I recently have faced several proposals that to become truely creative people we must hold up freedom of speech as the pinicle goal of democratic society.
But, creativity demands restriction. Creativity flourishes under oppression. Creativity is the intelligent response to a problem. In a world without problems how can creativity possibly exist. What is creativity anyway? Ken Robinson defines it as the ability to have original ideas that have value. This is a very useful definition as we can look at how we create value in an idea and how we produce original ideas.
As I have suggested original ideas are predicated by problems. If there was no need to solve problems, if there was no need to find new ways to express ourselves within the limits of our time our context our location and our human and other relations, there would be little creative activity beyond the asthetic production of things. But the production of various forms of art as only one very narrow part of the whole of creativity. I argue quite the opposite that creativity flourish best under circumstances of restriction, of oppression, suppression of free speech and the threat of these things.
Let's look at some of the great creative moments. During the Rennaissance there was barely a paltry freedom of speech. And yet that time produced great minds like DiVinci and Michalangelo. It was following the return of the King when freedom of speech was greatly curtailed in England that Milton wrote Paradice Lost, a work that through and through demonstrates a creative outlet for Milton's perhaps controversial political views. Even Christ, if we look at him as just a man who in history had some good advice about how to live, brought forth his ideas against a strongly oppressive regime. We could look to Mohammed too and see that his time no more encourage free thought or action, and yet he produced (transmitted?) a greatly creative work that looked at the problems of his contemporary world and sought to offer new and original solutions that have proved to be very valuable. Further let's look at the Manhattan project, a spectacular demostration of human creativity driven by the fear of forced changes in freedom of thought. If we didn't find away to end aggressions we would be engulfed by war and the possibility of colonization/annexation by various members of the "evil empires".
As I look into my own experience and think about some of my most creative moments it is when I have been somehow restricted, by time, by resource, by motivation, by expectation that I have produced some of my most creative work. Not just of art and writing, but I think in methods of learning material, in means of facing the challenges of school.
Freedom of speech must be valued and allowed, but not because it causes creativity. I think quite the opposite that restrictions and problems in the world cause creativity, a bi-product of which is the valuing of free speech.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Missing the point
It is tragic but true the US, in an attempt to liberate it citizens of a very mundane and costly habit, have completely missed the point. I think this is yet another example of legislation without vision. Rather than looking at why people smoke, why people take up smoking and finding ways to intervene and to encourage the nation to take up different habits like papercrafts and cycling they will try to intervene and tell people what they cannot enjoy.
It is the same as the approach to North Korea. NK says that signing sanctions against the NK will be seen as an act of war. And will respond accordingly. (Partly I just think they are looking for something to rally their citizens against and so incited the pending sanction response) But if we just ignored the NK they would have nothing to say. If rather than making laws that we can't trade with them, we just said "no thank you" every time they tried to buy from us or sell to us...what could they do. It is how we should act globally, if we don't agree with a countries activities then just ignore and silently boycott that country. It works with dogs it works with children, i know it works with adults too.
I find when I engage my friends and keep them doing other things they don't think about smoking and go for hours without a cigarette. But once we sit down and stop moving stopping cooking singing dancing etc then out come the ciggies and lighters. We should take note of this behaviour because it is endemic. Rather than spending billions trying to stop a negative behaviour why not spend millions encourage good behaviours sponsor sports and art invest and interest based community activities...
Or...i guess put scarier pictures on the products, put heavier taxes on the users, increase the medical costs...penalize penalize penalize....i think this business of negative reinforcement completely misses the point of why we want to change to role of smoking in our society. And without taking a good look at the role we want tobacco to play we cannot hope to find ways to end the negative roles it currently fills.
It is the same as the approach to North Korea. NK says that signing sanctions against the NK will be seen as an act of war. And will respond accordingly. (Partly I just think they are looking for something to rally their citizens against and so incited the pending sanction response) But if we just ignored the NK they would have nothing to say. If rather than making laws that we can't trade with them, we just said "no thank you" every time they tried to buy from us or sell to us...what could they do. It is how we should act globally, if we don't agree with a countries activities then just ignore and silently boycott that country. It works with dogs it works with children, i know it works with adults too.
I find when I engage my friends and keep them doing other things they don't think about smoking and go for hours without a cigarette. But once we sit down and stop moving stopping cooking singing dancing etc then out come the ciggies and lighters. We should take note of this behaviour because it is endemic. Rather than spending billions trying to stop a negative behaviour why not spend millions encourage good behaviours sponsor sports and art invest and interest based community activities...
Or...i guess put scarier pictures on the products, put heavier taxes on the users, increase the medical costs...penalize penalize penalize....i think this business of negative reinforcement completely misses the point of why we want to change to role of smoking in our society. And without taking a good look at the role we want tobacco to play we cannot hope to find ways to end the negative roles it currently fills.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Having babies
I was recently in a discussion with two student about the birth rate in Japan. About how the birth rate is plummeting. As the discussion progressed I recognized I had been maintaining some pretty fatal ideas about why children have or don't have children. I recognized this largely because of the male student in the discussion. Somehow hearing the arguments I have heard a million times from a rich successful doctor with at least 1 child (I don't know much more about him) showed me how totally fallacious these beliefs are.
Chiefly we say there are two reasons for falling birthrates: more women are working and children are expensive. And I think every time we good philosophers hear them we think...hmm. But being lazy we take what appears logical at face value and don't investigate further. But we must. So here I go:
The male student largely maintained that women didn't want children as they wanted to work. It seems like a logical conclusion to draw. Supposedly more women of my generation, and at least the two generations before mine, are working in more diverse fields of employment.
But somehow I don't think that more women are working. I think women have always worked just as much as they do now. The only difference is we are recognizing their manner of social participation as working. Not just they are moving into "traditionally male dominated" profession (I even contest that many professions are traditionally male dominated), but that work like nursing, prostitution, educating young children (being a governess, elementary teacher etc), writing are being recognized as professions for both men and women. With our change in perspective of what constitutes work, we have mistakenly concluded that participation in this new perspective is also new. This is like when you first come to understand quantum physics. Just because you have only come to understand it now, doesn't mean it hasn't been governing the universe for ...well forever.
Further, women of my grandmother's generation worked like mad; both my grandmothers maintained full time employment during their working years. And they had 3 and 5 children. Also many of my friends have told me about their grandmothers working, and again they have 2 and 3 aunts or uncles a side... so then we say, ah but women are working at jobs with schedules that are less conducive to child rearing...but I remember hearing stories of my grandmother working graveyard shifts at her hospital...so I don't think that is true either.
But if it isn't the case that more women are working more then why are fewer women wanting children. Well then the argument goes that children are expensive, people don't feel they can afford to have children. Really? Cars are expensive...but most people feel they can afford a car. Houses are really expensive...but most people feel they can afford a house...take out a loan right?So, how expensive is a child? I have no idea, but in university my cost of living without tuition books etc was about $600 a month, for rent, food entertainment etc...so $7200 a year. Now of course a baby doesn't pay as much rent as I did, or eat as much food and alcohol. Now of course there are start up costs on having children you have to invest in infrastructure like beds and strollers, ante-natal training and stuff...so lets say $10,000 a year for the first year, and then $6000 a year subsequently for the first 10 years. Its true...that is a lot of money... But on my single income minimum wage income I save that in a year after travel and celebrating life as I do.
