No, I'm not writing for Disney now.
Today A said to me (paraphrased), "I'm creating beauty." Something to that effect. And I (being me) thought, what is beauty? Because I can never let these things go... sorry, A...
I immediately thought of some possibilties (which have the added bonus of framing my question): Is beauty sort of like energy, something that is imbued upon an object? Keeping in mind "the eye of the beholder," is it something that only exists in the beholder's mind[/perception/reality]? Is beauty intrinsic in the object (ie a quality belonging to the object)? And in all of these situations, is finite or infinite or something else (eg spanning space and time and able to exist in multiplicity)?
When I voiced these questions, A (quite understandably) was a bit confused. I have to admit that I didn't present these questions quite so eloquently then, not that they necessarily make sense now. But here goes...
I think beauty intrinsic in the object. But that sort of absolute makes me squirm, so I will quickly clarify that I think beauty is not a quality or a characteristic set in stone (measurable) but a potential. Of course I'm tempted to go with "beauty is an adjective only, belonging to the viewer," because at first glance that seems to fit best with the whole perception-is-reality-and-truth-does-not-exist theory, but I'm feeling slightly rebellious today. What's the point of thinking if we don't sometimes challenge our own ideas?
Really, beauty as a potential and inherent in the object makes the most sense, after all. This is a pared-down version of my idea of beauty: think of beauty as a scale. Several scales, actually. Every object, every thing has its own scale; that scale measures its beauty as percieved and assigned by a viewer (a percieved-beauty scale, PBS). Also, every object with the ability to assign beauty (namely humans) has another scale that ranks all percieved objects by beauty (a ranking scale, RS). Okay, so I'm back to the perception-reality model; so sue me. Let's think of three objects: a flower, a tree, and a stone. Each has a PBS from 1 to 100; however, their 100's may not be the same on an individual's RS (ie the flower has more ability to be beautiful, and therefore a higher max than the stone). A human (called Bob) percieves the three objects. Bob has a RS in his head. Let's say that Bob thinks the flower is really pretty, and he gives it a 74 [on the flower's PBS]. He thinks the tree is pretty, too, so he gives it an 80 [on the tree's PBS]. The stone is ugly to Bob (it's green and slimy with pond muck) so he gives it 26 [on the stone's PBS]. Now for Bob's RS; the flower's PBS is lower than the tree's, but on Bob's RS the flower is higher than the tree, say 63 vs 48. This means that he thinks the flower is fairly pretty for a flower and the tree is pretty for a tree, but as far as beautiful goes they're not as beautiful as other things (for instance he ranks his wife as a 92). Does that make sense? A PBS is comparing one object to other like objects, and an individual RS is comparing one object percieved by a person to all the other objects the person has ever percieved.
I'm using "object" fairly loosely, because by "object" I mean "pretty much anything" including humans, other animals, plants, inanimate objects, ideas, paintings, relationships, love, situations, anything you might ever refer to as beautiful.
Ask me questions! I know I've probably confused a lot of you (truthfully I haven't chewed out all the details yet), but if you are willing to read to this very sentence at the end of the post, you probably would like to understand (I hope). So ask away! Ciao!
Showing posts with label Language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Language. Show all posts
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
"Leaving" implies both something being left and something else being reached.
Death. The soul leaves the body. The body is a shell, nothing more than a vessel for the soul, the fifth, transient element. For example, we call your body "yours." Like a possession. Not yourself. Do you see what I mean? "Self" is personality and thought and memories (not memory). And what is personality and thought and memory? Chemicals in your brain. But not even that. The way those chemicals come together, with the physical tissue of your brain and its orientation in space and time. But these things, personality and thought and memory, self, are not physical, nor would we ever presume to describe them as such. Really, how would we describe them? Abstractions. Not matter, but abstractions. It's a small step from abstractions to energy. After all, how would you describe energy? Try; it's really damn hard. Okay, you can say "I don't know" now. Self is so amorphous, indescribable, intangible, abstract… you get the picture.
Death. I keep wandering away from it (intentionally, perhaps..?). Body is a possession, a vessel, a shell. Even when you're alive. But it's a possession like a home. A house or an apartment. It's very personal, very you. Still, when the soul leaves, it's just a fallen log, a discarded muffin in a muddy parking lot (don't ask), a footprint in wet sand. It's the physical manifestation of memory, a dead body is. I want to be cremated. I want my body to go to the fire. Well, actually it's between cremation or just being left out for the animals and the plants and the elements. Air (the great oxidizer) and water (the great eroder) and earth (the great consumer) and fire (the great equalizer) and life. Other life: dogs and raccoons and birds and worms and beetles and trees and fungi and soil bacteria. Either way I am returned; even if I was embalmed and locked in a metal box and buried (*shudder shudder*) I would eventually return to the universe as organic molecules and even atoms. It would just take longer. Much longer.
One thing about my faith is that it's not particularly comforting. But that's the thing: that's because it's realistic. The world is not "made" for us. We are not "supposed" to be able to survive, thrive in it.
The "meaning" of life is that it works. There is no great reason.
The soul is recyclable, but not always recycled. Yes, reincarnation is in here somewhere, but I've got my own bent on it.
But I do know what happens when you die by a hand or a force other than your own. Sort of. Obviously I don't know, really. I mean, no one does. If only we could remember… Think of the first law of thermodynamics; conservation of energy and matter. Add up all the energy and mass on both sides of the chemical equation and they'll match. Mostly. I'm not going there, at least in this paragraph. Besides, I forget what the principle or whatever is called. Well, what is a soul but… something. I mean, there aren't specifics, but souls are like the gods; they have to be made of something. And there's only two things in the universe (don't you even think about it): matter and energy. Personally I'm leaning toward energy, and it makes sense/sounds good: heat energy, light energy, life energy. You know? But the point of this whole idea is that souls can neither be created nor destroyed (perhaps they can be converted, but not going there right now). Anyway, this means they have to be re-used, and I think they come out the other side looking pretty much the way they did. It's, like, hard to change energy, man…
Whoa, I just started making sense! Like, trippy, right? Betcha didn't see that one coming, huh?
So, souls survive the journey from one body (the deceased) to another (the newly born) pretty much unchanged. I have no thoughts on the actual method of the journey at this moment; I will just say that Death is neutral among divines (I'm not even sure he qualifies as a divine) and men, and there are Angels [of Death] and Reapers involved. What; you thought I didn't have a theory? Silly, silly; you don't know me yet, do ye? Actually, have you been, like, paying attention?
BTW: I've been writing this to myself. Because I talk to myself. I know, circular, but I get hold of an idea and I'm like a terrier with a bone. Never let it go. Just sayin'.
So, I don't really know the mechanism, and the importance of that statement is that I don't know why we don't know who/what we were. I think that now would be the time to point out that souls are present in all living things, so species, even kingdom, is sort of a nonissue.
