““All is as thinking makes it so.” The retort made to Monimus the Cynic is clear enough: but clear too is the value of the saying, if one takes the kernel of it, as far as it is true.
“By This anticipation of Hamlet, Marcus (Aurelius) means that the nature and impact (for good or ill) of any external event or circumstance- all “indifferent” things - is determined solely by the rational judgement of it formed by the directing mind, not by the event itself. “Remove the judgement , and you have removed the thought “I am hurt, and the hurt itself is removed”: “If you remove your judgement of anything that seems painful, you yourself stand quite immune to pain.”
(Quoted from Mediations of Marcus Aurelius, translated by Martin Hammond, extract by Hammond.)
Stand back and objectively assess your experience, your consciousness, indeed, the entire terrain of mental life, you will find that your thoughts, judgments, opinions, are the cause of much unnecessary unhappiness and suffering. The ability to recognise this fact, and maintain a mindfulness of your thoughts - will allow you to remain free from the tumultuous vicissitudes of experience. This, is true freedom, a freedom from the opinion of others and from ourselves and our fantasies. This will allow ourselves to become less preoccupied with the ego, as Bertrand Russell and many others have pointed out, true happiness is largely built on a life less preoccupied with the self.
Essays, Thoughts and Opinions on Politics, Philosophy, Religion and Culture.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Project Eudemonia. Introduction
Project Eudemonia
Recently, I have been reading this blog
http://www.happiness-project.com/
There is some interesting reading, and its certainly interests me, I spend a good deal of my time addressing the immortal question of “what is good?” What is the good life? What does it consist off? Is there such a thing as wisdom that can turn mental suffering or dissatisfaction into joy and contentment? How do we discover such things?
Gretchen Rubin, has inspired me to start my own happiness project, only I have decided to rename mine, Project Eudemonia. The word eudemonia comes from Greek, generally meaning well living or flourishing, a term Socrates and Aristotle would have bandied about. The dictionary on this computer defines it as “morality evaluated according to happiness: an ethical doctrine that characterizes the value of life in terms of happiness”
I will have more to say about such terms in a later post. For now, however, I wish to set out what I aim to do. As often as I can, I will post on subjects, questions, research and philosophies related to the good life. I will be exploring the conceptions of wellbeing in both an eastern and western philosophical tradition. There are however, a number of key figures that I will explore in more detail, what they taught or wrote, analysing it, and judging it as useful or otherwise for a modern contemporary life.
These figures are somewhat eclectic, they are the Buddha, Marcus Aurelius and Bertrand Russell. In the future I hope to explore more authors, but for now I will focus on these three very contrasting men.
However, first, I will post on what I wrote to be my commandments, little lines or phrases from other authors or made up by me, that I use to try and ground myself with some values and foundations, that I live my life by.
Recently, I have been reading this blog
http://www.happiness-project.com/
There is some interesting reading, and its certainly interests me, I spend a good deal of my time addressing the immortal question of “what is good?” What is the good life? What does it consist off? Is there such a thing as wisdom that can turn mental suffering or dissatisfaction into joy and contentment? How do we discover such things?
Gretchen Rubin, has inspired me to start my own happiness project, only I have decided to rename mine, Project Eudemonia. The word eudemonia comes from Greek, generally meaning well living or flourishing, a term Socrates and Aristotle would have bandied about. The dictionary on this computer defines it as “morality evaluated according to happiness: an ethical doctrine that characterizes the value of life in terms of happiness”
I will have more to say about such terms in a later post. For now, however, I wish to set out what I aim to do. As often as I can, I will post on subjects, questions, research and philosophies related to the good life. I will be exploring the conceptions of wellbeing in both an eastern and western philosophical tradition. There are however, a number of key figures that I will explore in more detail, what they taught or wrote, analysing it, and judging it as useful or otherwise for a modern contemporary life.
These figures are somewhat eclectic, they are the Buddha, Marcus Aurelius and Bertrand Russell. In the future I hope to explore more authors, but for now I will focus on these three very contrasting men.
However, first, I will post on what I wrote to be my commandments, little lines or phrases from other authors or made up by me, that I use to try and ground myself with some values and foundations, that I live my life by.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Why there is no refuge from politics.
Last year I wrote a post--Why Politics Sucks.
http://theyoungcontrarian.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-politics-sucks-in-2008.html
One year on, I reconsider my views.
Christopher Hitchens in the introductory essay to Love, Poverty and War, states that there is no refuge from politics; even a life hermitically devoted to poetry, music and literature will have the cruel wind of the world intrude. A few weeks ago, I was asked, why study politics? I replied that everything about our lives is, essentially, political. That, every time you criticise someone’s actions or some social policy or promulgate some ought - “I believe we need to cut teenage pregnancy” “We need more jobs for British people” you are engaged, whether you know it or not. in politics. An interest in politics, is, probably, an interes, or a concern with power. Those who wish to change the world, or keep it the same, want implicitly or explicitly power. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, people who do not desire power or who are indifferent to their fellow man, are either mystics or lunatics. The Ancient Greeks had a name for persons not interested in public affairs--they called them idiots or idiotes
So, me being a very opinionated person, apt to criticise his fellow man, and equally willing to instruct him in matters political, ethical and religious, it is no surprise then that I have a interest in politics. However, it is an ambivalent relationship. I have no real interest in the grind of daily politics, or in politicians themselves. I prefer ideas, big ones, many of which were first thought and argued over by the Greeks, but mere contemplation and disputation of ideas without practical resolutions is vacuous and, ultimately, pointless.
Last August I decided to attend University. It was not a easy decision, however, the degree I signed up for was rather easy to choose. Why? In many ways, I am committed to a rather old fashioned idea of an educated gentleman: - one who educates himself in as many matters as possible, literature, culture, science and history. For me to have selected either a English degree or a science degree would have, I felt, limited me. That of course, does not mean to say that there will be no specialisation or hair splitting distinctions and arcane terminology in the degree I chose, indeed, far from it.
One of the issues I am interested in is the relationship between politics and science. For me there needs to be more of the scientific mindset in politics: a politics more clearly based upon empirical fact rather than feeling or intuition, and what the press wish. So, studying politics, perhaps, allows me to think and address these questions with greater freedom. I should say I wished to do a joint degree in philosophy, but could not because of clashing timetables, to digress a little, I believe in the Russell/empirical/ Quine model of philosophy as a extension of the natural sciences. That good philosophy be science enabling and science extending, for me, personally, I believe that philosophy can play the valuable role of midwife to a new politics, one based on reason, science and empirical research.
Economic Meltdown
What a year in politics it has been! Many time I said to myself, that this is my political baptism. Firstly there was and is the economic meltdown. I know little of economics, an ignorance I intend to rectify. It would seem, that economic reform will be the dominant theme of the next decade, after global warming and Islamic fundamentalism.
Palin, Obama and the US culture wars.
I don’t know which is more important or surprising, the election of a black US President or the Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin-- fundamentalist Christian and conservative darling. The culture war in America was especially virulent during the election, taking on an almost hypnotic pornographic quality. A major question that is occupying my mind - is the election of Obama a blip? Will Palin come to symbolise the America future? Fascinating questions, my suspicion is that we have not heard the last of Palin
Israel and Gaza
The Israeli bombardment of Gaza was in many ways a pivotal moment. I have always been interested in this dispute, now over 60 years running. It is in many ways a ground zero of all the ways humanity can go wrong. I am not, like so many liberals or leftists, (indeed I repudiate such terminology for myself,) “hostile” to Israel. I put hostile in quotation marks for it is a blatant understatement of the rancour, hatred and sheer lunacy of writing, opinion, and hand wringing over Israel. I do not have space to fully itemize or explore this issue, but the commentary, opinion and news reportage by the Guardian, BBC and other left/liberal magazines and writers was shockingly misinformed, wildly irrational and borderline anti-Semitic. This is a issue that is, and will be endlessly fascinating.
Pakistan, Iran and Islam
Islam exploded onto the world scene (or the western scene) on 9/11, this issue is, perhaps, in my top three interests. I have been following Islam in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Europe for the past several years. This is going to be, I believe, the number one political issue after global warming. Among the man questions that need exploring and answering: - are the West and Islam locked in a clash of civilisations? Can Islam reconcile itself to secular modernity? If there is a clash, who will win? Who is better equipped to win? Will Pakistan go under a Taliban like rule? Will Iran modernise? What role will British and European Muslims carve out for themselves?
Political reform and the Expense Scandal.
