![Function [F(x)]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DWbW3mDlzWc/SXVI30gmC2I/AAAAAAAAADo/rl-_jtqmMjs/S1600-R/BANNER+V2.JPG)
She brought it up. Somehow the topic of a class in Logic had come to the front of the discussion and she presented the idea of utilitarianism as "the greatest good for the greatest amount of people." The conversation proceeded something like this:
'You know, the funny thing about 'utilitarianism' is how much that concept is already at play right now.'
'How do you mean?'
'Take our presidential election for example. Everybody votes and the person with "more" wins. That is the greatest amount of "good" for the greatest amount of people.'
'Yeah but in those elections [2000,2004] people were removing their own rights, that was not the greatest good.'
'Certainly not in your opinion, but many people were happy with those outcomes. You must separate your feelings from the discussion--I never said it wasn't messed up.'
And so it is when considering advanced ideas and concepts that we must be responsible. It is a long and widely respected trait to have the capacity of separating one's emotional self from a discussion. The Japanese respected politeness and self-control. The Greeks contemplated hubris and temperance.
We are in a world where things are so continually re-defined that sincerity is greatly lacking and even the oldest human concepts have little meaning. People's attitudes regarding words like 'socialism' and 'patriotic' are more often influenced by news media as opposed to their own time spent thinking about it. Perhaps justice would call for the "American" people to get "Cramered" regarding their social convictions. If it's on TV it's gotta be true.
6.22.2009
5.24.2009
5.21.2009
Standards
When the topic is brought up people sometimes ask me, "What did you do to lose weight?" From experience I know they're expecting an answer from among the following:
-stopped drinking soda
-reduced fat intake
-tried the Atkins plan
-gastric bypass
-acupuncture
-diet and exercise
While these are all methods people have used to achieve weight loss, none of them are the answer to the generalized question: "How does one improve?"
Getting somewhere implies that one has a destination. That mark is the standard. Seven percent body fat. One hundred words per minute. Eighty cases an hour. The word "goals" is distracting. They are too readily viewed as landmarks--as opposed to constants--and can have a funny way of disrupting progress. In themselves they are not bad (to a degree this is a semantic exercise) but their adoption and how they are pursued can be. To be better is to adopt a new standard.
Then what's the difference between standards and expectations? One seems more concrete than the other, though they essentially carry the same idea: How should this be done?
People can have standards; for the food they eat, the neighborhood they live in, who they date, their personal health or the conduct of their government. It's very interesting to note that these views are as readily applied to others as they are to ourselves*. Moreover, the adoption of such attitudes is completely voluntary and as a result inconsistent among the population. It's unfortunately common then to encounter people who have no standards and the problems that thrive as a result. Think of some examples.
Entities, like a store, can also have standards. The quality of the products they sell, employee productivity, target demographics and customer service. I have seen stores with high standards flourish and those with none squander. The fate of an entity rests more on this than that of a person, though it must not be forgotten that the latter composes the former. Even the federal government considers a corporation as a single person on paper. For tax purposes.
Standards largely determine the quality of a thing. It was the adoption of specific expectations for what I eat and how I live that enabled me to improve. Drafting any rule is to think about "what is acceptable in this regard?" Thought, of course, makes all the difference. To have any minimum expectation implies that the topic has been deliberated, which is the key to advancement. People don't create a new world or a better human just listening to their feelings.
*An interesting development in the construction of [Social Views].
-stopped drinking soda
-reduced fat intake
-tried the Atkins plan
-gastric bypass
-acupuncture
-diet and exercise
While these are all methods people have used to achieve weight loss, none of them are the answer to the generalized question: "How does one improve?"
Getting somewhere implies that one has a destination. That mark is the standard. Seven percent body fat. One hundred words per minute. Eighty cases an hour. The word "goals" is distracting. They are too readily viewed as landmarks--as opposed to constants--and can have a funny way of disrupting progress. In themselves they are not bad (to a degree this is a semantic exercise) but their adoption and how they are pursued can be. To be better is to adopt a new standard.
Then what's the difference between standards and expectations? One seems more concrete than the other, though they essentially carry the same idea: How should this be done?
People can have standards; for the food they eat, the neighborhood they live in, who they date, their personal health or the conduct of their government. It's very interesting to note that these views are as readily applied to others as they are to ourselves*. Moreover, the adoption of such attitudes is completely voluntary and as a result inconsistent among the population. It's unfortunately common then to encounter people who have no standards and the problems that thrive as a result. Think of some examples.
Entities, like a store, can also have standards. The quality of the products they sell, employee productivity, target demographics and customer service. I have seen stores with high standards flourish and those with none squander. The fate of an entity rests more on this than that of a person, though it must not be forgotten that the latter composes the former. Even the federal government considers a corporation as a single person on paper. For tax purposes.
Standards largely determine the quality of a thing. It was the adoption of specific expectations for what I eat and how I live that enabled me to improve. Drafting any rule is to think about "what is acceptable in this regard?" Thought, of course, makes all the difference. To have any minimum expectation implies that the topic has been deliberated, which is the key to advancement. People don't create a new world or a better human just listening to their feelings.
*An interesting development in the construction of [Social Views].
5.07.2009
The Military
It was National Armed Forces Day 2005, the cafeteria neatly adorned with regalia. Flanking the entrance were tri-fold displays dedicated to each particular branch of the service. At the table were myself, a good friend enrolled in the Air Force ROTC* and several proud civilians. One of them, who wasn't aware of our military presence, had several choice words about the subject as well as the commemoration. Keep in mind our country had just reinstated George W. Bush for a second term. He offered criticisms of the military construct as well as the national administration and questioned the decision to celebrate either. My friend stayed his tongue but clearly held grievance with the man's observations. Sensing visibly his growing incontinence my non-confrontational self moved to prevent a strong encounter over the undeserving dormitory fare. In retrospect, the guy just failed to employ prudence in his half-hearted tirade.
"The military" is simply a tool and is only as good as how it is used. There is a strong difference between the construct and its application. In many ways armed forces stay the same while being manipulated by ever-changing bands of elected and appointed kings-of-state. Get the right president to start two concurrent wars that swiftly become unpopular and you will likely see a decrease in military favor. What detractors often don't recognize is that they disagree with the use of the tool and not the thing itself.
Everybody loves armed forces because animals kill each other. That's what made Ghandi so powerful and remarkable, he made himself an exception to the universal rule. All creatures possess the fear mechanism; everything knows as soon as it can think that something else might try to kill it. The military addresses this issue at the macro level, we fend for ourselves at the micro level. Perhaps even more admonishing to those who would blindly criticize is the fact that most military personnel--particularly high-ranking officers--respect and follow whoever the president is, regardless of party affiliation. We all know the rhetoric because it's true. On paper and in practice the military exists to protect the country and is directed by the commander in chief in meeting that task. They have great utility in this regard.
Beyond the political implications are other interesting considerations. The hallmark of any fighting force is discipline. Order. Efficiency that begs descriptions such as "well-oiled machine." As a thing, in and of itself, it is wonderful: A system that develops strength and ability in the subject in both mental and physical aspects leading to improvement on a level approaching literal augmentation of the human being. It instills courage and skill, ultimately rendering capable, productive people. Then one man can take it and exercise illegitimate use of force.
I have a problem with that. For the sake of humor, here's a thought from Lewis Black# that effectively illustrates my sentiment here:
"The major lesson that can be learned from the hurricane [Katrina] is this: that while we were fighting the terrorists, god bit us in the ass!"
The military are our finest and strongest, most able and vital. It's troubling to recognize that this rather unique faculty could be readily used in ways that are not intended. That's where all the lying came from. In order to bend the rules they had to say we were "protecting national security" by pre-emptively attacking a country for reasons that were ultimately false. We grapple with the concept that our military is subject to arbitrary application.
"The military" is simply a tool and is only as good as how it is used. There is a strong difference between the construct and its application. In many ways armed forces stay the same while being manipulated by ever-changing bands of elected and appointed kings-of-state. Get the right president to start two concurrent wars that swiftly become unpopular and you will likely see a decrease in military favor. What detractors often don't recognize is that they disagree with the use of the tool and not the thing itself.