Death. I keep wandering away from it (intentionally, perhaps..?). Body is a possession, a vessel, a shell. Even when you're alive. But it's a possession like a home. A house or an apartment. It's very personal, very you. Still, when the soul leaves, it's just a fallen log, a discarded muffin in a muddy parking lot (don't ask), a footprint in wet sand. It's the physical manifestation of memory, a dead body is. I want to be cremated. I want my body to go to the fire. Well, actually it's between cremation or just being left out for the animals and the plants and the elements. Air (the great oxidizer) and water (the great eroder) and earth (the great consumer) and fire (the great equalizer) and life. Other life: dogs and raccoons and birds and worms and beetles and trees and fungi and soil bacteria. Either way I am returned; even if I was embalmed and locked in a metal box and buried (*shudder shudder*) I would eventually return to the universe as organic molecules and even atoms. It would just take longer. Much longer.
One thing about my faith is that it's not particularly comforting. But that's the thing: that's because it's realistic. The world is not "made" for us. We are not "supposed" to be able to survive, thrive in it.
The "meaning" of life is that it works. There is no great reason.
The soul is recyclable, but not always recycled. Yes, reincarnation is in here somewhere, but I've got my own bent on it.
But I do know what happens when you die by a hand or a force other than your own. Sort of. Obviously I don't know, really. I mean, no one does. If only we could remember… Think of the first law of thermodynamics; conservation of energy and matter. Add up all the energy and mass on both sides of the chemical equation and they'll match. Mostly. I'm not going there, at least in this paragraph. Besides, I forget what the principle or whatever is called. Well, what is a soul but… something. I mean, there aren't specifics, but souls are like the gods; they have to be made of something. And there's only two things in the universe (don't you even think about it): matter and energy. Personally I'm leaning toward energy, and it makes sense/sounds good: heat energy, light energy, life energy. You know? But the point of this whole idea is that souls can neither be created nor destroyed (perhaps they can be converted, but not going there right now). Anyway, this means they have to be re-used, and I think they come out the other side looking pretty much the way they did. It's, like, hard to change energy, man…
Whoa, I just started making sense! Like, trippy, right? Betcha didn't see that one coming, huh?
So, souls survive the journey from one body (the deceased) to another (the newly born) pretty much unchanged. I have no thoughts on the actual method of the journey at this moment; I will just say that Death is neutral among divines (I'm not even sure he qualifies as a divine) and men, and there are Angels [of Death] and Reapers involved. What; you thought I didn't have a theory? Silly, silly; you don't know me yet, do ye? Actually, have you been, like, paying attention?
BTW: I've been writing this to myself. Because I talk to myself. I know, circular, but I get hold of an idea and I'm like a terrier with a bone. Never let it go. Just sayin'.
So, I don't really know the mechanism, and the importance of that statement is that I don't know why we don't know who/what we were. I think that now would be the time to point out that souls are present in all living things, so species, even kingdom, is sort of a nonissue.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
More thoughts on morality, along the lines of "Why?"
The Quest of Dr. Paul Farmer : NPR
In a way it articulates what I have been trying to say: "charity" as such is beyond the scope of what [I would suggest] most of us concieve of as charity. Charity is self-sacrifice but not in the sense that there is sacrifice. I look at Farmer because he is an example near-at-hand, and I see that he sacrificed time and money to help the poor of Haiti. More significantly, perhaps, is that he sacrificed that staple of American life: comfort. In the excerpt from Mountains, Kidder tells of how he met Farmer and came to learn about his life. He writes:
But is charity such ignorant sacrifice? ("Sacrifice" here meaning something that takes from the one who gives it.) And is sacrifice charity? I guess the question is not if we should redefine something but what we should redefine? I think we've pretty clearly got the meaning of "sacrifice" down here, but I think we've got a bit more difficulty in "charity."
I felt as though, in Farmer, I'd been offered another way of thinking about a place like Haiti. But his way would be hard to share, because it implied such an extreme definition of a term like "doing one's best."This is an excerpt from a piece on the NPR site (which is actually an excerpt from Mountains Beyond Mountains) about Paul Farmer, the guy I was talking about in my last post.
In a way it articulates what I have been trying to say: "charity" as such is beyond the scope of what [I would suggest] most of us concieve of as charity. Charity is self-sacrifice but not in the sense that there is sacrifice. I look at Farmer because he is an example near-at-hand, and I see that he sacrificed time and money to help the poor of Haiti. More significantly, perhaps, is that he sacrificed that staple of American life: comfort. In the excerpt from Mountains, Kidder tells of how he met Farmer and came to learn about his life. He writes:
He worked in Boston four months of the year, living in a church rectory in a slum. The rest of the year he worked without pay in Haiti, mainly doctoring peasants who had lost their land to a hydroelectric dam.Yet Kidder noted as they had dinner in Miami:
He clearly liked the fancy restaurant, the heavy cloth napkins, the good bottle of wine. What struck me that evening was how happy he seemed with his life.While we can't get into Farmer's mind, it seems to me that he would have to view his work in Haiti as anything but a sacrifice in order to keep up this hectic lifestyle.
But is charity such ignorant sacrifice? ("Sacrifice" here meaning something that takes from the one who gives it.) And is sacrifice charity? I guess the question is not if we should redefine something but what we should redefine? I think we've pretty clearly got the meaning of "sacrifice" down here, but I think we've got a bit more difficulty in "charity."
Friday, March 11, 2011
The Evolution of a Sort of Moral Code; A Belief in Ethics, If You Will.
Ethics and morality are slippery and always-controversial subjects. I often avoid them for that very reason, but I find that I cannot always stand quietly by in the shadows. I need for my voice to be heard.
I'm reading Pathologies of Power by Paul Farmer, a fairly well-known medical anthropologist. You may have heard of Tracy Kidder's book Mountains Beyond Mountains, which is about Farmer's quest for global health. I don't mean the sort of global health that is tracking who gets sick and where so disease can be controlled and contained, I mean global health in the sense that the whole world, everyone in the world has access to such resources that might keep or make them healthy.
I just have a quick note (because I've only just started the book) about my thoughts on charity and morality, actually.
"The ends justify the means." When Machiavelli wrote that, he was thinking and writing of governments and rulers, not the rights and freedoms of the ruled; in fact, I've heard it argued that he was thinking the opposite, and many commonly define his "ends" as a total subjugation of the people. I believe that, whatever the original ideas behind the statement, it can be applied to my concept of charity and morality. The end in this case is the improvement of living conditions and quality of life for a people, and the means are all the charities that funnel money and labor into this project, and all the donations by the well-off to those charities.
The first part (of two) of Farmer's book is titled "Bearing Witness;" the first part of the first part--a sort of prologue to the part--is an elaboration on that title. Farmer says he is anxious about the title and a reason he gives is that he is apprehensive of misrepresenting the poor.
I want to emphasize that I don't think that charity and such is "bad," I just think it's maybe not as truthful as we'd like it to be.
I'm having trouble forming coherent sentences, so I think I'm going to go to sleep now. But as I read the book, I'm sure I'll have a lot more to say. Thanks for listening!
