Food For Thought:

"The continuance of the Christian ideal is one of the most desirable things there are - even for the sake of the ideals that want to stand beside it and perhaps above it - they must have opponents, strong opponents, if they are to become strong.

Thus we immoralists require the power of morality:  our drive of self-preservation wants our opponents to retain their strength - it only wants to become master over them." - Friedrich Nietzsche

The Fairy Tale is Over - A (Long) Diatribe

               So at long last there was another royal wedding.  I wrote this before the actual wedding, so it may seem a little dated, but I still think it is relevant.  (Yes, I know Charles remarried a few years back, but no one cared about that embarrassing affair, and this wedding is not the same.)

               Princess Catherine (Kate Middleton) is no Princess Diana.  Not sure if that’s good or bad.  She’s 28, as opposed to Diana’s age of 19 when she got married- the new princess is college-educated, and apparently has worked as a buyer.  Opposing Di’s nannying and no education.  Catherine comes from an intact family of basically commoners while Diana was a Lady who effectively was raised by her father, her mother having abandoned her at a young age. 

               Kate, having dated Prince William for eight years and weathered more than one break-up and his “partying,” does not seem to be either the babe-in-the-woods or the emotional basket case Diana appeared to be.  Of course, look who Kate got, compared to Charles!

               William and Kate are the same age, went to the same school, know each other well.  She seems very self-possessed, not too camera shy or frightened, SO she probably will fight right in with the royal family.

               But she’s no Diana, because she doesn’t appear to have the faults that Di had that endeared her to the public- the “people’s princess.”  Diana’s faults seemed understandable—forgivable.  She, on the one hand was gorgeous, fashionable, tall and magnificent.  She just could never fit in with the family.  Even with all her money, beauty and all that, people sympathized with her.  She was in a loveless marriage with Charles cheating, she supposedly had a borderline personality and was bulimic.  You could feel her sadness; it was read.

               Her empathy with victims, orphans, AIDs patients, etc. may have just been because of the charities she had to do out of duty.  But so did Charles, and the rest of the family, have those obligations, yet Diana seemed like one of them, the real, suffering people, not like a patronizing royal.

               She desperately wanted a normal life she could never have- a real marriage, for one thing, which Charles nixed.  Sure, she was no intellectual heavyweight, but Charles knew that beforehand (not that he is Einstein either).  Apparently her beauty was too much for Charles and didn’t keep him from hideous Camilla Parker-Bowles.

               People got it -- Diana was spurned by a man who was lucky to even have her—she was way too beautiful, too popular- he, showing his complete insecurity and dominance by his mother, couldn’t stand to be upstaged by Diana.  They wanted her, not him.  He fancies himself serious, intelligent, and made her out to be an hysterical woman, while cheating on her.  He simply could not handle her.

               Even though she was fragile, given to irrational behavior and emotional problems apparently- and selfish, as they all are, she had an openness and vulnerability that made people want to be in her presence- to care, to sympathize, just as she did with those who suffered.  That empathy cannot be faked, and she had it.  A good heart.  It may not seem like much but a princess’ visit in the hospital ward was enough to brighten many people’s lives!

               It seems like, from over here at least, that the mystery, the thrill, is gone.  Granted, the tabloids left little of it a mystery anyway- but Diana had an aura, an allure that made people want to know what made her tick.  Although we hear little to nothing here in the U.S. about Camilla, there’s no mystery there, or rather, no one wants to know – her charisma is lacking, she seems tough as nails, she’s not attractive, and she stole Charles. 

               Although no Camilla, (which would be hard), Kate Middleton is not in Di’s league.  She seems rather plain Jane, she will not be a fashion trend-setter, and she is pretty but not glamorous.  The fairy tale is not here, there is no ingénue- she is an experienced adult, not the girl Diana who had to turn into an adult in front of the entire world.  It remains to be seen what Kate will do, but at least to me, she seems more like Camilla (although better looking and a nice person).

               Because she doesn’t have that mystery, that aura, that presence that we had in the “real” princess.  She doesn’t look like she needs a shoulder to cry on or a sympathetic ear.  She doesn’t look like she needs anything.  She doesn’t appear or present herself as anything but capable, quite at ease, confident- loved.

               Since she doesn’t need anything, are WE needed?  Do we even need to care?  Is she capable of empathy ?