Everybody loves armed forces because animals kill each other. That's what made Ghandi so powerful and remarkable, he made himself an exception to the universal rule. All creatures possess the fear mechanism; everything knows as soon as it can think that something else might try to kill it. The military addresses this issue at the macro level, we fend for ourselves at the micro level. Perhaps even more admonishing to those who would blindly criticize is the fact that most military personnel--particularly high-ranking officers--respect and follow whoever the president is, regardless of party affiliation. We all know the rhetoric because it's true. On paper and in practice the military exists to protect the country and is directed by the commander in chief in meeting that task. They have great utility in this regard.
Beyond the political implications are other interesting considerations. The hallmark of any fighting force is discipline. Order. Efficiency that begs descriptions such as "well-oiled machine." As a thing, in and of itself, it is wonderful: A system that develops strength and ability in the subject in both mental and physical aspects leading to improvement on a level approaching literal augmentation of the human being. It instills courage and skill, ultimately rendering capable, productive people. Then one man can take it and exercise illegitimate use of force.
I have a problem with that. For the sake of humor, here's a thought from Lewis Black# that effectively illustrates my sentiment here:
"The major lesson that can be learned from the hurricane [Katrina] is this: that while we were fighting the terrorists, god bit us in the ass!"
The military are our finest and strongest, most able and vital. It's troubling to recognize that this rather unique faculty could be readily used in ways that are not intended. That's where all the lying came from. In order to bend the rules they had to say we were "protecting national security" by pre-emptively attacking a country for reasons that were ultimately false. We grapple with the concept that our military is subject to arbitrary application.
* Recruit Officers' Training Corps
# http://www.lewisblack.com/audio.asp#audio (The Carnegie Hall Performance, Track 12 - The Real Problem is Gay Marriage)
3.31.2009
3.27.2009
Parking
'Only an asshole would park like this.'
That is a bumper sticker attached to my friend's refrigerator. I like to think it's waiting to be met with that special car out there--somewhere. Maybe you've seen it. Jutting awkwardly into the lane at your local co-op. Occupying two spaces like a corpulent airline passenger. Several feet over the line into the spot in front of it. Oh, if only people had to pay for the entire area they consume.
In the order of shameful parking practices none is more heinous than the infamous 'sports car parked diagonally across several spaces so as to prevent anyone else parking near it'. Cousin to the over-sized sport utility vehicle to whom the lines are invisible, they both favor personal satisfaction over social responsibility. The flasher exhibits selfishness and the tank exhibits laziness. It must be terribly embarrassing to drive a car you can't park.
My favorites are the more subtle botch jobs. The ones where they barely made it somewhat into the space. "Close enough." I used to think people who can't park between the stripes were the same who couldn't color inside the lines as children. Now I think they're people who are still children in that they live life completely oblivious to the world around them.
What I'm saying is I see a direct relationship between social capital and the quality of public parking in a society. This is important, so we will define it:
social capital : An economic idea that refers to the connections between individuals and entities that can be economically valuable. Social networks that include people who trust and assist each other can be a powerful asset. These relationships between individuals and firms can lead to a state in which each will think of the other when something needs to be done.
Or as I think of it: the social health of a society. Do people trust each other? Are relationships between citizens and government mutually beneficial? Furthermore, how interactive are communities? Do people pledge their support? You know, it's viewers like you...
Of course, with any intuitive idea, social capital--or more specifically the need for it to be good--makes perfect sense. Of course a healthy person is a better person, so would a healthy society be a more productive one. When you're not sick you get a lot of work done.
It also makes sense that the less people care in general the less they care about their parking job. What goes through the mind of a person walking away from poor parking?:
1.) Nothing (unfortunately).
2.) "I'll just- be right back."
"There's plenty of other parking."
"It's not so bad."
"I don't have time."
"Screw these guys."
It's a sprawled society that produces this sort of citizen. Suddenly everything that is important-- what you value--is not in your neighborhood any more. Your resources are flung across the globe and your families are spread across continents. You are the law of diminishing returns. The more disconnected every individual is, the less they care. My money and my daughter go to New York.
It's harder for a human to care if it can't see the impact of its actions. Not feeling confident in one's community certainly compounds the matter. To the detriment of social capital we have public trust scandals, disdain of government, xenophobia and less civic engagement. To bolster we have volunteer organizations, block parties/barbecues, religion when it behaves and the parks department. Among other things.
We are social beings and organize ourselves as such, even if in a perverted manner. In such a product-oriented world the ends are the only concern. Cheap produce. The Dollar Value menu. Outsourced technical support hotlines. We offer these services as a value to our customers.
Forgotten is the notion that the means are what produce good social capital. How we get our food or support or services. Playing a relay race across the country with invoices as the baton and the grocery shelf as the finish line disconnects everyone involved. This is a far cry from two small businesses down the street coordinating an effort to offer more comprehensive services to their customers and unify everyone involved. One size does not fit all, just as one chain does not meet well with every community. The future is customization.
Remember the old phrase, "Getting there is half the fun." Hold it close to your heart. It's through the daily interaction of neighbors and regulars that a wealth of social capital is built. It's knowing who lives next to you. It's contributing to the local economy. It's stopping to give someone your spare tube. It's empathy in practice. It's good parking.
In the order of shameful parking practices none is more heinous than the infamous 'sports car parked diagonally across several spaces so as to prevent anyone else parking near it'. Cousin to the over-sized sport utility vehicle to whom the lines are invisible, they both favor personal satisfaction over social responsibility. The flasher exhibits selfishness and the tank exhibits laziness. It must be terribly embarrassing to drive a car you can't park.
My favorites are the more subtle botch jobs. The ones where they barely made it somewhat into the space. "Close enough." I used to think people who can't park between the stripes were the same who couldn't color inside the lines as children. Now I think they're people who are still children in that they live life completely oblivious to the world around them.
What I'm saying is I see a direct relationship between social capital and the quality of public parking in a society. This is important, so we will define it:
social capital : An economic idea that refers to the connections between individuals and entities that can be economically valuable. Social networks that include people who trust and assist each other can be a powerful asset. These relationships between individuals and firms can lead to a state in which each will think of the other when something needs to be done.
Or as I think of it: the social health of a society. Do people trust each other? Are relationships between citizens and government mutually beneficial? Furthermore, how interactive are communities? Do people pledge their support? You know, it's viewers like you...
Of course, with any intuitive idea, social capital--or more specifically the need for it to be good--makes perfect sense. Of course a healthy person is a better person, so would a healthy society be a more productive one. When you're not sick you get a lot of work done.
It also makes sense that the less people care in general the less they care about their parking job. What goes through the mind of a person walking away from poor parking?:
1.) Nothing (unfortunately).
2.) "I'll just- be right back."
"There's plenty of other parking."
"It's not so bad."
"I don't have time."
"Screw these guys."
It's a sprawled society that produces this sort of citizen. Suddenly everything that is important-- what you value--is not in your neighborhood any more. Your resources are flung across the globe and your families are spread across continents. You are the law of diminishing returns. The more disconnected every individual is, the less they care. My money and my daughter go to New York.
It's harder for a human to care if it can't see the impact of its actions. Not feeling confident in one's community certainly compounds the matter. To the detriment of social capital we have public trust scandals, disdain of government, xenophobia and less civic engagement. To bolster we have volunteer organizations, block parties/barbecues, religion when it behaves and the parks department. Among other things.
We are social beings and organize ourselves as such, even if in a perverted manner. In such a product-oriented world the ends are the only concern. Cheap produce. The Dollar Value menu. Outsourced technical support hotlines. We offer these services as a value to our customers.
Forgotten is the notion that the means are what produce good social capital. How we get our food or support or services. Playing a relay race across the country with invoices as the baton and the grocery shelf as the finish line disconnects everyone involved. This is a far cry from two small businesses down the street coordinating an effort to offer more comprehensive services to their customers and unify everyone involved. One size does not fit all, just as one chain does not meet well with every community. The future is customization.
Remember the old phrase, "Getting there is half the fun." Hold it close to your heart. It's through the daily interaction of neighbors and regulars that a wealth of social capital is built. It's knowing who lives next to you. It's contributing to the local economy. It's stopping to give someone your spare tube. It's empathy in practice. It's good parking.