I'm reading Pathologies of Power by Paul Farmer, a fairly well-known medical anthropologist. You may have heard of Tracy Kidder's book Mountains Beyond Mountains, which is about Farmer's quest for global health. I don't mean the sort of global health that is tracking who gets sick and where so disease can be controlled and contained, I mean global health in the sense that the whole world, everyone in the world has access to such resources that might keep or make them healthy.
I just have a quick note (because I've only just started the book) about my thoughts on charity and morality, actually.
"The ends justify the means." When Machiavelli wrote that, he was thinking and writing of governments and rulers, not the rights and freedoms of the ruled; in fact, I've heard it argued that he was thinking the opposite, and many commonly define his "ends" as a total subjugation of the people. I believe that, whatever the original ideas behind the statement, it can be applied to my concept of charity and morality. The end in this case is the improvement of living conditions and quality of life for a people, and the means are all the charities that funnel money and labor into this project, and all the donations by the well-off to those charities.
The first part (of two) of Farmer's book is titled "Bearing Witness;" the first part of the first part--a sort of prologue to the part--is an elaboration on that title. Farmer says he is anxious about the title and a reason he gives is that he is apprehensive of misrepresenting the poor.
"Some of my anxiety has legitimate sources: the boundary between bearing witness and disrespectful (or self-interested) rooting is not always evident, even to those seeking to be discerning."This is his way of saying "morality" for its own sake is not morality. I use "morality" here to represent many of the good-samaritan acts or charity projects that the well-off do for the worse-off.
I want to emphasize that I don't think that charity and such is "bad," I just think it's maybe not as truthful as we'd like it to be.
I'm having trouble forming coherent sentences, so I think I'm going to go to sleep now. But as I read the book, I'm sure I'll have a lot more to say. Thanks for listening!
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Daily Silver: New directions for earth-based faiths.
Today's Silver is brief; I just want to share this article I read at The Juggler (the Pagan Newswire Collective culture blog). It's called "Toward a Pagan Critical Theory: Introduction."
Also, I apologize for being elusive this week. I have two big tests tomorrow, and I honestly haven't been that much fun this week as of yet. I will attempt to emerge and write more this weekend and next week. Ciao!
Also, I apologize for being elusive this week. I have two big tests tomorrow, and I honestly haven't been that much fun this week as of yet. I will attempt to emerge and write more this weekend and next week. Ciao!
Thursday, January 27, 2011
No, you can't blow up pineapples with your mind, but thinking happy thoughts doesn't hurt, either.
I know I just bashed positive thinking, so what I want to talk about today might seem a little hypocritical. I could spend a paragraph (and I just might) telling you about how it's not (hypocritical, that is) but that would be a waste of words. You're going to decide for yourself, whatever I say, and that's the beauty of being an individual. But what are words for if not wasting, so yeah, there's a bit about why this is different than my rant on positive thinking. Just roll with it. Anyway, here I go...
Last night I had what you might call a revelation.
The night began with business as usual; I was lying in bed, staring at the ceiling, unable to find a position that was comfortable for more than two minutes, and generally feeling horrible. While most people (I presume) are able to drift into a vaguely comforting and blissfully thoughtless pre-sleep state in a timely manner (read: not two hours) after they get into bed, "sleepy-time" does not translate for my brain. My thoughts do not slow down and I am not able to turn them to counting sheep or visualizing numbers 1-100 or floating in a void. Most of what I do is worry.
I have resigned myself to the fact that I am a worrier, like my mother and my grandmother. I try not to worry about what I can't control, of course; for the most part it works pretty well. I would even suggest that I sometimes adopt a rather devil-may-care attitude. However, all bets are off when I go to bed. It's not that I worry about things I can do nothing about, but the opposite; I worry about things I would normally have a hand in but don't because I'm trying to go to sleep. Key word: trying. When you're in bed it doesn't do you any good to think of what clothes you're going to wear tomorrow or that the due date for your next tuition payment is coming up or that you have to read 100 pages for class in two days, because you're in bed. It's like these things pounce on me when they see me mentally vulnerable, because there is one thing I worry about that I don't really have control over: getting enough sleep. It's my very own encyclopedia illustration of "The Vicious Cycle."
So I was lying there listening to my classical music when I thought, "what if jI just eliminate "should" from my thoughts?" So I changed every "I have to..." and "I should..." and "I need to..." to "I want." And it worked.
Instead of "I should get up early and go to the gym tomorrow," I thought "I want to get up early and go to the gym tomorrow," and with that small substitution I felt better.
My worry about getting enough sleep was mostly coming from that, so instead of listening to classical because "I should listen to something quiet so I'll go to sleep soon" I changed my ipod to pop rock because "I want to go to sleep but I don't have to so I want to listen to the music I feel like listening to." My mom always says, what's the worst thing that could happen if you don't go to sleep? You're tired the next day. Eventually, you're going to be tired enough (probably the next night) to go to sleep.
I do want to go a little bit into the difference between this and the positive thinking I was talking about earlier. I feel like this whole "power of positive thinking" thing is way out of hand. I see people expecting job prospects and other people's ideas and even actual physical realities to change just because they wish really, really hard on that star or believe everyone is born with an angelic conscience. This is delusional. Jobs will open up to you if you do the legwork, and a lot of the time even after that they don't pan out. You have a chance of changing someone's mind if you argue your case convincingly, but even then it's like that person is an arbitrary judge with the final "yea" or "nay." And influencing physical things with your mind? Even now psychologists and physicians are undecided as to whether your thoughts influence your biochemistry or it's the other way around. Influencing things outside your own body: forget it. Delusional.
But your thoughts are all words; try to think of the last time you didn't have a spastic inner monologue (or dialogue, or poly-logue) continuously running through your mind? Bet you can't. The human experience is defined by language. And before you protest, when you were a baby (without language) your thoughts and experiences were still framed with communication (probably, because it's not something we can really know).
So if words make up your mind and, by extension, your perception (which is really what we're talking about, because perception is reality and experience and emotion and thought), couldn't you affect your own mind through control of words? Words and language have an intimate power, and since emotions are thoughts (perhaps unconsciously) and thoughts are words, then you can control (or at least shape) your emotions with words.
Okay, so in theory it works. Try it with me. (I honestly have no idea if it'll have an effect on you.) Pick something that stresses you out: impending exams; looming bills; that report you have to get to your boss by next week. Phrase it with an "I have to" or an "I should," eg "I should study for my test next week." Ugh, even knowing I don't have a test next week, that makes me feel all slimy inside. Okay, now change it to "I want to." eg "I want to study for my test next week." Maybe add a "because," like "I want to study for my test next week because I want a good grade." Look, another "I want." We're on a roll. Now, does that make you feel better? I feel better. Now, even though my test was hypothetical, I feel better about it and better about hypothetically studying for it.
I just wanted to share this with y'all, because I think it's so awesome. I didn't necessarily go to sleep faster after that, but I am an insomniac...
Anyway, to finish up I just want to emphasize that this is not what I would call "magical" positive thinking. As my parents have always told me, you can't change anyone's mind but your own. In the same vein, you can't get a new car through wishing, Dad's Alzheimer's isn't going to go away even if you pray, and $30,000 isn't going to appear in your bank account just because it would be really, really awesome.
