It would be great if I could always keep my eye on a positive future. There are difficulties ahead, without doubt--that is the nature of life. But to look forward towards the positive moments is one of he most valuable pleasures that we can have. The difference between the optimistic mindset and the pessimistic one has profound emotional impact--at least for me. By thinking about the good things that might happen, my mood goes up; by thinking about the bad things that could happen my mood goes down.
This kind of difference--between two different perspectives of the world--has been shown to affect human reasoning. Two different descriptions of the same situation will evoke different responses. From my personal introspection, I see this as being related to the emotional component that is being activated when I look at the world in one way or another.
In fact, it is recognized that gratitude for things can have a positive impact on mood. Gratitude is backward looking (for the most part), but it still carries a positive emotional valence because it is a focus on things that are good.
My habit is to look for problems. It's a habit that I want to change, because it's emotionally painful. But at the same time, we don't want to go through life oblivious to the problems that might beset us: we do want to be able to see the possible negative impact of our choices.
So we want to be able to strike a balance--to be aware of potential problems, and to create a foundation from which those problems can be addressed, and at the same time to focus our energy and intention on the creation of a positive future.
I guess that this was the basic idea behind this blog in the first place: to build dreams; to build the habit of focusing on a positive future. And that is something that has been something I've been working on, but most often I have been working on that habit in personal dimensions that I don't really want to write about. It's one thing to write about possible utopias; it's another, altogether, to write about the personal issues that I'm working on. Sometimes those issues have a universal character--the great religious leaders through history have addressed issues of self-control, of pessimism, of over-optimism, and many others. But my personal take on these things is not necessarily something that I want to write about.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Would it be great?
It's easy to say "wouldn't it be great if life were always easy?"
It's a question, but not a rhetorical one: the answer does not appear to be simple. There are obvious advantages to life always being easy, but there are some drawbacks, too.
One must question what really leads to happiness. This is a question that has occupied philosophers for millennia. One answer, given by writers like Abrham Maslow, suggests that we are made happy through growth and learning.
If this is true, then adversity is the necessary concomitant of growth: without adversity, without a challenge, there is no possible growth to accomplish that which you could not have accomplished earlier.
So it doesn't seem to make sense to wish for a life of constant ease.
Instead, wouldn't it be great if life provided just enough challenge that we continue to grow, without so much challenge that our lives fall apart.
It's a question, but not a rhetorical one: the answer does not appear to be simple. There are obvious advantages to life always being easy, but there are some drawbacks, too.
One must question what really leads to happiness. This is a question that has occupied philosophers for millennia. One answer, given by writers like Abrham Maslow, suggests that we are made happy through growth and learning.
If this is true, then adversity is the necessary concomitant of growth: without adversity, without a challenge, there is no possible growth to accomplish that which you could not have accomplished earlier.
So it doesn't seem to make sense to wish for a life of constant ease.
Instead, wouldn't it be great if life provided just enough challenge that we continue to grow, without so much challenge that our lives fall apart.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Barack Obama and College Football Playoffs
I just read an article about Barack Obama calling for an end to College Football's BCS.
If you don't care about football you probably don't want to read this. But I care about football. I enjoy watching college football. I root for the California Golden Bears, even though they cut down the Memorial Oak Grove. I don't root for them with quite as much enthusiasm. But I still enjoy the sport and have spent more time thinking about it than I'm willing to admit (or did I just admit it?).
I, like many others, think the whole "championship" determined by the BCS is even lamer than when the "champion" was just decided by a poll. At least when the champion was decided by a poll everyone knew it was just a poll. It was good cause to have an argument over which team was really best (which is the kind of thing sports fans love: "who was greater: the showtime Lakers or Russell's Celtics", "which was the best baseball team ever?"; "Who got hosed by the BCS worse: Auburn in 2004 or USC in 2003?").
Anyway: wouldn't it be great if college football scrapped the darn BCS and had a playoff?
Having spent too much time thinking about college football, but never having written down my ideas, I'm going to make some brief notes here. The details haven't been worked out, but I think it should be mathematically possible.
The general principle is that there is a regular season for league play, and then a playoff. Let's assume a 13-game season, which is what teams play if they go to a bowl (because the schools ain't going for it unless they can make a profit and they get paid to play, or more properly, the schools get paid to get the players to play for a pittance).
All teams play the regular season, and then all teams play in a playoff.
Teams are ranked and divded into classes, and each class has a playoff.
If we have an 8-game regular season and 5-game playoff, them teams would be broken into classes of 32. The top 32 teams would play in the Championship playoff; the next 32 teams would play in the Tier-2 playoff, and so on.
Playoffs would start with a standard elimination bracket, but then losers would play into a consolation bracket, so that all teams in each class end up being ranked based on their performance on the field in the playoff.
The simple version of this is a four-team bracket where the winners of the first round of games play each other and the losers play each other. This model could be extended to larger brackets. The simplest version of this would be that winning the in first round of the playoff means that you are ranked higher than all of the first round losers. More complicated systems could be developed that might take into account seeding and performance in later rounds (it is better to lose the first round playoff game and then win the next four or to win two, lose one, then win two more?), but keeping it simple means that the teams have to prove it on the field when it counts most.
Each season's results could be used to give each conference not only bragging rights, but seeding points for the tournament.
Currently the best teams start their season with some creampuff games with out-of-conference foes, or they pad in a mid-season "bye" with a weak opponent. This new system wouldn't allow that. Teams would start the season with their conference games, and ranking within the conference would be determined by those games. But then ranking in the tournament would be dependent partly on the record and partly on the conference's seeding points from the previous season's tournament.
I haven't worked out details here, so this is real pie-in-the-sky. You get points for your placement in the tournament. Say there are 112 schools in the tournament, then the winner of the tournament can get 112 points, the runner up 111, etc. (one could give higher weightings--I'm not sure it would matter). At the end of the season, all teams have finished out their tournament and been ranked according to their performance, and each conference can be ranked by simply adding up the ranking points of its teams (or, to deal with the fact that conferences are of different sizes, adding up the ranking points and then dividing by the number of teams).
That conference ranking number could then be used to generate a value for each win in a conference game, and then that value could be multiplied by the number of conference wins to determine tiers and seeding in the playoff.
