
Elsewhere, this is 4ubaca2. — slipbox
I am not a Cynic. (…but 10 years ago, I think I was well on my way to becoming one.)
I strive to be a Stoic.
Everyone, (that I’ve ever asked for a definition,) uses the adjective “stoic” to mean: unfeeling, uncaring, showing no emotion. While it’s true that words mean whatever we all agree they mean, in the case of “stoic” that definition is a drastic change of focus from what the Stoics (a group of Philosophers both ancient and modern) are doing and thinking.
Can we back up a layer to find some common ground?
You’d probably be ok with this definition:
“stoic: adj. Of, or relating to, the school of philosophy, Stoicism, founded by Zeno, …”
…but then everyone seems to rush off to this definition of Stoicism:
“[… Zeno,] who taught that people should be free from passion, unmoved by joy or grief, and submit without complaint to unavoidable necessity.”
…and that’s where I disagree.
That’s a poor definition, because Stoics (the Philosophers) do feel, do care and do show emotion. In fact, one of the key points of Stoicism is to feel, care and show emotion in appropriate ways and to appropriate degrees. Stoics grieve, express joy, etc. They also understand the difference between things within and without their control. Described that way, doesn’t Stoicism sound pretty sane?
Now, I am a Philosopher, by definition, because I try to apply Philosophy to my daily life. But, I am not a teacher of Philosophy.
My hope?
That I’ve piqued your interest enough that you’ll go read this “Stoicism 101” about how to use the Stoic Philosophy today, to improve your life:
Stoicism 101 | How to Be a Stoic
Elsewhere, this is 4uwoso4. — slipbox
ɕ
The spiritual disciplines: solitude and silence
The need for silence and solitude obviously seems incredibly relevant to the over-convenienced citizens of the modern world who feel saturated with the ceaseless noise that issues from every corner of their lives. But as mentioned at the start, men have in fact craved these states for thousands of years, long before anything digital, or electronic, or urban ever existed.
What accounts for the timeless, seemingly universal appeal of quiet seclusion?
~ Brett McKay from The Spiritual Disciplines: Solitude and Silence | The Art of Manliness The Art of Manliness
Elsewhere, this is 4uaosi2. — slipbox
ɕ
Concept-Shaped Holes Can Be Impossible To Notice
Put these together, and you have cause for concern. If you learn about something, and it seems trivial and boring, but lots of other people think it’s interesting and important – well, it could be so far beneath you that you’d internalized all its lessons already. Or it could be so far beyond you that you’re not even thinking on the same level as the people who talk about it.
~ Scott Alexander from, Concept-Shaped Holes Can Be Impossible To Notice
Elsewhere, this is 4usaco3. — slipbox
If there’s one thing that makes my brain lock-up every time, it’s this conundrum.
ɕ
Elsewhere, this is 4c2le2a. — slipbox
How to keep time from moving so fast
Savoring what’s familiar does something similar. Instead of spending our time on autopilot mode, we notice the richness embedded in our familiar routines. Choose something familiar that you experience regularly—drinking your morning coffee, picking up your kids from daycare, or chatting with a coworker—and make a concerted effort to savor, and be grateful for that experience. I personally find meditation, more than almost anything else, helps me savor these small things every day.
Elsewhere, this is 4uaiho2. — slipbox
ɕ
The aims of education
Meira Levinson on the Aims of Education
This podcast — don’t misread that as “this episode” — is one of my favorites. In this episode they briefly mention the experience of the “Other.” Which I find is a large aspect of my reasons for travel.
ɕ
Elsewhere, this is 4c2se1b. — slipbox
Living Stoically
William B. Irvine on Living Stoically
This podcast episode, from the superlative Philosophy Bites podcast, is a great, brief introduction to Stoicism.
ɕ
Elsewhere, this is 4c2so2a. — slipbox
Suffering
Krishnamurti has this definition of suffering that I really like, “Suffering is that moment when you see reality exactly as it is. When you can no longer run away from it, when you can no longer deny it.”
~ Naval Ravikant, from Naval Ravikant — The Person I Call Most for Startup Advice (#97)
Elsewhere, this is 4utite1. — slipbox
I don’t know anything about Krishnamurti. But I know a good statement that cuts right through all the day-to-day bullshit; That right there is one.
I’ll save you some digging: Naval is quoting Jiddu Krishnamurti, apparently from The Book of Life: Daily Meditations.
…also, go listen to this entire podcast. It’s insanely long at 2+ hours, but Naval is a real down-to-Earth guy with a lot of useful advice on how to live.
ɕ
Elsewhere, this is 4c2se1j. — slipbox
Rats? Moloch?
Like the rats, who gradually lose all values except sheer competition, so companies in an economic environment of sufficiently intense competition are forced to abandon all values except optimizing-for-profit or else be outcompeted by companies that optimized for profit better and so can sell the same service at a lower price.
From a god’s-eye-view, we can contrive a friendly industry where every company pays its workers a living wage. From within the system, there’s no way to enact it.
~ Scott Alexander, from Meditations on Moloch
Elsewhere, this is 4usame2. — slipbox
I confess to having had only the slightest awareness of Moloch in the biblical or general senses. So just skimming the WikiPedia article and then taking the time to read this piece from Slate Star Codex was like discovering a new window on the world from my mind-palace.
Moloch.
This is the problem. (With everything.) Individually, everyone acts according to their interests and beliefs. The result? …look at the world around you.
How could one go about changing the world? (That’s a rhetorical question.)
ɕ
Agency from individual neurons
What I’m going to argue today is that agency is a fundamental property of the brain. Not only is agency the function of the brain — and thus it’s very reason for existence — but it’s also built into the brain’s fabric and architecture. Because even neurons have agency, in the form of (metabolic) selfishness, higher-order brain systems don’t need to create agency ‘from scratch’ out of mindless robotic slaves. They inherit agency pretty much for free.
~ Kevin Simler, from Neurons Gone Wild
Elsewhere, this is 4umene1. — slipbox
The question of agency occassionally sucks me into a deep whirlpool of introspection. The idea that it might arise as an emergent property simply from the huge number of neurons is intriguing.
ɕ
Eternal return
If you stay with your past regret, you’ll break through. You’ll realize that every moment spent in remorse is another regretful moment for eternity. You’ll finally understand, in your bones, the truth of Nietzsche’s wise advice: “Never yield to remorse, but at once tell yourself: remorse would simply mean adding to the first act of stupidity a second.”
Elsewhere, this is 4uaoee1. — slipbox
We don’t literally live this exact same life over and over, as encapsulated by the idea of “Eternal Return”.
But it IS an interesting thought experiment. It is exceedingly difficult to break outside of my own self-perspective — arguably, it impossible to break out since what perspective do I have, other than MY own. But trying to think of things from new perspectives . . . it’s like trying to catch a glimpse of the back of my own head in a fun-house of mirrors.
ɕ
Perfect game theorists
…now I want to write a science fiction novel about a planet full of aliens who are perfect game theorists, but who always behave kindly and respectfully to one another. Then some idiot performs a census, and the whole place collapses into apocalyptic total war.
~ Scott Alexander from, Cooperation Un-veiled
Elsewhere, this is 4usaco2. — slipbox
That pull quote is simply fun. The article is actually a serious attempt to pick apart an interesting philosophical question.
I’m not sure I agree with his conclusions… actually, I’m not even sure I understand the question he’s thinking about. But I find that the more I peek in the dark corners of the basement of my philosophical ideas, the more comfortable I sleep at night.
ɕ
Honesty
Humans are the most communicative species on the planet, but we’ve come increasingly to rely on the very cheapest signals: words. The problem with words is that they aren’t a scarce resource. Which is a more honest signal of your value to a company: when your boss says, “Great job!” or when she gives you a raise?
Elsewhere, this is 4umeho2. — slipbox
I’m not sure I have a take-away from this. I don’t mean, “I’m not sure I have a take-away to share“, I mean I’m not sure I have a take-away, for me personally.
I’m sure only that this made me think.
ɕ
Practice patiently improving
Too often nowadays Stoicism is brandished as a magic wand, as if one decides to “be” a Stoic and this, ipso facto, guarantees immunity from unhealthy emotions. It doesn’t, and Chrysippus, Seneca, and Epictetus would be astounded that anyone would think so. Stoic training is like training for the Olympics (a metaphor often used by Epictetus): you don’t just decide to be an athlete, start running, and win the race. You have to train, patiently, for years, improving gradually, and suffering setbacks. We are talking real life here, not wishful thinking.
Elsewhere, this is 4uwoso3. — slipbox
More and more, as the years go by, I have been peering more closely into the dark corners of the basements of my philosophies, and ideologies.
ɕ
Borders
Clearly there’s a tradeoff to be made here. In order to learn about the world, you need to let ideas in. But the more ideas you let in, the more bad ideas you let in. You can (and should) set up border controls, but you can’t achieve perfect truth-filtering any more than you can turn your house into a cleanroom or ride the subway in a hazmat suit.
In order to get any thinking done, you have to accept some probability of being wrong. The question is, how much?
~ Kevin Simler from, Border Stories
Elsewhere, this is 4umebo1. — slipbox
If you’ve been following me a while, you’ve been exposed to Melting Asphalt and know what to expect if you follow that link.
…but especially if you don’t know what to expect, you should click that link and go have your horizons broadened, and your borders strengthened.
ɕ
Anger is a temporary madness
This includes people who get angry, which is why Seneca calls anger a “temporary madness.” This class of individuals can certainly be held morally responsible for their actions, since they are perfectly capable of reason, they just don’t use it well.
Elsewhere, this is 4uwoso2. — slipbox
Once more, louder for those in the back: Stoicism is not about suppressing emotions. It is about [among other things] having appropriate emotional responses.
ɕ
No instruction manual
The fact that you can’t remember an agreement you made with yourself doesn’t mean that you’re not holding yourself liable for it. Ask any psychologist how much of a sense of past and future that part of your psyche has, the part that was storing the list you dumped: zero. It’s all present tense in there. That means that as soon as you tell yourself that you should do something, if you file it only in your short-term memory, that part of you thinks you should be doing it all the time. And that means that as soon as you’ve given yourself two things to do, and filed them only in your head, you’ve created instant and automatic stress and failure, because you can’t do them both at once, and that (apparently significant) part of you psyche will continue to hold you accountable.
~ David Allen, from Getting Things Done
…yes another quote from the GTD book.
In the first half of my life — say to age 40 — I made a HUGE MISTAKE: I presumed that I had a reasonable understanding of how my brain worked. I don’t mean at a physiology level; I still don’t really understand that. I mean at a day-to-day-doing-stuff, when-I-do-this-then-this-happens, this-is-how-one-lives sort of level. Like how I thought I knew how to use my brain to decide what to eat, what to work on, what to read, what to do with my time . . .
