Copernicus Now

Hammer's Life Lessons -- A blog on life

2006-05-15T20:52:00.000-07:00

Check out Hammer's Life Lessons

A gentleman dispenses the wisdom gained from his own experiences. He is very candid about his own life. Today he discusses how to deal with rejection.

Check it out.

Dirty Words

2006-02-26T04:58:00.000-08:00

What is your view on the use of "dirty" words?

I am talking about supposedly forbidden words like "f*ck", "sh*t", etc.

When I was growing up, most kids could certainly expect a reaction from our parents if we used these and a variety of other words. We would almost certainly be punished. It would not have been unusual to get the strap. And if we were caught saying these things in school, we almost certainly risked the strap.

But we weren't just worried about the punishment of this world. There was also the next to think of. Swearing was a sin in those days. Why, if God caught you swearing, you could pretty much expect to be in His bad books, and you were risking an afterlife in Hell. (Ironic, isn't it, that a kid wasn't allowed to say Hell, but could have been required to go there.)

That got to be a problem I got a bit older. All the teenagers where I lived used the f-word on a regular basis, myself included. It was just part of normal discourse among teenage peers. It wasn't normally seen as a measure of respect for each other. Instead, it was a measure of belonging to the teen underworld. It was just language. "Hey man, didja get the answer to the second f*cking question on the f*ckin' test? It took me 20 f*cking minutes to figure that f*cking thing out. I thought I was having a hard f*cking time, but then I looked over at Jimmy. Man, he looked like we was gonna f*cking cry."

But even by our mid teens, most of us didn't use this language in front of our parents. The strap was no longer an issue for me when I was 15 or 16, but that didn't mean I wanted to go down that route with my parents.

Long before I had hit my teens, I remember hearing that a boy named Freddy and his sister--they lived down the road a piece from my cousins' house--were both allowed to swear and use all kinds of sinful language--right in front of their folks. Freddy was a bit older than me, but he was still a young teenager. That seemed shocking to me at the time. I remember shortly afterwards being on their front porch and hearing Freddy in a conversation with his mom and he probably used a half dozen words that I wasn't even supposed to know at that time. It looked like a pretty casual conversation. His mom didn't seem perturbed in the least.

That always stuck with me.

See Freddy, was about the nicest kid you could want to meet. So was his sister. You'd a thunk that they would have turned out all rotten, seeing as they clearly were not being brought up right.

But you know what? They grew up to be two very well liked, very respectful adults. And as far as I know, they both had a reputation for being nice kids right through adolescence. So what was the big deal? Why did we make such a fuss about all this "naughty" language?

For my part, I have decided I will not punish children for using "bad" words. As far as I am concerned, it is their language. They have a right to use it. That said, I will (do) set guidelines: The use of a word in itself is not bad. But there is the question of how you use it. We are free to use our language, but not to use it for the purpose of being disrespectful to others. And we should make a point of being sensitive to other's feelings.

So far, I have found this to be pretty effective, although my daughter is pretty young. This, to me, is a good place to start with teaching freedom of speech.

What is your point of view on all this naughty language?

Who is your God?

2006-02-21T20:17:00.000-08:00

Who is your God?
What are your God's characteristics?

Is your God the creator of all the universe?
Did your God exist before time?
Is your God all powerful?
Can your God do anything, no matter how impossible?
Can your God tell a lie, or deceive?
Is your God all knowing?
Is your God always good?
Does your God require strict obedience?
Does your God allow you to be defiant?
Are you allowed to question your God?
Is your God always right?
If your God said to kill somebody, would killing be right?
Does your God require you to turn the other cheek?
Does your God allow you to fight?
Does your God put the evidence of your holy book before the evidence of your eyes?
Does your God put the evidence of your holy book before the evidence of your heart?
Does your God put the evidence of your holy book before the evidence of your mind?
Is your God the same God your parents believed in?
Will there be a judgement day?
Who judges your God?
Does your God evolve?
Are you right about your God?
If so, how do you know you are right?

Tell me about your God?

Righteousness vs. Demagoguery

2006-02-18T17:50:00.000-08:00

I just realized what a poor job I have been doing. Not so much the fact that I have hardly been posting. That's not a quality problem in itself. That's just laziness.

Rather, I got thinking about my stated goals. There is this mission that I claim to be on. I am supposed to be righteous and protest stuff. Mostly me. Or us. Once in awhile I protest you. I never protest "them". Protesting "them" is necessary, but it falls outside the scope of my mission.

And that's all well and good. But it dawned on me that something has been missing from my repetoire. I am a righteous asshole. At least some of the time. And that fits in well with my vision statement. I also have a bit of a sense of humor. (Although I am not always sure that other people get it.) But what is missing is demagoguery. That's right demagoguery.

It seems to me that by now I should have upbraided many a hypocrite for his (or her) demagoguery. But the fact is, I haven't even used the word 'demagoguery' once in any of my posts. Neither in the comments that I have left on other people's blogs.

The truths is. I am not even sure what it means. I looked the word up online, and found an HNN News Network article called "What Qualifies as Demagoguery". I tried to read it, but I ended up more confused after the first paragraph, so I just gave up.

It seems to me that I had no choice but to write a "Copernicus protests himself" post. The truth is, my skills as a voice of social revolution peaked around month 2 of this blog. After that I went into a decline. And now the truth is out. I claim to be righteous, but I don't even know the vocab.

Oh well. Copernicus sucks. Spread the word.

Observations on Conflict

2006-02-14T20:11:00.000-08:00

Conflict

We are locked in conflict. A struggle of cultures. Us and them.

Is it war? Is it love? Is it hatred?

No. Conflict is social interaction. Some conflict is gentle and tender. Some conflict is tumultuous and belligerent, but settles back into something near civil. Some conflict is about humiliation, and venom. Some conflict is vicious and vitriolic. Some conflict is death. And blood. A race between two adversaries to destroy each other.

But conflict is always a social interaction. It's two or more participants, in a bizarre dance together. It has a bond. It has the power to destroy. It also has the power to heal. But that might depend on you.

Most of us are at odds with conflict. We are ignorant. We pretend it is not happening. We don't see our part in it. We accuse and deny. We base our own honor on our lies. We deceive. We deceive ourselves.

So many among us think conflict is just one thing. They don't know that it is many things. It is there in love. It is there in family. It is there in being a neighbor. It is there in debate. It is there in war.

Conflict is in everything. It entangles everybody and everything.

There is no escaping conflict. It simply is.

We are stupid in the ways of conflict. We are ignorant. We boast and we are vain. We are conceited. We don't know what we are doing.

In conflict, it is well to start by getting to know the truth about yourself. Do not believe your own bullshit. Do not believe your own press releases. Do not believe your own words. Do not believe yourself at all when you sound noble. Until you know the sound of your own lies.

Get to know the people who call themselves your allies. Some have real honor. But many seek to entangle you in their adventures. They fill your ears with talk of values. They speak of things that make your emotions rise. They fill you with pride and urgency. But they are ignorant. They shout filth in the street during, waking the violent ones. And they expect you to join them. Know them well. For they are not your friends. And you owe them nothing.

Do not believe your own innocence. Do not believe your own pleadings. Do not believe your own emotions. Until you have examined yourself through your opponent's eyes and you have seen where you are wanting.

If you are full of opinions about your adversary. If you think you know what you need to know about them. Think again. If you think you possess the uncontestable argument. You deceive yourself. If you are not experiencing a change of viewpoint, you have learned nothing. If you only see what you always saw, you see nothing because you are blind.

If you do not see the need to learn about yourself. If you do not see the need to learn about your opponent. If you have already learned enough, you are the cause of your own destruction, though you will surely blame others.

If you do not respect your opponent. If you are contemptuous. If you think you are guaranteed victory. You are a danger to yourself and others. Keep away from me.

If you think you can play with conflict. If you think you are free to torment and antagonize, feel free. Fly to your own folly. I might laugh at your stupidity--if I weren't so busy trying to keep you from dragging me with you.

If you think you can run a conflict remotely. If you think you will not be touched by it. If you think the war is "over there". You are a fool. You will visit evil on your own family. On your own children. Then how you will cry and blame others.

If you think you can avoid conflict. You are equally foolish. There is no escape. It is the air itself. Avoid it if you are able. How long can you hold your breath?

You can not avoid conflict. None of us can. So turn to it, and face it. And learn to manage.

If you can turn an enemy into a friend, this is often the best road to victory. If you can teach their children love, you spare your own.

If you must fight, then do so. But respect your adversary. Maintain your respect, even when they do wrong. And do not underestimate them, even though your craving for confidence tempts you to.

When you fight, if you are winning, remember that a determined adversary will learn and adapt. They will change the game.

When you fight, remember that some day there must be an end to fighting if you are ever to have rest.

Be cautious of your hatred. Be cautious of your contempt. Be cautious of your conduct. Even to your adversary. Because when the day is over. After you have killed your adversary's children, and your adversary has killed yours. You will still need to live together.

On the Cartoons: Communication, Criticism, Complaints, Conflict, Caring, Caricature, Caution, Contempt and Consequences.

2006-02-12T18:02:00.000-08:00

This whole claptrap about the cartoons is starting to annoy to me.

My job here--the one I appointed myself to when I took on the name of Copernicus--is not to tell the other guy how to improve. Rather, it's to criticize me and mine. It's to take part in the protest against ourselves.

Of course, in saying that, I am going to have to momentarily buy into this "us versus them" mentality. Just for today--for the sake of this post--"us" means us westerners. Us secularists. Us who come from Europe and North America. Us, who are sophisticated. Us, who defend freedom, and democracy, and rights.

And "them", just for now, means them Islamic folk. You know. Them. Over there. Them religious fanatics. Them ignorant ones. Them people what can't take a joke. Them people with backwards thinking. Them people--many of whom seem awful prone to extremism and terrorism.

Now, I know that my definitions sound pretty prejudiced. But I think it just makes sense to start by getting our prejudices out in the open, right here, right now. Why should we be bottling up our prejudices all the time? We all got 'em. Why should we be ashamed of 'em? Ain't you just sick and tired of all this politically correctness bullsh*t?

We got free speech, don't we? So, why should we suppress what we think? Don't you see? We don't need to. We don't need to be ashamed of our prejudices. We should revel in them. We got freedom of speech!! In fact, why don't you just go on down to your workplace, or maybe take a walk through your local shopping center, and tell the first Muslim family you see what the patootie you really think about their backward little religion?! Heck, you got a right. You got a right! It's called freedom of speech. So, just get up off yer lard ass and go down there right now and do it, whydoncha? SHOUT IT AT 'EM!!

Now you were probably thinking that freedom of speech is just for people who write stuff, like books and newspaper articles--oh, and cartoons. Kind of like a special license, or something.

Well, no sir. No siree!! It's your right too. Fact is, it ain't just your right. It's your duty. Yesiree! A lot of good men fought and died trying to stop that bastard Hitler, just so you and your kids could have freedom of speech.

Course, if you don't want to stand up for your rights, I understand completely, son. You just go ahead and have a little lie down right there at their feet. Just relax and don't say anything. In fact, don't plan on every saying what you think again.

What, you say you want to defend your rights? You say you want to do what's right? You wanna stand up for free speech? Good boy. Good to have you on board. Fine boy like yourself, and all.

Now, I'll tell you what you gotta do.

See, what you gotta do, boy, is to get right in their faces about what you think. Better yet, give 'em some funny stuff. They need lots of that. A lot of them folks are just too uptight about this whole thing, so you gotta make 'em understand that they just need to loosen up their sense of hawhaw. Y'know all that fundamentalist religious stuff addles their brains. Makes 'em high strung. Pokin' fun at 'em oughtta help.

Get right in their faces. Don't let up.

And if they protest and get all extremist on you, don't you dare back down. And if they come after you and start protesting your actions, why you just gotta act with honor, son. You gotta stick to your guns. You just gotta muster up your grit and just keep shovin' your opinions right back in their uneducated little faces.

Now, I know what you're thinking, boy. I know what you're thinkin'. You're thinking, well what if I have to defend something that somebody says that I don't agree with?

No problem, boy. That ain't no problem at all. See, the issue here is not with whether what anybody says against them folks is right or wrong. It's about their right to say it. See, that's what we mean by freedom of speech. You see, you gotta defend any old crap that anybody says. You see, it don't matter who the devil says what. You just gotta defend it. See, that's your duty. Doesn't matter what their intention was. Doesn't matter if they were just trying to push somebody's buttons. Just do the right thing, and if things go bad for you--well then you're a martyr for a good cause. Freedom. Rights. Wahoo!

OKAY!! OKAY!! Enough of this!!

Copernicus here. I'm back to my old self again.

As I was starting to say, I am getting tired of all this claptrap about those damn cartoons. All I want to say is this:

You wanna communicate, something? Communicate it.
You wanna criticize? Go right ahead.
You got something to complain about? Say it.
You feeling the need to get the conflict out in the open? Fine and dandy.
You need to let somebody know about the things you care about? That's a good thing.
So far, it sounds like you might be acting with respect, and I got your back.

But go any further, and you might want to tread with caution.
Do you feel like mocking somebody today?
Do you feel like a caricature is in order?
Do you feel like treating others with contempt?
Do you feel like crapping on the things others consider holy, just to provoke a reaction?
Well, Mr. Man, hope you thought through the consequences. Maybe what you're doing is going to work. And maybe it ain't. But you better plan on taking good care, 'cause I for one am going to have to take a long think about how much help I feel like providing.

Personally, I love freedom of speech, but I don't always care much for the way some zealots go about defending it.

Makin' up words

2006-01-22T09:42:00.000-08:00

Did you ever make up any good words or expressions? I made up 3 that I like:

1) Obvuto - Has to do with truth value. An obvuto statement is a statement that is true and useful as long as you appreciate the extent to which it may actually be misleading. For example: "Karate is the art of breaking boards with your bare hands." Most karate practitioners would cringe at that definition, but as a way to explain what karate is to people who have a limited exposure to such things, it can be effective. How useful such a statement is depends on whether the listener understands that the statement is obvuto.