Returning to domestic politics, everyone is engaged in the expenses scandal, and Gordon Brown’s woeful reputation in the country. I prefer to look deeper, there is chance for some real reform--but will it happen? I don’t want a conservative government, but it seems inevitable if Brown stays. The only party that seems committed to the kind of reform I want to see is the liberal democrats, slim chance of them getting power however, though, a partnership with labour if a hung parliament results from the General election is possible.
What is needed
It has been a tumultuous year, not just for me but for politics in general, politics may “suck” but there is no escaping from it. Humans today have enormous power, we are in a position to influence and control events that no group of humans before us ever conceived possible. I believe that the enlightenment hope of a better world (one that has come under sustained attack) is a project that needs to be fought for and extended. We need to continually break down the barriers of division and irrationality, to grow the moral circle, and to educate and improve ourselves. We need greater international co-operation, a world government, a properly armed UN with a mandate to intervene in cases of genocide and mass murder. A commitment to extending and developing global human rights, social justice and the eradication of poverty. A universal education and politics based on reason, in short, enlightened cosmopolitism.
Best
Mike.
http://theyoungcontrarian.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-politics-sucks-in-2008.html
One year on, I reconsider my views.
Christopher Hitchens in the introductory essay to Love, Poverty and War, states that there is no refuge from politics; even a life hermitically devoted to poetry, music and literature will have the cruel wind of the world intrude. A few weeks ago, I was asked, why study politics? I replied that everything about our lives is, essentially, political. That, every time you criticise someone’s actions or some social policy or promulgate some ought - “I believe we need to cut teenage pregnancy” “We need more jobs for British people” you are engaged, whether you know it or not. in politics. An interest in politics, is, probably, an interes, or a concern with power. Those who wish to change the world, or keep it the same, want implicitly or explicitly power. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, people who do not desire power or who are indifferent to their fellow man, are either mystics or lunatics. The Ancient Greeks had a name for persons not interested in public affairs--they called them idiots or idiotes
So, me being a very opinionated person, apt to criticise his fellow man, and equally willing to instruct him in matters political, ethical and religious, it is no surprise then that I have a interest in politics. However, it is an ambivalent relationship. I have no real interest in the grind of daily politics, or in politicians themselves. I prefer ideas, big ones, many of which were first thought and argued over by the Greeks, but mere contemplation and disputation of ideas without practical resolutions is vacuous and, ultimately, pointless.
Last August I decided to attend University. It was not a easy decision, however, the degree I signed up for was rather easy to choose. Why? In many ways, I am committed to a rather old fashioned idea of an educated gentleman: - one who educates himself in as many matters as possible, literature, culture, science and history. For me to have selected either a English degree or a science degree would have, I felt, limited me. That of course, does not mean to say that there will be no specialisation or hair splitting distinctions and arcane terminology in the degree I chose, indeed, far from it.
One of the issues I am interested in is the relationship between politics and science. For me there needs to be more of the scientific mindset in politics: a politics more clearly based upon empirical fact rather than feeling or intuition, and what the press wish. So, studying politics, perhaps, allows me to think and address these questions with greater freedom. I should say I wished to do a joint degree in philosophy, but could not because of clashing timetables, to digress a little, I believe in the Russell/empirical/ Quine model of philosophy as a extension of the natural sciences. That good philosophy be science enabling and science extending, for me, personally, I believe that philosophy can play the valuable role of midwife to a new politics, one based on reason, science and empirical research.
Economic Meltdown
What a year in politics it has been! Many time I said to myself, that this is my political baptism. Firstly there was and is the economic meltdown. I know little of economics, an ignorance I intend to rectify. It would seem, that economic reform will be the dominant theme of the next decade, after global warming and Islamic fundamentalism.
Palin, Obama and the US culture wars.
I don’t know which is more important or surprising, the election of a black US President or the Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin-- fundamentalist Christian and conservative darling. The culture war in America was especially virulent during the election, taking on an almost hypnotic pornographic quality. A major question that is occupying my mind - is the election of Obama a blip? Will Palin come to symbolise the America future? Fascinating questions, my suspicion is that we have not heard the last of Palin
Israel and Gaza
The Israeli bombardment of Gaza was in many ways a pivotal moment. I have always been interested in this dispute, now over 60 years running. It is in many ways a ground zero of all the ways humanity can go wrong. I am not, like so many liberals or leftists, (indeed I repudiate such terminology for myself,) “hostile” to Israel. I put hostile in quotation marks for it is a blatant understatement of the rancour, hatred and sheer lunacy of writing, opinion, and hand wringing over Israel. I do not have space to fully itemize or explore this issue, but the commentary, opinion and news reportage by the Guardian, BBC and other left/liberal magazines and writers was shockingly misinformed, wildly irrational and borderline anti-Semitic. This is a issue that is, and will be endlessly fascinating.
Pakistan, Iran and Islam
Islam exploded onto the world scene (or the western scene) on 9/11, this issue is, perhaps, in my top three interests. I have been following Islam in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Europe for the past several years. This is going to be, I believe, the number one political issue after global warming. Among the man questions that need exploring and answering: - are the West and Islam locked in a clash of civilisations? Can Islam reconcile itself to secular modernity? If there is a clash, who will win? Who is better equipped to win? Will Pakistan go under a Taliban like rule? Will Iran modernise? What role will British and European Muslims carve out for themselves?
Political reform and the Expense Scandal.
Returning to domestic politics, everyone is engaged in the expenses scandal, and Gordon Brown’s woeful reputation in the country. I prefer to look deeper, there is chance for some real reform--but will it happen? I don’t want a conservative government, but it seems inevitable if Brown stays. The only party that seems committed to the kind of reform I want to see is the liberal democrats, slim chance of them getting power however, though, a partnership with labour if a hung parliament results from the General election is possible.
What is needed
It has been a tumultuous year, not just for me but for politics in general, politics may “suck” but there is no escaping from it. Humans today have enormous power, we are in a position to influence and control events that no group of humans before us ever conceived possible. I believe that the enlightenment hope of a better world (one that has come under sustained attack) is a project that needs to be fought for and extended. We need to continually break down the barriers of division and irrationality, to grow the moral circle, and to educate and improve ourselves. We need greater international co-operation, a world government, a properly armed UN with a mandate to intervene in cases of genocide and mass murder. A commitment to extending and developing global human rights, social justice and the eradication of poverty. A universal education and politics based on reason, in short, enlightened cosmopolitism.
Best
Mike.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Meeting David Simon.
Meeting David Simon.
Last Sunday I attended a book signing and a Q and A by David Simon, Journalist, writer, filmmaker, AKA the creator of the Wire and Generation Kill.
The event was held at Ulster hall Belfast, sponsored by the Guardian. It was part of the 2009 Hay festival. I thought my friend was pulling my leg when he sent me a text saying that David Simon was coming to Belfast. Though, sure enough, when I checked online, it did indeed say he was going to be in the City of yours truly, a great opportunity to meet the man himself.
The Wire is, the best Television show I have seen, belonging to the same elite rank of shows that came out of HBO in its hayday. Simon is no one trick pony, though, his book-Homicide a year on the killing streets, is a masterpiece of crime reporting, subsequently made into the long running TV show of the same name. Working as a Baltimore city crime reporter, especially spending a year observing the homicide unit, give Simon the necessary experience and material that would form his future career. Fans of the Wire will instantly recognise many characters, jokes and situations, from the book that made it into the HBO show.
It was not just experience and material from working in the homicide unit that helped Simon, it was where he forged the partnership with ED Burns (former police detective and teacher) the Co -creator of both The Wire, The Corner, and Generation Kill. Simon was clear on this point, Ed Burns along with three or four of the top key writers were crucial to the brilliance of the show. In this sense, the Wire is a fascinating case study in so called authorship, or auteurship. What is especially brilliant about the Wire (the same could be said for “his” other shows) is that it really is a team effort. Not only that, the majority of the writers, and this is especially true of the two main creators, have worked, lived and breathed in the environments they portrayed. This is a stark difference to what is the norm of the film/TV industry. This difference is especially apt when compared to David Chase--the creator of the Sopranos.
I was not able to ask how important this aspect was to the success of the Wire and The Corner, but I think that it cannot be overstated. In many ways this makes the Wire one of a kind: a brilliant multi layered narrative, that contains a tremendous amount of anger and social criticism. I do not expect a show like the Wire to come along again anytime soon.
