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!
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!
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.
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!
"Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it." - Henry Ford "Be yourself is about the worst advice you can give some people." - Anon. "It is a greater compliment to be trusted than to be loved." -George MacDonald "True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information." - Winston Churchill "The power to stand alone is worth acquiring at the expense of much sorrowful solitude." - George Bernard Shaw "Don't talk about yourself; it will be done when you leave." - Wilson Mizner "Men will wrangle for religion; unite for it; fight for it; anything but live for it." - Charles Caleb Colton "Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known." - Michel deMontaigne "He who falls in love with himself will have no rivals." - Ben Franklin
This new Ayn Rand biography didn’t have anything really new or surprising in it. I’m a big fan of biographies, particularly those of larger than life personalities- whether they are obnoxious or admirable (or both) - whether I ag ree with their ideas, politics, etc., or not. Ayn Rand has always fascinated me. I remember reading “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged”- two huge books, in only a few days. The books consciously repelled me, and yet strangely they drew me into their convoluted plots, with pages and pages of boring, unrealistic dialog and speeches, which served to espouse Rand’s philosophy of “Objectivism.” I remember laughing at how contrived the characters were, and how preachy the books were, yet I was not able to put them down. I guess they are consistently listed in the top 100 books ever written (based on number of sales per year, I think, but also on other “top” type lists)…so I guess I am not alone.
Rand’s writing, although better than that of John Grisham or that Stephanie chick who writes the hugely popular Twilight Vampire tripe, is no great literature, in form or function.
But I admit her ideas were (and still are) radical, and somewhat original, and she tried to live by them. Mainly, Objectivism is individualism, with a morality of acting within one’s "rational" self-interest, anti-altruistic, pro- “morality” (of the black and white sort), for an objective reality that exists outside our minds and that we can comprehend and understand with our senses. That man “has no instincts” like the animals do; he has to learn, use his senses and reason, and that the world is real. Her basic axiom was the tautology “existence exists,” and I cannot understand her reasoning for that one.
Although Rand claimed, and I believe, she really did think she “invented” this totally original philosophy, it seems to me that borrowed a lot of Nietzsche- she outright believed that survival of the individual, and not the species or common humanity, was the aim of her morality. That man was an end in itself, not a means to some other value (especially NOT for the purpose of procreation-and she had no children). She seemed like she identified with Nietzsche’s “Overman”- she despised the “herd” mentality of the majority and she turned traditional morality on its head. She upheld selfishness, greed, and any values that helped one preserve and maintain the individual at the expense of anyone else. She differed from Nietzsche in that she was, somewhat paradoxically to most of us, a moral absolutist. She just made traditional vices into virtues, and vice versa. She despised compassion, altruism, helping the weak, etc., just as much as Nietzsche did. But aside from the fact that Nietzsche was a great genius of a thinker, with a much more systematic, prophetic philosophy, not to mention, how his ideas have been justified, somewhat, by modern science, he did not believe that morality existed. That ‘’morality” was just a cognitive explanation of reality, not a cause of anything, and nothing but an illusion, to simplify it. He thought that nature was amoral, and therefore so is humanity, etc. etc…anyway, I am running on too long here- my main point is that although she adopted much of his thought, she radically veered away from him by claiming an absolutist, black and white morality, applicable to all people at all times, achievable by all people through reason and ability. That absolutist morality is inverted from what religions teach, and from what most people espouse, but it is a morality none the less. For Rand, her atheism did not seem to pose any type of problem with or contradiction with her absolutist morality system. Indeed, she does have many good arguments about how one does not need to be a theist in order to believe in, and act within, moral absolutes, or to have a grounding for that morality.
(Rand did, however, collect Social Security benefits, but only because she paid into the system, she said.)
There was something about Rand that impacted history greatly. Even though many think that she wasn’t really all that intelligent, and had studied little philosophy (she seemed to know practically nothing about Kant yet she criticized him relentlessly, blaming him for everything from Communism to relativism to the glorification of the weak- and that his philosophy alone has been responsible for the near downfall of society).
Well, perhaps she wasn’t that bright, but she possessed an intelligence that allowed her to create her own cult of personality – there’s no denying that. And a cult it was.