So let's compare: how much is a university education...most people without thinking would take out a $10,000 a year loan for a university education that may or may not help them gain more lucrative employment. how much is a car...most people would take out a loan to buy a new $18,000 car. Most people would tie themselves into a 25 year mortgage for a $250,000 house.
So are children so expensive?
But we have to look at what you get for the money you invest. A child enriches every aspect of ones life, bring validation to many, meaning and motivation to succeed and thrive. Many people find it difficult to be successful for themselves, but when told this will help your family friends etc they have little difficulty overcoming great obstacles.
So, not only do I disagree that children being expensive is a valid argument but I don't even agree that children are expensive.
So why are fewer babies being born in Japan. I contest that even that is true. Yes the current trend is of lower birth rates. But I think that is just because women are having children at a later age. Women are marring later. My future sister in law is well in her thirties. I have many friends too in the same situation. But I think even women who start a decade later we will find will still have 2 and 3 children.
Another very serious reason we need to consider is that men don't want children. It is often placed on a woman's want or not want, but who much is it really? If we were to interview childless couples about why they are childless would the reason really be 1 she's working and 2 kids are expensive... Somehow I think we have been fed these fallacies that we need to reexamine and deconstruct. They don't account for the reality of lowered birthrates and we owe it to our society to figure out why.
Chiefly we say there are two reasons for falling birthrates: more women are working and children are expensive. And I think every time we good philosophers hear them we think...hmm. But being lazy we take what appears logical at face value and don't investigate further. But we must. So here I go:
The male student largely maintained that women didn't want children as they wanted to work. It seems like a logical conclusion to draw. Supposedly more women of my generation, and at least the two generations before mine, are working in more diverse fields of employment.
But somehow I don't think that more women are working. I think women have always worked just as much as they do now. The only difference is we are recognizing their manner of social participation as working. Not just they are moving into "traditionally male dominated" profession (I even contest that many professions are traditionally male dominated), but that work like nursing, prostitution, educating young children (being a governess, elementary teacher etc), writing are being recognized as professions for both men and women. With our change in perspective of what constitutes work, we have mistakenly concluded that participation in this new perspective is also new. This is like when you first come to understand quantum physics. Just because you have only come to understand it now, doesn't mean it hasn't been governing the universe for ...well forever.
Further, women of my grandmother's generation worked like mad; both my grandmothers maintained full time employment during their working years. And they had 3 and 5 children. Also many of my friends have told me about their grandmothers working, and again they have 2 and 3 aunts or uncles a side... so then we say, ah but women are working at jobs with schedules that are less conducive to child rearing...but I remember hearing stories of my grandmother working graveyard shifts at her hospital...so I don't think that is true either.
But if it isn't the case that more women are working more then why are fewer women wanting children. Well then the argument goes that children are expensive, people don't feel they can afford to have children. Really? Cars are expensive...but most people feel they can afford a car. Houses are really expensive...but most people feel they can afford a house...take out a loan right?So, how expensive is a child? I have no idea, but in university my cost of living without tuition books etc was about $600 a month, for rent, food entertainment etc...so $7200 a year. Now of course a baby doesn't pay as much rent as I did, or eat as much food and alcohol. Now of course there are start up costs on having children you have to invest in infrastructure like beds and strollers, ante-natal training and stuff...so lets say $10,000 a year for the first year, and then $6000 a year subsequently for the first 10 years. Its true...that is a lot of money... But on my single income minimum wage income I save that in a year after travel and celebrating life as I do.
So let's compare: how much is a university education...most people without thinking would take out a $10,000 a year loan for a university education that may or may not help them gain more lucrative employment. how much is a car...most people would take out a loan to buy a new $18,000 car. Most people would tie themselves into a 25 year mortgage for a $250,000 house.
So are children so expensive?
But we have to look at what you get for the money you invest. A child enriches every aspect of ones life, bring validation to many, meaning and motivation to succeed and thrive. Many people find it difficult to be successful for themselves, but when told this will help your family friends etc they have little difficulty overcoming great obstacles.
So, not only do I disagree that children being expensive is a valid argument but I don't even agree that children are expensive.
So why are fewer babies being born in Japan. I contest that even that is true. Yes the current trend is of lower birth rates. But I think that is just because women are having children at a later age. Women are marring later. My future sister in law is well in her thirties. I have many friends too in the same situation. But I think even women who start a decade later we will find will still have 2 and 3 children.
Another very serious reason we need to consider is that men don't want children. It is often placed on a woman's want or not want, but who much is it really? If we were to interview childless couples about why they are childless would the reason really be 1 she's working and 2 kids are expensive... Somehow I think we have been fed these fallacies that we need to reexamine and deconstruct. They don't account for the reality of lowered birthrates and we owe it to our society to figure out why.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Jam @ Dub
So I had my first slam poetry experience last night. It was really remarkable. I really always thought I would have to prepare and practice and learn and study at it, and spend heaps of time learning how to do it well, but it just all flowed really naturally. Words and ideas came pouring out, in Japanese and English all muddled in together. It was this weird and marvelous play of me understanding and the audience just listening and me just listening and the audience understanding. Although i don't think I said anything really profound in Japanese...just that it was raining and everyone was smiling...and something like that...
I am left again with this amazing sense that the only reason we might think we can't do something is that we have never done it before. And you know what...I'm going to stop saying I'm no good at stuff just because I have never been good at it before. I'm just going to slam. To try. To sing out and flow with the notes and rhythms of the people around me.
Because precedent is a terrible predictor of potential. And potential is all that we really have until we are dead. That's the second law of entropy isn't it.
I am left again with this amazing sense that the only reason we might think we can't do something is that we have never done it before. And you know what...I'm going to stop saying I'm no good at stuff just because I have never been good at it before. I'm just going to slam. To try. To sing out and flow with the notes and rhythms of the people around me.
Because precedent is a terrible predictor of potential. And potential is all that we really have until we are dead. That's the second law of entropy isn't it.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
I am disappointed morally and scientifically
Today in the BBC it was announced the scientists have managed to create genetically modified monkeys that fluoresce under funny lights. The team of scientist from Japan who synthesized these monkeys, suggested they will aid disease research.
One might wonder how glow in the dark monkeys will aid in human disease research. I did have to scratch my head a bit to make the connection. I wondered is there some human disease that causes us to glow green under certain light conditions. I couldn't think of one, but my expertise is fundamentally limited. I am assuming it is the technique of engineering not by glowing green that will prove beneficial.
This case of glowing monkeys is special, perhaps spectacular as scientists reverse engineered traits into an animal that was in one generation passed on to progeny. (a kind of one generation evolution). Of course we will have to wait to see what happens in subsequent generations (will the trait degrade, will it remain, will it interfere in unanticipated regions).
Anyway, on to the technique, scientists used retro-viruses to "infect" the monkey with new DNA. Of course we all know now how retro-viruses work thanks to ongoing media coverage of HIV research and treatment. The team hopes that this kind of retro-fitting will aid in gene therapies to help people affected by genetic related illnesses. At the birth of this technology viruses can still only carry short pieces of DNA about 10,000 base pairs, but presumably as technology progresses and advances we will create viruses capable of carrying and implanting entire genes maybe even entire chromosomes...
hey...that just gave me a very exciting (?) idea for new generation sex change therapies, in theory this technology could be used to replace X or Y chomosones...wow...I don't know how i feel about that...but it is something isn't it? Sex-change would no longer be the realm of plastic surgeons, but it would be the full and real conversion from one sex to the other...
anyway. The title of this blog suggests I am not happy about this research. Its not the research per say, but the methodology. It seems perverse to genetically modify creatures that never, ever in our knowledge of natural history glowed in the dark to cause them to glow in the dark. I know that scientists are looking for animals that are analogous to humans as this is a technology they are developing for human health care purposes...but somehow I really feel their methodology is fundamentally immoral and unnecessary. There are billions of traits available, more natural and helpful to monkeys than glowing in the dark, why not effect muscle type, or hand bone structure to give them stronger hands, or blue eyes or longer or shorter tails...I know that we think this technology is only for humans because humans thought of it...but I am pretty sure the world doesn't work that way.