Such a method would reward conferences that do well in the playoffs when teams are playing against non-conference opponents. If the teams of a conference beat other teams in the playoffs, then they'll get more ranking points, and may be placed above teams with more wins in a weaker conference. SEC fans always complain that their conference is so much better than others--top-to-bottom--that their teams get shafted: "no one can run the SEC schedule without losing a game," they moan; "other teams play in weak conferences and have an easy road to the BCS championship game." This would put an end to such whining. The proof would be played out on the field. If SEC teams did far better than others in the playoffs, then each SEC win would be worth significantly more, and SEC teams would play in the top tiers, including the championship tier. And if not, then that would be seen, too.
The beauty of this system is that all rankings, all seedings, etc., are based on performance on the field. Starting such a system would be a minor problem, but only minor: the system runs on historical ranking data: what do you do when there is no historical ranking data? But pretty much anything you chose to provide initial ranking data would be quickly washed away by the beginning of the second or third season. Assume you gave every conference equal ranking at the beginning of the first season. The system wouldn't differentiate between a undefeated team from the SEC and an undefeated from the Sun Belt, so both undefeateds would go into the championship tier. But if the SEC is as good as its proponents claim, then its team would rise to the top of the tier, garnering the most ranking points, while the Sun Belt team fell to the bottom, garnering the fewest. And this would be repeated in Tier-2, also: the 5-3 SEC teams would be with the 5-3 Sun Belt teams, which many would deem unfair, but if the SEC is really better, its teams would win, gaining more points, and the Sun Belt teams would lose. And at the bottom tier, the winless SEC team would dominate the winless Sun Belt team and gain more points. At the end of the playoffs the SEC teams in each tier would have more ranking points than the Sun Belt teams from the same tier. And this would mean that in the next year, SEC victories would be worth more than SUn Belt victories, and SEC teams would consequently be ranked higher. It's not even inconceivable that a conference to so dominate the playoffs that its teams would mostly be ranked in the championship tier, even if they didn't win many conference games. Well--maybe not--not if you're ranked only by victories, because then a winless SEC team would have 0 points. Maybe there would be some baseline for the conference so that if the SEC does well a winless SEC team might not play in the bottom bracket.
Anyway, I said that I think about football too much.
Go Bears!
If you don't care about football you probably don't want to read this. But I care about football. I enjoy watching college football. I root for the California Golden Bears, even though they cut down the Memorial Oak Grove. I don't root for them with quite as much enthusiasm. But I still enjoy the sport and have spent more time thinking about it than I'm willing to admit (or did I just admit it?).
I, like many others, think the whole "championship" determined by the BCS is even lamer than when the "champion" was just decided by a poll. At least when the champion was decided by a poll everyone knew it was just a poll. It was good cause to have an argument over which team was really best (which is the kind of thing sports fans love: "who was greater: the showtime Lakers or Russell's Celtics", "which was the best baseball team ever?"; "Who got hosed by the BCS worse: Auburn in 2004 or USC in 2003?").
Anyway: wouldn't it be great if college football scrapped the darn BCS and had a playoff?
Having spent too much time thinking about college football, but never having written down my ideas, I'm going to make some brief notes here. The details haven't been worked out, but I think it should be mathematically possible.
The general principle is that there is a regular season for league play, and then a playoff. Let's assume a 13-game season, which is what teams play if they go to a bowl (because the schools ain't going for it unless they can make a profit and they get paid to play, or more properly, the schools get paid to get the players to play for a pittance).
All teams play the regular season, and then all teams play in a playoff.
Teams are ranked and divded into classes, and each class has a playoff.
If we have an 8-game regular season and 5-game playoff, them teams would be broken into classes of 32. The top 32 teams would play in the Championship playoff; the next 32 teams would play in the Tier-2 playoff, and so on.
Playoffs would start with a standard elimination bracket, but then losers would play into a consolation bracket, so that all teams in each class end up being ranked based on their performance on the field in the playoff.
The simple version of this is a four-team bracket where the winners of the first round of games play each other and the losers play each other. This model could be extended to larger brackets. The simplest version of this would be that winning the in first round of the playoff means that you are ranked higher than all of the first round losers. More complicated systems could be developed that might take into account seeding and performance in later rounds (it is better to lose the first round playoff game and then win the next four or to win two, lose one, then win two more?), but keeping it simple means that the teams have to prove it on the field when it counts most.
Each season's results could be used to give each conference not only bragging rights, but seeding points for the tournament.
Currently the best teams start their season with some creampuff games with out-of-conference foes, or they pad in a mid-season "bye" with a weak opponent. This new system wouldn't allow that. Teams would start the season with their conference games, and ranking within the conference would be determined by those games. But then ranking in the tournament would be dependent partly on the record and partly on the conference's seeding points from the previous season's tournament.
I haven't worked out details here, so this is real pie-in-the-sky. You get points for your placement in the tournament. Say there are 112 schools in the tournament, then the winner of the tournament can get 112 points, the runner up 111, etc. (one could give higher weightings--I'm not sure it would matter). At the end of the season, all teams have finished out their tournament and been ranked according to their performance, and each conference can be ranked by simply adding up the ranking points of its teams (or, to deal with the fact that conferences are of different sizes, adding up the ranking points and then dividing by the number of teams).
That conference ranking number could then be used to generate a value for each win in a conference game, and then that value could be multiplied by the number of conference wins to determine tiers and seeding in the playoff.
Such a method would reward conferences that do well in the playoffs when teams are playing against non-conference opponents. If the teams of a conference beat other teams in the playoffs, then they'll get more ranking points, and may be placed above teams with more wins in a weaker conference. SEC fans always complain that their conference is so much better than others--top-to-bottom--that their teams get shafted: "no one can run the SEC schedule without losing a game," they moan; "other teams play in weak conferences and have an easy road to the BCS championship game." This would put an end to such whining. The proof would be played out on the field. If SEC teams did far better than others in the playoffs, then each SEC win would be worth significantly more, and SEC teams would play in the top tiers, including the championship tier. And if not, then that would be seen, too.
