According to Wikipedia, existential nihilism suggests that life is without objective meaning, purpose or extrinsic value.
One flaw in this philosophical concept is the use of the term "objective" which, itself, seems to be meaningless as used in this context. What is the difference between a subjective meaning and an objective meaning? Subjective means from a particular point (or points) of view. Objective means either from no point of view or, perhaps, from all possible points of view.
There cannot be objective meaning if that means meaning separate from any point of view. If there is no point of view, there can be no meaning because meaning is fundamentally is a process of understanding or appreciating a truth (i.e., realizing a meaning of something). It is an intellectual process. How can you have an intellectual process take place without an intellect? You cannot. The concept of objective meaning is, itself, an oxymoron if objective is meant to imply separate from any particular consciousness or group of consciousnesses.
Well, what if objective instead means from ALL points of view, thus being a universal truth if we are willing to limit "universal" to the realm of conscious awareness (i.e., not insisting that it exists outside of thought processes)? In this case, can there be objective meaning? Or, to put it another way, can there ever be UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT on a particular meaning, purpose or value?
There are two ways to answer this: theoretically and practically. The distinction is like asking if it is possible for everyone on Earth to have the same favorite food. Theoretically, this is certainly possible as there is nothing fundamentally impossible about this. Practically, though, one might say this will surely never happen.
The practical approach is intellectually dishonest. We cannot know what the future may hold, or even all that the past has held. To suggest you can KNOW that it is impossible that everyone on Earth will EVER in a million years have the same favorite food is an act of intellectual hubris because we cannot know what the future may bring.
So, let's return to the theoretical approach. Theoretically, I can postulate countless ways history may take twists and turns that lead to everyone on Earth having the same favorite food. Similarly, I can postulate countless ways we could also come to share identical values, view life as having the same meaning and the same purpose. I can even postulate these shared values extending beyond humanity to all life forms, from animals and plants to aliens in other galaxies. Thus, it is quite simple to imagine a way the future might unfold leading to all living beings evolving to a point of shared understanding and appreciation of the same values, purpose and meaning of life. Which is objective meaning, if "objective" means universally agreed upon by all subjective awarenesses.
So, in the end, the question whether life can have an objective meaning is either (1) a meaningless question if "objective" means separate from any point of view, and (2) must be answered as theoretically possible if "objective" means universally agreed upon by all points of view, as much as this may seem a practical impossibility to occur at any time in the foreseeable future.
Ken Myers
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
Freegan - A new ethics-based dietary approach.
I respect vegetarians and vegans. I think it takes will power and a sense of social consciousness to make the sacrifice to eat in that manner, at least in the USA.
I myself was vegan for about a year. Before that, I ate a normal American diet. After that, I resumed a normal American diet. I have toyed with the idea of returning to a vegan, or at least vegetarian, diet, but it is not yet a priority compared to other ways I am trying to grow and change in life.
I was thinking the other day about the difference between vegans and vegetarians. The way I think of it, the vegetarian values animal life, but is okay with animal servitude (to get milk, eggs, honey, etc.); however, vegans value both animal life AND animal freedom, and thus will not eat anything that is a by-product of animal servitude.
This let me to consider my own view, and I realized that I may be more concerned with animal freedom than animal life. In the wild, animals eat other animals. Everyone dies, people and animals. Death is necessary, it is not evil. Slavery, though, may be a needless evil.
So, I think I may prefer a world where people can eat animals, but they cannot enslave them. I can say to the animal kingdom: "I may eat you, but until that time, you can roam free to live and evolve naturally."
This could be called being a "freegan."
I guess I'm not actually a freegan, but I'm not sure I'm a vegan, either. Eating is a tricky proposition. When I figure out what I think should be the ideal moral stance on food sources, I'll let you know, but I have not yet done so.
I myself was vegan for about a year. Before that, I ate a normal American diet. After that, I resumed a normal American diet. I have toyed with the idea of returning to a vegan, or at least vegetarian, diet, but it is not yet a priority compared to other ways I am trying to grow and change in life.
I was thinking the other day about the difference between vegans and vegetarians. The way I think of it, the vegetarian values animal life, but is okay with animal servitude (to get milk, eggs, honey, etc.); however, vegans value both animal life AND animal freedom, and thus will not eat anything that is a by-product of animal servitude.
This let me to consider my own view, and I realized that I may be more concerned with animal freedom than animal life. In the wild, animals eat other animals. Everyone dies, people and animals. Death is necessary, it is not evil. Slavery, though, may be a needless evil.
So, I think I may prefer a world where people can eat animals, but they cannot enslave them. I can say to the animal kingdom: "I may eat you, but until that time, you can roam free to live and evolve naturally."
This could be called being a "freegan."
I guess I'm not actually a freegan, but I'm not sure I'm a vegan, either. Eating is a tricky proposition. When I figure out what I think should be the ideal moral stance on food sources, I'll let you know, but I have not yet done so.
Horror in the movies...
I find myself growing ever more annoyed and disappointed with the prevalance -- growing prevalance -- of horror movies in cinema (and television as well).
My personal view is that seeing a person getting tortured or maimed or otherwise suffering in some horrific way is UNPLEASANT. If it would be unpleasant to chop your own arm off, it should also be similarly unpleasant to watch another person chop their own arm off. At least, this should be the case if you have a healthy sense of empathy for other people. Why would anyone want to spend their valuable free time intentionally seeking out horrifying images of people suffering? I cannot wrap my head around it, though I have tried.
It is not enough to say it is enjoyable because you know the people are just acting. If it is unpleasant to see some one in pain, why would it be pleasant to see a person ACTING as if he or she were in pain? I'll grant it may be LESS unpleasant to see a person in pain if you know they are acting, rather than truly suffering. But this does not convert it from an unpleasant activity into a pleasant one.
Some may claim there is a pleasurable cathartic release, when you conjure up negative emotions like horror and the, at the end of the film, you then have it washed away with the awareness it did not really happen after all, and you are safe nd fine. However, this seems akin to wearing shoes that hurt your feet so you can feel a rush of blissful sensation when you take off the offending footwear. My gut-level assessment would be that, in such situations, the pain you endure leading up to the relief cancels out the relief. You have to be pretty hard up for pleasure to seek it through the process of inflicting pain on yourself (psychic or physical) so that you can then enjoy the cessation of that pain.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, there may be some psychological benefit or pleasure from watching a fictional horror story unfold. Well, that does not end the inquiry as to this genre, because you still have to weigh the pros against the cons. What are the cons of the horror genre?
For one, they are the stuff of nightmares. Is that not enough? I recall as a small child being extremely upset seeing a horror movie where people were torn limb from limb, teeth were pulled out of screaming victims, heads were squeezed to the point of disfigurement (but not death) for the vicims, etc. Clearly, one could blame the parents who do not keep a watchful eye on what their children watch. However, my parents were reasonably attentive. The fact is, in this day and age, it is nearly impossible to safeguard one's children perfectly from the risk of seeing something horrific. Those images stayed with me for years and caused me great psychological distress.
So, I think the growth of horrific media necessarily seems into the awareness of young children to some degree, despite best efforts. This adverse effect grows each generation, as the amount of horrific media, and the ways media can be accessed, both are growing by leaps and bounds.
Another issue is the numbing effect. It seems common sense to suggest that a person watching others suffer necessarily steels himself or herself against the negative emotions that rise up. Over time, the person gets number and number to the negative emotions. While this is a good thing in some respects (the emergency room doctor should not break down weeping every time he or she seeks a patient with a terrible wound), I think it is more often than not a negative effect, as we train ourselves to empathize less and less with the suffering of others.
This numbing effect is, in my view, tied somewhat to the concept of "machoism." I think older boys and young men try to toughen themselves emotionally, to avoid a perception of being feminine, weak and sensitive. So just as adolescent males dare one another to do dangerous stunts on bicycles or skateboards, or to defy authority by shoplifting a magazine or a beer, so too do they dare one enough to view horrifying images without turning away from them. It becomes a point of pride and masculinity to proclaim that you do NOT mind horrific imagines or, taken further, that you actually enjoy watching them. It compares to the bravado of one who claims to laugh in the face of danger.
