It's sometimes funny how quickly we find ourselves at the top of the world after crashing down, or vice versa. A friend of mine once described his own approach to the world (psychologically speaking) as a 'sine curve' of peaks and troughs that reflected his brain state at the time. Sometimes, he said, there was much euphoria and he would get giddy at the drop of a hat. At other times (as I've been witness to), he has plumbed the depths of depression even when he 'should' have been really enjoying himself, e.g. on the beaches of India.
I won't hazard a guess as to the method behind his madness, but I will say that during my time in Zimbabwe, I often felt completely original especially in the Dionysian sense a la Nietzsche (the individual that says Yes to everything questionable). On the other hand, since Ive returned to Cape Town, it just hasnt been the same... I've gone out to my old haunts—even though they've changed somewhat—and thought to myself 'what the fuck am I doing here? At one point I thought I could extend this stay and was really enjoying my time here, and now I just want to get this degree over with.' Ever the party pooper, I guess all of a sudden my return has hit me with a small token of claustrophobia helped by the financial situation that is niggling at the back of my mind and the manner in which there seems not to be an easy solution in the near future.
And then of course there is the problem of alternate realities, either in the form of drug intake or in the form of movies. Watching Jason Statham go psycho on everyone in Crank 2, and then returning to the humdrum and mundane of reality often makes one thirst for a bit more. But then on the other hand, beginning in such a position as his (in the movie, anyway) may leave at least a bit to be desired. Anyway, no big deal.
In the end, the main thing is, obviously, the same thing that always arises in these sorts of introverted moments of doubt: what the fuck is the point of it all? I remember during my early days of studying philosophy, I went to the university library and got a copy of 'Classic Philosophical Questions', by James Gould I think. It was set up in such a manner that each section had some major philosophical topic: reality, knowledge, science, religion, etc., and within each section were two to four essays by classic authors defending certain opinions about the topic in question. The only section I really remember was one near the end about teleology. It contained two essays, the first by Tolstoy which he wrote near the end of his life when he had been taking religion (especially Christian anarchism) quite seriously; in it he argued that God gives us meaning (or something like that). The second essay, written by Albert Camus, argued that it is up to us to give ourselves meaning through what we do everyday and how we go about interacting with others and achieving according to our own wishes and desires.
I take the position of the secular existentialist (i.e. that of Camus') to heart... there is no doubt that I feel that I have created a whole bunch of doors and windows in my sea of reality that I can crawl through or explore within if I should get bogged down or what have you. However, sometimes you can't help but feel in the back of your mind that until you get back into some sort of a routine that provides you with a means to some sort of end, that you start to squirm.
I remember feeling a similar thing in the last few days I spent in Gokarna. As much as there were many ex-pats who switched between six months in Himachal Pradesh while the monsoon was on, then six months in Gokarna (or Goa or Kerala or some such) when the monsoon was no longer, when my time was winding down and my three weeks were nearly up, I got that claustrophobic feeling that I have learned to recognize when I feel like its time to move out of a certain headspace. I guess the best way I always find to sum up that feeling is to quote Jack Nicholson from a certain movie, when he is in a similar situation of confusion and indecision and utters those fatalist words:
"What if this is as good as it gets?"
Showing posts with label reality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reality. Show all posts
Friday, July 22, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
Africa and Consciousness
I lasted less than 24 hours in Gaborone. It is something like a Johannesburg in the sense that a western business sense seems to have been ushered in, which is possibly justified by many opinions that Botswana has 'the fastest growing economy in Africa', or something like that. But what does it mean for an economy to grow?
When I was in Lesotho, the individual that I spent my time with and stayed with his family once said to me 'Lesotho is a poor country'. I asked him why he said that, and noted that the notion of 'poor' is based on a western model of GDPs and capital, but Lesotho is, in fact, a rich country in the fact that it has sufficient land for its population and has a very agrarian lifestyle. I told him that money with only get you so far, as you cannot eat it. Those who control land and food production are the ones that will be guaranteed survival, as Tolstoy so aptly noted in his allegory Ivan the Fool.
One of the things that has really come to the fore, however, and really made me understand the situation in Africa, that is, the social situation in Africa, is what I can only best sum up as:
"Regardless of whether it is a socio-political challenge created by the environment one lives in or a personal challenge created and implemented by one on oneself, it is only when survival challenges an individual that that individual becomes and remains conscious."
By that I mean I realize why I enjoy Africa (and 'the developing world', like during my travels in Asia) so much more than 'the west' is because people are forced to be conscious so that they may survive in a socio-economic environment where survival cannot be taken for granted, as it too often is in the affluent west.
One can think about it this way: if one knows that all one needs to do is 'enter the system' and they will basically be guaranteed eight hours a day five days a week doing whatever but, importantly, making more than enough money to survive, there is no reason for that person to change their ways, unless they feel that there is more to survival than simply being able to afford whatever basic needs and luxuries that they should require.
And this is a vicious cycle perpetuated by the capitalist mentality, and exemplified by the fact that the names on people's lips are no longer the Platos, Leonardo da Vincis, Max Plancks, and Alexander Flemings of the world, i.e. those that contributed to our collective well-being through theory and practice. Rather, it is the Bill Gates's, the David Beckhams, the Justin Biebers, the Johnny Depps, and the American Idol winners of the world, i.e. those with power (in whatever form) and money.
This shows the dramatic shift that has occurred in the past century where capital has usurped merit with regard to importance to the 'random individual'. And because of this, there is an abyss that has opened up before us because, as Marx said 150 years ago, capitalism, which is based on profit, cannot sustain itself, because eventually there are no new markets that can be exploited for profit. This may be a blip in human evolution where a few decades or a few centuries down the road we realize the pointlessness, uselessness, and stupidity of following a track that is based on vanity and personal acclaim over merit, theory, and socio-political sustainability. The human race is at a very interesting crossroads. It is of my humble opinion that the current situation can be summed up best by a quote from Patrick Stewart (as Captain Jean-Luc Picard) in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation:
"For us to go forward, the cycle must end."
When I was in Lesotho, the individual that I spent my time with and stayed with his family once said to me 'Lesotho is a poor country'. I asked him why he said that, and noted that the notion of 'poor' is based on a western model of GDPs and capital, but Lesotho is, in fact, a rich country in the fact that it has sufficient land for its population and has a very agrarian lifestyle. I told him that money with only get you so far, as you cannot eat it. Those who control land and food production are the ones that will be guaranteed survival, as Tolstoy so aptly noted in his allegory Ivan the Fool.
One of the things that has really come to the fore, however, and really made me understand the situation in Africa, that is, the social situation in Africa, is what I can only best sum up as:
"Regardless of whether it is a socio-political challenge created by the environment one lives in or a personal challenge created and implemented by one on oneself, it is only when survival challenges an individual that that individual becomes and remains conscious."
By that I mean I realize why I enjoy Africa (and 'the developing world', like during my travels in Asia) so much more than 'the west' is because people are forced to be conscious so that they may survive in a socio-economic environment where survival cannot be taken for granted, as it too often is in the affluent west.
One can think about it this way: if one knows that all one needs to do is 'enter the system' and they will basically be guaranteed eight hours a day five days a week doing whatever but, importantly, making more than enough money to survive, there is no reason for that person to change their ways, unless they feel that there is more to survival than simply being able to afford whatever basic needs and luxuries that they should require.
And this is a vicious cycle perpetuated by the capitalist mentality, and exemplified by the fact that the names on people's lips are no longer the Platos, Leonardo da Vincis, Max Plancks, and Alexander Flemings of the world, i.e. those that contributed to our collective well-being through theory and practice. Rather, it is the Bill Gates's, the David Beckhams, the Justin Biebers, the Johnny Depps, and the American Idol winners of the world, i.e. those with power (in whatever form) and money.
This shows the dramatic shift that has occurred in the past century where capital has usurped merit with regard to importance to the 'random individual'. And because of this, there is an abyss that has opened up before us because, as Marx said 150 years ago, capitalism, which is based on profit, cannot sustain itself, because eventually there are no new markets that can be exploited for profit. This may be a blip in human evolution where a few decades or a few centuries down the road we realize the pointlessness, uselessness, and stupidity of following a track that is based on vanity and personal acclaim over merit, theory, and socio-political sustainability. The human race is at a very interesting crossroads. It is of my humble opinion that the current situation can be summed up best by a quote from Patrick Stewart (as Captain Jean-Luc Picard) in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation:
"For us to go forward, the cycle must end."
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Yourself? Or Someone Like You?
I was fairly sure the above title (minus the punctuation) was the name of an album by some cliche band from my school years, but it took me a google search to see that it was the debut album of Matchbox 20. Not a big fan, but whatever.
Given that there are final exams coming up here in Cape Town, I was asked by an acquaintance of mine (I'd hardly call him a friend) to provide my services to help him tutor math to some students, because he had 'opened his own tutoring company', but appears to be severely restricted in what he is able to teach. Of course, he has already revealed to me that his intention is to eventually run a company where others do the tutoring for him and he takes his cut. Not surprising given the general global economic attitude that I have criticized numerous times already, and definitely not surprising if you knew the individual in question.
