Home
Life Examined [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
G.B.

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

How many people would you kill to end religious intolerance? [Jul. 26th, 2009|03:05 pm]
[Tags|]

From J.D. Tuccille via examiner.com:
But any proposal for a new law (or for maintaining an old one) should come with a question attached: How many people are you willing to kill to see this enforced?


This was fresh on my mind when I recently saw an interview show with Daniel C. Dennett (It was a Charlie Rose show, with Bill Moyers filling in.) Dennett mentioned his recommendation for requiring all children to learn about other religions. (About 7:00 in part 5 of this video set.) And I thought, "This guy does sound pretty calm and mild-mannered, proposing something that from my own liberal tendencies I am inclined to agree with, but what harsh reality would be shown if he had to face this question and the facts behind it?

One wonders, would he back off? Would he coldly reply with something like, "you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs?" Would he argue something different? How many possibilities are there?
LinkLeave a comment

The Education of Edward Bok [Jul. 26th, 2009|02:16 pm]
[Tags|]

From, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie:
Years ago, a poor Dutch immigrant boy washed the windows of a bakery shop after school to help support his family. His people were so poor that in addition he used to go out in the street with a basket every day and collect stray bits of coal that had fallen in the gutter where the coal wagons had delivered fuel. That boy, Edward Bok, never got more than six years of schooling in hi life; yet eventually he made himself one of the most successful magazine editors in the history of American journalism. How did he do it? that is a long story, but how he got his start can be told briefly. He got his start by using the principles advocated in this chapter.

He left school when he was thirteen and became an office boy for Western Union, but he didn't for one moment give up the idea of an education. Instead, he started to educate himself. He saved his carfares and went without lunch until he had enough money to buy an encyclopedia of American biography--and then he did an unheard-of thing. He read the lives of famous people and wrote them asking for additional information about their childhoods. He was a good listener. He asked famous people to tell him more about themselves. He wrote General James A. Garfield, who was then running for President, and asked if it was true that he was once a tow boy on a canal; and Garfield replied. He wrote General Grant asking about a certain battle, and Grant drew a map for him and invited this fourteen-year-old boy to dinner and spent the evening talking to him.

Soon our Western Union messenger boy was corresponding with many of the most famous people in the nation; Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Longfellow, Mrs. Abraham Lincoln, Louisa May Alcott, General Sherman and Jefferson Davis. Not only did he correspond with these distinguised people, but as soon as he got a vacation, he visited many of them as a welcome guests in their homes. This experience imbued him with a confidence that was invaluable. These men and women fired him with a vision and ambition that shaped his life. and all this, let me repeat, was made possible solely by the application of the principles we are discussing here.
LinkLeave a comment

Education as a filter [Jul. 26th, 2009|01:23 pm]
The medieval university degree structures were based on the guild system. In this mileu the bachelor's degree was roughly equivalent to the apprencice, the so-called master's degree was roughly equivalent to the journeyman and the doctor's degree was roughly equivalent to the level of master craftsman, with the doctoral thesis roughly equivalent to the masterpiece. The reason for arranging things this way was to keep knowledge subordinate to the catholic church. It was basically an elaborate filter which was meant to weed out people who were likely to teach heretical ideas before they would become doctors. (Doctor originally meaning teacher.)
-source: Steven L. Goldman Ph.D. Lehigh University in the TTC lecture series "Great Scientific Ideas that Changed the World"

If this structure acted as a filter in the middle ages, then its perpetuation into the modern world probably means that it still acts as a filter. What kinds of ideas is today's university structure filtering out before its proponents achieve the status of doctor, or Ph.D.?
LinkLeave a comment

A pun [Jul. 23rd, 2009|11:09 pm]
S says: One of the things I like about the design of this cat castle are the posts wrapped in sisal rope, for scratching.