Now why on earth did i think I had any idea?
Seriously: You think of “me” as this “self-thing” located behind your eyes, but that “you” is just “running” in/on your brain. So have you ever tried different ways of running your life? How do you know reading some such book will or won’t change your life? Maybe you should experiment with everything. Try something radical: Pay attention to the results. You’re ALREADY following lots of advice — my advice, your mother’s advice, the TV ads’ advice, your doctor’s advice — but have you ever bothered to figure out what the results are? Then make a deliberate change intended to move you toward a specific goal. Observe results. Then make another change. Then another. And another.
I mean, it’s not like your entire life depends on the choices you … oh wait. *lightbulb*
ɕ
Your clear conscience
Your clear conscience gives reason to be confident; still, since many external factors have a bearing on the outcome, hope for the best but prepare yourself for the worst. Remember above all to get rid of the commotion. Observe what each thing has inside, and you will learn: there is nothing to fear in your affairs but fear itself.
~ Seneca from, Seneca to Lucilius
Elsewhere, this is 4uwose1. — slipbox
What — exactly, specifically — is under your control?
ɕ
Beware the man
But I worry that most smart people have not learned that a list of dozens of studies, several meta-analyses, hundreds of experts, and expert surveys showing almost all academics support your thesis – can still be bullshit. Which is too bad, because that’s exactly what people who want to bamboozle an educated audience are going to use.
Elsewhere, this is 4usabe1. — slipbox
The way our civil discourse currently works, one has to be loud (or strident, or be an animated-GIF) to be heard. If one thinks, “This topic is complicated. I should learn more about it before engaging…”, then by definition you are not [yet] participating in the civil discourse.
Meanwhile, the discourse continues led by those who are willing to engage, and who may [or may not] be better informed than you.
So here’s a challenge — something to consider trying, not a challenge in the sense of me saying, “I challenge you, sir, to a duel!”…
Actually start those conversations where you don’t feel well-equiped. So for example, I should more often say, “I disagree with you because I’m not convinced that yours is the correct position . . . but I’m not entirely certain of my position either . . . can we help each other by unpacking our thinking a bit more?”
There’s a real skill to being fine with not winning the discussion. I engage, I discuss, and the other person holds their position not moving one iota. We each walk away disagreeing but at least we better understand that other individual human being. That would be civil discourse.
ɕ
My high horse
The point of this preparation is not to write off everyone in advance. It’s that, maybe, because you’ve prepared for it, you’ll be able to act with patience, forgiveness, and understanding.
Recently, someone told me — literally wrote the words, “Why don’t you get down off your high horse and get a sense of humor?”
A bit of context: They had posted a large comment, and an image which I judged to be inappropriate and which I judged added nothing to the conversation at hand. I deleted the image. Below their comment, I added, “Commentary such as this are most welcome; inappropriate, rape-y GIFs are not.” They followed with the high-horse snark, and then a longish stream of discussion by them and others broke out wherein I added nothing further to the episode. Let’s set aside the question of wether my decision to delete the image was warranted or approved by the community after-the-fact.
I found myself thinking about the difference in our behavior…
…and the next morning, I read this quote. (Wow! What an instance of confirmation bias!)
…and that led me to this conclusion:
I have intentionally climbed up onto this high horse. I am intentionally doing my best to demonstrate through my behavior that I hold myself to a high standard.
ɕ
Waking up
Sometimes when my wife and I have conversations in public, it looks like the scene from the movie Dogma where Loki and Bartleby walk through the airport talking about their previous exploits as angels. We often look around at all the sleeping people in the world, noting that they barely register as conscious beings. They go through their lives working meaningless jobs, enduring unfulfilling relationships, and drugging themselves to avoid facing their unfaceable fears. Their conversations are nothing but trivialities in the grand scheme of things.
Elsewhere, this is 4usebo13. — slipbox
There is a fine line between condescendent and enlightened. The first requisite for enlightenment is awareness of the line, and another is having the courage to get precariously close to it.
ɕ
The great teacher
How can you improve your conception of rationality? Not by saying to yourself, “It is my duty to be rational.” By this you only enshrine your mistaken conception. Perhaps your conception of rationality is that it is rational to believe the words of the Great Teacher, and the Great Teacher says, “The sky is green,” and you look up at the sky and see blue. If you think: “It may look like the sky is blue, but rationality is to believe the words of the Great Teacher,” you lose a chance to discover your mistake. Do not ask whether it is “the Way” to do this or that. Ask whether the sky is blue or green. If you speak overmuch of the Way you will not attain it.
Elsewhere, this is 4uyura1. — slipbox
If you don’t think intentionally… If your ideas and beliefs don’t produce a working model of reality… well…
When an honest person discovers they are wrong, they stop being wrong or they stop being honest. It’s your choice.
ɕ
Men without chests
If one believes in objective order and value, then the failure to feel the proper sentiment in the face of a particular stimulus cannot be justified on the basis of mere personal preference, casually categorized under the rubric of “to each their own”; rather, it must be frankly countenanced as a deficiency in one’s human make-up. As Lewis confesses, “I myself do not enjoy the society of small children: because I speak from within the Tao I recognize this as a defect in myself — just as a man may have to recognize that he is tone deaf or colour blind.”
~ Brett McKay from, Men Without Chests
Elsewhere, this is 4uaoai4. — slipbox
…from C.S. Lewis‘s, 1934 The Abolition of Man.
The more I read, the more I find I want to explore and continue learning.
ɕ
Wat?! No I do not…
There is a dial in front of you, and if your turn it, a stranger who is in mild pain from being shocked will experience a tiny increase in the amount of the shock, so slight that he doesn’t even notice it. You turn it and leave.
~ Paul Bloom and Matthew Jordan from, Opinion | Are We All ‘Harmless Torturers’ Now? – The New York Times
Elsewhere, this is 4unyoi8. — slipbox
Wat?! No I do not turn the knob.
But I do continuously strive to be the change I want to see in the world. I share and repost only the best things I can find. I add my commentary here, there, and wherever (think, “Facebook comments”) only when I can imagine a way that others could find it useful. That’s very different—by the way—from only leaving positive comments. I try to create new things that inspire people or, even better, which make them think.
ɕ
Same purpose, different style
While I’m worrying in my little apartment about getting my writing done or doing my laundry, it lends me some perspective if I can remember that somewhere out there, precisely as I’m tending to my human to-do list, there are beavers taking down trees, ants hustling to feed their queen, rabbits feasting on backyard gardens, and elephants showing their children where the water hole is.
Elsewhere, this is 4urasa1. — slipbox
Perspective is a wonderful thing.
In the beginning, a few months of summer vacation represents a significant portion of your life’s memories. Years later, each month flies by. In the beginning, the first project you create is the greatest idea the world has ever been shown. Years later, the projects are too numerous to recall, and the next one is considered with a weathered gaze before being sent out into the world. Challenging physical activities are dopamine-fun in the beginning. Years later, the physicality brings only a pleasant, difuse joy.
Perspective is empowering.
ɕ
A man of thought
Think like a man of action. Act like a man of thought.
Elsewhere, this is 4a502. — slipbox
Time to take action?
The thing is, we still live in a world that’s filled with opportunity. In fact, we have more than an opportunity — we have an obligation. An obligation to spend our time doing great things. To find ideas that matter and to share them. To push ourselves and the people around us to demonstrate gratitude, insight, and inspiration. To take risks and to make the world better by being amazing.
~ Seth Godin from, Time to take action?
Elsewhere, this is 4useti1. — slipbox
Someone recently asked me about Movers Mindset. “Why is craig doing this?” and my first thought was, “Isnt this obviously a great thing?” But perhaps he wasn’t asking about the thing but rather about me. I had focused on the, “…doing this” when I perhaps I should have focused on, “…Craig doing.”
It’s simple: Movers Mindset is the community I wish I could join. To find inspiration. To find like-minded persons. To find a high-fidelity space where my ideas can be exposed to the Marketplace of Ideas.
ɕ
Personal judgement
Embedded in White’s point about language I find a reflection of one of my core beliefs about life in general: that rules are excellent organizational tools and efficient reducers of cognitive load, but they are no substitute for contextual sensitivity and personal judgement.
~ Maria Popova from, E. B. White on Why Brevity Is Not the Gold Standard for Style
Elsewhere, this is 4ubaei3. — slipbox
Looking back a decade or so, I know that my working on self-awareness was the turning point. What did I discover, through my new-found skill of self-awareness? …an alarming lack of judgement and sensitivity.
ɕ
Your life’s work
I had a wonderful day, thanks in no small part to hearing George Harrison’s “Here Comes the Sun” on the radio while I ate breakfast. I walked into town relishing the sunshine, and enjoyed every minute of today. George moved his last block in 2001.
~ David Cain from, This is Your Life’s Work
Elsewhere, this is 4urati5. — slipbox
This seemed at first a cold way to think of one’s life: The sum total of the changes wrought in reality. On the other hand, there’s a huge amount of strutting and fretting and worrying and machinations and gyrations and chaos in my internal world. I’m sure it will be a good thing if that all evaporated from the world.
On second thought, how great would it be if I could get all that stuff to evaporate before I’m gone.
ɕ
Explore yourself
A good teacher can never be fixed in a routine. Each moment requires a sensitive mind that is constantly changing and adapting. A teacher must never impose this student to fit his favorite pattern. A good teacher protects his pupils from his own influence. A teacher is never a giver of truth; He is a guide, a pointer to the truth that each student must find for himself. I am not teaching you anything. I just help you to explore yourself.
Elsewhere, this is 4a222. — slipbox
One who acts naturally
One who tries to stand on tiptoe cannot stand still. One who stretches his legs too far cannot walk. One who advertises himself too much is ignored. One who is too insistent on his own view finds few to agree with him. One who claims too much credit does not get even what he deserves. One who is too proud is soon humiliated. These are condemned as extremes of greediness and self-destructive activity. Therefore, one who acts naturally avoids such extremems.
Elsewhere, this is 4a272. — slipbox
The devil always gets his due
Anyone can be an idealist. Anyone can be a cynic. The hard part lies somewhere in the middle i.e. being human.
~ Jason Korman, from «https://www.gapingvoid.com/content/uploads/assets/Moveable_Type/archives/001117.html»
Elsewhere, this is 4ugaco3. — slipbox
I’ve recently been on a run with posts about “balance” simply because that’s what I’m struggling with most these days. Confirmation bias then ensures I’m seeing things “about” balance everywhere.
realist: n., optimist with experience.