               Diana’s flaws were the kind that made her interesting – a phenomenon – someone with genuine hurt- who felt it and could feel it in others.  The thousands of miles of class-nobility, money, fame, beauty, that separated us – she crossed that span effortlessly – by being herself.  She was human:  imperfect, hurting, desperate, rejected, selfish, searching, making mistakes (big ones) – talking too much, she worked the press while deriding it – but she learned to survive.  She was not a natural at being in the spotlight.  Someone like her needed approval, the approval of everyone including the public- and it was a horrible task to have to always be liked or good enough.

               People want to feel like they are needed – or have the capability of being able to help.  Older women saw in Diana that she wanted acceptance and unconditional love and approval – she showed it– and they knew they could help and did.  Younger women knew they could commiserate with Diana’s marriage break-down, her bulimia, her self-esteem issues, her looking for a place to fit in- to have a security she couldn’t find.

               Perhaps her greatest charity was in presenting herself (whether consciously or not) – being real – and allowing others to be that way too.  Maybe she could understand since she was as vulnerable and insecure as many people.  This didn’t take away from her glamour, it gave her authenticity.  Her charity was not patronizing, or smug and condescending- but rather helping, because she knew what was felt.

               It wasn’t her giving to the needy from a position of grandeur- rather it was her giving because she needed THEM to give to HER.  She affirmed the sick, the poor, the dying, etc. because she sought affirmation herself.  She had something to receive as well as to give- “sharing,”- she needed it too.

Can someone like Kate, so self-assured, proper, seemingly unflustered- does she really FEEL?  That’s what Di did.  Since Diana felt, she could feel for others, and that’s what WE felt.

Following in Di’s footsteps is no small task any way you look at it.  But it may be that that era – that seeming fairy tale- is over, not to be relived, or forgotten.  

Some short comments about the free will thing

One of the worst defenses for free will is that determinism may be true, but if the common person finds out, all hell will break loose.  No one will then be morally responsible, or can be held to that standard, once the "cover is blown."  Among many arguments against this, is that just because one gains the knowledge, it does not follow that he will choose to commit crimes, etc.

Because the defense is basically, "If they find out the truth, they will use their "free will" to escape responsibility, commit crimes and bad acts, loaf in bed all day, quit going to work, or doing ANYTHING."  This is inane, since finding out the truth doesn't "free" one from determinism.  You'd do the same thing you are determined to do- the knowledge wouldn't change anything- although it MIGHT be determined that certain people will, after gaining this knowledge, commit crimes, it doesn't follow that the person did so of their own "free will."

Because you can't have both.  If the knowledge precedes new action, that was inevitable, given all the factors, the gained knowledge being one of the factors contributing to the outcome.

Just like if you could read the future and see who your spouse will be, and if you don't like it, you can't just avoid the marriage.  It's inevitable that you will, somehow, even against your preference and all effort to avoid it.  Otherwise, the future you saw was not the truth- not real.  If you can change the future from what it otherwise would be, you could never predict it with certainty (and that's the case now, although if we had complete knowledge of the present we would be able to see what the inevitable future is).

In fact, you could never predict any outcome of any of your own actions either.  If libertarian free will, which amounts to randomness, is the case, any choice you make, the ensuing result would be up for grabs, every time.  All the things we take for granted, such as relying on automobiles, airplanes, tools, etc. are not random happenstance - if decisions are to mean anything, they must be based on some degree of predictability.  The law of gravity will not suddenly cease to exist- we can be quite reliably certain that if we drop a ball, it will fall.

In other words, if determinism is true, and people "taught" it widely, and people actually believed it, there would be no mass inertia, or mass hysteria.  Life would go on as usual, as intended.  Like me, and all types of determinists, we just do what the day brings us.  We get out of bed somehow, react to our environment, learn, remain law-abiding, get to work, etc., all without "free will," and us knowing it doesn't make us suddenly OBTAIN free will so that we can willy nilly commit crimes knowing we can't be held responsible!

Just briefly it is quite possible that none of us can actually avoid living under the illusion of "free will," even if we intellectually do not believe it to be true.  It may be a state of nature that we are "programmed" to think we are in control, we make choices as free agents, and we could have done otherwise.  There may be very good reasons for us to live in this illusion- I won't get into.
More later....

Image by Bill McIntyre via Flickr

Would somebody tell me why, oh why, Malcolm Gladwell is hottest thing since sliced bread?  It irritates me to no end that he is a regular contributor to my favorite magazine, “The New Yorker.”  The magazine is usually quite discriminating with its writers/contributors.  Although by no means do I find them all interesting, Gladwell stands out- like a sore thumb- for his widely celebrated, yet plainly obtuse, articles and books.