I mean algae doesn't insist oxygen is only for algae because they thought of the best way to mass produce it...we all share it, we all benefit from their technological advances, their skills, just as we all suffer from various organisms that think up destructive things to do..magma and its plate shifting, or what is the crimson tide organism...i forget but that thing (cyanobacteria? maybe). We have a responsibility, we especially because of our level or ethical sentience, to use our abilities sensitively to all living creatures.
however if it ever became important to make humans glow in the dark...perhaps I will one day concede my disappointment.
One might wonder how glow in the dark monkeys will aid in human disease research. I did have to scratch my head a bit to make the connection. I wondered is there some human disease that causes us to glow green under certain light conditions. I couldn't think of one, but my expertise is fundamentally limited. I am assuming it is the technique of engineering not by glowing green that will prove beneficial.
This case of glowing monkeys is special, perhaps spectacular as scientists reverse engineered traits into an animal that was in one generation passed on to progeny. (a kind of one generation evolution). Of course we will have to wait to see what happens in subsequent generations (will the trait degrade, will it remain, will it interfere in unanticipated regions).
Anyway, on to the technique, scientists used retro-viruses to "infect" the monkey with new DNA. Of course we all know now how retro-viruses work thanks to ongoing media coverage of HIV research and treatment. The team hopes that this kind of retro-fitting will aid in gene therapies to help people affected by genetic related illnesses. At the birth of this technology viruses can still only carry short pieces of DNA about 10,000 base pairs, but presumably as technology progresses and advances we will create viruses capable of carrying and implanting entire genes maybe even entire chromosomes...
hey...that just gave me a very exciting (?) idea for new generation sex change therapies, in theory this technology could be used to replace X or Y chomosones...wow...I don't know how i feel about that...but it is something isn't it? Sex-change would no longer be the realm of plastic surgeons, but it would be the full and real conversion from one sex to the other...
anyway. The title of this blog suggests I am not happy about this research. Its not the research per say, but the methodology. It seems perverse to genetically modify creatures that never, ever in our knowledge of natural history glowed in the dark to cause them to glow in the dark. I know that scientists are looking for animals that are analogous to humans as this is a technology they are developing for human health care purposes...but somehow I really feel their methodology is fundamentally immoral and unnecessary. There are billions of traits available, more natural and helpful to monkeys than glowing in the dark, why not effect muscle type, or hand bone structure to give them stronger hands, or blue eyes or longer or shorter tails...I know that we think this technology is only for humans because humans thought of it...but I am pretty sure the world doesn't work that way.
I mean algae doesn't insist oxygen is only for algae because they thought of the best way to mass produce it...we all share it, we all benefit from their technological advances, their skills, just as we all suffer from various organisms that think up destructive things to do..magma and its plate shifting, or what is the crimson tide organism...i forget but that thing (cyanobacteria? maybe). We have a responsibility, we especially because of our level or ethical sentience, to use our abilities sensitively to all living creatures.
however if it ever became important to make humans glow in the dark...perhaps I will one day concede my disappointment.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Parent's rights
There is an interesting debate in the Alberta legislature these days about what rights parents have to pull their children from classes on topics they don't want teachers educating their children on. The debate is sparked by the high-tension sexual health segments of school curriculum as well as lessons about religion.
Hmm. In the CBC news article on the topic it suggests that perhaps teachers are not presenting the material in ways that some parents would like their children educated on these topics. Presumably, these parents will provide some sort of homeschooling to compensate for the child's absence from class.
I agree that parents have the right to control, influence and effect what their children learn about the world and how their children learn it. Of course they can't control everything their child learns, but we have a human right to inculcate our children with a worldview that we believe is good. And to introduce them to ways of experiencing and living in the world that will enable them to become mature contributors to Canadian society. Provincial curricula are just one way to educate children. And you can see across every province a myriad of teaching methods, curricula, and pedagogy at work making children into what Canada is. A beautifully interwoven patchwork of differences.
It is what makes our country so great, that we have so many ways of doing everything, and yet more or less we manage to remain a cohesive society. It is what makes me so proud to call myself Canadian. We are diversity at its best. So what of parents pulling their children from classes on topics they don't agree with...I don't agree with this tactic. It doesn't bolster critical thinking in children nor does it support the fundamental Canadian value of diversity.
To me diversity means recognizing there are ways you don't want to live your life, but that for some people they are good ways to live.
A better tactic for parents is to be more involved in their children's classroom learning. Asking about what children learned at school, supplementing school lessons with parental views and values. Adding more information and being a part of the education of children. Trying to make a one size fits all education system in a country like Canada is ridiculous. And trying to give kids outs on education is not the right answer either.
As parents we are responsible to be part of our children's education. We are responsible to make our children's education unique and custom fit tour each child. Sure kids will learn things you don't want them to learn, but with good parenting you will help fix right beliefs in your children. And further prepare them to face the diverse ways of living that exist in Canada. Diversity and tolerance aren't about accepting every ones way of life, but affirming that your way of life is right for you. And accepting all Canadians have the same self-affirming right.
I want to use the example of evolution, as evolution is usually the topic people always say, "you have to learn it, there are uncountable volumes of scientific [ie irrefutable facts] that support evolution, if parents don't want their kids learning evolution then they should home school or not expect to get a science credit from any respectable Canadian school." It seems to be this inarguable truth in education that only simple rock creatures wouldn't agree with. Evolution explains life.
Personally, I have long disbelieved in evolution. I always viewed it as a story, like an Aesop fable...a very good and useful story that hopefully will endure 2000 years as the fables have endured...but in the end it is merely a way of explaining, not an irrefutable truth. It is the moral of the story that is the enduring point. The moral of the story of evolution is "life changes" and evolution teaches that, so it is a useful story to teach. Where as the biblical creation story somewhat falls short of teaching us that life changes and thus is not so useful in that regard, but it does teach belief in the fantastic; which i consider an essential life skill...so it has its place too.
Anyway, even this belief in evolution which we hold up as the bastion of modern though is these days up for debate. Darwinian evolution is fast falling out of favour with many in the scientific community and the whole story itself is changing. But children educated to look at it as "one way" of explaining life are well prepared to handle this debate, this change and the shifting explanations that are now spewing forth from the scientific community. But will children learn this by pulling out of evolution lessons? Even if it isn't the best explanation or the full story, it is a piece of the puzzle. And that's all we should hope for in education...pieces of puzzles.
And parents have the right, and should have the right, to help their children lay with those pieces.
Hmm. In the CBC news article on the topic it suggests that perhaps teachers are not presenting the material in ways that some parents would like their children educated on these topics. Presumably, these parents will provide some sort of homeschooling to compensate for the child's absence from class.