I’m not going to say the best place to be is always in the middle of a given spectrum. Actually, it’s not even perfectly clear to me that “idealist” and “cynic” are opposite ends of a spectrum; but I’ll run with that assumption for today. So given that acting from an entirely idealistic or cynical position is going to end badly… what can I take from that?
I think it’s pretty simple: Strive for the best, and plan for the worst. Running with that idea, I’ve been returning to my old, first step of my current journey: Self-awareness.
“Look, you’re freaking out. Simple fact.”
“Is this really the end of the world?”
“Is this maybe too far toward the cynical end of the spectrum?”
“Could I maybe do with a little less drama?”
“What if I turned around and looked back at what I’ve accomplished?”
“Would that at least bring me a little peace?”
ɕ
On civility
If civility is a kind of claim to regulating, or governing our disagreements on the basis of something shared, then what really matters is, what exactly it is we’re claiming that we need to share in order to have a civil disagreement.
~ Teresa Bejan, from Teresa Bejan on Civility
Elsewhere, this is 4ulite1. — slipbox
I’ve heard discussion about “controlling the conversation.” The idea being that when there’s a power imbalance, one side can control what can be talked about, and what can be blocked or suppressed as “beyond the pale.” This discussion on Philosophy Bites explores what it means “to be civil.” In my interpretation, it may not be possible to be civil in cases where there is insufficient common ground upon which to build civil discourse.
ɕ
Only when you breath your last
Lectures and learned seminars and sayings culled from the teachings of philosophers and educated conversation do not reveal the mind’s real strength. For speech is bold even where the speaker is timorous. What you have achieved will be revealed only when you breathe your last.
~ Seneca
Elsewhere, this is 4a173. — slipbox
This greater good you’ve found
Indeed, if you find anything in human life better than justice, truth, self-control, courage – in shrot, anything better than the sufficiency of your own mind, which keeps you acting according to the demands of true reason and accepting what fate gives you outside of your own power of choice – I tell you, if you can see anything better than this, turn to it heart and soul and take full advantage of this greater good you’ve found.
Elsewhere, this is 4a298. — slipbox
Those defiant words
I am unafraid as I prepare myself for that day when the artifices and disguises will be stripped away and I shall make judgment of myself. Is it just brave talk, or do I mean what I say? Were they for real, those defiant words I spoke against fortune, or were they just theatre – Just acting a part?
~ Seneca
Elsewhere, this is 4a111. — slipbox
On writing
I believe that everyone should write in public. Get a blog. Or use Squidoo or Tumblr or a microblogging site. Use an alias if you like. Turn off comments, certainly–you don’t need more criticism, you need more writing.
~ Seth Godin from, Talker’s block
Elsewhere, this is 4useta2. — slipbox
Thank you. …don’t mind if I do. Coming up on 8 years on this blog, and well over 2,000 posts. :)
Writing here has been useful on two fronts: First, when I do have to write something in some random context, le voila! …every day I suck less at writing. Second, writing clarifies my thinking. (My thinking needs a lot of clarifying.)
ɕ
True and steadfast judgment
Raw material
Just as the nature of rational things has given to each person their rational powers, so it also gives us this power – Just as nature turns to its own purpose any obstacle or any opposition, sets its place in the destined order, and co-ops it, so every rational person can convert any obstacle into the raw material for their own purpose.
Elsewhere, this is 4a292. — slipbox
Time is slipping
Thank you for giving me a few moments of your time.
Every moment—well, minus the 1/3 of my life when I’m horizontal and unconscious—I have the power to exercise my free will to decide what to do with my time. Since you are on the Internet, you likely also have this power and freedom. (Many people do not.)
Which moments do I regret? The ones where my choices were not intentional. Moments where I was habitual. Moments where I was reactive.
ɕ
Everything is created twice
Everything is created twice, first in the mind and then in reality.
Elsewhere, this is 4a284. — slipbox
Think for oneself
A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.
Elsewhere, this is 4a143. — slipbox
§18 – Start where you are
The magic of confirmation bias is that everything I encounter seems to apply to the current situation. I incessantly, and to a fault, seek meaning. Not “what is the meaning of life” meaning, but explanations and reasons and plans and systems… all as a means to manipulating the universe around me.
Chapter 18 is the heaviest so far in the book. (I’ve read it many times now of course.) Whereas the previous chapters select a single idea that one readily finds within parkour/ADD, and unpacks it, this chapter points out that there is a large body of work and a vast shared human experience outside of parkour/ADD. Taking some hints from that outside space and bringing them back into one’s parkour/ADD practice, and into one’s life in general, can only benefit those of us on the path.
ɕ
If you do not know
The calling of what could be
The best way I can describe it is a “calling.” I see something—something being done in an inefficient way, a question asked, a powerful tool not being used—and I see possibilities. Ways to combine things, to expand things, or a small bit of connection that would make two things vastly more powerful. It’s a flash of opportunity.
The urge to drop whatever it is that I’m currently doing, and jump on the new opportunity is irresistible. Not quite absolutely irresistible, but it’s close. I don’t get distracted so much by things, but rather by the opportunity for me to take some action to create, integrate, combine, smash and rebuild better, rearrange and permute. Oh yes, it’s a calling. It’s almost an addiction.
Actually, maybe it is an addiction. An addiction to action?
Certainly, I’m biased towards action. That’s a good thing. As an agent—emotional too of course, but as a being who has agency—being biased towards action is a necessary component of being able to consistently affect the world.
However, I’ve come to believe that there’s such a thing as too much action. It’s completely possible, (exhibit ‘A’, me,) to attempt too much action, to do too much, and to lose oneself in a flurry of activity. I’m beginning to suspect that, now that I’m a master of taking action, I need to work on assessing leverage. Feel a calling? How much leverage would that action generate? How much good/benefit/creation/change would that action generate? How, as it were, does it multiply the actions of others?
That might be a theme for 2020: How much does it multiply?
ɕ
Mindless or mindful?
Have you noticed how often we all repeat what we say?
Too many people simply begin talking at another person, before having obtained their attention. This happens all the time! Once you start to notice it, it’s everywhere.
Too many people aren’t paying attention. Although, I suspect it’s partly in response to too many people [and computers and phones and our entire culture] clamoring for their attention, that they’ve stopped paying attention as a self-defense mechanism. Withholding attention shifts the default setting of how attention-getting something must be to actually get their attention.
Many years ago we create a house-rule that we would not talk to each other unless we were in the same room. It took a long time until it became the norm in our house. No shouting from one room to another with a question, or an order. How often do things like, “Hey, could you…” travel from room to room in your home? Our rule forces us, when I want your attention, to go to you. This puts some actual effort onto me, exactly where it belongs. No one is permitted to call from the living room, “Hey, can you bring me…” because we both know full well we should get up and get it ourselves.
Settling into that rule was tough. But part two was far harder. Improving the other side of the exchange: that of the person who is being interrupted, even if it is ever so politely, by a demand for attention. Having reached a point where we each travel to the other, (the first part,) we then had to learn to treat the arriving person with respect, (the second part.) For example, when I’m knee-deep in computer work and she arrives, I had to learn to pause from my work and turn my full attention to this person who is vastly more important than anything happening in my computer. Frankly I’m still working on this.
After a few years of all of the above, I noticed my attention was becoming a much sharper tool in my interactions out in the world. Some of this was surely due to years of martial arts training, but much of the change was due to my intentional practice described above.
(Then I realized just how much of my attention my phone was demanding, and I fixed that shit right quick. Then I threw my participation in social networks under the bus.)
Now, I see countless examples of mindlessness any time I venture out into the regular world. But I also see examples of mindfulness! They’re not as common, but some people I encounter are awake. Some people I encounter are interested and interesting. Some people’s presence make the immediate area a better place.
Which are you, mindless or mindful?
ɕ
Let it
If it’s confusion and anarchy, then be grateful that on this raging sea you have a mind to guide you. And if the storm should carry you away, let it carry off flesh, breath and all the rest, but not the mind. Which can’t be swept away.
Elsewhere, this is 4a449. — slipbox
What versus how
When you find yourself stuck on some decision, figure out if you are stuck on the ‘what’ or the ‘how’. Every situation is different, but here are some examples:
Thinking about marriage: You’re likely to be stuck on the ‘what’. Should I get married? Should I marry this person? You’re stuck on what should I do. If you decide to get married, it’s quite simple. You probably need a marriage license and a simple legal ceremony. The how you get married is almost always very easy.
Thinking about quitting college: You’re likely to be stuck on the ‘what’. Should I quit? Should I continue? How you quit is very easy; go to the Registrar’s office, and they’ll give you a form. (Actually, you could simply walk away and they’ll do the quitting for you.)
Thinking about changing jobs: You’re likely stuck on the ‘how’. I don’t like this job; I’d like that other career. Straightforward what I should do. But how do I do that? Existing family commitments, monetary support, contracts with your employer… So how you change jobs is hard.
Side hustles: I want to start a side-project working on my passion. How do I do that in my spare time? How do I create a business? How do I find some funding. Again, the what is easy and the how is hard.
It isn’t that being stuck on one versus the other is better or worse. But figuring out which you are stuck on—hopefully it’s one and not both—will clarify your thinking and will show you the type of help you should seek.
I know what I want to do, but I don’t know how to do it.
I don’t know what I want to do, but I know how to do it.
When you’re stuck, figure out where your “don’t” lies. Then figure out who you can ask for guidance to help you remove your “don’t” so you’re left with:
I know what I want to do, and I know how to do it.
ɕ
Lying to children
The first step in clearing your head is to realize how far you are from a neutral observer. When I left high school I was, I thought, a complete skeptic. I’d realized high school was crap. I thought I was ready to question everything I knew. But among the many other things I was ignorant of was how much debris there already was in my head. It’s not enough to consider your mind a blank slate. You have to consciously erase it.
~ Paul Graham from, Lies We Tell Kids
Elsewhere, this is 4upali1. — slipbox
Sure, there are lies of expedience. (“What is thunder?” “It’s clouds bumping into each other.”) But it’s a water slide of lies when you start thinking about it. I know I never really thought about it; I certainly wouldn’t have expected a quick summary of the issues to be 5,000 words.
But there it is none the less, well done by Graham. It contains a litany of ways we all lie to children, (including those of us who don’t have or care for children in any way.) Frankly, some of the ways we all lie seem like an excellent thing to be doing. And if that’s the case, then we all have the we’ve-been-lied-to baggage Graham is describing.
Suddenly! (“It didn’t stop. It didn’t stop!”)