I'm not saying that being tough is a bad thing. Again, for an ER doctor or a soldier at war, it may be a very good and necessary thing. However, those environments -- the hosptial, the battlefield -- do the toughening well enough. There is no need to toughen up our entire population through cinematic exposure to horrific images and ideas so that the few who truly need such toughness will have it.
If I am correct that horror in cinema is a bad thing, what is the solution? How do we take away what is now in demand by (apparently) much of the population? I do not favor censorship. I do favor reasoned debate, discussion among those who like this sort of thing, so we can try to get to the bottom of why it is liked, why the cost might be too high for liking it, and why it might be better for those who like this to forego it EVEN THOUGH THEY LIKE IT, to make this personal sacrifice so the demand dries up and so we, as a species, evolve in a direction that is more empathetic and loving toward one another. It is not as if those who enjoy horror movies ONLY enjoy horror movies; rather, they can also enjoy a comedy or a drama. It is not much different than agreeing that nutrasweet, while sweet, is too carcinogenic, so we should stick with other sweeteners (or artificial sweeteners). No one is saying go without a sweetener, just pick and choose wisely.
In fact, I'm not even saying you cannot have horror to some degree in cinema, but it should be a tool, not a goal, to be used when it is appropriate to advance a meaningful plot. Today's horror movies are, by and large, essentially plotless, having only enough storyline to hold together the latest notion of how to create an even more horrific situation or image and thereby one-up the competition.
I can draw an analogy between this and food-eating contests. As most are aware, there are now worldwide competitions to see who can eat, say, the most hot dogs in a short span of time. This is a disgusting competition with no redeeming quality, as far as I can tell. It wastes food. It is unhealthy for the participants. It does not help people develop or strive for any postive personal attribute (people already eat too fast and do not chew their food enough according to most medical literature on this subject). Yet, people are competitive and so if you give them a competition, they will compete or root. It is in their nature. So, there seems to be a cinematic competition to out-horrify one another. Sorry, just because you CAN do something, does not mean you SHOULD do it. Trying to create the most horrific cinematic notion is something you can do, not something you should do, same as trying to become the world's fastest hot dog eater.
The fact that there is a growing market and audience for food eating contests, and for horror movies, is a sign of the times, a sign of moral decline, a sign that we are restless and lost, longing for but not finding an adequate purpose to justify our lives, and so we stagnate and self-destruct.
There is a bit of irony to be found in all this, though I would not call it a happy irony. Cinema originated in a male-dominated society, controlled largely by men. I'm not saying there was a conscious decision to use film images to advance male goals, but I think this did happen on a collective subconcious, Jungian level. Men are driven by sex. It is imprinted into us to rank this as one of most powerful drives. So when men create films, if that tool of cinema can get men more sex, men will use it in that fashion whether they are doing it consciously or not. This accounts not only for the casting couch, but also for movies prominently featuring women who were more "easy" and less virtuous.
Essentially, men created female characters who, as role models, would imprint the female audience members with the notion that premarital sex, or casual sex, or kinky sex, was not so bad. Males write the script showing women behaving how they wish they would behave. Women go to theatres and get imprinted with those role models, and generation after generation women evolve in th 20th century (and beyond) to have a more masculine view towards sexuality. (I have to credit Southpark somewhat for an episode that plays on this notion. I think that episode was exaggerated for humor, but is premised on a true phenomenon.) Which means, in blunt terms, that women act sluttier in the movies than they do in real life, and this leads the next upcoming generation to be sluttier than the preceding generation. I don't think this is rocket science, I think most people have long recognized this is happening.
The ironic backlash I see is this: if a type of movie stirs a female to lust (or even mere willingness) then the male gets a reward for taking the female to see that movie. Now we have a Pavlovian connection between the movie and the reward. With respect to horror movies, it is often suggested that the draw of such movies is that they create an adrenaline rush that gets people aroused or "turned on," which effectively increases the chance males getting rewarded with sex when they take a woman to see such a movie. This then imprints a "like" or positive association between the male and the horror movie. This association may also be imprinted in the female if she enjoys the sexual encounter as well.
So men may have created and/or proliferated the horror genre because it improved their sex lives. However, presumably men did not desire, expect or predict that it would have the consequence of linking pleasure and horror on in their minds, with the results we are seeing nowadays. Alas, I believe this trend will continue unless consciously broken.
More and more, I think people need to try to be aware not only of their own psychological issues, but of the larger, collective, societal psychology we all share and how (and why) it is evolving. I believe in CONSCIOUS control over our evolution and destiny, and I think we are better off honestly assessing how we are evolving, how we are creating our own evolutionary paths, and then we can make a conscious choice what we want the Human Race to be like. Do we want to be jaded, numb and selfish, or loving, empathetic and sentitive?
The bottom line is, I am quite sure I can learn to appreciate horror movies. Yes, even me. Or even speed food-eating contests. While I CAN learn to appreciate these things, I do not believe I SHOULD learn to appreciate them because I think they head the human species in a different direction than where I want us, as a species, to go through our evolutionary journey.
My personal view is that seeing a person getting tortured or maimed or otherwise suffering in some horrific way is UNPLEASANT. If it would be unpleasant to chop your own arm off, it should also be similarly unpleasant to watch another person chop their own arm off. At least, this should be the case if you have a healthy sense of empathy for other people. Why would anyone want to spend their valuable free time intentionally seeking out horrifying images of people suffering? I cannot wrap my head around it, though I have tried.
It is not enough to say it is enjoyable because you know the people are just acting. If it is unpleasant to see some one in pain, why would it be pleasant to see a person ACTING as if he or she were in pain? I'll grant it may be LESS unpleasant to see a person in pain if you know they are acting, rather than truly suffering. But this does not convert it from an unpleasant activity into a pleasant one.
Some may claim there is a pleasurable cathartic release, when you conjure up negative emotions like horror and the, at the end of the film, you then have it washed away with the awareness it did not really happen after all, and you are safe nd fine. However, this seems akin to wearing shoes that hurt your feet so you can feel a rush of blissful sensation when you take off the offending footwear. My gut-level assessment would be that, in such situations, the pain you endure leading up to the relief cancels out the relief. You have to be pretty hard up for pleasure to seek it through the process of inflicting pain on yourself (psychic or physical) so that you can then enjoy the cessation of that pain.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, there may be some psychological benefit or pleasure from watching a fictional horror story unfold. Well, that does not end the inquiry as to this genre, because you still have to weigh the pros against the cons. What are the cons of the horror genre?
For one, they are the stuff of nightmares. Is that not enough? I recall as a small child being extremely upset seeing a horror movie where people were torn limb from limb, teeth were pulled out of screaming victims, heads were squeezed to the point of disfigurement (but not death) for the vicims, etc. Clearly, one could blame the parents who do not keep a watchful eye on what their children watch. However, my parents were reasonably attentive. The fact is, in this day and age, it is nearly impossible to safeguard one's children perfectly from the risk of seeing something horrific. Those images stayed with me for years and caused me great psychological distress.
So, I think the growth of horrific media necessarily seems into the awareness of young children to some degree, despite best efforts. This adverse effect grows each generation, as the amount of horrific media, and the ways media can be accessed, both are growing by leaps and bounds.
Another issue is the numbing effect. It seems common sense to suggest that a person watching others suffer necessarily steels himself or herself against the negative emotions that rise up. Over time, the person gets number and number to the negative emotions. While this is a good thing in some respects (the emergency room doctor should not break down weeping every time he or she seeks a patient with a terrible wound), I think it is more often than not a negative effect, as we train ourselves to empathize less and less with the suffering of others.
