In applying to Yale law school I was required to submit a 250 word essay on any give topic. Below is the third essay amongst the three finalists:
The reason offered for society’s rejection of violence often boils down to the axiom that violence is wrong. Yet it is fair to ask: why it is wrong? At this point the respondent would probably assert that violence is antithetical to coexistence and that coexistence is a prerequisite for society’s success. Alternatively, they may respond that causing pain is inherently unjust and violence cannot exist without pain.
But if all reasons underpinning the rejection of violence are rooted in rational reasoning, what happens when violence is rationalized? Take Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, or the guy whose wife was cheating on him. Each one of them offered a compelling and reasoned argument to commit violence.
The cynical and pragmatic thinker may agree with the above reasoning and conclude that the degree of justness attributed to acts of violence is simply a product of the position that the one committing the violence is in. Still, for those who wish to establish a universal rule against violence, what principles can we employ that will ensure acceptance?
Yet if we are to find one universal principle that all humanity follows we need that principle to be non-rational. After all, as the post modernist would contend, the only truth that is universal is that which each individual has created as their own unique truth. If Humanity is inherently subjective, it would seem then, that there is no source for or of universal truth.
Is humanity then doomed to experience murder, and even genocide? Or is it that murder is in fact a natural occurrence that is as integral to the human as subjectivity or passion?
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Monday, July 26, 2010
Inception Is Advocating Social Engineering
The last movie I paid to see was the Dark Night. Not because I'm a fan of the Batman series but because I love different and well presented perspectives. So when a respected acquaintance suggested that Inception fit the criteria I jumped at the opportunity. I was not disappointed.
The movie plot is as straight as Charlie Rangel and is as difficult to follow as a classic Gaddafi UNGA rant. Yet unlike Gaddafi’s dearth of coherency, Inception is complex because it is presenting an intricate and multilayered argument: social engineering under normal circumstances is immoral and dangerous but it justifiable when attempting to rectify global ills.
The plot introduces the audience to the method of social engineering,“inception” -planting an idea- and how difficult this process may be to apply to an acute mind. As the human condition is to reject outside manipulation or at least mistrust them (in the plot this natural mistrust takes the form of dream projections). For a business savvy individual like Fischer -the heir to the monopolistic energy empire- these self defense mechanisms are especially potent. So the idea must be subtly planted so that the inception is perceived to be indigenous to the target.
This is the premise for the entire plot. Otherwise why didn’t Saito just approach Fischer and explain to him that an energy monopoly was bad for the global community? Because Fischer would have perceived Saito’s humanitarian argument as a ploy to destroy his father’s legacy.
The notion that a foreign idea must become indigenous, in order for one to act on that idea, is actually quite prevalent. Indeed, most people act on their own perceived potential, i.e. they grow-up and internalize the perceptions of those around them. For example, let us say your parents are writers. From the day you are born those around you are predisposed to projecting the belief that you will also be a writer. You internalize those foreign beliefs and the “foreign idea” -the inception occurs. You are convinced that you are a natural writer and pursue a career in writing. If however you did not believe that you have a penchant for writing then you most probably would reject the false idea of becoming a writer. In other words in order for the foreign idea to motivate your desire to write, you must feel that the idea is yours and true, and not a external attempt to shape who you are. Thus if your parents pressured you to become a writer, and you did not feel it was truly your calling, you would reject their pressure as a foreign manipulation. This rejection probably takes the form of projections, such as my parents are trying to force me to be something I am not. Or, just because others in my family are talented in a certain way doesn’t mean I am… For more on this specific point please see post “The http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/curse-of-unfulfilled-potential-1-will.html.
Inception also anticipates the objections to planting potential ideas. This objection takes the form of Mal, who represents the dangers inherent to planting ideas and subtle manipulation. Going back to our example, Mal is like an individual who grows up and enters therapy after they fail to fulfill the internalized potential to be a writer. Potential that their misguided parents and others planted in them. They experience the limbo of Mal, not knowing whether they are legitimately pursuing their potential or whether their goals and aspirations are figments of their own delusional imagination, and will never be achieved. Little do they know their confusion and feelings of being delusional were planted in them by a misguided external force. Yet because they are so sure that it is their own potential, failure of achieving that potential feels like failure to achieve their purpose in life. Mal responds by jumping out of a window…
Yet despite the terrible effect of planting ideas (for example it is a necessary for parents to do so please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/curse-of-unfulfilled-potential-2.html) it is incumbent on society, in certain extreme instances, to "commit inception".
Saito takes the form of the wise decision maker who uses his spectacular wealth, such as buying the airline that Fischer flies, for the good of humanity. This includes drugging the heir of a monopoly and engineering him so that he too acts in a way that benefits society.
Who is the judge when such social engineering is condoned? Ah but that is the question. The mind behind Inceptions madness, offers an easily digestible scenario: a greedy capitalist would never accept that a certain act is necessary for humanities good. Instead the only way to influence him is to plant the idea in him that his deceased father wanted it. Capitalism's failures and the “greed” of multi-nationals is front page news, and it is easy to target the capitalist for engineering. But would the audience be so forgiving if we were dealing with socially engineering global atheism?
Which leads me to my last question, what if Cobb and company had failed to plant the idea? Would Saito have gone farther to “influence” the greedy capitalist?
The movie plot is as straight as Charlie Rangel and is as difficult to follow as a classic Gaddafi UNGA rant. Yet unlike Gaddafi’s dearth of coherency, Inception is complex because it is presenting an intricate and multilayered argument: social engineering under normal circumstances is immoral and dangerous but it justifiable when attempting to rectify global ills.
The plot introduces the audience to the method of social engineering,“inception” -planting an idea- and how difficult this process may be to apply to an acute mind. As the human condition is to reject outside manipulation or at least mistrust them (in the plot this natural mistrust takes the form of dream projections). For a business savvy individual like Fischer -the heir to the monopolistic energy empire- these self defense mechanisms are especially potent. So the idea must be subtly planted so that the inception is perceived to be indigenous to the target.
This is the premise for the entire plot. Otherwise why didn’t Saito just approach Fischer and explain to him that an energy monopoly was bad for the global community? Because Fischer would have perceived Saito’s humanitarian argument as a ploy to destroy his father’s legacy.
The notion that a foreign idea must become indigenous, in order for one to act on that idea, is actually quite prevalent. Indeed, most people act on their own perceived potential, i.e. they grow-up and internalize the perceptions of those around them. For example, let us say your parents are writers. From the day you are born those around you are predisposed to projecting the belief that you will also be a writer. You internalize those foreign beliefs and the “foreign idea” -the inception occurs. You are convinced that you are a natural writer and pursue a career in writing. If however you did not believe that you have a penchant for writing then you most probably would reject the false idea of becoming a writer. In other words in order for the foreign idea to motivate your desire to write, you must feel that the idea is yours and true, and not a external attempt to shape who you are. Thus if your parents pressured you to become a writer, and you did not feel it was truly your calling, you would reject their pressure as a foreign manipulation. This rejection probably takes the form of projections, such as my parents are trying to force me to be something I am not. Or, just because others in my family are talented in a certain way doesn’t mean I am… For more on this specific point please see post “The http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/curse-of-unfulfilled-potential-1-will.html.