…I feel like I need to toss out the closets of my mind.
ɕ
The beginning of philosophy
The beginning of philosophy is this: The realization that there is a conflict between the opinions of men and a search for the origin of that conflict, accompanied by a mistrust towards mere opinion, and an investigation of opinion to see if it is correct opinion, and the discovery of a certain standard of judgement, comparable to the balance that we have discovered for determining weights, or the rule, for things straight and crooked.
Elsewhere, this is 4a443. — slipbox
Your model of the world
Reading and experience train your model of the world. And even if you forget the experience or what you read, its effect on your model of the world persists. Your mind is like a compiled program you’ve lost the source of. It works, but you don’t know why.
~ Paul Graham from, How You Know
Elsewhere, this is 4upako1. — slipbox
I deeply love the concept of having a “model” of the world. I’m also deeply interested in having a correct model of the world. The model enables me to understand the world, to move through it, and to create the changes I wish.
I used to try to carefully create my model; for each question I encountered, I would try to learn everything that was important to determine the best answer. But that is an endless fool’s errand. The whole world become an endless field of rabbit holes. Each rabbit hole is wonderfully interesting, and it is immediately clear that exploring even a significant number of them is hopeless in one lifetime.
Instead, I learned to follow my curiosity—which is the recipe for rabbit-holes ad nauseum—but to stop when I’m no longer curious. Piece by piece a model of the world is assembled. Want to build a great model? …don’t focus on building the best model. Instead focus on this next piece of the model—the next thing you read, the next person you interact with, the next thing you do, the next thing you explore.
You have a model too, and you use it constantly. What are you doing to build your model?
ɕ
All excesses are injurious
All excesses are injurious, but immoderate prosperity is the most dangerous of all. It affects the brain, it conjures empty fantasies up in the mind, and it befogs the distinction between true and false with a confusing cloud. Is it not better to endure everlasting misfortune, with virtue’s help, than to burst with endless and immoderate prosperity? Death by starvation comes gently, gluttony makes men explode.
~ Seneca
Elsewhere, this is 4a431. — slipbox
40 knots in the freezing Atlantic
The point is, you’re basically this walking, lumbering habit machine. And these habits — a.k.a. your identity — have been built up over the course of decades of living and breathing, laughing and loving, succeeding and failing, and through the years, they have built up a cruising speed of 40 knots or so in the freezing Atlantic. And if you want to change them — that is, change your identity, how you perceive yourself or how you adapt to the world — well you better slam that steering wheel to the side and be ready to hit a couple icebergs, because ships this big don’t turn so well.
~ Mark Manson from, Shut Up and Be Patient
Elsewhere, this is 4umabe1. — slipbox
I’ve been saying, “big ship, little rudder,” for a long time about my own attempts to change course. I’m certain I’m right about myself, but it’s reassuring to hear other people say they see this about themselves too. Wether or not Manson is your cup ‘o tea, it’s nice to hear things that confirm your assessment. “That looks like a shark, right? That’s a shark; we should get out of the water, right?”
The reason—not “one of the reasons”, but the actual, single, I’m-not-kidding, this is really why, reason—I tell the truth is that it helps other people form a good model of their world. Sound bonkers? …try this:
You know what it looks like, and/or sounds like, when a car is approaching along a roadway. You have a model of your world that, I hope, predicts that being struck by said car would be Very Bad. So you instinctively adjust your actions—get out of the way that is—when you see or hear a car approaching. That’s you using a model of reality; in this case a really good model that almost always works. Your model isn’t perfect: The driver could swerve to avoid you, and end up hitting you. In which case your model of the world has failed; you should have stood stationary, in the street to avoid being hit.
Where did you get that model?
What if I had arranged it so that every car you encountered as a child was driven by a confidant of mine. I had them all swerve to avoid you, and I taught you that cars will avoid you. You’d have a very different model! …and you’d agree I had done some SERIOUS lying to you!
Does my definition of True make sense now? I’ll say something if it will help you build a better model of the world. One can try this test on everything; it always works perfectly to tell you what is morally correct [in the context of speaking]. Anyway, I digress.
So I’ve been saying to myself, “big ship, small rudder,” and here I have an external bit of evidence from Manson that my model is correct. *shrugs* Sorry, this is what happens when you peek into my head.
ɕ
Context matters
Not only are others blind to the larger context but we are often blind to their context. Only by zooming out and looking at the situations through the eyes of multiple people, can you begin to acquire perspective. And perspective is the key to removing blind-spots.
Elsewhere, this is 4ufosi1. — slipbox
For example: Knowing who wrote something provides useful context. In this case, the piece has no attribution—which is silly since it’s a useful, concise summary.
One way in which everyone—I can think of exactly one person, whom I’ve personally spoken with, who is the exception to that “everyone”—leaves out important context is by not being clear where ideas have come from. Everyone speaks as if each idea is patently obvious; “the sky is blue,” doesn’t need context when humans on Earth are speaking. But when you start to pay attention, almost everything else does need context. Where in fact did I hear this idea? Why am I repeating it here, in this conversation? Does my personal experience and opinion, agree or disagree with this idea?
A few years ago, I started demarcating ideas with, “I think…,” when it’s an original composition of thought, and “it seems obvious that…,” when that is the case. (And I only spout the third sort of idea—the ones I got from others—when I can recall or track down where I got it.) This forces me to sort my ideas by their contexts. Certain, uncertain, likely, unlikely, etc.. The first thing that happened was I started spouting off random crap far less often. The second thing that happened was that I found, (and have subsequently made a habit of looking into,) a lot of ideas in my head that were of dubious veracity.
ɕ
The dedications of philosophy
[T]he dedications of philosophy are impregnable; age cannot erase their memory or diminish their force. Each succeeding generation will hold them in even higher reverence; what is close at hand is subject to envy, whereas the distant we can admire without prejudice. The philosopher’s life is therefore spacious; he is not hemmed in and constricted like others. He alone is exempt from the limitations of humanity; all ages are at his service as at a god’s. Has time gone by? He holds it fast in recollection. Is time now present? He utilizes it. Is it still to come? He anticipates it. The amalgamation of all time into one makes his life long.
~ Seneca
Elsewhere, this is 4a394. — slipbox
Why we all need philosophy
Philosophy is, therefore, undismissable for the simple reason that it encompasses all of conscious experience. To criticize philosophy, you must rely on some degree of philosophy. To shit on systematic frameworks of understanding, you must generate a systematic framework of understanding.
Elsewhere, this is 4umawy1. — slipbox
Irreverant as usual, but—as is also often the case with Manson—an insightful look at why you are already doing philosophy.
Years ago, when I said, “screw this I’m starting,” and tried to get Philosophy wrapped around my brain… Years ago, one of the most profitable things I ever did was subscribe to a little podcast called Philosophy Bites. And then listen to all of them. I’m still not an ivory-tower armchair philosopher, but there’s a crap-ton fewer unknown-unknowns.
ɕ
Not by logic-chopping
Opinions
It’s easy to agree when no one is thinking.
Elsewhere, this is 4ufooi1. — slipbox
Having read that and done the thinking to evaluate it—yeup, I agree.
ɕ
Philosophy
Philosophers became insignificant when philosophy became a separate academic discipline, distinct from science and history and literature and religion.
~ Shane Parrish from, Freeman Dyson on The Difference Between Science and Philsophy
Elsewhere, this is 4ufofe1. — slipbox
Which is worth sharing just because it’s Freeman Dyson—I’m quoting a quote—in all his zany glory.
…but also, yeah. Why isn’t STEM today thought of as a branch of philosophy, (“love of truth” after all)? STEM degrees remain Ph.D.s, but beyond that vestigially appendix . . .
ɕ
Express it
The person who says he knows what he thinks but cannot express it usually does not know what he thinks.
Elsewhere, this is 4a387. — slipbox
The art of living
Philosophy does not promise to secure anything external for man, otherwise it would be admitting something that lies beyond its proper subject-matter. For as the material of the carpenter is wood, and that of statuary bronze, so the subject-matter of the art of living is each person’s own life.
Elsewhere, this is 4a524. — slipbox
Surprised
Remember: You shouldn’t be surprised that a fig tree produces figs, nor the world what it produces. A good doctor isn’t surprised when his patients have fevers, or a helmsman when the wind blows against him.
Elsewhere, this is 4a512. — slipbox
Only the present
Don’t let your imagination be crushed by life as a whole. Don’t try to picture everything bad that could possibly happen. Stick with the situation at hand, and ask, “Why is this so unbearable? Why can’t I endure it?” You’ll be embarrassed to answer. Then remind yourself that past and future have no power over you. Only the present—and even that can be minimized. Just mark off its limits. And if your mind tries to claim that it can’t hold out against that… well, then, heap shame upon it.
Elsewhere, this is 4a509. — slipbox
The mind is a fortress
Remember that when it withdraws into itself and finds contentment there, the mind is invulnerable. It does nothing against its will, even if its resistance is irrational. And if its judgement is deliberate and grounded in logic…? The mind without passions is a fortress. No place is more secure. Once we take refuge there we are safe forever. Not to see this is ignorance. To See it and not seek safety means misery.
Elsewhere, this is 4a497. — slipbox
Avoiding unrighteousness
The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; For that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death, and they too go their ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong; And I must abide by my award—let them abide by theirs.
~ Socrates
Elsewhere, this is 4a401. — slipbox
The existence of evil
The existence of evil does not harm the world. And an individual act of evil does not harm the victim. Only one person is harmed by it—and he can stop being harmed as soon as he decides to.
Elsewhere, this is 4a500. — slipbox
Imagine
What their minds are like. What they work at. What evokes their love and admiration. Imagine their souls stripped bare. And their vanity. To suppose that their disdain could harm anyone—or their praise help them.
Elsewhere, this is 4a473. — slipbox
Controlling the mind
Skepticism and cynicism
The result of this kind of influence is twofold: one is a skepticism and cynicism towards everything which is said or printed, while the other is a childish belief in anything that a person is told with authority. This combination of cynicism and naïveté is very typical of the modern individual. Its essential result is to discourage him from doing his own thinking and deciding.
~ Erich Fromm from, Erich Fromm on Why It’s Difficult to Think Originally and Critically in the Modern Age | The Art of Manliness
Elsewhere, this is 4uaoai16. — slipbox
Philosophical Skepticism, “is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge.” (That’s a quote from the Wikipedia entry. If you want to go deeper, try the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry for Skepticism.)
As far as I understand it—your mileage may vary—Fromm, in that quote, wasn’t condemning philosophical skepticism. Rather, and I agree, let’s all condemn the little-s-skepticism; the naivete driven, disbelieve everything, skepticism that turns away from anything it doesn’t understand.