3.18.2009
Consequence
I want to begin with the preface that the post you are about to read concerns volatile topics in our world. I have taken great care in approaching these issues and expressing myself objectively where possible. While this certainly won't prevent any reader from feeling strongly about the material I humbly beseech you to read and evaluate my thoughts--and your own--carefully.
The aim of this blog is to discuss matters in ways that are not commonly discussed; the goal is to stimulate thought in both the writer and the visitor. As always, comments--even anonymous--are open and encouraged. You may have concluded by now that in these discussions there are few rules outside of responsible conduct.
Penn (and Teller) made a great, thoughtful statement on their television show several years ago1. The topic was PETA--People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--and the point was made regarding how strange it is to include the word 'ethical' in your organization's name.
"Ethical means moral or proper which differs for every person, it's something to discuss. It's not an absolute, it just sounds nice. It's like pro-choice and pro-life, I mean come on! Everyone is pro choice and pro life. It's for or against abortion that your group is about."
If I tell you [my socio-political views] I still haven't told you anything about me. I support the concepts of death as consequence and zygote termination but I do not support all their contemporary manifestations. It's very difficult but necessary when considering these ideas to separate what we know them as in practice and what the bare abstractions are. An in-depth discussion of the topics is certainly scandalous for just about any audience. Suffice it to say I prefer sound logic over conflicting reason.
Conservatives and liberals--in a general sense--both have it "wrong" in this regard; they are inverses of the other. One argues you can end a life that is not manifest, the other states you can end a life that has bore bad fruit. Both attitudes end human life and both are adopted by people across the entire social spectrum. You can't logically support the death penalty and stand against abortion, or vice versa. The point is, if someone tells you they are a democrat or a republican you still don't know anything about them. You'll need to have a conversation.
The thing about the "death penalty" is that some of its critics view the application as a mode of cruelty*. Other people--especially those personally affected by the condemned--take satisfaction in the decision as vengeance in response to a perpetrator's actions. There are more ways to look at it.
The consequence of death is usually applied as a result of being convicted of murder!. Given that we all have the same opportunity to make decisions in our lives, this leaves no measure to excuse such an act. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Consequentialism is a reality and we are judged on the results of what we do. People don't refrain from speeding because it puts them and others in danger, they do so because they can't get another ticket. Their insurance would go up.
The threat of capital punishment is there to discourage people. It establishes consequences for killing someone. Every living being possesses the natural impulse to protect itself, this is what gives these punishments power and value. You want to "get away" with killing someone because you don't want to imperil your own life. Some states that do not exercise capital punishment offer a permanent prison sentence. Either way it is the loss of control over one's life that a person fears losing.
Many times suspects on trial for murder plead guilty to achieve a "life" sentence in place of more immediate death. People tend to be aware of potential consequences before they act, even if in a passive manner, and usually prefer to stay alive even if that means a loss of liberty. We all fear death because we do not know it and I hope to never see it robbed of that mystery.
An unfortunate reality is the disconnect between the death penalty and life sentences. Not all life sentences are terminal. Parole is often granted. I think this is part of the reason people try for this fate; they know if they wait long enough the chances become greater and greater that their liberty will be returned. If there were consistency in maintaining the consequences there would be no need for capital punishment. People are relieved of these sentences for two reasons: rehabilitation and money.
Rehabilitation is offered to public opinion as a replacement for continued imprisonment. In fact,
The aim of this blog is to discuss matters in ways that are not commonly discussed; the goal is to stimulate thought in both the writer and the visitor. As always, comments--even anonymous--are open and encouraged. You may have concluded by now that in these discussions there are few rules outside of responsible conduct.
Penn (and Teller) made a great, thoughtful statement on their television show several years ago1. The topic was PETA--People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--and the point was made regarding how strange it is to include the word 'ethical' in your organization's name.
-Penn Jillette
Conservatives and liberals--in a general sense--both have it "wrong" in this regard; they are inverses of the other. One argues you can end a life that is not manifest, the other states you can end a life that has bore bad fruit. Both attitudes end human life and both are adopted by people across the entire social spectrum. You can't logically support the death penalty and stand against abortion, or vice versa. The point is, if someone tells you they are a democrat or a republican you still don't know anything about them. You'll need to have a conversation.
The thing about the "death penalty" is that some of its critics view the application as a mode of cruelty*. Other people--especially those personally affected by the condemned--take satisfaction in the decision as vengeance in response to a perpetrator's actions. There are more ways to look at it.
The consequence of death is usually applied as a result of being convicted of murder!. Given that we all have the same opportunity to make decisions in our lives, this leaves no measure to excuse such an act. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Consequentialism is a reality and we are judged on the results of what we do. People don't refrain from speeding because it puts them and others in danger, they do so because they can't get another ticket. Their insurance would go up.
The threat of capital punishment is there to discourage people. It establishes consequences for killing someone. Every living being possesses the natural impulse to protect itself, this is what gives these punishments power and value. You want to "get away" with killing someone because you don't want to imperil your own life. Some states that do not exercise capital punishment offer a permanent prison sentence. Either way it is the loss of control over one's life that a person fears losing.
Many times suspects on trial for murder plead guilty to achieve a "life" sentence in place of more immediate death. People tend to be aware of potential consequences before they act, even if in a passive manner, and usually prefer to stay alive even if that means a loss of liberty. We all fear death because we do not know it and I hope to never see it robbed of that mystery.
An unfortunate reality is the disconnect between the death penalty and life sentences. Not all life sentences are terminal. Parole is often granted. I think this is part of the reason people try for this fate; they know if they wait long enough the chances become greater and greater that their liberty will be returned. If there were consistency in maintaining the consequences there would be no need for capital punishment. People are relieved of these sentences for two reasons: rehabilitation and money.
Rehabilitation is offered to public opinion as a replacement for continued imprisonment. In fact,
death=life in prison=rehabilitation
in that they all offer a remedy to the problem. All are equal in that they pledge to have stopped the trespass from happening again. The public is concerned with repeat offenses. You go to prison because you killed someone, we kill you because we think the danger is great that you will do it again, or you get out because you promise you won't. I think a certain measure of this dynamic is predicated on religious teachings of forgiveness. The rest:What is the answer to 99 out of 100 questions?
Money.
By now many have heard that we are seeing a reduction in the number of states and cases applying capital punishment. For all the emotion and discussion that has gone into the debate, it has come down to the simple fact that it costs more to kill someone than it does to keep them alive in prison until natural causes claim them. Some states can't even afford to house violent offenders for their full sentence. We are approaching the point where even our lackluster remedies no longer achieve a proper purpose.
I am saddened to realize that such legislation does achieve an implied purpose. It satisfies public concern. People feel safer "knowing" that if they are killed by a man, the state will kill him back. Other people focusing on different aspects of this topic have illustrated that a death penalty provision does not decrease the instance of murder. We have a general problem with no general solution. What is the difference between killing someone and killing a person who has committed murder? I have worked on this post for ten days and no matter how I approach things I keep returning to the same aggravating issue: [The Sprawl]
Money.
By now many have heard that we are seeing a reduction in the number of states and cases applying capital punishment. For all the emotion and discussion that has gone into the debate, it has come down to the simple fact that it costs more to kill someone than it does to keep them alive in prison until natural causes claim them. Some states can't even afford to house violent offenders for their full sentence. We are approaching the point where even our lackluster remedies no longer achieve a proper purpose.
I am saddened to realize that such legislation does achieve an implied purpose. It satisfies public concern. People feel safer "knowing" that if they are killed by a man, the state will kill him back. Other people focusing on different aspects of this topic have illustrated that a death penalty provision does not decrease the instance of murder. We have a general problem with no general solution. What is the difference between killing someone and killing a person who has committed murder? I have worked on this post for ten days and no matter how I approach things I keep returning to the same aggravating issue: [The Sprawl]
* I want to acknowledge that there are several attitudes of criticism against the death penalty. One of the most prominent and rational in my opinion is the regard that, in practice, it is illegitimate use of force. There are factual accounts of people who have suffered capital punishment only to have evidence exonerate them after the fact. This is horribly tragic and an indelible mar on the face of "justice" as most know it. It is for this reason that I do not support the "death penalty." However, many of those who do protest its continued application often misspeak and adopt incendiary platforms by saying "the death penalty is racist" when it is in fact people who are racist. They are foolish and would do better to address the real problem instead of its vestige.