I really like the word, but to tell the truth I don't use it in conversation much. Not unless we're talking about words we made up. :)

2) Smell-deaf - I figure I am about 65% to 70% smell deaf. My wife can smell just about anything. She takes great pride in her acuity of smell. But she is grossed out a lot. (Not by me, of course!) When she was pregnant with our daughter her sensitivity of smell went through the ceiling. She couldn't stand the smell of anything. Almost made a basket case of me trying to arrange the universe of smellery to not offend her. Personally, I get the impression that having a keen sense of smell is mostly a disadvantage unless you live in the wild.

I couldn't find a quick word or phrase that applies to the notion of having a poor sense of smell, so I made up smell deaf. Most people seem to know what I am talking about immediately.

3) Smell frequencies - Somethings I can smell just fine. But I sometimes seem to pick up only certain smell frequencies. My wife once brought home some little white flowers. I think she called them paperwhites. Anyway, she sat them in the living room and went on and on about how nice they smelled. I just ignored them. But awhile later I started smelling burnt rubber. I was a bit alarmed and told my wife that I could smell an wire burning somewhere. She just looked at me funny and said she didn't smell anything. That was weird. I ran around the house in a panic expecting to find an appliance overheating. I ran around and around sniffing everywhere, like that smell-deaf bloodhound (or whatever he is) in Disney's Aristocats. Finally, I sniffed and snuffed my way back to the coffee table in front of the sofa where I was sitting in the first place. To my surprise it was the paperwhites. To me, they smelled just like burning rubber or plastic. To my wife they smelled fragrant and sweet. That's when it dawned on me that I was probably only picking up certain smell frequencies, but not the all same ones my wife was getting.

I have tossed this expression into conversations from time to time. I usually get a comically puzzled reaction. I suppose people who know me might just take it in stride with all the other things I say. I suspect they think I am usually tuned in to a different frequency most of the time. :)

Them vs. Us

2006-01-21T19:56:00.000-08:00

One of the stupidity holes we seem to stumble into over and over again--often not even understanding that we are in a hole--is the "them versus us" trap. It appears to me that it is partly hardwired into our noggins, but it seems like we overdo the distinctions between the "them" and the "us".

This was something I have thought of blogging about in the past, but never got around to. But recently, The Language Guy did a post called The Last Bastion of PC Prejudice and it got me thinking about this topic again.

His post was only partly related to this topic, but in it he talks about how our prejudices can be exercised against other groups by making politically correct (sounding) statements disparaging how others speak. In short, this provides a polite (sounding) mechanism for attacking another social class or ethnic group.

His discussion reminded me about a thought I have often had about how we instinctively--is it really an instinct?--divide the world into them and us. And, more specifically, how in some cases we seem to have certain common indexes for making the decision about who is them and who is us. And language is one of those indexes.

Look at it this way. Let's suppose that we evolved this tendency in order to survive in our cave man days. Now I don't have any idea if that is actually what happened, but let's say it is for argument's sake. Let's say we needed a way to differentiate between groups whose collective DNA we want to help preserve and groups whose DNA we should be hostile to. Well, if we don't have common indexes, then differentiating becomes very haphazard.

Let's say for example, that we have 4 cavemen, Fred and Barney who are part of the Bedrock community, and Og and Zog who are members of the Cave Bear Clan. If there is no common index for determining who is a member of us and who is a member of them, then it all becomes very haphazard, and social groupings become difficult to manage. Let's say, for example, that Barney differentiates us-ness vs. them-ness based on toe shape, and Fred bases his distinctions on beer preferences. In such a case, Fred and Barney would have a hard time determining who to be nice to and who to be hostile to. Fred and Barney would have a devil of a time coordinating hostilities because they couldn't be sure who is friend and who is foe. More importantly, since they don't share any common indexes to determine who is us and who is them, they would be completely unable to even maintain a distinct social group. If Og and Zog, by contrast, did maintain a common set of markers, then their social grouping would have an edge over that of Fred and Barney.

One thought that I find interesting is that it may not even matter too much what their indexes are, as long as they have common ones.

What all this has to do with the Language Guy's post is that, I suspect, we do have these common indexes, and language is one of the key ones. Of course, looks and grooming behaviors would be another. If language is a key index in determining them-ness vs. us-ness, then it seems likely that part of the reason we behave the way the Language Guy describes is that we have a special propensity to think that way.

Of course, it could be argued that I am providing a justification for such behavior as he describes (in his post) by suggesting that it is hardwired. Well, I suppose a person could interpret things that way, but the truth is, I do not condone prejudice. Rather, I am trying to fight it. Starting with myself. I am fighting it by trying to understand it.

I am not actually claiming that it is hardwired. More that it's softwired. I am suggesting that we may have a strong tendency to make distinctions, based largely on specific indexes, such as language and appearances, to treat some people as us, and to treat others as them. And we do this even when the basis for that distinction is not germain to the defence of the real needs of any important social groupings. In other words, we tend to treat others like outsiders, and with hostility, for really stupid reasons.

I am suggesting that we do this partly instinctively--without realizing--but we shouldn't. We needn't. It is part of our stupidity that we do this. It is a recognizable error that we can catch ourselves doing. Even if our instincts tend to lead us in this direction, our higher brains, our sense of decency, should steer us right again.

I wanted to give some examples, but as I often do, I have droned on without carefully planning my exit strategy. And it is now almost midnight so I just have to bring this to an unceremonious and abrupt end.

So in closing, let's just forget that I'm us and you're them. For tonight and tomorrow, let there only be us -- and you're included.

Spread the word.

Going deeper

2006-01-11T06:13:00.000-08:00

I intended my last post as a tongue-in-cheek piece, and I hope that is how it was taken. But there is a truth in it that it goes deeper than just the overt message about boys meeting girls (and vice versa).

We people are so blinded by beauty that we rely on the beautiful to tell us how to be attractive. But if you really want to learn about being attractive, ask a plain person with a track record. Attractiveness is inside us.

But even this is just an allegory. (Did I use that word correctly?)

The real message goes much deeper. It's about life. It's about the stupid way we look at things. It's about what we need to do differently. It's about knowing where to get our guidance in life. It's about knowing how to find our true strengths.

The message is simple.

If you are not naturally well endowed in some way--and this does not only apply to physical beauty--then you can still aspire to bring better things into your life. But there is no point looking to the naturally well endowed to be your guides. The best way to get help is to look to others like yourself to be your guide. The ones with a track record. They can help you find your strength within.

If I were going to learn how to play poker. I would not try to learn it from somebody who won because they were dealt a winning hand. I would look to somebody who gets mediocre hands, then continues to play and win. There is a better bet that they know what they are doing.

I remember a gentleman where I was working several years ago who made a huge profit playing the stock market. He ended up making several tens of thousands of dollars. Pretty soon, he was the toast of the water fountain. People were going to him for advice. And he was happy to offer his opinions. At least 3 of his colleagues decided he was the man, and invested based on his recommendations. They all lost. Now they don't go near the stock market. Just as well. A little while later, I found out that the winner guy had lost his investment, too. Apparently, he didn't cash out on time. Ah, well. C'est la guerre!

It's all the same thing. They went to a handsome man to tell them how attract girls. And, as usual, the handsome guy had all kinds of advice. But he didn't know squat.

They probably should have gone to a plain guy.

Not just any plain guy.

A plain guy with a track record for success.

Or a plain girl.

Spread the word.

[Note: I made a small change to the text above in order to avoid unintentionally saying something hurtful. The substance of my message has not been changed.]

Advice on Seeking Advice on Meeting Women

2005-12-29T20:34:00.000-08:00

Speaking of women and relationships,

Boys pay more attention to pretty girls than plain ones. Girls pay more attention to the pretty boys than plain ones. It's not right, but pretty people get special treatment. It's not right, but everybody knows it's true.

Personally, I am one of the plain ones. (Boys that is.) I have never gotten a lot of special treatment because of my looks. That's okay, though. I make up for it in other ways.

And, what's really important, is that I have married up in the world. I married a woman who is, properly speaking, better than I shoulded have dared to hope for, given my plainness.

So, this post is for you dumb, plain, lonely guys out there. The me's of the world. If you are looking for advice on how to meet and get into a relationship with a nice woman...don't waste your time asking the good looking guys. I know it's tempting. Especially when you see how confident they are with the women. And how so many women fawn over them.

Because that is just stupid. All too often, the only thing the good looking guy with the trophy girlfriend really knows about getting together with women is that you should start by being good looking.

If you want good advice, look around til you see that homely guy with a girlfriend (or wife) who seems to completely outclass him. Look for the couples that make you think why is that goddess going with that lowly dude? Then go and ask him what his secret is. Sure as shootin', that boy knows something about women.

That's what I did. And I ended up with a woman who is wa-a-a-y too good for me.

And that is exactly what every man should aim for in a marriage.

Spread the word. 'Night.

Deborah Tannen was right: I Just Didn't Understand

2005-12-26T20:01:00.000-08:00

The Language Guy recently posted a blog entitled Language and Women's Place (A Personal Blog)

In it, he mentions a book by a linguist named Deborah Tannen. Her book "You Just Don't Understand" was a real eye opener for me. She discusses how many baffling communication difficulties between the sexes can be made sense of when seen in the light of cultural differences. I have found her approach to be immensely practical in my life. And downright enlightening.

My first wife and I experienced a lot of mutual frustration in how we spoke to each other. She had many times accused me of behaving very badly towards her in our communications. She was right. I admitted it and tried very hard to correct my failures. Unfortunately, no matter how hard I tried, and no matter how much progress I thought I had made, she still seemed to end up frustrated and angry with me.

I must point out that she was a very intelligent and understanding woman, not to mention an attractive one. But sometimes, no matter how I tried to make things right, they just seemed to go south. And of course, I got frustrated because I couldn't understand how my best efforts at improving never seemed to be acknowledged.

One particular example stands out for me. It was a negotiation that kept getting worse and worse, the harder I tried to make it better.

Some buddies of mine and I had been talking about going on a weekend hunting trip. [I should digress to explain that I actually have never killed an animal larger than a bug in my life, and probably never will. To be honest, I don't think that any of us were really serious about actually hunting. I suspect we all just wanted to convince ourselves that we were the kind of guys who like to hang out in a camp and act like a bunch of orangutans. At most, this was just a pretext for a goofy male bonding thing.]

Anyway, a bit later I happily announced to my wife that I wanted to take off in a few weeks to go on the trip. It was going to be a weekend exclusively for the guys. Her reply: "Okay, when do we go?"

Huh?!

I explained to her again--slowly this time--that this was to be a guys-only weekend.

She listened politely, then said, "Uh-huh. So when do we go?".

At this point, I must have thought she was pulling my leg. I re-explained it again. And again. Eventually, it dawned on me...she wasn't kidding.

To make matters worse, she started to get angry with me! That was weird, because I had been daring to think that I might be the aggrieved party. Anyway, I began to understand that she didn't think it was fair for me to go to this event without her. I didn't get it. It wasn't like I was in the habit of taking off for days at a time. I had never really asked to do anything like this before. On the other hand, I had always encouraged her to feel free to do whatever she wants, if and when she wanted. So, it didn't seem to me as if I was being remotely unfair.

So, I nicely pointed out that this was, in fact, perfectly fair. I explained very logically how she was free to go off with the girls whenever she wanted to. I really didn't mind if she wanted to go do her own thing.

Now this is the point where things really started to fall apart. She started getting really mad. My request was just so unfair! She could scarcely believe how I could be so selfish! The more I explained the logic of how it was completely fair because she was free to act just as independently--I really didn't care if she went off to do things without me--the madder she got.

I couldn't make any sense out of that conversation. I had tried to prove that I was treating her as an equal. I wasn't trying to put anything over on her: I didn't expect any to get any privilege that I wasn't willing to let her have. But the more I tried to show the logic of fairness, the more I was accused of being unfair to her.

I walked away feeling like I had been whacked over the head with a two-by-four. This was a fight I totally didn't see coming. And it wouldn't have helped if I did see it coming because I had no idea how to defend myself. I tried to block from the left, and she'd give me the ol' whoop-dee-doo from the right. I'd block to the right, and she'd whack me with an uppercut.

Now I realize it may seem as if I am painting her to be illogical, or difficult, so I want to point out that, I have never considered my first wife to be a shrew. Whatever differences we had, I have always seen her a warm, understanding woman of high intelligence. Nor was she in the habit of refusing to let me have fun. I might also add that it wasn't about me taking off and leaving her with the housework. We didn't even have children.

Anyway, there had been a number of other mutual frustrations centering around communication issues. Needless to say, within a couple of years, our marriage was over. It was not a terribly acrimonious ending, but communication problems were definitely a contributing factor.

Although the hunting weekend episode was not really a huge deal in itself, I never forgot it. I never forgot the complete befuddlement I felt about how things only got worse the more I tried to make them right. And when I tried to carefully explain things in my best most seemingly self-evident, most sweet and considerate logic, it all just kind of blew up in my face. It was a bitter puzzle that I had not been able to make sense of. It was a sore scab of a memory that taught me to be just a bit more nervous about women.

Then, a few years later, while living in another town, I happed upon Deborah Tannen's book. And to this day, I can remember a point at which something finally made sense to me.

I just started laughing.

At last, I thought, I might just understand what had happened. Too late for that marriage, to be sure. But at least it started to make some sense now. And maybe women did, too.

You know, it has been a long time since I actually read "You Just Don't Understand". I've given the book to friends. But it has been a long time since I cracked the pages.

I mention that because it's possible that I have distorted her message over time. With that in mind, let me say that the way I understand what Tannen was saying is this: Often, men and women are like speakers from different cultures. We can have conversations that are ostensibly about the same thing, but we each carry such deeply held assumptions about things--our priorities, our values, our fears--that we interpret things so very differently. So that huge portions of our communications--and our arguments--are actually at cross purposes. And a lot of our conflicts could be avoided if each of us could be more cognizant of the other's culture.

If I have misrepresented her in any way, I apologize. And I take the blame. (Say, why don't you just get her book and read it for yourself?).

