What is it about music?

I sit here right now with a Gottschalk piano piece playing.  He is new to me, and a delightful find, with a unique voice, as is the case with most good composers.

(I must say I had heard the name before but had not associated it with anything in particular).

His music is uplifting, enthusiastic, obviously very difficult, and I am delighted.  I will listen to it until it gets boring and then go out and find more.  That is a problem with me -- if I like something I tend to overdo it.

What is it?  How is it this noise lifts my spirits so much?  How is it other great music relaxes me or even better puts me into a quietude and spiritual mood, such that I don't want it to ever end?

Some of it is no doubt cultural -- we like what we know and are use to -- I have difficulty with the music of non-Western cultures, and mostly think it trite or repulsive.  I have a similar view with most popular Western music, mainly because of its crassness and triteness and lack of any effort at subtlety or more than superficial beauty.

(Not all of it -- as with most matters of taste there are a lot of exceptions).

Still, as a kid I liked certain compositions the first I heard them, and remember going to the library and putting on the earphones to hear them over and over.  So I have to think there is something inherent.

The thing is we don't hear music, we experience it (if we are really listening).  It has effects on us that go beyond anything physical or brainy.  It is entirely of the mind; the brain gives the sound qualia to the mind and the mind is moved by it and enjoys it and is hooked on it.  It has to be seen as part of the great mystery of sentience.

The same thing of course applies to all those things we call art.

Atheism

There are several kinds of definition of what an atheist is, used by different groups to give them a debating advantage.

Probably the worst is that atheism is a religion of no God.  That is as far as I can tell absurd.  Religion, except for a couple of them originating in India, is all about gods, and these two (that I know of that don't have gods or at least don't assert them) are religions on their own -- not a "religion" of atheism.

No.  Atheism is not even a belief to most people, but just an opinion, albeit usually a strongly held opinion.  The way I would put it is that I am as sure that there is no God as I can be sure of anything, the world being such that one is never absolutely sure about anything.

Of course those who are truly on the fence, who doubt there is a God but have strong doubts about that doubt, who are usually called agnostics.  There is an important distinction here.  The agnostic is on the fence; the atheist may admit a remote possibility but is pretty damn sure.  The atheist only sees the fence but is nowhere near it.

There is a sense in which agnostics could be classed as a type of atheist, if one defines atheism as "no God" since the usual off-the-cuff definition is one who does not believe in God, and the agnostic does not believe -- he or she is just more unsure than the more typical atheist.

Back to the really bad definition of atheism as a religion.  The reason religionists like that definition is then they can say it is just a belief, like other beliefs, and one is not more valid than another -- we just choose.  The thing is these people believe because they want to believe, and maybe even cannot imagine not believing, generally because they were taught to believe in childhood and hence are fully indoctrinated (religions like to get the children before the children are mature enough to think for themselves and with full rationality).

The atheist on the other hand takes the view that although one cannot prove a negative, if one wants to assert something important one must have proof, or at least lots and lots of evidence.  It then becomes a matter of looking at the evidence present that God exists and coming to the conclusion that it is all wishful thinking and doesn't hold any water at all and that there is really no persuasive or even slightly convincing evidence.  The heavens do not declare the glory of God, nor does nature.  There are no asterisms spelling out the Tetragrammaton.

Absence of evidence in favor of an important assertion logically requires a negative conclusion.  An honest person does not accept things because one likes them or because one wants to or because one wants to go to Heaven or because one's parents and culture believes it.  The only honest way to think something is true is because one is persuaded by an honest investigation of the arguments (not just reading theist stuff).

Would you believe it, so far I have not tried to define "God," usually the first question in this sort of discussion.  There is God and there are gods.  To me the former has to be, to be God, omni- various things, such as omnipotent and omniscient.  Omnipresent or omnibenificient would count but aren't necessary.  Even a transcendent, spiritual being would be something like an angel or superman, not God.

This leads to the self-referential contradictions we have known about since the Middle Ages, having to do with whether or not God can make a rock so big he can't move it or whether or not we can really have free will, and not just an illusion, if God knows all the future (these are two different issues and theists have differing approaches, but I want to keep this fairly simple).

The way the theist tends to deal with this sort of thing is simply by saying that God can do anything except something impossible for God to do.  Think about that for a minute.  That has got to be one of the great cop-outs of all time.  Besides, I can do anything except something impossible for me to do, so am I God?  No.

What the theists do to get around their logical contradictions is to make God into a god.  Zeus can do a lot of things too, but not those things he can't do.

Why I don't like the legal profession

Lawyers are neither more nor less likeable, I suppose on average, than anyone else.  This is not personal.

When I was in high school, being outspoken, loquacious, and opinionated, I was many times told I should be a lawyer or even that I might make a good lawyer.  At the time I would shudder and stay silent -- I had already formed my opinion of the profession.

If someone is smart and goes to college, one is presented with a number of possible career choices.  One can become a teacher if one is idealistic and likes children and is not too much worried about making a lot of money.  Or one can become a doctor if, again, one is idealistic and perhaps fascinated by blood and gore, but at the same time wants to be affluent.  Or one can become an architect or artist or musician if one is into beauty and would like to be well off but is more interested in appreciation and even fame.  Of course if one is nerdy or likes mathematics, one can go into computers or engineering or science.

There are, then, many choices.  The ones who go into law are a little different.  They too are smart, but not idealistic and very much interested in money.  The other group who also fit this are of course those who go into business schools.

The similarities between the two groups are considerable.  The thing I want to bring out though is they both have a certain tendency to rationalize unethical behavior, so long as there is a good chance they will get away with it.  Of course I am sure there are exceptions to this, but the exceptions are not typical.

People self-select and lawyers are people with this personality trait.  Their training makes it even worse.  Under the rationalization that even the worst criminal is entitled to good legal representation at trial, they confuse juries and distort evidence and in the end the most competent of them help celebrities get away with murder.

So also, and even worse, is the tort bar, where the lawyer creates and seeks out litigation, slowing the economy and increasing costs for everyone not winning the tort lottery.  The rationalization is fair compensation to those injured, but that lawyers and litigation can be done without is demonstrated by worker's compensation systems and other similar experiments -- but the lawyers in the legislature prevent such arrangements from being put into place for most litigation.

The end result, especially in the United States, is a country bursting at the seams with lawyers making comfortable and in some cases outrageous amounts of money off litigation and the threat of litigation, generating in my view a general decline of the country (it would be more noticeable except lawyers elsewhere do similar things) and a lower standard of living for the population, and, in many cases, especially medical care, a level of expense that makes not having insurance an insane proposition, as insurance premiums go higher and higher.
  

Science or hermeneutics?

Science is doing things to see what you find, sometimes guided by observations and ideas, but never opinions or beliefs.  When one is instead doing experiments with the intent of proving something you already believe, you are engaging in a form of hermeneutics.   It becomes religion not science, which is of course why these chaps tend to always find what they are looking for, but others don't.

What hermeneutics does is also known as "cherry picking."  One researches everything -- mainly the pertinent literature but often does one's own observing and experimenting -- and then picks out those things that support one's view and either ignores or rationalizes (when it is not possible to ignore it as it is either common knowledge or publicly pointed out) those things one can't ignore.

Space elevators -- future speculation

As I understand it there are two problems with the idea of having space stations in geosynchronous orbit tethered to the earth with a real physical line, to which can be attached an elevator, or that itself serves as one.

The first problem is a cable material of sufficient strength to do this.  This is a pretty obvious problem and may not be doable, in which case the subject is closed.  I think probably it is doable in the near future.

The other problem is the radiation exposure people riding such an elevator would suffer.  In a rocket the exposure is a few seconds; on such an elevator it might be hours.  (The earth is surrounded by radiation belts of deadly stuff -- out in geosynchronous orbit the radiation problem is manageable, but closer in it could be a killer).

Of course shielding would be needed, without adding too much weight, I suppose.

Now imagine what might be possible out there with almost unlimited room for anything.  Huge multi-billion-people cities, self-sustaining for the most part, utilizing solar energy and providing each inhabitant lots of living space.  Gravity would be from rotating the cities, one living near the rim, but with trips to the hub for zero-gravity activities available.  Kinda like a huge luxury liner in the end, but with enough people to make a rich and varied culture work.

I can see problems getting the raw materials necessary -- we have already exploited earth quite a bit, although much remains -- but probably other objects would be mined. 

I think in spite of my perception of the present world as fundamentally corrupt, it will progress to a much better, even glorious, future, in spite of this.  I guess I'm an optimist.

Trying to fix representative democracy

Yesterday, in the context of how copyright laws have come to be so absurd and hurt the public and defeat the reason they exist, I made a strong attack on the distortions money and press access have on the legislative procedure, to the effect that I have abandoned hope in democracy.

This is largely true, except as Churchill once noted, it is hard to come up with a viable alternative that doesn't risk dictatorship (not that democracies don't generally evolved into dictatorships too, or at least societies where people have little freedom).

