People sometimes kill themselves.

Others are judgmental about it.  Some say if they want to do it they should go ahead and do it and get out of everyone's hair with their self-pity.  Others say it's a sin against God.  Even others say it's caused by demon possession.  Finally, and this is probably most common, there are those who say the suicide had to be insane to do such a thing.

There are many reasons people do this, and a lot depends on the culture.  The Roman aristocrat who fell on his sword rather than be executed in one of the brutal ways Romans tended to execute people was doing the honorable thing.  Many societies see some suicides as honorable.

Most of us can imagine a scenario where we would kill ourselves -- incurable disease combined with unremitting nausea would do it to me (pain I can handle better).  Probably also a disease that promised in the future to render me helpless and a burden.  We all die someday and some things are worse than death.

However, suicides today most often are associated with the set of diseases put together as "depression."  Those who have never experienced it have to remember that this is not "being sad."  It is another thing entirely.  It is a cloud of blackness that pushes you down and doesn't let you think at all clearly but only makes the world hopeless with no escape.

One thing to remember is that depression is not insanity in the usual sense.  It is a mental illness, but not one that involves irrationality (I sometimes think it is a case of being too rational).

Psychiatry has tried all sorts of ideas on how to deal with this, and often can have a temporary effect, at least until the depression passes, but then they lose the patient next time around as the disease figures out the psychiatrists tricks (not unlike the cancer evolving resistance to the treatment).

It is true that how we look at the world is a great part of the problem -- the old "glass half empty or half full" sort of thing, but knowing this does a depressed person little good.  Truth is, one can always think up the negative side of things, as the world is not all that good to people and most young people have their ambitions squashed fairly fast anyway.

It is purposeless to try to find a purpose in life.  The vast majority of us have only one purpose in our existence -- to give life and happiness to our children.  This is something of an evolutionary trick, since usually the children don't turn out as expected and sometimes turn on us, and we have to adapt.

In the end the only real treatment for depression is going to be medical, not psychiatric (psychiatry is seen as a branch of medicine, but its methods and training are different).  The widespread bias against dealing with emotional problems with pills needs to be overcome -- diseases are best treated with pills, although in some cases other forms of intervention can work.

There is no guilt associated with being depressed -- the tendency runs in families and is just part of the baggage we are born with.  It is useless (and in my opinion evil) to tell the depressed to get over it and stop being so self-involved.

Finally, there is no guilt associated with someone who has actually committed suicide.  They should be treated as anyone else who has died of a chronic disease.  The death should be reported as such (not covered over -- society needs to know the reality) but without blame or shame or as a scandal.

Causality as karma

I don't think it's necessary to use the possibility that the universe was once a singularity to say the universe breaks "its own rules."  The rule is that of causality, and we know this rule is constantly broken, that causality may be something of an illusion based on probability and the statistical "law of large numbers" rather than something inherent to existence.

It reminds me a little of the Buddhist and Hindu idea of karma -- what you do has consequences.  We know those consequences are not preordained but just made more likely when you behave certain ways.

Theravada life after death

I think of mind as a process using memories stored in the brain and sensations provided by the brain, that can be thought of as a sort of life process (the flame on a candle, a wave on the water -- that sort of thing).  When brain dies what becomes of this process?

If it weren't for the observation that waves can perpetuate without a medium (well it's more complicated than that but there is no aether), maybe the process that is mind can go on even though the body has died.  This is pretty much standard Theravada Buddhism that the "life spirit" goes into a womb and is reborn, except see it as the conservation of sentience.

Trouble is the memory and most of the personality are in the brain and die, and the new baby has its own genes and life experiences and is a different person.  This would not seem to be a formula for "going on."  It is more like making a big deal out of the fact that the atoms that make up our body get recirculated through the biosphere.  Substitute life spirit for atoms and you get much the same result, not terribly profound and not particularly different from simple extinction.

Mozart (and most great artists of all fields) had a distinct voice from the youngest age, and he has not reappeared.