I agree that parents have the right to control, influence and effect what their children learn about the world and how their children learn it. Of course they can't control everything their child learns, but we have a human right to inculcate our children with a worldview that we believe is good. And to introduce them to ways of experiencing and living in the world that will enable them to become mature contributors to Canadian society. Provincial curricula are just one way to educate children. And you can see across every province a myriad of teaching methods, curricula, and pedagogy at work making children into what Canada is. A beautifully interwoven patchwork of differences.
It is what makes our country so great, that we have so many ways of doing everything, and yet more or less we manage to remain a cohesive society. It is what makes me so proud to call myself Canadian. We are diversity at its best. So what of parents pulling their children from classes on topics they don't agree with...I don't agree with this tactic. It doesn't bolster critical thinking in children nor does it support the fundamental Canadian value of diversity.
To me diversity means recognizing there are ways you don't want to live your life, but that for some people they are good ways to live.
A better tactic for parents is to be more involved in their children's classroom learning. Asking about what children learned at school, supplementing school lessons with parental views and values. Adding more information and being a part of the education of children. Trying to make a one size fits all education system in a country like Canada is ridiculous. And trying to give kids outs on education is not the right answer either.
As parents we are responsible to be part of our children's education. We are responsible to make our children's education unique and custom fit tour each child. Sure kids will learn things you don't want them to learn, but with good parenting you will help fix right beliefs in your children. And further prepare them to face the diverse ways of living that exist in Canada. Diversity and tolerance aren't about accepting every ones way of life, but affirming that your way of life is right for you. And accepting all Canadians have the same self-affirming right.
I want to use the example of evolution, as evolution is usually the topic people always say, "you have to learn it, there are uncountable volumes of scientific [ie irrefutable facts] that support evolution, if parents don't want their kids learning evolution then they should home school or not expect to get a science credit from any respectable Canadian school." It seems to be this inarguable truth in education that only simple rock creatures wouldn't agree with. Evolution explains life.
Personally, I have long disbelieved in evolution. I always viewed it as a story, like an Aesop fable...a very good and useful story that hopefully will endure 2000 years as the fables have endured...but in the end it is merely a way of explaining, not an irrefutable truth. It is the moral of the story that is the enduring point. The moral of the story of evolution is "life changes" and evolution teaches that, so it is a useful story to teach. Where as the biblical creation story somewhat falls short of teaching us that life changes and thus is not so useful in that regard, but it does teach belief in the fantastic; which i consider an essential life skill...so it has its place too.
Anyway, even this belief in evolution which we hold up as the bastion of modern though is these days up for debate. Darwinian evolution is fast falling out of favour with many in the scientific community and the whole story itself is changing. But children educated to look at it as "one way" of explaining life are well prepared to handle this debate, this change and the shifting explanations that are now spewing forth from the scientific community. But will children learn this by pulling out of evolution lessons? Even if it isn't the best explanation or the full story, it is a piece of the puzzle. And that's all we should hope for in education...pieces of puzzles.
And parents have the right, and should have the right, to help their children lay with those pieces.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Unconditional Positive Regard
What a wonderful idea! I stumbled on it last night before my mind grew quiet and I drifted out the window into the night air. I was reading Gabor Maté's book "In the realm of hungry ghosts" about his experiences working with the drug addicted and under housed in Vancouver. He said, in quoting someone else, that in this line of work (and I think in all lines of work and life as i will discuss) we need a kind of unconditional positive regard.
He was discussing working with drug addicted people and the kind of expectations we tend to have of them. He suggests that it is not fair or productive to have your own expectations of them, but rather you must learn to learn what their expectations are for themselves and see how you can't help them feel empowered by their expectations and seek and pursue them. Even if you have what you think are better ideas, having an unconditional positive regard means that you don't think in terms of better or worse, but in terms of this is what is and this is a beautiful and powerful human let's be beautiful and powerful humans together.
Drug addicted people are an obvious cohort with whom we must have an unconditional positive regard; as they have usually learned their whole lives that they are useless, worthless, failures with nothing to offer the world or themselves, it is our responsibility to be part of the team that helps them learn their life lessons are untrue and that what has happened in the past doesn't have to determine (fully) what happens next. That we have the power in us to make more in our life than numbing escaping or self-destruction (a lesson not only for drug addicts but for all addicts and all people who seek nothing new but an endless nostalgia and repetition of the good old times). It is this belief that I know everything, have experienced the most high, most positive thing in life and all that is left is to experience death.
In reading Mate's book, I am gaining a sense of what addiction attempts to fill, and how sad it is that we think addictions will fill that desire, need, curiosity, innate human spirit. But in thinking that I am right and those who do things differently are wrong, I refuse to engage an unconditional positive regard. And in the end this regard is what is the best way to help build people up, lift people up, enrage and engage minds and hearts in the positive world, in the creative world, in the uplifted and excited world.
So what is the unconditional positive regard. It seems very clear to me just in those three words. It is a way of regarding, viewing, thinking about, and interacting with other people. It is positive, it focuses on what is done, what is made, what does exist and what i believe i can do. not what i believe you can do. Even if i believe you can do more I disregard that belief and am thankful grateful and cheerful about what you do do. And it is unconditional. I will always be positive about what you do in your life, because it is what you do in your life and it is human. It is beautiful. I don't reward your good behaviour and chastise your bad, but I say always well now what and how can i help.
This might be a nice manifesto, a nice slogan, motto or the like...unconditional positive regard.
He was discussing working with drug addicted people and the kind of expectations we tend to have of them. He suggests that it is not fair or productive to have your own expectations of them, but rather you must learn to learn what their expectations are for themselves and see how you can't help them feel empowered by their expectations and seek and pursue them. Even if you have what you think are better ideas, having an unconditional positive regard means that you don't think in terms of better or worse, but in terms of this is what is and this is a beautiful and powerful human let's be beautiful and powerful humans together.
Drug addicted people are an obvious cohort with whom we must have an unconditional positive regard; as they have usually learned their whole lives that they are useless, worthless, failures with nothing to offer the world or themselves, it is our responsibility to be part of the team that helps them learn their life lessons are untrue and that what has happened in the past doesn't have to determine (fully) what happens next. That we have the power in us to make more in our life than numbing escaping or self-destruction (a lesson not only for drug addicts but for all addicts and all people who seek nothing new but an endless nostalgia and repetition of the good old times). It is this belief that I know everything, have experienced the most high, most positive thing in life and all that is left is to experience death.
In reading Mate's book, I am gaining a sense of what addiction attempts to fill, and how sad it is that we think addictions will fill that desire, need, curiosity, innate human spirit. But in thinking that I am right and those who do things differently are wrong, I refuse to engage an unconditional positive regard. And in the end this regard is what is the best way to help build people up, lift people up, enrage and engage minds and hearts in the positive world, in the creative world, in the uplifted and excited world.
So what is the unconditional positive regard. It seems very clear to me just in those three words. It is a way of regarding, viewing, thinking about, and interacting with other people. It is positive, it focuses on what is done, what is made, what does exist and what i believe i can do. not what i believe you can do. Even if i believe you can do more I disregard that belief and am thankful grateful and cheerful about what you do do. And it is unconditional. I will always be positive about what you do in your life, because it is what you do in your life and it is human. It is beautiful. I don't reward your good behaviour and chastise your bad, but I say always well now what and how can i help.
This might be a nice manifesto, a nice slogan, motto or the like...unconditional positive regard.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Bruce Lipton
Okay, so I haven't done a tone of thinking yet, but I am so filled with excitement about what I am learning that I want to share some of it now. I think I have turned a bit into one of these instant gratifaction people...but anyway.