My friends and I arrived towards the end of the book signing, I was not expecting much of a crowd, to my surprise though, the cue for signing was end to end (I just about got my original copy of Homicide signed) Even more surprising, was when I looked around at a packed Ulster hall to see a more or less full house of several hundred people.
My Homicide book now reads “To Michael, its all in the game, David Simon”. I got a laugh from both Simon and his PA, “that’s good, original”. I made some small talk with Simon, telling him how much me and my friends appreciated his show. I mentioned that his book was probably my favourite book in the field of journalism, comparing it to Michael Herr’s Dispatches ( Herr’s account of being embedded among the US armed forces during the Vietnam War.) he agreed saying he had a lot of time for that book. And that was that.
During the Q and A, Simon came across self deprecating, funny and articulate. He knows what he’s talking about without an air of intellectualism or elitism, the kinda guy who pollsters like to say “you could have a drink with”. We were sitting near the back of the hall and, at times, his soft, rolling, Baltimorean accent was hard to pick up at.
A taste of some of his opinions.
He thinks Obama has a good handle on what he is doing, though he doubts that any real progress will be made, ie drug reform, inner city schools etc.
It was revealed that in Season 3, where they were shooting a scene in a gay bar, a previously considered heterosexual character was to be shown - the writers quickly settled on Rawls-the “anal” stats obsessed Deputy Director. This got huge laughs from the audience, especially, as Simon noted, Rawls had been spouting homoerotic references and sexually suggestive remarks throughout the seasons. The funniest was his reply to Daniels in season two, Daniels - “I need McNulty” Rawls - “I need an extra 3 inches of meat-aint going happen”.
He responded to the question of why he killed of the likes of Stringer, Omar and Prop Joe by referencing the Greeks, Greek tragedy and Antigone. “ these characters aren’t going to change, they aren’t going to go into therapy or get a real job”.
He revealed how surprising it was for him to see how successful the show became. He quipped that he did not expect the show to be understood in Philadelphia never mind London, Belfast, Amsterdam etc. He was also, once again, full of praise for HBO. He confirmed an idea I had while reacting to the end of Season 3. Season 3 was meant to be the end of the show. By this time, everyone knew that the Wire was not going to become a commercial success. Simon went to HBO, told them his ideas for season four and five, and, they agreed. He quoted a huge number, maybe four million that HBO could have used creating two new shows, which could have been money makers, but they decided to stick with the Wire. This display of gratitude on the part of Simon was sincere, he has been know to harbour grudges and has been publicly vocal in his criticism of people (the editors of the Baltimore Sun for example), so it was a suprise to hear him giving his due.
Simon explained that when he and Ed Burns were working on the Corner, they wanted to detail all the socio-political factors that created the malaise and arguments they had realized living and working in Baltimore, they could not show this in the personal and microscopic Corner. The Wire then, was conceived as a panoramic response to this.
I asked Simon an out and out political question. I wanted to get him on record over his views of drug criminalization. “ I have a simple question, do you support drug decriminalization and if so how should it be implemented, and what consequences good and bad are likely to flow from this?”.
Simon was surprisingly candid and forceful (as usual) in his response. He believes it should be legalised, his reasons are that the war has failed, it has created failed societies and has essentially became a war on the American underclass. He cites that US prisons lock up legions of non-violent criminals and carry out early release for violent criminals to make way for drug convicts. He makes an interesting point concerning the image, perception and terminology of the use of the term war “War on Drugs”. He says that when fighting a war, you create an enemy, in order to perpetuate that idea of an enemy you essentially have to stir up hatred, you have to demonise them and stereotype them. Simon asserts, that this is what has happed to the underclass of which the black underclass make up a large proportion.
In terms of consequences, he envisions that the violence and gang culture would drop off, police would go back to real policing, communities would not be torn apart. He says the risks would be that slightly more middle class children are likely to become addicts. I, myself, support drug decimalization, believing it to be the only sensible policy we can do to fix the mess that The Wire documents. However, its highly unlikely we will see any progress on this issue.
One final observation, this time on the audience. I cannot help but notice that the overwhelming amount of people who attend the event were from the upper middle class. Indeed, the Guardian: darling of liberal left middle class did much to promote The Wire in the UK. How many people from the kinds of backgrounds that the Wire portrays are aware of the show? Did any of the people in attendance intend to take a greater political interest: in political reform and social justice? There is a kind of irony here, The Wire is down and dirty, dealing with many characters and situations that mainstream society does not want to look at, yet it is predominantly watched by people, in comfortable homes and jobs, from the kinds of places that Bubbles gazes vacantly at when he is accompanying McNulty to his kids soccer game.
Best
Michael.
Last Sunday I attended a book signing and a Q and A by David Simon, Journalist, writer, filmmaker, AKA the creator of the Wire and Generation Kill.
The event was held at Ulster hall Belfast, sponsored by the Guardian. It was part of the 2009 Hay festival. I thought my friend was pulling my leg when he sent me a text saying that David Simon was coming to Belfast. Though, sure enough, when I checked online, it did indeed say he was going to be in the City of yours truly, a great opportunity to meet the man himself.
The Wire is, the best Television show I have seen, belonging to the same elite rank of shows that came out of HBO in its hayday. Simon is no one trick pony, though, his book-Homicide a year on the killing streets, is a masterpiece of crime reporting, subsequently made into the long running TV show of the same name. Working as a Baltimore city crime reporter, especially spending a year observing the homicide unit, give Simon the necessary experience and material that would form his future career. Fans of the Wire will instantly recognise many characters, jokes and situations, from the book that made it into the HBO show.
It was not just experience and material from working in the homicide unit that helped Simon, it was where he forged the partnership with ED Burns (former police detective and teacher) the Co -creator of both The Wire, The Corner, and Generation Kill. Simon was clear on this point, Ed Burns along with three or four of the top key writers were crucial to the brilliance of the show. In this sense, the Wire is a fascinating case study in so called authorship, or auteurship. What is especially brilliant about the Wire (the same could be said for “his” other shows) is that it really is a team effort. Not only that, the majority of the writers, and this is especially true of the two main creators, have worked, lived and breathed in the environments they portrayed. This is a stark difference to what is the norm of the film/TV industry. This difference is especially apt when compared to David Chase--the creator of the Sopranos.
I was not able to ask how important this aspect was to the success of the Wire and The Corner, but I think that it cannot be overstated. In many ways this makes the Wire one of a kind: a brilliant multi layered narrative, that contains a tremendous amount of anger and social criticism. I do not expect a show like the Wire to come along again anytime soon.
My friends and I arrived towards the end of the book signing, I was not expecting much of a crowd, to my surprise though, the cue for signing was end to end (I just about got my original copy of Homicide signed) Even more surprising, was when I looked around at a packed Ulster hall to see a more or less full house of several hundred people.
My Homicide book now reads “To Michael, its all in the game, David Simon”. I got a laugh from both Simon and his PA, “that’s good, original”. I made some small talk with Simon, telling him how much me and my friends appreciated his show. I mentioned that his book was probably my favourite book in the field of journalism, comparing it to Michael Herr’s Dispatches ( Herr’s account of being embedded among the US armed forces during the Vietnam War.) he agreed saying he had a lot of time for that book. And that was that.
During the Q and A, Simon came across self deprecating, funny and articulate. He knows what he’s talking about without an air of intellectualism or elitism, the kinda guy who pollsters like to say “you could have a drink with”. We were sitting near the back of the hall and, at times, his soft, rolling, Baltimorean accent was hard to pick up at.
A taste of some of his opinions.
He thinks Obama has a good handle on what he is doing, though he doubts that any real progress will be made, ie drug reform, inner city schools etc.
It was revealed that in Season 3, where they were shooting a scene in a gay bar, a previously considered heterosexual character was to be shown - the writers quickly settled on Rawls-the “anal” stats obsessed Deputy Director. This got huge laughs from the audience, especially, as Simon noted, Rawls had been spouting homoerotic references and sexually suggestive remarks throughout the seasons. The funniest was his reply to Daniels in season two, Daniels - “I need McNulty” Rawls - “I need an extra 3 inches of meat-aint going happen”.
He responded to the question of why he killed of the likes of Stringer, Omar and Prop Joe by referencing the Greeks, Greek tragedy and Antigone. “ these characters aren’t going to change, they aren’t going to go into therapy or get a real job”.