This numbing effect is, in my view, tied somewhat to the concept of "machoism." I think older boys and young men try to toughen themselves emotionally, to avoid a perception of being feminine, weak and sensitive. So just as adolescent males dare one another to do dangerous stunts on bicycles or skateboards, or to defy authority by shoplifting a magazine or a beer, so too do they dare one enough to view horrifying images without turning away from them. It becomes a point of pride and masculinity to proclaim that you do NOT mind horrific imagines or, taken further, that you actually enjoy watching them. It compares to the bravado of one who claims to laugh in the face of danger.
I'm not saying that being tough is a bad thing. Again, for an ER doctor or a soldier at war, it may be a very good and necessary thing. However, those environments -- the hosptial, the battlefield -- do the toughening well enough. There is no need to toughen up our entire population through cinematic exposure to horrific images and ideas so that the few who truly need such toughness will have it.
If I am correct that horror in cinema is a bad thing, what is the solution? How do we take away what is now in demand by (apparently) much of the population? I do not favor censorship. I do favor reasoned debate, discussion among those who like this sort of thing, so we can try to get to the bottom of why it is liked, why the cost might be too high for liking it, and why it might be better for those who like this to forego it EVEN THOUGH THEY LIKE IT, to make this personal sacrifice so the demand dries up and so we, as a species, evolve in a direction that is more empathetic and loving toward one another. It is not as if those who enjoy horror movies ONLY enjoy horror movies; rather, they can also enjoy a comedy or a drama. It is not much different than agreeing that nutrasweet, while sweet, is too carcinogenic, so we should stick with other sweeteners (or artificial sweeteners). No one is saying go without a sweetener, just pick and choose wisely.
In fact, I'm not even saying you cannot have horror to some degree in cinema, but it should be a tool, not a goal, to be used when it is appropriate to advance a meaningful plot. Today's horror movies are, by and large, essentially plotless, having only enough storyline to hold together the latest notion of how to create an even more horrific situation or image and thereby one-up the competition.
I can draw an analogy between this and food-eating contests. As most are aware, there are now worldwide competitions to see who can eat, say, the most hot dogs in a short span of time. This is a disgusting competition with no redeeming quality, as far as I can tell. It wastes food. It is unhealthy for the participants. It does not help people develop or strive for any postive personal attribute (people already eat too fast and do not chew their food enough according to most medical literature on this subject). Yet, people are competitive and so if you give them a competition, they will compete or root. It is in their nature. So, there seems to be a cinematic competition to out-horrify one another. Sorry, just because you CAN do something, does not mean you SHOULD do it. Trying to create the most horrific cinematic notion is something you can do, not something you should do, same as trying to become the world's fastest hot dog eater.
The fact that there is a growing market and audience for food eating contests, and for horror movies, is a sign of the times, a sign of moral decline, a sign that we are restless and lost, longing for but not finding an adequate purpose to justify our lives, and so we stagnate and self-destruct.
There is a bit of irony to be found in all this, though I would not call it a happy irony. Cinema originated in a male-dominated society, controlled largely by men. I'm not saying there was a conscious decision to use film images to advance male goals, but I think this did happen on a collective subconcious, Jungian level. Men are driven by sex. It is imprinted into us to rank this as one of most powerful drives. So when men create films, if that tool of cinema can get men more sex, men will use it in that fashion whether they are doing it consciously or not. This accounts not only for the casting couch, but also for movies prominently featuring women who were more "easy" and less virtuous.
Essentially, men created female characters who, as role models, would imprint the female audience members with the notion that premarital sex, or casual sex, or kinky sex, was not so bad. Males write the script showing women behaving how they wish they would behave. Women go to theatres and get imprinted with those role models, and generation after generation women evolve in th 20th century (and beyond) to have a more masculine view towards sexuality. (I have to credit Southpark somewhat for an episode that plays on this notion. I think that episode was exaggerated for humor, but is premised on a true phenomenon.) Which means, in blunt terms, that women act sluttier in the movies than they do in real life, and this leads the next upcoming generation to be sluttier than the preceding generation. I don't think this is rocket science, I think most people have long recognized this is happening.
The ironic backlash I see is this: if a type of movie stirs a female to lust (or even mere willingness) then the male gets a reward for taking the female to see that movie. Now we have a Pavlovian connection between the movie and the reward. With respect to horror movies, it is often suggested that the draw of such movies is that they create an adrenaline rush that gets people aroused or "turned on," which effectively increases the chance males getting rewarded with sex when they take a woman to see such a movie. This then imprints a "like" or positive association between the male and the horror movie. This association may also be imprinted in the female if she enjoys the sexual encounter as well.
So men may have created and/or proliferated the horror genre because it improved their sex lives. However, presumably men did not desire, expect or predict that it would have the consequence of linking pleasure and horror on in their minds, with the results we are seeing nowadays. Alas, I believe this trend will continue unless consciously broken.
More and more, I think people need to try to be aware not only of their own psychological issues, but of the larger, collective, societal psychology we all share and how (and why) it is evolving. I believe in CONSCIOUS control over our evolution and destiny, and I think we are better off honestly assessing how we are evolving, how we are creating our own evolutionary paths, and then we can make a conscious choice what we want the Human Race to be like. Do we want to be jaded, numb and selfish, or loving, empathetic and sentitive?
The bottom line is, I am quite sure I can learn to appreciate horror movies. Yes, even me. Or even speed food-eating contests. While I CAN learn to appreciate these things, I do not believe I SHOULD learn to appreciate them because I think they head the human species in a different direction than where I want us, as a species, to go through our evolutionary journey.
Friday, December 30, 2011
On the history of language...
I have spent a lot of time thinking of language. Stuff like, why is it that words often have sounds that literally evoke the meaning in a phonetic way.
"Hush" sounds like a soft "shhh."
"Whisper" sounds like a gentle whisper.
"Rock" sounds like a singular hard object.
And is it coincidence that "God" is so close to "good" or that "Devil" is so close to "evil"?
I sometimes see connections between words that make me thing their phonetic similarities reflect a deeper, meaningful connection that tells us that deep down -- perhaps on a subconscious level -- evolving humanity has recognized and signified a relationshp between those words (or the meanings they carry) that we may no longer consciously recognize. And if we do consciously recognize and appreciate it, we may gain some insight and wisdom about the world around us. Basically, learning about the nature of reality through hidden clues left by our ancestors in the dipthongs and sounds that evolved into our modern language.
But then I recall that there are languages where this stuff probably does not carry over. Like African language based on clicks and such, or Asian languages that sound very warbling and gurgling. What does this do to my theory that we naturally choose words that have a sound that evokes the spirit of the meaning of the word? I don't know. Alas, I am not a linguistics major, so this is like "armchair linguistic philosophy" and could be laughable to a real expert.
One thing that did occur to me, in thinking about the different kinds of languages in the world, is how language evolved to be different in different areas of the world. And it immediately struck me that language evolved as humans were making a shift from animal intelligence to human intelligence, and so on that cusp of evolution our ancestors used more and more sound to communicate ideas to help hunt, gather, wage war, whatever.
And at that time, the world was still a very untame place. People were not the "cock of the walk," but had to fear predators and such, at least in some parts of the world. So I assume one major decision made in choosing how to speak and communicate was to BLEND IN. You wanted to make sounds that predators might view as natural sounds of the trees or the rivers or the wind, not as sounds made by potential prey. So in a forest setting with crunching leaves and branches, people might use sharper, crunchier sounds for language. In a desert setting with howling winds, words might be less consonant. In a very watery place with rivers and marshes, the language might be very gurgling and soft. In a very rainy place with droplets coming down almost constantly (and even after rains, canopies of leaves hold water that drip drops for hours) language mght be more rhythmic. For similar reasons -- camoflauge, basically -- people might choose sounds that mimick other creatures with whom they live, the growl of a bear, the chirp of a bird, etc.