I prefer to turn towards just about anything I don’t yet understand. (See: “Oh. That’s interesting…”) I’m am frequently asking myself: “What is true, and how do I know it’s true?”
ɕ
Who has authority?
Suppose he had passed his judgement upon a hypothetical proposition, and declared, ‘I judge the proposition, “if it be day, there is light,” to be false,’ what would have happened to the proposition? Who is being judged here? Who has been condemned? The proposition, or he who is utterly mistaken about it? So who on Earth is this man who has authority to pass such judgement on you?
Elsewhere, this is 4a458. — slipbox
Opposing ideas
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
Elsewhere, this is 4a384. — slipbox
Intelligent dissent
Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
Elsewhere, this is 4a368. — slipbox
When?
Most of us are content to live in a world where time is simply what a clock reads. The interdisciplinary artist Alicia Eggert is not. Through co-opting clocks and forms of commercial signage (billboards, neon signs, inflatable nylon of the kind that animates the air dancers in the parking lots of auto dealerships), Eggert makes conceptual art that invites us to experience the dimensions of time through the language we use to talk about it.
Elsewhere, this is 4uloho1. — slipbox
Thinking about the nature of time always feels like trying to find the other edge of the Mobius strip. At first, I’m mildly excited to be reminded of such a simple thing. It’s such an interesting thing to think about. I go around and around trying to grasp different time scales, and the entire expanse of time. But soon I realize that I’m really only thinking in circles. Is there a takeaway beyond, “being mindful is good”?
Or does simply performing the awareness of time and the circular thinking, somehow reset—or recenter, or realign?—my thinking? Reset my thinking in the same way that one resets the drum-brakes on your car, by backing-up and then braking firmly causes the drum brakes to adjust their grip on the brake cable.
Also, see other branching from when.
ɕ
Blame yourself
Socrates knew how a rational soul is moved; that it is like a balance, and if a weight is thrown in the scale, it will incline whether you wish it or not. Show the rational governing faculty a contradiction, and it will renounce it; but if you fail to do so, blame yourself rather than the person whom you are unable to convince.
Elsewhere, this is 4a333. — slipbox
Serenity, Freedom
When you have considered all these things with care, then, if you think fit, approach philosophy, and be willing to give up all of this in exchange for serenity, freedom and an undisturbed mind. Otherwise, do not come near; do not, like children, be at one time a philosopher, later a tax-collector, then a rhetorititian, and then one of Caesar’s procurators. These things are not compatible. You must be one man, either good or bad. You must cultivate either your own ruling faculty or externals, and apply yourself either to things within or those outside; that is, you must assume either the attitude of a philosopher or that of a layman.
Elsewhere, this is 4a554. — slipbox
Efficacy
When you think that one of your ideas is a billion dollar one, remember the S-logo. Your idea is probably not as unique as you think it is. After a game-chasing [sic] insight strikes you, focus on how well you can execute upon that idea instead.
~ Chris Bailey from, Your ideas aren’t that unique – Chris Bailey
Elsewhere, this is 4uaiyo2. — slipbox
I agree and I will go farther: An idea alone is worthless. It becomes increasingly valuable only if one thinks through the second-order, (and third and so on,) effects. Only when one thinks about how the idea connects to everything else one knows. Only when the idea has been connected to, and tested against, reality.
A good idea has some real, objective—others see the effect too and their observations agree—effect in the world. That part is trivially easy; “I think moving this chair is a good idea!” and then move the chair. But to be a good idea, it must also create value which can be traded, (in the most general sense,) with others. Moving the chair out of someone’s way is a good idea. Moving it to make them trip is not.
I can easily become trapped in my own thoughts. So many ideas! So many possibilities! But instead of ruminating in a whirlwind of worthless ideas, if I pick one, think it through, and then stand up to go make it happen— Magic. Efficacy for the win.
ɕ
Due consideration
Like an ape, you imitate whatever you see, and one thing after another is sure to please you, but no longer to please you as soon as it becomes familiar. For you have never entered upon anything with due consideration, nor after examining the whole matter carefully and systematically, but always approach things in a random and poorly motivated manner.
Elsewhere, this is 4a563. — slipbox
True nature of the good
What, then, is wrong with you? I tell you, it is this, that you have neglected and corrupted that part of you, whatever it may be, with which we feel desire or aversion, and the impulse to act or not to act. Neglected in what way? By letting it remian ignorant of the true nature of the good, to which it was born, and of the nature of evil, and of what it has as its own and what is not its own.
Elsewhere, this is 4a321. — slipbox
Shaken from what?
Ought you not first to have acquired something by the use of reason, and then to have made that secure? But you are studying to be able to prove things in argument. Prove what, though? You are studying so as not to be shaken by fallacious arguments. Shaken from what? Show me first what you are watching over, what you are measuring, or what you are weighing; and then, accordingly, show me your balance.
Elsewhere, this is 4a240. — slipbox
The source of all human evils
Why, do you not reflect, then, that the source of all human evils, and of mean-spiritedness and cowardice, is not death, but rather the fear of death? Discipline yourself, therefore, against this. To this let all your discourses, readings, exercises, tend. And then you will know that in this way alone are men made free.
Elsewhere, this is 4a230. — slipbox
When thus prepared
And when you are thus prepared and thus trained to distinguish what is not your own from your own, what is subject to hindrance from what is not, to regard the latter as your concern and the form as not, and carefully keep your desire directed toward the latter, and your aversion directed towards the former, will there any longer be anyone for you to fear?
Elsewhere, this is 4a215. — slipbox
True freedom
Not in our power
And who can never be hindered? The man who sets his desire on nothing that is not his own. And what are those things that are not our own? Those that are not in our power, either to have or not to have, or to have them of a particular nature, or under specific conditions. Our body, therefore, is not our own, its parts are not our own, and our property is not our own. So if you become attached to any of these as your own, you will be punished, as he deserves to be who sets his desire on what is not his own.
Elsewhere, this is 4a205. — slipbox
Fruit of these teachings
What is the fruit of these teachings? Only the most beautiful and proper harvest of the truly educated—tranquility, fearlessness, and freedom. We should not trust the masses who say that only the free can be educated, but rather the lovers of wisdom who say that only the educated are free.
Elsewhere, this is 4a591. — slipbox
This is click bait
German Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) influenced some of the more prominent minds in the world. His writings and lessons traverse time and discipline. Schopenhauer confronted similar problems with media to the ones we face.
~ Shane Parrish from, Master Your Attention: Schopenhauer’s Strategy Against Clickbait
Elsewhere, this is 4ufoso4. — slipbox
The scale of Philosophy—just “western” Philosophy alone, even—is mind boggling. Who thought what, at which point in their career. Who influenced whom. Who’s work is now considered bunk, and which is bunk but still necessary to understand some other piece. What is in which language, and then which translation of that should one choose. If so-and-so had an influence on other-person, in what way? …did they build upon, tear down and correct, or push farther the influencer’s work?
At one point, I had deluded myself into attempting a systematic survey of Philosophy. ahahhahaahhaahahhaahahahahahhahaaa. Silly human.
But this small-ish article from Parrish led me to actually wonder about some of Schopenhauer’s essays. And I’ve ended up with an English translation of his On Reading and Books now sitting on my read-next table.
ɕ
Thinking
You need to avoid certain things in your train of thought: everything random, everything irrelevant. And certainly everything self-important or malicious. You need to get used to winnowing your thoughts, so that if someone says, “What are you thinking about?” you can respond at once (and truthfully) that you are thinking this or thinking that. And it would be obvious at once from your answer that your thoughts were straightforward and considerate ones.
Elsewhere, this is 4a683. — slipbox
Language
It’s incredible—meaning not credible, not something one would think one should take as true—that we can push air through a tube, finely modulate tension of some fibrous bands attached to flaps, manipulate the shape of a bunch of things it seems were designed for eating . . . and presto! some idea appears in your mind, generally, in the way I intended. It’s incredible but so blasé, right?
And it’s not even incredible, at this point, that the whole “process” has different “languages,” with dialects, jargon and local slang. No. That’s all yawns-ville.
It’s not even interesting that I can smashcrastically make up “words” and it still works. The right idea still appears in your head. And a word can have multiple meanings. Does it have the same several meanings in another language? Meh, interesting, but not brain melting.
What explodes my noodle every time is the thought of homonyms. Words in one language that sound the same that have different meanings. To. Too. Two. Homonyms! …why aren’t those words also homonyms in another language? (‘au’ or is it ‘a’? …and ‘deux’?) Are there in fact any homonyms in one language that are also homonyms in another language? If so, or if not, does that tell us anything about language itself? …or about the origins of language? …or about the common ancestry of those particular languages, or about those particular words? …or . . .
yeah no sorry wat? Mrs. Peters just always thought I wasn’t paying attention in French class.
ɕ
Before the fall
Pride is generally an emotion encountered only when looking backward. But we can also experience it when looking forward to each day, each month, each year, each decade, and even to the end of our life when imagining what we were able to accomplish in that time.
Elsewhere, this is 4uaiwa1. — slipbox
I’m also familiar with, “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” I’m not certain the meaning of haughty, although I’d bet that one who exhibits indignation, (anger or annoyance provoked by what is perceived as unfair treatment,) would qualify as “haughty.”
And I sometimes joke that “indignation” is my other superpower.
All of which, I suppose, it a good thing. There are situations where indignation is righteous. But I’m well aware that my indignation—when it flares—is not. So maybe this exercise of looking forward could be a way to refine my pride? If I imaginatively project forward I can consider something I’d be proud of. Then, if I imagine not succeeding at that something, the pride disappears… and does indignation appear?
Does that seem right? …if success or failure in something, which is never actually in my control—reminder: the dichotomy of control—determines whether I experience pride or indignation, is that something actually one worth pursuing?
Could I find instead something about which I’d feel pride regardless of success or failure?
ɕ
Sliding without thinking
There are two ways to slide easily through life: Namely, to believe everything, or to doubt everything; Both ways save us from thinking.
Elsewhere, this is 4a735. — slipbox
Recently I’ve noticed several conversations where the topic of extremes has come up. I’m not certain this is new, only that my noticing it is new. The idea that we each fall somewhere on the spectrum of whatever-it-is we care to talk about is not new. And I’m absolutely not implying that moderation is always better; It is not necessarily true that the correct viewpoint is towards the middle.
What I am saying—what I’ve been recently noticing—is that the people towards the ends of the spectrum of whatever topic you care to consider are the louder people. There’s always a majority of people between the extremes, who aren’t as vocal. (Who don’t speak, write, nor post as much as those toward the extremes. “Fool and fanatics” as it were.