It would be awesome. Oh well.
NB The title reference is from "Accepted." Good movie. I recommend it.
Last night I had what you might call a revelation.
The night began with business as usual; I was lying in bed, staring at the ceiling, unable to find a position that was comfortable for more than two minutes, and generally feeling horrible. While most people (I presume) are able to drift into a vaguely comforting and blissfully thoughtless pre-sleep state in a timely manner (read: not two hours) after they get into bed, "sleepy-time" does not translate for my brain. My thoughts do not slow down and I am not able to turn them to counting sheep or visualizing numbers 1-100 or floating in a void. Most of what I do is worry.
I have resigned myself to the fact that I am a worrier, like my mother and my grandmother. I try not to worry about what I can't control, of course; for the most part it works pretty well. I would even suggest that I sometimes adopt a rather devil-may-care attitude. However, all bets are off when I go to bed. It's not that I worry about things I can do nothing about, but the opposite; I worry about things I would normally have a hand in but don't because I'm trying to go to sleep. Key word: trying. When you're in bed it doesn't do you any good to think of what clothes you're going to wear tomorrow or that the due date for your next tuition payment is coming up or that you have to read 100 pages for class in two days, because you're in bed. It's like these things pounce on me when they see me mentally vulnerable, because there is one thing I worry about that I don't really have control over: getting enough sleep. It's my very own encyclopedia illustration of "The Vicious Cycle."
So I was lying there listening to my classical music when I thought, "what if jI just eliminate "should" from my thoughts?" So I changed every "I have to..." and "I should..." and "I need to..." to "I want." And it worked.
Instead of "I should get up early and go to the gym tomorrow," I thought "I want to get up early and go to the gym tomorrow," and with that small substitution I felt better.
My worry about getting enough sleep was mostly coming from that, so instead of listening to classical because "I should listen to something quiet so I'll go to sleep soon" I changed my ipod to pop rock because "I want to go to sleep but I don't have to so I want to listen to the music I feel like listening to." My mom always says, what's the worst thing that could happen if you don't go to sleep? You're tired the next day. Eventually, you're going to be tired enough (probably the next night) to go to sleep.
I do want to go a little bit into the difference between this and the positive thinking I was talking about earlier. I feel like this whole "power of positive thinking" thing is way out of hand. I see people expecting job prospects and other people's ideas and even actual physical realities to change just because they wish really, really hard on that star or believe everyone is born with an angelic conscience. This is delusional. Jobs will open up to you if you do the legwork, and a lot of the time even after that they don't pan out. You have a chance of changing someone's mind if you argue your case convincingly, but even then it's like that person is an arbitrary judge with the final "yea" or "nay." And influencing physical things with your mind? Even now psychologists and physicians are undecided as to whether your thoughts influence your biochemistry or it's the other way around. Influencing things outside your own body: forget it. Delusional.
But your thoughts are all words; try to think of the last time you didn't have a spastic inner monologue (or dialogue, or poly-logue) continuously running through your mind? Bet you can't. The human experience is defined by language. And before you protest, when you were a baby (without language) your thoughts and experiences were still framed with communication (probably, because it's not something we can really know).
So if words make up your mind and, by extension, your perception (which is really what we're talking about, because perception is reality and experience and emotion and thought), couldn't you affect your own mind through control of words? Words and language have an intimate power, and since emotions are thoughts (perhaps unconsciously) and thoughts are words, then you can control (or at least shape) your emotions with words.
Okay, so in theory it works. Try it with me. (I honestly have no idea if it'll have an effect on you.) Pick something that stresses you out: impending exams; looming bills; that report you have to get to your boss by next week. Phrase it with an "I have to" or an "I should," eg "I should study for my test next week." Ugh, even knowing I don't have a test next week, that makes me feel all slimy inside. Okay, now change it to "I want to." eg "I want to study for my test next week." Maybe add a "because," like "I want to study for my test next week because I want a good grade." Look, another "I want." We're on a roll. Now, does that make you feel better? I feel better. Now, even though my test was hypothetical, I feel better about it and better about hypothetically studying for it.
I just wanted to share this with y'all, because I think it's so awesome. I didn't necessarily go to sleep faster after that, but I am an insomniac...
Anyway, to finish up I just want to emphasize that this is not what I would call "magical" positive thinking. As my parents have always told me, you can't change anyone's mind but your own. In the same vein, you can't get a new car through wishing, Dad's Alzheimer's isn't going to go away even if you pray, and $30,000 isn't going to appear in your bank account just because it would be really, really awesome.
It would be awesome. Oh well.
NB The title reference is from "Accepted." Good movie. I recommend it.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Does Technology Have an Impact on Family Interactions?
There's certainly less face-to-face interaction between members of families. But if a family really wants to spend time together, the members that are really serious will spend time together. On the flip side, technology connects people. I'm away at college and I talk to my mom almost every day and email my family all the time. My brother lives in North Carolina (I'm in NY) and I can talk to him because of tech like phones and computers. Granted, he is a bit of a--cough cough--luddite; he rarely checks his email and he and his wife never turn on the one cell phone they have between them. Sort of in that vein, technology also has the power to hurt family relationships. I (as a child of the '90s) am more comfortable with any sort of technology than are, say, my grandparents, or even my mother. I will be the first to admit that while I'm trying to teach them something about the computer, or the digital camera, or their cell phones I can be a bit short with them, and they, in turn, get fed up with me. Consequently, we sometimes have to avoid some subjects of conversation, because we'll all get annoyed with each other. Or like with my brother, who I have to call and actually talk to (so old-fashioned!) on the phone, I would talk to him a lot more if he would just log into his email more than once a month (*grrr*). Though (and not thinking of my brother (whose aversion to technology is baffling to me)) perhaps this disconnect between me and my grandparents is just the normal distancing of generations. Since we don't have a control scenario, we'll probably never know. So, good or bad? C'mon, you know I loathe such subjective and arbitrary classifications...
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The Fallibility of Positive Thinking
As expected, school is severely curtailing my writing; be not afraid, because I'm still here! I'll post at least once a week, when I find time. And on that thought...
Words have power, as do emotions and ideas. These things can influence others and even the world around us in ways we cannot comprehend. But wishing will not always make it so.
Along the lines of "Smile or Die," too often we put faith in the power of reason or right. "It'll all work out in the end," we assure ourselves. We (at least, people my age) grew up with Disney princesses who were beautiful and just and always got the guy in the end while saving the kingdom, Power Rangers who were granted magical powers to do righteous battle with the slimy forces of evil, and our parents and teachers telling us "you can be anything you want when you grow up;" even Pokemon is a story about an ordinary kid beating the odds and saving the world from injustice. And because we were kids the adults around us would have been foolish to let on that the world isn't always shiny and fair, because we would have thrown hissy fits.
But now I see people my age and older buying into the childlike delusion that "everything will be alright." I don't mean to sound pessimistic; there is good in the world (I suppose depending on how you define "good"), and most people could benefit from a little positive thinking. I accept the evidence for the placebo effect, and I believe that the right attitude can help you fight disease. Well, its effectiveness has been demonstrated. Many forms of Eastern Asian medicine talk about chi. I call it the fifth element. But if you have chronic bronchitis, or stomach cancer, or hepatitis, it's not a miracle cure. Just thought I'd mention this.