Several things.  First, the legal profession has to be prevented from controlling things.  Lawyers are generally disliked everywhere for good reason, although there are good lawyers, there are an awful lot who do much more harm than good, but that is for another blog.

The issue here is that they tend to, as a profession, dominate legislative processes, and their solution to everything is to complicate the law.  Society ends up with more and more regulation and regulators and bureaucrats and litigation and in the end vast amounts of corruption needed to function at all.

They also of course routinely act in their personal interest, so we have laws about things like "practicing law without a license" and an utter inability of legislatures to get litigation under any reasonable control.

So the first thing I think needs doing is to ban any member of the legal profession from politics, or anyone who has been in the past.

Another thing is pork.  One approach might be to let the executive make the budget and the legislature either approve or disapprove, up or down, with no amendments.  A lot of pork can be dealt with by having at-large representation in the legislature, with staggered terms.

That still doesn't eliminate it as the executive will have to make compromises in order to get the budget passed, and the executive itself will probably have its own bits of corruption.  (Yes pork is corruption -- we need to recognize it for what it is.)  This also seems putting a lot of power in the executive's hands, so institutional checks here need to be thought up.

Of course largely the root of the problem is the voter.  They vote for all sorts of silly reasons, although more often in their selfish interest or based on the position of the candidate on a limited range of issues.  So candidates lie or take bad positions just to get elected.  Or, even worse, ideologues get elected, and some really stupid people who don't understand the real world and function from within an ideology or even a religion.

The thing is the voter has little choice.  He or she only can assess the candidate by the campaign and what and how they say things, and this is so easily manipulated.  Negative campaign adds, for example, have been shown to be effective over and over, when in fact it should drive voters into the camp of the person being attacked.

A much more limited voter roll seems needed -- one where stability and education and reasonableness and so on are considered when one applies for the franchise.  Of course such things inevitably get used to keep groups, such as racial minorities, from having a say, so it would have to be much more complicated than just a board reviewing applications and more automated.

Then the voters are a small number who can get to know the candidate personally and who know what is going on.

I suspect my views are just too radical for most people, and smack of Platonic ideas and of course of Leninism, although there are differences.  One thing is I would have the whole thing non-partisan and eliminate political parties (which have the effect of turning elections into sporting events).

Of course no system is perfect, and all can be criticized, but it seems to me we are so badly governed nowadays in most countries that something pretty radical needs to be done.





 

Assessing scientific studies

How does one deal with a "scientific study" that contradicts what you know or that seems improbable or that supports ideas that are usually rejected as pseudo-science?

The fact is a lot of "studies" aren't really and are either outright lies or contrived to "prove" what people want to prove.  The ordinary person is not really able to assess such things, since even "peer reviewed" is more and more becoming meaningless (except for of course certain publications, but getting them and reading the original article is not terribly useful for all the jargon).

Generally even these reputable studies get misused and misinterpreted by both marketers and the press.

So what to do?  I don't really know, except be aware and as informed as possible and generally follow what the scientific consensus seems to be.

Copyright laws

An example of how special interests dominate political bodies to get what it wants are the insane copyright laws all over the place.

The idea of copyright of course is to reward those who write or produce things people want, so the laws should be designed to optimize that, not optimize income to the ultimate owners of copyright.  It is well known that things are written and produced even if copying is rampant, but still fairness says the authors and so on should get some money from copies for awhile.

One of the bad things that happens is that copyright owners are allowed to absolutely prevent the use of their characters and ideas in other places -- something just begging for litigation -- but, that aside, it has the perverse effect of denying the public things that would otherwise be produced -- thereby defeating its own purposes.  An example are wonderful books where the rights are inherited by a strange relative of the author who subsequently locks it up.

Instead, the rule should be simple -- you can't use copyright to deny others the right to use your ideas, nor to keep your own product off the market for whatever reason -- you are entitled to reasonable royalties when this happens, for a few years (not the fifty plus we see nowadays) and that is it.

One must distinguish copyright infringement from plagiarism.  The author of something is entitled to mention whenever the work is used, forever, and must be given credit.  Using someone else's work as your own is dishonest and corrupt.  This however is a moral rather than a legal issue -- the state needs, or at least should need, since the US Constitution is obsolete in its provisions here, compelling reason to restrict press and speech freedom.  But only for a reasonable time should one have to pay for it, and then only a reasonable amount (legislatures need to provide details).

Another thing -- I find it astonishing that pornography is subject to copyright.  I suppose the problem is defining it, but I would say the finding that the work is prurient only and of no other value should be a sufficient defense with copyright infringement.  This stuff will appear regardless and does not need legal protection. 

Of course no doubt this would mean you would have Mickey Mouse in all sorts of things the Disney Company doesn't like (actually it happens anyway and the character is not all that valuable outside his native habitat).  So what?  The public loses and only Disney Company gains with the present restrictions.

The thing is in a politically elected body, the commercial press, and movies studios in particular, tend to get what they want.  Not only do they have plenty of money to spend in various ways to influence legislators, but they can also defeat even an incumbent in the ways they report about them, and so on.  It always amazed me how two such politically different institutions, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal seem to have the same editorial views on this one.

My conclusion, and this is just one reason, is that elective democracy just doesn't work as the propaganda would have us think.   Such bodies are corrupt in all sorts of subtle ways without taking bribes.

Where is Mozart?

One of the problems I perceive with traditional Buddhist (and Hindu) rebirth (mislabeled "reincarnation") teaching is where is Mozart?  He should have been reborn several times now.

The thing is his voice is unique.  From earliest age his compositions are recognizable as his.  This is true of many composers and artists and writers, but Mozart makes the best example.

So why haven't there been several Mozart's in history?  Is all of that lost in the rebirth process -- if so what is the point? 

All sorts of rationalizations are possible, of course, but wouldn't it be nice if there were at least one clear example of the rebirth of an identifiable talent? 

Vietnam retirement

Should you retire in Vietnam?

It is not as scary as it sounds.  The country has been stable and getting more and more open for forty years now and shows every sign of stability.  Only China now is a fly in the ointment and trouble with them is unlikely in spite of what you hear.

Still, for most people, I would say, no.

The main reason is that the government does not seem to understand the value to the economy this could represent, and many of the police and other government officials see pensioners as "parasites" (even though they pay their own way and bring money into the economy).

Hence one cannot buy property and must pay rent, losing any capital gains as the rent money goes down the drain.  Of course one might buy the property in a native Vietnamese name and sign with them a long-term lease:  I am not sure if that would be effective.  I have to say though that what you get is worth the rent.  You can get a six bedroom modern place with real luxuries for half the rent you pay in a US city for a piece of junk.

The biggest problem though is a constant financial drain and risk involved with maintaining a good and current visa.  You even have to leave the country every now and then and apply while overseas, and it isn't anywhere near as cheap as the official fees -- you can't do it yourself and have to hire others.

Other than that Vietnam is a retirement paradise.  The beaches and mountains and shopping and culture and food (both Vietnamese and pretty much anything else) are all optimal.

It is not as inexpensive as it once was -- the local currency is, it seems, steadily devalued, and prices do go up steadily.  Still it is one of the least expensive countries around.  The other thing is the culture puts a high prestige tag on those who help the elderly -- it is not the low-class job as seen in the States -- so people who want to do it are around, in particular if one has medical or locomotion problems.

As to health care, I am of the firm opinion that what is available in the States is much worse than what is available in Vietnam for a fifth or less the cost.  You do have to pay for health care up front, but it is affordable, even serious things -- and they have modern facilities and well-trained doctors.  The thing is the doctors are not afraid of law suits and insurance companies and so on and so do what they think (and you think) is best for you, so long as it is evidence based.

With the exception of a few really dangerous or habit-forming drugs, you don't really need a prescription for most things, which makes the process much cheaper.  Pharmacists there are able to hear you out on symptoms and recommend things, or recommend going to a clinic or hospital.  For minor and moderate problems, in other words, one does not need to see a doctor.

Much the same applies to dentistry.  Good work (as confirmed by my US dentist) at a fraction of the cost.  Work (major bridges and root canals all over my mouth) that was quoted to me in the States at $40,000 cost me a little less than $1,000.  It is really nice to have a full set of teeth again, and I could afford it.

Still, you have to remember that it is a third-world country.  Actually more "second" world -- it has made major progress.  It is also much safer than almost anywhere else in the world, at least as regards crime (not as regards traffic).  It has excellent airports and some cities are cool and others beach paradises, and even HCMC (formerly Saigon) has neighborhoods that are wonderful (although traffic is difficult and a car would not be advisable -- but cabs are not expensive -- fifteen dollars for one end of the city to the other -- it is a very large city).

Oh -- and almost everyone under a certain age who is educated speaks English and Vietnamese uses a Roman alphabet so one does not get lost the way one does in China or Korea or Japan or Thailand.