Anyway, after struggling to get a time when we could meet, we finally met this morning. She picked me up in her brand new BMW, and took me to her very large apartment with an amazing view over UCT so we could do a bit of math. We covered some amount of math, and in between we chatted a bit about our various backgrounds, academic and not. I asked her the usual question of 'if youre not interested, why take it?' to which I got the common answer 'first I feel its important to be 'educated' and second because my parents want it that way.' Given the amount of wealth that her parents seem to regularly endow her with (her family is from Joburg), I understand that she would probably want to please them, though perhaps a heart-to-heart wouldn't be such a bad thing. After the session, I departed and we agreed to get together tomorrow to continue.
She also passed on my number to a friend of hers who was also struggling with mathematics, and after a bit of a mix-up in terms of where we were meeting, she picked me up in her Polo and took me to her (and her parents) place that also seemed fairly large and well-endowed.
But the second individual was much more interesting than the first, as she had revealed to me that she REALLY didn't like doing the accounting stuff that she was learning to the point where she wished she could study something else. This was after I told her about my academic background and such. We did some math and also chatted, as I had done with the other one, but it soon became evident that this second one was really quite sharp. She talked about living 7 months in Hollywood during her gap year and seeing the qualitative differences between the homeless in either place, telling me that growing up in Cape Town, she shouldn't be too shocked to see homeless people per se, but the manner in which a lot of them were basically victims of drug addictions brought on by the 'Ferris Wheel of Shit' led a certain tragic air to their predicament.
After these exchanges I thought 'wow, she is a pretty amazing individual in so many ways,' and, as often happens, I began to daydream, in this case about the plausibility of some sort of relationship. Not so much because I thought that I had any sort of hope, but more so because she seemed like such a cool customer.
But as I thought about more and more, I thought about the vast difference in ages (she's probably 19, while Im... well... several years older). First I thought of it in terms of social taboo, but then I start to think about it in terms of a more existential critique. I started to think 'well if I (hypothetically speaking) truly 'loved' this individual, then surely it would be one of the most selfish things I could do to demand some form of binding relationship with her'. The reason for this was because on the one hand I would be depriving her of the manner in which she is able to go out into the world with a natural curiosity and come to her own opinions and interpretations about it. I've already had one of the most existentially full post-high-school periods that has allowed me to come to a lot of my own conclusions about the world, etc., and so it would seem that there would be a certain 'existential lopsidedness' to such a prospect. If you have young people of about the same age together, they are on similar footing, with curiosities about similar things and how they should be interpreted, but if the difference in ages is several years, and you plan to have an extended time together, then there is definitely a certain 'information imbalance', whether that information is 'wrong' or 'right'. Along with that would come a similarly lopsided interpretative nature to it (so it seems to me), because without that period of existential curiosity, you become heavily dependent on others to interpret the world for you, something, for example, that arises in the educational relationships between parents and children, such as, for example, the daughter in one of my recent posts putting her very young brother on the spot about the existence of God. And suddenly this stream of thought turned into a tributary of a main river.
Just as Kierkegaard explained, in my opinion in a very accurate and meaningful way, the element of 'faith' in religion is the major cornerstone. However, if you come to that faith due to someone else's 'teachings' or 'arguments', then your faith is not in God, but rather in this person; i.e. this person, and not 'God', is your god, because your belief is in this person's rendition being accurate, and not about God directly.
Applying this argument to the above scenario, it seemed that if I was to spend a fair amount of the future with someone a lot younger than me, then surely they would have to be a very strong individual in order not to begin to become 'like me' in terms of my interpretations of the world, and the things that I value, given my 'experience' in traveling the world, studying a number of academic disciplines, etc. And indeed, for those sheep-like minions who refuse or ignore the call to critically engage with their environment, instead taking whatever hegemonic interpretation of the situation as the correct one, what sort of claim do they have to a 'self'? Because there is a space between their corporeal bodies, and so they are, at the very least, physically different? Can we say that these people are actually unique individuals, or simply approximations to other beings, as we would see the difference between the outer features and behaviour of, say, two house cats, but in the end we group them into the general category 'cats' and the role they play in the home?
It is interesting to see how the radicalization of individualism, as seen, for example, in Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism', actually seems to end up coming full circle back to a very un-individualistic social reality, where the pursuit of 'individual happiness' and 'rational self-interest' ends up being a constant fight to occupy the same rungs of the same ladders, with no one stopping to consider that their 'individual' self-interest and happiness might be dependent on a less orthodox social strategy than whatever social algorithm happens to dominate the present day (for us, it would likely be something akin to 'schooling', 'specialized schooling/training' (e.g. university, technical institutes, trade schools, etc.,), career, house, family, 1.7 children, retirement with occasional jaunts to Mexico or Florida to lie on the beach for no real purpose except to demonstrate that you can, death).
In fact, one can already argue that Objectivism was criticized sufficiently over half a century before its inception by Nietzsche. One could argue that 'The Last Man' described in 'Zarathustra's Prologue' of Also Sprach Zarathustra, could represent a world that follows Objectivism:
I will speak unto them of the most contemptible thing: that, however, is the last man!"
And thus spake Zarathustra unto the people:
It is time for man to fix his goal. It is time for man to plant the germ of his highest hope.
Still is his soil rich enough for it. But that soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to grow thereon.
Alas! there cometh the time when man will no longer launch the arrow of his longing beyond man - and the string of his bow will have unlearned to whizz!
I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you.
Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.
Lo! I show you the Last Man.
"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?" - so asketh the Last Man and blinketh.
The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the Last Man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the Last Man liveth longest.
"We have discovered happiness" - say the Last Man, and blink thereby.
They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth.
Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!
A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.
One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.
One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.
No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wanteth the same; everyone is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.
"Formerly all the world was insane," - say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.
They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled - otherwise it spoileth their stomachs.
They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.
"We have discovered happiness," - say the Last Man, and blink thereby. -
It is odd how this is, I must say; that the more people try to be different, the more they become like each other. But it is easy to see why this might be so, namely that they all have the same general goals, and there are only so many different permutations of how these goals can be reached. More risk may provide more benefit, but it usually leads to more loss; so instead of taking such a risk, too often it seems they just follow the well-worn path, leading to a highly similar behaviours, with highly similar paths, and, except for the lucky few, highly similar outcomes. Such is the price we pay for hegemony: our soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to grow thereon.
And in this way, it seems that where individuals are at different stages in their lives due to differences in age, culture, academics, or some other such matter (and this is in general, not just as a byproduct of my particular reflections about the hypothetical scenario above), Sting's words do indeed ring true, namely "If You Love Somebody Set Them Free".
Given that there are final exams coming up here in Cape Town, I was asked by an acquaintance of mine (I'd hardly call him a friend) to provide my services to help him tutor math to some students, because he had 'opened his own tutoring company', but appears to be severely restricted in what he is able to teach. Of course, he has already revealed to me that his intention is to eventually run a company where others do the tutoring for him and he takes his cut. Not surprising given the general global economic attitude that I have criticized numerous times already, and definitely not surprising if you knew the individual in question.
Anyway, after struggling to get a time when we could meet, we finally met this morning. She picked me up in her brand new BMW, and took me to her very large apartment with an amazing view over UCT so we could do a bit of math. We covered some amount of math, and in between we chatted a bit about our various backgrounds, academic and not. I asked her the usual question of 'if youre not interested, why take it?' to which I got the common answer 'first I feel its important to be 'educated' and second because my parents want it that way.' Given the amount of wealth that her parents seem to regularly endow her with (her family is from Joburg), I understand that she would probably want to please them, though perhaps a heart-to-heart wouldn't be such a bad thing. After the session, I departed and we agreed to get together tomorrow to continue.
She also passed on my number to a friend of hers who was also struggling with mathematics, and after a bit of a mix-up in terms of where we were meeting, she picked me up in her Polo and took me to her (and her parents) place that also seemed fairly large and well-endowed.
But the second individual was much more interesting than the first, as she had revealed to me that she REALLY didn't like doing the accounting stuff that she was learning to the point where she wished she could study something else. This was after I told her about my academic background and such. We did some math and also chatted, as I had done with the other one, but it soon became evident that this second one was really quite sharp. She talked about living 7 months in Hollywood during her gap year and seeing the qualitative differences between the homeless in either place, telling me that growing up in Cape Town, she shouldn't be too shocked to see homeless people per se, but the manner in which a lot of them were basically victims of drug addictions brought on by the 'Ferris Wheel of Shit' led a certain tragic air to their predicament.
After these exchanges I thought 'wow, she is a pretty amazing individual in so many ways,' and, as often happens, I began to daydream, in this case about the plausibility of some sort of relationship. Not so much because I thought that I had any sort of hope, but more so because she seemed like such a cool customer.