The beauty of this system is that all rankings, all seedings, etc., are based on performance on the field. Starting such a system would be a minor problem, but only minor: the system runs on historical ranking data: what do you do when there is no historical ranking data? But pretty much anything you chose to provide initial ranking data would be quickly washed away by the beginning of the second or third season. Assume you gave every conference equal ranking at the beginning of the first season. The system wouldn't differentiate between a undefeated team from the SEC and an undefeated from the Sun Belt, so both undefeateds would go into the championship tier. But if the SEC is as good as its proponents claim, then its team would rise to the top of the tier, garnering the most ranking points, while the Sun Belt team fell to the bottom, garnering the fewest. And this would be repeated in Tier-2, also: the 5-3 SEC teams would be with the 5-3 Sun Belt teams, which many would deem unfair, but if the SEC is really better, its teams would win, gaining more points, and the Sun Belt teams would lose. And at the bottom tier, the winless SEC team would dominate the winless Sun Belt team and gain more points. At the end of the playoffs the SEC teams in each tier would have more ranking points than the Sun Belt teams from the same tier. And this would mean that in the next year, SEC victories would be worth more than SUn Belt victories, and SEC teams would consequently be ranked higher. It's not even inconceivable that a conference to so dominate the playoffs that its teams would mostly be ranked in the championship tier, even if they didn't win many conference games. Well--maybe not--not if you're ranked only by victories, because then a winless SEC team would have 0 points. Maybe there would be some baseline for the conference so that if the SEC does well a winless SEC team might not play in the bottom bracket.
Anyway, I said that I think about football too much.
Go Bears!
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Barack Obama
Wouldn't it be great if Obama is the savior that many think he will be?
I have my doubts. But I hope.
This whole blog is about what I hope for, of course, but here are some particularly American things to hope for on this eve of a new presidential administration.
1. A real respect for the US Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. George W. Bush said that the 9/11 perpetrators hated Americans because of our freedoms. Well what are those freedoms? Are they the freedom to buy whatever you want? Or are they the freedoms outlined in the US Constitution? The freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; the free exercise of religion and no law respecting an establishment of religion (Amendment 1: our First Amendment Rights). There are more.
2. That whole "truth, justice and the American way" thing. OK, so I watched TV when I was a kid; I watched the TV Superman, what can I say? So I believe in truth and justice. Wouldn't it be great if government was truthful and just?
3. Some more really great stuff that I'd like to see Barack working on: "establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Oh yeah, I already did the Constitution thing.
4. Wouldn't it be great if we had government of the people, by the people, and for the people? And if that government was dedicated to the proposition that all men (all people!) are created equal?
5. Wouldn't it be great if there was peace in the world?
Wouldn't it be great if Obama, who has the audacity to hope, has the audacity to envision a government that serves the people's interests and not the interests of corporations?
Congratulations, Barack Obama.
Good luck. I wish you success to the extent that you serve the agenda noted above.
I don't normally do the political thing. I'm more interested in the philosophical questions, in the search for values and goodness. But it is a night for politicians.
I have my doubts. But I hope.
This whole blog is about what I hope for, of course, but here are some particularly American things to hope for on this eve of a new presidential administration.
1. A real respect for the US Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. George W. Bush said that the 9/11 perpetrators hated Americans because of our freedoms. Well what are those freedoms? Are they the freedom to buy whatever you want? Or are they the freedoms outlined in the US Constitution? The freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; the free exercise of religion and no law respecting an establishment of religion (Amendment 1: our First Amendment Rights). There are more.
2. That whole "truth, justice and the American way" thing. OK, so I watched TV when I was a kid; I watched the TV Superman, what can I say? So I believe in truth and justice. Wouldn't it be great if government was truthful and just?
3. Some more really great stuff that I'd like to see Barack working on: "establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Oh yeah, I already did the Constitution thing.
4. Wouldn't it be great if we had government of the people, by the people, and for the people? And if that government was dedicated to the proposition that all men (all people!) are created equal?
5. Wouldn't it be great if there was peace in the world?
Wouldn't it be great if Obama, who has the audacity to hope, has the audacity to envision a government that serves the people's interests and not the interests of corporations?
Congratulations, Barack Obama.
Good luck. I wish you success to the extent that you serve the agenda noted above.
I don't normally do the political thing. I'm more interested in the philosophical questions, in the search for values and goodness. But it is a night for politicians.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Money and Cooperation
"So, I'm just going to heal people and grow my own food," writes Eve.
It's a beautiful place to start.
The thing about money is that it helps mediate between individuals: with money one doesn't have to think about who to get needed things from: one has choices. So what can replace the role of money?
The fantasy would be that Eve could do her healing, which would benefit the world, and I could do my writing coaching, which would also benefit the world. And then Eve and I would also be able to get the things that we need, too. Money currently mediates such things.
But wouldn't it be great if we didn't need money for that? Wouldn't it be great if we could just give, safe in the certainty that we would be given back to. If you believe in the laws of attraction, you may believe that giving is enough to reveive. one who is more cynical might observe that without moeny it can be difficult to receive.
It's a beautiful place to start.
The thing about money is that it helps mediate between individuals: with money one doesn't have to think about who to get needed things from: one has choices. So what can replace the role of money?
The fantasy would be that Eve could do her healing, which would benefit the world, and I could do my writing coaching, which would also benefit the world. And then Eve and I would also be able to get the things that we need, too. Money currently mediates such things.
But wouldn't it be great if we didn't need money for that? Wouldn't it be great if we could just give, safe in the certainty that we would be given back to. If you believe in the laws of attraction, you may believe that giving is enough to reveive. one who is more cynical might observe that without moeny it can be difficult to receive.
Value Systems
"Even value systems can no longer be seen as stable over longer time spans." -- Horst Rittel (from "Decision Theory", trans. JP Protzen).
We all want certainty, don't we?
Some of us cling on to it desperately; some of us just want to play the odds.
I'm not really one who believes in a universal truth. I don't believe there's only one right way to describe the world.
But is there anything stable?
Value systems are tricky and difficult. Put to the test, value systems are situational.
So is there nothing universal?
I think there is something universal in human value systems, and that is life and respect for other humans. It's a great place to start. It's not a place that is entirely stable--how does one deal with a situation where any choice may lead to loss of life? But at the same time, it does seem like a value system that is fundamentally stable: even if we sometimes have to put aside our respect for life in moments of difficulty.
It seems to me that, while there may be no stability in the sense of an absolutely unshakeable, unalterable foundation on which to base a value system, there is a grounding that is as solid as the earth beneath our feet: which is to say that it's mostly solid, but sometimes it shifts around.
Wouldn't it be great if people built their value systems on the fundamental premise of respecting the life of others?
We all want certainty, don't we?