Eternal life

I read an item in one of the scientific web sites to the effect living forever is impossible.  The basis was a survey of the age of death of the very oldest, and while lifetimes have been getting longer, this maximum age has not.  Therefore no matter how good medical care and so on get, there is a maximum age.

While I agree living forever is impossible, this evidence draws the wrong conclusion.  We age for some unknown complex of reasons, but each species seems to have a different and evolving maximum age, and there is no reason for that not to apply to us.  There are biological reasons we age and die, and each species reflects these in accordance to its lifestyle and the normal age of death from disease or predation.  That humans overcome these would remove the biological reason for aging and dying, and we would expect maximum lifetimes to slowly increase -- but on evolutionary terms this would require thousands or millions of years, not the short time of the observations.

The important thing here is that the fact that maximum age varies from species to species tells us it is not inherent but evolved, and that therefore there ought to be ways to interfere with it.  

The reason living forever is impossible is simple -- one may never die but at the same time one has never reached infinite age.  One may be a million or billion or gazillion years old, but never infinite.

One day the earth will become uninhabitable, a little later the solar system.  Humans will of course know it is coming and we presume will have the ability to go elsewhere.  Even orbiting a red dwarf, long-lived as they are, would someday have to come to an end.

There is reason to think, though, that space-time has unlimited low-entropy energy available -- this is after all how our present universe got its energy.  Just separate the positive and the negative keeping the total at zero.  So humanity could go on.

Back to nearer to us in time, what might a society where there is no aging and presumably very few if any deaths (technology would also steadily improve safety) be like?  One can imagine frightening scenarios -- say a Stalin was in power and would live on and on -- and other messes, but one can also imagine things being pretty nice.  Remove death and you also remove a lot of human angst.

Don't worry about overpopulation.  That particular worry is trivial.  If it came to it children would stop happening, but I think more likely humanity would expand.  It's a big universe.

What is philosophy for?

As a look at my blogs shows, I'm interested in amateurish philosophizing.  The pros seem to mostly do nothing but talk about what philosophers in the canon said or didn't say, so I call what I do amateurish.  I actually think about real answers.

(I do however recommend knowing at least what a few important philosophers had to say -- keeps one from re-inventing the wheel).

By the way, I do wonder how some people, like Nietzsche or Marx or Hegel or Sartre or Ayn Rand, got into the canon.  Their ideas don't hold water, and all philosophers seem to do nowadays, is refute them.  They were maybe just good, albeit arrogant, writers, and of course Marx and Hegel are significant politically, but not as far as I can see as philosophers.

But one doesn't do things like philosophy just to be right, since these are questions one never can be sure of.  No the fact is I do it because it's fun.  Thinking about it though, maybe one way into the cannon is to be sure one is right -- it's like a religion then and one gets disciples whom others have to set straight.  Those less arrogant don't make it.

No, what philosophy is really for, is happiness.  It provides ways to see the world in less gloomy ways -- except of course if you enjoy being gloomy, since it provides that too.  One can learn to accept or maybe not care about or maybe see and avoid the two-by-fours life sometimes hits you on the head with.

Ethics is an example, and maybe the first branch of real philosophy (rather than religion or philosophy that became science).  We all want to do what is right (I would hope), and doing what is right is satisfying and provides even joy.  But that assumes we know what is right, which in turn implies there is such a thing.

Analogy to aesthetics is hard to avoid, so let us analogize.  We all want what is beautiful but we don't really know how to say what is beautiful or whether or not beauty really exists -- except in the head -- we know it exists in our heads.  Beautiful things give us joy (do they ever) but we don't know why or what it is.  All we can say for sure is that beauty changes from person to person as well as over time and from culture to culture.

Does right and wrong behave similarly?  If we say it does then the whole exercise of doing what is right becomes a farce.  Right and wrong behavior affect others and affect the world -- we can be destructive or constructive.  Now making beauty is the right thing to do, no doubt, but appreciating it is personal.  Doing right is not.  What we do and don't do have consequences far beyond what we like and don't like.

It might be that what is beautiful is not so variable as I think but exists in an absolute way, inferred from fundamental principles, but I doubt that very much.  On the other hand I am forced to think that is the case with good and evil.  What is evil, at least, can be reasoned out from principles, such as more sophisticated versions of the Golden Rule (the actual rule as we have it is easy to criticize, but the criticisms can be handled with rephrasing).  Kant I think did a decent job of that.

The point is that the views of people (derived from their culture and personality), even majorities and universals, about ethics, are historical and personality accidents, to be disregarded (maybe evidence as to what is bad but not as proof).  That is why the common test of an ethical rule, namely to think of a scenario where the rule when applied to the scenario has results we think violate our conscience, is not a valid test.

So when I do ethics I do philosophy in trying to deduce right and wrong using what I suppose is another branch of philosophy, logic and reasoning.  In the end I do this in order to be happy and to have fun working it out.  Kinda funny if you have that sort of sense of humor.  It's not as funny though as trying to work out the nature of existence or whether non-existence could exist, or how we might know or not know something.

Hamas lobbing its missiles

Maybe somebody will tell me why on earth Hamas persists in lobbing missiles into Israel when they achieve nothing except occasionally kill a toddler.  Israel will never stop what it's doing, and the rest of the world will not apply enough pressure to Israel to stop, so long as this is going on.  Hamas should know by now it achieves nothing, so why not try a different tactic?

As things are, Israel knows and gets daily proof, that if they let up they are to be destroyed.  So Hamas has condemned and continues to condemn Gaza and maybe all the Palestinians to miserable hovel lives of poverty and deprivation and danger.  Is this what they want?  Sheesh!  Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. 

Putting my nose even deeper in the abortion issue

The west is I think burdened by the idea of sin -- that any deviation from what is right is equally wrong with every other deviation.  That this is nonsense is even revealed by the penances handed out by priests at confession -- minor sins require minor penances.

As I posted earlier, is an abortion wrong?  I don't think so, but the issue comes up of late term abortions.  By then, by traditional Buddhist thinking, the fetus is inhabited by a human spirit, but it is still pretty plain that the fetus is not sentient, at least to any important extent.  That spirit will just have to deal with it and find another host.

So there is still no rational way to say it is wrong.  I would say, however, that these abortions, being more dangerous to the mother, are to be avoided if possible by doing the procedure earlier in the term.  Also legal regulation for medical standards would I think be more in order. 

Because something is not immoral doesn't mean the state may not have an interest in regulating it.  The two are different questions entirely and should not be conflated.

Vietnam driving

Most people in Vietnam get around on motorbikes or motorcycles and similar things.  Foreigners are well advised to stick to taxis, and at the airport go with the authorities there who will put you into a cab rather than taking a freelancer.  Elsewhere, call the cab, don't hail it.

If one is traveling by road between cities, a car or van is recommended.  The dangers of going by motorbike are obvious enough.  Vietnamese roads are not up to U.S. standards, as one would expect, and seem to be continually under construction and in many places are jammed with trucks (the economy is growing much faster than the road system).  One also has to keep a close watch for insane bus drivers.

Going by sleeper-bus if one is going a good distance is an experience only for the young (I'm 71 and manage to survive, but I think maybe I'm a little different and I have help).  Bring blinders and either earplugs or a way to block the noise with earphones.  Be prepared to take off your shoes and to relieve your bladder alongside the road.  A couple small pillows will also help.  Be sure you are on an "express."

I mentioned insane bus drivers.  Once on a two lane mountain pass alongside the ocean (a several hundred meter drop to the beach) I am passed to my left by a truck and to my right by a honking bus (on the shoulder).  Well a car comes around the curve so the truck has to get over and the shoulder ends so the bus has to get over, and I'm stuck between them.  Somehow it happened but I sat there for awhile putting my thoughts together.

Judgmentalism strikes twice -- obeisity and grammar

Well I'm working on disagreements -- some pretty strong -- with two of my positions -- that we don't really control our weight no matter how much will power we have and that English grammar rules should for the most part be gotten away with.

Interesting but what I see in both cases is a symptom of the same disease -- judgmentalism, and in both cases doing harm.

I remember my mom when I was a kid after some relatives had left, remarking about one of them who was fat -- she said, "She tells me she has a hormone problem, but I don't believe it -- she just eats too much and is lazy."

That's judgmentalism and bigotry -- you look at someone, they are fat, ergo they stuff themselves all the time and are lazy.  Clearly overweight people are discriminated against in society in many ways, and it is just as bad as discriminating against someone because they are short or very tall.  Besides what they eat and whether or not they are lazy may be marginally relevant to what they are as a person, but probably not.

The other problem is the condemning people do of others who don't speak English according to the rule book.  The purpose of a language is communication.  Therefore if you successfully communicate with a minimum of effort from the reader or hearer, you are fine, and it is only when you are not understood or are ambiguous and could be misunderstood is it that you have made a mistake.

Rules are not even needed to avoid ambiguity.  Then you don't use rules to correct it but attack the ambiguity directly.