Bruce Lipton is a I dunno, doctor researchy scientist type person...maybe he is a religious guy too, that hasn't come up yet but it probably will as I learn more.
Anyway he gave this wonderful lecture that finally brought me back to biology. I love biology. I always have. Natural history, the functions of life, generation and decay, ecology all of it is delicious to me. I love learning about it, reading about it, thinking about it. But at some point during my formal education something happened that made me greatly dislike the discourse. That was the doctrinal methodolgies and pedagogies through which it is transmitted to children. I looked at the world, I listened to and read about the explanations but I always felt they were like fairytales, sort of pointings towards a lesson. Although my teachers maintained them as pathways to truth.
I guess being an apostate person I am always a bit suspicious of anyone who claims this is THE pathway to truth. I am certain there are many. In Dr Liptons talk, he shows how the metaphoric language of biology (along with a few errors in word choice along the way) have caused the entire scientific and lay community alike to accept something as true that in fact is fundementally flawed. That is that DNA is the brain, the core, the starting point of life.
He shows a great flow chart that I am all to familiar with that is used again and again to show that everything that happens in your cells starts from DNA.
the chart goes DNA-->RNA-->Protein--->activity.
and I always hated this chart because life is never ever ever ever linear. There is nothing about life the flows linearly. It is a series and cyclically positive and negative feedback cycles. DNA doesn't just start doing things all by it self. Have certain DNA doesn't cause cancer for example. It is merely correlated with cancer. This was the first major error in word choice. Cause and correlate DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING. DNA has to be turned on. Something my many teachers would say from time to time and then completely ignore. It struck me often that they would say it all starts with DNA, something turns on the DNA and then...uh...wait a second...you just said it starts with DNA and it starts with something before DNA....well which is it. And as we can both see it is the latter why aren't we talking about that "something."
Anyway, Dr Lipton gives a great explanation about why we must change our medical paradigm, we must shift our view of biology and the role of DNA. That not only is DNA not the source of life, but it is also not the cause of illness. Sure it is very strongly correlated with illness, but the truth is our beliefs about illness, our perceptions of our health our world, and the environments we foster for ourselves to live in are far more important than what is written in our code.
We should not be victims of our genes, but of our choices. We want scapegoats, but the truth is if you stop looking for scapegoats you can find the true power, happiness and strength in yourself to be the beautiful person that you are.
It is true you will have no one left to blame but your self when life gives you challenges you think you cannot overcome...but well if you blame no one for those challenges you will find you soon find the strength and resource to tackle any obstacle...in fact the obstacles will soon disappear.
Bruce Lipton is a I dunno, doctor researchy scientist type person...maybe he is a religious guy too, that hasn't come up yet but it probably will as I learn more.
Anyway he gave this wonderful lecture that finally brought me back to biology. I love biology. I always have. Natural history, the functions of life, generation and decay, ecology all of it is delicious to me. I love learning about it, reading about it, thinking about it. But at some point during my formal education something happened that made me greatly dislike the discourse. That was the doctrinal methodolgies and pedagogies through which it is transmitted to children. I looked at the world, I listened to and read about the explanations but I always felt they were like fairytales, sort of pointings towards a lesson. Although my teachers maintained them as pathways to truth.
I guess being an apostate person I am always a bit suspicious of anyone who claims this is THE pathway to truth. I am certain there are many. In Dr Liptons talk, he shows how the metaphoric language of biology (along with a few errors in word choice along the way) have caused the entire scientific and lay community alike to accept something as true that in fact is fundementally flawed. That is that DNA is the brain, the core, the starting point of life.
He shows a great flow chart that I am all to familiar with that is used again and again to show that everything that happens in your cells starts from DNA.
the chart goes DNA-->RNA-->Protein--->activity.
and I always hated this chart because life is never ever ever ever linear. There is nothing about life the flows linearly. It is a series and cyclically positive and negative feedback cycles. DNA doesn't just start doing things all by it self. Have certain DNA doesn't cause cancer for example. It is merely correlated with cancer. This was the first major error in word choice. Cause and correlate DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING. DNA has to be turned on. Something my many teachers would say from time to time and then completely ignore. It struck me often that they would say it all starts with DNA, something turns on the DNA and then...uh...wait a second...you just said it starts with DNA and it starts with something before DNA....well which is it. And as we can both see it is the latter why aren't we talking about that "something."
Anyway, Dr Lipton gives a great explanation about why we must change our medical paradigm, we must shift our view of biology and the role of DNA. That not only is DNA not the source of life, but it is also not the cause of illness. Sure it is very strongly correlated with illness, but the truth is our beliefs about illness, our perceptions of our health our world, and the environments we foster for ourselves to live in are far more important than what is written in our code.
We should not be victims of our genes, but of our choices. We want scapegoats, but the truth is if you stop looking for scapegoats you can find the true power, happiness and strength in yourself to be the beautiful person that you are.
It is true you will have no one left to blame but your self when life gives you challenges you think you cannot overcome...but well if you blame no one for those challenges you will find you soon find the strength and resource to tackle any obstacle...in fact the obstacles will soon disappear.
Monday, May 18, 2009
ooooh soo exciting and interesting
I have a new great thing to talk about. I am so excited. I have to think about it first. But I will keep you posted, as soon as i finish thinking about it. But in the mean time, you should look up Bruce Lipton.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Categorical fear
"I am afraid of x out of 72 common fears"
Another recent FB thing to post about where you can play make believe that you have said something or written something novel without overworking your creativity muscles and pretend you aren't just showing your friends another postcard you bought at an overpriced gift shop at a tourist attraction that looked better on paper than in life...
But it peeked my interest. 72 things that people are afraid of...I wonder if I am people, so I had a read. But as I read down the list it occurred to me that I am not exactly categorically afraid of anything. For example, I am not afraid of heights. But there are times when I am in high places when I get the sudden feeling that I have left a bit of chocolate on the counter at home and that it would be wise to go and eat it, rather than be in this particular high place. But generally, i rather enjoy being high, especially when it involves jumping down or trees or rocks and that sort of thing.
Or sometimes when I am poking a dead thing with a stick and something comes crawling out in a fastish manner I think i wish I hadn't been poking that dead thing just then, and then have a nightmare about it. But I'm not afraid of fastish things, even in my food. I'll eat whatever, that doesn't scare me.
Or other times when I am in a car with strangers and it is becoming increasingly apparent that they didn't have "favourite things" in mind when they invited me into their car. And then I worry I will have to join a cult...sometimes maybe I am categorically afraid of joining cults. I really don't want to do that. I often face the reality that this stranger is taking me to church...again when i really just wanted to climb a tree or eat some bugs. But that doesn't stop me from getting into cars with strangers, or from talking to strangers on the bus, train, street, in the grocery store, at the library...where ever I happen to run into one.
And so I think that categorical fear is a silly and outdated way of experiencing the world. Haven't we learned yet that all of one category are always different? Haven't we learned the power of context and content? Hasn't it sunk in to our collective belief system that there isn't really any such thing as a category, as a general rule, that really we just want to experience or we are afraid to experience and that's silly...we don't need to be afraid to experience because the worst possible outcome is your experience will kill you, and death is nothing to be afraid of.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
You look just like your picture
I was thinking yesterday about synthetic experiences. About learning through movies, forming impressions through pictures, studying the sound of something. I was thinking about this way of talking we have. We say things like, "Oh, look at that sunset, it is just like a photograph" or "Listen to those birds, they sound like a symphony." It shows what? Is it a drive to reify the world of vital movement? A way to slow down the event of beauty. And why? Why this compulsion to capture little stones of beauty.