He revealed how surprising it was for him to see how successful the show became. He quipped that he did not expect the show to be understood in Philadelphia never mind London, Belfast, Amsterdam etc. He was also, once again, full of praise for HBO. He confirmed an idea I had while reacting to the end of Season 3. Season 3 was meant to be the end of the show. By this time, everyone knew that the Wire was not going to become a commercial success. Simon went to HBO, told them his ideas for season four and five, and, they agreed. He quoted a huge number, maybe four million that HBO could have used creating two new shows, which could have been money makers, but they decided to stick with the Wire. This display of gratitude on the part of Simon was sincere, he has been know to harbour grudges and has been publicly vocal in his criticism of people (the editors of the Baltimore Sun for example), so it was a suprise to hear him giving his due.
Simon explained that when he and Ed Burns were working on the Corner, they wanted to detail all the socio-political factors that created the malaise and arguments they had realized living and working in Baltimore, they could not show this in the personal and microscopic Corner. The Wire then, was conceived as a panoramic response to this.
I asked Simon an out and out political question. I wanted to get him on record over his views of drug criminalization. “ I have a simple question, do you support drug decriminalization and if so how should it be implemented, and what consequences good and bad are likely to flow from this?”.
Simon was surprisingly candid and forceful (as usual) in his response. He believes it should be legalised, his reasons are that the war has failed, it has created failed societies and has essentially became a war on the American underclass. He cites that US prisons lock up legions of non-violent criminals and carry out early release for violent criminals to make way for drug convicts. He makes an interesting point concerning the image, perception and terminology of the use of the term war “War on Drugs”. He says that when fighting a war, you create an enemy, in order to perpetuate that idea of an enemy you essentially have to stir up hatred, you have to demonise them and stereotype them. Simon asserts, that this is what has happed to the underclass of which the black underclass make up a large proportion.
In terms of consequences, he envisions that the violence and gang culture would drop off, police would go back to real policing, communities would not be torn apart. He says the risks would be that slightly more middle class children are likely to become addicts. I, myself, support drug decimalization, believing it to be the only sensible policy we can do to fix the mess that The Wire documents. However, its highly unlikely we will see any progress on this issue.
One final observation, this time on the audience. I cannot help but notice that the overwhelming amount of people who attend the event were from the upper middle class. Indeed, the Guardian: darling of liberal left middle class did much to promote The Wire in the UK. How many people from the kinds of backgrounds that the Wire portrays are aware of the show? Did any of the people in attendance intend to take a greater political interest: in political reform and social justice? There is a kind of irony here, The Wire is down and dirty, dealing with many characters and situations that mainstream society does not want to look at, yet it is predominantly watched by people, in comfortable homes and jobs, from the kinds of places that Bubbles gazes vacantly at when he is accompanying McNulty to his kids soccer game.
Best
Michael.
Friday, 5 June 2009
What Obama can and cannot say. Reactions to his Cairo speech.
The reactions to US President Barack Obama has left me somewhat perplexed and baffled. Perplexed as to what they (the liberal and Muslim commentators) expect of America and likewise of Islam, and baffled as to the sloppy moral equivalence, inaccuracy, and chronic myopia of the writers. That of course, is not to say that I found the speech profound, persuasive or likely to mark a new rapprochement in the West’s relationship with Islam, on the contrary if anything its likely to make the extremists more determined (As America does not have the stomach for a fight--what Bin Laden predicted) and the more moderate Muslims will remain defiantly sceptical.
I want you to pause over the sentence. “ West’s relationship with Islam”, Obama in his speech mentioned repeatedly the US relationship with Islam. This is curious terminology. Is it not suggestive, that, on one hand we have a President of a sovereign nation entering into dialogue with a single, monolithic and monotheist religion? (never mind all the factionalism and irredentist, ethno-chauvinist tribalism).
Indeed, During the cold war, no President ever talked of our relationship with Marxism or communism, or our need to reach out to the communist world. The fact that a democratically elected politician, a secularist, and a liberal would frame such a rapprochement in these terms is already begging the question of the gulf between Islam and America and of course the West. Obama’s speech is covertly giving credence to Samuel Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilizations model. That is, the Americans and Europeans identify themselves in political and national terms not religiously or in terms of race. Our values are ultimately democracy, Human rights, freedom and liberty. Muslims, do not see themselves in such terms, they define themselves religiously. For them no authority is greater than God, society is to be governed by Sharia law, and concern for fellow Muslims trumps concerns for other non Muslims. Needless to say, this, is a problem, and it will continue to be a problem for the demands the Muslim world will make on us, are not likely to be political, social or economic, but religious.
Obama’s speech was, though, politically excellent, but historically naive, factually inaccurate, and morally dubious. This is a strange feature of our discourse, especially when it comes to Islam. That is, the perfect acceptance of lying when it comes to this subject. Imagine the world reaction if Obama has of said this--
“On September 11, America was awakened to the fact that it is deeply hated and resented in the world. That this hatred and resentment is, in large measure irrational and unjustified. America woke up to the fact that there are millions of people in the world who think it is perfectly acceptable to use violence in the name of God. America was starkly awakened and reminded, that the end of history has not been reached, that secular democracy, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience, the values that our forefathers fought so hard to achieve and maintain are not shared by most of the world. But, America, was not alone in being awakened, the rest of the world was awakened, awakened to witness the failure of Islam. Its failure to adapt to modernity, its failure to undergo an enlightenment, failure to progress, to commit itself to universal education, equality for women and respect and tolerance for non-Muslims. Islam, as it is practiced today, cannot continue, it is not only in America’s best interest but the world interest that Islam undergoes a radical process of change.”
Pie in the sky? Riots in the streets? Death to America? Probably, what I wrote above, is I believe, a honest assessment of our relationship with Islam, but to utter such words would entail political suicide and most likely a violent reaction. I am sceptical that Obama’s speech will do anything of substance. However, caveats aside, he was right to do this speech. Why? Because I think no other President and no other President for the long conceivable future has a hope of repairing America’s “tarnished” image in the world. So, while the make nice policy will quickly go down the drain, if America is attacked, the Israel-Palestine conflict rolls on, or Iran gets the bomb or another riot breaks out in the lands of Islam over a cartoon, a comic or a book. In short, we await the next terror attack, the next Muslim riot, and the next example of western liberal masochism as it censors or refuses to publish some author on the subject of Islam.
Now as to the commentators.
Consider what Ahdaf Soueif an Egyptian short story writer, novelist and political and cultural commentator had to say…
“There is a difference between believing that ultimately the interests of the inhabitants of the planet are genuinely interconnected and believing that the interests of the world can be made to seem compatible with America's. Obama has said that America should have not only the power but the moral standing to lead the world. Today we waited for him to demonstrate that moral standing and assume the leadership of the world. He did not; he remained the President of the United States.”
This is rich considering that state of Egyptian democracy and Human rights records. More ironic, is that this is the birthplace of Sayid Qutub the intellectual grandfather to Al Qaeda and birthplace to AQ number two Ayman Al Zawahiri.
Here is Ali Abunimah a Palestinian working in Washington for a 1 state solution to the problem with Israel.
On Palestinian dislocation and what Obama could not say.
“Suffered in pursuit of a homeland? The pain of dislocation? They already had a homeland. They suffered from being ethnically cleansed and dispossessed of it and prevented from returning on the grounds that they are from the wrong ethno-national group. Why is that still so hard to say?”
Perhaps this, and I will be boringly unoriginal here--is simply not true.
And on the origins of Muslim terrorism.
“It was disappointing that Obama recycled his predecessor's notion that "violent extremism" exists in a vacuum, unrelated to America's (and its proxies') exponentially greater use of violence before and after September 11, 2001. He dwelled on the "enormous trauma" done to the US when almost 3,000 people were killed that day, but spoke not one word about the hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows left in Iraq – those whom Muntazer al-Zaidi's flying shoe forced Americans to remember only for a few seconds last year. He ignored the dozens of civilians who die each week in the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, or the millions of refugees fleeing the US-invoked escalation in Pakistan.”
A short counter to would be to remember what author of Terror and Liberalism Paul Berman and Islamic historian Bernard Lewis had to say on America relationship to Islam prior 9/11. That no other country has done more to help Muslims, from expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, helping, if belatedly, the Albanian Muslims and Muslims of Kosovo from the tyrant Milosevic. To all the aid we send Pakistan, the help we sent Afghanis over a clear example of imperialism--the Soviet invasion. never mind all the patience and time and money spent over the Israel-Palestine conflict, and all the navel gazing and masochism that followed the 9/11 attacks. But, Perhaps, as Sam Harris wryly notes this is just another contribution to “Muslim humiliation”.