Now, that is only one side of the coin. The problem with using sounds that blend in is that, if they blend in, they may be hard to be heard and recognized by those you want to hear them. So there is a counterbalancing need to use sounds that will cut through the sounds of your natural world, that will be unique. The extent to which people chose sounds for camoflauge (i.e., that blended into their environment) or that stood out as unique (i.e., to better be heard and recognized) was probably affected by how predatory the environment was. People living in areas with little or no natural predators probably adopted linguistic sounds that were more unique and contrasted to the environmental sounds, while people living in areas with more predators probably chose linguistic sounds more in tune with environmental sounds.
There could also be shifts in time. People living in an area full of predators might have started out using linguistic sounds that were very camoflauged and blended in, but as their tribes and strength grew, they might have found they were kings of the land and had less fear of predators and then felt free to shift to sounds that carried better and contrasted more. So as language evolved over time, there may have been shifts in what influenced the choice of sounds and dipthongs from which to create language.
Any linguistic experts, feel free to chime in or correct me.
Ken
"Hush" sounds like a soft "shhh."
"Whisper" sounds like a gentle whisper.
"Rock" sounds like a singular hard object.
And is it coincidence that "God" is so close to "good" or that "Devil" is so close to "evil"?
I sometimes see connections between words that make me thing their phonetic similarities reflect a deeper, meaningful connection that tells us that deep down -- perhaps on a subconscious level -- evolving humanity has recognized and signified a relationshp between those words (or the meanings they carry) that we may no longer consciously recognize. And if we do consciously recognize and appreciate it, we may gain some insight and wisdom about the world around us. Basically, learning about the nature of reality through hidden clues left by our ancestors in the dipthongs and sounds that evolved into our modern language.
But then I recall that there are languages where this stuff probably does not carry over. Like African language based on clicks and such, or Asian languages that sound very warbling and gurgling. What does this do to my theory that we naturally choose words that have a sound that evokes the spirit of the meaning of the word? I don't know. Alas, I am not a linguistics major, so this is like "armchair linguistic philosophy" and could be laughable to a real expert.
One thing that did occur to me, in thinking about the different kinds of languages in the world, is how language evolved to be different in different areas of the world. And it immediately struck me that language evolved as humans were making a shift from animal intelligence to human intelligence, and so on that cusp of evolution our ancestors used more and more sound to communicate ideas to help hunt, gather, wage war, whatever.
And at that time, the world was still a very untame place. People were not the "cock of the walk," but had to fear predators and such, at least in some parts of the world. So I assume one major decision made in choosing how to speak and communicate was to BLEND IN. You wanted to make sounds that predators might view as natural sounds of the trees or the rivers or the wind, not as sounds made by potential prey. So in a forest setting with crunching leaves and branches, people might use sharper, crunchier sounds for language. In a desert setting with howling winds, words might be less consonant. In a very watery place with rivers and marshes, the language might be very gurgling and soft. In a very rainy place with droplets coming down almost constantly (and even after rains, canopies of leaves hold water that drip drops for hours) language mght be more rhythmic. For similar reasons -- camoflauge, basically -- people might choose sounds that mimick other creatures with whom they live, the growl of a bear, the chirp of a bird, etc.
Now, that is only one side of the coin. The problem with using sounds that blend in is that, if they blend in, they may be hard to be heard and recognized by those you want to hear them. So there is a counterbalancing need to use sounds that will cut through the sounds of your natural world, that will be unique. The extent to which people chose sounds for camoflauge (i.e., that blended into their environment) or that stood out as unique (i.e., to better be heard and recognized) was probably affected by how predatory the environment was. People living in areas with little or no natural predators probably adopted linguistic sounds that were more unique and contrasted to the environmental sounds, while people living in areas with more predators probably chose linguistic sounds more in tune with environmental sounds.
There could also be shifts in time. People living in an area full of predators might have started out using linguistic sounds that were very camoflauged and blended in, but as their tribes and strength grew, they might have found they were kings of the land and had less fear of predators and then felt free to shift to sounds that carried better and contrasted more. So as language evolved over time, there may have been shifts in what influenced the choice of sounds and dipthongs from which to create language.
Any linguistic experts, feel free to chime in or correct me.
Ken
Raising children as psychotherapy and spiritual guides.
I learned to use a French Press a week ago. You fill a cylinder-shaped tube with coffee grinds and hot water, then shove a slightly smaller cylinder-shaped tube through the first, and it causes pressure that forces the liquid through a filter covering tiny holes on the far end of the first, larger tube. The liquid is forced out as soon as the smaller tube starts entering the larger tube, because of the push of air pressure, like an invisible force, before the end of the smaller tube even reaches the water-coffee grind mixture. But you keep pushing to get all the liquid rung out.
This serves as a nice visual analogy for how raising children evokes therapeutic events in parents. As my children grow older and move through different phases of their childhood, it reminds me of my own experiences at their age, spontaneously bringing up memories -- including traumatic memories. Or, sometimes, it does not bring up particular memories, but it does evoke feelings, almost like deep within us is the person we were at 5, at 7, at 9, at 15, etc., and as our children move through those ages, it resonates within us and gives power to those parts of ourselves and we find ourselves somewhat "possessed" by the person were were at that age.
This means if you were dealing with a particular abandonment issue at age 5, then when your kids reach age 5 you may not recall any particular event when you were 5, but you damn well are going to by more sensitive to abandonment issues in ways you may not even recognize, causing you to feel different, act different, and react different. It can cause issues with your spouse, with your views about life or your career.
So, basically, as my children age, they are evoking spirits within me of my past selves, which effects a subtle (or sometimes not so subtle) transformation on myself. People are always transforming to some degree, based on outside influences, current-day experiences. But this is an added wrinkle and complication, a transformation evoked from within, and a transformation that in some sense can be called a regression. I'm not saying it is overpowering, or that we all revert to the maturity of a 5 year old when our kids are 5. It is not so simplistic or all-powerful as that. But it is a force to be recognized or, unrecognized, it can have more power than it otherwise would.
I see two main benefits of recognizing this phenomenon. First, as our children move through ages where we ourselves had some trauma -- anything from teasing in school, parents' divorce, an injury, death in the family -- and that part of ourselves gets "evoked," we have an opportunity to reflect upon it in a way we probably never would have done if we had not had a child pass through that age to evoke it within us. When this happens, our reflection can lead to coming to mature terms with that event, eliminating the skewed memories and flawed blame and/or guilt that attached to us when we first lived through those experiences. Basically, we work through the trauma and reach a healthier state of mind about the event, letting go of negative emotions that hold us back, and limit our current maturity. (As we mature, earlier traumatic events that have "stuck" with us can be like anchors or hooks in time that hold back our ability to spiritually or emotionally mature, which is one way you can get a 40 year old with the maturity of a 12 year old.) So, basically, raising children can be an unique therapeutic event, as our children evoke and transform us and give us unexpected opportunities to heal and mature.
A second benefit, perhaps more spiritual in nature, is that as our children pass through ages we have already lived, and evoke in us the spirit of our younger selves at those ages, it is sort of like we relive those ages on a level we could not otherwise have done. I see this as a form of immortality, or at least significant life-extension. People chase plastic surgery and medical solutions to help them stay young, trying to recapture youth, but none of it is ever so complete as the youth that is recaptured when you are bonded to a child who evokes in you your own youthful spirit.
I guess the point of recognizing all this is happening is that if we are ignorant of it, I think that makes it much less likely we will actually reap the benefit of trauma resolution and will, instead, simply act out the traumas of our evoked younger selves in ways that can be meaningless or even destructive.
I suppose people without children may find alternative paths to evoking their younger selves and resolving traumas from younger days, such as psychotherapy, hypnosis, meditation, etc. However, I'm not sure any of that can be as thorough or complete as the way my children, as they age, are effortlessly evoking from me the defining moments of my own childhood, the way the smaller tube in a french press thoroughly and completely pushes out the liquid from the water-coffee grind mixture in the larger tube.
Well, that's my view at the moment. My opinions are subject to evolution and revision, and bear in mind everything is relative.