Some of us cling on to it desperately; some of us just want to play the odds.
I'm not really one who believes in a universal truth. I don't believe there's only one right way to describe the world.
But is there anything stable?
Value systems are tricky and difficult. Put to the test, value systems are situational.
So is there nothing universal?
I think there is something universal in human value systems, and that is life and respect for other humans. It's a great place to start. It's not a place that is entirely stable--how does one deal with a situation where any choice may lead to loss of life? But at the same time, it does seem like a value system that is fundamentally stable: even if we sometimes have to put aside our respect for life in moments of difficulty.
It seems to me that, while there may be no stability in the sense of an absolutely unshakeable, unalterable foundation on which to base a value system, there is a grounding that is as solid as the earth beneath our feet: which is to say that it's mostly solid, but sometimes it shifts around.
Wouldn't it be great if people built their value systems on the fundamental premise of respecting the life of others?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Money
Is it the root of all evil? I don't know, but wouldn't it be great if we didn't need money?
Just to speculate wildly, wouldn't it be great if we didn't need money? If we could get good food, if we could get shelter, love, medical care, clothes, and everything we might need without having money?
"Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can.
No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people, sharing all the world."
John Lennon said that. Would you want to live in such a world? Why? Why not? What such a world would be is not really determined. What kinds of work would people be doing? How would the work be distributed? Would there be any differences in rewards? What kinds of social networks would be necessary? Would it mean compromising quality of life in some ways? Would it compromise access to good food or other finer things? Would one have to sacrifice liberty? How would the legal system change? There would be no property crimes--unless there were crimes against public property.
Imagine not worrying whether you would have food to eat or a place to sleep in safety, and instead could focus your efforts on doing productive things.
And just think, if there was no money, then all the accountants could work on other projects. Maybe there would be other kinds of accounting necessary, to keep distribution of resources moving effectively.
Wouldn't it be great if we could get what we needed in life without money?
I don't even mean to suggest that we shouldn't have to struggle to achieve finer things in life; without the struggle, we cannot truly appreciate them anyway. And more importantly, it is the struggle that is what makes us really alive anyway.
Just to speculate wildly, wouldn't it be great if we didn't need money? If we could get good food, if we could get shelter, love, medical care, clothes, and everything we might need without having money?
"Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can.
No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people, sharing all the world."
John Lennon said that. Would you want to live in such a world? Why? Why not? What such a world would be is not really determined. What kinds of work would people be doing? How would the work be distributed? Would there be any differences in rewards? What kinds of social networks would be necessary? Would it mean compromising quality of life in some ways? Would it compromise access to good food or other finer things? Would one have to sacrifice liberty? How would the legal system change? There would be no property crimes--unless there were crimes against public property.
Imagine not worrying whether you would have food to eat or a place to sleep in safety, and instead could focus your efforts on doing productive things.
And just think, if there was no money, then all the accountants could work on other projects. Maybe there would be other kinds of accounting necessary, to keep distribution of resources moving effectively.
Wouldn't it be great if we could get what we needed in life without money?
I don't even mean to suggest that we shouldn't have to struggle to achieve finer things in life; without the struggle, we cannot truly appreciate them anyway. And more importantly, it is the struggle that is what makes us really alive anyway.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Ignorance
My friend says "Nobody knows the answer." Given our moods and momentary philosophical bent, we probably should be wearing all black, drinking coffee and smoking in some cafe with a jazz band playing behind a poet. I'm willing to agree with him so far. Then he says "So there is nothing more. Life is just shit."
This is no good, however. "If you don't know the answer, how do you know that there is no answer? If you don't know, then you don't know either way. Ignorance is ignorance."
"There is nothing more."
"Nothing more that you know of. But look, I agree, sort of. I know that life is just a series of moments, some good, some bad. I just want to do what I can to make more of those moments good. I don't know the answer but I'm hopeful that I can find something better than sitting around feeling lame. Like for example, maybe I could find a way to sit around and be at peace. Or maybe if I pushed my limits more I could do something that demands so much concentration that at least I'd be more focused on the moment, rather than looking at an unchanging future."
"Dude, take my word for it. There is nothing more."
"You seem certain."
"I am."
"I thought no one knew."
"There is nothing to know."
Ignorance slices both ways. If you don't know, then you don't know. To be so certain that something doesn't exist if you can't prove it exists? Hubris.
Is there a real world or is it all just my perceptions? I don't know; I can't prove it either way. Is it possible to attain peace in this life? I don't know; I can't prove it either way. Thus, I am ignorant.
Being ignorant I will not assert that there is no hope for a better future.
Wouldn't it be great if the hope were justified?
I want to believe in the magic of the world; I want to believe that it is ultimately the best of all possible worlds. But I'm a skeptic; I don't know. It's still an open question, and since it is, it seems like I might as well act as if it were true.
This is no good, however. "If you don't know the answer, how do you know that there is no answer? If you don't know, then you don't know either way. Ignorance is ignorance."
"There is nothing more."
"Nothing more that you know of. But look, I agree, sort of. I know that life is just a series of moments, some good, some bad. I just want to do what I can to make more of those moments good. I don't know the answer but I'm hopeful that I can find something better than sitting around feeling lame. Like for example, maybe I could find a way to sit around and be at peace. Or maybe if I pushed my limits more I could do something that demands so much concentration that at least I'd be more focused on the moment, rather than looking at an unchanging future."
"Dude, take my word for it. There is nothing more."
"You seem certain."
"I am."
"I thought no one knew."
"There is nothing to know."
Ignorance slices both ways. If you don't know, then you don't know. To be so certain that something doesn't exist if you can't prove it exists? Hubris.
Is there a real world or is it all just my perceptions? I don't know; I can't prove it either way. Is it possible to attain peace in this life? I don't know; I can't prove it either way. Thus, I am ignorant.
Being ignorant I will not assert that there is no hope for a better future.
Wouldn't it be great if the hope were justified?
I want to believe in the magic of the world; I want to believe that it is ultimately the best of all possible worlds. But I'm a skeptic; I don't know. It's still an open question, and since it is, it seems like I might as well act as if it were true.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Giving fear; selling hope
Last night I said that politicians have nothing to sell but hope. I stand by that remark, but not without noting that politicians regularly give away fear.
"You must vote for Me, or your life will be ruined by poverty|terrorism|loss of liberty|loss of convenience."