For being such a hardcore atheist, Rand sure liked being a god herself to these people. They’d sit around her apartment several nights per week, sometimes literally all night, discussing her book characters as though they were real people. (Anyone remember “Who is John Galt?”?) Galt, of course, being the objectivist prototype- the perfect specimen, the embodiment, of Rand’s philosophy, even though he was just a book character. These people tried to actually copy the characters, in belief, in actions and in petty things such as taste in music,etc. To become one of her perfect characters was an actual goal. And those perfect characters lived only for themselves- as John stated in his pages long manifesto radio speech in "Atlas Shrugged" – “I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (or something like that!)
Basically, her “groupies” were obsessively concerned with this fantastical philosophy and this highly charismatic woman. But her charisma was often more like that of a tyrant, with her yelling at people, bossing them around, dictating the only acceptable beliefs and actions they could have and still be one of “hers,” even projecting her morality onto things of strictly personal taste. For example, she dropped a supposedly good friend like a hot potato for the “sin” of liking Monet’s art. And that was her big thing. Not only would she stop being friendly to a person who had offended her in some manner, that person would be outcast from the “cult.” And if anyone else happened to talk to that outcast, or even to just try to remain neutral, he or she too was ousted as a traitor to Rand. Simply disagreeing with her, on practically any matter, or of course, challenging her at all, was grounds for becoming a persona non grata. Objectivism was HER philosophy, like she had a copyright on it, and she could ban people from writing about it or giving speeches about it, or presenting it, if she wanted to. To this day some of her still existing band of worshipers, on internet sites, debate whether it is possible to disagree with Rand on ANYTHING and still label oneself an objectivist.
What’s interesting is she wasn’t always like that. Early on she enjoyed debate and cordial argument, as long as the disagreement was supportable by logic, etc. She seemed to relish great conversation about ideas, and to tolerate others' ideas, even though she was never shy about her own beliefs and never one to step away from an argument until she had convinced the other person she was right, if only because she exhausted the person into caving in!
As she got older she seemed to have become more and more paranoid (perhaps not unlike Nietzsche towards his end), and believing that she alone was the genius, the one who must suffer betrayal and ostracization from the others, because she was ”too much for them,'' too rational, too consistent, too threatening with her grandiose belief in her own intelligence.
Anyway, the book is interesting but shed no new light on anything. No special or shocking revelations, nothing that hasn’t already been written about Rand and her group, both her personal life and her philosophy. If you’re a fan of hers you already know everything in the book. But then again, as a fan you probably want to read everything about her. And I can recommend the book as interesting, etc., but it just doesn’t add anything to what’s already out there.
The worst (or best, depending on your belief) parts in the book are when the author attributes much of Rand’s dictatorial personality and impossibly high standards in friendships to the insecurity she suffered as a child growing up in Communist Russia. Rand admitted she always felt like an outsider, but she attributed that to the bad behavior of others. People were always disappointing her, failing her in some way, not being good enough for her.
As is well known, there was a scandal in the group wherein Rand had an affair with Branden, one of her earliest worshipers, who was something like 30 years younger than Rand. He, like Rand, was married to someone else, but the two of them, consistent with their morality, told their spouses in a group meeting that the they intended to start an affair. They justified it that it was only rational, logical, and inevitable that two people so consistent with Objectivism and devoted to it religiously, would HAVE to be together for at least part of the time. It was rare for two people (Rand and Branden) to find each other, therefore, the affair was practically mandated by reason. And then they laid it on thick by saying that if anyone could handle this arrangement, it was the four of them, since they were all so rational, mature, unemotional, acting according to the dictates of their philosophy, purely logical- what a joke!
(Another odd thing is her marriage which lasted for several decades- to a man who pretty much a milk-toast- just the opposite of the “John Galt” god that Rand so much idolized. It seems they did really love each other, but he was completely controlled by her, and inasmuch as he was usually an unemployed actor, florist, or artist/painter, she did bring in the money and controlled everything. He seemed ok with it, but again, who knows? It seems pretty preposterous that he was ok with the affair- I'm sure he was bullied into agreeing to it, because he knew, with Ayn, there was no choice- it was her way or the highway.)
When Branden then started cheating on Rand with a young woman in her early 20’s,(he was still married too) it took months for Rand to realize his lies and she then kicked him out of the group and out of the philosophy altogether. Her journals from this time seem to show her being IRRATIONAL, by rationalizing Branden’s hurtful behavior through conducting arduous over analysis of his philosophy, etc.