! murder -n 1: Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0exLa6saV9o ← 1:54 into this video
3.13.2009
Supper
"Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative."
-Kurt Vonnegut
-Kurt Vonnegut
3.09.2009
Education
A society could be judged on the merit of its average individual.
Primary and secondary school administer lessons on a few basic subjects to varying degrees: language comprehension, mathematics, science and social studies (I'm tossing history, geography and government in 'social studies'). It is also common for foreign language and art to be offered but we will consider these extraneous for now. By the time students graduate high school they should be generally equipped to operate as capable members of their society. They have some sense of national identity and in the course of their jobs can communicate with other people, execute basic arithmetic and understand their position training and implications.
The idea is that K through 12 yields productive citizens. In reality, college is a luxury for the elite. All the knowledge you need to live a productive life in the United States is gained by the time you leave high school. The government claims an inherent stake in the education of its people. Every state by law requires children to attend school until they are at least 161, some until 17 or 18. Given that government is the people and people are the government it's in the best interest of both to maintain a knowledge standard.
Public education is funded by the government which, like a business, does things in a manner that it can benefit from. Before you jump to conclusions, let me reiterate that--ideally--the best interest of the people is in the best interest of the government. Better people make a better nation. It would make no sense to argue against that. So government facilitates the aggregation of resources for schools and requires that citizens learn certain basic skills so they can contribute.
Again, the quality of our society could be judged by evaluating the worth of an average member; id est, what we're taught in grade school. Suddenly things like benchmarks and standardized tests come to mind. Graduation rate. TAAS and TAKS. Grade point average. Legislation sets forth standards for academic achievement to establish the level of merit that every citizen should obtain. Given contemporary attitudes toward education, I'm left with a few questions:
1: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112617.html
mer•it -n: 1. claim to respect and praise; excellence; worth
We've acknowledged the commonalities of people in general. Assuming good health all can perform some degree of manual labor at their base level. Every individual can lift and carry an object from point A to point B or dig a hole from here to there. In a simple agricultural society there is little else that need be carried out to sustain human life. Ours, of course, requires much more to continue functioning.Primary and secondary school administer lessons on a few basic subjects to varying degrees: language comprehension, mathematics, science and social studies (I'm tossing history, geography and government in 'social studies'). It is also common for foreign language and art to be offered but we will consider these extraneous for now. By the time students graduate high school they should be generally equipped to operate as capable members of their society. They have some sense of national identity and in the course of their jobs can communicate with other people, execute basic arithmetic and understand their position training and implications.
The idea is that K through 12 yields productive citizens. In reality, college is a luxury for the elite. All the knowledge you need to live a productive life in the United States is gained by the time you leave high school. The government claims an inherent stake in the education of its people. Every state by law requires children to attend school until they are at least 161, some until 17 or 18. Given that government is the people and people are the government it's in the best interest of both to maintain a knowledge standard.
Public education is funded by the government which, like a business, does things in a manner that it can benefit from. Before you jump to conclusions, let me reiterate that--ideally--the best interest of the people is in the best interest of the government. Better people make a better nation. It would make no sense to argue against that. So government facilitates the aggregation of resources for schools and requires that citizens learn certain basic skills so they can contribute.
Again, the quality of our society could be judged by evaluating the worth of an average member; id est, what we're taught in grade school. Suddenly things like benchmarks and standardized tests come to mind. Graduation rate. TAAS and TAKS. Grade point average. Legislation sets forth standards for academic achievement to establish the level of merit that every citizen should obtain. Given contemporary attitudes toward education, I'm left with a few questions:
•Why would any government want to reduce funding for public education?
•How could that possibly benefit those involved?
•When was education, if ever, more of a priority than it is now?
•Who would want to be a teacher, knowing the likely fate that awaits them?
•What would be the result of raising standards for achievement?
•Where does public money go if not to education?
It vexes me terribly when congress--state or national--goes looking for ways to reduce spending and quickly starts crossing "Funding for public education" off the list. That DOES NOT COMPUTE. What could they possibly be thinking? "Man, times are tough and we need more money available. Oh, here, let's hamstring our public schools and hope they still work it out." What if they don't? Can they not appreciate the notion that children are our future? Who would comfortably leave the fate of human capital and national resilience to chance? These are the days when people are taking a second look at past policies and evaluating their effectiveness to date. Wherever your political allegiances lie, the general consensus is "something's gotta change."•How could that possibly benefit those involved?
•When was education, if ever, more of a priority than it is now?
•Who would want to be a teacher, knowing the likely fate that awaits them?
•What would be the result of raising standards for achievement?
•Where does public money go if not to education?
It's also widely known that teachers are paid very poorly on top of coping with un-parented children and heaps of bureacratic nonsense. I wouldn't want to work at a single school district that I've ever attended. It's this reality that makes the great teachers superb and the poor ones at least understandable. The quality of education follows the quality of our instructors. Their fate also is tied to funding which I understand exhibits a directly proportional relationship:
Less money → less [from] teachers = worse children → worse nation
More money → more [from] teachers = better children → better nation
More money → more [from] teachers = better children → better nation
I cast my vote for the latter.
1: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112617.html
3.07.2009
The Paradigm
Think about it. "I am an American" generally says I live somewhere in the western hemisphere not Greenland, Iceland or Africa. South Americans take some grievance with our claiming and parading of the title. After the '90s it seems our social impulse is to re-define everything.
I wouldn't brag about being a U.S. citizen for the same reason I disassociated myself from Christianity when I was a young teenager: people have given it a bad name. My beloved home state of Texas has suffered a similar fate. Many people in the U.S. look poorly on natives of the Lone Star just as many people in the world look poorly on citizens of the red white and blue. Despite these social realities I maintain my heritage with a decided sense of pride and steadfast purpose.
I believe in liberty for ALL; I believe in [following your bliss/pursuing your happiness/achieving virtue/the path to Nirvana]; I believe in treating your fellows as you would have them treat you; I believe one should not trespass against their neighbor; I believe in taking care of your own; I believe in truth and optimism.
For what I lack in conventional "belief" I maintain in unconventional faith yet this world might term me a heathen. Or it might question my motivations for right action as an irreligious person. Do I need piety to live the life of a good man? Must I embody "redneck" to be a Texas patriot? I could have been raised in many different countries under the ideals of numerous creeds and still taken the same aforementioned lessons to heart.
The most important factor has been that while growing up I took care to think about what people would have me learn. Bear in mind I was raised in central Texas very near folk who would use the phrase "nigger rig" to describe a makeshift application. It is in deliberative thought that one makes the distinction between nonsense and wisdom. Children grow up in the middle east taught to hate another ethnicity on principle alone. The Nationalsozialistische political party took German pride and turned it into a tool for abomination. People in Africa are being shot in the head right now because they are the wrong shade of dark skin. The most sinister histories are written when people are thinking the least.
In light of my observations I am eager to present myself as a Texan. I'm eager to be the example that might challenge someone's preconceptions of what such a person might be. I love the land, I love the strong spirit of the people. My mood sours when I hear some of them move to prevent the happiness of others while citing their religion of love and forgiveness. Just as I love the country of the United States and the opportunity it extends to those upon its shores, my tone darkens when I see people try to deny others "the right" while touting liberty and justice for all. I remind myself that both examples are from the same people who championed buffet religion--and all its insincerity.
The truth is I'm proud to be a Texan. My kind of Texan. The spirit of fortitude with the will to think. The courage to act without the burden of a status quo mindset. Southern hospitality. Manners. All the good things that are not lost. People like me could redeem the image of this nation-turned-state. Raise the standard for what is acceptable conduct. The best part is the lost ones won't see us coming. We say "yess'um" and "thank'y sir." We can talk with a genuine accent. We look exactly the same. And damn it, come hell or high water, we will be upon you.