I say: What's that? Rope that just lays there?
LinkLeave a comment

Joshua Slocum's route on Google Earth [Jul. 10th, 2009|04:12 am]
[Tags|]

Joshua Slocum's memoir of his, the first, solo circumnavigation of the world completed in 1898 is one of the stories I am currently thoroughly enjoying. I was lucky enough to find this route marking of his journey viewable in Google Earth:

http://neversealand.downtothesea.org/2008/10/06/joshua-slocums-voyage-on-google-earth/

Google Earth with Route
LinkLeave a comment

What kind of Libertarian are you? [Jul. 9th, 2009|01:55 pm]
[Tags|]

Libertarian ideas come from many sources, and lead to many conclusions. Perhaps more than many other political or philosophical people, libertarians like to debate the nuances of their theories, and pay special attention to their differences once they understand that they have much of the big picture in common. Here are some links to debates about the kinds, branches and strategies in libertarian thought that I've discovered today:

Post by Jason Sorens at the Free State Project forums:
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=18387.0

Marginal Revolution post that seems to have started it:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/07/realizing-freedom.html

Wirkman Netizen's comments:
http://wirkman.net/wordpress/?p=1532

I'll have to get back to you about where I stand. Much of this seems overcomplicated, and makes use of terms that are novel and seem contrived to me, and I'm someone who became comfortable with catallaxy and praxeology long ago.

I will say that when I originally became aware of libertarianism I tended towards deductions from moral premises such as the non-aggression principle (NAP) or natural rights as I understood the US Declaration of Independence to refer to. I don't think that was so much a matter of my temperament, as that those arguments are more accessible than arguments that depend on understanding history or economics. In fact, the economics planks in the Libertarian platform initially seemed strange and unrealistic to me. It was only with time, as I came to understand that libertarian economic analysis was among the best, and that this as well as many historical examples confirmed the economic recommendations that I became confident in arguing from a more utilitarian viewpoint.

Also, I have come to see most political ideas and issue positions as historical accidents. That is, gay rights and vegetarianism don't naturally go together, those are associations that seem compatible based on bizarre coincidences in the history of the USA's two major parties. The same thing can be said about big business and religion.

This is not to say that ideas don't have consequences, I think a good case can be made, for instance that a planned economy will tend to lead to a regimented society, and this is a problem for liberals who want to promise job security. Likewise free markets lead to moderation in religious views and a tendency towards cosmopolitan values like tolerance, which could mean that people who want lots of public displays of faith are undercutting themselves if they also want free markets.

One of the biggest philosophical difficulties for libertarians tends to be the question of how to treat children. I don't have easy answers here, but I find it odd that there seems to be very little discussion of what kinds of treatment work best to instill the habits and values of liberty, and what forces are at work in the modern world that may tend to stifle these. But these are extremely important questions to deal with if liberty is going to have any future. Some of the best ideas for how to deal with children and help them become emotionally and otherwise self-sufficient comes from John Taylor Gatto. But he is just one of a cluster of people I could recommend as good writers about how to bring up children well. I also like Lenore Skenazy, A. S. Neil, and others.

Behind the question of how to raise children consistent with and fit for liberty may lie a basic question of the relationship between practice in liberty, volition and maturity or moral action. That is, to the extent we do not have the opportunity for autonomous action our development and capacity for virtue is retarded.
LinkLeave a comment

Lyell an evolutionist before Darwin? [Jul. 8th, 2009|01:08 pm]
From Wikipedia:
Lyell first became aware of the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck when he was 26, in 1827. A letter to Mantell reads, in part, as follows:

"I devoured Lamark... his theories delighted me... I am glad that he has been courageous enough and logical enough to admit that his argument, if pushed as far as it must go, if worth anything, would prove that men may have come from the Ourang-Outang. But after all, what changes species may really undergo!... That the Earth is quite as old as he supposes, has long been my creed..."

***
Here we begin to see that there is a bit of a chicken and egg problem with Blaming evolutionary ideas on Darwin, It is well known that he claimed that the gradual changes over eons in landforms as in Lyell's theories, which he read during his voyages inspired him to think animals too were changed by gradual processes, but here we find that Lyell himself was already influenced by evolutionary ideas. It goes to show that ideas, even seemingly shocking ones are in the air.