This guy’s “talent” is in stating the obvious. Period.  That’s bad enough, but he states the obvious, and then analyzes it to death (as if analysis is needed).  He does this, ostensibly seriously, in order to enlighten readers.  So, he must believe one of two things.  Either he fails to see the obviousness of his craft, or he himself does see it, but counts on most readers to be ignorant.

If the former, he is simply ignorant himself. If the latter, he is making a bet (a rather safe bet) that Americans don’t know very much, and don’t care, and are willing to accept what he presents, uncritically.  And, with astonished admiration for this apparently innovative, profound thinker.

Not only does he state the obvious, he supports his grand theories with evidence that he propounds in such a manner as though he were the first to figure this out, the first to describe the support for the theory, as if he is the only one smart enough, or skilled enough, to do this.

Is the joke on me?  The fact that his books are on the NY Times best seller list for weeks is not surprising- so is Dan Brown, John Grisham, Dr. Atkins, and that “Twilite” author, whatsername.  What is surprising is that “The New Yorker” features him so prominently.  There must be something amiss here.

One thing I thought of was that perhaps Gladwell sees himself as writing “Game Theory for Dummies” – or, insert any of these:  Neuroscience, Economics, Sociology, Nanotechnology, etc.  And he takes his ideas from scientific and medical journals, from philosophers long dead; etc.  because he knows most people are not knowledgeable on these subjects.  I can see it now.  His next article:  “The Earth Is Indeed Not Flat.”

 He takes the idea and provides it in Cliff’s Notes form to make it as simple as possible to understand, and presents it as his own novel, astonishing, ground-breaking idea.  The credit he gives is minimal and seems like an afterthought.  It’s almost like he data mines, then pawns the stuff he discovers off as largely his own idea.

The book “Blink” presented supposedly new and incredible ideas, when the science it is based on was already at least five years old and common knowledge to those who care about the subject matter.

The thing is, Gladwell doesn’t appear to be any specialized professional – just a rehasher.  I wonder if that could be a title, Professional Rehasher?

You may say that his talent is IN the rehashing, providing “scientific” and other esoteric, obscure theories to the average reader, because he knows the odds are that the average reader does not know.  If he can simplify it and make it somewhat “sexy” to appeal to the masses while presenting himself as an authority, he will laugh all the way to the bank.  I guess.

I never considered doing that.  So perhaps I am envious of his ingenuity (of course there are others like him, but he’s the “it” guy right now).

Whether he’s ignorant or somewhat of a shyster, I must admit, he has mastered the art of presenting the obvious, or old news, as something fresh, up and coming, perhaps radical, and as something he himself largely figured out, and he deigns to speak it to the undereducated masses.

He has managed not only sell scores of books and become wealthy, he is also presented as an intellectual authority, as someone to be reckoned with, and to be taken seriously.  Hence, his writing takes on a gravitas it does not deserve.  However, I am just surprised that the common knowledge he writes so incredulously about is not common knowledge to more people.  At least to those interested enough in the subject matters of his stuff to bother to read him.  And to the readers of The New Yorker, who haven’t complained enough to get his stuff banned from the magazine. Not that he should be banned.

My own theory is that this situation is like “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”  Readers of his work all know it is b.s., it obnoxious, and takes no genius to write…..however, since he, like the Emperor, is “royalty,” or a favored son, we readers fear to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.  We mistrust our own judgment—we can’t believe that the Emperor would be so silly and inept, and who are we to say anything? Maybe we’re blind.

And maybe I AM blind.  Maybe the Emperor IS wearing clothes and I’m the one so simple-minded as to think he’s not.

But I’m going to be like that lad in the tale who yelled out that the clothes were missing. There’s a chance I’ll embarrass myself for doing so, but I’ll venture that I’m not the one who should be embarrassed.

Three Arguments Against Determinism

 (I am posting this short article that my brother emailed me, in order to reply to it.  My position is completely opposite of his.  I am just posting this now while I work on getting my response up.)



Three Arguments Against Determinism - by Greg Boyd

March 23rd, 2011

There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday by John Tierney entitled “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s The Only Choice“.

The article reviews research that suggests that everybody intuitively believes people are morally responsible only for actions they could have refrained from doing and that when people don’t believe they are free they tend to behave more unethically. Hence, if free will is in fact an illusion, it is an illusion that is hard wired into us and one that is extremely helpful, if not absolutely necessary, for ethical behavior. If you believe in God and yet deny the reality of free will, you have to wonder why the Creator would hard-wire us to be so thoroughly self-deceived. In any event, I thought I’d offer three other pragmatic arguments for free will along the lines covered in this article.