Anyway, I recently encountered a quote from Deborah Tannen that seems to me to sum up the understanding that made me laugh so heartily--and with such relief--the day I read her book. It goes something like this:

"For males, conversation is the way you negotiate your status in the group and keep people from pushing you around; you use talk to preserve your independence. Females, on the other hand, use conversation to negotiate closeness and intimacy..."

I don't know if I can explain what made me laugh in a way that will make you laugh, but I wish I could. What made me laugh was that I was trying so hard--so blindly--to show her that was being fair because I was not pushing her around. I was trying to show that I was not getting anything over on her. I was trying to prove that I was treating her as my equal because I expected no privilege for myself that I did not also expect her to enjoy as well. I was trying to show that I was not abusing her status. But, it just so happened that my way of doing that was by telling her that she could go off by herself--we could each go off by ourselves--and I didn't care.

Do you see what I found so funny? So...ironic? Is that the right word?

I think she was looking at the same situation and feeling that I was trampling on her status. Because to her--in that situation--her status was measured in terms of closeness and intimacy. And every time that I tried to show that I was treating her as my equal, I was telling her that our closeness was not important to me. So, I was trampling on her status.

And, as I read and laughed, I remembered that she had been complaining about how I had seemed distant from her. This did not seem like a big deal to me. I did like to have time to myself. I am prone to being distracted. In my mind, it was not a measure of my love for somebody. In retrospect though, I think it must have been a big humiliating deal to her. I can only imagine that that fight was about my failing to treat her like an intimate. About treating her with disrespect--by (yet again) making her an outsider.

There was more to this matter than I can relate in a single post. I think there were conversations with friends about my apparent lack of intimacy. I think this might not have even been an issue without the background of other behaviors. But I did not see myself as unloving. Or cruel. I just didn't understand what mattered.

That marriage is gone. But there is nothing to regret. Today, I have found another way of relating to women. I make no pretense that this example is true of all women, or true of any one woman all the time. Not even my first wife. But it seems to me that it is true of something. And knowing that truth seems to help.

The moral: Open your eyes. Your logic may not be all there is. There can be more than one way of seeing things. Look across the cultures. Who knows what you will see.

Spread the word.

Skull of Nicolas Copernicus Unearthed?

2005-12-15T19:38:00.000-08:00

Seems they may have found the skull of my namesake.

Which reminds me that I haven't posted the least little thing about the original Copernicus.

What is it about Nicolas Copernicus that made me adopt his name for my blog persona? If truth be told, I am not really sure. It was partly whimsy, I suppose. I never really thought a great deal about Copernicus, but perhaps somewhere in the back of my mind, I held him in high esteem without being particularly conscious of it. It was only after adopting his name that I realized that I consider him something of a hero. I don't have many heros.

Copernicus -- the original Copernicus -- seems to symbolize many virtues. He was a smasher of the collective ego. He helped us look away from the us-centric view of the universe, and in doing so, brought us a new kind of freedom. He also helped usher in new habits of thinking. And paved the way for many greats to follow, like Galileo and Newton.

I think these virtues are what attracted me to using his name. They represented qualities that I wanted to see shine through my blog. His virtues are the adopted virtues of my persona. My interest was not so much the universe "out there", but the universe "in here". The final frontier.

I have found that the time I spent writing under the name of Copernicus has been good for me. Copernicus is my persona. He is not me. He is better than me. But somehow, trying to fit into his mask has been mostly beneficial to me. In using that name, I have mostly felt compelled to try to be a bit better human. I have cared more. I have thought and felt more.

I bear no illusions as to my goodness. As I said, I am not Copernicus. Copernicus is a persona founded on a legend. The real me is just another part-time asshole. Just like you. [Sorry, if I seem presumptuous in saying that. But I am hoping we know each other well enough not to get offended over small truths. Perhaps, by now, we might even revel in them.]

I am going to sign off for tongith, but if you happen on any especially interesting Copernicus sites, please let me know.

Rethinking people

2005-11-18T19:53:00.000-08:00

Periodically, it dawns on me to rethink people. Particularly people whom I have decided to either dislike or disparage.

I spend too many waking hours implicitly supposing that I am a great judge of other people. That my opinions are so well thought out I don't have to question them.

The truth is, most people whom I have decided to think less of are probably just as good, and possibly even better than I. Even if they do have the fault(s) that I attribute to them, so what? I am a part-time asshole, and plenty of people respect me anyway. Why can't I let other people be assholes at least part of the time without supposing that is all there is to know about them.

So, for awhile -- at least until I forget and start to re-believe that I am a great judge of my neighbors and coworkers -- I will try to look at these people with new eyes. Maybe I will learn something good about them.

Tomorrow is a new day. Spread the word.

My Spider Dream

2005-11-17T20:20:00.000-08:00

When I first moved to this city, 17 years ago, I lived in a slummy apartment in the downtown area. It was both a stressful and an exhilirating time as I was in a new and vibrant place, where there was a whole world of potential, but where I was also unsure of what would come next.

I will never forget waking up suddenly in that disgusting excuse for an apartment one afternoon. I had been working nights, and I woke up in a cold sweat, with my heart pounding in abject fear. I had just dreamt of a huge seeming spider, right up close in front of my eyes.

The fear was so intense, that it took me several minutes to get a grip on myself. I remember muttering to myself, sweating, shaken. It turned out to be a good moment.

I have never been particularly afraid of spiders, as far as I can remember. So it shocked me to think how thoroughly that dream had jolted my system.

I couldn't stop thinking about it for awhile, wondering how I was could have been so vulnerable to such intense fear. Such sudden, almost debilitating fear.

And as I thought about it, I had a realization about my life. About so many other things that I have feared, or let stress me out. I realized that when I was dreaming about the spider, I was dreaming about it being close up before my eyes.

That was what frightened me. I dreamt about it up close. I magnified it. I realized that I had magnified the spider in my mind by dreaming of it up so close. When I thought about the reality, it occurred to me that I am probably at least one thousand times bigger than that spider. But naturally, if I am going to imagine it a few inches away from my eyeballs, it is going to seem like it's huge and threatening. And my limbic system...my amygdala...my primitive brain...are going to do what they do best and freak out at the image.

It was after that that I started right-sizing spiders. More importantly, I realized in the most concrete way, that I have to take responsibility for how I represent things in my own mind, or I risk stressing myself for nothing.

I still get stressed. Pretty often, really. But I have found that the lesson I pulled from my spider dream has helped me get a lot of my stressors under control. And now, when I dream of spiders, I make a special point of not dreaming of them up so close to my eyes.

Maybe my spider dream will help you, or maybe it could help somebody else. Anyway, right-size your spiders. Spread the word.

(PS: Does anybody know how many times smaller the average spider is than the average human?)

Did I say changing my posting habits? What I meant was...

2005-11-16T19:25:00.000-08:00

Did I say changing my posting habits?

What I meant was changing my sleeping habits. At some point in my life, I got in the habit of trying to get a bit more done, or having a bit more time to myself. And when I got that habit, I got out of the habit of getting a proper night's sleep.

Now that I think of it, I wonder how much I...how much we...spend our time walking around impaired by our lack of proper sleep.

Do you find yourself going through your day feeling that if you had just gotten a bit more rest the night before, you might be able to think a bit more clearly? Do you wonder if you had more rest that you could be a bit calmer? Or more attentive to others?

I do. And, by gully, I'm gonna try and see if I can improve my life with an extra hour of sleep a night.

Get more sleep. Spread the word.

Changing my posting habits

2005-11-14T20:54:00.000-08:00

Lately, I have been finding it a bit difficult to keep up the posting activity to the levels I would like. My intent was to post daily, but I seem to have underestimated the effort to do this, as well as to stay abreast of so much other great activity in the blogosphere.

The result has been too many sleepless nights, and too little attention paid to my own family and personal affairs. So I have decided to try to go with a reduced number of posts. I apologize for not keeping up, but I do hope by letting some things go, I might be able to do others better.

It's already late, so off to bed I go. Goodnight.

Good Night and Good Luck

2005-11-13T20:05:00.000-08:00

I went to the movie Good Night and Good Luck last night. In case you're not aware, it was the story of the great Edward R. Murrow in his battle to bring down Senator Joseph McCarthy.

I noticed several people leaving. And at the end I heard a young fellow saying loudly to his girlfriend, and anybody else that would listen, that he wanted his money back. The girlfriend seemed to have enjoyed it, however.

Personally, I enjoyed it very much. It guess it helps that I was already at least generally familiar with the story. But I can imagine that a younger person might have difficulty relating to what was going on. And the fact that the film was in black and white would probably have been a turnoff for some. In fairness, the movie probably did need a touch of physical violence and a tad of nudity. Not sure how they overlooked that.

Anyway, it was a very good movie. I certainly consider Edward R. Murrow to be one of the greats of journalism. And I am particularly impressed with his personal courage--not to mention the courage of his team.

I am curious as to how close it was to the facts. Does anybody know?

I am also curious what you think of the movie, if you saw it. And, more importantly, what did you think of Edward R. Murrow, the man? Where do you rate him, in the patheon of journalists?

Neo-Neocon: A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change

2005-11-10T20:13:00.000-08:00

I have been reading Neo-Neocon's series of posts collectively labelled "A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change".

I am fascinated by the sense that strong beliefs are often more about affiliation than about views that have been really carefully examined. What our family believes, what our friends believe, what our neighborhood believes exerts a huge influence on what we believe. That's not news, but when we are locked into our point of view in a debate, we typically don't see it that way. When our view seem so self-evidently true, and the other guy's seems so self-evidently wrong, it may just be that we are drawing on prejudices that dance before us in the guise of reason.

I live in an part of the world that tends a bit to the left. I have in-laws who live in an area that reputedly tends to the right. I consider my in-laws to be very bright, thoughtful and reasonable people. So, it amazes me when they say things that seem so close to the stereotypical views of their part of the world -- things that seem self-evidently wrong when I first hear them. Perhaps if it were somebody I didn't respect so much I would just be dismissive. But knowing them as I do -- as people of considerable intellect and sensitivity to the world -- I can not dismiss them, or their views.

Instead, I am left in fascination. Wondering. Is it possible that so much that I hold to be self-evident is just an illusion? Are my so so reasonable opinions nothing but prejudice? Am I just a product of my town, my newspaper, and my television? Are they my mind?

Is it the same for the in-laws?

When was the last time you or I really challenged something that you believe to be self-evidently true, or self-evidently good?

When you read this, do yourself a favor and try challenging yourself in this way.

Whatever your political leanings, I suggest you visit her site and check out the posts. You can find them on the sidebar on the right of her blog.

I am just reading her writings bit by bit, so please, nobody tell me how it ends.

What is my religion?

2005-11-08T19:59:00.000-08:00

What is my religion

But everything I do,
And everything I say?

The Neo-Copernicus Award

2005-11-05T17:53:00.000-08:00

Announcing the Neo-Copernicus Award!!

This is still in the mulling-over stage -- maybe this really is too crazy an idea -- but I would like to propose a contest to see who can make the best theories.

The categories would be:

1) Best Alternative to Evolution.
2) Best Intelligent Design variation.
3) Best Plan to Quantify God.

In each of these 3 categories, there would be awards for:
A) Best Science
B) Best humor
C) Best crackpot

Is this too crazy? Or does it interest you? Would you like to get involved?

If so, I think I would definitely need other people -- the more the merrier -- involved in organizing and running it. Don't worry if you don't know what you would do. I sure don't.

In hopes of getting the thinking started, I came up with some general categories (by header only) that would need to be thought through and discussed. They would include:

-Name of awards? Do we need a better name?
-Categories? Should we modify the categories?
-Scope? Do we make it elaborate, or quite simple? Classy or cheesy?
-Prizes?
-Legal concerns?
-Rules?
-Hosting? (New blog -- jointly managed?)
-Response volumes? If very high?
-Commenting?
-Judging?
-Storage?
-Collaborators?
-Promo?
-Repeat?
-Time?
-Costs?
-Benefits?
-Competition?

Anyway, drop a comment to tell me what you think. Bad idea. Good idea. You're on your own, freak. I'm excited, sign me up right now. I already have a theory. Etc.

Your comments will be greatly appreciated. And don't worry about hurting my feelings. I have a 1000 dumb ideas before breakfast each morning. (Well actually, my breakfast usually ends up around 3 pm because I am so busy having dumb ideas). But every once in awhile I get a keeper. So tell me what you think.

Ice Cream and the City.

2005-11-04T18:32:00.000-08:00

I wonder how many people have successfully changed a habit that they didn't like, or deliberately set out to acquire a new one that they wanted.

I used to hate doing dishes. When I was young and single I would leave them for weeks. The mould in the air did wonders for my immunite system. Isn't mould where penicillin comes from?

Being a lazy slob didn't seem to hurt my chances with the girls. But once I got into my first long term live-in relationship, I discovered to my dismay that my boyishly bad dishwashing habits quickly lost their charming effect on my main girl. (Women can be so fickle.) In order to keep the peace, I tried to make myself do my share of the dishes, but I would just forget. A guy's perogative, right? Wrong!

Anyway, this was the source of a lot of interpersonal friction with my girl. Unfortunately, it was not the kind of interpersonal friction that I would have liked. I would keep trying to make myself do them, but I would keep forgetting. Consequence: more friction.

To make a long story short, I had to figure a way to get myself to do the dishes regularly. Before I got turfed out.

After awhile, I came up with a solution -- ice cream!

I loved ice cream. (Still do.) So, I started giving myself an ice cream reward immediately after I washed the dishes. It was good old fashioned behavior modification.

Pretty soon, I was washing dishes morning, noon and night. There was more interpersonal friction -- but this time it was the kind a boy craves. So, I was getting pretty motivated. It wasn't long before, as soon as I saw a dirty dish, I would start to salivate.

And get erect.

Anyway, I was sure I was on to something. I had discovered the secret of self-control. It was rather exciting. I was still in my early twenties and I had figured out the secret to getting myself to doing things I didn't like. And boy was it fun! Then I started getting big ideas. I started planning how to change myself from the underachieving schlep that I had become, to a super-overachiever. All I had to do was find rewards I liked and administer them.