This is not controversial to anyone, except for a few conservatives* who want to blame Darwin for leading us on some sort of intellectual wrong-turn.

A fuller examination of Darwin, the man, his life and his times has led me instead to the conclusion that evolution was a concept that was in the air in Victorian England. Anyone who even knows about Darwin's family knows that his grandfather had evolutionary ideas. Darwin was periodically exposed to radical materialism at college, and here we see that even the geologist whose theories he found himself testing on his voyage around the world already considered an evolutionary theory to be very likely.

And there were others. There was Alfred Russel Wallace, of course, but there were also journalists and arborists who shook people up and invited ridicule with incomplete theories. Darwin was not so much the originator of the idea of evolution, nor did he ever manage to guess at the mechanism behind it, no he was mostly a patient researcher who proved the case. It was probably better him than a mystic like Wallace, or a militant atheist. because they could have been marginalized, or dismissed as insincere.

In fact, Darwin's experience as a student of theology probably prepared him to face the consequences of his theory better than many of his detractors.

*Conservatives, a few words:
Darwin's own work leads us towards an appreciation for conservative principles from an intellectual point of view. I've elsewhere written that it is bizarre to me that people who understand that a complex system built up by slow adaptations can be hurt or destroyed by the introduction of novel elements, as exemplified by mutations in the genome, the introduction of new species or pollutants into an ecosystem or the addition of a new feature into a computer program which inevitably produces bugs could be oblivious to these principles being at work in their own culture or government.
Ridiculous ideas may be associated with conservative politics, but it is fallacious to suppose that therefore conservative politics is, or must necessarily be associated with ridiculous ideas.
LinkLeave a comment

Are there any atheist conservatives? [Jul. 1st, 2009|08:18 pm]
[Tags|]

The left-right dichotomy becomes more time worn and useless with every passing day. But it is very interesting to think about where it originated, and what kinds of things went together under the names of conservative and liberal in those days.

It is also interesting to consider what conservative and liberal mean in non-political speech today. When we look at evolution for instance, we are struck that here is a process that is deeply and essentially conservative, it preserves whatever is good. It adapts existing things to new purposes, it has a tight grasp on what is old, but tentatively and uneasily lives with recent developments, it takes the past as its guide.

It is interesting that our newest technologies teach us to respect this approach as well. Everyone who has written a program and many people who have used them for serious work know that you pay the price of instability and bugs when you adopt the newest version. Every change you make in a complex system opens the possibility for something to go wrong elsewhere that you couldn't anticipate. We all know what beta testing means, that finding errors that you have unintentionally introduced by making changes necessarily takes time.

It baffles me how people who are used to thinking this way about genomes, habitats and computers can be oblivious to the possibility that it might apply to politics as well.
LinkLeave a comment

Disorganized musings on contradictions within Pirsig's and Gattos writing [Jul. 1st, 2009|12:08 am]
[Tags|]

Her pleading tone, her religious fervor, greatly impressed him, along with the fact that her college entrance examinations had placed her in the upper one percent of the class.