Ken
This serves as a nice visual analogy for how raising children evokes therapeutic events in parents. As my children grow older and move through different phases of their childhood, it reminds me of my own experiences at their age, spontaneously bringing up memories -- including traumatic memories. Or, sometimes, it does not bring up particular memories, but it does evoke feelings, almost like deep within us is the person we were at 5, at 7, at 9, at 15, etc., and as our children move through those ages, it resonates within us and gives power to those parts of ourselves and we find ourselves somewhat "possessed" by the person were were at that age.
This means if you were dealing with a particular abandonment issue at age 5, then when your kids reach age 5 you may not recall any particular event when you were 5, but you damn well are going to by more sensitive to abandonment issues in ways you may not even recognize, causing you to feel different, act different, and react different. It can cause issues with your spouse, with your views about life or your career.
So, basically, as my children age, they are evoking spirits within me of my past selves, which effects a subtle (or sometimes not so subtle) transformation on myself. People are always transforming to some degree, based on outside influences, current-day experiences. But this is an added wrinkle and complication, a transformation evoked from within, and a transformation that in some sense can be called a regression. I'm not saying it is overpowering, or that we all revert to the maturity of a 5 year old when our kids are 5. It is not so simplistic or all-powerful as that. But it is a force to be recognized or, unrecognized, it can have more power than it otherwise would.
I see two main benefits of recognizing this phenomenon. First, as our children move through ages where we ourselves had some trauma -- anything from teasing in school, parents' divorce, an injury, death in the family -- and that part of ourselves gets "evoked," we have an opportunity to reflect upon it in a way we probably never would have done if we had not had a child pass through that age to evoke it within us. When this happens, our reflection can lead to coming to mature terms with that event, eliminating the skewed memories and flawed blame and/or guilt that attached to us when we first lived through those experiences. Basically, we work through the trauma and reach a healthier state of mind about the event, letting go of negative emotions that hold us back, and limit our current maturity. (As we mature, earlier traumatic events that have "stuck" with us can be like anchors or hooks in time that hold back our ability to spiritually or emotionally mature, which is one way you can get a 40 year old with the maturity of a 12 year old.) So, basically, raising children can be an unique therapeutic event, as our children evoke and transform us and give us unexpected opportunities to heal and mature.
A second benefit, perhaps more spiritual in nature, is that as our children pass through ages we have already lived, and evoke in us the spirit of our younger selves at those ages, it is sort of like we relive those ages on a level we could not otherwise have done. I see this as a form of immortality, or at least significant life-extension. People chase plastic surgery and medical solutions to help them stay young, trying to recapture youth, but none of it is ever so complete as the youth that is recaptured when you are bonded to a child who evokes in you your own youthful spirit.
I guess the point of recognizing all this is happening is that if we are ignorant of it, I think that makes it much less likely we will actually reap the benefit of trauma resolution and will, instead, simply act out the traumas of our evoked younger selves in ways that can be meaningless or even destructive.
I suppose people without children may find alternative paths to evoking their younger selves and resolving traumas from younger days, such as psychotherapy, hypnosis, meditation, etc. However, I'm not sure any of that can be as thorough or complete as the way my children, as they age, are effortlessly evoking from me the defining moments of my own childhood, the way the smaller tube in a french press thoroughly and completely pushes out the liquid from the water-coffee grind mixture in the larger tube.
Well, that's my view at the moment. My opinions are subject to evolution and revision, and bear in mind everything is relative.
Ken
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Playboys and Patriarchs
I've created a theory of romantic compatibility.
I see men as basically divided into two types: Playboys and Patriarchs. Women can similarly be playgirls or matriarchs.
Playboys / playgirls want to have fun while they live. Play is their priority.
Patriarchs / matriarchs want to create something that will live beyond them, whether it is a family dynasty or a social cause or even a business enterprise.
The difference between these two types of people is simple: spiritual maturity. No one (at least I cannot conceive of anyone, though I could be wrong) ever starts out as a patriarch or matriarch. We ALL pass through a stage of being playboys or playgirls as we spiritually mature from infancy and early childhood. Some of us either get spiritually stuck at that stage and cease maturing. Others might mature but then have experiences that make them regress.
There is absolutely NOTHING inherently wrong with being a playboy or playgirl. I'm not here to say that one level of spiritual maturity is inherently "better" than another. That sort of "holier than thou" thinking is counterproductive. It leads to anger and resentment and trying to argue people into becoming more mature, which (in my experience) never works.
There is a very common saying that people who enter a relationship expecting to change the other person are doomed to failure and disappointment. I am not quite so pessimistic. I do think it is probably best and easiest to enter a relationship with some one of the same spiritual maturity level as yourself. In fact, I think this is the source of fastest, deepest love and compatibility.
However, it is simplistic to talk about people trying to "change" their loved oen when they have linked themselves to a person with a lower level of spiritual maturity. A better word than "change" is "mature." It is not like trying to change a person from hating broccoli to liking broccoli. What you are trying to do is get some one stuck at a particular level of immaturity to get past the issue that is blocking their natural progress and ascendance, so that they can mature spiritually.
I am optimistic (idealistic?) that with the right approach, people can help their loved ones get unstuck from a low level of spiritual maturity and ascend to a higher level of maturity. However, it is not easy. It takes enormous patients and time, and frankly I'm not sure most people are up to the task, as it is easier to slip into anger and resentment and perhaps even let your own maturity level sink to match that of your less mature lover, to create more compatibility and less conflict.
If you are going to attempt this, the first key is NOT to blame the other person for being less spiritually mature, for acting out as a playboy / playgirl. Again, you are not to judge the person as lesser than you, or imperfect due to their lower level of maturity. WE ARE ALL FREE TO CHOOSE OUR OWN LEVEL OF SPIRITUAL MATURITY.
The key is not to scold or guilt the person into achieving greater maturity. They key is to EDUCATE the person into achieving greater maturity. I believe (again, this is based on gut level feeling and personal optimism, not scientific studies) that deep down we can all appreciate maturity, and we all would welcome ascending to the stage of being a matriarch / patriarch because it has rewards that surpass the immediate gratification of the hedonistic playboy / playgirl. I think there is a fundamental sadness and loneliness in the playboy / playgirl because they sense a meaningless to their existence that they try to escape from with fleeting pleasures.
So what you need to do to get them to mature is to simply talk to them about deep issues, about death and god and spirituality and social causes. I think deep down in these people, you will find an idealistic soul that does desire to ascend, but is stuck or lost or ignorant about how to do it. Simply having non-combative conversation combined with leading by example can, over time, cause the stuck person to find a way to unstick himself/herself and begin the ascension.
The playboy / playgirl can mature into a patriarch / matriarch. This is a fact because every patriarch / matriarch was, at one time, for however brief a time, a playboy / playgirl who made this very same ascension.
The resistance to this ascension can be huge and, again, it can be such a burdensome task that it may simply not be something the more spiritually advanced person in the relationship is prepared to tackle. That's fine. Know your limits. You have no obligation to help the other person ascend (unless, perhaps, you are married with children, in which case there may be an obligation to the children to give them two spiritually mature parents, but let's set that aside for now).
Again, if you are a patriarch / matriarch in a relationship with a playboy / playgirl and you find yourself continually suffering anguish and/or anger at how the person seems selfish, inconsiderate, and immature, LET IT GO. If you do not or cannot take a PEACEFUL AND LOVING approach to helping that person see why maturity is better, and help them find their own path to getting unstuck and reaching a higher level of maturity, let them go WITHOUT ANGER OR JUDGMENT. Because, as I said before, it is wrong to label it bad or wrong or evil to be a playboy or playgirl. It is a choice people are free to make and you cannot condemn people for that anymore than you can condemn a person who chooses to wear silly hats. It may not be your cup of tea, but they are not hurting anyone.
The playboy / playgirl is not hurting you by their immature conduct. They are simply acting out their own nature. It is YOU, the patriarch / matriarch, who CHOSE to be in a relationship with a playboy / playgirl, who is to blame for the friction that results. Embrace your choice and live with it (and trying lovingly to encourage the person you are with to mature), or choose differently. But in neither case is anger or blame the correct response. And it will not do a damn bit of good. Frankly, the most likely outcome is that your own spiritual maturity will diminish.