The author portrays Rand as the old woman scorned, who then sought to make Branden’s life hell- not out of any adherence to logical philosophy but out of pure egotism, humiliation, and insecurity. Not to mention revenge. She tried to stop the publishing of some of his work, insinuated to others that the reason she had to kick him out of the Nathaniel Branden Institute (they were business partners in it) was because he was stealing funds, and the whole thing was settled only through lawsuit threats and basically, a payoff to Branden to get the heck out of her life and give up his partnership rights in the business, and give up all rights to some of his own copyrighted material, as well as being prohibited from even mentioning that he EVER was associated with Objectivism. She justified this based on her conclusion that Branden was a total faker, a manipulator who never really was “John Galt” after all, but rather one of the spineless, useless parasite characters in her books instead, and he had been living a lie, pretending to be an Objectivist when he really never was one. (That seems very odd to me.) She said she pitied him- that he could not handle her.
Indeed, few people could handle her, that was true, but probably because she was a bitch!
Was she let down by people because they were so defective and unworthy poseurs, or was it that she was impossible to please- unforgiving and downright mean sometimes? Who used her supposed rationalism as a defense mechanism? She was too smart, too logical, etc., she either believed or tried to believe, and that was the reason for her many failed relationships with many varied people, men and women both. Was it just easier to believe that than to face the fact that perhaps she WAS actually the wrong one, - was it easier to cut people out of her life immediately rather than wait for them to cut her out- and was she too insecure to handle rejection, that she had to reject someone at the slightest hint of their possible disloyalty?
When the writer, as many biographers do, attempts to psychoanalyze their subjects, I quickly lose interest. Not in the subject, it is intriguing. But in those authors who think they know one’s REAL motives, reasons, etc., behind the actions. That there is always some insecurity, some defense mechanism, some childhood trauma being relived or something, that explains the questionable behavior. Of course, Rand could have been insecure (although aren’t most people to some extent?). She could have been using a defense mechanism, but maybe she really did believe in her own intellectual superiority, and found it hard to get and keep intellectual companionship, so finally she just gave up and decided to be her own hardcore self, take her or leave her. Who knows. Is every jerk really just an insecure little child inside, misunderstood, unloved, etc., or are there just some people who are just outright jerks and secure about it, and don’t care what people think?
She was a force to be reckoned with, if nothing else, love her or hate her. And her story is one of hard work and success- she came from nothing. Even if her philosophy was maybe unoriginal and simplistic, it never went away, as evidenced to this day by this biography so many years later. And the existence of the Ayn Rand Institute- still going strong, still with a lot of obsessed fans debating on the internet.
Her books, of course, will keep her alive forever. She made an impact- she was a woman who never once complained of discrimination, and strangely, she did not seem to be discriminated against. It was not an issue, as far as I can tell. She was loved or hated for her ideas and/or personality, not for her gender.
I am sure to be adding to this list from time to time- feel free to post some of your own!
1. "Speaking the truth to power."
2. "That which does not kill me, makes me stronger." Yeah yeah Nietzsche, but it could just as easily mess you up bad for a really really long time!
3. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Again, Einstein, sometimes it is actually sane to do so!
4. Any word other than "Watergate" that has "gate" tacked onto it.
5. "What part of 'fill in the blank' do you not understand?"
VERY UGLY:
The Philadelphia Eagles recently gave Michael Vick the Ed Block Courage Award. That’s bad enough, but Vick’s comments are just baffling: “I’ve overcome a lot more than probably any single individual can handle or bear…probably 95% of the …people in this world, because nobody had to endure what I’ve been through, situations I’ve been put in…I put myself in, and decisions I have made, whether they have been good or bad.”
Is this courage award for acting like a fool? He got his $1.6 million contract after getting out of prison. He wasn’t in there long. Not long enough, in my mind.
And his “poor me” attitude is like the boy who murdered his parents and then begged the judge to have mercy on him since he was an orphan! He is pathetic!