It was not just Middle east writers who were expecting some kind of apology from Obama, Robert Fish was at it.
“There was no mention – during or after his kindly excoriation of Iran – of Israel's estimated 264 nuclear warheads. He admonished the Palestinians for their violence – for "shooting rockets at sleeping children or blowing up old women in a bus". But there was no mention of Israel's violence in Gaza, just of the "continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza". Nor was there a mention of Israel's bombing of civilians in Lebanon, of its repeated invasions of Lebanon (17,500 dead in the 1982 invasion alone). Obama told Muslims not to live in the past, but cut the Israelis out of this.”
For a man who is sending thousands more US troops into Afghanistan – a certain disaster-to-come in the eyes of Arabs and Westerners – there was something brazen about all this. When he talked about the debt that all Westerners owed to Islam – the "light of learning" in Andalusia, algebra, the magnetic compass, religious tolerance, it was like a cat being gently stroked before a visit to the vet. And the vet, of course, lectured the Muslims on the dangers of extremism.”
Consider the more measured NYT columnist David Brooks who had this to say.
“In the Obama narrative, each side has been equally victimized by history, each side has legitimate grievances and each side has duties to perform. To construct this new Middle East narrative, Obama strung together some hard truths, historical distortions, eloquent appeals and strained moral equivalencies.”
“The president’s critics complained on Thursday about Obama’s distortions: The plight of the Palestinians is not really comparable to the plight of former slaves in the American South. The Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 was not really a glorious example of Muslim-American cooperation, but was a failed effort to use bribery to stop piracy.
“But this is diplomacy, not scholarship. Obama was using this speech to show empathy and respect. He was asking people in different Muslim communities to give the U.S. a new look and a fresh hearing. He was showing people in a region besotted with tiresome hysterics how to talk to one another with understanding and dignity.”
For once I seem to be in agreement with the Republicans and the conservatives (as to the truth of the speech not the political necessity) on this issue.
The Republican Jewish Coalition offered faint praise for the balance the group said Obama struck between the interests of Israel and the Palestinians.
"We urge President Obama to return to the policy of holding the security of Israel as a key American priority and requiring significant, concrete, and verifiable moves toward peace from the Palestinian side," executive director Matthew Brooks said in a statement.
Rachel Abrams wrote on the website of the conservative magazine Weekly Standard: "His greatest portion of criticism was reserved for the only nation in that otherwise benighted region that actually does believe in human rights and practices democracy, namely Israel."
Robert Spencer, a rightwing critic of Islam, said Obama had failed to confront Muslims with the words and actions of violent extremists like al-Qaida among his "platitudes and naivete".
"He assumes that it is his responsibility, and America's, to dispel mistrust that Muslims feel for the West," Spencer wrote.
Radio talk show host and former Reagan aide Hugh Hewitt, wrote that the speech was "deeply dishonest in its omissions".
The conservatives are right as to substance, but as I have said, there is no other President who has a chance of trying to overturn America’s image as an evil country.
Best
Mike
Quoted from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-cairo-speech-republicans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/barack-obama-cairo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-middleeast
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/obama-islam-speech-analysis
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-words-that-could-heal-wounds-of-centuries-1697417.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-usborne-president-stings-israel-with-swipe-at-settlements-1697327.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05brooks.html?ref=opinion
I want you to pause over the sentence. “ West’s relationship with Islam”, Obama in his speech mentioned repeatedly the US relationship with Islam. This is curious terminology. Is it not suggestive, that, on one hand we have a President of a sovereign nation entering into dialogue with a single, monolithic and monotheist religion? (never mind all the factionalism and irredentist, ethno-chauvinist tribalism).
Indeed, During the cold war, no President ever talked of our relationship with Marxism or communism, or our need to reach out to the communist world. The fact that a democratically elected politician, a secularist, and a liberal would frame such a rapprochement in these terms is already begging the question of the gulf between Islam and America and of course the West. Obama’s speech is covertly giving credence to Samuel Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilizations model. That is, the Americans and Europeans identify themselves in political and national terms not religiously or in terms of race. Our values are ultimately democracy, Human rights, freedom and liberty. Muslims, do not see themselves in such terms, they define themselves religiously. For them no authority is greater than God, society is to be governed by Sharia law, and concern for fellow Muslims trumps concerns for other non Muslims. Needless to say, this, is a problem, and it will continue to be a problem for the demands the Muslim world will make on us, are not likely to be political, social or economic, but religious.
Obama’s speech was, though, politically excellent, but historically naive, factually inaccurate, and morally dubious. This is a strange feature of our discourse, especially when it comes to Islam. That is, the perfect acceptance of lying when it comes to this subject. Imagine the world reaction if Obama has of said this--
“On September 11, America was awakened to the fact that it is deeply hated and resented in the world. That this hatred and resentment is, in large measure irrational and unjustified. America woke up to the fact that there are millions of people in the world who think it is perfectly acceptable to use violence in the name of God. America was starkly awakened and reminded, that the end of history has not been reached, that secular democracy, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience, the values that our forefathers fought so hard to achieve and maintain are not shared by most of the world. But, America, was not alone in being awakened, the rest of the world was awakened, awakened to witness the failure of Islam. Its failure to adapt to modernity, its failure to undergo an enlightenment, failure to progress, to commit itself to universal education, equality for women and respect and tolerance for non-Muslims. Islam, as it is practiced today, cannot continue, it is not only in America’s best interest but the world interest that Islam undergoes a radical process of change.”
Pie in the sky? Riots in the streets? Death to America? Probably, what I wrote above, is I believe, a honest assessment of our relationship with Islam, but to utter such words would entail political suicide and most likely a violent reaction. I am sceptical that Obama’s speech will do anything of substance. However, caveats aside, he was right to do this speech. Why? Because I think no other President and no other President for the long conceivable future has a hope of repairing America’s “tarnished” image in the world. So, while the make nice policy will quickly go down the drain, if America is attacked, the Israel-Palestine conflict rolls on, or Iran gets the bomb or another riot breaks out in the lands of Islam over a cartoon, a comic or a book. In short, we await the next terror attack, the next Muslim riot, and the next example of western liberal masochism as it censors or refuses to publish some author on the subject of Islam.
Now as to the commentators.
Consider what Ahdaf Soueif an Egyptian short story writer, novelist and political and cultural commentator had to say…
“There is a difference between believing that ultimately the interests of the inhabitants of the planet are genuinely interconnected and believing that the interests of the world can be made to seem compatible with America's. Obama has said that America should have not only the power but the moral standing to lead the world. Today we waited for him to demonstrate that moral standing and assume the leadership of the world. He did not; he remained the President of the United States.”
This is rich considering that state of Egyptian democracy and Human rights records. More ironic, is that this is the birthplace of Sayid Qutub the intellectual grandfather to Al Qaeda and birthplace to AQ number two Ayman Al Zawahiri.
Here is Ali Abunimah a Palestinian working in Washington for a 1 state solution to the problem with Israel.
On Palestinian dislocation and what Obama could not say.
“Suffered in pursuit of a homeland? The pain of dislocation? They already had a homeland. They suffered from being ethnically cleansed and dispossessed of it and prevented from returning on the grounds that they are from the wrong ethno-national group. Why is that still so hard to say?”
Perhaps this, and I will be boringly unoriginal here--is simply not true.
And on the origins of Muslim terrorism.
“It was disappointing that Obama recycled his predecessor's notion that "violent extremism" exists in a vacuum, unrelated to America's (and its proxies') exponentially greater use of violence before and after September 11, 2001. He dwelled on the "enormous trauma" done to the US when almost 3,000 people were killed that day, but spoke not one word about the hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows left in Iraq – those whom Muntazer al-Zaidi's flying shoe forced Americans to remember only for a few seconds last year. He ignored the dozens of civilians who die each week in the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, or the millions of refugees fleeing the US-invoked escalation in Pakistan.”
A short counter to would be to remember what author of Terror and Liberalism Paul Berman and Islamic historian Bernard Lewis had to say on America relationship to Islam prior 9/11. That no other country has done more to help Muslims, from expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, helping, if belatedly, the Albanian Muslims and Muslims of Kosovo from the tyrant Milosevic. To all the aid we send Pakistan, the help we sent Afghanis over a clear example of imperialism--the Soviet invasion. never mind all the patience and time and money spent over the Israel-Palestine conflict, and all the navel gazing and masochism that followed the 9/11 attacks. But, Perhaps, as Sam Harris wryly notes this is just another contribution to “Muslim humiliation”.