Ken Myers
12/28/2011
I see men as basically divided into two types: Playboys and Patriarchs. Women can similarly be playgirls or matriarchs.
Playboys / playgirls want to have fun while they live. Play is their priority.
Patriarchs / matriarchs want to create something that will live beyond them, whether it is a family dynasty or a social cause or even a business enterprise.
The difference between these two types of people is simple: spiritual maturity. No one (at least I cannot conceive of anyone, though I could be wrong) ever starts out as a patriarch or matriarch. We ALL pass through a stage of being playboys or playgirls as we spiritually mature from infancy and early childhood. Some of us either get spiritually stuck at that stage and cease maturing. Others might mature but then have experiences that make them regress.
There is absolutely NOTHING inherently wrong with being a playboy or playgirl. I'm not here to say that one level of spiritual maturity is inherently "better" than another. That sort of "holier than thou" thinking is counterproductive. It leads to anger and resentment and trying to argue people into becoming more mature, which (in my experience) never works.
There is a very common saying that people who enter a relationship expecting to change the other person are doomed to failure and disappointment. I am not quite so pessimistic. I do think it is probably best and easiest to enter a relationship with some one of the same spiritual maturity level as yourself. In fact, I think this is the source of fastest, deepest love and compatibility.
However, it is simplistic to talk about people trying to "change" their loved oen when they have linked themselves to a person with a lower level of spiritual maturity. A better word than "change" is "mature." It is not like trying to change a person from hating broccoli to liking broccoli. What you are trying to do is get some one stuck at a particular level of immaturity to get past the issue that is blocking their natural progress and ascendance, so that they can mature spiritually.
I am optimistic (idealistic?) that with the right approach, people can help their loved ones get unstuck from a low level of spiritual maturity and ascend to a higher level of maturity. However, it is not easy. It takes enormous patients and time, and frankly I'm not sure most people are up to the task, as it is easier to slip into anger and resentment and perhaps even let your own maturity level sink to match that of your less mature lover, to create more compatibility and less conflict.
If you are going to attempt this, the first key is NOT to blame the other person for being less spiritually mature, for acting out as a playboy / playgirl. Again, you are not to judge the person as lesser than you, or imperfect due to their lower level of maturity. WE ARE ALL FREE TO CHOOSE OUR OWN LEVEL OF SPIRITUAL MATURITY.
The key is not to scold or guilt the person into achieving greater maturity. They key is to EDUCATE the person into achieving greater maturity. I believe (again, this is based on gut level feeling and personal optimism, not scientific studies) that deep down we can all appreciate maturity, and we all would welcome ascending to the stage of being a matriarch / patriarch because it has rewards that surpass the immediate gratification of the hedonistic playboy / playgirl. I think there is a fundamental sadness and loneliness in the playboy / playgirl because they sense a meaningless to their existence that they try to escape from with fleeting pleasures.
So what you need to do to get them to mature is to simply talk to them about deep issues, about death and god and spirituality and social causes. I think deep down in these people, you will find an idealistic soul that does desire to ascend, but is stuck or lost or ignorant about how to do it. Simply having non-combative conversation combined with leading by example can, over time, cause the stuck person to find a way to unstick himself/herself and begin the ascension.
The playboy / playgirl can mature into a patriarch / matriarch. This is a fact because every patriarch / matriarch was, at one time, for however brief a time, a playboy / playgirl who made this very same ascension.
The resistance to this ascension can be huge and, again, it can be such a burdensome task that it may simply not be something the more spiritually advanced person in the relationship is prepared to tackle. That's fine. Know your limits. You have no obligation to help the other person ascend (unless, perhaps, you are married with children, in which case there may be an obligation to the children to give them two spiritually mature parents, but let's set that aside for now).
Again, if you are a patriarch / matriarch in a relationship with a playboy / playgirl and you find yourself continually suffering anguish and/or anger at how the person seems selfish, inconsiderate, and immature, LET IT GO. If you do not or cannot take a PEACEFUL AND LOVING approach to helping that person see why maturity is better, and help them find their own path to getting unstuck and reaching a higher level of maturity, let them go WITHOUT ANGER OR JUDGMENT. Because, as I said before, it is wrong to label it bad or wrong or evil to be a playboy or playgirl. It is a choice people are free to make and you cannot condemn people for that anymore than you can condemn a person who chooses to wear silly hats. It may not be your cup of tea, but they are not hurting anyone.
The playboy / playgirl is not hurting you by their immature conduct. They are simply acting out their own nature. It is YOU, the patriarch / matriarch, who CHOSE to be in a relationship with a playboy / playgirl, who is to blame for the friction that results. Embrace your choice and live with it (and trying lovingly to encourage the person you are with to mature), or choose differently. But in neither case is anger or blame the correct response. And it will not do a damn bit of good. Frankly, the most likely outcome is that your own spiritual maturity will diminish.
Ken Myers
12/28/2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
A pitch for Randomocracy rather than Democracy
I have a secret. I don't believe in democracy. Well, to clarify, I do not believe democracy is the best form of government. I am not suggesting that I prefer theocracies or monarchies or any other form of government. However, I have a firm belief that there are better forms of government that have not yet been implemented.
It seems appropriate here to note that Winston Churchill once said something along the lines of, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others that have been tried." Well, in context, it is not clear whether Churchill was seriously espousing this view. However, that is really a non-issue.
Let's look at it objectively. Can anyone truly say it is impossible for humans to ever conceive a better form of government than democracy? Is this not akin to people claiming 100 years ago that the 4 minute mile could never be broken? What hubris! What vanity!
So let's start with the very simple, very reasonable position that there might actually be a form of government superior to democracy. Let's try to imagine what that might look like by initially identifying the problems inherent in democracy:
1. Limitations on Knowledge. Democracy holds open the hope that people can look around and put the best of humanity into positions of power. However, as a practical matter, very few voters have any significant first-hand experience with candidates for high office, and the rest of us are forced to settle for advertisements. Advertisements for and against the candidate. And I do not mean actual television, radio or print advertisements. Literally everything a politician or his/her adversaries say surrounding a campaign is a form of advertisement. A politician is constantly having to sell himself. And so they learn to guard what they say at all times. How many jokes exist about how hard it is to get a straight answer out of a politician? Because they are always hedging their bets, protecting their images. Democracy may work well if voters are well-informed, but there is virtually no way for voters to know who to trust for the straight dope on a politician for high office.
2. Monetary corruption. Campaigns cost money. And, as a general principle, advertising works. So, to some degree, elections are bought and sold based on what candidate has the most financing. This creates a fundamental corruption in any democratic system. There is always lots of talk about campaign finance reform, as if this fundamental flaw in democracy can be fixed with the right legislation. However, (1) that reform is just talk and it never gets passed, and (2) any reform is limited and there will always be new ways for money to equal votes come election time. Any reform is like plugging one hole in a damn, which increases overall water pressure which, in turn, creates a new hole elsewhere.
3. Individual corruption. Individuals are imperfect and are inherently corruptible. We have all heard the saying, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Though some of us might idealistically cling to a belief that there can be exceptions to this maxim, most of us agree this has a degree of truth. Part of the problem is that, to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. By that, I mean that we all have our world view shaped, to some degree, by our position in life because that is the prism through which we see a subjective view of reality. Being a career politician is a very unique job, and a unique prism. Part of that prism includes the effect of sycophancy (i.e., people kiss up to those in power and that, in turn, is bound to affect how those in power view things). Part of that prism includes walking a constant, stressful tightrope knowing the wrong word can be fatal to your career. I cannot imagine how living with that kind of pressure can affect a person, but I am quite sure it must have SOME effect. The end result is quite simply that politicians evolve into people who are quite dissimilar to the general population, much like soldiers who go to war and live with unique stresses and in unique environs, and who return to find they cannot fit in or find common ground with their fellow man during times of peace. I think it's pretty clear our career politicians in high office are frankly just OUT OF TOUCH with the values of the common man.