Happy New Year! I want to update anyone who is interested in my current situation. Since the end of October, I’ve been staying with my parents near Champaign-Urbana, IL, about 120 miles south of Chicago. The town is actually called Gifford (and no, Frank and Kathie Lee Gifford are not from here), and this town makes Mayberry look like the size of Hong Kong . But fortunately, I’m close to Champaign-Urbana, which is a decent-sized college town and home of the University of Illinois Illini, the obsession with which seems to be somewhat of a religion around here.
It’s got its share of Walmarts, Barnes & Nobles, Chili’s and Walgreen’s to pass for any midwestern town. But there is a dearth of known grocery stores- the two main ones seem to be a “Schnuck’s” and a “Meijer’s”- there’s not a Jewel, Dominick’s, or Cub Foods to be found. Oh, but there IS an Aldi’s. Thanks heavens. (yes, that’s sarcasm )
Also, I’m within a few miles of a train station that goes to and from Chicago’s Union Station twice a day, for fairly cheap, which is a very good thing. I’m also like only half an hour from Indiana- where I’ve never been- but I do know that come July 4th we’ll be able to get legal fireworks there!
Anyway, I’ve had some difficult health problems that have lingered long enough to require this living situation for the time being. It is my intention though to eventually get back to Minneapolis and live full-time there again, although I do not know when that will be.
Until then, it is good to be with family and back near my old stomping grounds of rural IL…although I’ve never lived this far south in my life, and it almost seems like I’m in the south, with the subtle accents around here that bear absolutely no resemblance to the Chicago accent.
But at least I’m not too far from the political action – since there’s been a Univ Illinois scandal involving (what else) pay-for-play, or should I say cash-for-classes- involving the former governor Rod and others. It’s nice to know that IL politics does not discriminate against those of us living in the boonies- there is plenty of opportunity to participate in all the dishonest graft and patronage- more than I could ever want.
So, those of you who want my current address and phone numbers, please let me know. I have the same email addresses as I’ve had for years.
There’s an open invitation to visit, if anyone wants to “get away from it all” and experience nature. That is, if your idea of nature involves a town with more pickup trucks without mufflers than people. Perhaps not Walden Pond, but seriously we have a big house and it’s peaceful and a good place to get away, and only 2 hrs from Chicago.
Also, those of my family and friends who live in Chicago or the Chicagoland area, I would love to get together soon- we should set something up! Please feel free to contact me anytime!
Happy New Year and I hope you’ve had a great Christmas and/or Hanukkah holiday!
-Gina
I’m going to post my thoughts on this issue tomorrow. I was going to do it today, but didn’t have the chance to get it all presentable. Funny how you can spend all day on the computer and not get anything done. What with ebay, Facebook, trying to fix computer settings, and what-not, how can I be expected to?
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!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110302925.html
I really could not agree more. What are we doing over there? why? What national interest is being served?
When will we see that we can’t cure the world’s ills, and that sometimes to quit while we can is the way to go instead of squandering more of our military, lives, and money on a thankless, practically impossible task…
I'm going to start (hopefully tomorrow) doing reviews for awhile- of books, articles, columns, etc. There's so much I want to write- but never seem to get around to it! Well, here's to trying again!
Well, I haven't written forever! I have not been feeling very creative lately. But I HAVE been following current events, etc., and now have joined the ranks of those addicted to social networking sites....in fact, for awhile, I was so addicted to Mafia Wars on Facebook that it was all I was doing for 16 hours a day (no, not really, but you get the idea....).
Then I just got really sick of Facebook and didn't go on it for months. During that time, the longer I stayed away, the more phobic I got about trying to get back on it again. I figured it would be overwhelming. Well, this past month I did get on it again, and it IS overwhelming, and they of course have changed things....but, I am going to use it in moderation.
Twitter is another story. I am on that as an inside joke, mostly with myself :). I find it absolutely useless and silly. And God help us if that's a news source for people! But, anyway, I'm on that occasionally, writing some twaddle for some reason or another.
But it's crazy. Social networking is totally out of control. People are forming backlash groups. What would happen if we just picked up this new invention called the TELEPHONE???? And actually talked to real friends?
Calling to talk to someone is 9 times out 10 faster, more direct, and to the point, than texting, Facebooking, Twittering, emailing, etc.
But then it's not really cool, is it?