Everyone is much nearer death than they imagine.

The life we find on the earth occupies but a vanishingly thin layer near its surface, even when you count deep rock microbes.  It has no effect at all on what goes on through the main mass of the planet.

Distinguish between life (complex molecules with that mechanically reproduce themselves using material from the immediate environment) and sentience (the experience of life and sensory input and emotions and thoughts).  The biosphere is not sentient and is composed mainly of things not sentient.  Anyone who says otherwise needs to prove it.

Because I don't know the reason for something doesn't mean I have to say it is God.  I can just say I don't know.

Russia is getting scary

I did a survey of several Russian newspapers available in English on the internet.  They all take the same line. 

The difference between this and Western reporting, where newspapers are all over the place -- although in the Ukrainian case both leftwing and rightwing papers are similar and the exact opposite of what Russian readers are getting -- is striking.

It is discouraging too.  There is plainly no freedom to publish against the government in Russia -- something that can only be said to be fascist.  That is a strong word and a few have taken me to task for using it to describe Putin, but I think the evidence is strong. 

There is the resurgent militarism and military boasting, the use of nationalism for political purposes, the clamping down on the press and other forms of expression, the use of hoodlums and criminals as enforcers, the close ties with cartels and industrial lords, and of course the anti-gay campaign (pick a disliked minority and persecute them).  It is all too familiar.

Dieting yoyo

I hate it but I have become convinced that you weigh what your destiny says you will weigh and trying to lose weight through will power and drugs creates a yo-yo and you put it back on with a little extra.  Exercise is good but only leads to a fit fat person, not bad but not good either.  Trying to diet permanently is like trying to hold your breath permanently, and changing your diet to healthy foods, while good for other reasons, only causes you to eat more to get the same calories.

Maxim about Wasabi mustard

Sometimes I (and probably most people) think of sentences that are "quotable."  I think when this happens to me I will from now on post them.

OK here goes:

There are many things where a little is good and more is horrible -- such as Wasabi mustard or anchovies or salt.

Burden of Proof

In the last post on witches and a few other times I have referred to the concept of "burden of proof."

This is the idea that if one asserts something (say being a witch or that the Buddha existed as an actual figure with all the miraculous things that happened), which is both important and hard to believe, then one must provide what is called "extraordinary proof."

This burden is in fact so great that pretty much nothing is enough.  Testimony is useless, as are historical documents and even experimental demonstration.

Of course people don't like this burden -- they want to believe what they want to believe, and some are such that if they have seen something they will believe it without doubt, even when many possible explanations are available.

Of course at issue is always the question of whether or not something is "hard to believe," since for some many things are quite easy to believe, mainly because they were brought up believing it.

Things at the frontier of science make a good example.  The debate about whether too little salt is possible, and the assertion that the Heart Association's recommendation is too little comes to my mind.  To me that is fairly easy to accept.  We need some salt to survive, so it stands to reason too little would be harmful, and the best evidence as I see it is that only some people really need worry about getting too much (although this is still undecided), so a minimum seems logical.

I hasten to insert here that we know too much salt is harmful. 

What I suspect has happened is that the scientists at the Heart Association have locked them into the belief in the evil of salt (subconsciously of course), and to them the burden of proving otherwise is extraordinary.  To me it is not.

Sometimes some scientific result is announced, calling for a reversal of some otherwise well established part of the scientific edifice.  People who make such announcements (and the journalists who eagerly broadcast the claim) properly come under heavy criticism for making such things a press event when they have not met the burden of proof and in fact can't (such a thing requires independent confirmations out the wazoo).

There are some claims that no amount of evidence would suffice short of hard physical specimens that are such that all sorts of experts can pour over.   Perhaps ghosts, rebirths (reincarnation), miracles, angels, witches, demons, alien visitors (the interstellar kind), Sasquatch and similar animals and beasts all fall into that category.  They are all hard to believe and easily contested, and would require evidence that goes beyond anything available.