I wouldn't brag about being a U.S. citizen for the same reason I disassociated myself from Christianity when I was a young teenager: people have given it a bad name. My beloved home state of Texas has suffered a similar fate. Many people in the U.S. look poorly on natives of the Lone Star just as many people in the world look poorly on citizens of the red white and blue. Despite these social realities I maintain my heritage with a decided sense of pride and steadfast purpose.
I believe in liberty for ALL; I believe in [following your bliss/pursuing your happiness/achieving virtue/the path to Nirvana]; I believe in treating your fellows as you would have them treat you; I believe one should not trespass against their neighbor; I believe in taking care of your own; I believe in truth and optimism.
For what I lack in conventional "belief" I maintain in unconventional faith yet this world might term me a heathen. Or it might question my motivations for right action as an irreligious person. Do I need piety to live the life of a good man? Must I embody "redneck" to be a Texas patriot? I could have been raised in many different countries under the ideals of numerous creeds and still taken the same aforementioned lessons to heart.
The most important factor has been that while growing up I took care to think about what people would have me learn. Bear in mind I was raised in central Texas very near folk who would use the phrase "nigger rig" to describe a makeshift application. It is in deliberative thought that one makes the distinction between nonsense and wisdom. Children grow up in the middle east taught to hate another ethnicity on principle alone. The Nationalsozialistische political party took German pride and turned it into a tool for abomination. People in Africa are being shot in the head right now because they are the wrong shade of dark skin. The most sinister histories are written when people are thinking the least.
In light of my observations I am eager to present myself as a Texan. I'm eager to be the example that might challenge someone's preconceptions of what such a person might be. I love the land, I love the strong spirit of the people. My mood sours when I hear some of them move to prevent the happiness of others while citing their religion of love and forgiveness. Just as I love the country of the United States and the opportunity it extends to those upon its shores, my tone darkens when I see people try to deny others "the right" while touting liberty and justice for all. I remind myself that both examples are from the same people who championed buffet religion--and all its insincerity.
The truth is I'm proud to be a Texan. My kind of Texan. The spirit of fortitude with the will to think. The courage to act without the burden of a status quo mindset. Southern hospitality. Manners. All the good things that are not lost. People like me could redeem the image of this nation-turned-state. Raise the standard for what is acceptable conduct. The best part is the lost ones won't see us coming. We say "yess'um" and "thank'y sir." We can talk with a genuine accent. We look exactly the same. And damn it, come hell or high water, we will be upon you.
2.28.2009
2.26.2009
Virtue
~Wisdom~
~Courage~
~Justice~
~Moderation~
~Courage~
~Justice~
~Moderation~
Presenting the four cardinal virtues. Also known as the chief western virtues. No doubt voiced in part by Socrates and certainly enumerated by Plato. Part of me is glad there isn't much active consideration these days, otherwise they could be thrown away with things like the ten commandments in the trash of obsolete, broken wisdom. Thankfully they have no religious grounding and are broad enough concepts to have resisted the effects of age.
Before proceeding further I will detail what I refer to as the twin concepts of the chief virtues:
Prudence = Wisdom
Fortitude = Courage
Justice
Temperance = Moderation
Fortitude = Courage
Justice
Temperance = Moderation
One is rarely without the other yet they are more than synonyms. As with the shortcomings of language, sometimes one twin is better described in place of the other. "Patience is prudence" because it it is wise to be patient.
Wisdom
is the virtue of the thinker; the considerate mind. In a very general sense it refers to an ideal state where someone makes the best decision given the situation. The twin concept of wisdom is prudence. It is the positive trait of someone who treads carefully and is mindful of their actions. "Take care." I've seen wisdom and knowledge be confused with one another many times. The important difference being that knowledge is what you know and wisdom is what you do (with what you know).
Courage
is the virtue of the emotional heart; the empathetic soul. Truly the most popularized virtue of modern times. I would be careful to establish the difference between courage and valor.* The twin concept is fortitude, which helps to make the distinction. It is the determination of an unwavering spirit; the steadfastness of someone driven toward an end. While I don't aim to reduce it to a trite status, the application is without limitation. Fortitude is just as readily observed in an inspired student as it is in a worker facing adverse circumstances. Courage is acting on your convictions even if met with resistance.
Justice
is the virtue of the accountable mind; the socially responsible. Certainly the most abstract of the chief virtues and I suspect the most difficult for contemporary attitudes to digest. With our legal system being referred to as the "justice system" there is plenty of room for misinterpretation. Ask kids in Pennsylvania right now if their court system is just and get the response you'd receive from most "Americans" these days who don't really trust anything any more. If we can, let us--for a moment--hold it separate and take it in as the beautiful idea that justice is.
There is no twin here, which I find very interesting. The hardest thing about accepting the concept is that it requires a person to be able to consider their self wrong in any situation. Consider it tandem with accountability. People think justice is someone getting what they deserve in a judicial sense. Like a bible, they bring it out only when it is needed then quickly re-shelve afterward. Justice is served. If anything, I would have people consider it more a constant than a fleeting convenience.
Given thought, justice is less and less a verdict to be decided by someone else and more a quality of life best experienced if all embrace the notion. Plato saw it as the unifying virtue which made possible and preserved the others. Perhaps that is why it's difficult to define justice without referencing the others. To be just is to be wise, courageous and moderate.
Moderation
is the virtue of the balanced presence. As fat as the U.S. is, it is a topic widely discussed now. The word itself is easily applied to nearly any situation. The twin concept here is temperance, which when found in a dictionary has 'moderation' as the first word of the 1. definition. To lose your temper is to lose your self-control. As a cognizant being this can be the most embarrassing virtue to lack.
To discuss virtue is to have a conversation about 'morals' and 'ethics' but hopefully without using either word. I say that because people in this country have an awful tendency to condemn each others varied world views when they'd have as much luck telling someone their opinion is wrong.
On paper we consider virtues individually but in practice they are a unified force. Moderation is impossible without the wisdom necessary to exercise it. Courage and fortitude are foolhardy without prudence to temper their application. Justice without moderation is corrupt. They are independent yet intertwined and one cannot exist without all others.
*valor -noun: boldness or determination in facing great danger, esp. in battle; heroic courage; bravery.
~¤¤¤~
Wisdom
is the virtue of the thinker; the considerate mind. In a very general sense it refers to an ideal state where someone makes the best decision given the situation. The twin concept of wisdom is prudence. It is the positive trait of someone who treads carefully and is mindful of their actions. "Take care." I've seen wisdom and knowledge be confused with one another many times. The important difference being that knowledge is what you know and wisdom is what you do (with what you know).
Courage
is the virtue of the emotional heart; the empathetic soul. Truly the most popularized virtue of modern times. I would be careful to establish the difference between courage and valor.* The twin concept is fortitude, which helps to make the distinction. It is the determination of an unwavering spirit; the steadfastness of someone driven toward an end. While I don't aim to reduce it to a trite status, the application is without limitation. Fortitude is just as readily observed in an inspired student as it is in a worker facing adverse circumstances. Courage is acting on your convictions even if met with resistance.
Justice
is the virtue of the accountable mind; the socially responsible. Certainly the most abstract of the chief virtues and I suspect the most difficult for contemporary attitudes to digest. With our legal system being referred to as the "justice system" there is plenty of room for misinterpretation. Ask kids in Pennsylvania right now if their court system is just and get the response you'd receive from most "Americans" these days who don't really trust anything any more. If we can, let us--for a moment--hold it separate and take it in as the beautiful idea that justice is.
There is no twin here, which I find very interesting. The hardest thing about accepting the concept is that it requires a person to be able to consider their self wrong in any situation. Consider it tandem with accountability. People think justice is someone getting what they deserve in a judicial sense. Like a bible, they bring it out only when it is needed then quickly re-shelve afterward. Justice is served. If anything, I would have people consider it more a constant than a fleeting convenience.
Given thought, justice is less and less a verdict to be decided by someone else and more a quality of life best experienced if all embrace the notion. Plato saw it as the unifying virtue which made possible and preserved the others. Perhaps that is why it's difficult to define justice without referencing the others. To be just is to be wise, courageous and moderate.