Sometimes, no matter how hard you wish on that shooting star and click your heels together and imagine a better world, the world is not going to get better unless you get up and do something about it.
More thoughts on positive thinking (no pun intended)...
Words have power, as do emotions and ideas. These things can influence others and even the world around us in ways we cannot comprehend. But wishing will not always make it so.
Along the lines of "Smile or Die," too often we put faith in the power of reason or right. "It'll all work out in the end," we assure ourselves. We (at least, people my age) grew up with Disney princesses who were beautiful and just and always got the guy in the end while saving the kingdom, Power Rangers who were granted magical powers to do righteous battle with the slimy forces of evil, and our parents and teachers telling us "you can be anything you want when you grow up;" even Pokemon is a story about an ordinary kid beating the odds and saving the world from injustice. And because we were kids the adults around us would have been foolish to let on that the world isn't always shiny and fair, because we would have thrown hissy fits.
But now I see people my age and older buying into the childlike delusion that "everything will be alright." I don't mean to sound pessimistic; there is good in the world (I suppose depending on how you define "good"), and most people could benefit from a little positive thinking. I accept the evidence for the placebo effect, and I believe that the right attitude can help you fight disease. Well, its effectiveness has been demonstrated. Many forms of Eastern Asian medicine talk about chi. I call it the fifth element. But if you have chronic bronchitis, or stomach cancer, or hepatitis, it's not a miracle cure. Just thought I'd mention this.
Sometimes, no matter how hard you wish on that shooting star and click your heels together and imagine a better world, the world is not going to get better unless you get up and do something about it.
More thoughts on positive thinking (no pun intended)...
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Brought To You by PSY 101
I'm not terribly impressed with the American Psychological Society, and the motives behind its formation. Science is supposed to help people. Yes, there should always be research. How else would we get anywhere at all? But the application of the knowledge gained through research (among other methods) should not be underappreciated, nor its impact underestimated. If you need to tie everything back to gain, research would flounder if people who did not appreciate research for the sake of research were to disappear. A project needs simple, tangible things to proceed; resources such as money, labor, and materials must be procured, and by someone who wants to study that particular area. Resources will not be forthcoming if no one wants the research done, and the people with the most money (usually businessmen and/or governments) don't really care about research for the sake of research. They want results; they want profit, or power, or prestige, or sometimes, as I elaborate on later, they want to "help people." There are "real- world" repercussions of research, and therefore research must spring from the "real world." If for no other reason than to perpetuate research, practical application should be given its due.
Describing science, any science, as "the study of…" only accurately describes one aspect of it. The point of science is to further knowledge and understanding of a subject, but for a purpose. Always, there is a purpose. A motive. In a way there is no "pure" science. The gain, not necessarily monetary or financial, or for prestige or power, is always there. Nothing is done without potential for reward. Isn't that a tenet of psychology itself? Perhaps just behaviorism. But it is relevant to all the disciplines.
Humanism is kinda, sorta, um… crap. (I said it! Oh, oh, burn!) I will repeat: nothing is done without the potential for reward. And this is the basis of my own personal philosophy. Oooh, I shudder to call it that. Okay, perception of the world and reality, and whatever else is relevant. Nothing is magnanimous. In my first draft of this piece, I wrote completely magnanimous. But I think now that I'll just leave the "completely" out entirely. Because I put it in, I suppose, as a concession to the ideas of people before me and people around me. Now I can finally identify this… weakness (don't I sound like a fanatical control freak?) as humanism. Which I consider completely bunk. (Haha! There's the "completely!")
I have removed the "completely" because (and now I'm back to my main point) my own perception of this topic leaves no middle ground. Magnanimity is an illusion, sort of like free will. I dislike extremes, and when there is no spectrum leaving room for doubt, but I see no way around this. It's a yes/no thing. An on/off switch. And the magnanimity switch is off. Stuck in the "off" position, in fact. Everything is self-serving in some manner. This is not necessarily a "bad" thing. It seems nature or some god (in the form of evolution and natural selection) has built reward into the concept of "doing good." When a person does something "good," e.g. giving money to charity, he receives a reward. He feels good about himself, and is fulfilling his need for self-validation. Or if he is pressed by an individual or individuals he cares about, he feels good about pleasing his loved one(s). Or if the act is for a public image, he is released from the scrutiny of the aforementioned public. Etc.
Describing science, any science, as "the study of…" only accurately describes one aspect of it. The point of science is to further knowledge and understanding of a subject, but for a purpose. Always, there is a purpose. A motive. In a way there is no "pure" science. The gain, not necessarily monetary or financial, or for prestige or power, is always there. Nothing is done without potential for reward. Isn't that a tenet of psychology itself? Perhaps just behaviorism. But it is relevant to all the disciplines.
Humanism is kinda, sorta, um… crap. (I said it! Oh, oh, burn!) I will repeat: nothing is done without the potential for reward. And this is the basis of my own personal philosophy. Oooh, I shudder to call it that. Okay, perception of the world and reality, and whatever else is relevant. Nothing is magnanimous. In my first draft of this piece, I wrote completely magnanimous. But I think now that I'll just leave the "completely" out entirely. Because I put it in, I suppose, as a concession to the ideas of people before me and people around me. Now I can finally identify this… weakness (don't I sound like a fanatical control freak?) as humanism. Which I consider completely bunk. (Haha! There's the "completely!")
I have removed the "completely" because (and now I'm back to my main point) my own perception of this topic leaves no middle ground. Magnanimity is an illusion, sort of like free will. I dislike extremes, and when there is no spectrum leaving room for doubt, but I see no way around this. It's a yes/no thing. An on/off switch. And the magnanimity switch is off. Stuck in the "off" position, in fact. Everything is self-serving in some manner. This is not necessarily a "bad" thing. It seems nature or some god (in the form of evolution and natural selection) has built reward into the concept of "doing good." When a person does something "good," e.g. giving money to charity, he receives a reward. He feels good about himself, and is fulfilling his need for self-validation. Or if he is pressed by an individual or individuals he cares about, he feels good about pleasing his loved one(s). Or if the act is for a public image, he is released from the scrutiny of the aforementioned public. Etc.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
"Hallelujah" part III
For the purposes of this analysis (to keep things simple) I will refer to the singer as W (woman) and the singer's lover (who I believe is the intended audience) as M (man). I'm going to do this in a few installments, because otherwise it's ridiculously long.
Maybe there’s a God above
But all I’ve ever learned from love
Was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you
It’s not a cry you can hear at night
It’s not somebody who's seen the light
It’s a cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah
More questioning of faith. W (the singer) is apparently not enamored with the religion set out in popular doctrine. This is also addressed in the next line, when she references Church teachings that "God is love" and such, saying that she didn't really learn anything useful from these teachings except how to duck out of a relationship before getting stung. A "quit before they can fire you" mentality. Somewhat defeatist, in my opinion. Then again, the whole reference to love and learning could have to do with the more immediate experience of romantic love, and implies again that she's been hurt in relationships before and is not eager to undergo more pain. Again the line "a cold and... broken Hallelujah," presumably used to describe "love," whatever that is. The lines immediately preceding are just further emphasizing the last line, crying that love is not benevolent and transcendental. (I'm feeling wordy today; can you tell?)