It was not just Middle east writers who were expecting some kind of apology from Obama, Robert Fish was at it.
“There was no mention – during or after his kindly excoriation of Iran – of Israel's estimated 264 nuclear warheads. He admonished the Palestinians for their violence – for "shooting rockets at sleeping children or blowing up old women in a bus". But there was no mention of Israel's violence in Gaza, just of the "continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza". Nor was there a mention of Israel's bombing of civilians in Lebanon, of its repeated invasions of Lebanon (17,500 dead in the 1982 invasion alone). Obama told Muslims not to live in the past, but cut the Israelis out of this.”
For a man who is sending thousands more US troops into Afghanistan – a certain disaster-to-come in the eyes of Arabs and Westerners – there was something brazen about all this. When he talked about the debt that all Westerners owed to Islam – the "light of learning" in Andalusia, algebra, the magnetic compass, religious tolerance, it was like a cat being gently stroked before a visit to the vet. And the vet, of course, lectured the Muslims on the dangers of extremism.”
Consider the more measured NYT columnist David Brooks who had this to say.
“In the Obama narrative, each side has been equally victimized by history, each side has legitimate grievances and each side has duties to perform. To construct this new Middle East narrative, Obama strung together some hard truths, historical distortions, eloquent appeals and strained moral equivalencies.”
“The president’s critics complained on Thursday about Obama’s distortions: The plight of the Palestinians is not really comparable to the plight of former slaves in the American South. The Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 was not really a glorious example of Muslim-American cooperation, but was a failed effort to use bribery to stop piracy.
“But this is diplomacy, not scholarship. Obama was using this speech to show empathy and respect. He was asking people in different Muslim communities to give the U.S. a new look and a fresh hearing. He was showing people in a region besotted with tiresome hysterics how to talk to one another with understanding and dignity.”
For once I seem to be in agreement with the Republicans and the conservatives (as to the truth of the speech not the political necessity) on this issue.
The Republican Jewish Coalition offered faint praise for the balance the group said Obama struck between the interests of Israel and the Palestinians.
"We urge President Obama to return to the policy of holding the security of Israel as a key American priority and requiring significant, concrete, and verifiable moves toward peace from the Palestinian side," executive director Matthew Brooks said in a statement.
Rachel Abrams wrote on the website of the conservative magazine Weekly Standard: "His greatest portion of criticism was reserved for the only nation in that otherwise benighted region that actually does believe in human rights and practices democracy, namely Israel."
Robert Spencer, a rightwing critic of Islam, said Obama had failed to confront Muslims with the words and actions of violent extremists like al-Qaida among his "platitudes and naivete".
"He assumes that it is his responsibility, and America's, to dispel mistrust that Muslims feel for the West," Spencer wrote.
Radio talk show host and former Reagan aide Hugh Hewitt, wrote that the speech was "deeply dishonest in its omissions".
The conservatives are right as to substance, but as I have said, there is no other President who has a chance of trying to overturn America’s image as an evil country.
Best
Mike
Quoted from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-cairo-speech-republicans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/barack-obama-cairo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-middleeast
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/obama-islam-speech-analysis
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-words-that-could-heal-wounds-of-centuries-1697417.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-usborne-president-stings-israel-with-swipe-at-settlements-1697327.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05brooks.html?ref=opinion
The Cartesian Circle and The Clockwork Orange Paradox.
It was Rene Descartes who coined “Cognito ergo sum” -”I am thinking therefore I exist” or more popularly “I think therefore I am”.
What Descartes is trying to prove is that there is a Élan Vital, A soul, a metaphysical essence that exists as a separate entity from the body. This is known commonly as Dualism. Descartes’ reason for this was to establish firm knowledge. Without going into too much detail, he needed to prove God existed, as a guarantor of firm knowledge. So, his taking up of Dualism was part of a long argument to establish that we can have firm knowledge.
I will first discuss some context before considering whether or not this idea has been proved. The origins of the doctrine of Dualism, generally, traces back to ancient Greece. More specifically to the religion of Orphism. Orphism held that humans have souls, that Transmigrated after death, presumably into other human beings. Pythagoras, I believe, was a member or at least followed this religion. He further elaborated on the idea of a soul, as timeless, eternal and otherworldly. Plato was greatly influenced by Pythagoras , and in turn greatly influenced Christianity and the early church thinkers.
It would seem that most cultures have this idea of a soul, however, (ie there is a “real me” behind my eyes ). The other day I read an anecdote concerning an African tribal custom. When two tribes were in dialogue with one another, they would send a emissary to walk from village to village, when the emissary arrived he would take the rest of the day to rest, (he had, perhaps, only walked a few miles) the reason was to let his soul catch up (imagine what our lives would be like if we believed this!)
There is one major world religion or philosophical tradition that differs on this issue, and that is Buddhism. There is, however, a contradiction lurking within Buddhist thought. Buddhism posits no soul, or Atman. There is no thinker behind the thoughts, no seer who sees. Thoughts are impermanent and insubstantial. At first look this would mightily disagree with Descartes, Christianity and our common sense, indeed it does. However, there is a problem. If there is no soul, no distinct self, then what about Nirvana? (The idea of souls or essences transmigrating) It would appear that Buddhism has contradicted itself before it’s even tied its shoes. This does seem to be the case, but, Buddhism was influenced by Brahmanism (which believe in a soul) and, probably, picked up the Nirvana idea from them. It would seem that the Nirvana idea was grafted onto Buddha’s thought and hence Buddhist theology. As Laplace would say “it works fine without that assumption”.
Buddhism, however, is unique, fantastically so, in recognising that there is no “Ghost in the Machine”. I might be begging the argument here, but the vast majority of philosophers and scientists especially scientists working on the brain reject Dualism. Why? Well for Buddhists they argue that thoughts and feelings are generated by a process of cause and effect. The way our language, cognitive perception and emotions operate-- producing a by-product- an impression of a self. This self or ego is really a response to fear, hatred and desire. Thoughts come up and we latch onto them believing thoughts or impressions as expressing our true selves (little homunculi in the brain or the soul.). Buddhism, however, sees these thoughts as empty, they appear and then dissipate. Buddhists see this process in meditation and claim to be able to be free from the prison of thought by attaining enlightenment. So, rather than saying “I am angry, and I am angry at him” they frame it “this body is experiencing anger, and it is experiencing anger by my expectations of how this person should behave.” In short, a famous saying in Zen is “don’t believe your thoughts they are not real”.
There are a few notable exceptions. The Stoics had a similar belief to the Buddhists. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, seemed to have transcended dualism, Hume’s “bundle theory”. I believe in short, that Hume believed that we notice impressions, “thoughts, feelings, sensations” but it is superfluous to put forward that there is someone who is experiencing the sensation. Ie there is simply the impression without the added thought that it is happening to someone.
The problems with the theory of Cartesian Dualism.
The problems with the Cartesian theory are. 1. It is circler. If there is someone or something who resides in the brain that is watching, who watches it? 2. Casper the friendly ghost paradox. Ever wonder how Casper is able to both fly through walls and hold sticks of wood in his hand? Neither do I. Descartes holds that the soul is immaterial, but how does immaterial interact with the material while staying immaterial? This paradox leads me to. 3. Where is the captain of our ship? Where is the soul? Where is the part of the brain that houses the place where I think? Where does the élan vital reside? I am reminded of the joke Douglas Adams made. A modern day scientist explains to someone from the past how a TV works. He opens it, showing that there is no “little men” inside. He explains how the TV works, but in the end the man says “there is probably still a few little men in there”. This leads me to- 4. Redundancy. Most, if not all, brain scientists explain the workings of the brain, and hence our sense of selves in purely material and naturalistic terms. Bringing up Laplace, again,--we don’t need that hypothesis. Leibniz in response to Descartes, conceived of the brain like a barn with lots of different machinery and processes, taken together they produced an effect--the impression of a self. Nowhere though, could any person point and say “there is where I reside, this is the part of the brain which makes me a person”.
Most people, reading this, will probably conclude that this is a lot of sceptical nonsense. And in one way they are right. This calls for a good error theory. Ludwig Wittgenstein was asked how could so many people be wrong about the earth rotating the sun. His famous reply was well how would it look if the earth was rotating the sun?
