"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.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