There are however two other reasons to know and follow the rules.  First is that often they are esthetically more pleasing to the reader.  It is much more pleasant to read well constructed paragraphs filled with complete sentences and well punctuated than it is to read other stuff.

The other thing is, right or not, there are those who will make prejudicial judgments about your writing or maybe dismiss or not pay attention to what you say because of the grammatical distraction.

This last is for our own behavior.  We need to train ourselves to not get upset or anything when others make "mistakes."  One may recall that revulsion is the second cause of our personal unhappiness, and this is a revulsion.

Judgmentalism is negativity.  When we think bad of someone we harm ourselves by having ugly thoughts.

How do we know if something is right or wrong?

Yesterday the post about abortion pointed out that there is nothing immoral about a pregnant woman getting an abortion.  How can we know?  How do we know if anything is right or wrong?

The usual ways, such as how we feel about it, or what we've been taught by our religion, or what is legal, or what our conscience says, or what is traditional, while they all usually get it right and should therefore be thought about, in the end just do not work.  I don't know that it's necessary for me to go into all that -- they just don't work.  We need to have a rational basis for saying something is wrong, immoral.

Of course anything that happens has both right and wrong about it.  A volcano killing people is wrong, a volcano letting off pressure and fertilizing the soil and building land is doing right.  A lion killing its prey brutally and causing it a suffering, fearful death is doing wrong, a lion culling the herd and keeping it from ruining the environment and so on is doing right.

We don't make moral judgments in such situations because we argue doing good or causing suffering are not at issue -- volcanoes and lions cannot make right and wrong assessments and hence are not held to account.

Actually the same applies to people.  We may think we make our own decisions, but this is rarely really the case.  Most people act automatically according to instincts and personality and other factors and never really make a moral decision, although they could and in many cases where the decision is truly difficult they are forced to.

Therefore we can judge what others do no more than we can judge a volcano or a lion.  We don't know that they have actually made a conscious decision to be immoral, and if we think about it we know that is unlikely (although of course definitely possible).  We don't know the whole story and therefore cannot judge.

But we can judge ourselves.

Most of the time, presented with a moral question (a real one, not a hypothetical), we can see pluses and minus and have to decide whether the good outweighs the bad.  It turns out that some things are more wrong than others, even though both are wrong.  It depends on the suffering and harm we cause.  Lying to the Gestapo strikes me as harming the Gestapo, but almost certainly by making their job more difficult, and so is the thing to do, and rationally in that case telling the truth is morally wrong.

Of course this is a simple, if not simplistic, theory of ethics, but it has something to say for it that the traditional ethics don't have -- it is rational.  Do the good aspects outweigh the bad?  Most of the hypothetical situations people use to object to this depend on our gut feeling or one of the traditional tests to raise questions.  I think that is the wrong way to proceed.  That we don't like an outcome is not a rational basis for a decision.

There are however a couple of serious problems with it.  The first is the ability we have to fool ourselves and rationalize the goods as exceeding the harms when in fact this is not so.  The other is how do we know we have all the facts when in fact we know we surely don't?  Ain't easy, but if one is serious about being an ethical person the effort must be made and a decision must be reached.

Sticking my nose in the abortion debate

My "official" view use to be that abortions are morally wrong but not a serious enough "sin" to cause one much harm (karmically speaking if one thinks that way) except late term, and that the practical problems trying to make them illegal, along with the worse harms this can cause, is enough to say that the government should not involve itself.  For the most part government should not involve itself in personal moral decisions absent damn good reason to do so and then only if making the act illegal doesn't itself cause harm.  Abortion fails on both points.

I have changed my mind.  I no longer think an abortion immoral.  There is no logical basis for such a conclusion that bears scrutiny.  To be sure sentient beings must be accorded all possible compassion, but that does not go so far as to say one should never eat meat, and, besides, a fetus is barely if at all sentient.  A human being does not become sentient for quite a while even after birth.

Of course this opens one up to the question of whether infanticide should be legal, and for the most part, with a few exceptions, the answer has to be no, for the legal issue of defining murder, not for moral reasons.

Pregnant women who, for whatever reason, do not want the child are under no moral obligation, in my view, to carry it, and should not be told otherwise.  Part of the psychological harm done to girls who do have abortions are people's judgmentalism, which is misplaced and harmful.

In fact, I think girls having abortions, if they are to receive counseling, should not be to try to change their minds.  Such things should be illegal and open the person doing them to tort liability.  Instead, any counseling should be to the effect that it is not immoral, along with perhaps some training in contraception techniques.

Mistakes in my grammar

I was reading the comments on a web story and in one the person posting the post used the word "ain't."  The next post criticized that -- to the effect of learn good English.

Now we all know that "ain't" is tabu to some, although those who make a deal of it are only showing their own ignorance, as the word has excellent credentials in the language for several hundred years.

Still, nowadays it is usually used only for humor or for special attention, no doubt as a result of the complaints of blue-noses.

I make a lot of "mistakes" in my own posts, and usually they are on purpose.  "I is happy with that" says things that "I am happy with that" can't, depending on context.  However, it is probably best most of the time to stick with convention -- there are judgmental people out there who just do not understand because of their eagerness to condemn.  It irritates me that this is necessary because some people have such tight asses.

I think of such errors as the equivalent of musical discords.  They hit the ear as wrong, but sometimes wrong is good.

Still, some errors, while they should be ignored when others make them, should be watched for in one's own writing.  Pronoun disagreement is trivial, but using "it's" for "its" or "effect" for "affect" and other often-confused spellings is that sort of error.

One final thing -- one of the beauties of English and other agglutinative languages (English is not really "agglutinative," but it does have some of the characteristics -- the ability to build words with prefixes and suffixes) is that this means we can coin words even when alternative words are already in the dictionary, and when the dictionary lacks the word wanted, we especially should do so.  Packaging a lot of meaning into a single word is sometimes much, much better than some dependent clause or whatever.

Causes of unhappiness

It is widely thought that a core Buddhist insight is that our desires cause our unhappiness.  This is because nothing is permanent, so we are either frustrated by our inability to satisfy our desires or, if they are satisfied, by our inability to keep them satisfied.

Desires, or "clinging," is actually one one of three things Buddhism defines as causing unhappiness.  The other two are revulsion and delusion.  A revulsion is a negative desire -- something we want to avoid, like a stinky outdoor toilet or a bee sting or growing old and seeing death ahead.  Yea, they do cause unhappiness.

But it's that third one -- delusion -- that is the real hard one to deal with.  It is not something we can deal with meditating or adapting or disengaging.  It comes on us -- a mental illness is mainly it -- being unable to see any hope in the world, being convinced one is possessed by demons, being convinced we are being persecuted, hearing voices that tell us to do horrible things.

Mainly it is the diseases of depression and of schizophrenia.  They put us out of touch with reality and remove our ability to understand this -- that last part is what makes them so intractable.  Nowadays medications that can help (and generally do) are available and people should not discourage them or be afraid of them, as long as professional advice (not just an ordinary doctor, who may be as prejudiced on the subject as many people) is where the drugs come from.

Recognizing the delusion for what it is, is not usually going to happen, but it should be tried and tried again and again.  "This too will pass" applies mainly to depressives who have the condition on an intermittent basis, who have to learn to wait.  Others have it even more difficult and dangerous.

China and Vietnam in context

A large country next to a smaller one cannot help but be patronizing and exercise at least some hegemony.  This is always resented in the smaller country, even when the interference helped the country and was needed and the larger country was the only nation that could do anything.  We see this in the Americas regarding the States, in parts of Europe regarding Germany, and in East Europe regarding Russia.

As with most of SE Asia, there are large numbers of Chinese ethnics in Vietnam, mainly in the cities in enclaves somewhat removed from the rest of the population, such as the Cholon area of HCMC.  They tend to hold onto their South Chinese language and Chinese names more than perhaps they should.  These populations are entrepreneurial and generally successful, and as one might expect this can generate resentment.

While the Vietnamese language seems Sinitic today, scholars tell us that it is not at all related to the Sino-Tibetan family of languages.  Of course nowadays over half the vocabulary is from Chinese borrowings, but borrowing is one thing, it is not descent.  Even the Vietnamese tonal system that causes American learners so much difficulty apparently was borrowed from Chinese in the first millennium and Vietnamese had previously been atonal.

Vietnamese religion is Chinese in many ways, with the major Taoist deities and Confucian notions of the universe widely accepted.  Most important, the Buddhism is Mahayana out of China, not at all like the nearby Theravada Buddhism of Thailand, Laos and Cambodia.  Vietnam does have its own local twists on things and several native religious groups.  Of course there is a significant Roman Catholic population in Vietnam, much larger proportionately than in China.

The Communist Parties in Vietnam and China have followed similar paths, both opening to the rest of the world and creating institutions designed to prevent "Cult of Personality" figures and dictatorship by one man.  These include limited terms and mandatory retirements.  They are in this way distinct from the other two remaining Communist states, Cuba and North Korea.