But as I thought about more and more, I thought about the vast difference in ages (she's probably 19, while Im... well... several years older). First I thought of it in terms of social taboo, but then I start to think about it in terms of a more existential critique. I started to think 'well if I (hypothetically speaking) truly 'loved' this individual, then surely it would be one of the most selfish things I could do to demand some form of binding relationship with her'. The reason for this was because on the one hand I would be depriving her of the manner in which she is able to go out into the world with a natural curiosity and come to her own opinions and interpretations about it. I've already had one of the most existentially full post-high-school periods that has allowed me to come to a lot of my own conclusions about the world, etc., and so it would seem that there would be a certain 'existential lopsidedness' to such a prospect. If you have young people of about the same age together, they are on similar footing, with curiosities about similar things and how they should be interpreted, but if the difference in ages is several years, and you plan to have an extended time together, then there is definitely a certain 'information imbalance', whether that information is 'wrong' or 'right'. Along with that would come a similarly lopsided interpretative nature to it (so it seems to me), because without that period of existential curiosity, you become heavily dependent on others to interpret the world for you, something, for example, that arises in the educational relationships between parents and children, such as, for example, the daughter in one of my recent posts putting her very young brother on the spot about the existence of God. And suddenly this stream of thought turned into a tributary of a main river.
Just as Kierkegaard explained, in my opinion in a very accurate and meaningful way, the element of 'faith' in religion is the major cornerstone. However, if you come to that faith due to someone else's 'teachings' or 'arguments', then your faith is not in God, but rather in this person; i.e. this person, and not 'God', is your god, because your belief is in this person's rendition being accurate, and not about God directly.
Applying this argument to the above scenario, it seemed that if I was to spend a fair amount of the future with someone a lot younger than me, then surely they would have to be a very strong individual in order not to begin to become 'like me' in terms of my interpretations of the world, and the things that I value, given my 'experience' in traveling the world, studying a number of academic disciplines, etc. And indeed, for those sheep-like minions who refuse or ignore the call to critically engage with their environment, instead taking whatever hegemonic interpretation of the situation as the correct one, what sort of claim do they have to a 'self'? Because there is a space between their corporeal bodies, and so they are, at the very least, physically different? Can we say that these people are actually unique individuals, or simply approximations to other beings, as we would see the difference between the outer features and behaviour of, say, two house cats, but in the end we group them into the general category 'cats' and the role they play in the home?
It is interesting to see how the radicalization of individualism, as seen, for example, in Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism', actually seems to end up coming full circle back to a very un-individualistic social reality, where the pursuit of 'individual happiness' and 'rational self-interest' ends up being a constant fight to occupy the same rungs of the same ladders, with no one stopping to consider that their 'individual' self-interest and happiness might be dependent on a less orthodox social strategy than whatever social algorithm happens to dominate the present day (for us, it would likely be something akin to 'schooling', 'specialized schooling/training' (e.g. university, technical institutes, trade schools, etc.,), career, house, family, 1.7 children, retirement with occasional jaunts to Mexico or Florida to lie on the beach for no real purpose except to demonstrate that you can, death).
In fact, one can already argue that Objectivism was criticized sufficiently over half a century before its inception by Nietzsche. One could argue that 'The Last Man' described in 'Zarathustra's Prologue' of Also Sprach Zarathustra, could represent a world that follows Objectivism:
I will speak unto them of the most contemptible thing: that, however, is the last man!"
And thus spake Zarathustra unto the people:
It is time for man to fix his goal. It is time for man to plant the germ of his highest hope.
Still is his soil rich enough for it. But that soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to grow thereon.
Alas! there cometh the time when man will no longer launch the arrow of his longing beyond man - and the string of his bow will have unlearned to whizz!
I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you.
Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.
Lo! I show you the Last Man.
"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?" - so asketh the Last Man and blinketh.
The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the Last Man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the Last Man liveth longest.
"We have discovered happiness" - say the Last Man, and blink thereby.
They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth.
Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!
A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.
One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.
One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.
No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wanteth the same; everyone is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.
"Formerly all the world was insane," - say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.
They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled - otherwise it spoileth their stomachs.
They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.
"We have discovered happiness," - say the Last Man, and blink thereby. -
It is odd how this is, I must say; that the more people try to be different, the more they become like each other. But it is easy to see why this might be so, namely that they all have the same general goals, and there are only so many different permutations of how these goals can be reached. More risk may provide more benefit, but it usually leads to more loss; so instead of taking such a risk, too often it seems they just follow the well-worn path, leading to a highly similar behaviours, with highly similar paths, and, except for the lucky few, highly similar outcomes. Such is the price we pay for hegemony: our soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to grow thereon.
And in this way, it seems that where individuals are at different stages in their lives due to differences in age, culture, academics, or some other such matter (and this is in general, not just as a byproduct of my particular reflections about the hypothetical scenario above), Sting's words do indeed ring true, namely "If You Love Somebody Set Them Free".
Saturday, April 9, 2011
"... and Philosophy"
I suppose that is one way to make philosophy 'fashionable'; present it within the context of whatever is in vogue at the time and hope that people purchase the over-priced books you are attempting to use to exploit a niche market. Good job. I've seen 'The Simpsons and Philosophy', 'Fight Club and Philosophy', and a bunch of others that I can't remember. I'm sure they probably have 'WWE and Philosophy' and 'MMA and Philosophy' by now. But let me put this into context. I wish to speak about 'Beavis & Butthead and Philosophy'. Strange? Probably. How is it that two cartoon morons who couldnt think their way out of a wet paper bag would have some way to contribute to the 'pure thought' of philosophy?
Well let me begin with an event that occurred yesterday. I was sitting in Debonairs (it's a pizza company in South Africa) waiting for the pizza that I had ordered to fill the hole that had cropped up during my day of not eating much. While I had been walking down the hill from UCT towards Debonairs, I had heard some singing going on across the street, but I didnt think much of it; I have seen various popular street bands and buskers during my time here. And then there are the pairs of people on the trains: someone who is blind or has some visible justification for sympathy is led through the traincars by an escort. They then sing about the salvation they are going to receive when they get to heaven, and the salvation that Christ will give them, all the while keeping the beat by shaking the cup full of coins they are using to collect donations like a makeshift tambourine. Ive heard rumours that people are exploiting this: 'renting' these blind people, seniors, babies, and whomever else to try to exploit people's sympathy, and in the end giving the individuals that they rent little or nothing.
But anyway, back to my original point: singers, not so strange a thing to conceive of, even when its dark out. So while I was waiting for my pizza, these same singers came to the door of Debonair's and started belting out their song. At first I took the ascetic look and the robes to imply that they were Buddhists. But then I listened to the chant of 'Hare Hare Krishna Krishna' that had become so familiar to me whilst I was traveling throughout India, noticed that a few of them were sporting Bindi dots, and then it became clear where they were coming from.
So what does this have to do with Beavis & Butthead?
Well I recall one episode, I think it was called 'Balloon'. At the beginning of the episode, they see a plea from someone to stop people being irresponsible with their helium balloons because they drift out to sea, fall into the water, and are choked on by dolphins. So what happens? Our two heroes think 'hey, let's bring some helium balloons to the local aquarium, break them over the pool, and choke these poor aquatic lifeforms... "that would be cool" [of course]'. After the outtakes where they get high on the helium, etc., they go to the aquarium, and they are holding onto the balloons, but then Beavis hands over something that makes him too light to hold the balloons down, so they carry him up over the pool. Butthead takes aim with the slingshot, hits Beavis 'in the nads' causing him to let go of the balloons and fall into the pool. At that moment, 'its hammer time' and a bunch of hammerhead sharks come into the pool. But they are quickly escorted back because there is some sort of 'pollution' being detected in the water. Beavis has had a pee in the pool.
So what?
Well at the end of it all, Butthead asks Beavis 'did you pee in the pool because you were smart, or because you were scared?' And Beavis replies 'because it felt good.'
While I was watching these singers outside of Debonairs, this very idea occurred to me, because a few of the singers were westerners who had taken up the cause of Hare Krishna. One of the individuals in question was a guy that would fall entirely within the bounds of token geek/dork/nerd/loser: awkward face, huge glasses, etc. He had shaved his head except for a ponytail at the back and was belting away along with the rest of the group. So I thought why does it seem that the individuals that seem to be shunned by 'western society' seem to take up these 'alternative' ideologies? Is it because they are smart, and they understand the advantages of doing so? Or is it because they are scared and feel that they need some sort of niche that will accept them without passing judgment? Interestingly, the Hare Krishna movement has had a big effect on hippy culture in the 60s (many people from beat poets to the Beatles justify this claim), and by going to India, one can see that Krishna and hippies still go hand in hand. So what is it about these alternative individuals with their alternative lifestyles? Are they coming (into what they deem to be a better world-view) or are they going (from a world that they feel rejected within)?
Or are these ideas fundamentally the same, just looked at from two different vantage points?
Well let me begin with an event that occurred yesterday. I was sitting in Debonairs (it's a pizza company in South Africa) waiting for the pizza that I had ordered to fill the hole that had cropped up during my day of not eating much. While I had been walking down the hill from UCT towards Debonairs, I had heard some singing going on across the street, but I didnt think much of it; I have seen various popular street bands and buskers during my time here. And then there are the pairs of people on the trains: someone who is blind or has some visible justification for sympathy is led through the traincars by an escort. They then sing about the salvation they are going to receive when they get to heaven, and the salvation that Christ will give them, all the while keeping the beat by shaking the cup full of coins they are using to collect donations like a makeshift tambourine. Ive heard rumours that people are exploiting this: 'renting' these blind people, seniors, babies, and whomever else to try to exploit people's sympathy, and in the end giving the individuals that they rent little or nothing.