I recently took a picture of a sunset, and my friend looked at it and said, "oh, it looks just like a postcard." i thought that was a very funny thing to say, because I had thought it looked just like a sunset. But there you are.
Then there is another wonderful thing we do. When we see something real that we only had virtual knowledge of and we say, "oh it is just like the photograph." Which is equally silly, seeing as the photograph was of the thing...would it not be better to say, "the photograph fared well in capturing this. It did not lie."
But I suppose logic isn't so important to us. We don't seem to mind or even notice how illogical we can be.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
inadequacy and competition
Why do we automatically associate competition with feelings of inadequacy?
I was reading about yoga competitions. In the first breath of the story I thought, Oh that sounds dreadful. Yoga isn't about competing. But, now, several months removed from the reading I want to revisit that sentiment.
It was pretty knee jerk, extrapolating my experience with yoga and assumptions about competition, I came to the conclusion that the two were incompatible, that to compete at yoga would be to do gymnastics or some other activity. But, now I think that to compete at yoga is to take your practice to a different level.
I think we always conclude that there are only losers in competitions. That even the top spot is someone only a future loser as someone breaks their records etc. But this is really just an amazingly temporally distorted bit of logic. We neglect all the benefits of competition for the one downfall that it is a temporal (necessarily as it is a thing of humans and we are temporal) and thus surpassable.
This is silly. Who gets down on life for being temporal? Who says really "no one gets out alive" thus we shouldn't make any more babies? Who suggests that things are only going to change so what is the point of learning to live now?
Competition is an amazing motivator that drives humans to try, to do, and to succeed at things they had not even imagined. When I think of Donovan Bailey's 9.84s 100m race I imagine, he never imagined what it would be like to travel 100m by foot in 9.84 seconds. How could he? He could have some conjectures about it, but no true imagining of it. And this is the wonderful gift that competition gives to us. It drives us to try and to succeed at things that we can't imagine possible.
It is that spirit of testing boundries and limits or out doing and out witting others and ourselves that drives progress, innovation and I believe evolution (or it will soon).
Without someone to race I am sure I will never run a 10k. I just don't care enough about running (I also don't really like running for longer than 20minutes unless there are tacklings to break up the monotony). What is more, I think, what's the point? But who knows what I will think, how my world view will be effected after I complete a 10k run...
I was listening to someone talking about competition being something that we shouldn't really engage because it breeds feelings of inadequacy, ill-will towards others and general feelings of discontentment. He suggested that competition was not good for our souls, in particular, and should be refrained from especially during holy seasons. But I have decided that I wholeheartly disagree. That in fact during holy seasons may be the best times for competitions for those of strong religious conviction. Those are the times that god is closest and most available. And I feel that everytime we do something we never imagines we are with god in that moment.
this post doesn't really make sense anymore...hmm anyway competition...yeah...we need to break it from its false association with failure, inadequacy and discontentment. It brings us progress and that is what i wanted to say about that.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Something marvelous in Japan
I just had another marvelous morning, but I wanted to tell you about something marvelous. All winter I have marvelled at all the green deciduous trees. I thought, wow it is so warm here. In Canada all these leaves would have changed colour and fallen to the ground months ago. But there they were all winter keeping the trees green and beautiful.
Then for the past 3 weeks, or so, new everythings have been growing and many of the new leaves come in red, then change green after a couple of days. I thought it was marvelous how, in Japan, spring time is just like the fall. Except, instead of the leaves changing colour and dying, they are changing colour and then growing for a whole season. I thought it was very nice that the japanese get two autumn blazes a year. And thought about the implications of global warming in Canada, could we one day experience this too?
But then this morning I noticed that all the trees have turned red too. And their leaves are falling. It seems that instead of doing this in the autumn when it gets too cold in Canada, they do it in the spring when the tree is ready to put on a new coat.
Then for the past 3 weeks, or so, new everythings have been growing and many of the new leaves come in red, then change green after a couple of days. I thought it was marvelous how, in Japan, spring time is just like the fall. Except, instead of the leaves changing colour and dying, they are changing colour and then growing for a whole season. I thought it was very nice that the japanese get two autumn blazes a year. And thought about the implications of global warming in Canada, could we one day experience this too?
But then this morning I noticed that all the trees have turned red too. And their leaves are falling. It seems that instead of doing this in the autumn when it gets too cold in Canada, they do it in the spring when the tree is ready to put on a new coat.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Grapefruits are not a threat to society...
Well, I for one am relieved to know that grapefruit have been pardoned the onerous title "danger to society"...
It interests me that these fruit are called a threat because of their interaction with certain drugs that people take.
It has been shown that grapefruit will increase the stomach's digestive power, as a result pills taken orally will be broken down faster releasing higher doses of the drug they contain into the system. This release will supposedly happen at a higher rate as well. This can, of course, be hazardous, we all can imagine. Long gone are the days when we believed more is always better. (well maybe not long gone, most of us still believe more is better...well I do at least).
Anyway, it interests me that the fruit is called the threat and not the drug. Does something funny occur to you? It occurs to me. It's the fruit's fault that the drug doesn't work properly and therefore the fruit is a threat to society. But, why not say it's the drug's fault? I mean we have the power to change the drug to better suit the environments in which it is used. Why not say that pharmacologists who refuse to allow natural evolution of their products are a threat to society, for standing by products that don't suit the needs of users and endanger their lives...
There is this idea that all drugs work for all people and that people should change their lives to suit the drugs they are taking. But I think that is just wrong. Drugs are the ones that should change not us. And not fruit.
I don't like this growing culture of fear around food. We are training ourselves to believe food is dangerous, natural wholefoods are unpredictable and hazardous to our health regimes. That drugs are more important, and should thus be catered to, than a well-balanced fruit-filled diet.
I do think we should change our lives, many of us, but not to suit our drugs. We should change them to free us of the drugs we are on. To break our dependence on marijuana, on alcohol. To end our dependence on oral contraceptives, anti-cholesterol pills, caffeine shots and protein shakes. To bring down the culture of pain pill poppers and supplement takers.
Supplement yourself with whole and healthy foods, with good sleep, with invigorating exercise and engaging breathing. Depend on good friendships for highs and lows. Build up your self-esteem with positive thinking and self-affirming actions not gym memberships and powdered meals. Throw away your television. Just do it. And as for the culture of oral contraception. Learn how your body works and take responsibility for your actions. If you're having reckless one-night sex you should be using a condom anyway.
Just remember it is not the grapefruit that is the threat to society.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Nothing much
There isn't really anything on my mind. Just felt the blog was a little lonely. These days I am studying hard, playing outside all day from the moment I wake up until I have to fall down asleep. I am so excited for everything April has on tap. I hope my camera gets healthy again soon and even faster.
eep!
eep!
Friday, April 03, 2009
The benefits of planning a trip into space
The benefit of planning to take a trip into space is that it is a very expensive thing to do. If I wanted to go for a trip to the international space station right now I think it would cost $800,000. I don't really know...but I imagine that at some point I learned that was what a ticket costs. Well, it would take me, I think, about 20 years to save that much money (if I stop playing around in Asia and start doing the real money making work I have vaguely planned for my future childhood). So, I should get started.