ɕ
Slide easily
There are two ways to slide easily through life: Namely, to believe everything, or to doubt everything; Both ways save us from thinking.
Elsewhere, this is 4a735. — slipbox
Understanding of self
But the nature of man is sufficiently revealed for him to know something of himself and sufficiently veiled to leave much impenetrable darkness, a darkness in which he ever gropes, forever in vain, trying to understand himself.
Elsewhere, this is 4a754. — slipbox
Principles
As to methods, there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble.
Elsewhere, this is 4a764. — slipbox
This is strikingly accurate for all the domains I’ve tried so far. I believe it’s useful to begin by trying some method-work; To explore conversation as a mastery practice, it would be insurmountably boring to sit in my research library reading about conversation. But trying a few different experiments provides invaluable experience. Some things are reproducible, and some things aren’t. Why is that? Some things work as I expected, and some things don’t. Why is that? Some things aren’t connected the way I’d expected, (imagine if the light switches in your house worked lights in other rooms, instead of the one you expected.) Why is that?
Niels Bohr said something similar about Painful experience, and I agree. The experiences serve as guides on either side of the roadway. In the beginning, everything is unknown and the road is seemingly boundless. Some exploration however soon finds a guide limiting one side. Farther exploration moves along the road and perhaps finds the other side’s guide. Progress continues in a serpentine fashion along the road. As principles are learned, the road becomes clearer. Armed with the curiosity and inspiration born of experimentation, progress along the road accelerates as the guides become more clear.
In the end—or the end of the beginning?—things again seem simple. One might even say they seem principled.
ɕ
Principles are few
As to methods, there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble.
Elsewhere, this is 4a764. — slipbox
Change of troubles
Dubious applications
Think about what you will add to the world. Some lucrative professions, (e.g., ultra-high-tech finance,) are dubious applications of human brainpower.
Elsewhere, this is 4a808. — slipbox
Respecting people’s wishes
We’re not just respecting people’s time. We’re respecting their voice and their passion.
~ Seth Godin from, Respecting their time
Elsewhere, this is 4usere2. — slipbox
It’s a good post from Godin. This post of mine is a literal tangent from one thing he mentioned…
In cases where “we’re all going to be speaking” isn’t on the agenda, going around the room, (ala “let’s all introduce ourselves”,) robs people of their agency. I’ve heard it discussed that this wastes time—it does. But vastly worse is the fact that it removes people’s agency.
(Agency is critical. I’ll go out on a limb and say that depriving someone of agency is literally the worst thing you can do to a person. All the horrible physical crimes you just thought of, involve first depriving the victim of their agency. Imagine if taking someone’s agency was treated as the worst crime possible.)
I imagine I’m leading some session, and someone is sitting in the space. When their turn comes around… suppose they don’t want to speak? What if they didn’t want to be heard? By saying, “let’s go around”—even if I say, “and introduce yourself if you want to“—regardless, they are going to be seen. They have to speak, to decline to speak. They have to leave the room, or hide, etc. My “let’s go around the room,” literally robs everyone of their choice.
There are of course lots of situations where “going around” makes perfect sense. For example, if we’re sitting in a restorative justice circle, everyone there knows how it works. You’re free to not speak, and you know that you are going be seen. But the vast majority of times I’ve been in a “let’s go around” situation, it’s the theft of agency variety.
ɕ
What do you know
Read that title in the Petulant Voice. (There are the 1st-person, 2nd-person, Narrator, Author, etc. voices; I’ve always thought failure to formally recognize Petulant Voice was a major literary oversight.)
Reasoned skepticism and disagreement are essential to progress and democracy. The problem is that most of what’s happening isn’t reasoned skepticism. It’s the adult equivalent of a two-year-old throwing a tantrum.
~ Shane Parrish from, The Distrust of Intellectual Authority
Elsewhere, this is 4ufodi1. — slipbox
As in this article, the majority of what I’ve read—in the 32 years I’ve been reading stuff on the Internet—has been about the skeptic in the skepticism/disagreement relationships. But the responsibility is actually with the side claiming authority.
Always.
Because that’s the moral high road. (The high road is always less crowded.) If one wants to hold oneself out as an authority, then one is responsible for reaching down and helping others up. (Also, is “Tortured” a recognized voice?) One is not responsible for the skeptics whose attention you do not have. But one is responsible for those whose attention you do have; Those skeptics see you. There’s your chance to do good work.
ɕ
A good argument
Arguments […] can have a great deal of force for us even if, perhaps especially if, we recoil from [the] actual positions. The better the reasoning, the more [the] work requires us—if we’re going to be honest—to pick out the step where we disagree, and to see what consequences that has for the rest of our thought.
Elsewhere, this is 4urevo1. — slipbox
I do think about this sort of thing.
In my day-to-day life, I rarely encounter something abhorrent. That’s partly because of my privileged position in life, but it’s mostly because I don’t try to overreach. I don’t try to watch “everything” or keep up with “everything” and I very emphatically do not try to have an opinion on everything. But I do, sometimes, encounter things that, while not abhorrent, rise to the level of odious. Which then makes me think, “do I want to have an argument?”
Increasingly, approaching “always” these days, I don’t feel I have the energy for a good argument. That’s not a good sign.
ɕ
Diffuse thinking
Although diffuse thinking comes in the guise of a break from focus, our minds are still working. Often, it’s only after we switch away from this mode that we realize our brains were indeed working for us. Moving into diffuse mode can be a very brief phenomenon, such as when we briefly stare into the distance before returning to work.
~ Shane Parrish from, Focused and Diffuse: Two Modes of Thinking
It is a most interesting mode of thinking. Even after protracted wondering, it’s not clear to me what exactly is the list of things necessary to intentionally slip into the mode of thinking. So I’ll start with some things that will prevent me, every time: Being exhausted or even very-tired will prevent my diffuse thinking. Because settling in, physically and mentally, is also how I go to sleep. Being overly energetic will prevent my diffuse thinking. It’s as if the mind is the driver atop the elephant, and the elephant must be in the mood to follow, not in the mood to frolic or smash.
ɕ
Pessimist? Optimist?
This has been distilled to a motto: “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will”. I am a pessimist or optimist of the intellect according to facts on the ground, but I am ever an optimist of the will.
~ Jason Crawford from, Descriptive vs. prescriptive optimism
Elsewhere, this is 4urode2. — slipbox
Frankly, I’ve never cared for the simple dichotomy of, “are you an optimist, or a pessimist?” There is simply too much complexity—in the world, in the mind—for that level of simplicity to be useful. I’m interested in models, and this article from Crawford spreads out some of the complexity nicely. (It also includes some interesting references.)
ɕ
What’s in a name
A challenge arises when we make something over a long period of time. As we evolve — as we add experiences, impressions, memories, deepening knowledge and self-knowledge to the combinatorial pool from which all creative work springs — what we make evolves accordingly; it must, if we are living widely and wisely enough. Eventually, the name we once chose for it begins to feel not like a choice but like a constraint, an ill-fitting corset ribbed with the ossified sensibility of a former self.
~ Maria Popova from, Becoming the Marginalian: After 15 Years, Brain Pickings Reborn
Elsewhere, this is 4uteba1. — slipbox
Popova changed the name of her project a while back, and this is a nice unpacking of her thinking. I’ve a lot of projects, and they have various names; Names that are public and names for them in my own mind.
With each project, I continuously struggle to balance the desire for concision and the desire for clarity. I drive myself mercilessly to find the simplest phrase that is something memorable and meaningful. And then I drive myself mercilessly to be ready and able to explain things as iterative layers of unpacking. That name. A few sentences. A few minutes of explanation. And so on, expanding to a fully dynamic conversation about the thing. On one hand, I know that this zooming in, (towards a concise name,) and zooming out, (toward a coherent and thorough explanation,) improves my thinking and understanding. But on the other hand. It’s really exhausting.
ɕ
The library
If you think of your mind as a library, three things should concern you. […] There is no point having a repository of knowledge in your mind if you can’t find and apply its contents (see multiplicative systems).
Elsewhere, this is 4umepe1. — slipbox
Don’t panic it’s not simply a catalog of library metaphors. There are great points about being intentional about what you choose to put into your brain, what your brain is good at doing, the utility and danger—which I humorously typo’d as “dander”—of filters, and more. I’m going to go in a different direction here however: Rather than trying to figure out how to assess the library of my mind, I’ve been trying to more often let people see what it’s doing. As I’ve said many times, this blog itself is a form of me working “with the garage door up.” …and I regularly reread these blog posts myself to make sure the thoughts still look reasonable after some time sitting on the digital shelf.
ɕ
Guiding principles
We rarely take the time to capture these guiding principles—even though recognizing them can help steer our actions, lead us to better decisions, and let us live more in alignment with who we are.
Elsewhere, this is 4uaimy1. — slipbox
As with Bailey, I don’t think I have a clear set of guiding principles. I’m not sure if I’m okay with that. I am sure that I do not want to spiral off and spend my entire day—that’s what would surely happen to me if I begin—thinking about this. Instead, I read his list and spent some time letting my thinking happen spurred by his principles. Just as he described, I did have one principle spring immediately to mind: Curiosity. To be powered by curiosity. To be passionately curious. “Curioser and curioser”, said Alice.
ɕ
More light
There’s also a long list of advertisers who rely on this confusion to abdicate their ethical responsibility in terms of their money winding up in the pockets of bottom-dwelling grifters and bigots. The murkiness makes it easier to pretend it’s not happening, and it’s this accountability gap the group hopes to target
~ Karl Bode from, Nonprofit Takes Aim At Fox News By Demystifying Ad Exchanges | Techdirt
Elsewhere, this is 4uteno2. — slipbox
Caution: Depending on your viewpoint, that article will make you cheer, or will enrage you. What I want to focus on is, “murkiness” and I want to split a fine hair.
I believe there’s visibility, (in the sense that it is clear who is accountable for some speech [advertising is speech],) anonymity, and murkiness which obscures the dichotomy of visibility versus anonymity. My position is that murkiness is never a positive thing. The knowledge that something is being said with accountability, (who said it is clear,) versus with anonymity is critical for one to be able to evaluate some speech for oneself. That knowledge is removed when there’s murkiness.
ɕ
Upper bounds
If we play our cards right, we could live hundreds of thousands of years more. In fact, there’s not much stopping us living millions of years. The typical species lives about a million years. Our 200,000 years so far would put us about in our adolescence, just old enough to be getting ourselves in trouble, but not wise enough to have thought through how we should act.