But anyway, back to my original point: singers, not so strange a thing to conceive of, even when its dark out. So while I was waiting for my pizza, these same singers came to the door of Debonair's and started belting out their song. At first I took the ascetic look and the robes to imply that they were Buddhists. But then I listened to the chant of 'Hare Hare Krishna Krishna' that had become so familiar to me whilst I was traveling throughout India, noticed that a few of them were sporting Bindi dots, and then it became clear where they were coming from.
So what does this have to do with Beavis & Butthead?
Well I recall one episode, I think it was called 'Balloon'. At the beginning of the episode, they see a plea from someone to stop people being irresponsible with their helium balloons because they drift out to sea, fall into the water, and are choked on by dolphins. So what happens? Our two heroes think 'hey, let's bring some helium balloons to the local aquarium, break them over the pool, and choke these poor aquatic lifeforms... "that would be cool" [of course]'. After the outtakes where they get high on the helium, etc., they go to the aquarium, and they are holding onto the balloons, but then Beavis hands over something that makes him too light to hold the balloons down, so they carry him up over the pool. Butthead takes aim with the slingshot, hits Beavis 'in the nads' causing him to let go of the balloons and fall into the pool. At that moment, 'its hammer time' and a bunch of hammerhead sharks come into the pool. But they are quickly escorted back because there is some sort of 'pollution' being detected in the water. Beavis has had a pee in the pool.
So what?
Well at the end of it all, Butthead asks Beavis 'did you pee in the pool because you were smart, or because you were scared?' And Beavis replies 'because it felt good.'
While I was watching these singers outside of Debonairs, this very idea occurred to me, because a few of the singers were westerners who had taken up the cause of Hare Krishna. One of the individuals in question was a guy that would fall entirely within the bounds of token geek/dork/nerd/loser: awkward face, huge glasses, etc. He had shaved his head except for a ponytail at the back and was belting away along with the rest of the group. So I thought why does it seem that the individuals that seem to be shunned by 'western society' seem to take up these 'alternative' ideologies? Is it because they are smart, and they understand the advantages of doing so? Or is it because they are scared and feel that they need some sort of niche that will accept them without passing judgment? Interestingly, the Hare Krishna movement has had a big effect on hippy culture in the 60s (many people from beat poets to the Beatles justify this claim), and by going to India, one can see that Krishna and hippies still go hand in hand. So what is it about these alternative individuals with their alternative lifestyles? Are they coming (into what they deem to be a better world-view) or are they going (from a world that they feel rejected within)?
Or are these ideas fundamentally the same, just looked at from two different vantage points?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Journalists on Drugs
I've recently taken on a few journalism jobs. I dont know if this is philosophy or not, but it should be. Most recently, Ive been selected as new 'Science/Nature/Technology' journalist for the Cape Town Globalist. The theme of the next edition is 'Drugs', which is quite nice.
Interesting things, drugs. I may have reported earlier that when I had imbibed far too much bhang lassi in Gokarna and was confined to my bed for the better part of the evening and night (that is, when I wasnt exorcising demons in the squatter toilet out back... though no hangover thankfully!), what was most on my mind was the whole notion that reality can be distorted so ridiculously by pouring a small amount of toxin into the flowing river of sense-data. The brain is an amazing thing and these sorts of situations ask serious questions surrounding 'what is reality?' If reality is the sum total of our sensory experiences, then the fact that we can use various stimulants to change that reality seem to lend a certain amount of credibility to a more idealist notion of reality: 'to be is to be perceived', as Berkeley put it. If I take a drug cocktail that puts me in the shoes of the protagonist in 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', reality has suddenly changed from rational to completely distorted. It seems fairly obvious that my reality will no longer correlate with anyone else's reality, including that of my buddy who has also taken said drug cocktail.
So maybe solipsism isnt so far-fetched after all...
(Oh, and for anyone interested, the plan for my article is that it be one entitled 'Gifts from the Gods' or 'The Opiate of the Masses' (Im not sure which approach to take yet) and it will be all about the drug properties of Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh... There are recent articles about frankincense stimulating various ion pathways in the brain that are not well-understood, and there have been studies about myrrh having various drug-like effects as well... and gold... well we all know the drug-like euphoria, giddiness, hallucinations, delusions, and paranoia that come with having various amounts of gold around.... i.e.
"[Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head." -- Warren Buffett)
Interesting things, drugs. I may have reported earlier that when I had imbibed far too much bhang lassi in Gokarna and was confined to my bed for the better part of the evening and night (that is, when I wasnt exorcising demons in the squatter toilet out back... though no hangover thankfully!), what was most on my mind was the whole notion that reality can be distorted so ridiculously by pouring a small amount of toxin into the flowing river of sense-data. The brain is an amazing thing and these sorts of situations ask serious questions surrounding 'what is reality?' If reality is the sum total of our sensory experiences, then the fact that we can use various stimulants to change that reality seem to lend a certain amount of credibility to a more idealist notion of reality: 'to be is to be perceived', as Berkeley put it. If I take a drug cocktail that puts me in the shoes of the protagonist in 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', reality has suddenly changed from rational to completely distorted. It seems fairly obvious that my reality will no longer correlate with anyone else's reality, including that of my buddy who has also taken said drug cocktail.
So maybe solipsism isnt so far-fetched after all...
(Oh, and for anyone interested, the plan for my article is that it be one entitled 'Gifts from the Gods' or 'The Opiate of the Masses' (Im not sure which approach to take yet) and it will be all about the drug properties of Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh... There are recent articles about frankincense stimulating various ion pathways in the brain that are not well-understood, and there have been studies about myrrh having various drug-like effects as well... and gold... well we all know the drug-like euphoria, giddiness, hallucinations, delusions, and paranoia that come with having various amounts of gold around.... i.e.
"[Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head." -- Warren Buffett)
Monday, February 21, 2011
Philosophy in a Nutshell
Although philosophy has a long legacy, and is arguably responsible for all things academic (the natural sciences coming from Aristotle, psychology and sociology being 'applied philosophy' from the 1800s i.e. Freud on the one hand, and Comte and Durkheim on the other, mathematics coming from the Ancient Greeks).
Basically, philosophy was first summarized to me as an attempt to answer three questions:
1) Who are we?
2) What do we know?
3) What should we do?
The first question is usually dealt with in metaphysics, the second in epistemology, and the third in ethics and political/social philosophy. But of course there is a vast overlap between the two. 'Are we ethical beings?' might be a question put to the first, and this directly affects how the third should be answered, although in all fairness putting such a question to the first is already having 'loaded' it.
But more so, it is amazing that bashing away at these simple questions for millenia has basically made the world how we see it today. We apply (3) in every daily activity whether it be sports or academia. And to the second question, a sceptic might say 'nothing for certain' (or, like Socrates, say 'the only thing that I know is that I know nothing'), and so one could say that we haven't even gotten off the ground and never will.
So why do we worry about these questions? Well surely if we didn't we would still be in our caves.
Basically, philosophy was first summarized to me as an attempt to answer three questions:
1) Who are we?
2) What do we know?
3) What should we do?
The first question is usually dealt with in metaphysics, the second in epistemology, and the third in ethics and political/social philosophy. But of course there is a vast overlap between the two. 'Are we ethical beings?' might be a question put to the first, and this directly affects how the third should be answered, although in all fairness putting such a question to the first is already having 'loaded' it.
But more so, it is amazing that bashing away at these simple questions for millenia has basically made the world how we see it today. We apply (3) in every daily activity whether it be sports or academia. And to the second question, a sceptic might say 'nothing for certain' (or, like Socrates, say 'the only thing that I know is that I know nothing'), and so one could say that we haven't even gotten off the ground and never will.
So why do we worry about these questions? Well surely if we didn't we would still be in our caves.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Pascal's Can of Wagers
Last night I was thinking about Pascal's Wager and toying with making it the topic of today's post. Admittedly, a lot of the direction of the argument stems from various parts of the corresponding wikipedia article, but anyway...
Many know something of Blaise Pascal's famous wager with respect to the existence of God. I would wager (haha) that few have actually read the Pensées, and/or perhaps could not even recognize when it is alluded to, since most have simply seen it in the following simplified 'decision theory' form:
Wager:
(a) Believe in God
(b) Do not believe in God
Possibilities:
(i) God exists
(ii) God does not exist
Consequences:
(a) If (i) is true, then you get infinite bliss, if (ii) is true then you lose nothing.
(b) If (i) is true, you burn in Hell, if (ii) is true, you lose nothing.
One problem is that critics of his wager attack its simplified form. Walter Kaufmann, for example, argues that if God is truly omniscient, then surely he will frown upon (i.e. punish) someone trying to use a simple logical trick to get into Heaven, so surely such a method is bound to fail in the end. This criticism has been used to both satirize the Wager, and justify its false logic, for example:
"Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless God wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy." (Richard Carrier)
(I believe this sort of argument is sometimes referred to as 'Pascal's Demon', because it essentially tries to show that the Wager could actually be convincing people to take up a logical argument that is bound to fail in the face of God, thus recruiting minions to Hell).