-excerpt from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig
***
Why might that impress him? Pirsig presents us with a number of contradictions in this book. Here, and in Lila, he makes a lot of noise about his own IQ, his own great intelligence and observational powers, though he seems to take sorting categories as a craft and the kinds of things he thinks count as evidence are epistemologically unsophisticated. He seems to rely a lot on gut feelings, and the idea that if someone is smart they are more likely to be right.
His contradictions though, are such as the identification with students who are failing, corroborated in conversations with other teachers the insight that the best students are always failing, because they are wild, untamed, sometimes hurt and vicious. This is because school is not good for them. Yet he also identifies with the top brains, with people like Einstein, and this girl with the high IQ score, but does not see himself as being like the students who go along to get along, the girl with thick glasses behind which lie the eyes of a drudge, who was coming close to failing an assignment because she couldn't think of anything to say and was distraught by her mysterious, unwilling disobedience, her failure to follow orders.
On the other hand, Gatto doesn't believe that IQ tests really measure anything, or that there is any difference in the intelligence of gifted kids or so-called learning-disabled children. He thinks the whole apparent range of mental abilities can almost completely be put down to schools using tracking to separate people with some kinds of backgrounds from others, with a tiny niche of super-schools, with a spare program of hard exercizes designed to build extreme confidence left out by design, to enable an elite to enable their children to take control of society from the top.
Though even what Gatto has said about children from different backgrounds has contradictions. He says at one point that shcool makes children give up, and that poor children give up sooner. Yet he describes such childhood scourges as suicide as being an affliction of the rich, almost exclusively. Apparently he sees some source of strength in the poor life.
Phaedrus supposedly saw his failure from college as innoculating him against feeling the need to please academics. Yet he goes on to teach, as Gatto might say, institutionalizing himself. Placing himself in a kind of artificial world, in which he was the authority figure, connected to the school but allowed to be the focus of immature students in a vacuum each day. This is kind of an ironic reflection since it also happens literally in this book, in the sense of institutionalize that has the greatest colloquial use.

LinkLeave a comment

Libertarians as the Winning Team [Jun. 30th, 2009|11:59 am]
[Tags|]

Jason Sorens talk from the 2009 Porcupine Freedom Festival. On why libertarians are the winning team.

In New Hampshire at least.

I have got to move there.
LinkLeave a comment

Too Big to Fail [Jun. 30th, 2009|11:49 am]
Too big to fail, largely seems to be a code word for: will hurt rich people if it fails- and we can't let that happen, of course.
LinkLeave a comment

School, the fallability of teachers and heuristics [Jun. 29th, 2009|09:58 pm]
[Tags|]

People are generally very resistant to recognizing their own fallibility. They would give more accurate answers more of the time if they were open to correction. That schools are environments in which adults tend to be isolated from other adults, but surrounded with children who will not correct them and are not allowed to do so probably shows a strong organizational reason why we should be skeptical of what we learn in school regardless of how dull or brilliant the teachers there may be.
LinkLeave a comment

Comment from "Lies We Tell Kids" [Jun. 28th, 2009|07:29 pm]
[Tags|]

The following is in response to a comment to Paul Graham's article "Lies we tell Kids" at:link
... and by reference can see the influence packaging has had on my own ability to quickly dismiss thoughts of desperate cows clambering to avoid the stun bolt as I bite into my bacon cheeseburger. I can do it quite easily, but would never kill a cow.
...
***
What strikes me in the comment referenced above is the oddness that vegitarianism itself seems to be largely a product of our sanitized world. This person who rationalizes well about how pointless it may be to care about killing a cow, yet also finds his child's repulsion to meat natural, though it seems mostly driven by packaging. Mostly he fails to convince me that he is so pure he would never kill a cow.

Maybe he's right, and yet I've read plenty of other evidence from people who have found themselves thrust into war, or other situations of chaos that they learn to kill when it becomes a necessity.

Maybe it is an untruth created by a history that homogenizes things into generalizations, but it seems that vegetarianism was almost nonexistent in past ages when killing something was how a majority of people might get meat. It only becomes a concern when people become civilized, in the sense of citified, and by the remove that this density of life and division of labor affords them, find that they can experiment with a vegetarian lifestyle.

Clearly the experience has been different in other countries.
Though they have special situations of other kinds, or so one may argue. The mystics of India, like the Massai, may not have been able to afford to outright kill members of their herd for meat, but lived off of what they gave, though westerners might shrink at this. And for most of human history in all parts of the world meat was a rare bonus in the diet of most common folk. When people are barely getting by they don't seem to care so much where their salt and protien comes from.

But we are living in conditions of luxury more often today, and experimenting with vegetarianism, or delaying the break with childhood's squeamishness about the origins of meat is just one more thing we are able to afford. If most people who now practice such dietary choices were to lose that luxury its loss would probably be faced up to and endured with no lingering trauma or regrets in the same way most people today matter-of-factly face up to and endure a yearly flu shot.