It's easy to see them doing it. There's no point in naming names, because they all do it. In some ways fear is the opposite face of a coin to hope. Hope is the vision of a positive future; fear is the vision of a negative future.
It has been shown by the work of Nobel-laureate Daniel Kahneman that, in addition to the optimism bias I noted in my previous post about hope, there is another bias, too, a salient exemplar bias--when there is a specific well-known case, people misjudge the likelihood of other such cases. So, for example, the highly publicized events of 9/11/2001 have termendous impact in people's decision-making processes. The death toll of the events was approximately 3000. The entire resources of a nation have been mobilized to prevent another such attack. The US government has spent nearly a trillion dollars on military action in the name of preventing such attacks. The government has passed laws that are in clear contradiction with the basic principles found in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You can judge whether this is right or wrong, the important point is that repeated invocation of September 11 activates a salient example that influences humans' ability to make accurate judgements of probability.
I have digressed somewhat from the notion that we can give away fear and sell hope, but I just want to follow up what I was thinking about in the coment on salient examples. In 2001 there were, according to the US government, nearly 38,000 fatal automobile crashes in the US, leading to over 42,000 fatalities. In 2001, we did not declare war on automobile fatalities. This despite there having been roughly the same number of fatalities each year in the preceding decade, thus meaning the death toll from terrorist actions in the US was approximately one 100th the significance of the death toll rom traffic fatalities. But we have a war on terrorism that is costing hundreds of billions, while the annual death toll for auto fatalities continues to slowly rise, while it has no salient example to frighten people into action.
It is easier to give away fear and sell hope if there is a salient example.
And on this point, it might be noted that monster storms like Hurricane Katrina might be the salient examples needed to make people take the idea of global warming more seriously.
Wouldn't it be great if politicians were actually motivated by the same fears and ideals that they use to motivate the electorate? Wouldn't it be great if politicians tried to deliver the hope they promised? Wouldn't it be great if politicians were interested in serving the needs of the people, rather than grabbing as much as possible for themselves?
"You must vote for Me, or your life will be ruined by poverty|terrorism|loss of liberty|loss of convenience."
It's easy to see them doing it. There's no point in naming names, because they all do it. In some ways fear is the opposite face of a coin to hope. Hope is the vision of a positive future; fear is the vision of a negative future.
It has been shown by the work of Nobel-laureate Daniel Kahneman that, in addition to the optimism bias I noted in my previous post about hope, there is another bias, too, a salient exemplar bias--when there is a specific well-known case, people misjudge the likelihood of other such cases. So, for example, the highly publicized events of 9/11/2001 have termendous impact in people's decision-making processes. The death toll of the events was approximately 3000. The entire resources of a nation have been mobilized to prevent another such attack. The US government has spent nearly a trillion dollars on military action in the name of preventing such attacks. The government has passed laws that are in clear contradiction with the basic principles found in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You can judge whether this is right or wrong, the important point is that repeated invocation of September 11 activates a salient example that influences humans' ability to make accurate judgements of probability.
I have digressed somewhat from the notion that we can give away fear and sell hope, but I just want to follow up what I was thinking about in the coment on salient examples. In 2001 there were, according to the US government, nearly 38,000 fatal automobile crashes in the US, leading to over 42,000 fatalities. In 2001, we did not declare war on automobile fatalities. This despite there having been roughly the same number of fatalities each year in the preceding decade, thus meaning the death toll from terrorist actions in the US was approximately one 100th the significance of the death toll rom traffic fatalities. But we have a war on terrorism that is costing hundreds of billions, while the annual death toll for auto fatalities continues to slowly rise, while it has no salient example to frighten people into action.
It is easier to give away fear and sell hope if there is a salient example.
And on this point, it might be noted that monster storms like Hurricane Katrina might be the salient examples needed to make people take the idea of global warming more seriously.
Wouldn't it be great if politicians were actually motivated by the same fears and ideals that they use to motivate the electorate? Wouldn't it be great if politicians tried to deliver the hope they promised? Wouldn't it be great if politicians were interested in serving the needs of the people, rather than grabbing as much as possible for themselves?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Hope
Jefforson wrote "among these [unalienable rights] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
What is the pursuit of happiness, but hope?
What is life without hope?
Hope, perhaps, is the basis of religion being the opium of the masses: "serve in this life and be rewarded in the next." But for all that it may serve the desires of an oppressor, does not such hope still make the life of the oppressed better? And is not hope necessary for the oppressed to rise up and throw off the chains of bondage?
One ought not hope foolishly. One not ought to hope for a return of the past, for example. But perhaps that is not really hope but a retreat from reality.
It can be difficult not to hope foolishly (there is, in fact, an empirically observable optimism bias in people--see the work of Nobel-laureate Daniel Kahneman). So we want to be careful in what we hope for, in the sense that we want to hope for things that can be realized. But we want, nonetheless, to continue to hope.
Wouldn't it be great if we all had hope?
It's so easy to lose sight of it sometimes. Listening to environmental reports, listening to reports on the occupation of Iraq by the US, listening to reports on the economy, with all that it is easy to lose hope. But only hope allows us to strive for the better world that we can envision--however faint that hope is.
I know that Barack Obama has written a book The Audacity of Hope. I haven't read it, but I daresay that Barack is not the only candidate trying to sell hope--McCain certainly is, too. What else does a candidate have to sell, after all?
Wouldn't it be great if we all had hope? What would it take for a world where everyone actually did have hope?
What is the pursuit of happiness, but hope?
What is life without hope?
Hope, perhaps, is the basis of religion being the opium of the masses: "serve in this life and be rewarded in the next." But for all that it may serve the desires of an oppressor, does not such hope still make the life of the oppressed better? And is not hope necessary for the oppressed to rise up and throw off the chains of bondage?
One ought not hope foolishly. One not ought to hope for a return of the past, for example. But perhaps that is not really hope but a retreat from reality.
It can be difficult not to hope foolishly (there is, in fact, an empirically observable optimism bias in people--see the work of Nobel-laureate Daniel Kahneman). So we want to be careful in what we hope for, in the sense that we want to hope for things that can be realized. But we want, nonetheless, to continue to hope.
Wouldn't it be great if we all had hope?
It's so easy to lose sight of it sometimes. Listening to environmental reports, listening to reports on the occupation of Iraq by the US, listening to reports on the economy, with all that it is easy to lose hope. But only hope allows us to strive for the better world that we can envision--however faint that hope is.