~ Toby Ord from, We Have the Power to Destroy Ourselves Without the Wisdom to Ensure That We Don’t | Edge.org
Elsewhere, this is 4ueeco4. — slipbox
I find it beneficial to have my perspectives stretched. This article walks through scales of time in a delightful manner. It pauses to ask questions, and to point out people who did certain things at precise points in our history. There are countless opportunities to shift perspective. For example: I’ve been alive for 1/100 of recorded human history. And recorded history is only 3/100 of the age of our species. The aggregate progress of humanity is simply the sum of our individual efforts, and my life represents 1/100,000,000,000 of humanity so far. Stretched perspectives indeed.
ɕ
Humanism
But if progress is real and important—how do we judge this? How do we justify that improvements to material living standards are good? That technological and industrial progress represents true progress for humanity?
Elsewhere, this is 4uropo1. — slipbox
In a few dozen words, this article goes from zero to gloves-off, let’s take about the nature of what is good. Yes, please. Lets discuss this more often. I find, without exception, it’s completely pointless to discuss anything—the climate, energy sources, guns, health, rights… choose your favorite third-rail topic—if myself and the other(s) don’t share the same values.
And I mean the big values of philosophy. When I start thinking about what does human autonomy mean? …what rights and/or responsibilities does consciousness confer? …what is truth? Big yawning questions! …when we don’t agree on that stuff, then no wonder we’re at odds on the other things.
ɕ
It’s subtle but critically important
It’s broadly agreed these days that consciousness poses a very serious challenge for contemporary science. What I’m trying to work out at the moment is why science has such difficulty with consciousness. We can trace this problem back to its root, at the start of the scientific revolution.
Elsewhere, this is 4ueeco6. — slipbox
I once had a mathematics professor make a comment that it’s fascinating that mathematics is able to explain reality. I double-clutched at the time. And every single time I think about the point he was making, I still pause and my mind reels. If one is looking at—for example—classical mechanics, and one studies the ballistic equations, one can go along nicely using forces and trigonometry, and understand golf balls and baseballs in flight. Soon you realize your mathematics is only an approximation. So you dive into fluid mechanics, which requires serious calculus, and you then understand why golf balls have dimples and why the stitching on baseballs is strictly specified in the rules. All along the way, mathematics models reality perfectly!
But why? So you keep peeling. The math and physics gets more and more complicated—stochastic processes, randomness, quantum mechanics, wave-particle theory, etc.—as each layer answers another “why”… but it’s … is “cyclical” the right word? No matter how far you go, you can always ask “why” again, for the most complex and most accurate system you model and explain.
Down there at the bottom, that’s where Galileo declared there was a distinction between physical reality, and consciousness and the soul. We’ve had hundreds of years of progress via science on what Galileo divided off as “physical reality.” (And that progress is a Very Good Thing.) But as this article explores, is there actually a distinction? What if making that distinction is a mistake?
ɕ
Reasons and persons
You’ve probably heard this scenario before. It originally comes from Derek Parfit’s 1984 book Reasons and Persons, where he actually answers the question. (Though you may not like the answer.) To answer it, he has to go though a set of even weirder scenarios. Here’s most of them, edited aggressively.
~ “Dynomight” from, Reasons and Persons: The case against the self
Elsewhere, this is 4udyno1. — slipbox
This article turns a number of complicated thought experiments into a disorienting dash through a hall of mirrors. I’ve not read Parfit’s book, but I’ve encountered these sorts of thought experiments before. On one hand I’m drawn to thinking about them because I feel I should be able to have some foundational, (although not necessarily simple,) principles that I can use to answer them. Which is a working definition of, “I want to be rational.” Until I start really digging into the experiments and things get really complicated. Why, it’s as if being a limited-in-resources mind forced to interact with in an intractably complex world, may not be something with a clear, correct, let alone singular, solution.
ɕ
Virtue stands firm
This is the divine law of life: That only virtue stands firm. All the rest is nothing.
Elsewhere, this is 4a966. — slipbox
How to think for yourself
Independent-mindedness seems to be more a matter of nature than nurture. Which means if you pick the wrong type of work, you’re going to be unhappy. If you’re naturally independent-minded, you’re going to find it frustrating to be a middle manager. And if you’re naturally conventional-minded, you’re going to be sailing into a headwind if you try to do original research.
~ Paul Graham from, How to Think for Yourself
Elsewhere, this is 4upati1. — slipbox
This is a case where I found it difficult to pull-quote. This at least gives you an idea of what the article is about. The challenge for me seems to be not becoming a raving lunatic when I’m off in independent-thinking land. I’ve learned to be able to swim in the conventional–minded, littoral waters, and I’ve been told I can even be helpful there. But my native environment seems to be the deep ocean of solitary thinking. I need to constantly remind myself that coming back to shore is important… as is doffing the raving lunatic appearance before trying to fold myself back into collaborative efforts.
ɕ
Other people’s thoughts
For the most part, false and harmful opinions are distributed and supported by influence. We are too likely to accept the views and thoughts of other people without trying to investigate them deeper and further ourselves. Unimportant people are those who accept other people’s thoughts without developing them themselves.
Elsewhere, this is 4a991. — slipbox
What is philosophy for?
Philosophy isn’t a parlor trick or made for show. It’s not concerned with words, but with facts. It’s not employed for some pleasure before the day is spent, or to relieve the uneasiness of our leisure. It shapes and builds up the soul, it gives order to life, guides actions, shows what should and shouldn’t be done—it sits at the rudder steering our course as we vacillate in uncertainties. Without it, no one can live without fear or free from care. Countless things happen every hour that require advice, and such advise is to be sought out in philosophy.
~ Seneca
Elsewhere, this is 4a994. — slipbox
Influencing others
The possibility of influencing others causes a person with high morals to be more strict about his words and actions which could influence other people.
Elsewhere, this is 4a1006. — slipbox
Whose thoughts
Some people live and act according to their own thoughts, and some according to the thoughts of others; this is a crucial distinction between people.
Elsewhere, this is 4a1011. — slipbox
It’s been a while
But it’s also just fun. For me, at least. I enjoy seeing how humans from thousands of years ago tried to get their bearings in the world compared to humans living today. When you read, study, and talk about philosophy, you’re taking part in a conversation that’s been going on for millennia. And conversation is fun. I love a good conversation.
~ Brett McKay from, The Philosophy Textbook Every Man Should Own
Elsewhere, this is 4uaoli1. — slipbox
It’s been a minute since I’ve purchased a textbook. It’s nice to see that they’re no longer stupidly over-priced— oh wait, no sorry. They’re insanely priced. Fortunately, I was able to bop on over to abebooks.com and find a copy of The Great Conversation for about $5 depending on what condition you want; There’s like a hundred copies of that book available.
ɕ
Philosophy
In truth, there is no divorce between philosophy and life.
Elsewhere, this is 4a1053. — slipbox
What, really, is the final boss?
“The problem is…”, is such a great phrase. When I hear it, I begin to smile. Unless I just said it, in which case I twitch and remind myself that the really hard part [of anything you want to discuss] is defining exactly what the problem is. A well-defined problem is such a difficult and rare thing. And here’s a fun article from “Dynomight” that plays with just how hard it is to figure out what the problem actually is, Candidate Final Bosses.
Just to be clear: We’re talking about “final boss”, as in the video game context meaning of the phrase. In the classic, journey-of-adventure towards some goal, video game, things get harder and harder and harder until… you have to face the final boss, in the final battle.
ɕ
In the bricks
Say something original
Provoking the powerful
One reason I write here, is because I think it’s healthy for me to work with the garage door up. My choice of the guideline that herein I write about myself and things I find lying about reminds me to stick with sharing my subjective experience. Long ago I began suppressing my urge to share my opinions, and gosh, that turns out to be liberating.
This is the birth of “epistemic humility” in Western philosophy: the acknowledgment that one’s blind spots and shortcomings are an invitation for ongoing intellectual investigation and growth.
~ J. W. Traphagan and John J. Kaag from, What Socrates’ ‘know nothing’ wisdom can teach a polarized America
Elsewhere, this is 4utewa1. — slipbox
The confetti gun of opinions seems always to be spewing. For a while I was concerned that my expanding humility would create a sort of power vacuum into which even more opinions of others would drift and settle. But, nope. Removing my contribution has made no difference in the fluttering mess. None the less, it’s simply nice not to feel urgency to contribute to the mess.
ɕ
Ignorance
There are two types of ignorance, the pure, natural ignorance into which all people are born, and the ignorance of the so-called wise. You will see that many among those who call themselves scholars do not know real life, and they despise simple people and simple things.
Elsewhere, this is 4a1170. — slipbox
Still, choose today
Back at the start of January I mentioned, “Indeed. If it is to my advantage tomorrow, it is much more so today.” My touch phrase, “choose today” for 2023 continues to be a poignant reminder. I’ve now written it at the bottom of every journal entry this year, it often comes to mind in moments when I most need it, and it always reminds me of this:
Stick to what’s in front of you—idea, action, utterance. This is what you deserve. You could be good today. But instead you choose tomorrow.
Elsewhere, this is 4a488. — slipbox
“If it is to my advantage tomorrow, it is much more so today.” is a direct quote of Epictetus. Aurelius was born shortly after Epictetus’s death. But Aurelius makes a point of thanking one of his teachers, Rusticus saying in part, “[…] And for introducing me to Epictetus’s lectures–and loaning me his own copy.”
Which leads me to the first thing “choose today” reminds me of each day: Knowledge, and in particular wisdom, are gained through others by seeking out those who have something you wish to learn. These people which I’m mentioning lived thousands of years ago. Others (in other traditions from other regions of the world in other centuries) have separately discovered these same ideas, which makes it clear to me that these ideas are worth considering.
The second thing “choose today” reminds me of is to be forward-looking. Certainly I want to observe and consider my past (and the past of others!) but I should be looking towards the future. If something feels urgent, then where exactly is that sense of urgency coming from, and is the urgency real? If something feels important— same questions. If something feels _insert_whatever_here_— same questions. And then, what can I choose today?
ɕ
Unconscious
Not too abnormal
Gnosce teipsum—know yourself. Know yourself in relation to your overt intentions and your hidden motives, in relation to your thinking, your physical functioning and to those greater not-selves, who see to it that, despite all the ego’s attempts at sabotage, the thinking shall be tolerably relevant and the functioning not too abnormal.
Elsewhere, this is 4a1187. — slipbox
Prescription
One of the basic elements of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed is prescription. Every prescription represents that imposition of one individual’s choice upon another, transforming the consciousness of the person prescribed into one that conforms with the prescriber’s consciousness.