Inception also anticipates the objections to planting potential ideas. This objection takes the form of Mal, who represents the dangers inherent to planting ideas and subtle manipulation. Going back to our example, Mal is like an individual who grows up and enters therapy after they fail to fulfill the internalized potential to be a writer. Potential that their misguided parents and others planted in them. They experience the limbo of Mal, not knowing whether they are legitimately pursuing their potential or whether their goals and aspirations are figments of their own delusional imagination, and will never be achieved. Little do they know their confusion and feelings of being delusional were planted in them by a misguided external force. Yet because they are so sure that it is their own potential, failure of achieving that potential feels like failure to achieve their purpose in life. Mal responds by jumping out of a window…
Yet despite the terrible effect of planting ideas (for example it is a necessary for parents to do so please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/curse-of-unfulfilled-potential-2.html) it is incumbent on society, in certain extreme instances, to "commit inception".
Saito takes the form of the wise decision maker who uses his spectacular wealth, such as buying the airline that Fischer flies, for the good of humanity. This includes drugging the heir of a monopoly and engineering him so that he too acts in a way that benefits society.
Who is the judge when such social engineering is condoned? Ah but that is the question. The mind behind Inceptions madness, offers an easily digestible scenario: a greedy capitalist would never accept that a certain act is necessary for humanities good. Instead the only way to influence him is to plant the idea in him that his deceased father wanted it. Capitalism's failures and the “greed” of multi-nationals is front page news, and it is easy to target the capitalist for engineering. But would the audience be so forgiving if we were dealing with socially engineering global atheism?
Which leads me to my last question, what if Cobb and company had failed to plant the idea? Would Saito have gone farther to “influence” the greedy capitalist?
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
The Unifying Factor: Relativist/Subjective Thinking Reflects Objective/Truth
What is a ball?
Some may answer “it’s like x”.
Professor Wolfgan Grassel argues (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8393&Itemid=48) that this is wrong answer. Because the correct answer requires a definition that places the ball into a more general category, i.e a spherical entity/object, “instead [of] an instance of balls, or of the usage of balls. Providing merely an aspect of what [it]is (by substituting a part for the whole)”.
Why do so many young students respond in this way to a simple question “what is a ball"? Grassel asserts that this is yet another manifestation of subjective/relativist thinking that has overtaken our culture of thought. Thus the student, automatically applies a completely subjective definition to a word, a “ball is LIKE x”. This, Grassel continues, is rooted in the enlightenment.
His line of argument continues. However the legitimacy of his underlying assertion that relativist thinking reflects the negative results of the enlightenment movement, is questionable. Also, in an ironic twist, relativist thinking -which has its roots in individuality/subjectivity- is in itself a reflection of a much deeper unity.
RELATIVIST THINKING DEFINED
Relativist thinking is defined in many different ways, but the underlying theme is that ones interpretation and subsequent actions reflect ones individual experiences.
It is important to recognize the prevalence of this type of thinking, also known as “x relativism”, because it is applied in almost every social milieu.
For example (it’s like) “moral relativism”, `imports the belief that what is deemed moral for one individual or society is deemed immoral by another. Take Native South-American tribes where women do not cover their breasts. In many Western countries that is unacceptable conduct. Try to define the word “black”. Many will associate it with the unknown, fear, death, crime, and the devil. Others will define it as the absence of light or as the color of their shirt. In politics, crime/terror is explained by some as the result of society imposing itself in a negative way on individuals or communities and by others as the lack of personal restraint or even inherent tendencies. In the media, the disparities in reporting and subtle word usage (terrorist, militant, rebel) between FOX and CNN. In science, Einstein’s theory of relativity argues that our perception depends on our vantage point, “standpoint theory”.
Indeed, if we assert that every person's thoughts, words, and actions are influenced by their unique experiences (upbringing, community, school, travel etc.) then everything is subjective and there is no one objective truth. In fact “Relativist thinking” is what explains and even justifies the above disparities in human thought.
From this perspective, the one Grassel presents, relativist thinking justifies eternal disunity, a perpetual lack of consensus in every level of our existence.
RELATIVIST THINKING REFLECTS DEEPER UNITY
On the other hand.
Paradoxically, “relativist thinking” is a superficial expression of the unifying factor!
For example, what is a hand? The evolutionary-scientist may respond it is a four fingered appendage evolved, advantageously, into four fingers and a thumb. Rafael Nadel could assert that it is what allows us to play tennis, and Brock Lessner affirms that it is something we use to pummel your opponent. These responses would aggravate Grassel, because they are subjective definitions engendered by relativist thinking.
At the same time Grassel would certainly acknowledge that these are all true answers just as all the subjective individuals in our discussion would agree that all the definitions are true. The hand IS a result of design, a weapon, or a human “holder”.
But how is that possible? How is it that all are true but so different, isn’t truth definitive/singular?
Many will shout “this is exactly the point”, there relativist/subjective thought doesn’t allow "one truth”.
Or
The underlying singular truth is so definitive, so immutable, so prevalent that it has far reaching multiplicity of affects all of which true are only because their source is true!
True the hand is the result of design, a weapon, or a holder, but only because the hand is part of the body. Without this underlying truth the hand would just be a piece of useless decomposing flesh and all those definitions would be patently false.
Indeed the only issue is recognizing that the reason why there are many truths is because there is a deeper unifying truth.
Thus if it is true that relativist thought is not a result of one deeper truth then there is indeed no one truth. Without the body the hand could be none of the subjective things we claim it is. Alternatively if there is an underlying truth/unifying factor, then each person’s truth (which stems from their individual experiences) is true but only so long as they are connected to the one underlying truth.
It would seem then, that the very existence of relativist thought which fosters multiple truths is enabled by a deeper singular truth. Thus the enlightenment movement, far from fostering further division, enabled a major step in recognizing our innate uniqueness (subjectivity/differences), and the unifying role of those differences.
Just as the hand is unique only so far as it is part of and serves the body, so to our unique qualities shine only when we are part of the unifying factor -when we serve each other.
Some may answer “it’s like x”.
Professor Wolfgan Grassel argues (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8393&Itemid=48) that this is wrong answer. Because the correct answer requires a definition that places the ball into a more general category, i.e a spherical entity/object, “instead [of] an instance of balls, or of the usage of balls. Providing merely an aspect of what [it]is (by substituting a part for the whole)”.
Why do so many young students respond in this way to a simple question “what is a ball"? Grassel asserts that this is yet another manifestation of subjective/relativist thinking that has overtaken our culture of thought. Thus the student, automatically applies a completely subjective definition to a word, a “ball is LIKE x”. This, Grassel continues, is rooted in the enlightenment.
His line of argument continues. However the legitimacy of his underlying assertion that relativist thinking reflects the negative results of the enlightenment movement, is questionable. Also, in an ironic twist, relativist thinking -which has its roots in individuality/subjectivity- is in itself a reflection of a much deeper unity.
RELATIVIST THINKING DEFINED
Relativist thinking is defined in many different ways, but the underlying theme is that ones interpretation and subsequent actions reflect ones individual experiences.
It is important to recognize the prevalence of this type of thinking, also known as “x relativism”, because it is applied in almost every social milieu.
For example (it’s like) “moral relativism”, `imports the belief that what is deemed moral for one individual or society is deemed immoral by another. Take Native South-American tribes where women do not cover their breasts. In many Western countries that is unacceptable conduct. Try to define the word “black”. Many will associate it with the unknown, fear, death, crime, and the devil. Others will define it as the absence of light or as the color of their shirt. In politics, crime/terror is explained by some as the result of society imposing itself in a negative way on individuals or communities and by others as the lack of personal restraint or even inherent tendencies. In the media, the disparities in reporting and subtle word usage (terrorist, militant, rebel) between FOX and CNN. In science, Einstein’s theory of relativity argues that our perception depends on our vantage point, “standpoint theory”.