An additional force that leads to inevitable, individual corruption is personal survival. Politicians are constantly having to re-apply for their jobs -- applying to their constituancy for re-election, or for election to higher office. This means they must spend a lot of their time and energy focused on what decisions and actions will best sell them in the next election, rather than what decisions and actions are truly best for the nation. You get politicians who defer to polls and lobbyists and special interests rather than acting out on their own personal sense of what is best, what makes sense for the nation. I've had enough job insecurity in my life that I cannot begrudge politicians for taking steps they think are reasonably necessary to ensure their continued prosperity, so they can provide for their families. This is an aspect of corruption that I blame not on politicians but on the democratic system in general, because it inherent in it.
Now that we have identified some problems inherent in democracy (note, there may be more), what form of government might address these issues?
1. Limitations on knowledge. The only way voters will ever be secure that they have a true picture of a politician is if they have access to their lives on camera 24/7. Unless we think there is any chance we can get our politicians to agree to live under that kind of scrutiny, we have to surrender any notion we may know the "truth" about any politician. And if we agree the majority of voters will never know for sure whether the image of a politician that is being sold by that politician (or that is being sold by his opponent) is truthful, all of this knowledge is useless. We may as well vote without any knowledge of the respective politicians. Our politicians should be anonymous until elected. A randomocracy -- selecting our politicians randomly from the population at large -- accomplishes this.
2. Monetary corruption. Money primarily corrupts candidates through (1) campaign financing, and (2) lobbying. A randomocracy eliminates the proble3m of campaign finance corruption because we have no election campaigns. People who find themselves in office have no obligation to any financial backers because there were none. Now, these people are still corruptible and could still be subject to being bought off, under the table, by lobbyists, but I think your average American Joe is simply not savvy enough in the ways of concealing payoffs to risk this. And I think our FBI and other law enforcement will have a much easier time catching novice politicians on the take rather than career politicians with a lot of clout, a lot of connections and a lot of experience in hiding payoffs. The bottom line is, randomly selected politicians may still try to take payoffs, but they will probably be much worse at doing it and worse at keeping it secret. And this, in turn, will probably make most of them too scared to even try it. Overall, I think random selection of politicians will necessarily result in a decrease in politicians selling out their votes.
3. Individual corruption. The randomly selected politicians should, statistically speaking, represent a true cross-section of the American population. Every gender, race, religion, sexual orientation and profession should find that it has truly proportionate representation. Now, random factors being random, this may not always work out perfectly. But over time, it will necessarily equal out. So we get rid of having our country run by people who are not in tune with us, who do not share our values. Surprisingly, this seems like it would effect a more representative government than what we get from a democracy where we are run by elitist career politicians.
The randomly selected politicians would, once selected, be subject to sycophants and the general pressures that can lead to corruption and skewed world-views, and out-of-touch thinking. However, that is why we have term limits and period, new random selection. Basically, before the current crop of randomly selected politicians can get too corrupted, we trade them out for a new batch of "fresh" randomly-selected politicians.
Note since these politicians have absolutely no hope of re-election, they will never have to split their energy or time between their job and their re-election efforts. This, too, helps ensure these politicians govern from their true consciences, not from any concern about job security.
Now, the notion of a randomocracy is not without its own inherent problems, but corruption does not seem to be one of them. The main problem with randomocracy, as I see it, is ignorance and inexperience. We get a fresh crop of uncorrupted politicians who do not know much about being a politician. Which can be like having a banker who does not know math -- it just won't work no matter how well-intentioned the banker may be. I have two solutions for this.
First, if a society ever implemented this type of government, it should simultaneously implement education in the form of civics courses in public school so that kids growing up would have a much better idea, by the time they turn 18, how to be a politician. For example, Roberts Rules of Order and Speech and Debate may be required courses. We would end up with a much more politically savvy population across the board.
Second, I would include a lengthy education program for newly chosen politicians. I think current, when new legislators are elected, they get maybe a month or so of orientation. I envision giving randomly selected politicians something closer to 6 - 12 months of orientation (maybe have this vary, longer for higher offices and shorter for lower offices).
The above two measures should easily avoid any situation of having politicians governing us with no idea how to govern.
I can see some other issues people might have. For example, are some people just by personality better situated for leadership positions? Can we truly risk having a total anti-social shleb randomly chosen as our president, for example? This actually has a surprisingly easy fix. We randomly select the number of people we need for Congress and for President, but we do not determine precisely who will be president. We let the people themselves vote for that midway through their educational period, sort of like picking a class president in school. For anyone who recalls school elections, they actually were pretty good at identifying who was that kind of "people person" who would make a good figurehead. Let's face it, 99% of politicians are not "leaders" because they are not the one making the decisions. To the extent we have a system that funnels very egotistical, type A leaders into Congress, it is probably a bad system that is somewhat to blame for having people who do not work well in a group setting, because they all want to be the leader of the group.
I'm not delusional. I don't pretend there is a realistic chance Americans will "wake up" and replace democracy with randomocracy. Nor do I think the powers-that-be will ever let that happen. I think the best hope is that, when societies collapse and new societies arise, there might be some window of opportunity for something along these lines to be implemented. And, as a precursor to that, I think it would be useful for learned minds to consider and discuss this potential form of government. I'm quite sure there are countless issues and problems it might cause that I have not addressed here. But let's address them. And if we find there are insurmountable obstacles to this EVER being a good form of government, let's then start looking for ANOTHER alternative to democracy. Let's not just side idly on the assumption that there cannot be anything better than what we've got. That's a sure fire way to be sure we never DO find anything better than what we've got.
Lastly, I do not want to take too much credit for this governmental system. First, I am sure some one must have thought of it and written about it before. Second, it is actually an existing system that is in limited usage right here in America -- on juries. We do not have career jurors. Instead, we randomly select people from the community to decide our legal cases. As a lawyer, I am aware that the jury system is often criticized on the grounds that most jurors are not savvy enough to follow all the legal principles or complex disputes put before them. However, I am also aware that judges generally think very highly of the honor of jurors, and that whatever else you may say about jurors, they tend to feel a sense of obligation to act justly when they are called upon to decide cases. And I, for one, wish our politicians were more just and honorable, even if it means they are somewhat less savvy. (To go back to the banker analogy, what good is a banker who is great at math, but is also corrupt and trying to embezzle from your accounts? I'd rather have a well-meaning and honorable banker who is merely adequate at math.)
Ken Myers
www.sfvinjurylaw.com
It seems appropriate here to note that Winston Churchill once said something along the lines of, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others that have been tried." Well, in context, it is not clear whether Churchill was seriously espousing this view. However, that is really a non-issue.
Let's look at it objectively. Can anyone truly say it is impossible for humans to ever conceive a better form of government than democracy? Is this not akin to people claiming 100 years ago that the 4 minute mile could never be broken? What hubris! What vanity!
So let's start with the very simple, very reasonable position that there might actually be a form of government superior to democracy. Let's try to imagine what that might look like by initially identifying the problems inherent in democracy:
1. Limitations on Knowledge. Democracy holds open the hope that people can look around and put the best of humanity into positions of power. However, as a practical matter, very few voters have any significant first-hand experience with candidates for high office, and the rest of us are forced to settle for advertisements. Advertisements for and against the candidate. And I do not mean actual television, radio or print advertisements. Literally everything a politician or his/her adversaries say surrounding a campaign is a form of advertisement. A politician is constantly having to sell himself. And so they learn to guard what they say at all times. How many jokes exist about how hard it is to get a straight answer out of a politician? Because they are always hedging their bets, protecting their images. Democracy may work well if voters are well-informed, but there is virtually no way for voters to know who to trust for the straight dope on a politician for high office.