There were some ups and downs, however. After a couple of months, something stopped working. Quite against my will, I started losing the desire for ice cream. And my dishwashing was being taken for granted by the person in charge, so that kind of tapered off too. And bit by bit, my dishwashing habit started to wane.

Sigh.

I got a bit depressed with myself. I had found the great secret, but then seemed to lose it. It all just evaporated! Everything had been going so well.

Fast forward a few years. My number one girl was now my number one ex-girl. And I had moved hundreds of miles away to the big city. I was living by myself in a slum, and feeling pretty slummy.

The place was a mess. Nobody was doing the dishes. Again. Then y'know what. Through a chance encounter, I was reintroduced to my former love. Ice cream!! And you know what else? She had made herself more desirable and sexier than ever. Absence truly had made the heart grow fonder. I had discovered Haagen Daz. At first, I just indulged.

But after a short while, I remembered my experiment. I was tired of living the way I was. Tired of the slob in the mirror. Tired of the penicillin. So I made a decision to once again to take ice cream as a reward for doing dishes. And pretty soon...I was doing dishes morning, noon and night. Ah, love!!

Anyway, it's many, many years later. I am somewhat balder, and I have a little paunch. I live in a cold country where it's winter for years on end. But I am comfortable because I have the same extra layer of fat that keeps arctic animals warm in the cold. I don't actually see any of those arctic animals -- I live in the city, remember.

Anyway, my life did take a turn for the better. My dishwashing habit stuck this time. I even used rewards to change a few other behaviours. I moved up a bit in life.

And best of all, I met and married my only other true love. She seems not to mind my shortcomings. And I think she appreciates how fond I am of doing the dishes.

Reply to Kelly's post on Epistemology

2005-11-03T20:41:00.000-08:00

Please refer to Kelly's post Pluralism: The Solution to the ID Debate?

[This post is actually a reply to an interesting proposal by Kelly on his blog. Supposedly, I am doing this because there is a bit of a technical problem interfering with the display on his page. Actually, I just spent so much time writing this, that I wanted to kill two birds with one stone by getting my comment and my post in at the same time.]

Very interesting post, Kelly! You may be onto something.

Here is my recent train of thought:

Euclid's book, the Elements, introduced a system of geometry from which he deduced the properties of geometric objects from a set of only 5 postulates. He had invented a method of proving numerous truths about geometry and numbers that rocked the world. What was truly fascinating about his achievement was how he proved so many theorems (things proved) from such a small number of postulates or axioms.

His method was so nifty -- so frikkin' cool -- it inspired both geniuses and crackpots throughout the ages to use it as the model for almost any endeavor that required deductive reasoning, or the creation of proofs.

Today, modern math and logic make extensive use of the axiomatic system to prove whatever it is that they are concerned with proving. Informal logic is also heavily influenced by Euclid's great idea.

Euclid's idea was so impressive, that people tried to apply it to just about every area of human reasoning. Sometimes with absurd results. Several years ago, I encountered a book in a public library that was written in the 1800's (I think), and purported to teach chess as an axiomatic system. As far as I could tell, the book was complete nonsense.

The problem with incredibly brilliant ideas that rock the world, however, is that people don't often see their limitations. Sometimes for centuries -- or even millenia. They introduce notions that may become so pervasive, so much a part of our basic assumptions about reality, that we don't even notice them, let alone question them.

And that is what happened when people became so enamored with the axiomatic system. They thought it should be able to prove everything. All you had to do was to find the right basic set of axioms, and apply the right reasoning, and eventually you could prove all the truths in the system.

This idea was so pervasive, that it permeated virtually all of Western philosophy and science. [Okay, you should call me on this last statement.] And so did the fallacy that any truth should be provable if you just had the right axioms and the right method. Of course, there were always paradoxes and weirdities that occured in every tightly expressed logic or mathematical system. Like Bertrand Russell and a paradox involving the logic of classes. I just remember it had something to do with a class of all classes. I'm too tired think it through, so you can look it up yourself, if you want.

Anyway, as far as I remember learning it, Russell set out to try to resolve all the paradoxes. He hoped to come up with a complete little axiomatic system that resolved all paradoxes, and could prove all the truths of the system. He ended up producing the massive Principia Mathematica (with Alfred North Whitehead), which managed to avoid many paradoxes and problems of logic. It was a huge effort. But it was incomplete.

But he must have felt rather disappointed when Kurt Goedel came up with a proof that showed a that Russel never could have accomplished some of the goals that it aimed to do. He proved that it is impossible for any logic system (of a non-trivial size) to eliminate all paradoxes. He also showed that no logic system could be complete based on a limited number of axioms. There would always we truths that could not be proven from the axioms. If you wanted to prove them, you would have to increase the axioms. But then you will just get more paradoxes and more truths that are known to exist, but can not be proven.

And in one fell swoop, he knocked down some of the key assumptions driving western logic systems for the previous 2000+ years. In my opinion, it was a feat at least as important as Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

The problem is, that so many people didn't get the memo.

What does this have to do with anything? Well, it seems to me that this relates to the ID vs Evolution debate, epistimology, and whatever else you want to throw into the mix. (I am getting very, very sleeeepy).

It's the problem of there always being truths out there that can not be proven. We may know that there are such truths. We may suspect we know which truths they are. But we can not use deduction from any finite set of known axioms, or already proved things, to prove that they are true. So, if I understand Godel correctly (and I very well may not), it seems to me that there will always be these gaps in what the Scientific Method can and can't prove. (By the way, I should add that, because of Godel's proof, it does not seem to be a valid criticism of any theory that there are truths that it can not prove.)

But just as important, we have to ask the question, if it is proved that there will always be truths that the Scientific Method can not prove, then what options are open to us? Is religion the appropriate method for finding those truths?

I don't know. I guess that's a question to be answered in Kelly's epistemology class.

Disclaimer -- I make no pretense of having doublechecked any of the above facts, or even having thought my conclusions and interpretations over in any detail. Please feel free to correct me if you have better knowledge than I.

Good Night Message

2005-11-02T20:00:00.000-08:00

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is now 10:55 pm and the Internet will be closing in 5 minutes.

Please take your purchases to the check-out counter where our cashiers will be happy to serve you.

Don't forget to present your Internet Reward card for Internet bonus points, redeemable for special prizes at any participating Internet outlet.

We thank you for your patronage and we hope you will come back soon.

Good night and best wishes,

From the all staff here at the Internet.

Scientific Method

2005-11-01T20:11:00.000-08:00

[A castle scene near the end of the middle ages. A terrified rabble gathers within the confines of the castle:

A peasant voice from within the rabble: Aaahhh!! The barbarians are at the gates!!! They are ignorant and don't wash. They will burst down the castle walls and swallow us! They will plunge us back into a new dark age! They will steal our children!! We will be consumed by the madness! We will all perish in the night!! Aaaaaaaaagh!!!

Suddenly, Copernicus, the great voice of reason, leaps up from the rabble onto some stairs where he can be seen by one and all:

Copernicus: Citizens! Hear me, I beg you. Heed these words of wisdom. The enemy is indeed at the gate. It is the Theory of Evolution they want to destroy. If we fight them, we will surely be overrun. They will show neither mercy nor reason. My counsel to you is thus: Screw the Theory of Evolution. Let us throw it out the gate to defend itself. Then perhaps the huns and zombies will eat it and leave the rest of us alone.

Another voice from the rabble: Yeah! Copernicus speaks well!! Screw the Theory of Evolution. Let's save ourselves!!...]

Is it possible too much is being made of the theory of evolution being under attack? Are we a bit too panicky? Are we a bit too protective?

And is it the theory of evolution that we need to worry about anyway? Or is it the scientific method?

Should we be worried that the flaws in the theory of evolution may be showing?
Should we be worried that some people might be tempted to believe in all manner of nonsense because they found out there are gaps in the theory of evolution?

Or do we really just lack confidence in our ability to teach the theory of the scientific method?

My view? Science isn't this theory or that theory. It's not the truths that we think we have found. It's not the falsehoods that we think we have exposed. It's the scientific method itself.

We shouldn't worry too much about the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution can stand by itself. If not, the theory of evolution should fall. If the barbarians come to destroy the theory of evolution, let them try. Push the theory of evolution out the front gates. It's supposed to be our champion. Let it do what champions do.

It's the castle that matters. The castle is the Theory of the Scientific Method. And the Theory of the Scientific Method did not become strong by hiding its flaws. It was not made strong by backing down from the challenges of the barbarians. It was made strong because of those challenges. If the barbarians could knock down a wall, a better one had to be built. If they killed our champion, we had to get a better champion.

For centuries, the barbarians have done more to build the castle than the people within.

What do you think?

Objectivity

2005-10-31T21:20:00.000-08:00

There are people out there who seem to lack objectivity. It appears they want to foist their agendas upon the whole world.

We are afraid they aim to hijack reason and brainwash our children.

We need to fix our own objectivity problems before we worry about them. We need to do it for ourselves so we can teach our children to do the same. If we do that, our own objectivity, and our children's minds, will be unassailable.

Meta-thoughts on the Intelligent Design discussion

2005-10-29T09:47:00.000-07:00

Kelly's post on Intelligent Design:

I have been trying to find time to react to Kelly's post on Intelligent Design. As I mentioned in my previous blog, I am not terribly up-to-date on all the arguments on either side of the debate. I did spend a few minutes in the local bookstore looking for some material on ID, but I didn't see anything.

I can not pretend total ignorance, however. I have not been living in a bottle for that many years. The truth is I have encountered some of the issues before, but did not take the time to inform myself about the details. Due to a lack of free time, I will have to more or less confine my scope to whatever has already been discussed in Kelly's post.

What I would like to do in this post:

What I would like to do in this post, is to think aloud, so to speak, as I sidle up to the issues. I don't pretend to be a great thinker, or that I think any better than anybody else. But I do believe that one way blogging can serve the planet is by opening up our thinking processes -- so that we can learn how each other thinks. So we can see people trying to improve their thinking. So we can practice together, and learn by example. Of course, this means that I am open to suggestions about my own thinking process.

Please be mindful that this will be artificially long and ponderous, as I am trying to explain my thinking in writing.

I would like to do 3 main things in this post:

First, I would like to explore my own biases, beliefs, pet notions, ignorances, predispositions and fears. These are all components of everybody's thinking, and they all play necessary roles in the thinking process. But they can also become the sources of much of our stupidity and intellectual arrogance, when we take them for granted.

Second, I would like to follow up with a look at the structure of the known arguments to try to identify what the crucial arguments are, which arguments play a subordinate role, and which may not even be that important. Actually, Kelly has really already broken it down pretty nicely for us, so there should not really be much for us to do. Still, I would like to take a shot because I think it is a worthwhile exercise.

Third, I would like to extract any conclusions, arguments, questions, or just anything I might want to follow up on.

My biases, fears, beliefs, ignorances and predispositions:

My overall bias is towards the notion that Intelligent Design should not be taught in schools.

I was thinking about it the other day, when I realized that, from the outset, I have a nagging sense of fear that somehow a successful ID campaign might lead to religious fundamentalists overrunning the protective walls of secularity, causing our youth to succumb an agenda of scarcely disguised religiosity, and retarding free thought everywhere. (When I hold it up to the light of day, that does seem a bit exaggerated.) All this to say that I do have biases, and I have to stay alert to that fact.

I am open to certain traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith-based notions about religion, such as monotheism, but not others. I have no interest in being affiliated with any formal synagogue, church or mosque, any denominations, or sects. The supernatural aspects of religion are not really of interest to me. For the most part, I see them as quite beside the point.

I am predisposed to think that any attempt to suppose that the Bible must be literally true is misguided. I can accept that parts of some Biblical stories have historical value. I might be receptive to some views that hold the Biblical creation story to be true, but only in a very abstract way. But I am not predisposed to subscribe to any attempt to treat the Biblical creation story as literally true. I am also predisposed to consider the existence, or non-existence, of God to be a matter of faith, and not even remotely likely to ever be determinable by science.

I have a strong attachment to the notion of a secular society. I think religions profit from this as much as those who are not religious.

I do not see much merit in believing just because one's parents, or one's community, believes it. Or because there is a punishment for not believing it.

I am willing to entertain notions that might be considered of the same ilk as Intelligent Design -- up to a point. I do not see it as problematic to posit the existence of a creator who allows randomness, natural selection and evolution to do the work. However, I am predisposed to think this is quite unprovable (and un-disprovable), and therefore useless as science.

I have a layman's knowledge of science. Maybe slightly better than average. But there are huge gaps in my knowledge.

I have a layman's knowledge of the Bible. Maybe slightly better than average. But there are huge gaps in my knowledge. One of my main sources of understanding is "Asimov's Guide to the Bible", written by Isaac Asimov in the late 60's, that discuss the historicity of the Old and New Testaments.

It occurred to me recently that my attachment to science and reason may be more attributable to faith than to first-hand experience with science. On the one hand, I do know the outlines of what is popularly known about science. But I really know very little of issues where science falls short. I mostly just know that such areas exist, and I have been content to trust that somehow they will be resolved. Or somehow, it's okay. I also can't think of many places where I really practice using scientific methods in depth. So, I must admit I do accept many generalities about science on faith.

Intermediate conclusion:

So, I have now identified what I think are the main things that may limit my ability to really learn in any discussion about Intelligent Design:

I am definitely starting from the position of being biased against the introduction of Intelligent Design into the schools. But at least part of that bias is rooted in a fearful mental image that deserves to be questioned. Another part of that bias may arise from my earlier negative estimations of fundamentalist religion.

On the other hand, I am not opposed to a belief in a deity, and I do not necessarily feel the need to dispute all possible formulations of Intelligent Design. If one were to suggest the existence of a God-creator that simply uses evolution as the mechanism through which he-she-it brings his-her-its creatures into existence, then I do not have an immediate problem with that, though I do not assign it any truth value from a scientific standpoint.

Particularly shocking, to me, was the realization that my belief in science may be as much a matter of faith as anything else.

Figuring out what's important in the argument:

My next step would be to review the structure of the Intelligent Design arguments, then try to decide which points are of primary importance, which are subordinate, and which are not necessary. (In the past I have wasted time and effort dickering about side issues.)