Indeed, if we assert that every person's thoughts, words, and actions are influenced by their unique experiences (upbringing, community, school, travel etc.) then everything is subjective and there is no one objective truth. In fact “Relativist thinking” is what explains and even justifies the above disparities in human thought.
From this perspective, the one Grassel presents, relativist thinking justifies eternal disunity, a perpetual lack of consensus in every level of our existence.
RELATIVIST THINKING REFLECTS DEEPER UNITY
On the other hand.
Paradoxically, “relativist thinking” is a superficial expression of the unifying factor!
For example, what is a hand? The evolutionary-scientist may respond it is a four fingered appendage evolved, advantageously, into four fingers and a thumb. Rafael Nadel could assert that it is what allows us to play tennis, and Brock Lessner affirms that it is something we use to pummel your opponent. These responses would aggravate Grassel, because they are subjective definitions engendered by relativist thinking.
At the same time Grassel would certainly acknowledge that these are all true answers just as all the subjective individuals in our discussion would agree that all the definitions are true. The hand IS a result of design, a weapon, or a human “holder”.
But how is that possible? How is it that all are true but so different, isn’t truth definitive/singular?
Many will shout “this is exactly the point”, there relativist/subjective thought doesn’t allow "one truth”.
Or
The underlying singular truth is so definitive, so immutable, so prevalent that it has far reaching multiplicity of affects all of which true are only because their source is true!
True the hand is the result of design, a weapon, or a holder, but only because the hand is part of the body. Without this underlying truth the hand would just be a piece of useless decomposing flesh and all those definitions would be patently false.
Indeed the only issue is recognizing that the reason why there are many truths is because there is a deeper unifying truth.
Thus if it is true that relativist thought is not a result of one deeper truth then there is indeed no one truth. Without the body the hand could be none of the subjective things we claim it is. Alternatively if there is an underlying truth/unifying factor, then each person’s truth (which stems from their individual experiences) is true but only so long as they are connected to the one underlying truth.
It would seem then, that the very existence of relativist thought which fosters multiple truths is enabled by a deeper singular truth. Thus the enlightenment movement, far from fostering further division, enabled a major step in recognizing our innate uniqueness (subjectivity/differences), and the unifying role of those differences.
Just as the hand is unique only so far as it is part of and serves the body, so to our unique qualities shine only when we are part of the unifying factor -when we serve each other.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
THE COLDEST COLD WAR (3) a part of The Unifying Factor:
I just cant let go of the notion that America and China are in the midst of a covert war.
Nor can I ignore the feeling that this war is intimately connected to many political events that, ostensibly, are not commonly discussed in relation to both America and China.
Please bear with me.
I don't mean that the coldest cold war is the cause of these events -events that I will elaborate on in the coming weeks- but rather the war is a major component and relatively discernible part of a larger trend.
I believe that the coldest cold war and the many other pieces of the diffuse puzzle are in fact part of a global shift towards a new world order. Some would have you believe that a new world order has inherently negative connotations, and/or reeks of conspiracy theories, I couldn't disagree more.
Historically speaking there have been a number of world order shifts from East to West, and vis versa. All long term victors, had their detractors, but in retrospect contributed significantly to societies progress. The Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, the Far-Eastern nations like China and India -under the great unifier Chandra Gupta-, Ottomans, and now Western civilization. All the above civilizations, and many which I out of ignorance missed, contributed essential parts to global progress.True they all committed their unforgivable crimes, but the good, usually, outweighed the bad.
My point is simply that any long term world order shift does not necessarily denote negative progress. Nor were they in retrospect figments of societies imagination or as some term conspiraces.
At the same time these shifts all came about through instability and destructive force.
Thus when advocating for a new world order, we need to take into account the price vs the potential benefit.
That being said the development of an hypothesis, that I call the "coldest cold war", led me to the realization that the nature and impetus for this war reflected a larger motivation; an attempt to shift the world balance of power i.e a new world order. The first cold war had the same goal. Essentially this is what the Soviets attempted. They failed as a result of the consistent, and ultimately successful, implementation of the "Truman doctrine" (Communist containment).
The point is that however big the Chinese-American struggle it is only one part of a larger trend towards a new world order.
Another way of explicating the development of my perspective is that the coldest cold war was a clue that led me to the belief that nearly every major political event since 9/11, and perhaps from before can be traced to a larger motivation, a shift towards a new world order.
It may explain everything from the religious tension in the middle east, to Russia's recent moves in Eastern-Europe, (please see post, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Poland: Who’s Next?) to the "Bilderberg conspiracies". All issues that I have written on with a local perspective, not observing that the local reflects the global.
Conspiracy? Absolutely not!
The skeptic may contend that this is too big, too many details, too diffuse, for it all to reflect one story? I agree. I don't believe that some group meeting in Spain, or what not, is orchestrating this. Indeed my point is not to uncover some insidious plot to divide and control the world. Not only because I don't think that any one group, or consortium of groups, has the global insight to implement such a big and infinitely complex operation, but also because new world order shifts have happened before. They were the result of a series of unpredictable and disparate events that culminate with a shift. Who imagined that Rome would decay and fall or that the great Ottoman empire would drown in corruption? Were that orchestrated by some unseen human-hand, not according to most historians. Rather past shifts unfolded a seemingly natural progression of events that can be explained, retrospectively of course, by the combination of a series of coincidences, and human efforts to harness those coincidences.
I do not know who or what is behind this global trend, all I am attempting do is connect many seemingly separate events/effects with a common cause. Perhaps this will allow me to offer a different perspective, we shall see.
At the moment my observation is that the attempt at a new world order is the unifying factor.
I will attempt to further delineate/defend this perspective in the coming months.
Nor can I ignore the feeling that this war is intimately connected to many political events that, ostensibly, are not commonly discussed in relation to both America and China.
Please bear with me.
I don't mean that the coldest cold war is the cause of these events -events that I will elaborate on in the coming weeks- but rather the war is a major component and relatively discernible part of a larger trend.
I believe that the coldest cold war and the many other pieces of the diffuse puzzle are in fact part of a global shift towards a new world order. Some would have you believe that a new world order has inherently negative connotations, and/or reeks of conspiracy theories, I couldn't disagree more.
Historically speaking there have been a number of world order shifts from East to West, and vis versa. All long term victors, had their detractors, but in retrospect contributed significantly to societies progress. The Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, the Far-Eastern nations like China and India -under the great unifier Chandra Gupta-, Ottomans, and now Western civilization. All the above civilizations, and many which I out of ignorance missed, contributed essential parts to global progress.True they all committed their unforgivable crimes, but the good, usually, outweighed the bad.
My point is simply that any long term world order shift does not necessarily denote negative progress. Nor were they in retrospect figments of societies imagination or as some term conspiraces.
At the same time these shifts all came about through instability and destructive force.
Thus when advocating for a new world order, we need to take into account the price vs the potential benefit.
That being said the development of an hypothesis, that I call the "coldest cold war", led me to the realization that the nature and impetus for this war reflected a larger motivation; an attempt to shift the world balance of power i.e a new world order. The first cold war had the same goal. Essentially this is what the Soviets attempted. They failed as a result of the consistent, and ultimately successful, implementation of the "Truman doctrine" (Communist containment).