However, when your 90 year old grandma is on Facebook, and you are getting friend requests from friends' parents, the thing is not cool anymore anyway. I thought that when my generation (GenX) started joining Facebook in droves that we were all too old for that. Little did I know. But I do know that once Facebook becomes as non-controversial as Elvis did years after his debut, and that once your parents start loving using it just like how their parents started to love Elvis, well, it's just not cutting edge or cool or rebellious or any of those things anymore....maybe going back to a pen and paper, or a telephone, or, if we still can, having a real conversation in person, will become the "New trendy way to socially network..." I think that would be a good idea!
I thought this was profound writing:
"...somehow I just don't believe in myself the way I used to, and indeed, worst of all, it doesn't even seem terribly important. I'm beginning to have the tolerance of the defeated - people I would have despised a few years ago now seem bearable - after all, I say to myself, I haven't done very well with all the luck I had, and perhaps I do wrong to judge them. Naturally these states proliferate. The desire to work recedes, and as it recedes one welcomes the depression of not working which increases the difficullty to begin work again, and it gets to be a drag. You know I think of these miserable years since the war and how everyone I know has been diminished by it, their rebellion tempered, their caution swollen to cowardice, their malice to hatred, until the worse of all is that I get close at times to thinking that perhaps we have overrated the possibilities of people, and then life becomes dreary indeed. Forgive the tirade. You have your depression, I have mine (I too am smoking again)..."
Having been unemployed for awhile, and fancying myself a writer and yet never writing anything decent, I can totally relate...:)
I think everyone who votes should have read "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler first. Granted, I only read it recently, and therefore I have voted before reading it myself. However, this is the work of an evil genius, written several years before he started his quest to take over the world, and World War II. If people had read this book, and taken it seriously, this guy could have been quashed before he got started. This guy does not pull any punches in the book. He very clearly lays out his hatred for the Jewish people and his grandiose ideas of an Aryan race and his nationalism. However, it was probably hard to take the guy seriously, because the style of the book IS so grandiose. But he laid it all out- it's all out there- no surprises should have ensued from what happened. He was honest about his intentions, and he followed through.
I just recently watched again (for the umpteenth time) "Saving Private Ryan." I get chills watching the storming of the beach- war is hell, and anyone who glorifies it is psycho. But those guys were heroes- they are the ones who stopped Hitler, ultimately- normal, enlisted guys who in any other generation would have grown up to have families and careers, but instead were cut short in the primes of their lives fighting against the biggest, most horrific evil person who has ever lived and had power, and actually, they were vindicated with the fall of Germany and the destruction of Hitler.
But anyone who is quick to compare Barack Obama to the antichrist (and yes, there ARE crazy people out there doing just that) are sorely uninformed about history. History that occurred not even a century ago- history that is remembered by thousands of people who lived through it- the Holocaust, the fighting, etc. Certainly the spirit of antichrist could not have been more embodied by Hitler- a man who sought to wipe out, and almost did wipe out, the chosen people of God himself.
I don't understand why so many people who claim to believe in Jesus Christ advocate positions that are antithetical to everything Jesus taught in the Gospels. I don't understand how someone who seeks to end the atrocities of war, and is for "peace on earth," can be considered anti-Jesus. Jesus himself said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Granted, there are just wars. And the ones who actually do the fighting are not at fault, and in fact ARE the ones who should be praised for laying their own lives on the line for the leaders of our nations. "Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die"- that has been the mantra of our soldiers for generations. But it should never be that the people who elect the leaders don't believe it is their place to question why. For in fact, it IS our DUTY to question why. And if we are indeed a Christian nation, to actually start following the teachings of Jesus Christ in deed and not in word only.
John Stuart Mill, in this book, says: "In this age, the mere example of nonconformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric."
I used to totally agree with this. But now I'm thinking, what does it mean to be eccentric, and is that something that you can just decide to be?
Many people would say that anyone who bucks the "cultural elite" is an eccentric. So someone like Sarah Palin, who does not follow the "custom" of being intellectually curious and aware of current affairs, is she eccentric?
Or is Mill talking about the stereotypical "mad scientist" eccentric, like an Einstein?
Furthermore, does it matter? And is it even relevant today? More later...
In my last post I wrote about how the glorification of "Joe Six Pack"-ism is comparable to Communism. Obviously that's a rhetorical exaggeration- but there is some truth to it. From all appearances, Sarah Palin is, in fact, intellectually "uncurious," much like George W. Granted, she did a lot better in last night's debate than many thought. But still there was the glaring lack of substance and refusal to answer with specifics, and the "I'm just a simple hockey mom" stance.