I know that Barack Obama has written a book The Audacity of Hope. I haven't read it, but I daresay that Barack is not the only candidate trying to sell hope--McCain certainly is, too. What else does a candidate have to sell, after all?
Wouldn't it be great if we all had hope? What would it take for a world where everyone actually did have hope?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Giving
I offered my friend a gift.
But gifts are tricky things.
An unwanted gift may well be a burden.
Even a wanted gift may be a burden.
Something offered as a gift, but with hidden strings attached, is not gift but a trap.
Wouldn't it be great if the gift were actually a gift?
But gifts are tricky things.
An unwanted gift may well be a burden.
Even a wanted gift may be a burden.
Something offered as a gift, but with hidden strings attached, is not gift but a trap.
Wouldn't it be great if the gift were actually a gift?
Monday, October 20, 2008
The whole scope of the imagination
I think imagination gets a bad rap.
It takes imagination to believe that world is a ball spinning in space, revolving around a sun along with a bunch of other balls, all the while the sun is itself revolving around the center of the galaxy. It takes just as much imagination to believe that the world is resting on the back of a turtle.
It takes imagination to even make sense of the idea that the world was created by an omnipotent god who is like a man. It takes imagination to make sense of the idea that there was a "big bang" in which the universe was created. It takes imagination to make sense of both of these stories--which most of us can, however we may have some doubts or places that we don't understand--regardless of which story we believe. We can even imagine that both are true at once.
The mind is a tremendous imagination machine. It takes pieces from what we have and combines them in fantastic ways to make sense of the world.
I like to be able to explore the reaches of the imagination. What are the stories that we can imagine? Especially, what are the stories for the world that we want to create?
I'd say "wouldn't it be great if I were to be able to explore ideas all the time?" Except that I get to. That's what this blog is for. And it's not even my only outlet for that. And it is great.
I have a tendency to get stuck in the abstract foundations and the basic principles. Which is why I was talking about clean air and clean water and health and liberty. But it would be great to talk about the little things, too.
The little things can be tremendously important (in which case they're not so little, actually). I think there has to be a little room in life for some whimsy, for good humor, for laughter and smiles. There needs to be a moment to stop and smell the roses and look at the sunset.
The Declaration of Independence considers the pursuit of happiness as crucial--and the pursuit of happiness requires the whimsy and scope of the imagination. The world that we want to create exists already in our imagination.
It takes imagination to believe that world is a ball spinning in space, revolving around a sun along with a bunch of other balls, all the while the sun is itself revolving around the center of the galaxy. It takes just as much imagination to believe that the world is resting on the back of a turtle.
It takes imagination to even make sense of the idea that the world was created by an omnipotent god who is like a man. It takes imagination to make sense of the idea that there was a "big bang" in which the universe was created. It takes imagination to make sense of both of these stories--which most of us can, however we may have some doubts or places that we don't understand--regardless of which story we believe. We can even imagine that both are true at once.
The mind is a tremendous imagination machine. It takes pieces from what we have and combines them in fantastic ways to make sense of the world.
I like to be able to explore the reaches of the imagination. What are the stories that we can imagine? Especially, what are the stories for the world that we want to create?
I'd say "wouldn't it be great if I were to be able to explore ideas all the time?" Except that I get to. That's what this blog is for. And it's not even my only outlet for that. And it is great.
I have a tendency to get stuck in the abstract foundations and the basic principles. Which is why I was talking about clean air and clean water and health and liberty. But it would be great to talk about the little things, too.
The little things can be tremendously important (in which case they're not so little, actually). I think there has to be a little room in life for some whimsy, for good humor, for laughter and smiles. There needs to be a moment to stop and smell the roses and look at the sunset.
The Declaration of Independence considers the pursuit of happiness as crucial--and the pursuit of happiness requires the whimsy and scope of the imagination. The world that we want to create exists already in our imagination.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Ends and Means
After the last post, I was thinking about this.
It seems very important to be able to distinguish the ends from the means--especially if you're trying to understand what you want to create in the world.
It also seems very easy to conflate the ends with the means, especially if the two are closely aligned. For example with money, we say we want money, because money is the primary means by which we can accomplish our ends. Or with employment, because employment seems to be the only way to get money. But both employment and money are primarily means and not ends
Certain productive activities may be ends in themselves--e.g., gardening, woodworking, etc., where the process is considered therapeutic by the worker--but these specific activities are distinct from the general concept of "employment" or "a job" or the generic "work" (when the term remains unspecified).
Why does this matter? Well, if you confuse a means for an end, you are then working towards something other than what you want. For example, one who confuses having employment with having enough money to pay the bills and still have a little left over may get stuck with employment that doesn't provide enough money to pay the bills. Or one who believes that money will provide happiness may get rich without being happy.
If we want to achieve a goal, it is important to keep clear on what the goal is and not confuse it with the means. If we confuse the goal with the means, we can lose sight of the options that we have to reach the goal.
Another problem is that confusing the means with the end allows others to lead us astray. What does advertising do? It shows you people having a great time and provides the subtext that the way to have a great time is to purchase a specific product. For example, McDonald's current ad campaign has the slogan "I'm lovin' it" or something like that. They are claiming that there product is the means to an end. And they are getting you to focus on that means of achieving the end to the exclusion of others (they want you to spend your money on them, not the competitor). But the means doesn't guarantee the end. Eating McDonald's won't necessarily mean you're "lovin' it", and driving a fancy car won't suddenly mean that you start dating fashion models.
Wouldn't it be great if we were able to keep our ends and means clear, so that we were making good decisions and really growing and developing towards a life filled with the things that are most important to us?
It seems very important to be able to distinguish the ends from the means--especially if you're trying to understand what you want to create in the world.
It also seems very easy to conflate the ends with the means, especially if the two are closely aligned. For example with money, we say we want money, because money is the primary means by which we can accomplish our ends. Or with employment, because employment seems to be the only way to get money. But both employment and money are primarily means and not ends
Certain productive activities may be ends in themselves--e.g., gardening, woodworking, etc., where the process is considered therapeutic by the worker--but these specific activities are distinct from the general concept of "employment" or "a job" or the generic "work" (when the term remains unspecified).