In terms of our everyday interaction with people, we perceive people (and animals) as agents. Agents that want something, that have goals, aspirations and beliefs. They are agents with intention, they also show regular features. Ie personality “I don’t like coffee, and tennis is my favourite sport I play it every Saturday” and memory “I remember when we were all at school, I was a quiet lad and did not get into trouble.” Rocks don’t have intentions nor do they have memories, hence we don’t think they have selves and hence we can throw them about with abandon (hopefully not near windows alas).
I am a self. To clarify this, I mean I am a person who has unique personality and memories different from other people. This is a perfectly fine definition. The problem is when we start to go in search on where this SELF IS. We will not find it, its not there. So its not I think therefore I exists, its rather I exist therefore I think.
If we define personhood in terms of unique personal experience and memories. Then it follows that, if we alter and remove those features that make a person a person or a human body a unique individual then that person is no longer the same person.
Lets say we have X, and A and B constitute X necessarily and sufficiently. If we remove A and B then X is no longer X. lets say we want X to be Z, and factors D and E make up Z. So if we implant D and E into the entity that was X then it becomes Z.
Who cares? Well this is a potential problem. Lets call it the Clockwork Orange Paradox.
Imagine that Science can do this. Science can alter memories and personality. Imagine then, that child rapists and murders can be changed in this way. Their memories of the crime, and the personalities and life experiences that led them to commit the crimes have been altered. So, the person is no longer guilty of the crime and is free to carry on a new life.
I am sure you feel uneasy at this possibility (such possibilities are not that fanciful). And there is good reasons to oppose such an idea. However, logically and empirically it would be true that the person (the child killer) no longer exists, but this is counterintuitive to the very innate ideas we have of personhood (souls and invisible essences and so on.) So to clarify, we have reached a “repugnant conclusion”. A conclusion that, although justified rationally, is still offensive, disgusting, or “repugnant” to our emotions or perceptions.
Best
Michael.
What Descartes is trying to prove is that there is a Élan Vital, A soul, a metaphysical essence that exists as a separate entity from the body. This is known commonly as Dualism. Descartes’ reason for this was to establish firm knowledge. Without going into too much detail, he needed to prove God existed, as a guarantor of firm knowledge. So, his taking up of Dualism was part of a long argument to establish that we can have firm knowledge.
I will first discuss some context before considering whether or not this idea has been proved. The origins of the doctrine of Dualism, generally, traces back to ancient Greece. More specifically to the religion of Orphism. Orphism held that humans have souls, that Transmigrated after death, presumably into other human beings. Pythagoras, I believe, was a member or at least followed this religion. He further elaborated on the idea of a soul, as timeless, eternal and otherworldly. Plato was greatly influenced by Pythagoras , and in turn greatly influenced Christianity and the early church thinkers.
It would seem that most cultures have this idea of a soul, however, (ie there is a “real me” behind my eyes ). The other day I read an anecdote concerning an African tribal custom. When two tribes were in dialogue with one another, they would send a emissary to walk from village to village, when the emissary arrived he would take the rest of the day to rest, (he had, perhaps, only walked a few miles) the reason was to let his soul catch up (imagine what our lives would be like if we believed this!)
There is one major world religion or philosophical tradition that differs on this issue, and that is Buddhism. There is, however, a contradiction lurking within Buddhist thought. Buddhism posits no soul, or Atman. There is no thinker behind the thoughts, no seer who sees. Thoughts are impermanent and insubstantial. At first look this would mightily disagree with Descartes, Christianity and our common sense, indeed it does. However, there is a problem. If there is no soul, no distinct self, then what about Nirvana? (The idea of souls or essences transmigrating) It would appear that Buddhism has contradicted itself before it’s even tied its shoes. This does seem to be the case, but, Buddhism was influenced by Brahmanism (which believe in a soul) and, probably, picked up the Nirvana idea from them. It would seem that the Nirvana idea was grafted onto Buddha’s thought and hence Buddhist theology. As Laplace would say “it works fine without that assumption”.
Buddhism, however, is unique, fantastically so, in recognising that there is no “Ghost in the Machine”. I might be begging the argument here, but the vast majority of philosophers and scientists especially scientists working on the brain reject Dualism. Why? Well for Buddhists they argue that thoughts and feelings are generated by a process of cause and effect. The way our language, cognitive perception and emotions operate-- producing a by-product- an impression of a self. This self or ego is really a response to fear, hatred and desire. Thoughts come up and we latch onto them believing thoughts or impressions as expressing our true selves (little homunculi in the brain or the soul.). Buddhism, however, sees these thoughts as empty, they appear and then dissipate. Buddhists see this process in meditation and claim to be able to be free from the prison of thought by attaining enlightenment. So, rather than saying “I am angry, and I am angry at him” they frame it “this body is experiencing anger, and it is experiencing anger by my expectations of how this person should behave.” In short, a famous saying in Zen is “don’t believe your thoughts they are not real”.
There are a few notable exceptions. The Stoics had a similar belief to the Buddhists. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, seemed to have transcended dualism, Hume’s “bundle theory”. I believe in short, that Hume believed that we notice impressions, “thoughts, feelings, sensations” but it is superfluous to put forward that there is someone who is experiencing the sensation. Ie there is simply the impression without the added thought that it is happening to someone.
The problems with the theory of Cartesian Dualism.
The problems with the Cartesian theory are. 1. It is circler. If there is someone or something who resides in the brain that is watching, who watches it? 2. Casper the friendly ghost paradox. Ever wonder how Casper is able to both fly through walls and hold sticks of wood in his hand? Neither do I. Descartes holds that the soul is immaterial, but how does immaterial interact with the material while staying immaterial? This paradox leads me to. 3. Where is the captain of our ship? Where is the soul? Where is the part of the brain that houses the place where I think? Where does the élan vital reside? I am reminded of the joke Douglas Adams made. A modern day scientist explains to someone from the past how a TV works. He opens it, showing that there is no “little men” inside. He explains how the TV works, but in the end the man says “there is probably still a few little men in there”. This leads me to- 4. Redundancy. Most, if not all, brain scientists explain the workings of the brain, and hence our sense of selves in purely material and naturalistic terms. Bringing up Laplace, again,--we don’t need that hypothesis. Leibniz in response to Descartes, conceived of the brain like a barn with lots of different machinery and processes, taken together they produced an effect--the impression of a self. Nowhere though, could any person point and say “there is where I reside, this is the part of the brain which makes me a person”.
Most people, reading this, will probably conclude that this is a lot of sceptical nonsense. And in one way they are right. This calls for a good error theory. Ludwig Wittgenstein was asked how could so many people be wrong about the earth rotating the sun. His famous reply was well how would it look if the earth was rotating the sun?
In terms of our everyday interaction with people, we perceive people (and animals) as agents. Agents that want something, that have goals, aspirations and beliefs. They are agents with intention, they also show regular features. Ie personality “I don’t like coffee, and tennis is my favourite sport I play it every Saturday” and memory “I remember when we were all at school, I was a quiet lad and did not get into trouble.” Rocks don’t have intentions nor do they have memories, hence we don’t think they have selves and hence we can throw them about with abandon (hopefully not near windows alas).
I am a self. To clarify this, I mean I am a person who has unique personality and memories different from other people. This is a perfectly fine definition. The problem is when we start to go in search on where this SELF IS. We will not find it, its not there. So its not I think therefore I exists, its rather I exist therefore I think.
If we define personhood in terms of unique personal experience and memories. Then it follows that, if we alter and remove those features that make a person a person or a human body a unique individual then that person is no longer the same person.
Lets say we have X, and A and B constitute X necessarily and sufficiently. If we remove A and B then X is no longer X. lets say we want X to be Z, and factors D and E make up Z. So if we implant D and E into the entity that was X then it becomes Z.
Who cares? Well this is a potential problem. Lets call it the Clockwork Orange Paradox.
Imagine that Science can do this. Science can alter memories and personality. Imagine then, that child rapists and murders can be changed in this way. Their memories of the crime, and the personalities and life experiences that led them to commit the crimes have been altered. So, the person is no longer guilty of the crime and is free to carry on a new life.
I am sure you feel uneasy at this possibility (such possibilities are not that fanciful). And there is good reasons to oppose such an idea. However, logically and empirically it would be true that the person (the child killer) no longer exists, but this is counterintuitive to the very innate ideas we have of personhood (souls and invisible essences and so on.) So to clarify, we have reached a “repugnant conclusion”. A conclusion that, although justified rationally, is still offensive, disgusting, or “repugnant” to our emotions or perceptions.
Best
Michael.
Friday, 22 May 2009
Political Reform
Suggestions and ideas.