However, in it's original form, Pascal's Wager is actually put forward as an impetus to faith, i.e.:
"Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing."
However, this does not deal with a host of other problems, one of the main being 'Ok, even if we accept Pascal's logic, what's to say whether we should believe in this God or that? Since there are so many possibilities, surely by choosing you are actually putting yourself at the risk of burning in the Hell of whatever God is up there, should it not be your own?'
But even if we put questions within religion to the side for a second, Pascal's Wager has opened up a proverbial can of worms ever since religion became such a controversial subject in the modern age due to many critics questioning, for example, its political motives (recall that during Pascal's time, religion was not often debated openly, and non-Christian religions were not as 'global' as they are now).
This new religious 'scrutiny', especially by those who see things like Pascal's Wager as a tool of 'flawed logic' to recruit people to religious sects, has opened up a proverbial can of worms in the sense that there are now many other versions of Pascal's Wager that attempt to satirize it and thus argue against its validity as a logical tool, as well to put forward alternatives to say that Pascal's 'logic' can be used to argue against believing in God; it all depends on how you put your argument forward. Religious critic Richard Dawkins, for example, puts forward the 'Anti-Pascal Wager' in The God Delusion by revaluing life as what's important (scored with infinite loss if you 'waste' it on kowtowing to God or infinite gain if you 'spend it wisely' on making a genuine effort to make a difference in the world itself) and afterlife as simply a meager 'bonus'. Another is the 'Atheist's Wager', which is akin to the 'Pascal's Demon' criticism above. It alleges that if you maintain scepticism then you may build a 'positive legacy' by doing good things in life, and this you gain, then if there does exist a God in the end, he will reward you for your good deeds as well as your staunch resistance to blind faith.
Whatever the outcome of the Wager or its many versions, Pascal's Wager was the beginning of modern decision theory/game theory (for example, the Prisoner's Dilemma), and thus, irrespective of the validity of its content, his suggestion/approach is definitely useful for philosophy. In true, demonic fashion, however, I must leave the last word to the critics:
"[Pascal's Wager is] indecent and childish... the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists."
--Voltaire
"By arguing that we should first act and then gain faith Pascal is in fact subjecting us to physical domination through use of ideological power (i.e. we are being forced to physically kneel down, pray, etc.). For this reason Louis Althusser claims that Pascal brings 'like Christ, not peace but strife, and in addition something hardly Christian... scandal itself'."
--Wikipedia
Many know something of Blaise Pascal's famous wager with respect to the existence of God. I would wager (haha) that few have actually read the Pensées, and/or perhaps could not even recognize when it is alluded to, since most have simply seen it in the following simplified 'decision theory' form:
Wager:
(a) Believe in God
(b) Do not believe in God
Possibilities:
(i) God exists
(ii) God does not exist
Consequences:
(a) If (i) is true, then you get infinite bliss, if (ii) is true then you lose nothing.
(b) If (i) is true, you burn in Hell, if (ii) is true, you lose nothing.
One problem is that critics of his wager attack its simplified form. Walter Kaufmann, for example, argues that if God is truly omniscient, then surely he will frown upon (i.e. punish) someone trying to use a simple logical trick to get into Heaven, so surely such a method is bound to fail in the end. This criticism has been used to both satirize the Wager, and justify its false logic, for example:
"Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless God wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy." (Richard Carrier)
(I believe this sort of argument is sometimes referred to as 'Pascal's Demon', because it essentially tries to show that the Wager could actually be convincing people to take up a logical argument that is bound to fail in the face of God, thus recruiting minions to Hell).
However, in it's original form, Pascal's Wager is actually put forward as an impetus to faith, i.e.:
"Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing."
However, this does not deal with a host of other problems, one of the main being 'Ok, even if we accept Pascal's logic, what's to say whether we should believe in this God or that? Since there are so many possibilities, surely by choosing you are actually putting yourself at the risk of burning in the Hell of whatever God is up there, should it not be your own?'
But even if we put questions within religion to the side for a second, Pascal's Wager has opened up a proverbial can of worms ever since religion became such a controversial subject in the modern age due to many critics questioning, for example, its political motives (recall that during Pascal's time, religion was not often debated openly, and non-Christian religions were not as 'global' as they are now).
This new religious 'scrutiny', especially by those who see things like Pascal's Wager as a tool of 'flawed logic' to recruit people to religious sects, has opened up a proverbial can of worms in the sense that there are now many other versions of Pascal's Wager that attempt to satirize it and thus argue against its validity as a logical tool, as well to put forward alternatives to say that Pascal's 'logic' can be used to argue against believing in God; it all depends on how you put your argument forward. Religious critic Richard Dawkins, for example, puts forward the 'Anti-Pascal Wager' in The God Delusion by revaluing life as what's important (scored with infinite loss if you 'waste' it on kowtowing to God or infinite gain if you 'spend it wisely' on making a genuine effort to make a difference in the world itself) and afterlife as simply a meager 'bonus'. Another is the 'Atheist's Wager', which is akin to the 'Pascal's Demon' criticism above. It alleges that if you maintain scepticism then you may build a 'positive legacy' by doing good things in life, and this you gain, then if there does exist a God in the end, he will reward you for your good deeds as well as your staunch resistance to blind faith.
Whatever the outcome of the Wager or its many versions, Pascal's Wager was the beginning of modern decision theory/game theory (for example, the Prisoner's Dilemma), and thus, irrespective of the validity of its content, his suggestion/approach is definitely useful for philosophy. In true, demonic fashion, however, I must leave the last word to the critics:
"[Pascal's Wager is] indecent and childish... the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists."
--Voltaire
"By arguing that we should first act and then gain faith Pascal is in fact subjecting us to physical domination through use of ideological power (i.e. we are being forced to physically kneel down, pray, etc.). For this reason Louis Althusser claims that Pascal brings 'like Christ, not peace but strife, and in addition something hardly Christian... scandal itself'."
--Wikipedia
Thursday, February 10, 2011
In Praise of Idleness
"To have time was at once the most magnificent and the most dangerous of experiments. Idleness is fatal only to the mediocre." -- Albert Camus, A Happy Death
In truth, the quote above has been cheaply lifted from wikiquote. I've never read A Happy Death, nor have I read Bertrand Russell's essay from which I stole the title of the present topic. However, the notion of idleness is one that has become increasingly meaningful in the hustle and bustle of the present 'Western world' ruled by corporate imperialism and the prospect of get-rich-quick schemes.
Firstly, one should make sure to make a distinction between 'idleness' and 'laziness', although contemporary definitions have often blended the two. For example, if I allow my car to idle, I have not shut it off, nor have I made it in any way lazy; I have merely put it in a state of temporary stasis, neither entirely dormant, nor entirely active.
My interpretation of the above quote (and, since I have already admitted that I do not know the context in which it is written), is simply to say that there are those that treat idleness as a from of evasiveness or procrastination, while others treat idleness as a means to gather ones forces for a final onslaught.
Although the depiction of the battle of Stirling in Braveheart is entirely fictitious (it is usually referred to as the Battle of Stirling Bridge, because rather than being an open plain, there existed a bridge which was of tactical importance to the Scots in their victory), one could refer to the Scots as being 'idle' in the manner in which they wait for the English attack, but one could hardly accuse them of begin 'lazy'. It is the same, for example, with Fanon's depiction of the black man in The Wretched of the Earth, with muscles constantly tensed for an attack against the enemy, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually an attack will be inevitable.
And so, it seems that the problem with the 'mediocre' is that they submerge themselves in idleness in order to shirk from or avoid their duties. On the other hand, those that have a more 'advanced' idea of the tactical advantage of remaining idle for a period of time only to use the power reserved by this idleness to explode into vigorous action at a later date, are able to exploit 'idleness' as an opportunity.
In other words, it is the difference between how one approaches one's situation: i.e. it is the difference between 'we must avoid' and 'we must prepare'.
In truth, the quote above has been cheaply lifted from wikiquote. I've never read A Happy Death, nor have I read Bertrand Russell's essay from which I stole the title of the present topic. However, the notion of idleness is one that has become increasingly meaningful in the hustle and bustle of the present 'Western world' ruled by corporate imperialism and the prospect of get-rich-quick schemes.
Firstly, one should make sure to make a distinction between 'idleness' and 'laziness', although contemporary definitions have often blended the two. For example, if I allow my car to idle, I have not shut it off, nor have I made it in any way lazy; I have merely put it in a state of temporary stasis, neither entirely dormant, nor entirely active.
My interpretation of the above quote (and, since I have already admitted that I do not know the context in which it is written), is simply to say that there are those that treat idleness as a from of evasiveness or procrastination, while others treat idleness as a means to gather ones forces for a final onslaught.
Although the depiction of the battle of Stirling in Braveheart is entirely fictitious (it is usually referred to as the Battle of Stirling Bridge, because rather than being an open plain, there existed a bridge which was of tactical importance to the Scots in their victory), one could refer to the Scots as being 'idle' in the manner in which they wait for the English attack, but one could hardly accuse them of begin 'lazy'. It is the same, for example, with Fanon's depiction of the black man in The Wretched of the Earth, with muscles constantly tensed for an attack against the enemy, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually an attack will be inevitable.