But this is wonderful, because in 20 years it will only cost maybe $50,000 to go to the ISS, but I will have saved $800,000 so I will have lots of money for things I want to do. Or maybe, even though I thought I would only go to the ISS I will have enough to go to Mars or the Moon...or somewhere really cold like that.
But unfortunately, I don't think I will ever really save a lot of money, because I don't think I would like having a very high paying job. In monetary terms I don't consider anything I can do to be the kind of thing people should pay very much to have me do. And I don't like people paying more than they should for me to do things. And I would really rather climb to the top of every mountain on the planet (above and below sea level) before I would be very interested in going to the ISS. It sounds like a very expensive trip to the science centre without tesla coils and paper making activities...
But maybe I will pretend to be planning a trip to the ISS, just because it might cause an interesting conversation one day.
Happy Half Birthday
I especially love when my birthday is on a Friday, because it means my half birthday will also be a Friday. And I especially love Fridays when the "work" week started on Wednesday and that particular Friday is also my half birthday.
Sure, no one remembered, sent me a card or wrote me a song. I really don't mind. I woke up at the crack of...well shortly after the crack of dawn and my new lover was singing me a beautiful song. Something about a long sigh after three short peeps. Marvelous morning stuff. It was deliciously warm in my room, even though there was no heat on, meaning its spring spring spring into summer time!!
I jumped out of bed, my second favourite thing right after jumping into bed and jumping on the bed which are tied for first. I had some yummy brekkers, although there were no bananas. But I didn't let that interfere. I wrote a letter in japanese, but decided not to send it. Then, I cleaned my home and my soul and took a wicked trip to the gym. I ran 4.3kms in 5 minute splits. I registered for a marathon. Well a little marathon (10k is a lot to me though). Then sweated buckets with some lunges and squats and bridges.
I had a lovely lunch at work and then spent a few hours writing and daydreaming. Now I suppose I am teaching. Or I will be. I think i will pop out to the store and get cake to eat with my students.
Lovely!
Sure, no one remembered, sent me a card or wrote me a song. I really don't mind. I woke up at the crack of...well shortly after the crack of dawn and my new lover was singing me a beautiful song. Something about a long sigh after three short peeps. Marvelous morning stuff. It was deliciously warm in my room, even though there was no heat on, meaning its spring spring spring into summer time!!
I jumped out of bed, my second favourite thing right after jumping into bed and jumping on the bed which are tied for first. I had some yummy brekkers, although there were no bananas. But I didn't let that interfere. I wrote a letter in japanese, but decided not to send it. Then, I cleaned my home and my soul and took a wicked trip to the gym. I ran 4.3kms in 5 minute splits. I registered for a marathon. Well a little marathon (10k is a lot to me though). Then sweated buckets with some lunges and squats and bridges.
I had a lovely lunch at work and then spent a few hours writing and daydreaming. Now I suppose I am teaching. Or I will be. I think i will pop out to the store and get cake to eat with my students.
Lovely!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Practice never betrays you
So I am still mulling through this new information about the money system. I think it is very interesting. We are pretty mad and pretty upset, but I think it is unfair, and we shouldn't be. And I think this because of the fundamental nature of science and of evolution.
What does science have to do with greed or money or the crashing changing growing money system...maybe not very much. But I suspect that actually they have a great deal to do with each other. The pursuit of science, the pursuit of knowledge, like the pursuit of experience requires theories, requires experimentation, requires testing trying out and assessing predictions.
I want to believe that we are experimenting in capitalism, we are pursuing a science of monetary creation and accretion. That much like the Challenger or whatever space shuttle it was that blew up all those years ago, some experiments go very wrong, and at the cost of human lives...
I value life above all things (how can you not?), but I don't think that we should be afraid of loosing it. I see that this financial crisis is leading to suicides, murders, to cycles or depression and despair...because the experiment went wrong. We didn't use a good methodology and as a result missed important indicators that it was not a viable model. But I don't think that means we should follow the example set by the international space programs. It is a bad idea to stop pursuing the dream.
We are capable of doing a lot of things, and I know finding an effective wealth creation-distribution model is one of them (keeping in mind that this system isn't some kind of goal or destination but an ongoing experience). We shouldn't let the fear of extinction kill the process of evolution. Any process of evolution. We must work with that reality and with that goal...that extinction is a necessary part of life, in the same way that death is.
The world as I know it isn't fundamentally changing, because the world as I know it is one of fundamental change. There has never been a day in this life I haven't faced the challenge of change, and i wouldn't have it any other way. If you think the world doesn't change much or very quickly you are deluding yourself. Look at the evolution of the pre-frontal cortex. What is it about this memory storing part of our brains that it demanded the complete architectural overhaul of the human skull in the blink of evolutionary time?
It is very new that we have had the skills granted us by the PFC, we shouldn't be surprised that we aren't very good at using them, yet. So we should keep practicing. We should keep asking, testing, making and trying theories, we should keep on predicting and examining our predictions, because we will start getting it right more and more times...and then we will meet our antecessor...
What does science have to do with greed or money or the crashing changing growing money system...maybe not very much. But I suspect that actually they have a great deal to do with each other. The pursuit of science, the pursuit of knowledge, like the pursuit of experience requires theories, requires experimentation, requires testing trying out and assessing predictions.
I want to believe that we are experimenting in capitalism, we are pursuing a science of monetary creation and accretion. That much like the Challenger or whatever space shuttle it was that blew up all those years ago, some experiments go very wrong, and at the cost of human lives...
I value life above all things (how can you not?), but I don't think that we should be afraid of loosing it. I see that this financial crisis is leading to suicides, murders, to cycles or depression and despair...because the experiment went wrong. We didn't use a good methodology and as a result missed important indicators that it was not a viable model. But I don't think that means we should follow the example set by the international space programs. It is a bad idea to stop pursuing the dream.
We are capable of doing a lot of things, and I know finding an effective wealth creation-distribution model is one of them (keeping in mind that this system isn't some kind of goal or destination but an ongoing experience). We shouldn't let the fear of extinction kill the process of evolution. Any process of evolution. We must work with that reality and with that goal...that extinction is a necessary part of life, in the same way that death is.
The world as I know it isn't fundamentally changing, because the world as I know it is one of fundamental change. There has never been a day in this life I haven't faced the challenge of change, and i wouldn't have it any other way. If you think the world doesn't change much or very quickly you are deluding yourself. Look at the evolution of the pre-frontal cortex. What is it about this memory storing part of our brains that it demanded the complete architectural overhaul of the human skull in the blink of evolutionary time?
It is very new that we have had the skills granted us by the PFC, we shouldn't be surprised that we aren't very good at using them, yet. So we should keep practicing. We should keep asking, testing, making and trying theories, we should keep on predicting and examining our predictions, because we will start getting it right more and more times...and then we will meet our antecessor...
Friday, March 27, 2009
What is poverty?
I recently watched an interesting, oh what's the word for it, "special report" on the US housing industry and what many call the birth of the current "financial crisis". Now for some reason I am somewhat skeptical about the connection between the US housing crisis and the global financial "crisis." A skepticism that was further fuelled by this program, for, even though the show's thesis maintains that the housing bubble is what caused and catalysed financial crises around the world at the end of the show it shows that places like that Norwegian city that bought up badly rated CDOs didn't buy mortgaged backed CDOs...demontrating there is another very serious (maybe more serious) piece to this puzzle. Of course I don't really care about or understand money, so I can't suggest what it is...but I am interested in something Allen Greenspan had to say...