This, in my mind, is indicative of the larger anti-intellectualism pervasive on the right. I don't know when it happened that being intelligent, having intellectual curiosity, knowing about our country's history, being aware of what is going on in the world and wanting to know more, and being able to articulate it somehow became something people should be embarrassed about. When is it that being a "C" student became something to be proud of, and the "A" students should hang their heads in shame because they are culturally elite or some other such nonsense?
One of the major horrific accomplishments of communism was the purging of the intellectuals- the glorification of the uneducated, and perhaps, the ones able to be easiest led like lambs to their own slaughter. Those in charge knew that it was key to get rid of those who knew something.
It should never be an embarrassment to be aware of the world, to be curious about it, to know something, and to be proud of knowing something. It should be something we all aspire to, within our own intellectual limits, and something considered to be an accomplishment.
Warning- this is a political post:
I'm sorry, but I am embarrassed, as a woman, by Palin's recent gaffes while interviewed by Katie Couric (who is not exactly known for her hard-hitting, difficult journalism). Palin clearly did not have any idea about any Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade. Come on, Brown v. Board of Education, anyone? Even Bush v. Gore would've worked. But no, she couldn't come up with one. Couldn't come up with the name of a newspaper she reads on a regular basis either. I guess following the example of Bush Jr., who doesn't have time to read! (And there's more, such as Palin's inability to point out any example of McCain's attempt at financial regulation, totally "forgetting" his attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie, inexplicably.)
Palin is proud of herself as a "Joe Six Pack," she says. I'm sorry, but I don't want "Joe Six Pack" anywhere near the White House. Ask ultra-conservative Justice Scalia, were the founding fathers Joe Six-Packs? Were George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams Jr. Joe Six-Packs? Are we going to continue the glorification of the dumbing down of America? Let's call a spade a spade. Joe Six Pack is NOT qualified to be the number two man or woman in America.
A country where Joe Six Pack is just as good as Abraham Lincoln is a country that has caved in to Communist theory. Where the average uneducated, unknowledgable, and intellectually "uncurious" worker is just as qualified and as prepared to be in high executive office as the high school dropout who works on the line. Is this truly the kind of equality we want in America? Do we want more cringeworthy moments; or more convoluted explanations of what Palin "really meant"? Is this really the best woman for the job?
What I think is that consciousness in the sense of intending, being the author of the action, etc., is a byproduct of higher brain function. Like a virtual reality system. Consciousness only has access to certain brain functions. So the "narrator"(or the subjective "I") isn't just reading what's really going on. The narrator only has access to certain parts of the story, and has to guess at the whole thing. It can easily be deceived. There's proof that there's a strong sense of authorship when the intent occurs virtually simultaneously with the act, even though the act can be proven to be caused by something else. Which suggests that the "narrator" is deceived into thinking it caused the act, and vice versa. Studies have shown that when the brain is hooked up to electrodes that measure intention, that those electrical brain signals cause a slide to be moved BEFORE the person's conscious choice occurs to m0ve a slide. So how can there be any real authorship, although obviously it WAS the person's decision even if they are not aware of it. (who's else could it be?) In other words, consciousness attributes authorship to the person where there is none, and denies it, when there IS- all based on timing, rather than reality.
So the bottom line is, the conscious mind attributes authorship, but it only has limited access to what is really going on. So much of the time, it is mistaken, science has shown us. Everything happens automatically- the times we think we're intending are because the awareness has access to info that makes it seem that way, even though it's not reality.
I've been reading Ayn Rand's writings and I agree with some parts of Objectivism- but its bases are scientifically wrong. We have no free will- we can't consciously choose anything, and we can't know our own motivations for sure- let alone someone else's (see the link). So yes, there may ultimately be a rational and irrational side to every coin, but we don't choose to act rationally, we either do or don't. So one can be better or worse than another, but not of one's conscious choice. So can someone be praised or blamed then? It's like praising someone for being beautiful. Nothing is exempted from causation - no human will outisde a human brain- which obviously is what it is because of genetics and environment, and personality and character come from the brain. So if I have a high IQ but am lazy, well why is it that the IQ is out of my hands but the laziness isn't? It IS.