They have also both had considerable success economically, unlike Cuba and North Korea, which remain poor and seem to be getting poorer, although there are signs of light in Cuba nothing much will happen until the Castro's are gone.

One hopeful thing that is happening in China and Vietnam is that they are evolving toward meritocracy, both in who becomes a party member (family still counts but less and less) and who rises in the party.  Both also have their problems with corruption, but not really any more than practically any other country on this planet -- although the Western press tends to give it more attention, for its own reasons.

Still, the Chinese, like all ethnic groups, have their tendency to nationalism and the population has its share of anti-foreign bigots who think only Chinese institutions are valid.  Americans, Russians, Germans, Japanese, and so on, all suffer from bad reps because of similar attitudes found in those countries.  Such nationalism is often used by politicians to gain unfair and irrational advantage.

Right now China has its hands full in the western autonomous regions, where it is obvious they are not welcome, and should look to removing itself from them, but this might be impossible because of this nationalism found in the Chinese party.  As long as China practices trying to rule over other peoples or nations, their claims to any sort of moral standing or legitimacy will remain hanging.  It is seen as nothing more than old-fashioned imperialism.

Expansionist adventurism elsewhere, even for essential materials, is bound to hurt China in the short run, and won't ever help.

Stupid remarks about suicide

I think maybe a certain rather spoiled rotten rock star doesn't understand is that depressed people should not be given sympathy, but should be understood as having a disease that needs treatment.

Yes the world is a rough place, or at least often is, but that is beside the point.  Depression is a fatal disorder of brain chemistry not really well understood, for which some treatments do work.  They need to get them.

About all an ordinary person can do when dealing with a depressed person who may well resist getting treatment because sometimes the disease works that way is physically interfere with suicide attempts, pay attention, and get legal hospitalization if possible if suicide is actually attempted.

I don't think sympathy or lack of sympathy do much either way, although a "get it over with, I'm tired of hearing you" is an immoral and probably criminal thing to say and may well be the thing that pushes  over the edge.

Suicides that are not successful in an attempt are almost always glad they didn't succeed, even though in awhile they may try again.  

Ferguson Police

I lived in Kansas City many years, on the other side of Missouri from St. Louis, and visited St. Louis several times, and was not aware that a good-size town of Ferguson was nearby.  Now I am aware.  It is probably a nice enough place, but I don't think you could get me to go there.  Sad though.

Why does someone decide to become a police officer?  There are no doubt many reasons, but you have to wonder if maybe those who go through the process and apply don't have subtle reasons that have to do with authority and guns and uniforms and power more than serving the community.

Personally I would find the job demeaning and boring most of the time and a drudge.  "A policeman's lot is not a happy one," although that song is about the policeman's sad duty to put an end to the criminal's freedom, that is I am very sure not one of the ordinary cop's concerns.

Some people though want to do it, and again I have to wonder.  Especially why one would want to be a white cop in a largely black town.

Rossini's "William Tell Overture"

Many serious music lovers would probably prefer that Rossini in general and in particular his "William Tell Overture" would just go away.

As programmatic music (music that either kinda tells a story or at least sets a scene -- as this one does separately in each of its four sections), it ain't too bad.  Pleasant, even.

Maybe I like it because we played it in high school, and I remember the fight between the conductor (teacher) and our cornet player (we only had one) about Rossini's volume indications in the last section.  He felt it should be played as his solo, sort-of, very loud.

Maybe, at least in a high school setting, it should be.  Orchestras follow Rossini, even though it is not in the spirit of the Lone Ranger, and try to keep it musical, even though I think secretly we all wish they wouldn't.  Of course they have to keep their dignity.

By the way, in the end the teacher lost that one.  The kid did as told in rehearsal, but in concert he let rip.  She about fell off the podium with her efforts to quiet him down, without effect.

Interestingly, afterward she didn't say a thing.  I don't know what his grade that term was.

More on being fat

I can see how my last post is subject to less-than-favorable interpretation.  I say fat people are lazy.  What an unfortunate way to put it!

The problem is the connotation (or implication or loading) of the word "lazy."  It is a negative judgmental call about someone, and I oppose judging people.

We do, however, have to understand them and not be naive.  What I mean here is that fat people don't like physical exertion.  They just don't like it, and avoid it, even when they are out "exercising."  It and other personality traits having to do with one's relationship to food, lead to obesity, in spite of medical warnings and efforts and strong desires to have a different outcome.

In other ways a "lazy" person is not lazy -- they may be hard workers, great students, accomplished artists, whatever, but they do not like labor and hate breaking a sweat.

It's not their fault -- it is what they are, part of their personality.  Our society is in denial about "nature" in the nature-nurture spectrum -- we want to say we can do things and often we cannot.  We cannot for the most part change what we are, and we need to be wise about that and change what we can but accept and not judge what we cannot.

It's like being gay or straight -- most people are mainly straight with an occasional gay impulse, most gays also have occasional straight impulses -- so the impression can be gotten that what we are can be changed.  One can change one's behavior if one is truly bi-sexual to ignore one side of our sexuality, but if one is not, then one is mainly gay or straight and no amount of cruel therapy is going to alter it.

The fact is most of what we are, we are born destined to be.  Good upbringing and nutrition and so on help a lot, but there are personality types that persist -- on the unhelpful side there are always bigots, criminals, airheads, addictive personalities, judgmental people.  I will someday have to do a blog on the personality attributes that make for criminal behavior and on the consistent failure of well-meaning people to rehabilitate them and how to really do it (clue -- let the criminal get older).

On being fat

You can tell from my picture on this blog that I am obese, the medical word for fat.  I also have the health problems that go with that -- sore feet, periodic sciatica, gallstones, fatty liver, what is now called "pre-diabetes" and of course incipient heart disease.  Sheesh.

Still, I feel healthy and take my pills and the problems come and go, mostly go.

I think maybe I've lost my body weight half a dozen times over the course of my life dieting.  Sometimes "eating sensibly," other times fasting -- whatever.  The weight goes off and comes back on.  I have to imagine that yo-yo is worse than the weight, so now I just try to be happy with myself as I am, although of course one never really is.

I was chubby as a kid and big as a teenager, so I did okay even though I was nerdy and a touch effeminate (a trait I learned to suppress).  I look back and realize that the idea that fat people are lazy is true -- we are born lazy, not fat.  We are efficient in our motions and avoid physical work and athletics.  I always prided myself on working smart, not hard.  Well there are trade-offs and every decade five or ten pounds went on, and it added up (although my weight has been steady since I stopped fighting it fifteen years ago).

That is the thing.  We have free will and when determined we can override our bodies, but our bodies have their tricks.  You can override the body's determination that we will breathe for maybe a few minutes, and then it wins.  The same applies to taking in food to maintain a certain weight, although we don't see it as clearly because it works over a longer period of time and doesn't need to take such drastic measures.

Dieting is artificial famine, but the body doesn't know that, and reacts to the real famine, slowing metabolism and reducing available energy and so on.  When the famine is over it goes back to where it had been as soon as possible and then adds on a little as a safety measure.  We are guaranteed to lose, although I understand a few are able to stay down for long periods.  They are to be admired, but I have my doubts.

We are largely what we are for reasons out of our control, at least long term, and we need to learn to accept what we are as we are, and not judge ourselves (or others, for that matter) about such things.  

I a spiritual person, of sorts

I think maybe I'm kinda spiritual.  I can feel awe at all sorts of things and have learned to meditate into a self-hypnotic state, and really like most religious music and well-written non-dogmatic sermons.  I can also get into various rituals so that they have a limited reality to me.  Finally, for the most part religions don't bother me, although I must admit I like the philosophy and attitudes of Buddhists more than others, and I see no point in worrying about what others believe or don't believe.

Still, I have to say I'm an atheist.  I don't have any God or gods, and think they are human inventions.  The one exception might be the Tao, but that really isn't a god anyway.  I don't deny or reject God or anything of that sort, it is just that from what I know of history and science I see no reason to think He exists.

Where my mysticism or spirituality comes from is inside -- the wonder of "me-ness," that there is a something "there" thinking and experiencing the world, for which I can see no possible physical approach -- no causative mechanism.  In other words, there are aspects of my existence, and I presume everyone else's, that leave me speechless, uncomprehending,  bewildered, awestruck.  The immense if not infinite size of the universe and all those stars out there are nothing in terms of awe inspiration compared to the fact of personal existence and experience.  (I experience the world via qualia -- sensations, emotions, that I know have chemicals bubbling around in my skull associated with them, but how?).

That I don't know doesn't mean I have to invent God to explain it.  That is no explanation, just a cop-out. 