2. Monetary corruption. Campaigns cost money. And, as a general principle, advertising works. So, to some degree, elections are bought and sold based on what candidate has the most financing. This creates a fundamental corruption in any democratic system. There is always lots of talk about campaign finance reform, as if this fundamental flaw in democracy can be fixed with the right legislation. However, (1) that reform is just talk and it never gets passed, and (2) any reform is limited and there will always be new ways for money to equal votes come election time. Any reform is like plugging one hole in a damn, which increases overall water pressure which, in turn, creates a new hole elsewhere.
3. Individual corruption. Individuals are imperfect and are inherently corruptible. We have all heard the saying, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Though some of us might idealistically cling to a belief that there can be exceptions to this maxim, most of us agree this has a degree of truth. Part of the problem is that, to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. By that, I mean that we all have our world view shaped, to some degree, by our position in life because that is the prism through which we see a subjective view of reality. Being a career politician is a very unique job, and a unique prism. Part of that prism includes the effect of sycophancy (i.e., people kiss up to those in power and that, in turn, is bound to affect how those in power view things). Part of that prism includes walking a constant, stressful tightrope knowing the wrong word can be fatal to your career. I cannot imagine how living with that kind of pressure can affect a person, but I am quite sure it must have SOME effect. The end result is quite simply that politicians evolve into people who are quite dissimilar to the general population, much like soldiers who go to war and live with unique stresses and in unique environs, and who return to find they cannot fit in or find common ground with their fellow man during times of peace. I think it's pretty clear our career politicians in high office are frankly just OUT OF TOUCH with the values of the common man.
An additional force that leads to inevitable, individual corruption is personal survival. Politicians are constantly having to re-apply for their jobs -- applying to their constituancy for re-election, or for election to higher office. This means they must spend a lot of their time and energy focused on what decisions and actions will best sell them in the next election, rather than what decisions and actions are truly best for the nation. You get politicians who defer to polls and lobbyists and special interests rather than acting out on their own personal sense of what is best, what makes sense for the nation. I've had enough job insecurity in my life that I cannot begrudge politicians for taking steps they think are reasonably necessary to ensure their continued prosperity, so they can provide for their families. This is an aspect of corruption that I blame not on politicians but on the democratic system in general, because it inherent in it.
Now that we have identified some problems inherent in democracy (note, there may be more), what form of government might address these issues?
1. Limitations on knowledge. The only way voters will ever be secure that they have a true picture of a politician is if they have access to their lives on camera 24/7. Unless we think there is any chance we can get our politicians to agree to live under that kind of scrutiny, we have to surrender any notion we may know the "truth" about any politician. And if we agree the majority of voters will never know for sure whether the image of a politician that is being sold by that politician (or that is being sold by his opponent) is truthful, all of this knowledge is useless. We may as well vote without any knowledge of the respective politicians. Our politicians should be anonymous until elected. A randomocracy -- selecting our politicians randomly from the population at large -- accomplishes this.
2. Monetary corruption. Money primarily corrupts candidates through (1) campaign financing, and (2) lobbying. A randomocracy eliminates the proble3m of campaign finance corruption because we have no election campaigns. People who find themselves in office have no obligation to any financial backers because there were none. Now, these people are still corruptible and could still be subject to being bought off, under the table, by lobbyists, but I think your average American Joe is simply not savvy enough in the ways of concealing payoffs to risk this. And I think our FBI and other law enforcement will have a much easier time catching novice politicians on the take rather than career politicians with a lot of clout, a lot of connections and a lot of experience in hiding payoffs. The bottom line is, randomly selected politicians may still try to take payoffs, but they will probably be much worse at doing it and worse at keeping it secret. And this, in turn, will probably make most of them too scared to even try it. Overall, I think random selection of politicians will necessarily result in a decrease in politicians selling out their votes.
3. Individual corruption. The randomly selected politicians should, statistically speaking, represent a true cross-section of the American population. Every gender, race, religion, sexual orientation and profession should find that it has truly proportionate representation. Now, random factors being random, this may not always work out perfectly. But over time, it will necessarily equal out. So we get rid of having our country run by people who are not in tune with us, who do not share our values. Surprisingly, this seems like it would effect a more representative government than what we get from a democracy where we are run by elitist career politicians.
The randomly selected politicians would, once selected, be subject to sycophants and the general pressures that can lead to corruption and skewed world-views, and out-of-touch thinking. However, that is why we have term limits and period, new random selection. Basically, before the current crop of randomly selected politicians can get too corrupted, we trade them out for a new batch of "fresh" randomly-selected politicians.
Note since these politicians have absolutely no hope of re-election, they will never have to split their energy or time between their job and their re-election efforts. This, too, helps ensure these politicians govern from their true consciences, not from any concern about job security.
Now, the notion of a randomocracy is not without its own inherent problems, but corruption does not seem to be one of them. The main problem with randomocracy, as I see it, is ignorance and inexperience. We get a fresh crop of uncorrupted politicians who do not know much about being a politician. Which can be like having a banker who does not know math -- it just won't work no matter how well-intentioned the banker may be. I have two solutions for this.
First, if a society ever implemented this type of government, it should simultaneously implement education in the form of civics courses in public school so that kids growing up would have a much better idea, by the time they turn 18, how to be a politician. For example, Roberts Rules of Order and Speech and Debate may be required courses. We would end up with a much more politically savvy population across the board.
Second, I would include a lengthy education program for newly chosen politicians. I think current, when new legislators are elected, they get maybe a month or so of orientation. I envision giving randomly selected politicians something closer to 6 - 12 months of orientation (maybe have this vary, longer for higher offices and shorter for lower offices).
The above two measures should easily avoid any situation of having politicians governing us with no idea how to govern.
I can see some other issues people might have. For example, are some people just by personality better situated for leadership positions? Can we truly risk having a total anti-social shleb randomly chosen as our president, for example? This actually has a surprisingly easy fix. We randomly select the number of people we need for Congress and for President, but we do not determine precisely who will be president. We let the people themselves vote for that midway through their educational period, sort of like picking a class president in school. For anyone who recalls school elections, they actually were pretty good at identifying who was that kind of "people person" who would make a good figurehead. Let's face it, 99% of politicians are not "leaders" because they are not the one making the decisions. To the extent we have a system that funnels very egotistical, type A leaders into Congress, it is probably a bad system that is somewhat to blame for having people who do not work well in a group setting, because they all want to be the leader of the group.
I'm not delusional. I don't pretend there is a realistic chance Americans will "wake up" and replace democracy with randomocracy. Nor do I think the powers-that-be will ever let that happen. I think the best hope is that, when societies collapse and new societies arise, there might be some window of opportunity for something along these lines to be implemented. And, as a precursor to that, I think it would be useful for learned minds to consider and discuss this potential form of government. I'm quite sure there are countless issues and problems it might cause that I have not addressed here. But let's address them. And if we find there are insurmountable obstacles to this EVER being a good form of government, let's then start looking for ANOTHER alternative to democracy. Let's not just side idly on the assumption that there cannot be anything better than what we've got. That's a sure fire way to be sure we never DO find anything better than what we've got.
Lastly, I do not want to take too much credit for this governmental system. First, I am sure some one must have thought of it and written about it before. Second, it is actually an existing system that is in limited usage right here in America -- on juries. We do not have career jurors. Instead, we randomly select people from the community to decide our legal cases. As a lawyer, I am aware that the jury system is often criticized on the grounds that most jurors are not savvy enough to follow all the legal principles or complex disputes put before them. However, I am also aware that judges generally think very highly of the honor of jurors, and that whatever else you may say about jurors, they tend to feel a sense of obligation to act justly when they are called upon to decide cases. And I, for one, wish our politicians were more just and honorable, even if it means they are somewhat less savvy. (To go back to the banker analogy, what good is a banker who is great at math, but is also corrupt and trying to embezzle from your accounts? I'd rather have a well-meaning and honorable banker who is merely adequate at math.)
Ken Myers
www.sfvinjurylaw.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