Institutional reform.
1. A written constitution, laying out several key themes. A. Greater and transparent separation of powers between the three branches of government. Judiciary, Executive and Legislature. B. Enshrinement of political and civil rights and liberties (in accordance with the UNDHR). C. The creation of a Secular state, the division of the private and public realm. D The winding down of the monarchy and creation of a Constitutional Republic.
2. Directly elected leader, President or PM. All people, (now citizens) given a vote in helping to decide who leads the country, no longer a cabal of politicians decide who runs the country.
3. An Elected house of Lords, with greater diversity and expertise.
4. The ability for a leader to form a cross party, cross ideological Executive.
5. A greater emphasis on evidence based polices, independent committees and policy tanks should have greater say in policy making, leaders should not be able, to a far lesser extent, pander or be bullied by special interest groups, or ignorant and divisive groups in society.
6. A complete end to political donations by private individuals and corporations. At the very least it should be limited and clearly transparent.
7. Greater freedom for parliamentarians to vote on policy.
8. More debate and scrutiny for the executive proposals in the house of Parliament.
9. During election periods there should be US style presidential debates.
Secular state.
1. A truly secular state, no religious test for office, political or social polices must be secular and empirical based.
2. State no longer supports the Church of England as the state religion.
3. The slow, and controlled end to faith schools. However religious education should continue in schools but with a greater focus on teaching world religions, histories, doctrines and differences.
4. The Secular Islam project. Prominent Intellectuals, Muslim scholars, community leaders, debating and exploring and recommending how to reconcile Islam to modernity, promote understanding and awareness of Islam, with an aim to trigger a reformation within the British Muslim community to serve as a possible example to the rest of the world.
Education
Education I believe should consist of three key things.
1. Economic success and wellbeing. Giving children a understanding in finance, and financial prudence. Training for the job world, how to undergo successful interviews, write a CV, how to communicate and team lead etc. In short more emphasis on practical tools and abilities that will help with the world of work.
2. Emotional wellbeing. A greater emphasis on sexual and relationship advice. Effective parenting. Coping with stress and mental health awareness. A more open ended and discursive exploration of the ends and values of human life.
3. Creative and critical thinking. We should turn our children into little Socrates. How to think clearly and for themselves. Grater emphasis should be placed on the attempt to develop creative or artistic impulses in children and young people. This is not for economic interests, though it could be, its more for private interest, to develop a sense of self and self-esteem.
Social Policy
1. The age of legal Alcohol drinking should be raised to 21, there should also be a higher tax on Alcohol.
2. (this now might sound comically paradoxical). There should be tentative and experimental steps to end drug criminalisation. This should initially apply say to Cannabis, MDMA, LSD but in theory could apply to much harder drugs such as Heroin and Cocaine. Any policy should be rigorously evidenced bases, reform should be piecemeal and the results should be studied intensely.
3. Prisons reform. Initially, for less serious first time offences, there should be emphasis on personal discipline, education and addressing mental health problems of offenders (many of them do). for serious and second time offenders, Prisons should be run like Military boot camps and then with the re-education elements. In short prisons should be for both punitive purposes, but, mostly for reform purposes(in cases where this is possible.)
4. The Civilisation Project. Civic centres that are the centre of public life. In short a secular, non-dogmatic, non-intolerant alternative to the role that religion functions in society. It should be committed to a wide number of activities and engagements. Local charity work, activities for young people, social networking areas for the elderly and retired. A commitment to providing information and spaces for public debate on politics, events and values. I believe it should also attempt to address peoples social, emotional and spiritual needs. (I cant go into the details here unfortunately)
5. Tax breaks and incentives for married couples, greater access for Grandparents to their grandchildren. Tax breaks and encouragements for women who have children later in life.
6. Incentives and rewards for people who do not use private health care and have not used the NHS in relations to diseases and illness relating to smoking, binge drinking and over eating. Purpose is to save money and to encourage health and wellbeing among people.
7. Greater Tax on corporations and individuals earning over 100,000 a year. A Euro/word-wide co-operation should be set up to prevent corporations from avoiding the paying of tax.
8. Greater improvement in Public transport, low-income earners should travel for free when work related.
9. More freedom for individuals to choose their working hours, greater flexibility for both mothers and fathers to look after young children.
Best
Mike
Institutional reform.
1. A written constitution, laying out several key themes. A. Greater and transparent separation of powers between the three branches of government. Judiciary, Executive and Legislature. B. Enshrinement of political and civil rights and liberties (in accordance with the UNDHR). C. The creation of a Secular state, the division of the private and public realm. D The winding down of the monarchy and creation of a Constitutional Republic.
2. Directly elected leader, President or PM. All people, (now citizens) given a vote in helping to decide who leads the country, no longer a cabal of politicians decide who runs the country.
3. An Elected house of Lords, with greater diversity and expertise.
4. The ability for a leader to form a cross party, cross ideological Executive.
5. A greater emphasis on evidence based polices, independent committees and policy tanks should have greater say in policy making, leaders should not be able, to a far lesser extent, pander or be bullied by special interest groups, or ignorant and divisive groups in society.
6. A complete end to political donations by private individuals and corporations. At the very least it should be limited and clearly transparent.
7. Greater freedom for parliamentarians to vote on policy.
8. More debate and scrutiny for the executive proposals in the house of Parliament.
9. During election periods there should be US style presidential debates.
Secular state.
1. A truly secular state, no religious test for office, political or social polices must be secular and empirical based.
2. State no longer supports the Church of England as the state religion.
3. The slow, and controlled end to faith schools. However religious education should continue in schools but with a greater focus on teaching world religions, histories, doctrines and differences.
4. The Secular Islam project. Prominent Intellectuals, Muslim scholars, community leaders, debating and exploring and recommending how to reconcile Islam to modernity, promote understanding and awareness of Islam, with an aim to trigger a reformation within the British Muslim community to serve as a possible example to the rest of the world.
Education
Education I believe should consist of three key things.
1. Economic success and wellbeing. Giving children a understanding in finance, and financial prudence. Training for the job world, how to undergo successful interviews, write a CV, how to communicate and team lead etc. In short more emphasis on practical tools and abilities that will help with the world of work.
2. Emotional wellbeing. A greater emphasis on sexual and relationship advice. Effective parenting. Coping with stress and mental health awareness. A more open ended and discursive exploration of the ends and values of human life.
3. Creative and critical thinking. We should turn our children into little Socrates. How to think clearly and for themselves. Grater emphasis should be placed on the attempt to develop creative or artistic impulses in children and young people. This is not for economic interests, though it could be, its more for private interest, to develop a sense of self and self-esteem.
Social Policy
1. The age of legal Alcohol drinking should be raised to 21, there should also be a higher tax on Alcohol.
2. (this now might sound comically paradoxical). There should be tentative and experimental steps to end drug criminalisation. This should initially apply say to Cannabis, MDMA, LSD but in theory could apply to much harder drugs such as Heroin and Cocaine. Any policy should be rigorously evidenced bases, reform should be piecemeal and the results should be studied intensely.
3. Prisons reform. Initially, for less serious first time offences, there should be emphasis on personal discipline, education and addressing mental health problems of offenders (many of them do). for serious and second time offenders, Prisons should be run like Military boot camps and then with the re-education elements. In short prisons should be for both punitive purposes, but, mostly for reform purposes(in cases where this is possible.)
4. The Civilisation Project. Civic centres that are the centre of public life. In short a secular, non-dogmatic, non-intolerant alternative to the role that religion functions in society. It should be committed to a wide number of activities and engagements. Local charity work, activities for young people, social networking areas for the elderly and retired. A commitment to providing information and spaces for public debate on politics, events and values. I believe it should also attempt to address peoples social, emotional and spiritual needs. (I cant go into the details here unfortunately)
5. Tax breaks and incentives for married couples, greater access for Grandparents to their grandchildren. Tax breaks and encouragements for women who have children later in life.
6. Incentives and rewards for people who do not use private health care and have not used the NHS in relations to diseases and illness relating to smoking, binge drinking and over eating. Purpose is to save money and to encourage health and wellbeing among people.
7. Greater Tax on corporations and individuals earning over 100,000 a year. A Euro/word-wide co-operation should be set up to prevent corporations from avoiding the paying of tax.
8. Greater improvement in Public transport, low-income earners should travel for free when work related.
9. More freedom for individuals to choose their working hours, greater flexibility for both mothers and fathers to look after young children.
Best
Mike
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)