And so, it seems that the problem with the 'mediocre' is that they submerge themselves in idleness in order to shirk from or avoid their duties. On the other hand, those that have a more 'advanced' idea of the tactical advantage of remaining idle for a period of time only to use the power reserved by this idleness to explode into vigorous action at a later date, are able to exploit 'idleness' as an opportunity.
In other words, it is the difference between how one approaches one's situation: i.e. it is the difference between 'we must avoid' and 'we must prepare'.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
What is an authentic experience?
Yesterday I was sitting in a pub in Rondebosch (the one I tend to frequent) and the pub, which is by all accounts a 'black' pub, was inundated with whites. It was rather amusing, since I knew that the reason likely had to do with the fact that the new school year is upon us, and there are American overseas students aplenty who are doing a semester abroad and mostly living in Rondebosch as near as possible to UCT. The pub in question is the main one down the hill from UCT, and clearly these curious folk have an eye for some 'cultural immersion'.
But then I got to thinking, isn't this sort of experience somewhat 'inauthentic'? Is it not the case that people see you as white or American or whatever before they see you as human, and doesn't that affect the way they approach and/or treat you? When my friends had temporarily left me sitting alone with my beer, a young white South African came up to me and, a bit tipsy, said 'nice to see a white bro at the Pig'. In terms of experience, authenticity seems to require that you are seen as a human being before you are seen as a certain TYPE of human being. It was similar when I was staying in Chamanculo; I wanted to know how people 'normally' acted, but given that I was a white guy walking around a slum in Maputo with a smile on my face and seemingly reckless abandon, their behaviour around me was obviously affected.
I suppose the best example of an 'authentic' experience is John Howard Griffin's experience in Black Like Me, e.g.:
* * *
I told myself that I was tired, that I must not judge these men who picked me up and for the price of a ride submitted me to the swamps of their fantasy lives. They showed me something that all men have but seldom bring to the surface, since most men seek health. The boy ended up wanting me to expose myself to him, saying he had never seen a Negro naked. I turned mute, indrawn, giving no answer. The silence rattled between us and I felt sorry for the reprimand that grew from me to him in the silence. I did not want this cruelty to him, since I knew that he showed me a side of his nature that was special to the night and the situation, a side rarely brought to light in his everyday living. I stared at the dimly lighted car dashboard and saw him attending an aunt’s funeral, having Sunday dinner with his parents, doing some kindness for a friend—for he was kind. How would I let him see that I understood and that I still respected him, and that I formed no judgment against him for this momentary slip? For instead of seeing it as a manifestation of some poor human charity, he might view it as confirmation that Negroes are insensitive to sexual aberration, that they think nothing of it—and this would carry on the legend that has so handicapped the Negro.
“I wasn’t going to do anything to you,” he said in a voice lifeless with humiliation. “I’m not queer or anything.”
“Of course not,” I said. “It’s nothing.”
“It’s just that I don’t get a chance to talk to educated Negroes—people that can answer questions.”
“You make it more complicated than it is,” I said. “If you want to know about the sexual morals of the Negro—his practices and ideals—it’s no mystery. These are human matters, and the Negro is the same human as the white man. Just ask yourself how it is for a white man and you’ll know the answers. Negro trash is the same as white trash. Negro decency is about the same, too.”
“But there are differences. The social studies I’ve read…”
“They don’t deal with any basic difference in human nature between black and white,” I said. “They only study the effects of environment on human nature. You place the white man in the ghetto, deprive him of educational advantages, arrange it so he has to struggle hard to fulfill his instinct for self-respect, give him little physical privacy and less leisure, and he would after a time assume the same characteristics you attach to the Negro. These characteristics don’t spring from whiteness or blackness, but from a man’s conditioning.”
“Yes, but Negroes have more illegitimate children, earlier loss of virginity and more crime—these are established facts,” he insisted without unkindness.
“The fact that the white race has the same problems proves these are not Negro characteristics, but the product of our condition as men,” I said. “When you force humans into a subhuman mode of existence, this always happens. Deprive a man of any contact with the pleasures of the spirit and he’ll fall completely into those of the flesh.”
“But we don’t deprive you people of the ‘pleasures of the spirit,’” he said.
“In most places we can’t go to the concerts, the theater, the museums, public lectures… or even to the library. Our schools in the South don’t compare to the white schools, poor as they are. You deprive a man of educational opportunities and he’ll have no knowledge of the great civilizing influences of art, history, literature, and philosophy. Many Negroes don’t even know these things exist. With practically nothing to exalt to the mind or exercise the spirit, any man is going to sink to his lowest depths. It becomes vicious—and tragic.”
“I can’t imagine how it must be,” he said. “I don’t think it’s fair. But just the same, plenty of whites don’t have access to these things—to art, literature, history, and philosophy. Some of the finest people I know live in the country where they never get to museums, concerts.”
“Living in the country, they are surrounded by natural museums and concerts,” I said. “Besides, those doors are always open to them. The Negro, too, fares better in the country. But most are deprived of education. Ignorance keeps them poor, and when a town-dwelling Negro is poor, he lives in the ghetto. His wife has to work usually, and this leaves the children without parental companionship. In such places, where all of man’s time is spent just surviving, he rarely knows what it means to read a great book. He has grown up and now sees his children grow up in squalor. His wife usually earns more than he. He is thwarted in his need to be father-of-the-household. When he looks at his children and his home, he feels the guilt of not having given them something better. His only salvation is not to give a damn finally, or else he will fall into despair. In despair, a man’s sense of virtue is dulled. He no longer cares. He will do anything to escape it—steal or commit acts of violence—or perhaps try to lose himself in sensuality. Most often the sex-king is just a poor devil trying to prove the manhood that his whole existence denies. This is what the whites call the ‘sorry nigger’. Soon he will either desert his home or become so unbearable he is kicked out. This leaves the mother to support the children alone. To keep food in their bellies, she has to spend most of her time away from them, working. This leaves the children to the streets, prey to any sight, any conversation, any sexual experiment that comes along to make their lives interesting or pleasurable. To a young girl who has nothing, has never known anything, the baubles she can get—both in a kind of crude affection and in gifts or money—by granting sex to a man or boy appeal to her as toys to a child. She gets pregnant sometimes and then the vicious cycle is given impetus. In some instances the mother cannot make enough to support her children, so she sells her sex for what she can get. This gets easier and easier until she comes up with still another child to abort or support. But none of this is ‘Negro-ness’.”
“I don’t know…” he sighed. “It looks like a man could do better.”
“It looks that way to you, because you can see what would be better. The Negro knows something is terribly wrong, but with things the way they are, he can’t know that something better actually exists on the other of work and study. We are all born blank. It’s the same for blacks or whites or any other shade of man. Your blanks have been filled in far differently from those of a child grown up in the filth and poverty of the ghetto.”
He drove without speaking through a thundershower that crinkled the windshield and raised the hum of his tires an octave.
“But the situation is changing,” I said after a time. “The Negro may not understand exactly how, but he knows one thing—the only way out of this tragedy is through education, training. Thousands of them sacrifice everything to get the education, to prove once and for all that the Negro’s capacity for learning, for accomplishment, is equal to that of any other man—that the pigment has nothing to do with degrees of intelligence, talent or virtue. This isn’t just wishful thinking. It’s been proved conclusively in every field.”
“We don’t hear about those things,” he said.
“I know. Southern newspapers print every rape, attempted rape, suspected rape, and ‘maybe rape’, but outstanding accomplishment is not considered newsworthy. Even the Southern Negro has little chance to know this, since he reads the same slanted reports in the newspapers.”
The young man slowed to a halt in a little settlement to let me out.
“I’m sorry about a while ago—I don’t know what got into me,” he said.
“I’ve already forgotten it.”
“No offense?”
“No offense.”
“Okay. Good luck to you.”
* * *
The truth is that for the fatally curious individual, you want people to be people, and you want to know what people are 'really' like, and it ends up being a sort of Catch-22 situation, since at the outset people treat you based on what they see in your appearance, and then once they get to know you, they treat you as a friend. There is seemingly no 'middle ground' where you can experience an authentic 'first impression' from another; i.e. 'pretend I'm just like anyone else; how would you react?' But in the end, maybe this is a good thing, because, as was discussed in the previous post, it means that there is no concept of 'normal': the unique attributes of any individual depict how he/she is reacted to. Still, though, I believe it would be nice to walk around a place like Khayelitsha without drawing attention to myself, to see how 'day-to-day struggles' unfold.
Maybe I need to have a talk with John Howard Griffin's dermatologist...
But then I got to thinking, isn't this sort of experience somewhat 'inauthentic'? Is it not the case that people see you as white or American or whatever before they see you as human, and doesn't that affect the way they approach and/or treat you? When my friends had temporarily left me sitting alone with my beer, a young white South African came up to me and, a bit tipsy, said 'nice to see a white bro at the Pig'. In terms of experience, authenticity seems to require that you are seen as a human being before you are seen as a certain TYPE of human being. It was similar when I was staying in Chamanculo; I wanted to know how people 'normally' acted, but given that I was a white guy walking around a slum in Maputo with a smile on my face and seemingly reckless abandon, their behaviour around me was obviously affected.