Moderation
is the virtue of the balanced presence. As fat as the U.S. is, it is a topic widely discussed now. The word itself is easily applied to nearly any situation. The twin concept here is temperance, which when found in a dictionary has 'moderation' as the first word of the 1. definition. To lose your temper is to lose your self-control. As a cognizant being this can be the most embarrassing virtue to lack.
~¤¤¤~
To discuss virtue is to have a conversation about 'morals' and 'ethics' but hopefully without using either word. I say that because people in this country have an awful tendency to condemn each others varied world views when they'd have as much luck telling someone their opinion is wrong.
On paper we consider virtues individually but in practice they are a unified force. Moderation is impossible without the wisdom necessary to exercise it. Courage and fortitude are foolhardy without prudence to temper their application. Justice without moderation is corrupt. They are independent yet intertwined and one cannot exist without all others.
*valor -noun: boldness or determination in facing great danger, esp. in battle; heroic courage; bravery.
2.19.2009
Utility*
Whenever I assess the value of something, there are a few key thoughts that go through my mind. I now call this process
the utility test:
1.) Observe something; an object, person or entity.
2.) Determine a purpose†.
3.) Evaluate how well it performs this function.
In simpler language there are two questions to answer:
What does it do?
How well does it do it?
How well does it do it?
Example [Object]: A tool is built to cut a specific gauge of wire. If the tool does so and makes a clean cut without fraying either new end of the wire one can conclude it has good utility. If a tool of similar function only produces a firm kink in the wire or leaves very frayed ends of metal it has no or poor utility.
Example [Person]: A grocery store requires its stockers to lift items ranging from 10 to 40 pounds in the course of their daily duties. A worker who can do this passes the test. A worker who cannot lift these items fails this test and has little utility as a stocker.
Example [Entity]: A real estate business is responsible for managing its properties; signing and extending leases, maintaining grounds and equipment, addressing tenant needs and concerns, et cetera. There are many degrees to which it can perform its respective functions but at the very least an entity should pass the utility test. If said business does not complete requested work orders or reply to tenant communications then utility suffers greatly.
As the reader might have noticed, these are all nouns. An entity can be a business or a group or even an attitude. People, in their varied capacities, can have a large number of purposes. Utility, as it is addressed here, is specific as it pertains to individual functions of a person. Overall utility is where you begin to approach the topic of worth, which is a general term.
* utility -noun: 1. the state or quality of being useful; usefulness.
† purpose -noun: 1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used
2.15.2009
Orphans
"
And if god is great and god is good,
And if god is great and god is good,
why can't he change the hearts of men?
Maybe god himself is lost and needs help.
Maybe god himself he needs all of our help.
Maybe god himself is lost and needs help.
He's out upon the road to peace.
"
-Tom Waits, "Road to Peace" (From Orphans: Brawlers)
Maybe god himself is lost and needs help.
Maybe god himself he needs all of our help.
Maybe god himself is lost and needs help.
He's out upon the road to peace.
"
-Tom Waits, "Road to Peace" (From Orphans: Brawlers)
2.11.2009
Duality
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
-Samuel Johnson
~~~¤~~~
Humans are animals. This means:
+You must eat
+You must generate offspring
+You must rest
+You must fear
Humans are mammals. This means:
+You want to be around others like you
+You want to be warm
+You want to be solitary periodically
Therein lies the ^conflict
~~~¤~~~
Humans are animals. This means:
+You must eat
+You must generate offspring
+You must rest
+You must fear
Humans are mammals. This means:
+You want to be around others like you
+You want to be warm
+You want to be solitary periodically
Homo sapien : "wise man"
You think, therefore you are? Accepted, but before you thought, you were already an animal; born into life as active as any other. Our nature affects everything about us. Why is an eighty hour work week bad? Because you're not built to do that.
BUT YOU CAN.
Ah, yes. Pandora's gift for modern humankind. We have the capacity to defy our needs. We have the capacity to exceed our nature. You can squeeze something so hard it damages the nerves in your hand. You can understand the surgeon general's warning and still go buy another pack. Yes we can.
Ah, yes. Pandora's gift for modern humankind. We have the capacity to defy our needs. We have the capacity to exceed our nature. You can squeeze something so hard it damages the nerves in your hand. You can understand the surgeon general's warning and still go buy another pack. Yes we can.
The absolute greatest challenge for modern humans is to reconcile the flesh and the mind. More often than not it's perceived as an internal conflict of interest. You want to have sex, but you'd better have protection. You want to get really wasted tonight, but your body will reject the poison and eventually enter a passive state. You want to max out your credit card, but you may not have enough money for good food.
So you have teen pregnancy and overpopulation. You have a 12 step program and the best hangover cure. Credit repair and cheap fast food. Ginkgo biloba and caffeine. You have Restless Leg Syndrome and lumbar support. Gastric bypass and a personal trainer.
And you have charities and support groups. Volunteers and non-profits. Cooperatives and carpools. You have social contracts and public sanitation. Exchange students, liberty and the internet. Courage, wisdom, justice and moderation. Bicycles! Yes we can.
So you have teen pregnancy and overpopulation. You have a 12 step program and the best hangover cure. Credit repair and cheap fast food. Ginkgo biloba and caffeine. You have Restless Leg Syndrome and lumbar support. Gastric bypass and a personal trainer.
And you have charities and support groups. Volunteers and non-profits. Cooperatives and carpools. You have social contracts and public sanitation. Exchange students, liberty and the internet. Courage, wisdom, justice and moderation. Bicycles! Yes we can.
Humans made it this far due to their wits. Our genome is at least ninety-eight percent identical to that of some chimpanzees and I don't need to point out the difference two percent makes. That variance blossoms extraordinary potential and like any tool the merit is in the application. Alfred Nobel invented dynamite to aid construction, then they dropped tonnes of it on cities to do the exact opposite. Clearly our biggest threat is ourselves. Clearly our greatest savior is ourselves.
2.03.2009
The Sprawl
"And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short."
-Thomas Hobbes
(also in Tom Waits' song 'Come On Up to the House') was describing the natural state of mankind from the year 1651. Things haven't changed much. A "war of all against all" is another way of saying "every man for himself." Before the human was Social, it was belligerent. Unfortunately the former does not eclipse the latter. In Leviathan, Hobbes offered his interpretation that when faced with the anarchic state of nature most people would give up liberties in exchange for peace or "freedom." Thus, you have the broad concept of government.Say you have 20 humans (5 groups of 4) living separately in a large wooded area. Each group is completely self-dependent and -supporting. These humans are able to survive under the circumstances but are constantly taxed by environmental conditions, marauding predators and conflict with other humans.
Now think of these humans as people.
Assume the condition of trade has been met. Being as they are mentally endowed, the idea is introduced that if they work together and pool their resources they could achieve a more rewarding and satisfying life. A whole greater than the sum of its parts.Jump to the smallest society you can imagine. Every member has specific functions and carries out certain duties. Efficiency is a hallmark of this system. Each person influences a whole to which their daily life is tandem. As a result, one can see the impact of their actions manifest almost immediately.
Jump to a society where a true democracy is no longer viable. This is where things get complicated. This is what most people associate with the word 'government:' Representatives. Taxes. Parties. It's the base idea expanded only to encompass the growing size of the system. It becomes a sprawl.Social contracts exist under the requisite concept that those involved are contributing to the group. In the United States we pay taxes. Those taxes go to a pool that is then spent on things concerning the whole. Public spaces, infrastructure, security, et cetera. For simplicity we'll address local, state and national levels at once. People pay taxes (whether intentionally or not) because they want the continued benefits that participating in a society affords them. In a representative democracy delegates convene to determine who gets "what, when and how" (Lasswell. Word.). That stage, right there, is where the problems arise.
If a government is supposed to represent the wishes of the people through the spending of public money and the number of people exceeds the capacity of government to satisfy, what good is the system? If you were to sit down and have a conversation with me I would likely delve into more complex and specific instances and projections of this concept at work, which is where the meat of the subject is. I believe there are deep negative social effects that result from such a situation. Problems that would be much less likely to occur without.Because the literal characteristic of a sprawl is separation of the community. 100s of 1000000s of people have a stake in the same national resources yet each of them regularly interacts with a dot fraction of the community. Darwin's finches evolved different beaks over a 18,750 square mile area (and that's counting water). By comparison, Texas is 268,820 square miles. Imagine how many different ways people evolved to think about the world over the span of the United States. And all of them have a say in how the common resource is spent. In theory.