Why does this matter? Well, if you confuse a means for an end, you are then working towards something other than what you want. For example, one who confuses having employment with having enough money to pay the bills and still have a little left over may get stuck with employment that doesn't provide enough money to pay the bills. Or one who believes that money will provide happiness may get rich without being happy.
If we want to achieve a goal, it is important to keep clear on what the goal is and not confuse it with the means. If we confuse the goal with the means, we can lose sight of the options that we have to reach the goal.
Another problem is that confusing the means with the end allows others to lead us astray. What does advertising do? It shows you people having a great time and provides the subtext that the way to have a great time is to purchase a specific product. For example, McDonald's current ad campaign has the slogan "I'm lovin' it" or something like that. They are claiming that there product is the means to an end. And they are getting you to focus on that means of achieving the end to the exclusion of others (they want you to spend your money on them, not the competitor). But the means doesn't guarantee the end. Eating McDonald's won't necessarily mean you're "lovin' it", and driving a fancy car won't suddenly mean that you start dating fashion models.
Wouldn't it be great if we were able to keep our ends and means clear, so that we were making good decisions and really growing and developing towards a life filled with the things that are most important to us?
One of these things is not like the others
In attempting to understand our values we can play little thought games.
Here are four things:
1. Gainful Employment
2. Health
3. Love
4. Liberty
If you can have three of the four, which would you take?
Which three, if you have them, are most likely to lead to your getting the fourth?
Which ones, all other things being equal, are the most important?
Wouldn't it be great if there were a government that was dedicated to ensuring that its people had health, love and liberty? Sometimes I have trouble imagining such a government. And yet, I think, it's a lot like what the people who wrote the US Constitution were dreaming of: "in order to...establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility,..., promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." They don't mention love, but still...
Wouldn't it be great if US politicians were building their platforms on the basis of the preamble of the US Constitution (the same document Federal officials swear to uphold)?
Sure, I know one can object to the thought experiment: "you have to live in the real world" or "there are other things more important than these." But let's be clear, no matter how practical you are, there's actually a clear distinction: gainful employment is a means, and health, love and liberty are both means and end. One has employment for what the employment provides you in terms of money for food, shelter, etc.. Sure, employment is good, and we as humans experience growth and overcoming challenges and the development of our abilities, such as self-discipline, are all very positive things. But employment is not the only context in which growth can occur. Again, employment is only a means. Things like health, liberty, love and ends in themselves, though they can also be means for facilitating growth in other dimensions.
It's not a utopian vision if you get too bogged down in the objections.
Wouldn't it be great if we could look clearly towards our ideal, so that we could remember what is really important, even when the ideals seem far off?
Here are four things:
1. Gainful Employment
2. Health
3. Love
4. Liberty
If you can have three of the four, which would you take?
Which three, if you have them, are most likely to lead to your getting the fourth?
Which ones, all other things being equal, are the most important?
Wouldn't it be great if there were a government that was dedicated to ensuring that its people had health, love and liberty? Sometimes I have trouble imagining such a government. And yet, I think, it's a lot like what the people who wrote the US Constitution were dreaming of: "in order to...establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility,..., promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." They don't mention love, but still...
Wouldn't it be great if US politicians were building their platforms on the basis of the preamble of the US Constitution (the same document Federal officials swear to uphold)?
Sure, I know one can object to the thought experiment: "you have to live in the real world" or "there are other things more important than these." But let's be clear, no matter how practical you are, there's actually a clear distinction: gainful employment is a means, and health, love and liberty are both means and end. One has employment for what the employment provides you in terms of money for food, shelter, etc.. Sure, employment is good, and we as humans experience growth and overcoming challenges and the development of our abilities, such as self-discipline, are all very positive things. But employment is not the only context in which growth can occur. Again, employment is only a means. Things like health, liberty, love and ends in themselves, though they can also be means for facilitating growth in other dimensions.
It's not a utopian vision if you get too bogged down in the objections.
Wouldn't it be great if we could look clearly towards our ideal, so that we could remember what is really important, even when the ideals seem far off?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
All You Need is Love!
Love is all you need.
The song for this post, obviously, is the Beatles' "All You Need is Love."
This seems to be another one of those things that one ought not be without. Though, I imagine that one could argue that life without love is possible. Life without liberty is possible, too. Love is fundamental to good health. I believe in love.
Like Eve said: these basic thing are interdependent.
The song for this post, obviously, is the Beatles' "All You Need is Love."
This seems to be another one of those things that one ought not be without. Though, I imagine that one could argue that life without love is possible. Life without liberty is possible, too. Love is fundamental to good health. I believe in love.
Like Eve said: these basic thing are interdependent.
Clean Water
Yup, I meant it. I am indeed going to claim that clean water is of fundamental importance. that hardly needs to be discussed, right? Who could argue against the necessity of that which is the very foundation of our existence? Here we are, with our bodies largely made of water; we cannot deny that we need it.
Why then we value it so lowly is a ponder. Just as we allow our public air to be polluted, so too do we allow our public water to be polluted. And this is to the detriment of all. The arguments are largely the same as for clean air: we quite simply need clean air and water. This is right down at the bottom of the hierarchy of needs.
The argument that the government typically makes for not regulating pollutants is that undue environmental regulation disrupts the normal operation, and thus costs jobs. But this obviously is valuing jobs over clean air and water. Would you rather have a job or clean water? It seems to me that if I didn't have clean water, there would be little point in having a job.
Wouldn't it be great if the beautiful waters of our world were clean and teeming with life? Wouldn't it be great if there was clean water to swim in? Clean water to drink?
We take it for granted because it seems so plentiful. A friend of mine once suggested to me, in all seriousness, that the solution to the trash problem was simply to grind it up and throw it in the ocean. The ocean is vast, but it's not that vast (Don't believe me? Try a search on "plastic oceans").
Wouldn't it be great if the oceans were clean and teeming with life? If the great mammals of the ocean were able to live in a clean environment? (Which should not be taken to suggest that I want the smallest microscopic plankton to be living in pollution.)
It is these things that form the foundation of any dream. Any hopes for the future must necessarily include such basic things as air and water, not to mention good food, shelter, etc.
In this day and age, when these basic fundamental needs, which are also fundamental and profound sources of pleasure, are at risk, it is a worthy moment to talk about them and to focus on their value.