I suppose the best example of an 'authentic' experience is John Howard Griffin's experience in Black Like Me, e.g.:
* * *
I told myself that I was tired, that I must not judge these men who picked me up and for the price of a ride submitted me to the swamps of their fantasy lives. They showed me something that all men have but seldom bring to the surface, since most men seek health. The boy ended up wanting me to expose myself to him, saying he had never seen a Negro naked. I turned mute, indrawn, giving no answer. The silence rattled between us and I felt sorry for the reprimand that grew from me to him in the silence. I did not want this cruelty to him, since I knew that he showed me a side of his nature that was special to the night and the situation, a side rarely brought to light in his everyday living. I stared at the dimly lighted car dashboard and saw him attending an aunt’s funeral, having Sunday dinner with his parents, doing some kindness for a friend—for he was kind. How would I let him see that I understood and that I still respected him, and that I formed no judgment against him for this momentary slip? For instead of seeing it as a manifestation of some poor human charity, he might view it as confirmation that Negroes are insensitive to sexual aberration, that they think nothing of it—and this would carry on the legend that has so handicapped the Negro.
“I wasn’t going to do anything to you,” he said in a voice lifeless with humiliation. “I’m not queer or anything.”
“Of course not,” I said. “It’s nothing.”
“It’s just that I don’t get a chance to talk to educated Negroes—people that can answer questions.”
“You make it more complicated than it is,” I said. “If you want to know about the sexual morals of the Negro—his practices and ideals—it’s no mystery. These are human matters, and the Negro is the same human as the white man. Just ask yourself how it is for a white man and you’ll know the answers. Negro trash is the same as white trash. Negro decency is about the same, too.”
“But there are differences. The social studies I’ve read…”
“They don’t deal with any basic difference in human nature between black and white,” I said. “They only study the effects of environment on human nature. You place the white man in the ghetto, deprive him of educational advantages, arrange it so he has to struggle hard to fulfill his instinct for self-respect, give him little physical privacy and less leisure, and he would after a time assume the same characteristics you attach to the Negro. These characteristics don’t spring from whiteness or blackness, but from a man’s conditioning.”
“Yes, but Negroes have more illegitimate children, earlier loss of virginity and more crime—these are established facts,” he insisted without unkindness.
“The fact that the white race has the same problems proves these are not Negro characteristics, but the product of our condition as men,” I said. “When you force humans into a subhuman mode of existence, this always happens. Deprive a man of any contact with the pleasures of the spirit and he’ll fall completely into those of the flesh.”
“But we don’t deprive you people of the ‘pleasures of the spirit,’” he said.
“In most places we can’t go to the concerts, the theater, the museums, public lectures… or even to the library. Our schools in the South don’t compare to the white schools, poor as they are. You deprive a man of educational opportunities and he’ll have no knowledge of the great civilizing influences of art, history, literature, and philosophy. Many Negroes don’t even know these things exist. With practically nothing to exalt to the mind or exercise the spirit, any man is going to sink to his lowest depths. It becomes vicious—and tragic.”
“I can’t imagine how it must be,” he said. “I don’t think it’s fair. But just the same, plenty of whites don’t have access to these things—to art, literature, history, and philosophy. Some of the finest people I know live in the country where they never get to museums, concerts.”
“Living in the country, they are surrounded by natural museums and concerts,” I said. “Besides, those doors are always open to them. The Negro, too, fares better in the country. But most are deprived of education. Ignorance keeps them poor, and when a town-dwelling Negro is poor, he lives in the ghetto. His wife has to work usually, and this leaves the children without parental companionship. In such places, where all of man’s time is spent just surviving, he rarely knows what it means to read a great book. He has grown up and now sees his children grow up in squalor. His wife usually earns more than he. He is thwarted in his need to be father-of-the-household. When he looks at his children and his home, he feels the guilt of not having given them something better. His only salvation is not to give a damn finally, or else he will fall into despair. In despair, a man’s sense of virtue is dulled. He no longer cares. He will do anything to escape it—steal or commit acts of violence—or perhaps try to lose himself in sensuality. Most often the sex-king is just a poor devil trying to prove the manhood that his whole existence denies. This is what the whites call the ‘sorry nigger’. Soon he will either desert his home or become so unbearable he is kicked out. This leaves the mother to support the children alone. To keep food in their bellies, she has to spend most of her time away from them, working. This leaves the children to the streets, prey to any sight, any conversation, any sexual experiment that comes along to make their lives interesting or pleasurable. To a young girl who has nothing, has never known anything, the baubles she can get—both in a kind of crude affection and in gifts or money—by granting sex to a man or boy appeal to her as toys to a child. She gets pregnant sometimes and then the vicious cycle is given impetus. In some instances the mother cannot make enough to support her children, so she sells her sex for what she can get. This gets easier and easier until she comes up with still another child to abort or support. But none of this is ‘Negro-ness’.”
“I don’t know…” he sighed. “It looks like a man could do better.”
“It looks that way to you, because you can see what would be better. The Negro knows something is terribly wrong, but with things the way they are, he can’t know that something better actually exists on the other of work and study. We are all born blank. It’s the same for blacks or whites or any other shade of man. Your blanks have been filled in far differently from those of a child grown up in the filth and poverty of the ghetto.”
He drove without speaking through a thundershower that crinkled the windshield and raised the hum of his tires an octave.
“But the situation is changing,” I said after a time. “The Negro may not understand exactly how, but he knows one thing—the only way out of this tragedy is through education, training. Thousands of them sacrifice everything to get the education, to prove once and for all that the Negro’s capacity for learning, for accomplishment, is equal to that of any other man—that the pigment has nothing to do with degrees of intelligence, talent or virtue. This isn’t just wishful thinking. It’s been proved conclusively in every field.”
“We don’t hear about those things,” he said.
“I know. Southern newspapers print every rape, attempted rape, suspected rape, and ‘maybe rape’, but outstanding accomplishment is not considered newsworthy. Even the Southern Negro has little chance to know this, since he reads the same slanted reports in the newspapers.”
The young man slowed to a halt in a little settlement to let me out.
“I’m sorry about a while ago—I don’t know what got into me,” he said.
“I’ve already forgotten it.”
“No offense?”
“No offense.”
“Okay. Good luck to you.”
* * *
The truth is that for the fatally curious individual, you want people to be people, and you want to know what people are 'really' like, and it ends up being a sort of Catch-22 situation, since at the outset people treat you based on what they see in your appearance, and then once they get to know you, they treat you as a friend. There is seemingly no 'middle ground' where you can experience an authentic 'first impression' from another; i.e. 'pretend I'm just like anyone else; how would you react?' But in the end, maybe this is a good thing, because, as was discussed in the previous post, it means that there is no concept of 'normal': the unique attributes of any individual depict how he/she is reacted to. Still, though, I believe it would be nice to walk around a place like Khayelitsha without drawing attention to myself, to see how 'day-to-day struggles' unfold.
Maybe I need to have a talk with John Howard Griffin's dermatologist...
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
What is normal?
It is easy to answer that question with regard to a 'thing'. It is 'normal' if it is devoid of defects. A 'normal' tomato would be one devoid of defects, or a 'normal' rock might be one that has managed to avoid being encrusted with dirt or barnacles. Normalcy can even be extended to animals: one can discern between a 'normal' dog and a rabid dog, a 'normal' horse and a lame horse, etc.
But when consciousness comes into the picture, it is a different story. One can only make comparisons based on outward appearances of others, and since consciousness is an entirely internal phenomenon it presents two problems: first, how can one know if another person is 'normal' if one cannot see into another's consciousness and internal thoughts, and second, how can one know if one's own consciousness (and therefore oneself) is 'normal' if there are no other known consciousnesses that it can be properly compared to?
So if one wishes to appeal to a notion of normalcy within humans, one is limited to assumptions based on observable acts in others. If one sees another constantly in tears where everyone else maintains a more sober expression, one may have strong grounds to believe that such a person is not 'normal', or, at the very least, not in a 'normal' frame of mind.
The danger, however, is when one begins to equate 'normalcy' with 'predictability'. If one is playing chess, for example, a queen sacrifice would be considered an 'abnormal' phenomenon because it has a very low percentage chance of occurring in a given game. One might say "I didn't see that coming", i.e. I couldn't PREDICT that that would occur. And so one's idea of a normal person might be heavily skewed towards a seemingly equivalent notion of a person whose actions are predictable, whereas one who is constantly acting in such a way that seems 'out of the blue' may be seen as 'abnormal' since one ascertains that their consciousness and thoughts patterns are working in a different manner than what the norm might be deemed to be. However, it is only through the unpredictable that we can have the notion of the 'new' and forms of 'development'. An inventor, especially one as ingenious as Da Vinci would, with good reason, be deemed highly 'abnormal' given the machines and/or artwork that he is able to conceive of.