I suspect there are aspects of existence that are beyond us -- totally beyond us -- and the mystery of our mental existence is largely one of these.  Of course how the brain works will, over time, be worked out in detail, but we still won't know how it does what it does, if it is the brain doing it and not just being used.  The only thing I can figure is that there is a self-perpetuating process (chain of thought) that dies and is reborn from moment to moment much as an electromagnetic wave perpetuates in space.  It dies when I am asleep and is reborn when I awaken, and it constantly changes as I learn and have experiences and make decisions.

American - Vietnamese War

I told myself I would avoid the Vietnam (American) War until I had posted 100 blogs.  Now that I have reached that number it is time I forced myself to deal with it.  The subject is of course painful on many levels.

I was a student during most of the war and had a student deferral, so there was never any real risk I might be drafted.  As a result, at the time, I was not personally interested except as a thing that dominated American politics.

I remember at the time thinking the U.S. had to be there because otherwise the Communists would take another country -- domino theory, it was called -- and our freedom and so on was at risk.  I think most Americans had views similar to that.

I didn't realize at the time, although there were plenty of signs of it there, that the regime (I usually avoid that word as it is loaded, but it is appropriate here) in the South, at least at first, was a corrupt autocracy rather determined to suppress Buddhism and other religions in favor of Roman Catholics.  Obviously it would be unpopular and led to the immolations of monks and other protests.

So the U.S. arranged for a military coup and replaced the government.  Although I suppose that was necessary, it made the reality clear to most thinking Vietnamese that this was not really a war for their freedom but something the Americans were doing in their own interest.  Most Vietnamese tended from then on to hand over things to the Americans, and let them pay for it, in both money and lives.  (Not that there weren't exceptions).

As the years passed, though, things in the South improved and more and more the government there became responsive while American military strength slowly won the war.

However, democracies have a serious problem waging war overseas, when the cost in lives and money is high and when it seems to go on and on.  Long-term commitment and determination like that is not possible in a democracy.  Far too many politicians are very willing to use it as a way to office, and the public becomes cold about it and not willing to make sacrifices.  Public support dried up and public opposition grew.

(A comparison with the British experience in the Boer war is useful, which, if pursued could have early on produced a reasonable South African state, but instead produced Apartheid when the British had to give up because of domestic pressure.)

First, the Congress betrayed the South Vietnamese by cutting off funding, then Nixon and Kissinger saw the political reality and cut their losses, in effect surrendering without doing so formally.  This, ironically, when the war was really almost won.

The result was maybe a decade of considerable suffering in Vietnam, especially by those who had bet on the wrong horse, and a decade of hard-line rule until the government in the north evolved into the sensible thing it is now.  Once New Thinking came in, things settled down and now you have a peaceful, united, prosperous country.

Was the benefit of achieving a united Vietnam and the benefits of New Thinking worth it?  It is all ironic and shows how it behooves us to realize both sides were seriously wrong in what they thought they were doing.  Both that and no one can predict the future.

China and Vietnam

I'm reading that Kissinger analyzes Chinese behavior as a part of an overall long-term strategy of asserting and take "territory" and then back off for awhile to let the "enemy" relax and go back to sleep, all the time preparing for the next advance.

I don't think so.  I think the Chinese withdrawal was a case of adults getting their way inside China.  It also won't cause others to go back to sleep.  People have memories, and the betrayal of Chinese behavior will be remembered.

Depression and suicide

There are ways to deal with depression on one's own, but they only work if you are kinda naive about yourself, and eventually will generally stop working.  Work and staying busy, exercise, "getting away" such as taking a trip or vacation, dealing with the immediate causes of the depression, if there are any, meditation, getting counseling, music and art, reading a stomping good novel, pondering the universe -- these and other tricks help a lot.

But the fact is that only some people tend to depression (I think most of the time the tendency is inherited) so most people don't understand it and think it's only normal mood swing.  This absence of understanding and compassion and the "buck it up" disdain one gets don't help.

I have found the only real way to stave off such periods of depression is to stay on medication.  The medical system doesn't like it one bit, for a variety of reasons, so one has to be prepared to fight with insurance companies and have to go out of pocket fairly often.  That doctors often compound the problem with their arrogance about it and their failure to really hear the patient is a cross to bear, but shopping doctors doesn't work, and is less and less possible in the modern bureaucracy.

Of course, this leads to drug use (the wrong drugs -- things that are addictive and illegal, such as heroine and of course alcohol).  About alcohol -- practically guaranteed to cause an early death for the depressive.  Marijuana is better, but of limited value.  Caffeine in the form of a nice cup of espresso or just black coffee or green tea is even better here.

In the end, though anti-depressives need be taken on a lifelong basis in fairly high doses and in several forms (at least both serotonin stimulators and anti-reuptake serotonin inhibitors.  Not being a pharmacist I probably have the terms wrong -- what are needed are drugs that both produce "happiness" hormones and that slow down their removal from the body.

I know from my personal experience, which I suppose is anecdotal, but also from what I can find out talking to others and doing research.  I suspect in some cases even this is not enough, but the difficulties I had and continue to have getting minimal treatment suggests to me that the real problem, and the real cause of the continuing suicides, is that most people just do not get it.  It is so out of the range of their own experience.  That includes the medical profession and the lawmakers.

Of course it is also in the interest of insurers to not "get it".  When the patient kills himself or herself they stop having to pay for treatments.

Robin Williams is dead.  I don't get teary often, but this did it.  His death is worth noting.

Turning now to look at dictatorships

Since it appears people don't read well, or maybe I should say they read too well and read things that weren't said, let me turn to what is wrong with dictatorships.

Obviously there is a danger the dictator will be or become the wrong person, in many possible ways -- sociopathy, insanity, paranoia (who wouldn't be in such a situation), excessively ideological and lacking practical sense, or just plain brutal.  Some legal mechanism for removing el Presidente will be needed, and I can't think of a way such a thing could be set up without the dictator being able to set it aside.

So don't have a dictator, have a central committee.  Let them make executive decisions and have figureheads (a monarch perhaps) for intervention purposes in situations of serious mischief.

There is another thing wrong with autocratic government, even if it is as humane and tolerant and sweet and nice as anyone could want.  When it makes a mistake it doesn't know it until things are really bad, and even then tends to blame other factors.

It's like an automated accounting system.  Hire hundreds of accounting clerks to do the sums and addition mistakes will happen and they affect one or two customers.  Let a computer run it and a mistake affects millions, and does immense damage.  Now it won't be a mistake in doing sums but in programming -- the point is that power to get things done efficiently brings power to mess things up efficiently.

There is another problem; the public is fickle.  A given set of leaders is popular for a while and eventually becomes unpopular and by some, hated just because people often decide "it's time for a change" about practically everything.  So terms have to be limited and retirements mandated.  Otherwise at some point you have demonstrations in the streets and the army having to decide whether to fire on citizens.

Tirade against democracy and maybe ways to fix some of the problems.

It's elitist of me to think this, but, regardless, I do think that the main problem with elections is the voter.  There are bad things like multiple voting and ballot box stuffing or losing ballot boxes, that can be blamed on politicians and corrupt officials, but those aside a larger problem remains the voter.

In the old days only landowners, who were presumed to have a stronger interest in good government, were allowed to vote.  This was of course, nonsense.  They voted in the interest of landowners.

There are five problems I can see with voters, that they vote selfish interest, that they vote prejudice, that they vote single interest, that they vote brand name (re-elect incumbents even though they know no more than that they recognize the name), and that they are easily persuaded by what is called negative campaign ads.  The five of them feed off each other to make democracy a bad way to run a country.

Politicians, of course, not being centers of moral rectitude (those who are, are defeated by those who aren't using the above factors) cynically act and campaign and vote accordingly.

There was a certain Senator from West Virginia who was thought of as a master of the Senate and a great Senator, mainly because he kept the pork running into his state.  How disgusting: he leads the fight against line-item veto (a proposal to stem such greed) and prevailed.  This was his reason for being re-elected over and over, and he boasted of it.

One of the problems is geographical legislation, which brings about pork and the representation of the prejudices of regional cultures.  At large representative bodies are therefore one obvious solution.  This also of course would reduce the chances for chicanery as there would be fewer really close elections and eliminates gerrymandering.

Of course it doesn't deal with the brand name problem and perhaps makes it even worse.  The idea of banning incumbency therefore has a great appeal.

One thing I've noticed is that members of the legal profession tend to dominate elective positions.  People accept this since they have a vague notion that these have been trained, but what they have been trained in is the use of the law to get things and deal with problems.  There is entirely too much dependence on law and litigation, but lawyers, legislating in their class interest, continue to see laws and legalism as the way to go.  It would appear that banning members of this profession (which in fact is the only erudite profession that hurts society more than it helps) might be a good idea.

Of course, elected officials need to win elections, and for this they need support and money.  At large elections would demand even more money, and although there really do exist un-bought politicians, and maybe most of them think they are, it is much easier to get someone to see your point of view if you have contributed money to him, and all businesses and special interest groups know this.