The point is that however big the Chinese-American struggle it is only one part of a larger trend towards a new world order.
Another way of explicating the development of my perspective is that the coldest cold war was a clue that led me to the belief that nearly every major political event since 9/11, and perhaps from before can be traced to a larger motivation, a shift towards a new world order.
It may explain everything from the religious tension in the middle east, to Russia's recent moves in Eastern-Europe, (please see post, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Poland: Who’s Next?) to the "Bilderberg conspiracies". All issues that I have written on with a local perspective, not observing that the local reflects the global.
Conspiracy? Absolutely not!
The skeptic may contend that this is too big, too many details, too diffuse, for it all to reflect one story? I agree. I don't believe that some group meeting in Spain, or what not, is orchestrating this. Indeed my point is not to uncover some insidious plot to divide and control the world. Not only because I don't think that any one group, or consortium of groups, has the global insight to implement such a big and infinitely complex operation, but also because new world order shifts have happened before. They were the result of a series of unpredictable and disparate events that culminate with a shift. Who imagined that Rome would decay and fall or that the great Ottoman empire would drown in corruption? Were that orchestrated by some unseen human-hand, not according to most historians. Rather past shifts unfolded a seemingly natural progression of events that can be explained, retrospectively of course, by the combination of a series of coincidences, and human efforts to harness those coincidences.
I do not know who or what is behind this global trend, all I am attempting do is connect many seemingly separate events/effects with a common cause. Perhaps this will allow me to offer a different perspective, we shall see.
At the moment my observation is that the attempt at a new world order is the unifying factor.
I will attempt to further delineate/defend this perspective in the coming months.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
BP, the Wedding, and the Lesson.
BP.
When it comes to the unfolding catastrophe, known deceptively as the "BP oil spill", here are the common subject tags. Katrina, Obama, Gulf Coast, tourism, off-shore drilling, corporate greed, economy, environment, and environmentalist.
You can easily discern the thesis of each tag, and how each tag is a brick (or floor, insert your own analogy) in the larger, depressing, narrative.
Thus this is Obama's Katrina, caused by corporate greed which motivated the search of oil off-shore, where it was not made illegal by environmentalists and led to the destruction of the environment and negatively affected tourism and the economy on the Gulf-coast.
Of course a predictable mosaic of agendas informed our beloved main stream media -and their disgruntled children in the blogoshere- decision to focus on specific elements/tags. Why it happened, who is ultimately responsible, and what should our policy be in the future, are questions that I will leave to the usual "experts".
What I like to ask is what lesson can we the average person learn? I do not mean an insight into human greed, that has already been covered, nor do I refer to a lesson in mob-psychology ,that too has been discussed -politics as usual. I refer to a universal lesson, one that can inform our larger understanding of what we are and our limitations, not for the sake of blame or even human elevation, rather for the sake of intrapersonal communication ( the language use or thought internal to the communicator).
Human collective political/social innovation is aimed at perfection. So we had empire, when that didn't work we said oh the problem is in the system. Then we had feudal fiefdoms, they failed to bring perfection and again we shouted “this system is flawed”. Then we built Democratic-capitalism, and communists responded with a revolution, pointing to its imperfections. Then communism fell, because of its own failings.
The point is that we humans justify our pursuit of perfection, by arguing that the flaw is in the system, and it is only a matter of building the perfect system. This means that whenever something doesn’t work as planned, we retrospectively claim we could have prevented this -“the problem is our approach not us”!
Yet I wonder, could it be that we are inherently imperfect and therefore that which we create will always reflect that imperfection? For those who wonder why I do not separate the creator from the created? I respond, who or what is perfect?…
Then again it may difficult for certain elements of humanity to accept this notion. Probably because it takes away our absolute control of our environment, and places it in the hands of a higher force -call it nature, G-d, the universal subconscious, or Gaia. This does not mean that everything is out of our hands, only that we cannot help but use our hands in a way that creates, the law of, unintended consequences (see The Black Swan, 2007 Nassim Nicholas Taleb, for more on this subject).
So how does the individual and society as a whole prepare for manifestations of our imperfection? How should society respond to BP, the economic meltdown, and the unexpected death of 9 violent activists?
The wedding.
My younger sister recently got married. At the conclusion of the Chupa ceremony -wedding canopy under which the the groom places the ring on the bride and the union is publicly affirmed- the customary vessel was broken and all the guests exclaimed "mazal tov"!
My uncle, at the weeding, offered two explanations for this tradition.
Here is the relevant interpretation.
“In the process of marriage, the bride and groom will sometimes break things (literally and metaphorically), remember your response should be mazal tov”!
But you just lost our entire financial nest egg? You just destroyed the livelihood of 1000’s?
Mazal Tov?
Let us remember Mazal Tov means good luck. Should we launch an inquiry, investigate what happened, try to prevent failure in the future, of course. Will our retrospective actions, unpredictably create unintended consequences, YES.
The lesson.
THEREFORE.
Accept what happened, mourn, cry, express anger but remember you/we cannot control everything -we need the higher force to bestow good luck on us and our future. Let the unintended consequences be positive.
So I say to all of you reading this post “MAZAL TOV”!
When it comes to the unfolding catastrophe, known deceptively as the "BP oil spill", here are the common subject tags. Katrina, Obama, Gulf Coast, tourism, off-shore drilling, corporate greed, economy, environment, and environmentalist.
You can easily discern the thesis of each tag, and how each tag is a brick (or floor, insert your own analogy) in the larger, depressing, narrative.
Thus this is Obama's Katrina, caused by corporate greed which motivated the search of oil off-shore, where it was not made illegal by environmentalists and led to the destruction of the environment and negatively affected tourism and the economy on the Gulf-coast.
Of course a predictable mosaic of agendas informed our beloved main stream media -and their disgruntled children in the blogoshere- decision to focus on specific elements/tags. Why it happened, who is ultimately responsible, and what should our policy be in the future, are questions that I will leave to the usual "experts".
What I like to ask is what lesson can we the average person learn? I do not mean an insight into human greed, that has already been covered, nor do I refer to a lesson in mob-psychology ,that too has been discussed -politics as usual. I refer to a universal lesson, one that can inform our larger understanding of what we are and our limitations, not for the sake of blame or even human elevation, rather for the sake of intrapersonal communication ( the language use or thought internal to the communicator).
Human collective political/social innovation is aimed at perfection. So we had empire, when that didn't work we said oh the problem is in the system. Then we had feudal fiefdoms, they failed to bring perfection and again we shouted “this system is flawed”. Then we built Democratic-capitalism, and communists responded with a revolution, pointing to its imperfections. Then communism fell, because of its own failings.
The point is that we humans justify our pursuit of perfection, by arguing that the flaw is in the system, and it is only a matter of building the perfect system. This means that whenever something doesn’t work as planned, we retrospectively claim we could have prevented this -“the problem is our approach not us”!
Yet I wonder, could it be that we are inherently imperfect and therefore that which we create will always reflect that imperfection? For those who wonder why I do not separate the creator from the created? I respond, who or what is perfect?…
Then again it may difficult for certain elements of humanity to accept this notion. Probably because it takes away our absolute control of our environment, and places it in the hands of a higher force -call it nature, G-d, the universal subconscious, or Gaia. This does not mean that everything is out of our hands, only that we cannot help but use our hands in a way that creates, the law of, unintended consequences (see The Black Swan, 2007 Nassim Nicholas Taleb, for more on this subject).