You say I took the name in vain
I don't even know the name
But if I did, well really, what's it to you?
There's a blaze of light
In every word
It doesn't matter which you heard
The holy or the broken Hallelujah
Again this seems a religious reference. Perhaps to the hypocrisy of religion, "teaching" love without feeling it. This verse really resonates with me, as it describes the individuality of faith. W's concept of divinity is different from M's, so her "name" is not his. Furthermore (in the third line) why does he care? Her faith is her own, her ideas personal, and her thoughts her right. The next two lines suggest the power of language and its ability to express feelings and ideas beyond just consonants and vowels. The last two lines seem like a dismissal of M; "it doesn't matter to me what you think because you're outta here."
I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you
And even though
It all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah
W is tired of arguing, and it really doesn't matter anyway what M says. She's done. She'd fallen out of love before this, but for the sake of harmony she held onto the relationship. Because of that she has no regrets, and she can stand before the Lord of Song without shame. The "Lord of Song" could refer to a god, to Death, or just to some amorphous ruling power (like human conscience), so it's a reference to a sort of judgement by that higher power. And she will stand dignified.
Is W's whole hang-up on religion just a metaphor for her romantic relationship with M? I think it could be interpreted as such, and W's rocky relationship with divinity as a metaphor for her crumbling relationship with M. Or the other way around, I suppose. Either way, I still very much like the song. Thanks for reading!
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Anchored to a Sandbar; or, The Truth is Always Shifting
Plinky asked: "Is it always better to know the truth, even when it hurts?"
Not always. Sometimes (excuse the expression) you can't handle the truth. Are you going to tell a five-year-old that his mommy was raped and dismembered in Central Park? When Grandma has Alzheimer's in the nursing home and every day forgets that Grandpa died five years ago are you going to break her heart every day so she isn't misinformed? What about if you've just moved in with someone, and maybe life isn't that grand because you have to scrape for rent and food but you're happy, but if you tell your dad he'll sweep in and take you away and you'll spend the rest of your life being mollycoddled?
The easiest answer is "yes, the truth is always the best," but that seems very monochromatic to me. Shades of grey means that nothing's easy. Besides (and I promise I'll restrain from expanding on this) but what is the truth? Something you may see as absolute truth - for instance that it is time for you to move away from your family and start your own life - may not be absolute for someone else - like your little sister, who draws strength from your closeness and appreciates that you don't leave her to deal with mom and dad all alone.
The truth can limit a person, too. Sometimes, if you don't know the truth (for instance, your friend's truth that your artwork is dull and unoriginal) it turns out not to be the truth (when you end up having a show in a gallery in SoHo). Truth is inconstant, and as a species we give it way too much credit.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
'Tis the Season, 'Cuz The Darkness Won't Let Up For A While
This season always seems dark to me. Yes, it's literally dark, but I mean metaphorically, like everyone's hiding something. It feels forced, like the people are gilded.
Maybe it is as simple as the literal darkness; most of our days are spent in darkness this season. And you know how if you're in a room with windows no amount of light inside can make you forget the dark. In fact it seems to emphasize the darkness, and the light seems like a facade.
I don't know if there was a time that I didn't feel the creeping darkness of the season. In high school I did learn to associate Xmas with my parents' divorce and the forced cheer everyone put on, but I don't think that's the root of it. I seem to remember this feeling before that time, like some insidious darkness-creature was trying to gnaw its way out of our bones, hiding behind the ruddy glow of cheerful faces.
Strange thing, but I always remember Christmas songs about love, and [yes, even] the Biblical Christmas story filling me with sorrow, like something was supposed to happen, but didn't.
I like the Roman answer to the season (which not-so-incidentally is why Christmas is on Dec 25th and not when scholars place Jesus' birthday) which is the Feast of Mithras. Mithras was sort of a bestial god (pure, in a primal sense), probably a Roman god of war (who wasn't?) and therefore pretty popular with soldiers. Mithraism (a Roman mystery religion) may have been a semi-serious competitor with early Christianity, so early Christians kind of took over Mithras day. which is the 25th. (Look at the 3rd and 4th paragraph of "Relationship with Christianity")
Actually, now that I think about it, I like this Roman feast day for the same reason I like all of them: it recognizes the humanity of humans. We are all just cultured animals and honoring the warriors is a good way to acknowledge the beast (obviously no offense to any soldiers, but you've got to admit that fighting is not very human in origin).
And beyond the fact that I feel a mysterious sort of visceral sorrow at this season, maybe this season is when we all "get back to basics," in a way. The days are shortening, the weather's getting colder, it's time for the wild things to really get serious about the whole surviving thing. Winter is the ultimate make-or-break scenario: unlike some other life-threat situations, no one can escape winter. Whatever you do, it'll always be there, ready to threaten. So maybe our primal bits recognize the threat (even though that threat is sort of irrelevant for humans now) and make us feel stressed, anxious, and sorrowful.
Maybe it is as simple as the literal darkness; most of our days are spent in darkness this season. And you know how if you're in a room with windows no amount of light inside can make you forget the dark. In fact it seems to emphasize the darkness, and the light seems like a facade.
I don't know if there was a time that I didn't feel the creeping darkness of the season. In high school I did learn to associate Xmas with my parents' divorce and the forced cheer everyone put on, but I don't think that's the root of it. I seem to remember this feeling before that time, like some insidious darkness-creature was trying to gnaw its way out of our bones, hiding behind the ruddy glow of cheerful faces.
Strange thing, but I always remember Christmas songs about love, and [yes, even] the Biblical Christmas story filling me with sorrow, like something was supposed to happen, but didn't.
I like the Roman answer to the season (which not-so-incidentally is why Christmas is on Dec 25th and not when scholars place Jesus' birthday) which is the Feast of Mithras. Mithras was sort of a bestial god (pure, in a primal sense), probably a Roman god of war (who wasn't?) and therefore pretty popular with soldiers. Mithraism (a Roman mystery religion) may have been a semi-serious competitor with early Christianity, so early Christians kind of took over Mithras day. which is the 25th. (Look at the 3rd and 4th paragraph of "Relationship with Christianity")
Actually, now that I think about it, I like this Roman feast day for the same reason I like all of them: it recognizes the humanity of humans. We are all just cultured animals and honoring the warriors is a good way to acknowledge the beast (obviously no offense to any soldiers, but you've got to admit that fighting is not very human in origin).