I'm not saying that there may not be some value in a vegetarian diet. There may be health benefits to it, or there may be economic or environmental benefits. But I am saying that I think the psychological or spiritual benefits are being very overstated.

Most of all, I think the deception in this comment is one practiced on ourselves, and it consists in denying our capacity to kill when it suits our belly and be callous enough about it to come to the conclusion that a cow's life isn't worth any tears.
LinkLeave a comment

Unnatural Development [Jun. 26th, 2009|08:46 pm]
[Tags|]

With the whip or the perfumed hand, we condition children to subordinate their own learning patterns--those sequences unique to every man or woman born--to the arbitrary whim of some servant of the state. Think of your fingerprint. Suppose you had to submit its whorls and ridges to surgical alteration in order to meet some state standard of a politically correct fingerprint. Ridiculous, right? Then why not equally ridiculous that some stranger tells your kid what to think, when to think, how long to think, what to find important in the thoughts, etc.? I tell you as a teacher the mutilation from this procedure is long lasting and in most cases, permanent.

The above is an excerpt from a speech or article by John Taylor Gatto, former New York city and New York state Teacher of the Year winner and author of several books. My own comments follow:

My work with supermemo has led me to think of another analogy that may be more apt. With SM you take concious control of what to remember away from nature by the use of a routine, a device made to aid it (an SM programmed computer with knowledge database) and you work with it building the memories you've chosen.

This is almost directly analagous to modern bodybuilders who exercize muscle groups as they choose, and not as their activities require those muscles to develop naturally. They thereby achieve a shape and a look of extreme muscle definition which is almost impossible without a time consuming routine and mechanical aids. It is an exaggerated and unnatural development.

If your knowledge development by supermemo is analagous, then how much more unnatural must the mind of a schooled child become when their development is not even directed by their own interests and desires?

LinkLeave a comment

Socialization [Jun. 26th, 2009|11:36 am]
[Tags|]

Crime, drugs, and even worse forms of immorality are a fact of life in schools far from the ghetto--this is the vaunted socialization that institutional schooling inevitably delivers, which no "reform" can reach and which has sent an army of parents into the school rooms to take their children home. - John Taylor Gatto, former winner of the New York City and New York State Teacher of the year awards.
LinkLeave a comment

Interfacing with the Real World [Jul. 22nd, 2008|06:29 am]
Ok, I thought things had moved in a good direction. I thought the CIA reports pulling the Iran justification out from under Bush meant that a war with Iran had been put off, I thought that we ran an creditable enough attempt to get Ron Paul nominated, but that Obama was only going to be as bad as another Bill Clinton. I believed them when they said at the Texas state Republican convention that the Trans Texas Corridor was dead that it really was. And I just never realized that there was any real threat to net neutrality. Now I think there are serious reasons to worry about all of these.

Apparently the US has passed some resolutions for invasive inspections of everything entering and leaving Iran, which probably means a blockade which will be taken as an act of war. In the meantime Israel seems to be talking as if they are going to start without us if we don't do it for them.

Since Obama now supports FISA, that's syping on Americans. He supports the retroactive telecom immunity, and faith-based initiatives. (Is this the same guy who railed about people who cling to God and guns.)

Don't look for him to bring home the troops, or back down from Iran either, since the Democrat-led congress didn't.

I've learned that the state Republicans lied to their delegates about the Trans Texas Corridor highway being killed.

And I've learned that Canadians have discovered that their Internet providers want to end free access to all websites on the Internet by 2011. And this could be coming to our country as soon as three years later.

None of this is acceptable. None of these things are things I want to stand for if there is an anything I can do to challenge them in the slightest. I'm mad as hell about this situation. But what to do?