So how does the individual and society as a whole prepare for manifestations of our imperfection? How should society respond to BP, the economic meltdown, and the unexpected death of 9 violent activists?
The wedding.
My younger sister recently got married. At the conclusion of the Chupa ceremony -wedding canopy under which the the groom places the ring on the bride and the union is publicly affirmed- the customary vessel was broken and all the guests exclaimed "mazal tov"!
My uncle, at the weeding, offered two explanations for this tradition.
Here is the relevant interpretation.
“In the process of marriage, the bride and groom will sometimes break things (literally and metaphorically), remember your response should be mazal tov”!
But you just lost our entire financial nest egg? You just destroyed the livelihood of 1000’s?
Mazal Tov?
Let us remember Mazal Tov means good luck. Should we launch an inquiry, investigate what happened, try to prevent failure in the future, of course. Will our retrospective actions, unpredictably create unintended consequences, YES.
The lesson.
THEREFORE.
Accept what happened, mourn, cry, express anger but remember you/we cannot control everything -we need the higher force to bestow good luck on us and our future. Let the unintended consequences be positive.
So I say to all of you reading this post “MAZAL TOV”!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Curse of Unfulfilled Potential: (2) "Society and Potential"
In the previous post discussing the potential roots of "will", we concluded that potential can be an individualized source for "will". Before responding to the next question I would like to respond to one readers comment.
They asked whether my conclusion, that potential was the source for "will", implied that only an external force can create the will for x?
I think so. Probably because ones will stems from the deepest core of their humanity; the only thing that can precede that depth is something that precedes the totality of their existence. A source that is outside of their body and mind, say their parents. (This jives with the CHABAD Chassidic perspective which explains [ for example Torahs Menachem 1951, portion on Shelach] that the spies [meraglim] were the impetus for the entrance of the nascent Jewish people into Israel as they represented the initial awakening from above which engendered the awakening from below).
Now back to the underlying question how far can "will" take us?
I would like to elaborate on this question.
For example: what if one imagines that they have tremendous potential, and directs their will towards fulfilling that potential. Perhaps they jump at every opportunity to develop it and let it blossom. The question is does that will convert potential into existent? In other words, if your perceived potential is simply a rational characterization of an irrational narcissist delusion (imposed on you as your potential), can one elevate the delusion to reality? Or should the Rabbinic maxim, mentioned in part one of this series, be read as "ONLY nothing stands in the way of will" –even will cannot validate delusion?
For the astute reader there is a difficulty at the heart of this analysis. Potential is by its very nature buried and can/is only glimpsed via flashes (or perceptions) of unique activity. Put otherwise, it is nearly impossible to discern real potential from delusional perceptions of potential. It is for this reason that delusional evaluations of potential can create the will to unrelentingly pursue an unrealistic goal. Often the delusion-driven individual only discovers the sheer impossibility, or impracticality, of the goal when the goal is in sight. Years of wasted will, premised on false potential.
Thus the second question can never really be answered. After all potential is inherently beyond the persons very essence- it only exists external to the individual. We may never know whether only people with real potential can actualize it via their will or if even those that internalize pure delusions can actualize them with their will.
We may never know, but there are real and often tragic issues that arise from this existential ambiguity.
All of these issues stem from the unfortunate state of our society and its unwillingness to forgive because of its aversion to introspection on a societal level (though many are too willing to delve into the impenetrable depths of their own unconscious). Society, and even family, is often unwilling to accept that a completely normal person can be so delusional, BECAUSE of the nature of potential. Both its source in the expectations of others and in the fact that it can validated only AFTER its actualization.
The individual who may awake from the externally imposed delusion is beset by depreciating criticisms. This criticism mislabels that dawning of rationality on the deluded as, “oh what wasted potential, he/she was almost there and they failed”.
However unjust, this conclusion has certain merit.
1. The deluded pursued their delusion with such admirable vigor that their share commitment convinced others of the reality of their potential. 2. If we accept the first interpretation of the above maxim (nothing stands in the way of will), than whether the person is delusional or not has no bearing, if the person wills it, it will become a reality -the fact that will is premised on delusional potential is immaterial.
The implication of this second justification are rather frightening. Not only because it justifies social engineering (placing children in a system and then dictating what they should will, even if for that student the "will" is premised on delusion), but also because it implies that everyone can be the best. After all it just takes the will, however delusional.
What happens to an individual who is subjected to these types of expectations in school and out? If every element in their life "affirms" their great potential; if every “glimpse” is highlighted and embraced while every slip-up and weakness is covered-up or “extracted” from them. That person may grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed delusion. To the extent that they become the biggest advocates of said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph (self-serving bias). Then the day comes that rationality returns and they recognize that the goal was achievable/desirable only as part of their delusion (the goal may even be at the heart of the delusion). Then they realize that the goal is not what they want, it is not their will –the will itself is delusional.
Yet how do they know? How do they know that it is all a delusion, maybe it is deep seated laziness, weakness in the time of trial, perhaps an excuse for failure?
If they do follow through with their delusion, they will always doubt and be the object of doubt. Is it worth getting married if you doubt that future of that marriage, to be divorced to know that your original doubt was not simply an excuse?
Or perhaps they may ask:
What if the very word potential is an external means of control, a means for society to label and influence, to purify and justify the delusion? To create a means to control and engineer the will of the individual –"nothing" that dictates ones will? In that case they may cognitively internalize that their potential is really an externally applied delusion, and will not feel the pain of failure because the bases of their will was false. Thus their will and their desires are not in conflict
This is a terrible cycle that many enter. The struggle with external expectations that have been so internalized that their lack of fulfilling these expectations destroy their feelings of self-worth, purpose, and existence.
On the other hand, if society, communities, and families didn’t impose a sense of potential -a sense of direction for ones will, then we would never achieve, society would not be inspired to "will".
All of this hedges on this out-of-body non-existent potential!
If only society, family, and the individual could find the balance between inspiring the will to will and recognizing the ethereal nature of potential. We should accept that we often impose meaningless misguided potential on the person. We should acknowledge the obvious: many normal people do not fulfill these false expectations, not because their will has failed them but because we have failed their will.
The way things stand now many experience the curse of unfulfilled potential.
They asked whether my conclusion, that potential was the source for "will", implied that only an external force can create the will for x?
I think so. Probably because ones will stems from the deepest core of their humanity; the only thing that can precede that depth is something that precedes the totality of their existence. A source that is outside of their body and mind, say their parents. (This jives with the CHABAD Chassidic perspective which explains [ for example Torahs Menachem 1951, portion on Shelach] that the spies [meraglim] were the impetus for the entrance of the nascent Jewish people into Israel as they represented the initial awakening from above which engendered the awakening from below).
Now back to the underlying question how far can "will" take us?
I would like to elaborate on this question.
For example: what if one imagines that they have tremendous potential, and directs their will towards fulfilling that potential. Perhaps they jump at every opportunity to develop it and let it blossom. The question is does that will convert potential into existent? In other words, if your perceived potential is simply a rational characterization of an irrational narcissist delusion (imposed on you as your potential), can one elevate the delusion to reality? Or should the Rabbinic maxim, mentioned in part one of this series, be read as "ONLY nothing stands in the way of will" –even will cannot validate delusion?