1.27.2009
Moonrise
"There is one spectacle grander than the sea, that is the sky;
there is one spectacle grander than the sky, that is the interior of the soul."
-Victor Hugo
1.25.2009
Function
It seems a natural impulse for a person to define and establish their presence in life*; who they are, how they view the world, where they fit in and what their purpose is. For many a foundation is built on religion and early childhood conditioning, augmented with personal beliefs (which are not always consistent with the former) and eventually a political perspective is drawn. Opinions vary greatly from person to person and shift rapidly in and out of coherence. Far more tangible is a person's actions; what they do.
func-tion (n) 1. the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.
In their own capacity, each person occupies a number of functions. People adopt some of these roles while others are implied. You choose what your career is, you don't choose what family unit you're born into ['Choice' may be addressed at a later date]. Taking social views into account one could determine a ranking of these functions based on contribution, both personal and public. In reflecting on my place and purpose in this world, I outline the following:
Brevity is important when theorizing and each function can be expanded or broken down into many components. For example, I consider my default function the charge to eat wholesome food and get regular exercise as well as maintain close relationships and spend a certain amount of time alone. A function list is what I do with a priority for items that contribute to the whole. In essence, my utility.
*I've written about the advent of 'social views' [here], which should be considered along with this post.
func-tion (n) 1. the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.
In their own capacity, each person occupies a number of functions. People adopt some of these roles while others are implied. You choose what your career is, you don't choose what family unit you're born into ['Choice' may be addressed at a later date]. Taking social views into account one could determine a ranking of these functions based on contribution, both personal and public. In reflecting on my place and purpose in this world, I outline the following:
Default : Human
1st : Student
2nd : Family member
3rd : Employee
Our nature must always be taken into account. What we are affects everything about us. My full-time occupation is 'student.' This coincides with my primary goal right now, which is to achieve a Master's degree. Next I am a son, brother and uncle, which implies a number of charges and obligations. Lastly, I am a part-time employee of a company to which I contribute a marginal amount of time and effort. This is a snapshot of my life at this point in time, the ranking determined by my priorities based on personal development with an overall relatively low amount of public contribution. In 10 years, my list of functions could look like this:2nd : Family member
3rd : Employee
Default: Human
1st: Kinesiologist
2nd: Family member
3rd: Business owner
4th: Writer
1st: Kinesiologist
2nd: Family member
3rd: Business owner
4th: Writer
At this point I have achieved a great increase in human capital and as a result have a much more significant function by which I contribute to society. I'm still a family member but perhaps a father and husband. I believe there are biological imperatives of "fatherhood" that fall under the human function but "parenthood" requires more active, conscious effort and therefore in part necessitates the family member function. Consider the tertiary and quaternary functions a to-do list.
Brevity is important when theorizing and each function can be expanded or broken down into many components. For example, I consider my default function the charge to eat wholesome food and get regular exercise as well as maintain close relationships and spend a certain amount of time alone. A function list is what I do with a priority for items that contribute to the whole. In essence, my utility.
*I've written about the advent of 'social views' [here], which should be considered along with this post.
1.20.2009
Resources
_time___
_effort__
_money_
_food___
_objects_
_land___
___?____
The exchange of resources* is the hallmark of human social interaction. The concept of 'give' is not generally expressed in the "animal kingdom." Family units always take care of each other but you don't see much trade occurring. The human mind necessitated the concepts of value and gain. Basic animal behaviors dictate self-preservation through the acquisition and protection of resources. Don't go near my food bowl. If all life is occupied with this pursuit you have an essentially smooth system like Earth (sans Humans). It is an animal's instinct to protect what it has: domain, young, food. It is a natural human extension of that instinct to possess and protect what it has gained. With the concept of value in effect you have a grade with which to appraise resources. With worth you are afforded the ability to equate resources. The next step is trade.
In an even more general sense, we can say 'resources' are 'what I have (or hold).' I listed things prior that some people might not consider "resources." Given the working definition they all agree and to discourage redundancy or extraneity, any item must be able to be gained independent of another resource's expense. Effort is a resource? Absolutely. Every person has a finite amount of it, whether mental or physical. It can be donated to another person, or exchanged for another resource. Objects are a tremendous resource of the modern US citizen. Everything from your toothbrush to your car falls in here. Land, of course, is the world's oldest reason for war.
Dispute over values is the source of most human conflict; our resources are the manifestation of our values. And as elevated as we are above our fellow animals, we still like shiny things. That's why the first money systems were based on silver and gold. Clearly we can be touchy about the use of our personal and especially our collective resources. What is the relative value of them? When is time worth more than money? What is the relative value of food? What of our collective resources? If you are a U.S. citizen you have a stake in national resources: money (taxes), effort (most prominently in the form of security through application of police and military). Since we pay taxes, many consider a claim to other connected resources that are debatable as "national".
Consider agriculture: if someone pays taxes that are eventually awarded to a farm, they might care about the methods by which that food is grown (even if they don't eat it). Or security: if their individual contribution is used toward means of international conflict as opposed to local stability, they might take grievance. In these situations they have exchanged one resource for ______? Is their claim to the application of these resources justifiable? What can one do to influence the application of national resources? We have now reached the topic of "the sprawl," which has been addressed[here].
*Here the working definition for 'resource' is anything that 1) is limited in quantity 2) can be transferred/sacrificed from one individual or party to/for another 3) can be equated to another 'resource'.
_effort__
_money_
_food___
_objects_
_land___
___?____
The exchange of resources* is the hallmark of human social interaction. The concept of 'give' is not generally expressed in the "animal kingdom." Family units always take care of each other but you don't see much trade occurring. The human mind necessitated the concepts of value and gain. Basic animal behaviors dictate self-preservation through the acquisition and protection of resources. Don't go near my food bowl. If all life is occupied with this pursuit you have an essentially smooth system like Earth (sans Humans). It is an animal's instinct to protect what it has: domain, young, food. It is a natural human extension of that instinct to possess and protect what it has gained. With the concept of value in effect you have a grade with which to appraise resources. With worth you are afforded the ability to equate resources. The next step is trade.
In an even more general sense, we can say 'resources' are 'what I have (or hold).' I listed things prior that some people might not consider "resources." Given the working definition they all agree and to discourage redundancy or extraneity, any item must be able to be gained independent of another resource's expense. Effort is a resource? Absolutely. Every person has a finite amount of it, whether mental or physical. It can be donated to another person, or exchanged for another resource. Objects are a tremendous resource of the modern US citizen. Everything from your toothbrush to your car falls in here. Land, of course, is the world's oldest reason for war.
Dispute over values is the source of most human conflict; our resources are the manifestation of our values. And as elevated as we are above our fellow animals, we still like shiny things. That's why the first money systems were based on silver and gold. Clearly we can be touchy about the use of our personal and especially our collective resources. What is the relative value of them? When is time worth more than money? What is the relative value of food? What of our collective resources? If you are a U.S. citizen you have a stake in national resources: money (taxes), effort (most prominently in the form of security through application of police and military). Since we pay taxes, many consider a claim to other connected resources that are debatable as "national".
Consider agriculture: if someone pays taxes that are eventually awarded to a farm, they might care about the methods by which that food is grown (even if they don't eat it). Or security: if their individual contribution is used toward means of international conflict as opposed to local stability, they might take grievance. In these situations they have exchanged one resource for ______? Is their claim to the application of these resources justifiable? What can one do to influence the application of national resources? We have now reached the topic of "the sprawl," which has been addressed[here].
*Here the working definition for 'resource' is anything that 1) is limited in quantity 2) can be transferred/sacrificed from one individual or party to/for another 3) can be equated to another 'resource'.