Well people upset about Bush, Fisa, Obama's new position and the impotence of the Democrat-led congress are starting a StrangeBedfellows organization at www.accountabilitynow.com and that seems like it might be a good start. Ron Paul supporters have a slate of congressional candidates in the libertypac. We can still try to get Ron Paul nominated through efforts like DVDs for Delegates:
http://www.dvds4delegates.com/

But it seems to me that the problems we have are bigger and more multi-faceted than current internet activism can handle.

One problem is, if we stay online, talking to each other on our special interest websites and video networks and keep together with like-minded people in niche chat rooms we aren't going to be accomplishing very much very quickly.

A serious weakness of the money-bomb plan is that it simply relies on the flash of showing a bunch of money, and on the mainstream media to report that something is going on. I think we need more than money. We need more than niche communities. We need to interface with the real world.

I think we need to talk about things we can do to affect the world quickly and substantially. I'm envisioning things like massive strikes, keeping close tabs on people who threaten our rights or betray public trust. Creating and taking transparency from those who will not give it willingly. Or perhaps something a bit more simple and low-tech, like organizing massive movements for turning off the computer, going outside, walking to your neighbor's front door, knocking, and inviting them into the conversation.
LinkLeave a comment

The FEC vs the Secret Ballot [Jul. 17th, 2008|10:17 am]
[Tags|]

Washington Times - BREITBART: Mr. Spielberg, tear down this wall:
In an article complaining about the intolerance and one-sidedness of LA's political scene, Andrew Breitbart slips this very insightful comment in at the end as a conclusion:
What's worse, when Mr. Obama can come to town to cherry-pick untold millions in donations - and Mr. McCain is shunned because a simple FEC search of his artsy donors could ruin a phalanx of careers (not to mention many Lexus paint jobs) - then something's desperately wrong.


I consider this very interesting because it points out a deep truth about democracy in the age of the internet and of regulation, an important point that goes beyond partisan politics or cultural divides. It is basically that the same argument that supports the secret ballot also supports allowing people to keep their donations private.

Clearly, if we live in a time when what we donate and who we donate to must be reported and kept track of, and doubly so if it is available to everyone who wants to search for it, then if we donate to someone that our neighbors, or the new administration happens to disapprove of, then we can become the target of revenge.

The Libertarian party challenged the FEC on just this point a few years back, and lost. Though its hard to see how a fair reading of their case can possibly have been the cause of their losing. It simply cannot be a false claim if it is something you must be prudent to avoid or else suffer costly property damage in a major American city.
LinkLeave a comment

The difference [May. 27th, 2008|07:07 am]
The difference between modern serfs as opposed to medieval serfs seems to be that where medieval serfs duty was to work for their lords, modern serfs must be good customers for their lords.

Yes, I've re-thought a lot of things and it will be worthwhile to examine them.
LinkLeave a comment

Police Morality [Sep. 21st, 2007|04:05 pm]
Woman arrested at Boston airport after bomb scare | U.S. | Reuters:
"Thankfully, she complied and so she ended up in a cell and not in a morgue,"


It seems you'll never hear a cop say instead is "Thankfully we kept our heads long enough to avoid murdering and innocent person."

Which, once you understood what she was innocent, is what I think someone should say.

Apparently, being a cop means disowning responsibility for violence. If you kill someone because you are too-uptight, you can just claim that they acted wrong. They shouldn't have made you nervous, they should have obeyed sooner and more obviously.

That attitude is wrong. And I'm sick of it. Sick and very angry.
LinkLeave a comment

Maligning Youth [Sep. 17th, 2007|11:05 am]
This Is Your (Father’s) Brain on Drugs - New York Times:
30 years ago, the riskiest age group for violent death was 15 to 24. But those same boomers continue to suffer high rates of addiction and other ills throughout middle age, while later generations of teenagers are better behaved.


Isn't that sobering. Yeah, I'm just barely over 30, but after that terrible california cell phone law targeting teens I'm hot under the collar and ready to see someone smack down the people who are maligning youth.

I'm also left wondering, what was so bad in the 60's that scarred that generation so?
LinkLeave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]

Advertisement