I would like to reiterate that, for practical reasons, I am only going to use Kelly's post as my source of infomation. The fact of the matter is that Kelly has already predigested everything for us through his own analysis and presentation of the issues. Nonetheless, I think it is worthwhile to go through this exercise.

Something to bear in mind is that Kelly acknowledges that he does not personally favor ID. That said, he seems to do a good job of working their case.

I hope Kelly won't mind if I plagiarize his 4 point summary of the main premisses and conclusion of the ID argument as to why ID should be included in schools (click on the link to see his whole post):

Intelligent Design (or ID) is a hot topic these days. For those not in the know, the basic premises are these:
1. Evolution is only a theory, and is not proven
2. There are many holes in the theory of evolution
3. ID resolves this problem by positing that some intelligent force is at work in the evolutionary process, or that evolution is false entirely and that species are the work of some intelligent force.
4. Therefore ID should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes

He certainly has made our work easy. Point #4 -- the conclusion -- is what it's all about. The argument is about whether or not ID should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes. The argument as to whether or not ID is valid or true is secondary, for example.

When you play baseball, you're supposed to keep your eye on the ball. If you take your eye off the ball, it'll go whizzing right past you. Likewise, you should keep your eye on the conclusion because that is what matters here. All the other points -- the premisses -- are there to presumably support that conclusion.

But there is more to it than just the explicit premisses. All three premisses might be true, and the conclusion remain false. That's because there is an implied premiss that says something "IF 1 is true AND 2 is true AND 3 is true THEN 4 must be true."

Anyway, the obvious main lines for arguing against ID (assuming we accept Kelly's summarized version of the argument) would be to prove something like one of the following:

1. Evolution is not just a theory,
OR
2. There are not many holes in the theory of evolution,
OR
3. ID does not resolve the (so-called) holes,
OR
4. Even if 1, 2 and 3 were true, that would not warrant that ID should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes,
OR
5. One or more of the (pro-ID) premisses is irrelevant, dishonest or in some way improperly conceived,
OR
6. Some variation or combination of the above.

I would like to point out that each of these lines of argument would probably entail many deeper sub-arguments. For example, to argue that ID does not resolve the (so-called) holes, would probably entail wading through a lot of sub-examples/premisses in order to prove whether or not it does resolve the issues. Premiss 3 may be a premiss with respect to conclusion 4 in Kelly's argument summary, but it is a conclusion in its own right, with its own premisses. Those premisses are not stated here, but if you attack premiss 3, you will most likely have to deal with the premisses and examples that support it.

One mistake I have made innumerable times in the past, is to not clearly see what the main lines of argument should be, and to jump around from one line of argument to another. As with driving and coloriing, it is often better to stay within the lines.

Another problem I encountered was when I felt I had (more or less) successfully attacked some set of sub-arguments only to find I could not make the leap to destroying the conclusion of the subarguments -- premiss to the main argument -- without resorting to a feeble generalization.

As an example of this last folly, suppose a pro-ID debater were to advance the example argument that lungs and eyes could not have evolved through natural selection, but could be explained if God created them as is. This would be a support to their intended conclusion that ID resolves the many holes in Evolution. The problem may be that, even if the anti-ID debater were to successfully fend off that particular argument -- followed by 10 just like it -- they still might have a long way to go. It doesn't necessarily follow that if you successfully refute any 10 examples that you may therefore assert that you have thereby refuted the conclusion they were in support of. It may seem obvious to you that if you refuted 10 examples in a row, that all their examples are refutable, but nobody has to accept that.

In my own case, there have been times when the other guy would not acknowledge my right to claim that I had proved the generalization, so I got frustrated and tried to blame them for being unreasonable.

Kelly discussed 3 main arguments commonly used to try to refute the 4-point ID argument. They were summarized as:
A. Intelligent Design is just a subterfuge for teaching religion in public schools
B. If Intelligent Design is taught in public schools, then you will have to teach any and all ideas, even crackpot ones, and
C. Intelligent Design is not scientific.

I'll call them Refutations A, B anc C.

Refutation A primarily argues a variation of the anti-ID argument line that read,
"Even if 1, 2 and 3 were true, that would not warrant that ID should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes". It's a variation because it seems to entail the presupposition that ID fails to resolve the holes of evolution.

Refutation B Seems to touch the same lines of argument as refutation A.

Refutation C. Seems to be a variation of the anti-ID line of argument that says that "ID does not resolve the (so-called) holes". If it is not scientific, then it can't really be said to resolve the holes in evolutionary theory. [This might also be said to fall under the line of argument "One or more of the (pro-ID) premisses is irrelevant, dishonest, or in some way improperly conceived."]

I won't go into them now, but it seems to me that most of the commentaries up to now have made arguments that are variations of at least one of the 6 main lines of argument available to the anti-ID side that I listed earlier.

Intermediate conclusion:

I have taken a look at the structure of the arguments, but I was forced by time to only focus on the main lines of the anti-ID arguments. Ideally, I would take a deeper look at what the pro-ID arguments would need to prove. That is, deeper than what is stated in Kelly's 4-point summary. At any rate, I consider this to have been a useful exercise.

When I looked at the comments to Kelly's post, I could see that a number of the argument lines were accounted for. For example, there was some discussion of the true nature of scientific theory. Some of these discussion would probably fall under the anti-ID line of arguments "Evolution is not just a theory" in conjunction with "One or more of the (pro-ID) premisses is irrelevant, dishonest or in some way improperly conceived"

I think enough of the anti-ID arguments were accounted for that I don't really feel I will add much if I wade in. But if I did, I think I would want to stick closer to anti-ID argument lines 1 "Evolution is not just a theory", or 4 "Even if 1, 2 and 3 were true, that would not warrant that ID should be taught alongside evolution in public school science classes". But that would just be for practical reasons: I don't know enough about evolutionary theory to know its shortcomings; and I also wouldn't want to get bogged down in a number of subarguments that I suspect would require me to refute every possible example the pro-ID forces might throw at me.

Final arguments, questions, conclusions and general follow up:

This was a long exercise, but of value to me. Hopefully it was at least interesting in some way, or perhaps even instructive. There is a lot more that I would have liked to achieve, but it requires more time than I can take away from my family.

I think the biggest benefit to me was from examining my biases, fears, beliefs, ignorances, predispositions, etc. I realized that I take science on faith. I also realized that I have what may overreact to the notion of teaching ID in the schools. This doesn't mean that I would go out and vote for it, if I were given such a vote. But it does mean that I might want to explore that in a bit more detail. It's worth noting, that Kelly touched on a similar point in downplaying the negative effects of allowing ID to be taught in the schools.

Up to this point I have focused a lot on the argumentive approach to this whole issue. It crossed my mind that it might be worth exploring the significance, and possible variations of ways in which ID might be taught in the schools that would not bother me. For example, if it were taught in philosophy class, alongside other great philosophies, I probably would not be even thinking about it. It probably is, in many good schools. In general, it is easy to become so focused on the debate as to miss other ways to resolve an issue. Unfortunately, this is something I can not explore in depth at this time because of time constraints. (It's getting late, and I have to work tomorrow.)

Missing from all of this was a determined representative of the pro-ID side. I am intrigued enough to want to follow up this subject. When I do, I would like to visit a site where the pro-ID people are in the majority.

At any rate, I feel that this was a good exercise for me. There was lots more I had hoped to do, but I will have to cut it short (LOL) at this point.

Good night.

Discussing Intelligent Design

2005-10-28T21:44:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned in my previous post, Full Metal Attorney did a post on Intelligent Design.

In addition to kelly's post, there already have been several very intelligent comments by mr k, alexander, afarensis, and khorbin.

I had hoped to be ready to express my thoughts on and around this subject, but I am running a bit behind, partly owing to the fact that I am not anywhere near as well-versed on the subject as Kelly and the others. My intention, when I am ready, is to do a post here, and to also add a comment or two on kelly's page. At any rate, I will aim for this weekend.

Good night, y'all.

Some sites I have been visiting.

2005-10-27T18:50:00.000-07:00

As you might have guessed from my previous blog, I have been visiting neo-neocon's site.

Her topic seems to be mostly about her views since converting from a liberal to a conservative.

She gets her opinions out and says things that some people would obviously find controversial. Her writing style is quite smooth. I have not yet done the full tour of her blog, but so far I have been finding a number of very challenging discussions.

I look forward to spending some more time there, and recommend that you take a peek, too.

Another site that I have mentioned in the past, and will mention again, is The Language Guy. I mentioned his site in reference to some posts he had done on the abortion issue awhile back. At any rate, I have been haunting his site lately. Not all his posts are quite as controversial as the abortion one, but he consistently brings up language topics that are relevant to the average joe.

I have also been visiting The Stupidity of People. I enjoy the familiarity of wicwit's topics -- and humor -- and would like to blog about them at some point. I think a lot of us could relate to wicwit's experiences.

Of course, I make regular visits to Kelly's site: Full Metal Attorney. Kelly's site is is full of cool things to make you think. One of his posts A Little Low-Brow Humor: Men’s Restroom Etiquette Quiz struck me so funny I almost pissed myself. Did I mention that I like low-brow humor? Anyway, I found it so funny, I had to add my own two cents worth.

I am currently looking forward to Kelly's promised blog on Intelligent Design. That's a subject that I have been hearing a lot about lately, but know very little of.

And, do you suppose mr k, a blogger from across the puddle, whose site -- life is funnier when you're lonely" -- I like to frequent, will be checking out Kelly's intelligent design post? I have a suspicion he doesn't think too highly of ID. But I am betting he will pay a visit.

Anyway, these are just a few of the sites I have been checking out and enjoy. I hope you will give them a try yourself. Enjoy.

What is the first step to winning the war in Iraq?

2005-10-26T21:08:00.000-07:00

What is the first step to winning the war in Iraq?

I was just checking out neo-neocon's post Dinner party politics and how to avoid them. It brings to mind the problem of seeing the other person's point of view.

It's amazing how easily we reach a point where we become convinced the other person's opinions are simply ridiculous. We become convinced too easily that the people-who-believe-what-we-do-not are simply unable, or unwilling to make sense. Or they're just idiots. Who hasn't wanted to resort to "...rapier witticisms meant to slip beneath an opponent's guard and gut him without him ever knowing his ignominous defeat..."?

When I find myself thinking along those lines, it can only mean that I have given up trying to think beyond my opinions.

You may not like what I'm about to say.

Giving up like that is not evidence of the other guy's stupidity. It's evidence of your stupidity. Mine too, when I do it.

I am not saying we have to agree with the other person. It's just that we have to be very slow to brand them as the fool. We have to be very slow to stop trying to see the world as they see it. Often, when we finally do see things as the other guy sees it, we still disagree. But we are changed, too.

There is another reason. Sun Tzu, could tell you. It's important to know how the other guy thinks, whether he is your best friend, or your worst enemy.

Oh yeah, this was a post about the war in Iraq.

I don't know what you think of the war in Iraq. Right now, it doesn't actually matter what either of us think.

Whether you think it is right, or whether you think it is wrong, there is one thing we should all be able to agree on.

We can't really win in any way shape or form, until Americans and Canadians and Europeans -- until Westerners -- have really looked deeply into the minds of Iraqis. And not just of Iraqis, but also of the other players in and around the warzone.

In the meantime, we do not understand anything. We won't until we can see the world through their eyes.

What we do is assume we know something about them. We give up on really trying to understand them. We do. Us. Liberals and Conservatives.

How do I know? Because we can't even really listen to each other without declaring ourselves the winners -- and that the other guy is just an idiot.

So, what is the first step to winning the war in Iraq?

Well, I didn't promise that I knew how to win the war. (Whatever winning means.) But I do know what the first step is. Learning to understand the other guy.

As long as we are not doing that, we are guaranteed to be losing.

Get discipline. Keep listening till it really hurts good. Then when it is too painful, keep on listening. Keep going till you really understood the other guy. Not just till you got tired, you lazy lout.

Discipline starts at home. Spread the word.

It's almost Hallowe'en: What ELSE are you afraid of?

2005-10-25T17:30:00.000-07:00

Sun Tzu said:
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

Knowing yourself starts with knowing your fears. Do you know yourself? Do you know your fears? Do you REALLY know your fears? Tell the truth. You don't have to tell me the truth, but please tell yourself the truth.

The following is a Hallowe'en offering. It's a chance to look within. It's something to take with you and contemplate in the dark. It's something to think about. It's something to modify and make your own, if you see it's value. It's also something to give away to others, if you think they would welcome it.

A Litany of Questions About Fear:

Can I make a thorough list of my fears?
Have I ever really examined my fears?
Do I even know my own fears?
Can I even recognize my fears?
Can I admit my fears to myself?
Do I know my big fears?
Do I know my little fears?
How many of my big fears are just little fears that grew because I didn't deal with them?
Can I see the effect of my little fears?
Do my little fears lead to aversions?
Is my life being subtly directed, or misdirected, by my little fears?
Do I trick myself into avoiding dealing with my little fears through distraction? By seeming to be preoccupied with other things?
Are my little fears the result of trauma? Or are they just the result of habit?
Are my little fears about protecting my ego?
Are my little fears about maintaining my delusions?
Do my little fears make me reactive?
Do my little fears make it hard for me to really listen?
Do my little fears drive me to need to be right?
How do my fears drive my thinking?
How do my fears drive what I say?
How do my fears drive what I do?
Do I use my fears to control myself? Is there another way?
Do I really make a habit of facing my fears?
When will I start to make a practice of facing my fears?
Could I get rid of my fears if I were willing to give up the delusions I cling to?
Do I keep thinking the same kinds of thoughts because of my fears?
Do I need to keep my fears?

Please feel free to suggest improvements, or just tell me what you think.

It's almost Hallowe'en: What are you afraid of?

2005-10-24T20:15:00.000-07:00

What are you afraid of? [Scale of 1 to 10 ---> 10 being very afraid]:

Death
Boredom
Being found out as a phony
Being found out as incompetent
Having to sing in public
Having to dance in public
Having to throw (or catch) a ball in public
Being in a bathing suit in public
Being wrong
Finding out you're not as smart as you thought you are
Finances
Taxes
Losing
Winning
Sex
Loneliness
Unemployment
Silence
Poverty
Embarassment
Responsibility

Didn't find any fears that are interesting? Make your own list. Feel free to tell a story (about your fears), if you have one.