But then we must conclude that 'abnormal' is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it is what allows the human race to evolve from a species of cave-dwelling creatures to what they are today. Indeed, to see that 'abnormalcy' is good, we need only consider the notion of 'normalcy' in lieu of evolutionary biology and genetics, wherein evolution is deemed to occur through genetic aberration or mutation or some form of aberrant behaviour.
Of course, not all such aberrations can be deemed 'good', and indeed some genetic mutation that cause sterility or severe mental incapacitation or actions that reflect said 'problems' could not be considered 'good' at all, even if they should be deemed 'abnormal'. When I ride the local trains in Cape Town, oftentimes there are individuals who will preach fanatically and endlessly about Christianity, and the salvation provided by God through Jesus Christ. I will think to myself 'if the topic of your sermon was not religion, I'm fairly certain you would be locked up by now', which goes to show how 'normal' religion and theology have also become, but even further than this, how normal it has become to advocate your religion through preaching and recruiting on the one hand, while discrediting other religions on the other. It is akin to the idea that if you take out a machine gun and mow down a bunch of people in a quiet village, you are seen as VERY 'abnormal', but if it is in the heat of a battle or war, it is not only acknowledged as acceptable, but even encouraged. So 'normalcy' must also depend on a social context.
Despite these problems, we cannot deny that it is because of the 'abnormal' that we have all of the machinery and luxuries and ideas and entertainment and 'interesting' things of the world today. And so in the end, I must put my lot behind Giota, who, when she came to the door to greet me the first time I arrived in Los Angeles six or so years ago completely unknown and completely unannounced and heard me say "I'll try to explain but you'll think I'm crazy" calmly replied
"Crazy is good."
But when consciousness comes into the picture, it is a different story. One can only make comparisons based on outward appearances of others, and since consciousness is an entirely internal phenomenon it presents two problems: first, how can one know if another person is 'normal' if one cannot see into another's consciousness and internal thoughts, and second, how can one know if one's own consciousness (and therefore oneself) is 'normal' if there are no other known consciousnesses that it can be properly compared to?
So if one wishes to appeal to a notion of normalcy within humans, one is limited to assumptions based on observable acts in others. If one sees another constantly in tears where everyone else maintains a more sober expression, one may have strong grounds to believe that such a person is not 'normal', or, at the very least, not in a 'normal' frame of mind.
The danger, however, is when one begins to equate 'normalcy' with 'predictability'. If one is playing chess, for example, a queen sacrifice would be considered an 'abnormal' phenomenon because it has a very low percentage chance of occurring in a given game. One might say "I didn't see that coming", i.e. I couldn't PREDICT that that would occur. And so one's idea of a normal person might be heavily skewed towards a seemingly equivalent notion of a person whose actions are predictable, whereas one who is constantly acting in such a way that seems 'out of the blue' may be seen as 'abnormal' since one ascertains that their consciousness and thoughts patterns are working in a different manner than what the norm might be deemed to be. However, it is only through the unpredictable that we can have the notion of the 'new' and forms of 'development'. An inventor, especially one as ingenious as Da Vinci would, with good reason, be deemed highly 'abnormal' given the machines and/or artwork that he is able to conceive of.
But then we must conclude that 'abnormal' is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it is what allows the human race to evolve from a species of cave-dwelling creatures to what they are today. Indeed, to see that 'abnormalcy' is good, we need only consider the notion of 'normalcy' in lieu of evolutionary biology and genetics, wherein evolution is deemed to occur through genetic aberration or mutation or some form of aberrant behaviour.
Of course, not all such aberrations can be deemed 'good', and indeed some genetic mutation that cause sterility or severe mental incapacitation or actions that reflect said 'problems' could not be considered 'good' at all, even if they should be deemed 'abnormal'. When I ride the local trains in Cape Town, oftentimes there are individuals who will preach fanatically and endlessly about Christianity, and the salvation provided by God through Jesus Christ. I will think to myself 'if the topic of your sermon was not religion, I'm fairly certain you would be locked up by now', which goes to show how 'normal' religion and theology have also become, but even further than this, how normal it has become to advocate your religion through preaching and recruiting on the one hand, while discrediting other religions on the other. It is akin to the idea that if you take out a machine gun and mow down a bunch of people in a quiet village, you are seen as VERY 'abnormal', but if it is in the heat of a battle or war, it is not only acknowledged as acceptable, but even encouraged. So 'normalcy' must also depend on a social context.
Despite these problems, we cannot deny that it is because of the 'abnormal' that we have all of the machinery and luxuries and ideas and entertainment and 'interesting' things of the world today. And so in the end, I must put my lot behind Giota, who, when she came to the door to greet me the first time I arrived in Los Angeles six or so years ago completely unknown and completely unannounced and heard me say "I'll try to explain but you'll think I'm crazy" calmly replied
"Crazy is good."
Sunday, January 30, 2011
I Want a New Drug
One that won't make me sick
One that won't make me crash my car
Or make me feel three feet thick
What is philosophy about? Well, I suppose it depends on what you value and how you connect with the world. Simply discovering the sometimes ridiculously strange interpretations of reality arising in philosophy made me turn around and wonder what I really knew or thought I knew. Thus I suppose it depends on the one hand whether you can 'see past' a 'normal' idea of reality, and on the other hand whether you risk taking such a drastic step.
George Berkeley's conception of 'idealism' in the form of the idea that 'to be is to be perceived' made me feel like I was on drugs (or. perhaps, that he was) when I first saw it. How is it possible that absolutely EVERYTHING exists because it is perceived? So the earth I walk on wouldn't be there if my eyes didn't look at and my feet didn't walk on it? Then where does that put me as a human being? Something akin to a holodeck in Star Trek? That we are being fed into some interface that springs up as the world around us? A wisp in a vast astral ocean?
So can I define philosophy as a drug? The BEST drug? Maybe a drug, but maybe not the best. Nietzsche is a fine example of what can happen if you throw your mind into an abyss of thought with no day-to-day life to sober you up: "If you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss also stares into you."
In Gokarna when I had a bit too much bhang lassi, and I was laying in bed in agony trying my utmost to prevent my sanity from escaping into oblivion, I tried to make sense of the reality of the situation: my nervous system somehow changes external phenomena into some internal pattern that is made sense of. So suppose you are a river of perception interpreting patterns constantly floating by, what happens when you tip a small amount of some other substance that upsets the balance? Sometimes (if your lucky or unlucky depending again on what you value), chaos. And this implies that you have some control over what's going on around you. Or, at least, that you can disturb it. Upsetting the balance of how chemicals and synapses transfer information is enough to distort reality. Why? Because suddenly you look at things differently. Since it becomes the case that you cannot properly predict what's going on around you, you must compensate for this by shutting things out, which makes many look within. And introversion leads to dangerous questions: 'what the hell am I doing?' and 'can reality really be so fleeting that a gentle push from a foreign substance flings you into a temporary abyss?' It's about how you think and how you interpret what goes on around you.
And how you perceive and react to the Absurd.
Or maybe that's just me.
So, what is philosophy about?
It's about how you think and how you interpret what goes on around you.
One that won't make me crash my car
Or make me feel three feet thick
What is philosophy about? Well, I suppose it depends on what you value and how you connect with the world. Simply discovering the sometimes ridiculously strange interpretations of reality arising in philosophy made me turn around and wonder what I really knew or thought I knew. Thus I suppose it depends on the one hand whether you can 'see past' a 'normal' idea of reality, and on the other hand whether you risk taking such a drastic step.
George Berkeley's conception of 'idealism' in the form of the idea that 'to be is to be perceived' made me feel like I was on drugs (or. perhaps, that he was) when I first saw it. How is it possible that absolutely EVERYTHING exists because it is perceived? So the earth I walk on wouldn't be there if my eyes didn't look at and my feet didn't walk on it? Then where does that put me as a human being? Something akin to a holodeck in Star Trek? That we are being fed into some interface that springs up as the world around us? A wisp in a vast astral ocean?
So can I define philosophy as a drug? The BEST drug? Maybe a drug, but maybe not the best. Nietzsche is a fine example of what can happen if you throw your mind into an abyss of thought with no day-to-day life to sober you up: "If you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss also stares into you."
In Gokarna when I had a bit too much bhang lassi, and I was laying in bed in agony trying my utmost to prevent my sanity from escaping into oblivion, I tried to make sense of the reality of the situation: my nervous system somehow changes external phenomena into some internal pattern that is made sense of. So suppose you are a river of perception interpreting patterns constantly floating by, what happens when you tip a small amount of some other substance that upsets the balance? Sometimes (if your lucky or unlucky depending again on what you value), chaos. And this implies that you have some control over what's going on around you. Or, at least, that you can disturb it. Upsetting the balance of how chemicals and synapses transfer information is enough to distort reality. Why? Because suddenly you look at things differently. Since it becomes the case that you cannot properly predict what's going on around you, you must compensate for this by shutting things out, which makes many look within. And introversion leads to dangerous questions: 'what the hell am I doing?' and 'can reality really be so fleeting that a gentle push from a foreign substance flings you into a temporary abyss?' It's about how you think and how you interpret what goes on around you.
And how you perceive and react to the Absurd.
Or maybe that's just me.
So, what is philosophy about?
It's about how you think and how you interpret what goes on around you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)