The Incoherence of Ordained Morality. I would argue that the association of moral responsibility and free will is not only deeply intuitive, as the article suggests, it is also logically necessary. That is, I would argue that denying the association of moral responsibility and free will results in incoherence. For example, when a Calvinist asserts something like: “God ordains that Satan does evil in such a way that God remains morally holy for ordaining Satan to do evil while Satan becomes morally evil for doing what the all-holy God ordained him to do,” I submit they are asserting something that is beyond counter-intuitive; it is utterly incoherent. For a concept to have meaning it must have some rooting in our experience, at least by analogy. A concept for which there is no analogy in our experience is a vacuous concept. Yet, after decades of asking, I have yet to find anyone who can provide an analogy by which we might give meaning to the concept of an agent being morally responsible for what God ordained them to do. (I develop this argument at length in response to Paul Helseth in Four Views of Divine Providence).

Determinism is Self-Refuting. If free will is an illusion and everything is predetermined, then the ultimate cause of why a person believes that free will is an illusion and everything is predetermined is that they were predetermined to do so. But it’s hard to see how a belief can be considered “true” or “false” when it is, ultimately, simply a predetermined event. The snow falling outside my window right now is due to the fact that preexisting conditions determined it to be so. But we wouldn’t say that the snowfall is “true” or “false.”

Refuting Determinism By Action. You know what a person truly believes by how they act more than by what they say, for we often think we believe something when in fact we don’t. (E.g. the husband who convinces himself he loves his wife even though he mistreats her, cheats on her, etc.). On this basis I’d like to suggest that everyone who deliberates believes in free will, even if they think they do not, for its impossible to deliberate without acting on the conviction that the decision is up to you to resolve. For example, I am this moment deliberating about what to work on when I finish this blog. Should I work on a peace essay for a book collection that is due at the end of this week or should I finish reading a book by Andrew Sullivan that I started two days ago? As I weigh the pros and cons of both possibilities, I cannot help but manifest my conviction that I genuinely could opt for either one of these alternatives and that it is up to me to decide which I will choose. In other words, I reveal a deep rooted conviction that I am free as I deliberate, and the same holds true for every deliberation anyone engages in. There simply is no other way to deliberate. People may sincerely think they believe in determinism, but they act otherwise, and must act otherwise, every time they deliberate. The great American philosopher Charles Pierce argued that a belief that cannot be consistently acted on cannot be true. If he’s right about this - and I believe he is - then determinism must be false.

Words That Need to be Banned ASAP!

Image by tobin.t via Flickr

1. "Vetted."  Unless referring to a veteran, a veterinarian, or a Corvette.
2. "Evidence-based Medicine."
3. "Postmodern."
4. "Worldview."
5. "Welcome aboard! (when starting a new job)"  Unless you are on a ship.
6. "Metrics."
7. "Quantum physics."  Unless you're actually a physicist (and no, Deepak Chopra is not).
8. "Wiki" anything.
9. "Bonus parent."
10. "Missional." 
11. "Think Outside the Box."-  I think it's time to start thinking back inside the box again!

Review of: Eat, Pray, Love: One Woman's Search for Everything Across Italy, India and Indonesia

Cover via Amazon

This review is from: Eat, Pray, Love: One Woman's Search for Everything Across Italy, India and Indonesia (Paperback)

I couldn't read the entire thing, I just skimmed it. The author was just too annoying and self-absorbed. It was as if she thought we, the reader, would be so enthralled with the inanities of her pampered life that she could afford to write basically a diary of her life. 

And a boring diary too. Her "problems" really aren't that problematic. Her solution of traveling the world and taking a huge amount of time off work, to cavort with assorted men, etc., is not realistic for most of us. 

Her decision to divorce is not explained well; it seems as if she just got sick of her spouse. Selfish, complaining and whining, self-absorbed to the point of narcissism, and supremely confident that the reader will sympathize with her and her mundane writing....I just cannot believe everyone loved this book so much!

Check out my book review..."The Tipping Point"

"The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell

Image by jgarber via Flickr

Add caption

http://www.amazon.com/Tipping-Point-Little-Things-Difference/dp/0316346624/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303739849&sr=8-1

This is news?