Security

2005-10-22T21:07:00.000-07:00

Back in the mid-eighties, I was in the medical profession. I focused on emergentology. By training, my specialty was neurosecurity.

Well, actually, I was a security guard in a hospital, working for slightly more than minimum wage. But I did spend a lot of time at my post by the emergency ward.

One day, this guy Ralph was with me. He had just been hired. It was his first day on the job and I was showing him the duties in the emergency area.

This particular day, there had just been a "code 99". A code 99 is when the ambulance is coming and the patient's heart has stopped. Our job, when a code 99 was called -- or when any urgent ambulance arrival was expected -- was to try to clear the front driveway of people doing drop-offs so the ambulance could get by, then open the ambulance bay doors. And once the ambulance was in, we would help by opening doors, etc.

[This is just an aside, but do you have any idea how many people refuse to move their vehicles when they are told that an ambulance is coming with a patient in critical condition?]

Anyway, we had just gotten to the emergency area when the ambulance had arrived in its garage. I reached for the knob to the door leading from the garage to the ER area. Just before I could touch the handle, the door swung open fast, and people came pouring through. And so did a gurney with a young man's limp body on it. He was pale and lifeless looking. His eyes were open and blank. And his arms were flopping over to the side. Not even two seconds passed before he was out of sight.

Ralph looked like he was going to barf.

He had probably been on the job for less than an hour and already had seen what I think was his first lifeless body.

Actually, we have no idea if the kid lived or died. But he sure looked dead.

Right at that moment, I was more worried about Ralph. Something in his eyes made me think it had really affected him, shook him.

I had an idea. I continued by taking him on a tour -- to the maternity ward. We just sat there, looking at the babies for awhile. We stayed about 10 or 15 minutes. I don't think either of us spoke. But when it was time to move on, he thanked me. I guess he realized why I went there.

I like Ralph. He was good people.

What I actually wanted to tell you was not about Ralph. It was about something I started to understand when I worked at the hospital.

My oldest brother had died of a brain tumor while I was working there. He had been sick for a few years. He was not a patient of that hospital, but, for me, the events at the hospital, and slow dying of my brother were intertwined. They taught me something.

While working at the hospital -- while my brother was dying -- I came to realize something. Something important.

We are all dying. I was living, at that time, in a town of around 80,000 people. Up to that time, I had only seen about 4 or 5 dead bodies. And I had friends who had never seen any. Or maybe just their grandmother or somebody old. But if 80,000 people lived there, and if I were to live my whole life in that town, and if I should enjoy an average life span, I should expect that around 80,000 of my neighbours would die during my time there.

So where were all the bodies?

Up to that point in my life, death had been a creepy thing. A hidden thing. A thing to fear. Cryptic. A thing that crawls beneath the floor.

But while I worked there -- at the emergency door so much of the time. As I wandered through the wards at night. As I pondered the loss of my own brother. As I heard about one young 20 year old girl who lost her life to asthma because somebody refused to send an ambulance. (That bothered me day and night, wondering who she must have been.) As life and death swirled around in my head. I realized.

A message of hope.

Death is all around us. Death is everywhere. But death is not the problem.

The problem is that we hide it.

That's why we see so little of it. That's why we think it is so creepy. Why we think it is so repulsive. That's why we fear it so much.

We need to know, that all life ends in death. We don't seek death, but we still must accept it.

Instead, we hide it. We teach our children to hide from it. As we did.

When I took Ralph up to the maternity ward that day, it was to show him, without saying, that life is a cycle. We die. We are born.

This is life.

Most of our fear is not of death itself.

Most of our fear is because we choose to live our lives in delusion. And in our delusions, we think the answer is to hide from death. And to hide it from ourselves.

Because we don't face it, it can swallow us. It is not death that swallows our lives. Death only takes what was never ours. Delusion takes what is.

I titled this post "Security". That is the delusion. There is no security. But grasping for it can cause you to waste what you do have.

Embrace the truth. Face your fears. Live.

My Two Universes

2005-10-20T21:02:00.000-07:00

I live in two universes.

The first is an infinite, stark, awful universe of indifference.
Sometimes beautiful.
Always terrifying.
Always indifferent.
Mindless of me.
Mindless of my loved ones.
A universe in which the entire life cycle of the earth
And all its wondrous beings
Mean zero.
A universe in which all our wars, our anger. Even our total annihilation.
Mean zero.

Less.

My second universe is a jewel, cradled in the palm of the first.
There is compassion.
There everything is connected.
There you and I are special.

What I want to tell you about my universes is this:
When I forget that they are the same universe
I get a bit psycho.

Thinking inside the box

2005-10-19T10:32:00.000-07:00

It seems that every meeting I go to these days, somebody points out that we need to think outside the box.

The expression is a bit well-worn, but I do like it. It can be a very helpful directive. Think outside the box - think outside the usual rules - think outside the habitual thinking places. Break free of assumptions.

However, what sometimes annoys me about this expression is that we often forget that we can only think outside of the box if there is an actual box to think outside of.

It helps if we first have a very carefully constructed box, which we have examined closely. In my experience, it helps if we have done a thorough job of thinking inside the box before we we make the jump to thinking outside the box.

I first started learning this lesson from my high school English teacher, Mr Murray. He had chided me for turning in a structureless, sloppy essay in which I had deliberately ignored some rules he asked us to follow in producing our work. I thought I was being "creative". I explained that great writers routinely broke the rules. That was the mark of their genius.

He explained to me that the great writers first master the rules. And only once they have mastered the rules, then they break them.

Then he gave me an "F".

Well deserved.

Just a note on Mr. Murray. He had a prosthetic leg. A prosthetic eye. And, so it was said, a plate in his head. The kids used to call him jigsaw Murray. He had been injured in WWII. I think he was in the Italian Campaign, though I'm not sure how I would know that. He was also a great teacher, although I never told him that. I haven't forgotten him.

Wherever you are Mr. Murray. I thank you for this lesson. It still took a few decades to internalize it, but at least it was not wasted on me.

Think inside the box. Spread the word.

P.S.: I am at home with my daughter today. She is still sick, but seems to be feeling a lot better. We'll see how things go tonight.

My Daughter has Croup

2005-10-18T21:07:00.000-07:00

My daughter has the croup.

Fortunately, my wife recognized what was happening right away and got her outside quickly into the cool moist night air.

Croup can be pretty serious -- even lethal. It's very scary when your child is coughing like a seal and gasping for air. Thankfully, my wife's fast thinking really helped, as my daughter's breathing eased up within a few minutes. My daughter was able to relax and laugh about her funny cough.

I would not have even recognized what it is, so I am really grateful to my wife for being so knowledgeable.

Now, I suppose, we just have to get through a night or two.

Good night.

Failing to go to bed on time

2005-10-17T20:58:00.000-07:00

One of my key stupidities, is consistently failing to go to bed at a reasonable hour.

I hope you can learn from my mistakes.

James Bond: Think Another Day

2005-10-16T18:42:00.000-07:00

How slow can you think?

-------------------------------

It seems there is a new James Bond on the horizon. A fellow by the name of Daniel Craig. Never heard of him before -- but that might be a good thing.

The last James Bond movie I watched was "Die Another Day" (2002) with Pierce Brosnan and Halle Berry. I got the ticket cheap.

Do you remember the movie? Early in the show, he is imprisoned by the North Koreans. Two or three years later, he either escapes or is recovered through a prisoner swap. Unlucky for him, M is convinced he gave information to the Koreans. The British are holding him in a medical facility, and it's clear that M won't be playing nice with him.

In order to escape, while laying still on the hospital bed, he begins to slow his heart down. Flashbacks tell us he put his time in the Korean prison camp to good use by teaching himself how to stop his own heartbeat. After a few minutes, be brings his heart to a stop and the monitoring equipment shows that he is flatlining. This triggers an alarm, so the medical staff come running into the room. When they get close enough to him, he hits the doctor, overpowers everybody in the room, and makes good his escape. Whadidya expect?

When I was a kid, I had heard about yogis would could do things like that. They could stop their hearts, then revive themselves hours or even days later. I always thought that was cool. From the age of 13, I wanted to be able to do that. Several decades later, I still haven't figured out how.

So, you would think that I would have been impressed with James Bond having mastered the art of heart stoppery, wouldn't you?

Except I wasn't.

I did find it funny though.

The first reason I found it funny, was because it seemed to have been ripped off of the Flint movies from the 60's with James Coburn. There were at least two: "Our Man Flint" (1966) and "In Like Flint" (1967). The Flint movies were a spoof of the Bond films. What was kind of funny to me was that Derek Flint, the American answer to Bond, could stop his heart at will. And he had a funky little watch gadget that would somehow help him reactivate his pulse at a pre-determined time. At one point, I think he used it to survive a gas attack. He stopped his heart so he wouldn't breathe poison. So here was Bond ripping off Flint, who was spoofing Bond. That's a little funny.

But what I thought was a *lot* funny was the fact that Bond went to such trouble to make his ECG machine register him flatlining.

I could never figure out why he would need to make his heart stop. I don't know much about medical equipment, but I would have thought he could just reach up and lift the sensor off of his chest -- then eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee -- flatline!!

And, if that wouldn't do the trick, there still must have been a simpler way involving tampering with the equipment.

C'mon, JB. Stopping your heart? Was that really necessary?!

And the third thing that made me laugh was the thought that even the great James Bond overcomplicates things from time to time.

Well, maybe it's a pattern of thinking that just wiggles its way in after all those years of having to escape from so many of Dr. Evil's diabolical and murderous schemes.

-----------------------

Anyway, I didn't learn to stop my heart. Heck, I'm not sure if I can even slow it down a little. (Beyond what I can do by just sitting still, or laying down to sleep.)

What I did learn, however, is to slow down my mind.

That is a good thing. It's not too hard, really.

But it takes practice. It's really a matter of learning to become calm. Learning to let go of things.

My shoulders used to be too tight. I have made many visits to the chiropractor because of tension. I used to be stressed and worried almost all the time.

Now, I try to make a practice of relaxing and slowing down my mind several times a day.

This is something I have been practicing for quite awhile now, and it has helped tremendously.

This is something you can do for yourself. If you haven't already tried it, please do so now.

Learn to slow down...

Your mind.

Slow it down...

Try to make it...

Stop.

Why does Copernicus blog?

2005-10-15T19:23:00.000-07:00

Why does Copernicus blog?

Most of us came by our thinking habits by default. We typically acquire our opinions rather casually. We can be quite slovenly in our thinking behavior. We can be lazy. But, even if we weren't lazy, we often don't have a lot of skill in using our brain.

I'm not saying we aren't smart. I'm not saying we can't put arguments together.

But most of us couldn't take a deep look at the world from the other guy's point of view. Most of us wouldn't. We are often quick to figure that the other guy is an idiot. We're dismissive.

It sounds like I am on the attack. It sounds like I am angry.

Well, maybe I am attacking. But I am attacking us. I am attacking because I think there is a solution to a problem that our egos mostly don't let us acknowledge.

The problem is, we mostly haven't worked very hard on our own thinking. On our attitudes. On our beliefs. We haven't really challenged ourselves. Not yet, anyway. Look in your heart. Do I speak the truth?

One reason we haven't done this is because we haven't had many examples to follow. We have not been an example to each other. We have not had the kind of environment where it would be easy to encourage one another to improve our thinking. We do not challenge each other to do better. We don't even challenge ourselves.

We haven't had enough examples. Many of us get an introduction to critical thinking skills in school. If we practice these skills at all, we do it very sporadically.

Critical thinking skills are not the only skills. But the important thing is the challenge.

We must challenge ourselves. I must challenge me. We must challenge each other.

If we don't, a hundred years of activism and good deeds won't be worth piss. Not enough of us will have the discipline to think clearly. We will still be acting on momentary whims a century from now. Without challenge, our children will not be better than us. Without this challenge, activism won't mean anything. We won't be able to change the world, because we won't have the discipline to change ourselves -- we are the world.

So, why does Copernicus blog?

Because through blogging -- if we take up the challenge -- if we challenge one another -- it can be easier than ever to show one another our thinking habits. It can be easier than ever for each of us to see examples of better thinking behavior. It can be easier to practice. It can be easier to help and encourage one another.

The blogosphere brings us an environment that was not so easily available before. Most of us didn't have access to wise mentors with oodles of time on their hands to guide us. Now, with the blogoshpere, there has never been a better opportunity to learn from each other's examples. It was never so easy to see what it takes to build self-discipline, as it is now, in the blog universe.

Take the challenge. Spread the word.

mr k argues on behalf of the meat eaters

2005-10-15T19:02:00.000-07:00

There is another post on vegetarianism from mr k. The post is entitled "Arguments to eat meat"

He has done a marvelous job of trying to take examine both sides of the issue with a detached view. We all have our biases, so that is never an easy thing.

My hat's off to him.

He's already done better than most of us ever do, in my opinion.

Let that be a challenge to the rest of us!! Spread the word.

mr k gets to the meat of the vegetarianism argument

2005-10-14T21:36:00.000-07:00

I was checking out mr k's blog life is funnier when you're lonely and discovered a couple of interesting posts about vegetarianism: why I am a vegetarian and vegetarian arguments continues

It was particularly gratifying to see that mr k had taken the time to delineate his pro-vegan arguments in premiss/conclusion format.

Please be sure to check out his blog.

Miller's Law

2005-10-14T05:34:00.000-07:00

"MILLERS LAW: In order to understand what another person is saying, you must assume it is true and try to imagine what it could be true of."

I like the above saying. What does it mean?

Abortion: What if women decided?

2005-10-12T19:40:00.000-07:00

What if the matter were entirely decided by women?

In other words, what if men were excluded from the whole abortion debate, as well as from any involvement in the legal decision process?

Would that change anything? What?
Would it improve or degrade the value of the outcome?