For the astute reader there is a difficulty at the heart of this analysis. Potential is by its very nature buried and can/is only glimpsed via flashes (or perceptions) of unique activity. Put otherwise, it is nearly impossible to discern real potential from delusional perceptions of potential. It is for this reason that delusional evaluations of potential can create the will to unrelentingly pursue an unrealistic goal. Often the delusion-driven individual only discovers the sheer impossibility, or impracticality, of the goal when the goal is in sight. Years of wasted will, premised on false potential.
Thus the second question can never really be answered. After all potential is inherently beyond the persons very essence- it only exists external to the individual. We may never know whether only people with real potential can actualize it via their will or if even those that internalize pure delusions can actualize them with their will.
We may never know, but there are real and often tragic issues that arise from this existential ambiguity.
All of these issues stem from the unfortunate state of our society and its unwillingness to forgive because of its aversion to introspection on a societal level (though many are too willing to delve into the impenetrable depths of their own unconscious). Society, and even family, is often unwilling to accept that a completely normal person can be so delusional, BECAUSE of the nature of potential. Both its source in the expectations of others and in the fact that it can validated only AFTER its actualization.
The individual who may awake from the externally imposed delusion is beset by depreciating criticisms. This criticism mislabels that dawning of rationality on the deluded as, “oh what wasted potential, he/she was almost there and they failed”.
However unjust, this conclusion has certain merit.
1. The deluded pursued their delusion with such admirable vigor that their share commitment convinced others of the reality of their potential. 2. If we accept the first interpretation of the above maxim (nothing stands in the way of will), than whether the person is delusional or not has no bearing, if the person wills it, it will become a reality -the fact that will is premised on delusional potential is immaterial.
The implication of this second justification are rather frightening. Not only because it justifies social engineering (placing children in a system and then dictating what they should will, even if for that student the "will" is premised on delusion), but also because it implies that everyone can be the best. After all it just takes the will, however delusional.
What happens to an individual who is subjected to these types of expectations in school and out? If every element in their life "affirms" their great potential; if every “glimpse” is highlighted and embraced while every slip-up and weakness is covered-up or “extracted” from them. That person may grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed delusion. To the extent that they become the biggest advocates of said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph (self-serving bias). Then the day comes that rationality returns and they recognize that the goal was achievable/desirable only as part of their delusion (the goal may even be at the heart of the delusion). Then they realize that the goal is not what they want, it is not their will –the will itself is delusional.
Yet how do they know? How do they know that it is all a delusion, maybe it is deep seated laziness, weakness in the time of trial, perhaps an excuse for failure?
If they do follow through with their delusion, they will always doubt and be the object of doubt. Is it worth getting married if you doubt that future of that marriage, to be divorced to know that your original doubt was not simply an excuse?
Or perhaps they may ask:
What if the very word potential is an external means of control, a means for society to label and influence, to purify and justify the delusion? To create a means to control and engineer the will of the individual –"nothing" that dictates ones will? In that case they may cognitively internalize that their potential is really an externally applied delusion, and will not feel the pain of failure because the bases of their will was false. Thus their will and their desires are not in conflict
This is a terrible cycle that many enter. The struggle with external expectations that have been so internalized that their lack of fulfilling these expectations destroy their feelings of self-worth, purpose, and existence.
On the other hand, if society, communities, and families didn’t impose a sense of potential -a sense of direction for ones will, then we would never achieve, society would not be inspired to "will".
All of this hedges on this out-of-body non-existent potential!
If only society, family, and the individual could find the balance between inspiring the will to will and recognizing the ethereal nature of potential. We should accept that we often impose meaningless misguided potential on the person. We should acknowledge the obvious: many normal people do not fulfill these false expectations, not because their will has failed them but because we have failed their will.
The way things stand now many experience the curse of unfulfilled potential.
Monday, May 24, 2010
The Curse of Unfulfilled Potential: (1) "The will to will"
The CHABAD masters discuss the relationship between will/want (ratzun) and enjoyment/pleasure (tanug). One way to frame the following conversation is to ask “which one plays the role of cause in the relationship?” Do I will because I enjoy or do I enjoy because I want? The masters respond that will precedes enjoyment, to the extent that it can dictate that one enjoy what they previously despised. For example, I will to be healthy so I begin to do that which I despise, exercise. Eventually I begin to enjoy exercise.
The role of will in the individuals life is not confined to its relationship to enjoyment. On the contrary, the great teachers of old state emphatically “nothing stands before will” (ain dovar omed lifnai razton). Thus the above CHABAD dialectic comes as no surprise -not only does ones specific desires reflect will so does every other potential human experience.
Two Questions
The first question:
How/can one develop the will for something, “the will to will”?
This question assumes that there is a force that precedes will. To better understand exactly what we are talking about here let me begin with what we are not talking about.
EXAMPLE. Freud argued that all our actions are dictated by the pleasure drive. Thus the reason why we will/want sex is because it is in our nature, it is who we are (for those chassidus mavins this is akin to etzem ha’nefesh). Even though this drive does proceed will, it is not what we are looking for because it is a natural tendency. Our question is how/if the individual can will to will –by choice not by human nature.
The next potential response to our question is potential.
Potential as means to creating the will, it is like the hyperactive child who is constantly criticized, internalizes the criticism, and becomes that bad person everyone has declared them to be.
But let us apply it more concretely to our search for a will to will.
Imagine or remember.
You are born to a family rife with intellectuals, writers, and orators. From the day you are born there is talk of your extraordinary potential. You are subjected to these types of expectations, in school and out. Every element in your life dictates to you your great potential; every “glimpse” of greatness is highlighted and embraced while every slipup and weakness is covered-up or even “extracted” from you.
You may very well grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed beliefs. To the extent that you become the biggest advocate of the said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph ( for psychology buffs self-serving bias).
If you internalize the attributed potential you then have the will to will. The internalized potential preceeds and creates the will.
Here is an illustration.
Let us say that your mother is a famous writer and your father an extraordinary journalist. As you grow older and begin to understand the comments that have most probably been directed towards your family you begin to delve into writing and “discover” that you are good at it. Never mind your terrible grammar and nonsensical thesis. As you are constantly surrounded by affirming voices declaring your great potential, and you conclude that all you need is a little more practice. Your will to become a great writer, is great, after all you have the potential. You tirelessly pursue your work, and confirm others beliefs that you will in fact be a great writer. Your potential focuses your will to the extent that now you have completely internalized the external beliefs of others, and by virtue of your actions become the greatest advocate of your will to become a great writer.
Question number two:
Yet how far can will take the individual especially if it is inspired by a narcissist fantasy, sans potential ,imposed by an over bearing parent who ?
In the next post I will the address this (corollary) question.
The role of will in the individuals life is not confined to its relationship to enjoyment. On the contrary, the great teachers of old state emphatically “nothing stands before will” (ain dovar omed lifnai razton). Thus the above CHABAD dialectic comes as no surprise -not only does ones specific desires reflect will so does every other potential human experience.
Two Questions
The first question:
How/can one develop the will for something, “the will to will”?
This question assumes that there is a force that precedes will. To better understand exactly what we are talking about here let me begin with what we are not talking about.
EXAMPLE. Freud argued that all our actions are dictated by the pleasure drive. Thus the reason why we will/want sex is because it is in our nature, it is who we are (for those chassidus mavins this is akin to etzem ha’nefesh). Even though this drive does proceed will, it is not what we are looking for because it is a natural tendency. Our question is how/if the individual can will to will –by choice not by human nature.