The main point is that the default has to be disbelief -- not so much rejection or ridicule but just not believing or even thinking it might be true -- without evidence that meets the high burden of proof.

Why can't we just "choose to believe?"  After all it is not possible to disprove such claims (most of the time -- sometimes the evidence against the claim is massive).  The thing is, there is no reason to accept such things, so such "choice" isn't really a choice but just wishful thinking and being irrational and even irresponsible.

Such intellectual dishonesty may even be immoral -- I don't know that lying to oneself is a moral offense or not -- I can see a case for either position.  Certainly pushing it or preaching it to others is immoral. 

Witches

Since I seem to get more attention with witches as my topic than my usual stuff, let me talk about them and see what reactions it brings.

The idea that there are people with special "magical" powers or that such a thing can be learned, is not demonstrable and I think almost certainly fantasy.  That said, what are we to think about people who think they are witches or who fear them or whatever?

The Bible says one must kill any witch.  So I guess the Bible disagrees with me on this.  I think though that the Bible is not just in error here, but, even if witches were real, they should not be killed.  The Bible here is morally wrong.

More than likely someone who thinks they are a witch is just mixed up some way, and killing such people is wrong.  So, also, of course, is killing people thought to be witches, no matter how eccentric they may be.  This sort of thing is as morally corrupt as it gets.  No matter how sure one may be that someone is a witch, the burden of proof for such an idea exceeds anything that might be produced.  Some things are just like that.

This doesn't of course mean that the state shouldn't execute murderers, and shouldn't jail people committing other crimes, including I would think saying one is a witch to extort or commit fraud.  It is, though, the murder or extortion or fraud that is prosecuted, not the witchcraft.

Besides, it seems likely, if there are witches, they could be doing good rather than evil.

 

Russians in Ukraine

I must say I have a real problem with Russia thinking it has the right to meddle in other countries to "protect" the rights of Russian nationals there.

That was the excuse Hitler used to seize Czechoslovakia, and it was no more valid then than now.  A nation should act as much as possible to protect overseas citizens and nationals, but not nationals of another country, no matter what the cultural links.  The only exception is when human rights are involved, and then it should be without regard to the ethnicity or culture of those being persecuted.

Actually this is nationalism, and the citizens and nationals of any country owe their allegiance to the nation they are part of, not any other country, and so the rebels in Ukraine should be seen as really simply traitors putting ethnicity ahead of nation.  When ethnic groups fail to realize this they bring discrimination and persecution down on their heads, and should not be given foreign assistance.

Reviewing the blogs I've posted, it seems there is a theme - what is right and what is wrong - ethics.  I haven't delved much into the formal ethics taught in college of Socrates and Kant and others, although I think it is good that people study these thinkers.  I've just kind-of applied a mix of Western philosophy and Buddhist ethical thought, in a personal way coming down to where I think one should be and then explaining and defending that.

There are and will of course be blogs on other topics, but in the end I notice that they seem to almost always come down to our doing what is right.  I think life is mostly about that, and for sure happiness is.  (Oh, following traditional rules, even though they are presented as ethical rules, often causes unhappiness, but this is because (at least in the given situation) they are wrong and in our hearts if we are sensitive we know it).

So I'm going to change the title of this blog to something more specific and point out the general thrust.

Contradicting myself

It has been brought to my attention that I appear to contradict myself (horrors!).  In one blog I state the maxim that one should eat whatever one is served when one is a guest.  In the other I say that I usually carefully pick out the curdled blood when it is in my noodles or soup or whatever.

Well, in the latter case I had in mind in a restaurant.  When one is paying for the meal one is not a guest.  That said it is not good to make an issue of such things anywhere.

But really the criticism of this contradiction misses the point that I think is a thread throughout this blog -- that rules or laws or maxims of an ethical nature are guides, but we must always be willing to abandon them if it leads to our doing something wrong.