And beyond the fact that I feel a mysterious sort of visceral sorrow at this season, maybe this season is when we all "get back to basics," in a way. The days are shortening, the weather's getting colder, it's time for the wild things to really get serious about the whole surviving thing. Winter is the ultimate make-or-break scenario: unlike some other life-threat situations, no one can escape winter. Whatever you do, it'll always be there, ready to threaten. So maybe our primal bits recognize the threat (even though that threat is sort of irrelevant for humans now) and make us feel stressed, anxious, and sorrowful.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Please Don't Invent Me A History; I'm Good With My Own, Thanks
(The following was prompted by the section "Reconsidering Hutton" in the Nov16th post at The Wild Hunt.)
As I've mentioned before I subscribe to various feeds around the interwebz, many in the Pagan blogosphere. I like being informed and up-to-date on the many happenings in the Pagan community I notice a thread of a theme emerging in some posts, that people want a history. For instance they want to say something like "[insert individual brand of Paganism here] has been around for 500 years" or 50 or 1000 or whatever. The sense I get from this--and I could be misreading people--is that they need something to be "historical" to have validity. This is not my understanding of faith.
First, "Paganism" (or "Wicca" or "Druidry") describes not a single faith with an established dogma and hierarchy, but a collection of individual faiths, each developed on a personal level. Can any such faith have a history? I'm not saying that a Pagan's faith can't be influenced by the history of another faith, or history in general; where would anyone be if no one had come before us? Personally, I can name Greek/Roman and Egyptian polytheism as influencing my ideas, as well as physics, chemistry, biology, world politics, and yes, Christianity. So yes, my faith has a history in the sense that I "stand on the shoulders of giants," as it were, but my faith, as it is today, is of my own creation. Sure, I borrowed others' ideas, but the way I cobble them together is my own, and I've added a few original ideas, too.
Second, does something need a "history" to be valid? Is anything new that just came around not real in some sense until it's got some history under its belt? Furthermore, who decides how much history? (I know this is a barrage of questions, but just one more...) If nobody payed attention to anything new (eg an idea) until it had a history, would it end up ever having a history? I think it would just sort of shrivel up and fade away.
I get the pride and the belonging associated with having a history. There's magic in calling the elements at Samhain and knowing that hundreds of years ago there were some people doing the same sort of thing. But that's just it; I feel the magic and the weight of age in the ancient celebrations I take part in, but I don't consider my faith to have a history.
I have thought about what will happen to my ideas when I die. In all likelihood many of them (ie the original ones) will die with me. But that's part of the reasoning behind this blog; I can share my ideas and (knowing the internet) they'll be around, somewhere, as long as there are computers, and maybe someone, someday will read them and think "huh, that makes sense to me" and incorporate it into their belief system. Yeah, I could write a whole religion. I've thought about it, many times. But maybe I don't want anyone else to believe exactly what I believe. I avoid labeling my collection of beliefs as a religion, and instead prefer to call it a faith because the word "faith" has a very personal element to it. Perhaps it's just the connotation--brought of popular culture and my experiences--and not the annotation of the words that makes me consider religion and faith as different, but even if it is, the connotation is what actually matters in everyday usage. Hold on a sec, I'll look it up............ yeah, it is sort of the connotation. Although they do have slightly different definitions (according to Dictionary.com), the difference is mostly in the semantics.
The previous paragraph was [for the first two sentences] about the shelf-life of my ideas. Because faith is personal to me and shouldn't be a copy/paste of another faith, my personal faith in all its [nonexistent] solemn glory is not something I want sticking around. So history won't be an issue for me.
Various Pagan traditions (like Roman polytheism and ancient Celtic Druidism) were religions (in my sense of the word); there was a dogma and an established hierarchy of priests and such, and so they have a history as a religion.
I feel like this was a confusing post. I apologize; I guess I have trouble articulating my ideas on history. My main idea: my history is actually an amalgamation of the histories of the ideas from which I have drawn insight, and as a history is only about as long as I am old. I don't claim to be a historical Druid or Roman polytheist or anything, so I can't claim all of their history. I am just me.
As I've mentioned before I subscribe to various feeds around the interwebz, many in the Pagan blogosphere. I like being informed and up-to-date on the many happenings in the Pagan community I notice a thread of a theme emerging in some posts, that people want a history. For instance they want to say something like "[insert individual brand of Paganism here] has been around for 500 years" or 50 or 1000 or whatever. The sense I get from this--and I could be misreading people--is that they need something to be "historical" to have validity. This is not my understanding of faith.
First, "Paganism" (or "Wicca" or "Druidry") describes not a single faith with an established dogma and hierarchy, but a collection of individual faiths, each developed on a personal level. Can any such faith have a history? I'm not saying that a Pagan's faith can't be influenced by the history of another faith, or history in general; where would anyone be if no one had come before us? Personally, I can name Greek/Roman and Egyptian polytheism as influencing my ideas, as well as physics, chemistry, biology, world politics, and yes, Christianity. So yes, my faith has a history in the sense that I "stand on the shoulders of giants," as it were, but my faith, as it is today, is of my own creation. Sure, I borrowed others' ideas, but the way I cobble them together is my own, and I've added a few original ideas, too.
Second, does something need a "history" to be valid? Is anything new that just came around not real in some sense until it's got some history under its belt? Furthermore, who decides how much history? (I know this is a barrage of questions, but just one more...) If nobody payed attention to anything new (eg an idea) until it had a history, would it end up ever having a history? I think it would just sort of shrivel up and fade away.
I get the pride and the belonging associated with having a history. There's magic in calling the elements at Samhain and knowing that hundreds of years ago there were some people doing the same sort of thing. But that's just it; I feel the magic and the weight of age in the ancient celebrations I take part in, but I don't consider my faith to have a history.
I have thought about what will happen to my ideas when I die. In all likelihood many of them (ie the original ones) will die with me. But that's part of the reasoning behind this blog; I can share my ideas and (knowing the internet) they'll be around, somewhere, as long as there are computers, and maybe someone, someday will read them and think "huh, that makes sense to me" and incorporate it into their belief system. Yeah, I could write a whole religion. I've thought about it, many times. But maybe I don't want anyone else to believe exactly what I believe. I avoid labeling my collection of beliefs as a religion, and instead prefer to call it a faith because the word "faith" has a very personal element to it. Perhaps it's just the connotation--brought of popular culture and my experiences--and not the annotation of the words that makes me consider religion and faith as different, but even if it is, the connotation is what actually matters in everyday usage. Hold on a sec, I'll look it up............ yeah, it is sort of the connotation. Although they do have slightly different definitions (according to Dictionary.com), the difference is mostly in the semantics.
The previous paragraph was [for the first two sentences] about the shelf-life of my ideas. Because faith is personal to me and shouldn't be a copy/paste of another faith, my personal faith in all its [nonexistent] solemn glory is not something I want sticking around. So history won't be an issue for me.
Various Pagan traditions (like Roman polytheism and ancient Celtic Druidism) were religions (in my sense of the word); there was a dogma and an established hierarchy of priests and such, and so they have a history as a religion.
I feel like this was a confusing post. I apologize; I guess I have trouble articulating my ideas on history. My main idea: my history is actually an amalgamation of the histories of the ideas from which I have drawn insight, and as a history is only about as long as I am old. I don't claim to be a historical Druid or Roman polytheist or anything, so I can't claim all of their history. I am just me.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
i started talking about intelligence, and then my thoughts went on a walk
At dinner, my roommate (J) said this:
Quote: Intelligence does not exist. End quote.