Ready Made Thinking

2005-10-11T16:32:00.000-07:00

Which of your most cherished opinions did you get from somebody, or somewhere, else?

Dr. Edward DeBono is famous for teaching thinking skills.

One of his best teaching aids is a program called CoRT -- [Why, with all his thinking skill, could he not master the use of UpPER- and LoWErCaSE?] -- which aims to teach a number of very useful thinking "tools" which can be applied to a very wide range of situations. Apparently, CoRT is taught in schools around the world. Oddly enough, it didn't make it to my school. (Maybe that was my problem.)

The thinking tools typically have short two or three letter names, like PMI for Plus, Minus, Interesting, or APC for Alternatives, Possibilities and Choices. They encapsulate little thinking plans that can be used in many situations. And they are disarmingly simple, but if used correctly, can help you achieve better quality of thinking.

It's rather like a master carpenter using very simple tools: hammer, screwdriver, blade, saw. The tools are simple, but there is a right way to use them, and usually a wrong way. There is also a right time to use each one, and a wrong time.

Okay, well this reminds me of a story...

When I was a teenager my older brother and I worked briefly for my uncle, who was a building contractor. My job was to nail down flooring. By the end of the first day, I could barely use my right wrist. It felt sprained. (Meanwhile, my left thumb was developing some serious paranoia problems of its own.) Needless to say, I did a great deal of whining about the wrist.

After a couple days, my big brother, who had been having some fun at my expense, must have either taken pity on me, or got tired of my whining. Or, maybe he had just been waiting till I was sore enough that I would actually listen to his advice. He walked over and explained to me how to hold a hammer. You hold the damn thing from the end of the handle and let it swing itself.

Oh.

I was flabbergasted at the difference. I had been gripping it part way up the handle. After swinging it that way several hundred times, it's no wonder my wrist was feeling a little sprained. But what was really flabbergasting, was that it had never occurred to me I might need to be taught how to swing a hammer. It seemed like hammer usage would be an obvious thing.

Well, maybe it is to all of you. But it sure as heckfire hadn't been obvious to me.

Anyway, after that it got a lot easier to swing that hammer. My sprain didn't bug me so much after that. My thumb didn't get over its little scaredycat problem -- I'm afraid...I'm afraid! But I was able to get through another week or two on the job.

It was a shot to my pride, but I walked away with a new respect for tools. They may look simple, but I still need to be taught how to use them.

Okay, so that's the end of my story (great, wasn't it!). Now CoRT is back in session...

One of the CoRT tools I wanted to talk to you about is called Ready Mades. DeBono tells us about 2 types of Ready Mades: There are helpful ready mades (RM-H) and substitute ready mades (RM-S). And the rough idea behind these tools is that you try to recognize if some piece of your thinking -- for example, an opinion you may hold to -- is a ready made, or not. And, if so, is it helpful, or is it a substitute for thinking?

Now, I find this to be a really useful tool. Pity I don't use it as much as I should. In fact, I am going to make a resolution -- right here, right now -- to try to make more frequent use of this tool.

Here's what I am going to do. I am going to try reviewing a few of my opinions -- or other ideas -- to identify which are of my own origin, and which are not. And when I recognize some as not being my own, I am going to ask myself whether I brought any value of my own to the ideas. I am going to ask whether I did any of my own thinking, or whether I just took it as is, right off the shelf, without even examining it. Was I being lazy? Or, practical? And the most important thing I am going to ask is whether it is a helpful for me to keep the idea as is, or if I should be doing something more with it. Oh yeah! And, how attached am I to the idea?

These questions should help me to sort my ready mades into one of two categories: Helpful (RM-H) and Substitutes (RM-S).

Now, there is nothing wrong with using ready made ideas, any more than there is buying clothing off the shelf. But it does seem to me helpful to recognize when I am thinking for myself, and when I am really in lazy thinking mode. When I am not a serious participant in the thoughts that are holding court in my mind.

Have you ever listened to, or debated with, somebody who seemed to just be reciting opinions that he or she probably just got from somebody else?

Do you ever notice yourself doing it? You know I do.

If you have the inclination, I would like to hear some of your stories (or other thoughts) about ready mades.

The other 98% of our brain

2005-10-10T21:30:00.000-07:00

From time to time, I hear somebody talking about the 98% of our brain that is not used. Wouldn't it just be marvelous if we could tap into that unused brainpower? Think of the abilities we would develop. Think how much more intelligent we would be.

Then they often draw conclusions about how we could recover that unused capacity by tapping into our subconscious, etc., etc.

Personally, I am not so sure that I would want to invest my efforts in that direction. I think it was Isaac Asimov who once pointed out that the supposed 98% of unused capacity is actually responsible for "blue-collar" work -- making sure we remember to breathe, keeping the blood flowing, that kind of stuff -- and would not be particularly suited for higher cognition.

Anyway, my thought is that it would be better if just tried to recover as much capacity for rational thinking as possible from those areas of our brain that are reserved for prejudice, ignorance, arrogance and narrow-mindedness.

If I can succeed in that, I think I shall have evolved significantly.

Are you doing anything to try to improve?

Examining arguments: Abortion example

2005-10-09T17:53:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that a huge portion of the population often expresses forceful, emotional opinions on subjects they have never really analyzed in detail. Often they have done a great deal of thinking about their arguments, but little analysis of the actual issues. They typically ignore the weaknesses of their own arguments and dismiss the strengths of the other side's.

What particularly annoys me about these people -- what annoys me the most about US -- is that we shoot off our mouths all the time. And we can't understand why the other guy is so stupid that he can't get our arguments, when they are so self-evident to us.

Full Metal Attorney:

Then, occassionally, somebody will show up that has truly taken the effort to try to examine the issues in great detail.

I just encountered such a blog. The author, Full Metal Attorney, has gone to a great deal of effort to detail out -- and analyze -- the arguments on both sides of the abortion issue.

The url of his post is:
http://fullmetalattorney.blogspot.com/2005/10/abortion-primer-on-argument-theory-and.html

I greatly admire the effort he put into his analysis.

The Language Guy:

I also was interested in some commentary on the above post by The Language Guy. ("On Reasoning about Abortion" - Posted Sat Oct 8, 2005 -- Sorry, I wasn't able to get the post url)

His real intent was to make a contribution with linguistic analysis.

He pointed out an interesting ambiguity that occurs one the question of foetus being human. One of the key issues, as itemized by Full Metal Attorney, was whether a foetus is human.

The Language Guy pointed out a significant ambiguity in the use of this term. Namely that there is a difference between saying "X is human" and "X is a human". I hope you'll read his post to get his explanation, but it seemed to me that it was not a trivial distinction.

In the end, I would like to confess my admiration of Full Metal Attorney for his effort to map out the issues as impartially as he was able. I thought he did a much better job than many of the people who are most passionate about their point of view on this subject.

This is a great example of how it's done. Spread the word.

Conflict and One Dimensional Thinking (Cont'd)

2005-10-08T06:34:00.000-07:00

(Cont'd from Conflict and One Dimensional Thinking)

I spent Friday evening doing battle with some malware that invaded my PC. Something called Trojan.Vundoo. It took awhile. I got frustrated at times. But in the end I kicked its viral booty.

Norton AntiVirus reported the problem, but for some reason couldn't fix it. Still, Norton didn't give up easily: a warning message kept popping up in front of me. I'd click the OK button and the pop-up window would just reappear. Over and over and over again.

I got a bit frustrated at first. I said TH*NK!!! a few times. :)

Well, maybe I said something other than TH*NK!!! the first 3 or 4 times.

So, why am I telling you this? This is supposed to be a post about "conflict and multi-dimensional thinking", isn't it?

Indeed, it is.

The point is that the many of the same internal mechanisms that apply to conflicts with others also apply to problem solving. Problem solving is just a special case of conflict thinking.

There are many situations in life where we tend to respond with fixed modes of response. You've heard of the fight or flight responses, haven't you? Actually, it should be the fight, freeze or flight response.

Imagine yourself walking through the woods and you run into a bear. If it's a brown bear, there is a good chance its flight mechanism will kick in, and it will run away from you. This despite the fact that it is probably much stronger and more ferocious than you.

But if its cub happens to be nearby -- worse yet, if you happen to get between the adult and its offspring -- its fight mechanism would almost certainly kick in, and you can expect a pretty nasty mauling. Ouch!!

And, what about the freeze mechanism? Where does that come in? Well, from what I've heard, the bear might just leave you alone if you lie down and play dead. Dunno if that's true, but I do know it's called playing 'possum. Apparently, staying very still when threatened is what opossums do.

In the animal world, these response modes are pretty much hard-wired. And they represent a relatively narrow range of behavioral options. But the same mechanisms are also part of human behaviour. They are part of our instincts. The difference is that humans are capable of a wider range of responses. The fight, freeze or flight responses in the animal world tend to be pretty narrowly defined -- they really tend to be about fighting, freezing or fleeing. But in the human world fight, freeze and fight can be expanded to include wider, more complex, ranges of behavior that might be relabelled "go-get-em", "stay-put" and "get-out-of-the-way".

What's more we can change our responses, based on self-knowledge. Most animals can't. Still, we humans have a strong tendency to favor certain modes of response, rather like the animals.

This -- along with belief systems and attituedes -- is a key factor in one-dimensional conflict thinking, which I first mentioned in my previous post.

In fact, it might be a bit more fundamental. It's part of our wiring.

The point is that we have a tendency to favor a particular type of response -- fight, freeze or flight -- in certain circumstances where we feel threatened.

The tendency to favor a particular response type -- a particular mode -- may vary a bit by the type of situation. For example, the same person may tend to be aggressive when driving, but may tend to retreat in relationship conflicts, and may freeze up when asked to dance. In short, for broad categories of their behaviour, they may lean toward one response category or another.

Part of what happens -- on both the cause and effect sides of the equation -- is a tendency to "lock-in" to a response mode under given kinds of (perceived) threats. This tendency to lock-in makes sense from an evolutionary stand point: if an animal in the wild had to spend time thinking about which type of response is most appropriate, it would almost certainly be next to get voted off the island we call evolution.

Humans have this lock-in mechanism, too. Only, in humans, conflict responses have taken on a wider role. They are not there just to deal with potential enemies. They permeate everything. They are triggered largely by the stress mechanism. They permeates everything. Not only perceived threats to our life, but also perceived threats to our social position, to our relationships, to our ego, to our resources. And on, and on...

We have a wide range of things we perceive and react to as threats. This reaction so permeates our lives that we are often not even particularly aware that we are responding to many situations as if threatened.

We may react as if threatened when faced with an unfamiliar task. Like when I found out I had a virus on my PC. And Norton wasn't able to fix it!! It has been a long time since I last had to do battle with a virus. And that time it ended up being a real hassle. It took days. So, I felt stressed. A bit confused. Why wasn't Norton doing it's job?! Is this going to be a repeat of the last time.

Once I realized Norton wasn't going to fix it, I started to feel a small sense of panic. My first reaction was to try and make the error message go away so I could ignore the problem. I was favoring the "stay-put" (freeze) mode.

And I might have gotten away with it, too (trying to ignore the problem, that is), if it hadn't been for those meddling error messages (from Norton).

Even if Norton couldn't fix the problem, it wasn't about to let the matter go. That stupid message box kept popping up, even after I clicked OK about 300 times. I tried to ignore them. I tried to ignore the threat of a virus. But in the end I couldn't. In the end, I pretty much had to break out of my one-dimensional conflict thinking and try to find a wider range of alternatives.

Good thing I did. I ended up being able to find a solution within a couple of hours. Of course, Friday night was a write-off.

In summary, we humans are constantly responding to situations as though threatened. This applies to actual conflicts, but also to areas where there is no real danger, no real threat. For example, when somebody says something about us that we feel is negative. Or when we are face with an unfamiliar problem. Or when we are in an awkward social situation. Even if we don't onsciously perceive that we are feeling threatened, we often react as though we do.

When that happens, we tend to lock-in to one of three response modes, which more or less correspond to the flight, freeze or fight responses in the animal world. Our responses are often more complex that those of animals, but not always.

When we get locked-in to one response mode, our possibilities for handling problems is narrowed. Sometimes this may be beneficial -- such as when in real-time danger and an immediate response is required.

But often this tendency to lock-in to one response mode may be counterproductive, even dangerous. I call this one dimensional conflict thinking.

One dimensional thinking can also be linked to belief systems about conflict -- for example, if you believed you must always turn the other cheek -- and attitudes that are not well tailored to reality.

And it is from this one-dimensional thinking that so many of our problems arise.

When we don't have an appropriate range of tools with which to resolve our threats -- real or perceived -- we flail, thrash, blame, accuse, attack, scheme, etc.

Conflict and One Dimensional Thinking

2005-10-06T06:21:00.000-07:00

One huge area where people have a lot of trouble in life, is dealing with conflict and struggle. For a lot of us, our thinking starts to get muddled when we find ourselves in a conflict situation.

You've probably heard the proverb: If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

Part of the problem, I think, is that we typically learn just one way to approach conflict. We don't develop an full repetoire of skills. And when our range of options is so limited, we often end up using the wrong tool for the job. Sometime with bad consequences for ourselves, or for others.

Another key problem is that we often start out with a counterproductive attitude towards conflict. This can be tied up with the reasons for the limited repetoire -- a flaw in our belief system about conflict.

Many of us are brought up to believe that conflict is bad. We must avoid it at all costs. Or we must resolve it immediately. Some of us believe that, where conflict is concerned, we have to confront all problems without hesitation. Some just consider conflict sinful, or evil.

Conflict has gotten bad rap.

In my mind, we need to see conflict as a neutral thing. In itself it is not bad. It just is. It is a part of our lives. It is there. It is more or less a constant of life.

It is important to see it as a neutral thing. Like a knife. A knife can be used as a weapon. A knife can also be used to cut bread or, in the case of a scalpel, to save lives.

Likewise, conflict can harm us -- as in war. It can also help us -- as in the struggle between family members who are working out their differences. It can entertain us. And, it can sustain us as we learn to compete for our livelihood.

It will always be here. We may resolve one conflict, but another will always be coming over the hill. Except when you're dead. Then you can relax. (Maybe).