Elsewhere, this is 4a1192. — slipbox
Fragmentation
What if I don’t know how to take something apart? One option is to apply excessive force and break the thing open. That works, but obviously sacrifices the thing; this is particularly useless if I wanted to take something apart because I need to fix it, or understand it. Generally, the smash method always works, but is almost never useful.
Yet thought also goes wrong somehow, and produces destruction. This arises from a certain way of thinking, i.e., fragmentation. This is to break things up into bits, as if they were independent. It’s not merely making divisions, but it is breaking things up which are not really spearate. It’s like taking a watch and smashing it into fragments, rather than taking it apart and finding its parts. The parts are parts of a whole, but the fragments are just arbitrarily broken off from each other. Things which really fit, and belong together, are treated as if they do not. That’s one of the features of thought that’s going wrong.
~ David Bohm from, On Dialogue p56
I’m perpetually on a journey of self-awareness. I’m quite often applying my mind to understand things. This idea from Bohm about fragmentation, and in particular fragmentation being bad because it misses out on the relationships and inherent properties of the natural parts (in the sense of disassembled-watch parts versus smashed-watch bits). This idea of fragmentation is a warning against my running with the first way I manage to understand something; just because I’ve found one way to understand (smash) something into understandable pieces, doesn’t mean that’s the best way.
ɕ
Change
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
Elsewhere, this is 4a1228. — slipbox
Ancients’ philosophy
Clear communication is a sign of understanding. Understanding the idea to be communicated is necessary, but not sufficient, for clear communication. I think in language (I point this out because I wonder if some people don’t think in language) and that leads me to word-smithing. I’m often searching for just the right word or phrase, and then delighted with myself if I find it. Having such labels for larger ideas is a check-point for myself, internally, that I actually have understanding.
Gregory Hays, one of Marcus Aurelius’s best translators, writes in his introduction to Meditations, “If he had to be identified with a particular school, [Stoicism] is surely the one he would have chosen. Yet I suspect that if asked what it was that he studied, his answer would not have been ‘Stoicism’ but simply ‘philosophy.’”
He then notes that in the ancient world, “philosophy” was not perceived the way it is today. It played a much different role. “It was not merely a subject to write or argue about,” Hays writes, “but one that was expected to provide a ‘design for living’—a set of rules to live one’s life by.”
~ Ryan Holiday from, 19 Rules For A Better Life (From Marcus Aurelius) – RyanHoliday.net
Elsewhere, this is 4uryru1. — slipbox
Just because I have a label for something—Stoicism in this case—doesn’t mean I label myself as that. The obvious reason is that my label has a lot of other context attached (in my mind) and chances are little to none that any of that context is present for another person. Labels are useful as shorthand, but only if we have the shared understanding.
Life is short. There are ends—things I have done which others can observe. There are the means I’ve chosen to those ends. And then there’s justification. I don’t have the time (nor the inclination) to explain everything—and frankly no one wants to hear that much from me (or from anyone.) I just find it interesting when I discover something I do (or say or think) for which I’ve not really thought through the labels… thought through the justification.
ɕ
Power
A wave
You didn’t come into this world. You came out of it, like a wave from the ocean.
Elsewhere, this is 4a1260. — slipbox
Character
People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.
Elsewhere, this is 4a1263. — slipbox
Reality
Test in the kitchen
Sausages sautéed with potatoes and onions! It’s also highly advisable to have a philosopher or two on hand. A few pages of Plato while working on a baked ham. Wittgenstein’s Tractatus over a bowl of spaghetti with littleneck clams. We think best when we bring opposites together, when we realize that all these realities, one inside the other, are somehow connected. That’s how the wonder and amazement that are so necessary to both poetry and philosophy come about. A “truth” detached and purified of pleasures of ordinary life is not worth a damn in my view. Every grand theory and noble sentiment ought to be first tested in the kitchen—and then in bed, of course.
Elsewhere, this is 4a1291. — slipbox
A flourishing life
Eudaimonia has come up before here on the ‘ol blog.
Simply put, I dislike having to use words from other languages. As soon as I queue up such a word for speaking, I imagine some leathery cowboy bitching about highfalutin words. (Which I, also immediately, find to be sublime hypocrisy on the part of my imagined critic.)
For the ancient Greeks, eudaimonia was considered the highest human good. While the word doesn’t easily translate into English, it roughly corresponds to a happy, flourishing life — to a life well-lived.
Eudaimonia wasn’t a destination — a nirvana that, once reached, initiated a state of bliss. Happiness wasn’t something you felt, but that you did; it was a dynamic, ongoing activity.
What that activity centered on was the pursuit of arete, or virtue.
~ Brett & Kate McKay from, Aristotle’s 11 Excellences for Living a Flourishing Life | The Art of Manliness
Elsewhere, this is 4uaoca15. — slipbox
Anyway, there’s simply no way to say it succinctly in English. I’ve always wondered if the language (some word or phrase) is missing because we Westerners don’t think about eudaimonia— Or if we don’t think about eudaimonia because we don’t have the language for it. I want a single English word for all of that above because I think about it all the time.
Also, are you now wondering—more generally—if your primary language (the one you speak, read, write, and hear in your thoughts) affects the way you think or the types of thoughts you are capable of having?
ɕ
Happy. Generous. Contributing.
For years now I’ve been fascinated by groups of three.
These perspectives are not just useful literary devices. They are core practical perspectives that we adopt toward the world and our place in it. As we pursue our projects and pleasures, interact with others, and share public institutions and meanings, we are constantly shifting back and forth among these three practical perspectives, each bringing different elements of a situation to salience and highlighting different features of the world and our place in it as good or bad.
[…]
Am I happy? Am I generous? Am I contributing to the world? The moral struggle we face is finding a way to honestly and accurately answer ‘Yes’ to all three of these questions at once, over the course of a life that presents us with many obstacles to doing so.
Elsewhere, this is 4uaeea17. — slipbox
Just yesterday, in a conversation for a podcast, I was responding to a guest who asked my opinion… I don’t think I’ve ever expressed what I said so clearly, when I suggested balancing the first-person and second-person points of view. And here I am one day later staring at something I originally read months ago, crafting a blog post… and *POW* this quite philosophical essay is talking about balancing the three perspectives of the first-, second-, and third-person. But, sorry, now I’ve buried the lead.
Am I happy? Am I generous? Am I contributing to the world? This group of 3 questions is clearly yet another guiding principle straight from the How to Be a Human manual. (Which I feel compelled to point out I’m certain exists despite my never having received a copy upon arrival in this human form.)
ɕ
Two perspectives
Everything is fun, until one’s expectations are crushed. I thought I was getting the convenience of online shopping for things that were previously literally unavailable; Instead, the local stores closed and I’ve lost the convenience of local purchasing. I thought I was getting expanded communication via email; Instead, I’ve been overrun by people taking advantage of the ease of access. In 1989 I was excited by what we could all do with the Internet. So excited, that in 1994 I quit a funded research position and dropped out of graduate school.
Today’s internet is largely shaped by a dialog between two ideas. One position considers personal data as a form of property, the opposing position considers personal data as an extension of the self. The latter grants inalienable rights because a person’s dignity – traditionally manifested in our bodies or certain rights of expression and privacy – cannot be negotiated, bought, or sold.
~ David Schmudde from, A Different Internet
Elsewhere, this is 4usupo4. — slipbox
There’s nothing wrong with the Internet. There’s nothing wrong with people. There’s nothing wrong with government. The problem is in everyone’s failure to think things through. “Can” and “should” are very different animals. Until a plurality of people think things through—until a plurality of people stop delivering themselves into the power of ideas they do not know they have accepted—there will be nothing new under the sun.
ɕ
Peculiar thinking
Every man has some peculiar train of thought which he falls back upon when he is alone. This, to a great degree, molds the man.
Elsewhere, this is 4a1468. — slipbox
Be more philosophical
If you want to make a positive difference in the world—or simply maintain your sanity—you need to step back. You need to learn how to be more philosophical—which means being more discerning about what you let into your mind and learning how to see the big picture, calmly and with perspective.
Elsewhere, this is 4uryti7. — slipbox
Just in case you had a negative reaction to the word philosophical: I distinctly recall when I thought “being philosophical” meant telling others how to do things, or at least pontificating about how I do things better. I distinctly recall learning that the word comes from “the love of truth”—and how that struck me deeply. I distinctly recall that the more I learned about philosophy in general, the more I wanted to learn about my philosophy—first discovering that I didn’t have a definitely chosen one, and then beginning to choose.
ɕ
It’s complex
So you think your choices have reasons behind them and, if these reasons are good ones, then you think that others, in principle, could see this, too. You recognise in yourself, and think that others should recognise in you, a choice aimed at something worth seeking, and a choice by someone who can make that call. This means that what you are after is ‘good’ not just in a sense confined to you, but visible to everyone. Once the goodness of your choice is visible to everyone, it is a kind of absolute goodness – a goodness that anyone could recognise.
Elsewhere, this is 4uaeea29. — slipbox
Really complex. The road to hell is marked by unconsidered decisions.
ɕ
Reality?
Ever since Plato started telling stories about people trapped in caves, philosophers have pondered the relationship between the mind and reality. How can we be sure that the world we think we know is the real world? After all, we’ve all been mistaken before – a person in a store window might turn out to be a mannequin, or two lines that appear to be curved might actually be parallel – so how can we be certain we know reality as it truly is?
Elsewhere, this is 4upygu5. — slipbox
I’m not sure I want to think like a phenomenologist…
ɕ
Where does it come from?
Not every time that we talk about consciousness are we talking about experience. Sometimes ‘consciousness’ refers to awakeness. When you’re asleep at night, or blacked out from too much to drink, you’re not conscious in this sense of the term. Alternatively, sometimes ‘consciousness’ refers to awareness. It’s this kind of consciousness that you lack when you’ve zoned out while driving. You’re awake, but not you’re not fully aware of your surroundings. It’s also this kind of consciousness that activists target when they engage in the process of consciousness raising.
Elsewhere, this is 4upygu4. — slipbox
I no longer get stuck wondering where did my consciousness come from when I was born. Nope. I’m now stuck on: Where does it go every night when I fall asleep. …and where does it come from each morning that I awake?
ɕ
Persevere
Persevere in what you have begun; hurry as much as you can, so that you will have more time to enjoy a mind that is settled and made flawless. To be sure, you will have enjoyment even as you make it so; But there is quite another pleasure to be gained from the contemplation of an intellect that is spotlessly pure and right.
~ Seneca
Elsewhere, this is 4a1549. — slipbox