Then she said it again. Four more times.
J says that everyone possesses the same capacity to learn, and that if, for instance, someone has trouble with algebra it's not because they can't solve algebra problems but because they don't have the time/motivation/perserverence to solve algebra problems. She mentions a case study in which two classrooms full of kids were each given easy puzzles. When they completed the puzzles, the teacher in one room congratulated them, saying they must be smart, while the other teacher congratulated the students on how hard they must have worked. When they moved on to harder puzzles the classroom full of kids who had been told that they worked hard outperformed the kids who had been told they were smart; more, they enjoyed the challenge. Finally, the kids were given easy puzzles again. The "hard working" students enjoyed the puzzles, completed them quickly and easily, and even wanted to take some of the puzzles home to work on them. The "smart" students did badly on the puzzles, even though they were at the same level as the first set of puzzles; furthermore, they did not enjoy these puzzles. This study shows that everyone can perform equally well, and that even a small turn of phrase has power on a person's "intelligence."
I talked about the power (and its flip, the lack of power) of words earlier, although in a different context. But really, the context is the same in the end. I think the confusing part about my assertion that words are not powerful if they are not given power is that in many situations we do not have the power ourselves to deny words power. Let me try to clarify that. I said that words don't have power unless the hearer gives them power (eg hurtful words are only hurtful to those who are hurt by them). But there is (I think) a general consensus that our emotions are not under our control, or perhaps our conscious control. Whether or not we have the strength to consciously dictate our own emotions, we do affect them. We are in control of them.
A lot of times it doesn't seem like it. I have a lot of experience with emotions getting out of control, for better or [mostly] worse. I have long struggled with severe depression, and while I have never actually attempted to kill myself, I've gotten pretty damn close and used to think about doing it every day. I will be the first to admit (advertise, shout on the rooftops...) that I do not always have conscious control of my emotions.
The difference in my way of thinking is that "control" is not synonymous with conscious decision. (Maybe more on control later...) But because the human is the one "having" the emotions, they [the emotions] are within one being. They are internal, though they can and often do have external effects. I think we can all agree (maybe? plz?) that we cannot share emotions, in the sense that even if two people are having similar emotions (because by this logic no one can have the same emotions) they are each having their own separate emotions, not some sort of group emotion.
So, let me try to bring it back to intelligence. I totally agree with J's interpretation of the case study, but I'm not so sure about her assertion that "intelligence" as a concept does not exist. A concept? By definition, a concept exists. I guess she's talking about the nonexistence of "intelligence" as... What is intelligence? Wow. J says that she is equating "intelligence" with "IQ." IQ is certainly changeable, and totally bunk as a method of measuring "intelligence." But in light of that (my immediately proceeding statement) I do not equate "intelligence" with "IQ." (see Beyond IQ and IQ Paradox @ SciAm) Hmmm. I guess I believe that intelligence exists, but I define it differently. As with everything, I believe that intelligence is relative.
I shall revisit these subjects at a later date, but for now... physics...
Quote: Intelligence does not exist. End quote.
Then she said it again. Four more times.
J says that everyone possesses the same capacity to learn, and that if, for instance, someone has trouble with algebra it's not because they can't solve algebra problems but because they don't have the time/motivation/perserverence to solve algebra problems. She mentions a case study in which two classrooms full of kids were each given easy puzzles. When they completed the puzzles, the teacher in one room congratulated them, saying they must be smart, while the other teacher congratulated the students on how hard they must have worked. When they moved on to harder puzzles the classroom full of kids who had been told that they worked hard outperformed the kids who had been told they were smart; more, they enjoyed the challenge. Finally, the kids were given easy puzzles again. The "hard working" students enjoyed the puzzles, completed them quickly and easily, and even wanted to take some of the puzzles home to work on them. The "smart" students did badly on the puzzles, even though they were at the same level as the first set of puzzles; furthermore, they did not enjoy these puzzles. This study shows that everyone can perform equally well, and that even a small turn of phrase has power on a person's "intelligence."
I talked about the power (and its flip, the lack of power) of words earlier, although in a different context. But really, the context is the same in the end. I think the confusing part about my assertion that words are not powerful if they are not given power is that in many situations we do not have the power ourselves to deny words power. Let me try to clarify that. I said that words don't have power unless the hearer gives them power (eg hurtful words are only hurtful to those who are hurt by them). But there is (I think) a general consensus that our emotions are not under our control, or perhaps our conscious control. Whether or not we have the strength to consciously dictate our own emotions, we do affect them. We are in control of them.
A lot of times it doesn't seem like it. I have a lot of experience with emotions getting out of control, for better or [mostly] worse. I have long struggled with severe depression, and while I have never actually attempted to kill myself, I've gotten pretty damn close and used to think about doing it every day. I will be the first to admit (advertise, shout on the rooftops...) that I do not always have conscious control of my emotions.
The difference in my way of thinking is that "control" is not synonymous with conscious decision. (Maybe more on control later...) But because the human is the one "having" the emotions, they [the emotions] are within one being. They are internal, though they can and often do have external effects. I think we can all agree (maybe? plz?) that we cannot share emotions, in the sense that even if two people are having similar emotions (because by this logic no one can have the same emotions) they are each having their own separate emotions, not some sort of group emotion.
So, let me try to bring it back to intelligence. I totally agree with J's interpretation of the case study, but I'm not so sure about her assertion that "intelligence" as a concept does not exist. A concept? By definition, a concept exists. I guess she's talking about the nonexistence of "intelligence" as... What is intelligence? Wow. J says that she is equating "intelligence" with "IQ." IQ is certainly changeable, and totally bunk as a method of measuring "intelligence." But in light of that (my immediately proceeding statement) I do not equate "intelligence" with "IQ." (see Beyond IQ and IQ Paradox @ SciAm) Hmmm. I guess I believe that intelligence exists, but I define it differently. As with everything, I believe that intelligence is relative.
I shall revisit these subjects at a later date, but for now... physics...
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones, But Words' Wounds Cut Deeper
Words have only the power they are allowed. That is not to say that anyone in particular is in control. Words meant to hurt can hurt, but only if who recieves them is hurt. This is the basic idea: words only have the power you, personally, ascribe to them.
Gods can hear our words. Gods are not energy, I think; rather, gods are like light, and have a dual nature (rays and particles, eg). They are affected by our words, but only as living beings (for what are gods but physical? manifestations of life?). That's why gods can't affect you if you don't believe in them; the only change they can offer is in words, and words we don't believe in just pass us by. But belief is far from simple. I still struggle with belief.
Gods can hear our words. Gods are not energy, I think; rather, gods are like light, and have a dual nature (rays and particles, eg). They are affected by our words, but only as living beings (for what are gods but physical? manifestations of life?). That's why gods can't affect you if you don't believe in them; the only change they can offer is in words, and words we don't believe in just pass us by. But belief is far from simple. I still struggle with belief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