All reason/rationality is - is a form of action that is conducive to achieving one's goials. Is it rational to eat a cake if you want to lose weight? No- so it is "bad"- but if you desperately need to gain weight, it is "good." We can say it is bad to eat a cake if you're on a diet, but not that YOU are bad, b/c you have no conscious control over whether you do or don't.
I'm attracted to her (Ayn Rand's) thoughts that no one should apologize for being smarter or having more ability, that some things and qualities ARE better than others, but how can someone realistically be proud of being an intellectual thinker, if that was her or his destiny? I guess what does it matter? All that matters is that you are content about it- whatever you tell yourself about it. Being resentful b/c you're "better" and everyone envies you or is intimidated by you doesn't get you "justice." Justice being- the treatment you think you deserve. But the world is not "fair," it just "is." In reality, what does it matter WHAT the motivation is behind not being "accepted" by the crowd. As if it even exists. "Motives" are just what we tell ourselves - our ostensible "reasons." The bottom line is - being rejected for whatever reason, but it's just a matter of chemistry- not choice. People who are alike are drawn together- birds of a feather. Most people are average, so the "crowd" is the average, and if you're not average, you don't fit in. That's the bottom line. Mediocrity and laziness shouldn't be praised, though, and since conditioning works, we all operate as though we have free will- people should strive to learn and do their best, and perhaps their programming will change.
I admire Ayn Rand immensely. She just didn't have the advantage of modern cognitive neuroscience which proves her theory of free will wrong. But still, for all intents and purposes, we must act as though we have free will, it is a necessary fiction, so she's correct, in some sense. But to deny genetics and environment IS irrational. It's the reason you are who you are, and of course, some people think they are better than most but it's not a "real" achievement of theirs on a metaphysical level, b/c everything that's brought them to where they are was not their "choice." In that sense, theologians like John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards, among others, were right, way before their time, way before science proved them right.
At the same time, what "choice" do we have other than to blame or praise the "actor"? After all, we can't isolate all the "causes," and the fact remains, the PERSON who does this or that (no matter the ultimate reason) remains the actor, and thus, the "agent" who can be evaluated as better or worse than other agents, regardless of the reasons why.
I've read a lot of Kafka, and a lot about him. He suffered so much in his short life. And I think I've figured something out about him and people like him.
The sad thing (one of many sad things) about him is how he "threw his pearls before swine"- with Felice, to whom he was engaged twice but never married. He allowed himself to be upset by her, blaming himself, always apologizing, so insecure, etc. She was someone who simply could not appreciate his genius or suffering, or his interests. Just a shallow, stupid woman. He just wanted to believe the best about people, that they could appreciate and really care about the world and its sufferings, because it's hard when one realizes how most people don't. Then he blamed himself for not being good enough, to capture her attention or love. But why did he blame himself if she (like a "swine") didn't appreciate the jewels he had and tried to give her? Because they were essentially two different beings- he was one of the aware ones and she was one of the deluded- they never could communicate or understand each other. Neither should be blamed. But inevitably, it's the aware, sensitive one who is upset, who feels like a failure, who beats himself up, while the objectively inferior, deluded one is blissfully unaware and happy. It doesn't feel like it's fair.
Kafka had so many jewels, but mostly swine around him. He thought that he was wrong, unworthy, weird, defective, etc., because he was so unlike them. He found life unbearable, because he was so sensitive and aware- he could not tune out the suffering of the world, he carried the weight of the world on his shoulders, and thus it turned into his own suffering.
But there has to be a benefit to being aware and sensitive. Because of his ability and intelligence, it would have been easy for him to manipulate people to get his own way. The problem was that since he was aware, he was also sensitive and compassionate and the least likely person to WANT to manipulate or get revenge. So I don't know, honestly, what the benefit is to being like he was. He certainly did not benefit during his life, and died a painful death of tuberculosis at age 42, before he became the famous person he did years after his death when new generations discovered and appreciated his genius. But while he was alive, did he ever benefit? Was he ever really happy or content? I guess I don't know. I just find it sad.