1.19.2009
Gradient
"I always liked to hear about the old-timers. Never missed a chance to do so. You can't help but compare yourself against the old-timers. Can't help but wonder how theyd've operated these times. There was this boy I sent to the 'lectric chair at Huntsville Hill here a while back. My arrest and my testimony. He killt a fourteen-year-old girl. Papers said it was a crime of passion but he told me there wasn't any passion to it. Told me that he'd been planning to kill somebody for about as long as he could remember. Said that if they turned him out he'd do it again. Said he knew he was going to hell. 'Be there in about fifteen minutes.' I don't know what to make of that. I sure don't. The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. But, I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He'd have to say, 'O.K....I'll be part of this world.'"
-Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, No Country for Old Men
Attitudes
Social networking. When you go to compose your profile they ask you about two things among many others: Political Views and Religious Views, accepted as a generalization of someone's outlook and world perspective. I think there is something missing here, an important factor not accounted for.
I'm making the argument for a third field: Social Views. Come along, if you will. Given a person's religious and political views does not necessarily impart their feelings toward an individual's involvement in a system. Political views like Republican or Libertarian describe attitudes toward government and its effect on the individual, but not of the individual's charge. In general, most people expect others to be 'contributing members to society' and consider this duty complete if they fulfill the base requisite of punching a clock. Raise the bar.
Religion, some being a retired form of government, can describe values conflicting with political views and as far as social attitudes has a general approach of presenting a list of "no-nos" with the usual creed of "Be a good person! :)" As long as you're not killing, raping or stealing my daughter--we're cool. So far we have what the man can do, and what you can't do. Something's missing.
I get the impression that social views are not something most people think about but they do have latent feelings on the matter. Any non-contributing member is naturally frowned upon; most people can appreciate reciprocation as a base concept. Adopting a Social View would require someone to think about how they declare what they expect of fellow citizens.
This goes without saying:
ONE CANNOT MAINTAIN AN EXPECTATION IN ANOTHER
THEY THEMSELVES COULD NOT FULFILL.
"Democracy" represents its constituents and calls on them to perform an integral function in the process. Unfortunately the topic these days is: social capital and involvement aren't what they used to be. Democracy inaction. There are no laws requiring citizens to vote, serve in bureaucracy/armed forces or in any way make their world better. Many US citizens would be troubled to make the distinction between their political, religious and underlying social views. Separation of hearts and minds.
Political allegiances address two basic issues: what the government can do with my money, and what the government can do with my personal life. Regulation of these areas and a person's feelings in regards can outline their social views to a degree but it's all geared toward government involvement at some point. Conservatives don't want liberals giving their tax money to poor kids, liberals don't want the conservative's de-regulation allowing profiteering. Socialism even (in general) is just a variation of how the government establishes who gets what, when and how. Things get personal when some people can get married and some can't, and again we're faced with a system geared to say "No."
Things get fuzzy even from an insider's perspective when religious views are taken into account. Sprawling across the political spectrum, religious representation is borne on the chests of the minor sincere and the major trite, who have found a variety of illogical ways to reconcile their political and religious beliefs (No, you can't be against abortion and support the death penalty). Religion does not serve the administrative function it once did but it still exercises power in influence. Of course no obliged conservative can produce a single reason other than their personal beliefs dictated by indoctrination as to why two men or women shouldn't be able to legally recognize their union. This is becoming old news. Yet still, in spite of the weak argument, states have denied that very right. Do your part, follow my rules.
People might benefit from contemplating a list of "do's." Do perform your duties well, do leave something better than you found it, do give as much as you get, do consider the impact of your actions, do well to your fellow beings. We all know what people can't do, but what are our developed expectations of them? What are our expectations of ourselves? We throw an impossible variety of expectations at our government and most sit back to reap the benefits. Nobody said bailout here, this issue is nothing new.
You give people the choice and they tend to get lazy. With no expectations, what could one expect? The thing about attitudes is people who share them tend to gather. Once enough aggregate, they can affect the process of their world. Interest groups, lobbies, political parties form. Religions begin. Other new things leap from the collective mind. Presume positive intent. Even people you disagree with on many levels are trying to make their world a better place. Disdaining at errant arguments over personal beliefs, I encourage a focus on contribution and prudence. What does a person have to offer to theirself and those around them? How do they better the world around them?
The direction is forward.
I'm making the argument for a third field: Social Views. Come along, if you will. Given a person's religious and political views does not necessarily impart their feelings toward an individual's involvement in a system. Political views like Republican or Libertarian describe attitudes toward government and its effect on the individual, but not of the individual's charge. In general, most people expect others to be 'contributing members to society' and consider this duty complete if they fulfill the base requisite of punching a clock. Raise the bar.
Religion, some being a retired form of government, can describe values conflicting with political views and as far as social attitudes has a general approach of presenting a list of "no-nos" with the usual creed of "Be a good person! :)" As long as you're not killing, raping or stealing my daughter--we're cool. So far we have what the man can do, and what you can't do. Something's missing.
I get the impression that social views are not something most people think about but they do have latent feelings on the matter. Any non-contributing member is naturally frowned upon; most people can appreciate reciprocation as a base concept. Adopting a Social View would require someone to think about how they declare what they expect of fellow citizens.
This goes without saying:
THEY THEMSELVES COULD NOT FULFILL.
"Democracy" represents its constituents and calls on them to perform an integral function in the process. Unfortunately the topic these days is: social capital and involvement aren't what they used to be. Democracy inaction. There are no laws requiring citizens to vote, serve in bureaucracy/armed forces or in any way make their world better. Many US citizens would be troubled to make the distinction between their political, religious and underlying social views. Separation of hearts and minds.
Political allegiances address two basic issues: what the government can do with my money, and what the government can do with my personal life. Regulation of these areas and a person's feelings in regards can outline their social views to a degree but it's all geared toward government involvement at some point. Conservatives don't want liberals giving their tax money to poor kids, liberals don't want the conservative's de-regulation allowing profiteering. Socialism even (in general) is just a variation of how the government establishes who gets what, when and how. Things get personal when some people can get married and some can't, and again we're faced with a system geared to say "No."
Things get fuzzy even from an insider's perspective when religious views are taken into account. Sprawling across the political spectrum, religious representation is borne on the chests of the minor sincere and the major trite, who have found a variety of illogical ways to reconcile their political and religious beliefs (No, you can't be against abortion and support the death penalty). Religion does not serve the administrative function it once did but it still exercises power in influence. Of course no obliged conservative can produce a single reason other than their personal beliefs dictated by indoctrination as to why two men or women shouldn't be able to legally recognize their union. This is becoming old news. Yet still, in spite of the weak argument, states have denied that very right. Do your part, follow my rules.
People might benefit from contemplating a list of "do's." Do perform your duties well, do leave something better than you found it, do give as much as you get, do consider the impact of your actions, do well to your fellow beings. We all know what people can't do, but what are our developed expectations of them? What are our expectations of ourselves? We throw an impossible variety of expectations at our government and most sit back to reap the benefits. Nobody said bailout here, this issue is nothing new.
You give people the choice and they tend to get lazy. With no expectations, what could one expect? The thing about attitudes is people who share them tend to gather. Once enough aggregate, they can affect the process of their world. Interest groups, lobbies, political parties form. Religions begin. Other new things leap from the collective mind. Presume positive intent. Even people you disagree with on many levels are trying to make their world a better place. Disdaining at errant arguments over personal beliefs, I encourage a focus on contribution and prudence. What does a person have to offer to theirself and those around them? How do they better the world around them?
The direction is forward.
The Human
Bipedal, incapable of flight. Exhibits many common mammalian characteristics and behaviors; social (pack forming, maintains selective inter-species relationships), sense-oriented with a practiced emphasis on sight and sound as opposed to smell, limited aquatic maneuverability, moderate diversity among subjects. Subjects possess a relatively thin coat over a smooth skin compared with other similar mammals, exhibiting moderate hair growth on areas of the head, torso and lower front abdomen. Diet is varietal, including native vegetation and other species, and is gained through a number of means. Sexual intercourse is common among subjects with some homosexual intercourse observed. Communication is audible between members and appears to employ a variety of sound, pitch and inflection. Articulate arm limbs are capable of grasping and manipulating the environment in the course of resource gathering, dwelling construction and creative pursuits.
These extra-biological endeavors will the the large focus of this discussion.
These extra-biological endeavors will the the large focus of this discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
