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.
Monday, August 18, 2014
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
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.
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.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, August 15, 2014
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.
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.
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).
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).
Thursday, August 14, 2014
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
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.
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.
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.
Monday, August 11, 2014
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)