The next potential response to our question is potential.
Potential as means to creating the will, it is like the hyperactive child who is constantly criticized, internalizes the criticism, and becomes that bad person everyone has declared them to be.
But let us apply it more concretely to our search for a will to will.
Imagine or remember.
You are born to a family rife with intellectuals, writers, and orators. From the day you are born there is talk of your extraordinary potential. You are subjected to these types of expectations, in school and out. Every element in your life dictates to you your great potential; every “glimpse” of greatness is highlighted and embraced while every slipup and weakness is covered-up or even “extracted” from you.
You may very well grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed beliefs. To the extent that you become the biggest advocate of the said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph ( for psychology buffs self-serving bias).
If you internalize the attributed potential you then have the will to will. The internalized potential preceeds and creates the will.
Here is an illustration.
Let us say that your mother is a famous writer and your father an extraordinary journalist. As you grow older and begin to understand the comments that have most probably been directed towards your family you begin to delve into writing and “discover” that you are good at it. Never mind your terrible grammar and nonsensical thesis. As you are constantly surrounded by affirming voices declaring your great potential, and you conclude that all you need is a little more practice. Your will to become a great writer, is great, after all you have the potential. You tirelessly pursue your work, and confirm others beliefs that you will in fact be a great writer. Your potential focuses your will to the extent that now you have completely internalized the external beliefs of others, and by virtue of your actions become the greatest advocate of your will to become a great writer.
Question number two:
Yet how far can will take the individual especially if it is inspired by a narcissist fantasy, sans potential ,imposed by an over bearing parent who ?
In the next post I will the address this (corollary) question.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Free Choice vs. Providence: Can/How Do they Coexist? (II)
Disclaimer: The following is a highly incoherent series of ideas drawn from a number of times and places. It is NOT an easy read.
The “Irrational Perspective” sees the finite/rational human attempt to comprehend the infinite/irrational nature of providence, and how choice fits into this larger “scheme”, akin to one attempting to draw a picture of an undiscovered galaxy, it is mere speculation.
Example A.
A higher force controls EVERYTHING i.e. providence and knows what the human will choose, and at the same time we do have choice! It is simply a wonder of existence, it is incomprehensible it is irrational. Thus Hitler had a choice of whether or not to kill over 6 million Jews but the higher force was already aware of the ultimate result, yet the final solution could have come about if it was chosen. Providence and choice, together. How? It’s a wonder!
Example B.
Another way of understanding this is the Jewish and Sufi notion of a holy man who can see the future. What is behind this assertion, how can one see know the future before it occurs, unless they can exist both in the future and the present? Indeed this is the Jewish conception of the Holy/Righteous person (tzaddik). What makes a person Holy is the subjugation and elevation of their body/animal to their soul the source of their existence (for more on what is meant here by “existence” please see post “Is Soul the Global Consciousness”). This source is not physical, it does not have mass or take up physical space nor is subject to concepts like time.
This last point is exactly what allows the tzaddik to see the future. Because the tzaddik is so close to this source they can consciously access this sources reality where the past present and future exist as one, and are not subject the rational notion of time. In essence the tzaddik can see the future because they have conscious access to a place where the future is indistinguishable from the present. It time is a place where time does not exist.
On the other hand, choice is a reflection of our need as rational beings to order our lives, through time. Choice is a result of time; the future requires us to make choices now, for later. For example, is it a good idea to invest three years and over 100,000 dollars towards legal education? This question is in itself a manifestation of time as it’s an attempt to predict the future, likewise time is a result of our need to rationalize, because we are human. Humans, unlike the rest of nature make choices based on the future (human>rational>time>choice).
I’m tempted to continue this line of reasoning but I’m already losing myself.
Providence is above time, there is no future thus choice and result -choice and providence- occur simultaneously. But they both occur. Is this a rational explanation? No, but then again the second view sees the answer as irrational, but that doesn’t mean the path to discovering the irrational need not be explored rationally.
CONVERSATION:
Still according to the above view the answer exists in the irrational realm where time and space do not exist. Yet our choices are made here in the finite realm of time and space?! This question opens up a can of worms but here we go.
The potential explanation is understanding that every organism is made of two elements, the infinite clothed in finite.
1. Our mass, and that which we use to sustain that mass, food, money, time, etc. (external)
2. That which allows our mass to exist, and grow. The ex nihilo of creation, the source of material that made up the mass of the big bang. (internal)
A question can further help us understand the ramifications and relevance of this distinction .
Why is it that all live mass returns to dirt after it dies?
Because there are two forces in play the mass/physical, and the limits that come along with that. Then there is what gives that mass life and allows it be alive. When that unseen force leaves the mass the mass eventually returns to the anonymity.
The point is that just because we are unable to access this level of “no time” does not mean it doesn’t exist here within every one of us. Indeed we know of its existence from rational questions, that lead us to irrational explanations. Thus once again we are left with the plain wonder of the possibility of the coexistence of the two- not into binary realms but here and now, with you!
Then again the mere fact that the source of life is infinite yet it can take up residence in a finite body is yet another irrational wonder. It does not mean it is not the reality. Thus choice and providence can coexist.
Why is it impossible to comprehend? For the same reason we need to eat and sleep, human-physical-rational-reality that necessitates time, so obscures the we find it hard to even accept the possibility of the irrational.
The “Irrational Perspective” sees the finite/rational human attempt to comprehend the infinite/irrational nature of providence, and how choice fits into this larger “scheme”, akin to one attempting to draw a picture of an undiscovered galaxy, it is mere speculation.
Example A.
A higher force controls EVERYTHING i.e. providence and knows what the human will choose, and at the same time we do have choice! It is simply a wonder of existence, it is incomprehensible it is irrational. Thus Hitler had a choice of whether or not to kill over 6 million Jews but the higher force was already aware of the ultimate result, yet the final solution could have come about if it was chosen. Providence and choice, together. How? It’s a wonder!
Example B.
Another way of understanding this is the Jewish and Sufi notion of a holy man who can see the future. What is behind this assertion, how can one see know the future before it occurs, unless they can exist both in the future and the present? Indeed this is the Jewish conception of the Holy/Righteous person (tzaddik). What makes a person Holy is the subjugation and elevation of their body/animal to their soul the source of their existence (for more on what is meant here by “existence” please see post “Is Soul the Global Consciousness”). This source is not physical, it does not have mass or take up physical space nor is subject to concepts like time.
This last point is exactly what allows the tzaddik to see the future. Because the tzaddik is so close to this source they can consciously access this sources reality where the past present and future exist as one, and are not subject the rational notion of time. In essence the tzaddik can see the future because they have conscious access to a place where the future is indistinguishable from the present. It time is a place where time does not exist.
On the other hand, choice is a reflection of our need as rational beings to order our lives, through time. Choice is a result of time; the future requires us to make choices now, for later. For example, is it a good idea to invest three years and over 100,000 dollars towards legal education? This question is in itself a manifestation of time as it’s an attempt to predict the future, likewise time is a result of our need to rationalize, because we are human. Humans, unlike the rest of nature make choices based on the future (human>rational>time>choice).
I’m tempted to continue this line of reasoning but I’m already losing myself.