This takes judgment and compassion, and for the most part the feelings of our host are paramount.  When it comes to something clearly unhealthy (as opposed to meat which is plainly not unhealthy as so many thrive with it in their diets), one would still not say anything and try to be surreptitious.  At least that is where I come down on this.  I must say that I would rather eat the blood than hurt my host, and I think this is where I come down, although of course others may think otherwise.

It is OK to avoid things for no reason other than that you find them repulsive.  One often should try to get over and control one's revulsions, but if something makes one unhappy, then by all means avoid it.  It's just that in the end we are better off not having to avoid things.

My main point though is that if one is a vegetarian one need to not let this be known.  It is praying in public and people don't like it and are often offended. 

Eating blood -- if one eats meat, why not?  As a westerner I have a cultural problem and can't bring myself to do anything but carefully pick out the bits of blood in my noodles or whatever and set them aside, although of course I say nothing.

One should not eat blood for the same reason one should avoid organ meats -- the iron and metallic load is too great (and other reasons -- this is not a medical blog so research it yourself).

However many religions prohibit blood consumption on its own for superstitious reasons -- it seems the precursors of modern Jews thought the soul was in the blood, or some such thing, and this got passed to Christians and Muslims, so that in most countries there are special laws regarding the draining of blood from slaughtered animals.  The Muslims appear to have taken this way to far and demand slaughter methods that are barbaric and cruel.

Of course common sense tells us that even after draining the blood there will remain a lot of it in the meat.  I don't know how the religions who make a big deal of this rationalize this simple fact.

I read in the Bible's Book of Acts that the apostles lifted most of the Jewish dietary laws from Christians (to ease the conversion of Gentiles) but did leave the "abstain from blood" in there.

So now we have at least one Christian group, Jehovah's Witnesses, who expel members who have a transfusion or allow one for their children to save the child's life, and insist the child be allowed to die.

Even if there were an ethical reason for not eating blood, and I can see no rational justification -- just authority and superstition -- this reflects a horrible and tragic and, indeed, evil, application of ethics.  When presented with a choice of two wrongs, one must choose the lesser -- and a child dying versus a blood transfusion -- sheesh! -- obviously breaks that fundamental rule.  

Eating meat

Something I've wanted to post about for awhile is the need for mankind to get off meat, or at least drastically reduce what we eat.

Of course there are ethical reasons -- meat is from sentient animals and although a case can be made that such animals might actually have better lives (and a good deal better karma if one sees this as valid -- and of course at a loss of karma for humans involved), the reality is probably that they lead lives of suffering, considering how many of those who raise animals for slaughter treat them.

But there are three other reasons.  There is the environment, our health, and cost.  The burden on the environment of ever-increasing animal husbandry offsets much that the world does to slow climate change, and those who make personal sacrifices for the environment but continue to demand meat are being hugely inconsistent.  Also of course red meat is well known to contribute to modern diseases and suffering.  Finally, leave the meat out and the food budget gets much lower, leaving money for other pleasures or charity.

I don't think it would be a good thing to completely eliminate meat, since it does add certain nutrients difficult to get otherwise, and it is very pleasurable.  The pleasure however can be gotten by keeping its use down as a sort-of condiment rather than a main dish and experimenting with meat substitutes.

If one does decide to leave meat out of one's diet, one should remember the maxim that, when a guest, eat what is served, and not fuss or cause one's host to even be aware.  The amount of rudeness and arrogance sometimes seen in vegetarians is unfortunate and counterproductive.

Putin says he could take Kiev in two weeks.  Probably true but arrogant and, of course, taking it would be only the beginning.  The Ukrainians will not just fold with the fall of a city.

We seem to have a fascist on our hands.  The world, and especially Europe, would do well to pay close attention.  After what Russia has been through, this isn't too surprising, and nationalism is an easy enough way of thinking for those who are so inclined.  I doubt most Russians would buy what is going on if the actually knew the details.