The next problem -- actually the first problem -- is the problem of a limited repetoire.

When people have a limited repetoire of tools and approaches to conflict, they find themselves getting frustrated more often. I suspect you would get frustrated, too, if you found yourself in a difficult situation where you didn't have the appropriate tools.

What, for example, would you do if you were Batman, and the Joker had just pushed you off the roof of a tall building. And when you reach into your utility belt, all you find is a hole puncher? You'd be pissed!! You might feel the need to swear a bit. (Holy toolcase, Batman, I hope you read my post entitled "F*CK MEANS TH*NK!!!".). You are going to get very frustrated indeed. If you survive the fall, that is.

What were you thinking, Bats? Did you think that you should limit your array of available tools to just a hole puncher because you didn't want to escalate the conflict?

What our Batman example doesn't illustrate is that when we get frustrated...because we don't have an appropriate array of tools and approaches to conflict situations...when we get frustrated...we often start to flail...or lash out...and we end up escalating and complicating the conflict.

We escalate conflicts when we flail. We flail because we are frustrated -- or panicky -- or confused. We typically get frustrated because we have too limited an repetoire for dealing with conflict. We often have too limited a repetoire because our attitudes towards conflict are wrong. They may be too lax. They may be too fearful. The may have been influenced by an inappropriate belief system that leads us to believe that conflict is bad.

Conflict is neither good nor bad. It just is.

If you look in the self-help area of the local bookstore, you will probably find lots of books that tell you how to handle conflict.

Some will say that you need to learn to be more assertive. That's the solution, they say.
Others say that you must learn to "dissolve" conflict.
Others will say that you need to find a win-win solution.
Others tell you "not to sweat it".
Some may tell you that you need to not engage in conflict: here's how to be nice in all situations.

There really is a lot of advice books out there, but almost every one offers just one single approach. A single formula.

That is very unrealistic. But having just one approach to all conflict is a dangerous way to approach life, and a great way to magnify one's stupidity.

Okay -- sorry to interrupt -- but I have to go right now. There's more to this topic, but I'll have to pick it up a bit later.

Thanks for reading this far.

Religion and stupidity

2005-10-05T06:19:00.000-07:00

Are you for or against religion? Neutral, maybe? (Write me, tell me.)

If you are down on religion, is it because so many wars and abuses have been carried out in the name of religion? Because so many religions preach tolerance, but practice intolerance? Because of atrocities in the name of God?

Don't worry. I am not a terribly religious person. And what I believe, I mostly prefer to keep to myself.

But there was a brief period in my younger days when I was into religion. That period was preceded and followed by times in which I looked very negatively on religion. I knew a small number of very religious people whom I admired, and so many more that I either pitied, or actively distrusted. In those days, it seemed to me that so many of the world's problems were caused by formal religions.

Eventually, though, I came to realize that the core stupidities that I blamed on religion -- prejudice, ignorance, arrogance, narrow-mindedness -- were in fact not religious problems, but human problems.

I saw that, even though I am no longer religious, I am still full of prejudice and prejudgement. And although I am no longer associated with any formal religion, I am still full of arrogance. My opinion is the right one. Others, however well-intentioned, are at best misguided. I may not say it. But that is what I think.

There are many things that happen in the name of God and religion that are shameful. And criminal. And many of us just accept them, perhaps because we are habituated to do so.

Politics can be similar. Look at the atrocities done in the name of Communism. I wonder if there is a list of how many that were done in the name of Democracy?

I believe we need to start by recognizing that the core stupidities -- the intolerance, the narrow-mindedness, the arrogance, the prejudice -- all start with us. With humans.

They are natural consequences of our intelligence. That doesn't make them desirable. That doesn't make them OK. That doesn't mean we can't do anything about them. But we have to stop blaming religion, or politics, or anything else, for the problem. The answer is locked away inside of us.

But, since we are speaking of religious faith -- and even political faith -- how can we deny the role they often play in so many abuses, so many wars, so many atrocities?

It seems to me that, under some circumstances, religion (or politics, or even love) can introduce a multiplier effect. Obedience and devotion -- whether to a higher power, to a cause, or to a loved one -- can be a good thing. But if turns into blind obedience or blind devotion. If we turn off our ability to question, for example. If we reduce our conscience to formulas, or rules -- or to somebody else's instruction -- we start down a path that may even turn our stupidities into evil.

What's worse, we then can't see the wrong we do, because the conscience that should warn us has been replaced. We still have a conscience. We have probably worked hard to acquire it. We are proud of it. And, since our conscience is by definition good, we can't see the problem.

But it is not just religion, or politics, or even love that introduce these multiplier effects. Anything can do it. Loyalty to a group. A sense of belonging. Being very busy. Being deeply absorbed in something. A racing mind. The desire for achievement. And on, and on.

In the end, our prejudices and our arrogance -- and all the other stupidities -- begin with us. Yes, some activities may introduce muliplier effects, but they are not the root cause.

Stupidity is part of the human condition. It is nothing to be ashamed about, except when we do nothing about it. That is where the problem must be solved.

Spread the word.

FCK MEANS THNK !!!

2005-10-03T19:52:00.000-07:00

I was reasonably profane as a youngster.

Still can be from time to time.

But, mostly, I try to keep a civil tongue.

Except, that is, when I am trying to do something that involves a modicum of dexterity, and I start fumbling. Whatever it is -- keys, socks, screw, credit card -- all the cards in my wallet on a windy day -- handful of legal documents on a windy slushy winter day -- dry cleaning over a mud puddle -- dishes at midnight when the family is sleeping -- I would drop it, then almost catch, then re-drop, then drop everything else trying to re-catch the first thing, then:

!!!!!!!F*CK!!!!!!

!!!!!!!F*CK!!!!!!
!!!!!!!F*CK!!!!!!
!!!!!!!DOUBLE-F*CK!!!!!!

Indeed, I would get very frustrated.

Until one day an angel appeared before me while I was in mid-paroxysm of F*CKery.

He/she/it spake to me in an awesome booming voice, asking if I had any idea what the word F*CK means in heaven.

I was a bit startled at the sight of an actual angel showing up in front of me. I'm not sure, but I think I might have let out the words "Holy F*CK!!!" I suppose that was not totally inappropriate, given who my visitor was.

Anyway, once I regained my composure, I then I thought about it a few minutes. I realized it couldn't possibly mean in heaven what it means here.

So, I admitted I had no idea, and asked it/her/him to tell me.

"In heaven", she/he/it said, "F*CK means THINK".

I stood there dumbfounded awhile. Just kind of gawking. And while I gawked, the angel's words did seep profoundly into my soul.

So that I was re-made into a changed man.

So now, on those less frequent occassions where I find myself fumbling -- or when I inadvertently let something piss me off -- and I unexpectedly find myself losing it and yelling !!!!F*CK!!!!

I remember what that angel told me.

F*CK means TH*NK.

Abraham Lincoln's strange tail

2005-10-02T16:51:00.000-07:00

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Protesting Ourselves

2005-10-02T11:35:00.000-07:00

Back in the 60's there was a lot of protesting going on.

They protested the establishment. They protested the government. They protested the war. They protested the draft. They protested pollution. They protested bigotry. They protested hatred. Did I leave something out?

In those days, there was a lot of energy and a lot of spirit. There was a lot of dedication to important causes. Because of all the protests, a lot changed.

The other day, I was watching a special about Bob Dylan and the 60's and the protest scene.

I got wondering what happened.

A lot of people are still protesting today, but it seems as if not much has changed after all. We still have crazy wars. We still have bigotry and hatred. We now have global warming. And we're no longer protesting the establishment. We are the establishment.

So what's wrong? Is it because we don't have the same idealism? Is it because we are not active enough?

I got wondering what we could protest, what we need to change, to start solving these problems.

Then it hit me. (While I was watching the Dylan special).

WE NEED TO PROTEST OURSELVES!!!

We need to wake up the establishment!!! But, hey, that's us!!

HEY ---- US ---- WAKE UP!!!!

We are not fixing things because we are not truthful with ourselves. We are not fixing things because we don't look deeply at ourselves. We are not fixing things because we blame the other guy. That doesn't mean the other guy doesn't need some blaming -- just that we need to start by taking a close look at ourselves.

And we have to help our neighbor to do the same thing. We need to fix our blindspots.

We are the war. We are the prejudice. We are the global warming.

I am not letting the politicians, and Al Qaeda, and the extremists, and this group and that group off the hook.

I am just saying, the fix starts with us. Or it doesn't start. No amount of fixing the roof will solve a problem with the foundation.

Spread the word.

Kilts vs. Skirts

2005-09-30T18:25:00.000-07:00

When I was about 5 years old I saw a Scotsman in a plaid kilt and asked my mother why the man was wearing a skirt.

"It's not a skirt", she informed me, "it's a kilt." She explained that it would be offensive to a Scotsman to call it a skirt.

Well that cleared that up -- a kilt is not a skirt.

I took pride in passing on my knowledge to other children. It was simple: a kilt is a kilt and a skirt is a skirt, but a kilt is never a skirt.

Then about 40 years later -- right out of the blue -- I had one of those "aha!" moments. I realized the truth!!

A KILT REALLY IS A SKIRT!!!!
MEN WHO WEAR KILTS ARE ACTUALLY WEARING SKIRTS!!!!

I had to laugh at how long I believed that nonsense. I suppose I believed it because my mother told me so, and maybe because it was going to offend somebody.

How many things do you believe because your Mother or Father believe it?
How many things do you believe because it might offend somebody if you didn't?

A kilt is a skirt!! Spread the word!!!

Proof of genius

2005-09-30T05:34:00.000-07:00

Years ago, my head teamed with thoughts. Hundreds of thoughts playing tag in my head. Some brilliant. Some impossibly complex. Others were problems emerging. Others emerged, but had no name. Racing to track all the interrelations between thoughts. Millions of thoughts running...playing tag in my head...

I was proud. It was proof of my genius...

One day, I realized...it proved something...but not what I thought...

It proved I was confused.

Does your mind go fast?
Can you slow it down?
Are you happy when it goes fast and furious?

Can you relax at will?

Who you callin' stupid?

2005-09-29T05:40:00.000-07:00

When I was young, being more intelligent than everybody around me was all-important.

I played chess as a teenager. If I won, I was elated because it proved that I was a superior intelligence. If I lost, I was devastated.

I was an okay player, but I still got devastated a lot.

There was nothing higher than genius. Nothing was lower than being stupid.

Clearly, people would love me the best if I could just somehow drive home the point that I was smarter than them. How could they not love somebody so superior? Sadly, they often just frustrated me with their inane reactions to my efforts to enlighten them through my displays of superiority. They were so hard to understand.

Then at one point in my adult life, I went through something of a crisis. (Through no fault of my brilliant mind, of course.) But one of the outcomes of that crisis, was that I realized something new. A simple truth that amazed me. It redefined intelligence and stupidity.

But, before I tell you what it is, I want you to not get bummed out or anything. It may sound negative at first, but it's implications are very positive:

Intelligence is not the opposite of stupidity. Intelligence is the capacity for stupidity. The greater the intelligence, the greater the capacity for stupidity.

You can take my word for it. I know this to be true from experience, for I am a very intelligent man. :)

If you think of it. The people who have IQ's in the 80's are not so stupid. They may have lower capacity for many kinds of productive mental labor, and they may be prone to certain mistakes, but they tend to experience a fairly static range of difficulties.

But when you are intelligent -- when you are very intelligent -- there is no end to the stupidity you can produce. I know, for I am a very intelligent man. :)

Dr. Edward DeBono, who is famous for his work on the subject of thinking, once said that having a great intelligence is like having a fast car with a powerful motor. It has nothing to do with driving skill. A person may have a less powerful car, but be a very good driver. Likewise, a less intelligent person may be a better thinker.

Dr. DeBono was not arguing for less intelligence. He was promoting better thinking.

One of the reasons for this is that more intelligent people, having much more powerful minds, are often able to defend their reasoning so much more effectively than others. They can also defend their mistakes. Even from themselves.

Our biggest problem is our own arrogance.

But, why is this a positive message? How does this help?

It helps, because it makes it possible to see the elephant under the rug. Stupidity is not a crime. It's not even something to be ashamed of. It just is. And it tends to go up with IQ.

But willfully hanging on to our stupidity -- that is shameful! We can recognize it. We can do something about it.

And we can even start to fix some of the problems in our own lives that have baffled us. They baffled us because we believed a different paradigm. Namely, that intelligence is the opposite of stupidity.

Accept it. Understand it. Intelligence is no longer the opposite of stupidity. It is (among other things) the capacity for stupidity. And if we understand that, and embrace that fact, other lives can get better.

Spread the word.

Tea with the President

2005-09-28T17:36:00.000-07:00

I had tea with the President recently.

He did not seem to be a bright man, but he's very charming and it is easy to see why so many people like him.

So many people make fun of him. I guess he's an easy target. He did start a war in Iraq. The Hurricane Katrina rescue didn't get off to a good start. He says things that seem to make no sense.

I am not here to defend him. But I ask myself why so many people feel so superior to him. They label him an idiot. There is often a crowd around the water cooler talking about how dumb he is. And not just him. Americans in general, they say.

It's legit to criticize him. It's legit to criticize all of our leaders. It's legit to criticize the US. And therein lies the problem.

It's easy to do. It's a piece of cake.

But my message to the world -- to my neighbors, and to myself -- is to WAKE UP!!! It's time to ask ourselves, "what makes us think we are so bright?!"

There are lots of idiots in the US, it's true. But there are lots of idiots in every other country, too. There is no reason to think that the US gets an extra dose of crazies, or psychopaths than any other country.

Maybe the President is a dolt. But how do I know I am not the real idiot? I am asking myself that question. You should be asking yourself the same thing. That's my message.

We are society of people who have a great attachment to our opinions. But as much as we value them, we come by them very casually. It's time to change!! Spread the word.

We go for straw man arguments. We go for the obvious put downs. We criticize other people, but do not question the things that we see as ours.

That's just the start of my message. Don't wait for the rest. Spread the word.

I lied about the tea.