So if you must have elections to make the system seem legitimate, make the campaign paid for by the state and seriously restrict campaigns, violating free-speech and free-press out its ear.  It is not true that truth ultimately will out, and we all know it.  Even rules such as banning music in the background, or even non-mutual campaign appearances, suggest themselves.

You still have the basic problem of the prejudices of the voter and the ensuing danger of the dictatorship of the majority.  There is no way to get around this that I can think of short of severely limiting the franchise to those who demonstrate knowledge and unbiased approaches to things, in a vetting process that itself obviously would be exposed to corruption and so on.  Still, that might be better than allowing every idiot to have his or her vote.

Churchill has been quoted as saying that democracy is the worst possible system, except for the alternatives, or something like that.  One wonders if this is really true.  It seems to me a lot of possible setups simply have never been tried, and the propaganda for democratic systems nowadays would seem to rule out even a debate.  Even the autocratic systems call themselves democracies.

Distinguishing Reality, Illusion, and Delusion

We live our lives in a huge illusion, but we presume there is a reality "out there" which generates the illusion we experience.

For example, the sky is not blue.  The atmosphere scatters certain wavelengths of sunlight more than others, with the net result that what enters our eyes when we look skyward are wavelengths that causes our brain to generate a certain experience that our mind in English calls "blue."  In other words, colors are an illusion of the brain generated by the fact that when we look at things, whatever wavelengths of light they reflect (or in a few cases generate) are made by the brain into experiences (or color "qualia") for our mind.

I sometimes hear voices that aren't there (usually when half-asleep) that disturb me, but I long ago realized that if they are not there, then they are not there and it is something generated in the brain, no matter how "real" they sound.  Sounds are not real.  The brain generates sound qualia just as it generates color qualia, and in both cases, although they usually have some relationship to the reality of the external world, they don't always.

The difference, of course, is that the sounds of Bach in the background are illusions while voices I may hear from phantoms are delusions.  The Bach comes from sound waves from the speakers in my room from the CD I'm playing (an illusion generated by another illusion generated by another) while voices in the head no doubt have some source in my normal mental chatter that gets mistaken as incoming sound, but it has no external source and so is not illusion but delusion.

Illusions have something "real" under them, delusions do not.

Judgmentalism

We must avoid being judgmental.  It does no good and often ties us to attitudes and behavior that restrict us a lot.  But, of course, people do judge, and with some it is the automatic response.  This causes the judge unhappiness and stress, but I don't think it has much effect on those judged.  In other words disobeying the command only hurts ourselves.

I was recently conned out of a substantial amount of money -- more than I really could afford -- and all during the scam people told me what it was, but I felt I would give this person such a sum if asked, anyway, so I didn't worry.

I trusted them, and they were my friend.  It really hurts when trust is violated like that, but I will not be bitter and I will (do already) forgive.  I want them back as a friend and I suspect only their shame prevents it.  It is not the loss of the money, but the loss of the friendship and the betrayal.

Others, of course tell me I should abandon the contacts and the person is not worth it and I know others who know about what happened who have done as much, even thought they were not personally hurt.

I guess I'm foolish.  Forgiving doesn't help: I'm still unhappy, just in a different way -- sad rather than angry. 

Do I seem too certain of what I post?  I guess it might be worthwhile to repeat what is in my profile: it is all just one person's opinions.

I like to draw a technical distinction between "opinion" (things you think are probably true) and "belief" (things you know are true).  This distinction is not often made and the two words are close to being synonyms, but it is how I would use them.

Beliefs come about various ways, mainly though indoctrination or propaganda.  (That explains why the churches are so eager to control or influence children's education -- get them while their critical facilities are not mature.  It also explains why children are generally the religion of their parents and culture). They are accepted emotionally and often we aren't even aware of them as being there.  They are furniture we sit on without noticing, but they hold up our world view.

When a belief is challenged, the typical response is incredulity -- you must be insane or joking.  No, I think Nazareth is a myth.  Unbelievable that someone would actually think that.  What about Jesus?  Well, yes, him too.  You are crazy.

Of course the evidence will never be seriously looked at and given even the remotest chance of being correct in someone who has such belief, even though they will admit huge ignorance about the subject.  This is belief -- they even make their unwillingness to question into a virtue and call it "faith."

Now I don't "know" that Jesus is mythical, even though I'm persuaded of it, in spite of previous belief, by fairly simple evidence for which there are many web pages one can go to to check it out.  I really don't care either.  He is unimportant from the respect of actual physical historicity (although of course, his church continues to function and do things that are important).

The simple fact is those who believe will die believing, and maybe they are better off that way, although I have difficulty respecting such things.

I tend to say "I think" rather than "I believe," and I know I have changed my views on  a gazillion things here and there -- we all constantly evolve (except of course those who cling to beliefs and become mentally ossified).

So when I say such and such, what I really mean is, "In my view," such and such.  It interferes with smooth writing to constantly repeat such expressions, so I have to trust the reader to understand this.

Medicine sans prescription

One of the things I like about Vietnam (and most third-world countries) is the ability to obtain most medications without a prescription.  To be sure, you are supposed to have one, but its absence seems to bother no one.

I think vested interests in other countries causes this serious limit on freedom.  Drug companies and doctors want people to have to incur the additional expense of getting medical approval.  They use the argument of protecting the public, and I suppose they are protecting the stupid and uninformed, and these types continue to agitate in Vietnam for restrictions.

What you do instead is limit advertising.  I would prefer they even eliminated brand names.  A trained pharmacist can deal with almost any set of symptoms the customer describes, and the government can impose rules about this to boot.  Bulk competitive buying by the state (or local manufacture if the foreigners persist in being too greedy) can do a wonder for prices too.

Today I read how metformin could extend everyone's lifespan several years.   It is a low-cost drug supposedly for type-2 diabetics and prediabetics, but it appears everyone would benefit from taking it routinely.  Of course with such mass use some side-effects would probably appear, especially with long-term use (mainly allergies), so alertness would be called for, although reading the posted comments that went with the article, I can see how some people blame anything that happens on whatever they are taking.  Such people should be allowed to die early.

There are, as I see it, two extremes in this pill-popping debate -- those who think taking medicine for what ails us is dangerous or even sinful, and those who pop whatever new nostrum shows its head making wonderful claims.  A middle path is called for.

There are of course drugs that I suppose have to be surrounded by legal safeguards -- things that can kill you and things that are addictive and things useful in suicides come to mind (although this last might be overkill since there are plenty of ordinary products that can do the job).  So safety before a product can even be marketed should be necessary.

Also, I think going through a pharmacist, who, regardless gives you what you want, but also gives you personal advice and warning, is  advisable.  And of course the doctor needs to be told.  No point in hiding things, even if he is going to lose his temper, from a professional you are paying good money to for advice.

The Beginning of Time and there was no Time before Time

This is something that to me seems blatantly obvious, that time had to have had a beginning, but I so often get that it could extend backward infinitely.  I think those who insist so are afraid one is giving creationists and first causality types an opening, and maybe one is, but their stuff falls on so many other grounds there is no need to maintain an erroneous notion just to defend against them.  Aquinas was right when he said the idea of there being no beginning of time is absurd.  What he didn't understand is that it is absurd to assert that anything could be without beginning.

Now, first, I don't know what "time" is: this is an unsolved question, and tend to think of it as the illusion of past passing into future because things change and events happen, but the only thing here that really exists is the present.  Regardless, one can use the idea of time as a flowing river or something along those lines to help with understanding it.

Now let us say the doctors really get their act together and stop disease and aging, and the engineers do the same thing and stop accidents.  We will then live forever.  Well, no.  No longer how long we live it will never have been forever.  It may be a million or a billion or some unimaginable time, but never forever.  Infinity is not a countable number that way.  You never reach forever, even though you never die.

For the same reason time cannot have "always existed" as it is so easy to say.  One cannot climb out of a bottomless well.  That applies to just not us, but to existence itself.  The mistake of course is in thinking time is a sort-of beginning of the number line.  It is not.  The number line has neither beginning nor end.

So time had a beginning, maybe the Big Bang, more likely something else much earlier, who knows, but it had a beginning, and there was nothing before the beginning of time.  This is an interesting sort of nothing -- there were not eons and eons of emptiness -- that would be time -- there was nothing and then there was space-time.  It just happened.

There is a sense in which one might say time has always existed, but that "always" is necessarily finite.  The when of things can only be measured from after the first event: talk about "before" that is meaningless.

I have a notion that before time was like the space between two adjacent irrational numbers -- except you can stick an infinity of numbers between any two, so there is no space there, just as there is no time before time.

Underwhelmed

I can't figure out why it is that people, including maybe scientists, certain science reporters, and popular science, authors, make such a big deal out of the fact that most of the atoms of the universe other than primordial hydrogen and helium and a trace of the others were made in stars that later exploded, or shed material in a planetary nebula, and so on, spreading the stuff around.

The events of the Big Bang didn't last long enough for nuclear synthesis (what this is called) to get far, so where else could they have been made?