This book was a disappointment. It basically stated the obvious, that certain factors "tip" people one way or another- context, persuasion, genetics, etc., and produce trends as well as personal preferences. There wasn't anything in here that was not common sense. 

For example, the chapter on why teenagers still start smoking even after decades of health warnings, etc., provided no new insight. Basically, the reason provided was that kids don't start smoking because the action of smoking is cool; they start smoking because the SMOKERS are cool. In other words, cool people smoke, just like they do other things. So to be cool, you'll emulate the cool people. And smoking is one thing you can do to be like them. 

Also, the author states that genetics is the reason why certain smokers become addicted (every-day smoking of several cigarettes per day, with great difficulty in quitting including withdrawal symptoms) and why other people can smoke very few cigarettes in a week, every week, for example, and easily stop doing that with no problem. Since the concept of "social smokers" is quite well known now, I don't think this was any revelation. Just like not every social drinker becomes an alcoholic, not every social smoker becomes a hard-core nicotine fiend. And doesn't genetics cause pretty much everything? I've heard a figure of 80% of our behavior, traits, intelligence, etc. is genetic. This may or may not be true, but the proposition that nature, rather than nurture, is controlling us is not a new idea either. The "masses" won't be impressed with his ideas on genes. 

This book was also very short. I would have appreciated much more substance, and just more MATERIAL in general. Thankfully I got this from the library so I didn't waste my money on a short, dissatisfying book that states the obvious and expects the public to be wowed by the "insight." 

The author seems to have rattled off this book in one sitting, perhaps as an afterthought, for what reason, I don't know. I also sensed a patronizing tone throughout. I get the impression by reading it that he wrote this first as an outline for some high school sociology class, and then tried to expand it to something that the great "unwashed masses" would take as a serious, scholarly work. Well, I'm sure that even the "masses" aren't that easily impressed. 

So I do not recommend wasting your time on this one!

RIP, LIZ TAYLOR

I somehow feel sad that Liz has died. It’s amazing she was only 79; I thought she had to be older. She’d been on her deathbed on so many occasions it’s like she had nine lives. (Well, do eight husbands count? Counting Richard Burton twice.)
Richard Burton was my favorite out of all her husbands. The two just WERE Hollywood royalty, between their selfish affairs and divorces, boozing, extravagant spending, fighting, yelling, partying, etc. They just exuded passion….enough to try marriage again after they were first divorced, although it didn’t last long. Two powerful, loud personalities, each refusing to give in, each loving themselves first above all, and yet, they had something magical that kept drawing them together. And kept drawing us, her fans, in.
Perhaps they were birds of a feather…their lifestyle choices certainly were shared willingly. Although Richard may have been the better actor, Liz was by far the more popular and adored.
Even as she trashed other people’s lives and marriages, barreling ahead full force into marriage after marriage, and leaving them seemingly upon whim, Liz was a mega-star. Certainly she was terribly beautiful and her looks alone mesmerized. She could command a room just by her presence. She was used to self-indulgence, getting her way, and not apologizing.
That certain chutzpah, or whatever you want to call it, seemed to keep her fans fascinated. Whereas if she were the lady next door, you’d probably be jealous and hateful of her because of her beauty and her less-than-moral actions, since she was a STAR, she shined anyway.
She obviously had some good qualities, her several children speak well of her. Also, her charities do as well….she seemed to be compassionate in the AIDS fight, as well as in befriending Wacko Jacko (Michael Jackson, may he RIP as well….). She cared enough about herself to get herself into treatment at the Betty Ford Clinic for alcohol and pills.
But then, her judgment, even while ostensibly sober and dried out, took a horrible turn. She married Larry Fortino, or whatever his last name was. Truck driver, long, Farrah Fawcett-like blond hair, rude and proud of it, he met her at the Betty Ford. For some reason she had to have him. Was it his poverty, or his truck, or his wavy (pre-Fabio) hair? Or the fact that apparently she and he were passionately in love, for whatever reason, and that was enough. Who knew the mind of Liz Taylor? Thankfully, Larry was soon shown the door.
Anyway, just wanted to recognize this talented actor and star for her decades of antics, fascinations, acting, of course, and entertainment (both on screen and off). Whatever she was, she was never boring. She was a force of nature and she’ll certainly be missed.

Back Again

Well I've got a ton to vent to the vast empty blackhole we call the "internet."  Will be spewing most of the day, I hope!

I am artistically retarded

I wish I could create a decent-looking setup for this blog without wasting hours and hours on it....Got a lot of stuff to write if I could ever get past this design stuff!