Providence is above time, there is no future thus choice and result -choice and providence- occur simultaneously. But they both occur. Is this a rational explanation? No, but then again the second view sees the answer as irrational, but that doesn’t mean the path to discovering the irrational need not be explored rationally.
CONVERSATION:
Still according to the above view the answer exists in the irrational realm where time and space do not exist. Yet our choices are made here in the finite realm of time and space?! This question opens up a can of worms but here we go.
The potential explanation is understanding that every organism is made of two elements, the infinite clothed in finite.
1. Our mass, and that which we use to sustain that mass, food, money, time, etc. (external)
2. That which allows our mass to exist, and grow. The ex nihilo of creation, the source of material that made up the mass of the big bang. (internal)
A question can further help us understand the ramifications and relevance of this distinction .
Why is it that all live mass returns to dirt after it dies?
Because there are two forces in play the mass/physical, and the limits that come along with that. Then there is what gives that mass life and allows it be alive. When that unseen force leaves the mass the mass eventually returns to the anonymity.
The point is that just because we are unable to access this level of “no time” does not mean it doesn’t exist here within every one of us. Indeed we know of its existence from rational questions, that lead us to irrational explanations. Thus once again we are left with the plain wonder of the possibility of the coexistence of the two- not into binary realms but here and now, with you!
Then again the mere fact that the source of life is infinite yet it can take up residence in a finite body is yet another irrational wonder. It does not mean it is not the reality. Thus choice and providence can coexist.
Why is it impossible to comprehend? For the same reason we need to eat and sleep, human-physical-rational-reality that necessitates time, so obscures the we find it hard to even accept the possibility of the irrational.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Free Choice vs. Providence: Can/How Do they Coexist? (I)
One of the oldest unresolved conversations facing the religious scholar or the theological philosopher surrounds the belief in a divine providence that allows for free choice.
On one hand humanity wields free will and can influence its own destiny to the extent that we can destroy ourselves.
This notion of free choice equally apples to nature. Thus a so called mega-volcano (see PBS), like that found in Yellow Stone national park, could destroy the world.
On the other side there is this idea that all of humanity is subject to a universality -whatever that source of universality. This universiality can also be called providence, or as I call it "the Unifying Factor". This higher providence is termed by some "nature" for example a so called mega-volcano (see PBS), like that found in Yellow Stone national park, could destroy the world.
Or that millions of people religious or otherwise read their horoscope, implying some greater force is at work making choices.
I offer these examples to make the point that just as we all accept free choice as an inherent good and fact of life, there is evidence pointing to inherent lack of choice and control.Indeed from and environmentalist perspective nature has no choice, thus a polar bear cannot wake up one day and decide it wants to go vegan, are we different...?
In other words:
From the conventional religious perspective the notion that everything happens for a reason is akin to the environmentalist asserting that there is a direct link between polar ice mass and weather global weather patterns.
One can go so far to assert that this question does not exist solely in the realm of speculative religion.
So is there free choice, from nature and providence?
Some like the rationalists seek a logical path to coexistence between providence and choice:
Example A.
We make choices but the result is the same, so we choose to practice law over teaching cause it provides more money. The higher force, has deemed that you should not make more money, so your choice becomes moot in relation to the providence. You are now a lawyer that makes less money. Thus providence dictates the results, and choice exists so far as the human can either reconcile themselves with providence/results or reject it.
Example B.
Imagine that each human is an individual line these lines like humans seem to move independently from neighboring lines/humans. As these lines develop (as your life unfolds) they begin to converge into a collective destiny. But on the way to this destination each line/organism can wiggle this way or that, representing choice. The general trend however is towards the universal mission that each organism, by virtue of their existence, plays an integral role in called providence/nature.
The rationalist sees choice as only relevant to the individual, and not having an effect on providence/result.
Conversation:
The rationalist view is premised on reinterpreting the term providence. In other words providence ad choice reflect to different perspectives. Providence is a top-down imposition that is both uncaring and removed from the present individuals choice. Whereas the individual choice boils down to an illusionary belief that they exercise control over their lives.
This is not merely a difference in belief structures of the prime mover vs. the active mover.
After all, if we accept the proposition that nature is a manifestation of providence, and that nature is the sum total of a complex system that exists in the here and now, then how can we separate the here and ow from the larger result? Put otherwise, if providence/nature was explained as merely the result and not requiring active participation of a multitude of present variables/choices then how do we explain the real implications of every action we take?
For example: if the ice cap does melt then the weather will change, and the eco-system will be disrupted. For a positive or negative result to occur it requires that the present choices “cooperate”. This approach to reconciling free choice and providence seems, rationally, untenable.
In the part 2 of this discussion we will look at the irrational perspective.
On one hand humanity wields free will and can influence its own destiny to the extent that we can destroy ourselves.
This notion of free choice equally apples to nature. Thus a so called mega-volcano (see PBS), like that found in Yellow Stone national park, could destroy the world.
On the other side there is this idea that all of humanity is subject to a universality -whatever that source of universality. This universiality can also be called providence, or as I call it "the Unifying Factor". This higher providence is termed by some "nature" for example a so called mega-volcano (see PBS), like that found in Yellow Stone national park, could destroy the world.
Or that millions of people religious or otherwise read their horoscope, implying some greater force is at work making choices.
I offer these examples to make the point that just as we all accept free choice as an inherent good and fact of life, there is evidence pointing to inherent lack of choice and control.Indeed from and environmentalist perspective nature has no choice, thus a polar bear cannot wake up one day and decide it wants to go vegan, are we different...?
In other words:
From the conventional religious perspective the notion that everything happens for a reason is akin to the environmentalist asserting that there is a direct link between polar ice mass and weather global weather patterns.
One can go so far to assert that this question does not exist solely in the realm of speculative religion.
So is there free choice, from nature and providence?
Some like the rationalists seek a logical path to coexistence between providence and choice:
Example A.
We make choices but the result is the same, so we choose to practice law over teaching cause it provides more money. The higher force, has deemed that you should not make more money, so your choice becomes moot in relation to the providence. You are now a lawyer that makes less money. Thus providence dictates the results, and choice exists so far as the human can either reconcile themselves with providence/results or reject it.
Example B.
Imagine that each human is an individual line these lines like humans seem to move independently from neighboring lines/humans. As these lines develop (as your life unfolds) they begin to converge into a collective destiny. But on the way to this destination each line/organism can wiggle this way or that, representing choice. The general trend however is towards the universal mission that each organism, by virtue of their existence, plays an integral role in called providence/nature.
The rationalist sees choice as only relevant to the individual, and not having an effect on providence/result.
Conversation:
The rationalist view is premised on reinterpreting the term providence. In other words providence ad choice reflect to different perspectives. Providence is a top-down imposition that is both uncaring and removed from the present individuals choice. Whereas the individual choice boils down to an illusionary belief that they exercise control over their lives.
This is not merely a difference in belief structures of the prime mover vs. the active mover.
After all, if we accept the proposition that nature is a manifestation of providence, and that nature is the sum total of a complex system that exists in the here and now, then how can we separate the here and ow from the larger result? Put otherwise, if providence/nature was explained as merely the result and not requiring active participation of a multitude of present variables/choices then how do we explain the real implications of every action we take?
For example: if the ice cap does melt then the weather will change, and the eco-system will be disrupted. For a positive or negative result to occur it requires that the present choices “cooperate”. This approach to reconciling free choice and providence seems, rationally, untenable.
In the part 2 of this discussion we will look at the irrational perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