At the end of this program, titled House of Cards, Allan Greenspan suggests that it is human nature to be greedy and further that that nature, the drive for greedy, self-satisfaction, narcissistic endeavor, is what has brought millions out of poverty...
That sentiment hit me pretty hard. Like a slap in the face with a wet pickle by a rugby player named Laura Boghean. This idea that greed is what brings us out of poverty. If that is true, then I think we have unknowingly and fundementally redefined the word poverty. And I am sure this new definition won't stand.
The program goes a long way in demonstrating how we rethought what we meant by the "American Dream." An expression that once meant to prevail after years of struggle, toil, careful investment, pain-staking care and much sacrifice. In the program it is again and again used to mean having every material thing you always wanted...and having it before you are old enough to know what it is without sacrificing anything upfront (though we are all seeing there are big forced sacrifices in the long run).
So what do we mean by poverty? As Allen Greenspan uses the word, it can only mean not possessing much materially in the world. This is the same way President G.W Bush uses it. He sees only poverty as people not having as many lollipops as they want everyday. He sees it as people not owning homes, he sees not owning a home as the fundemental cause of every other social problem in America. This isn't poverty, is it? And if we believe this is poverty then we are the ones truly in poverty.
We are in a poverty of love, spirit, faith, knowledge or happiness. I can only imagine that living in a poverty of these 5 things is a truly sad and tragic thing that corrupts, denegrades and destroys our societies. I don't see how material poverty can cause these things without a greater poverty of the human needs. The only way material poverty can cause social corruption is if we believe that greed is what will bring us out of poverty. If we believe having things makes us happy, brings meaning into our lives... But this is the catch, if we believe and agree greed has this power it is because we live in a poverty of these 5 things.
If you have all the love, all the faith in life in your friends and family in everyday strangers, all the spirit and energy to pursue your life to experience use and generate happiness while people with pools and 6 gaming systems and two cars and machines that vacuum the house day and night might think you live in poverty in your 1 room apartment with mum and dad and 3 brothers but you wouldn't and shouldn't agree with them.
I guess that comes of living within my means. Of living temporarily. Of hoping in increments and preparing for things I want...rather than for taking things i want then having to work to pay for them. I agree that greed is one of the most effective eroding forces of western society. It is the vice over all vices that corrupts and destroys families, friendships, networks and the kinship of strangers. It works with great speed and greater effect than murder, sloth, lust, alcohalism or any vice you can conceive.
I am not trying to point us to some kind of social altruism, it has nothing to do with how we interect with each other, but how we live with ourselves. It has to do with learning how to appreciate and value at a greater level what we have, what we have worked for and things that we are willing to work for. We need to be willing to work for things.
I am sorry for the millions in the US and Canada citizens being thrown out of their homes. Not because they are being thrown out of their homes, but because they never had a chance to learn the value of what they had. They never learned how to be satisfied with what they work for. I am sorry for the people on wall street and the banks that went bankrupt in the way I feel sorry for soldiers with PTSD...I am sorry for people world wide loosing their manufacturing jobs, but I hope that they will find more meaningful ways to contribute to our society, rather than just making more stuff for us to want.
Greed is not the friend of poverty, but the enemy...greed doesn't bring us out of poverty; it drives us into it. But then what does Allen Greenspan know about anything anyway? His defense for why he is not guilty in allowing this problem, and in creating this problem, I didn't understand it...
At the end of this program, titled House of Cards, Allan Greenspan suggests that it is human nature to be greedy and further that that nature, the drive for greedy, self-satisfaction, narcissistic endeavor, is what has brought millions out of poverty...
That sentiment hit me pretty hard. Like a slap in the face with a wet pickle by a rugby player named Laura Boghean. This idea that greed is what brings us out of poverty. If that is true, then I think we have unknowingly and fundementally redefined the word poverty. And I am sure this new definition won't stand.
The program goes a long way in demonstrating how we rethought what we meant by the "American Dream." An expression that once meant to prevail after years of struggle, toil, careful investment, pain-staking care and much sacrifice. In the program it is again and again used to mean having every material thing you always wanted...and having it before you are old enough to know what it is without sacrificing anything upfront (though we are all seeing there are big forced sacrifices in the long run).
So what do we mean by poverty? As Allen Greenspan uses the word, it can only mean not possessing much materially in the world. This is the same way President G.W Bush uses it. He sees only poverty as people not having as many lollipops as they want everyday. He sees it as people not owning homes, he sees not owning a home as the fundemental cause of every other social problem in America. This isn't poverty, is it? And if we believe this is poverty then we are the ones truly in poverty.
We are in a poverty of love, spirit, faith, knowledge or happiness. I can only imagine that living in a poverty of these 5 things is a truly sad and tragic thing that corrupts, denegrades and destroys our societies. I don't see how material poverty can cause these things without a greater poverty of the human needs. The only way material poverty can cause social corruption is if we believe that greed is what will bring us out of poverty. If we believe having things makes us happy, brings meaning into our lives... But this is the catch, if we believe and agree greed has this power it is because we live in a poverty of these 5 things.
If you have all the love, all the faith in life in your friends and family in everyday strangers, all the spirit and energy to pursue your life to experience use and generate happiness while people with pools and 6 gaming systems and two cars and machines that vacuum the house day and night might think you live in poverty in your 1 room apartment with mum and dad and 3 brothers but you wouldn't and shouldn't agree with them.
I guess that comes of living within my means. Of living temporarily. Of hoping in increments and preparing for things I want...rather than for taking things i want then having to work to pay for them. I agree that greed is one of the most effective eroding forces of western society. It is the vice over all vices that corrupts and destroys families, friendships, networks and the kinship of strangers. It works with great speed and greater effect than murder, sloth, lust, alcohalism or any vice you can conceive.
I am not trying to point us to some kind of social altruism, it has nothing to do with how we interect with each other, but how we live with ourselves. It has to do with learning how to appreciate and value at a greater level what we have, what we have worked for and things that we are willing to work for. We need to be willing to work for things.
I am sorry for the millions in the US and Canada citizens being thrown out of their homes. Not because they are being thrown out of their homes, but because they never had a chance to learn the value of what they had. They never learned how to be satisfied with what they work for. I am sorry for the people on wall street and the banks that went bankrupt in the way I feel sorry for soldiers with PTSD...I am sorry for people world wide loosing their manufacturing jobs, but I hope that they will find more meaningful ways to contribute to our society, rather than just making more stuff for us to want.
Greed is not the friend of poverty, but the enemy...greed doesn't bring us out of poverty; it drives us into it. But then what does Allen Greenspan know about anything anyway? His defense for why he is not guilty in allowing this problem, and in creating this problem, I didn't understand it...
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Amazing life
I guess the weather just fills me with joy, but i don`t think i could have drempt up a better morning. Woke up with sun in my eyes around 715. It wasn't cold in my apartment so i could get out of bed and go pee without slippers a sweater and other warming agents. Birds were singing me love songs, inviting me to come and play so i went and did yoga in the park for an hour or so. I returned to have japanese breakfast provided by a students 98 year old great grandmother. And its only 10 to 9. I still have heaps of time for reading and writing before what maybe my most challenging day of teaching this year. 7-60 minute classes back to back.
I am excited to sleep like an angel tonite.
I am excited to sleep like an angel tonite.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