Wouldn't it be great if there were clean water for all? And enough still to grow food and turn the world green? Wouldn't it be great if there were enough water to make the deserts bloom?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Clean Air
When I was young, my family would go to New Hampshire to visit my grandfather. The air was clean. When we returned to New York City, it was easy to smell the difference.
When I was thinking about what is important--in looking for starting points--I mentioned health. Clean air is not unrelated.
We take clean air for granted, I think. Certainly the public debate in the US is not dominated by outrage at polluters; we hear about the bank meltdown, and the war in Iraq, and we hear plenty about greenhouse gasses and the need to reduce them. Maybe in the US we don't worry about it because we each do it ourselves: we drive our cars and light our furnaces to heat our water and our homes. But realistically, companies do these same things at a higher order of magnitude: we are often disgusted when we see a smoking car go by, but companies run fleets of trucks, often diesel trucks. Manufacturing processes often emit a far dirtier and more dangerous chemical profile than simply burning fossil fuels.
The air seems clean enough (to most of us, though, of course, rising asthma rates suggest issues with air cleanliness). But clean air is both a privilege and a right.
What a wonderful thing it is to breathe deeply! It is both one of the most basic and most profound pleasures that we can enjoy. How terrible to have this basic pleasure and sign of health taken from us.
Wouldn't it be great if the air were clean? Wouldn't it be great if we could breathe deeply? Wouldn't it be great if a generation of children could enjoy that same privilege?
A stock image from science fiction is that of the world so polluted that its people must flee, or must live in domes, or must wear gas masks. These all seem like terrible fates for the human race to accept, not to mention the other races that have no opportunity to find a technological response. And yet, if we do not value our clean air--if we do not value it because we don't need to pay for it right now--is it not possible that some fate of this sort will come about?
What could be more important than clean air?
Stay tuned for my next post in which I refute the premise that clean air is the most important thing by saying that clean water is.
When I was thinking about what is important--in looking for starting points--I mentioned health. Clean air is not unrelated.
We take clean air for granted, I think. Certainly the public debate in the US is not dominated by outrage at polluters; we hear about the bank meltdown, and the war in Iraq, and we hear plenty about greenhouse gasses and the need to reduce them. Maybe in the US we don't worry about it because we each do it ourselves: we drive our cars and light our furnaces to heat our water and our homes. But realistically, companies do these same things at a higher order of magnitude: we are often disgusted when we see a smoking car go by, but companies run fleets of trucks, often diesel trucks. Manufacturing processes often emit a far dirtier and more dangerous chemical profile than simply burning fossil fuels.
The air seems clean enough (to most of us, though, of course, rising asthma rates suggest issues with air cleanliness). But clean air is both a privilege and a right.
What a wonderful thing it is to breathe deeply! It is both one of the most basic and most profound pleasures that we can enjoy. How terrible to have this basic pleasure and sign of health taken from us.
Wouldn't it be great if the air were clean? Wouldn't it be great if we could breathe deeply? Wouldn't it be great if a generation of children could enjoy that same privilege?
A stock image from science fiction is that of the world so polluted that its people must flee, or must live in domes, or must wear gas masks. These all seem like terrible fates for the human race to accept, not to mention the other races that have no opportunity to find a technological response. And yet, if we do not value our clean air--if we do not value it because we don't need to pay for it right now--is it not possible that some fate of this sort will come about?
What could be more important than clean air?
Stay tuned for my next post in which I refute the premise that clean air is the most important thing by saying that clean water is.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Starting points
There are so many points for starting. One point for starting was the previous post--a statement of purpose for my blog. Another point in starting--a point for starting a discussion--is to say what really matters.
What really matters may be interpreted in many different ways. To me, one thing that really matters is health. To be free of pain, clear of mind, healthy in limb and body, these things matter greatly. I presume that health matters just as much to others--no matter our current state of health, its deterioration would be a great loss. It may be argued that the loss of health (especially if we include mental health) is the the greatest loss that anyone can suffer. While there are convincing arguments against this position, there are such convincing arguments for it, that it seems worthy of consideration as a starting point.
Another possible starting point, and a likely contender against the loss of health being the greatest loss of all: liberty. Liberty is valued over health by some: Patrick Henry, the great American Patriot, is known for saying "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" The sentiment is echoed in the New Hampshire state motto: "live free or die!"
What really matters to you?
What really matters may be interpreted in many different ways. To me, one thing that really matters is health. To be free of pain, clear of mind, healthy in limb and body, these things matter greatly. I presume that health matters just as much to others--no matter our current state of health, its deterioration would be a great loss. It may be argued that the loss of health (especially if we include mental health) is the the greatest loss that anyone can suffer. While there are convincing arguments against this position, there are such convincing arguments for it, that it seems worthy of consideration as a starting point.
Another possible starting point, and a likely contender against the loss of health being the greatest loss of all: liberty. Liberty is valued over health by some: Patrick Henry, the great American Patriot, is known for saying "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" The sentiment is echoed in the New Hampshire state motto: "live free or die!"
What really matters to you?
Welcome
I have long advocated that writers write about what they really care about. I have claimed this, but I have not fully operated under this principle myself.
I care about helping people--that's what my other blog is about and for, and that is the service I offer professionally: I help people with their writing and academic projects. But there are other things that I also care about, that I feel somewhat less qualified to comment on, but that I do want to write about.
The world today is beset with ills. The media and politicians trumpet dire warnings at us: we must reduce greenhouse emissions; we must preserve jobs, etc. I myself am beset with the ill of spending too much time thinking about the ills in the world around; it does not make one happy.
This blog is an exercise in looking for the world that I would like to create. It is about examining the things that I would like to preserve in this wonderful world in which I live, and about examining the things that I would like to change about this terrifying world that I inhabit. And it is about practicing a focus on the good things in this world all around.
I care about helping people--that's what my other blog is about and for, and that is the service I offer professionally: I help people with their writing and academic projects. But there are other things that I also care about, that I feel somewhat less qualified to comment on, but that I do want to write about.
The world today is beset with ills. The media and politicians trumpet dire warnings at us: we must reduce greenhouse emissions; we must preserve jobs, etc. I myself am beset with the ill of spending too much time thinking about the ills in the world around; it does not make one happy.
This blog is an exercise in looking for the world that I would like to create. It is about examining the things that I would like to preserve in this wonderful world in which I live, and about examining the things that I would like to change about this terrifying world that I inhabit. And it is about practicing a focus on the good things in this world all around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