I observe that the awe about this is always expressed in the context of the stuff of life, but really it is the stuff of everything (again, except hydrogen, helium, etc., which is really the stuff of most things).  Well, you almost certainly cannot make life or anything like it out of just hydrogen, etc., so star stuff gets used by default.

I think this is a residue of thinking in terms of life as something magical, elan vital or along those lines.  It is not.  It is just aggregations of organic chemicals that reproduce, in complex ways, but mechanically.

The real mystery is where sentience and consciousness come from, and they were probably not spewed about the universe in supernovae and whatnot.

Afterlife (or not dying)

We don't want to die (become extinct when our body terminates), although this does seem likely and we can't, with medicine as it is now, do anything about it.  I think at some point this will no longer be the case, but that seems a ways off.

There are of course alternatives on offer, although some of them don't seem much better than dying and a few are fearsome.  I see no point in joining some cosmic ocean, or being reborn with few, if any memories of a previous existence.  These may as well be personal extinction.

And then of course there is a Heaven or some variation.  My personal heaven would be an outdoor life on horseback and fishing, living in a tent and making fish and eggs and coffee on a fire.  However, the work parts of this, such as chopping wood or grooming the horse, as well as the unpleasant parts, such as bad weather and insects, would not be part of it.  I and others would also sit around at night before bed and sing and talk philosophy and psychiatry and religion and tell jokes and have sex.

In an earlier blog I talked about why I think the mind is a process, not thing, so the question is how does this gust of wind or flickering flame survive the brain's death?  That would seem to depend on what it is, what "mind" is, and we don't know.  We don't even know what sentience is or where it comes from.

Maybe it is something "mystical," or at least as yet undiscovered by science.  Frankly, I suspect its discovery will have to await the passing of modern scientific physical materialism and the insistence on experimental evidence to a time when scientists work with inference and reason without physical confirmation.

As process it may be like other processes we observe, and have both "wave" (process) and "particle" (matter, etc.) properties (this is misleading derived from our ways of thinking and requires a lot of mental work to really conceive, but I put it as best I can to be understood).  In that case sentience or mind, probably just forms of the same thing, could be conserved much as mass/energy and charge and momentum are conserved.

Of course that wouldn't prove much.  Energy is conserved, but degrades in a way (entropy increases) and readily changes form.  It does to my mind, though, hold a conceptual way in which rebirth might work.  A lot depends on the nature of sentience, and, if, as we infer, sentience has a tendency to persist as it is, then you would have it.

Another possibility, and one I would not be at all surprised at, would be that our life is some sort of dream or entertainment or punishment or education or even reward and when we die we also wake up to the reality above us, assuming it too is a simulation.

Motorcycle helmets as a cultural artifact

Having been trained as a cultural anthropologist, even though I never actually did any anthropology afterward, I still find cultural changes that I notice in Vietnam of some interest.

One of these has been the universal adoption of a helmet when riding a motorbike.  Vietnam is a motorbike culture, and when cheaper motorbikes from China appeared several years ago, it was a day of liberation for the rural population.  I dare say the main form of entertainment in the big cities for young people is tooling around all over the place after work or school for a few hours.

At least it was until the coming of computer games: they now give its major competition.  Motorbikes are, in my view a much better way to organize transport in a big city that hasn't been paved over with freeways than our cars.  A couple of cars and a bus conspire and block traffic for hours; the motorbike riders maneuver in and around them and are hardly at all even delayed.

But motorbikes are deadly.  Helmets are an essential minimum, along with traffic enforcement and getting off the road the drunks and the idiots who carry more than imaginable on the bike.  (I once saw six guys, all utterly smashed, on one small Japanese bike, weaving around trying to stay up.  Fortunately, they only made it a few meters before upending.)

I remember the first time I rode as a passenger on the back of one.  I sat there and chanted, "Please let this be over" over and over, wanting to close my eyes but not daring.  Now it doesn't phase me.  Amazing what one can get used to -- but from day one I always wore a helmet -- they could be bought in Vietnam because the government was encouraging them, but no one except a few frightened foreigners used them.  It's a tropical country and helmets are a bother and hot.

But they really aren't so hot once you are moving, and they help in a population determined to keep their skin from the sun so as to be as white as possible.  Women can wear scarves and so on but men can only wear caps, and they blow off.  There was a business of recovering and selling such hats.

Now that the police seriously enforced the law and everyone is in helmets, no doubt deaths have dropped, and a lot of men no longer have in their budget buying a new hat once a week.

Water waves and candle flames

One does not need to meditate (do the postures and breathing and all that) to watch one's mind -- to be mindful.  Some, of course call any mindfulness state, a sort of meditating, even when driving down the freeway, although I tend to do it in safer places.

I think the reality is that mindfulness is really just paying attention to the state of our head a few moments earlier, I would think using short-term memory.  There is no need to posit some separate entity doing the watching.

What does one see?

Well, if you have been really meditating and have reached a point of mental silence, then one doesn't see much.  An empty mind is an empty mind and a silent mind is a silent mind.  This is a wonderful state, but not what I'm about today.

Otherwise a lot I think depends on the person.  The excitable person sees a lot more confusion than the peaceful person, a lot more activity, and probably has higher blood pressure.

We all, however see much the same thing -- a flow of consciousness -- we think about this and the thought jumps to that and then to something else, usually somewhat linked but not always.  Of course other things also intrude -- sounds, itches, memories, worries, thoughts of obligations, and, if you are at all sleep deprived, you may fall asleep.

One thing most people don't notice, because their religion tells them otherwise, is that there is no "self" there -- no soul, no little homunculus doing the watching.  The process itself watches itself.

That is what we see -- process, not thing.  It moves like a wave moves on the water or a flame on a candle (both analogies here are helpful, but don't draw too many conclusions from them).  Mind is process, not thing, that we presume happens in the thing we call brain, but there is nothing inherent in itself to tell us that.  That is something neurologists think, for pretty good reasons, but still I wonder -- a good topic for another blog someday.

The best proof, over and above the fact that being mindful in and of itself, once one is aware of what to see, proves the point on its own, is the fact that if there is a thing doing the observing, the question arises what is watching the watcher, and one ends with an infinite regression.  That's grounds for rejecting almost any theory.

Vietnam beaches

I noted a travel reviewer today praising Vietnam's miles and miles of clean sand and blue-water (except around the Delta) beaches, with practically no one on them but a few Westerners.  As the reviewer noted, this is because the standard of beauty in Vietnam is whiteness -- as little tan as possible.

Indeed, it is funny that a resident of a tropical country is diagnosed with vitamin D deficiency and advised to take a supplement.  Especially the women, but even the men cover themselves when they go out -- really cover themselves -- so much that it amazes me they can see where they are going -- and not for religious reasons but for beauty reasons.

Ever hear of "whitening cream?"  I don't know that the stuff works since I think I could well stand to be less white.  Practically every cosmetic sold makes some sort of claim along those lines.

A typical American or ANZean or European landing in Vietnam finds themselves categorized as "beautiful" or "handsome" if they have a big nose and big ears, things that of course most Westerners would rather correct.  The same of course applies throughout Asia to having round eyes.

Being overweight is also not such a big deal, and age is far more respected (although the Vietnamese will admit they, like everyone else, think youth is more sexy -- I think that is a genetic trait so not as culturally set).

In short, here is a place where it don't hurt at all to be ghostly pale, have a big nose and ears, be a bit sticky and even a little long in the tooth.  Do, though, have your teeth as straight and white as possible.  This seems to be something all cultures agree on.  Do also be clean and well-groomed and dress up a little.

Just observing

One thing that reportedly happened when the Buddha, sitting under the Bodhi tree, achieved enlightenment was that in the second stage of his meditation, he became able to access memories of all his past lives.  It is interesting because in his other teachings he doesn't much refer to this -- just observing.

The problem here is that if you look closely this ability would seem to remove the founding principle of Buddhism, that to live is to suffer, since the suffering spoken of is not pain or nausea or even frustration, but the realization that we are nothing, that we live and die and even though we are reborn what is reborn is not really us but a new entity with its own experiences and genes.

Memories are a function of physical brain tissue.  Damage it or let it suffer disease and memories go away, as they do with death and rebirth, if this actually happens.

To be sure, we also die and are reborn from moment to moment.  What gives the illusion of self is that we have access to memories, fallible though they may be, of our previous current life.

The Buddha's experience suggests that there is another place where memories are also maintained -- a non-physical place -- and he was able to access that and perhaps transfer information to his living brain.

The implication I get is that once one has achieved enlightenment one no longer needs to stop the rebirth cycle.  One's total insignificance becomes something else and we no longer suffer in this way.  Then, if we work on making the Earth a nice place, all suffering can be abolished, but regardless the main suffering is dealt with.

It may be that enlightenment doesn't always bring with it this ability, in which case entering bliss would seem to still be the way to go.  At any rate, there don't seem to be many around carrying with them the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of millions of past lives.