I've been very interested in cognitive neuroscience lately and how it relates to consciousness. There's been a few studies done proving that free will does not exist. Proving that "consciousness" lags almost a full second behind the brain's decision to do anything, even to think. Consciousness is just pattern recognition and self-awareness, awareness of what we're doing, what separates us from the animals, and gives us an identity. But "we'' are always one step, (or almost one second) behind the game- utterly powerless to change it or do anything differently. So "we" are not in control- "we" just exist and are watching. The programming of the brain is automatic- through genetics and conditioning (experience) that just happens to it. It's the brain's job to make sense of consciousness- and it doesn't make sense. This IS all there is, but there's nothing that can be done. Life is lived THROUGH is, not BY us, and that's it!
In the paper today was a quote from Kierkegaard, one of my favorite philosophers: "It is a very curious thing about superstition. One would expect that a man who had once seen that his morbid dreams were not fulfilled would abandon them for the future; but on the contrary they grow even stronger just as the love of gambling increases in a man who has lost in a lottery."
Strangely enough, I have to disagree with his conclusion. I don't think it's odd at all. Human nature is such that we persevere above and beyond the point of rationality, to get what we want. The more we are thwarted in our endeavors, the harder we seem to try. Maybe because it is a challenge, and if we do indeed succeed, the sweeter the success the harder it was. Or maybe it is that we think that if we keep trying, hoping, wishing, etc., eventually we HAVE to get whatever it is we want.
Ignoring the saying that the height of ridiculousness is to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results- from experience we know that sometimes we DO get different results after doing the same thing over and over again. Maybe only once in 100 times, but still, there IS that chance.
I think it's one of the things that keeps us going as humans- the ability to hope and to try, beyond all reason.
I remember that George Carlin once said in one of his comedy routines, something like: "I know the meaning of life is that I'm here to help others. What I want to know is what are the others here for?" This makes me laugh, but it is also somewhat profound. I am interested in what other people believe the meaning of life is. What is the actual MEANING, as opposed to platitudes like "we're here to help others." Because helping others can never be an end in itself. Since if there were no other people, then what would the meaning of your life be? Is it contingent on having other people around? What if you are a total invalid, or institutionalized, and have no friends or family, and no capability to even help others? What is the meaning of your life then?
I hope some people will comment on this! Because I am really interested. Thanks!!
I had to laugh today- I saw a bumper sticker that said "God is my co-pilot." Actually, I felt more like crying. Since when is the Almighty God relegated to the "co-pilot" status? How nice of you to let him "help" you drive. Yeah yeah I know that is not the intention behind the sticker...but the reality is, the effect to me is: "I am in charge of my life, I am the captain of my own ship. I call my own shots. Only if I decide to ALLOW God to help co-pilot will he do so, and look at how good I am, I let God help me out!!" Oh, the bitter irony of it all...
These thoughts are based on the premise that anxiety is caused by the fight or fight syndrome (or variations of it). I don't pretend that I know what I'm talking about!! But these are some of my ideas based on my own self-education...
Emotions ARE chemicals. They aren't caused by chemicals and they don't cause chemicals. What happens is the body senses stimuli, and reacts, and if it's a danger it releases fight/flight chemicals. You feel them as fear and so you act. You can't feel the fear if the chemicals aren't there. It's not a result of the chemicals- it IS the chemical reaction. So one equals the other.
Therefore it is insane to think we can control our chemicals by thoughts. They can only be controlled indirectly. If, for example, a happy person with a lot of a certain chemical, such as oxytocin, has that chemical blocked, he'll turn sad- regardless of the situation or his "attitude." The people with good attitudes simply have more of those chemicals, either naturally, or with medicines or drugs, or their brains were conditioned to associate certain stimuli with a reason to release those chemicals. Simple. Emotions are chemicals and they exist. Thoughts are "reasoning about stuff" and have no effect on the chemicals directly.
Someone conditioned to fear dogs will always have the fight/flight chemical present when a stimulus of a dog is presented- no matter if it's a threat for real or not. They can't reason their way past it. If the chemicals are there, you feel it, period, unless you're brain damaged. They can be conditioned away, learn to ignore the feeling, which takes a lot of work, or blocked with other chemicals, or the brain can be tricked into not recognizing the stimuli and thus not releasing the chemicals.
But just thinking your way out of anxiety doesn't work.
Image by tobin.t via Flickr
. But fortunately, I’m close to Champaign-Urbana, which is a decent-sized 