hopelesshappiness.com

To her fair works did Nature link
The human soul that through me ran
And much it grieved my heart to think
What Man has made of Man.
---William Wordsworth

With a nod to Plato and Aristotle, William Wordsworth observed in the 1790's what we must acknowledge today - we can create a greater Goodness (in quality and in quantity). From Wordsworth I stumbled into the 9 Muses of Greek mythology and after a 'little' research (Muse scholars, forgive me) I decided this week to explore each one and Her present-day potential to inspire us toward this Greater Goodness.

Euterpe: Traditionally She inspired and protected lyric poetry or song and was presented with a flute in her hand and other musical instruments nearby. Today she offers a path to enjoyment in the moment, be that in the form of actual music or simply areas of interest or entertainment. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to a depth of Happiness found only through hard work (again) in the moment. We have an opportunity with each new moment to consciously choose to make a difference. As I said 'last week' my evolving conception of free will is the conscious output of work / effort that can be quantified and has impact. I look upon Euterpe to inspire and guide these choices in a direction that will create and expand Exoteric Goodness.

Erato: Traditionally She inspired and protected love poetry and was presented holding a lyre and love arrows and bows. Today she offers an opportunity to practice compassion on a larger scale. As technology has shrunk our world, it has enlarged our sensorial perception of global suffering which in turn places each of us somewhere along a spectrum from hardened senses to greater compassion. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to a communal realization that global compassion is the next step in our evolution. I look upon Erato to inspire a rational, compassionate common ground large enough for us all.

Clio: Traditionally She inspired and protected history and was presented with a clarion in her right arm and a book in her left hand. Today she offers an opportunity to learn from the past, encouraging focus on history's great thinkers and on one's personal history. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to a maturity that enables learning from our past glories and failings without the human inclinations to (respectively) gloat or regret, and she can encourage learning from those thinkers with whom we (think we) disagree; this latter can only be accomplished through the humility of acknowledged ignorance and a conscious decision to work hard at understanding. I look upon Clio to inspire openness to change (based on a historical perspective), and to encourage a keen ear able to pick up the echoes of long past clarion calls.

Terpsichore: Traditionally She inspired and protected dance and was presented with laurels on her head, and holding a harp, while dancing. Today she offers the same enjoyment and entertainment as Euterpe, but instead of strictly 'in the moment' she offers hope and a positive outlook for the future; and to this end, she encourages education. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to a modicum of stability and some sense of control; though this latter must be tempered by reality. I look upon Terpsichore to inspire an active hope and the courage to get through my day.

Ourania: Traditionally She inspired and protected astronomy and was presented bearing stars, a celestial sphere, and a bow compass. Today she offers a methodical interpretation of the world around us, utilizing factual observation and experience. She encourages us to keep our feet planted firmly as our eyes, hands, ears, nose, and tongue provide empirical feedback. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to an appreciation of nature's harmony and a curiosity about unanswered questions; the latter to discourage rigid inflexibility and condescending lectures of fact, and to encourage one to fill the gaps. I look upon Ourania to inspire complexity in thought, and in turn simplify the practice of Goodness.

Polyhymnia: Traditionally She inspired and protected sacred song and harmony, and was presented looking up to the sky, holding a lyre. Today she offers traditional, faith-based religion, as well as many alternative expressions of spirituality. She encourages us to reach upward and inward in search of unknowable answers. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to a transcendental yearning that will enable an occasional, fleeting glimpse of Truth and Wisdom; made even more possible if grounded by Ourania. I look upon Polyhymnia to inspire a meditative solitude and a communal peace.

Thalia: Traditionally She inspired and protected comedy and was presented holding a comic mask, a shepherd's crook, and a wreath of ivy. Today she offers that same active hope found with Terpsichore, but in story form. A comedy (in the traditional sense) is a feel-good story with a happy ending, typically involving ordinary people who have some degree of good fortune. In a larger sense Thalia offers Light amongst shadows. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to a port in the storm. She can lead our thoughts to such a desire for Goodness that our actions have no choice but to follow. She can lead our inner poet to positively influence others seeking guidance, and encourage them to positively influence still others, thus creating an exponential increase of Goodness - Light amongst the shadows. I look upon Thalia to inspire communal story-telling.

Melpomenee: Traditionally She inspired and protected tragedy and was presented holding a tragic mask, the club of Hercules, and a wreath or vine leaves. Today she offers pain and adversity to help us learn and grow. This suffering may be our own or that of others. This suffering is always nearby. A tragedy (in the traditional sense) is a story of suffering, often due to an error in judgment, that creates pity and fear in the surrounding characters and the audience. The resulting downfall of a typically good person (or at least one with some redeeming qualities) is meant to offer insight. In a larger sense Melpomenee offers shadows so we are not blinded by Light. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to an insightful compassion beyond the pity and the fear; made even more possible if we are all operating from the common ground inspired by Erato. I look upon Melpomenee to inspire journeys into the Shadows in order to seek out and know the suffering of others. I look upon Melpomenee to inspire a depth of insight into my personal suffering that will result in the pain of Wisdom and an ineffable sense of Truth.

Calliope: Traditionally She inspired and protected epic poetry and rhetoric, and she was presented holding laurels in one hand and two Homeric poems in the other hand. Traditionally She was considered the superior Muse. Today she offers a coming together of Humanity through a depth and complexity of varying arenas and qualities. From the bureaucracy of business, law, and politics to an ordered sense of fairness and justice to the basic tenet 'Do No Harm' to an ethical sense of fairness and justice beyond mere laws of man to a true synergy of the whole of Humanity to an inner peace satisfied by the surrounding global Goodness; Calliope takes us from base instincts of power and control to an ideal (unattainable) harmony of the whole. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to each of the other Muses which helps us to see that the sum of the whole is (and/or has the potential to be) much greater than the sum of its individual parts. This is as true for the whole of Humanity as it is for each person's inner Muses. I look upon Calliope to inspire an epic vision of a Greater Goodness that can be shared by all. And when I am challenged by disagreement, I look upon Calliope to inspire the humility of acknowledged ignorance and the Wisdom of patient perseverance based on a transcendent sense of fairness and justice.

Inspired by the 9 Muses, below is an alternative, actively-hopeful take on Wordsworth's grievous, relevant observation:

To work today in Love's sweet sweat
And for tomorrow plan
From yesterday we pirouette
Into a brand new span.

A ground that covers Light and Dark
And holds our global clan
In peace, from here we must embark
From where we once began.

Acknowledging the facts unknown
Horizons still we scan
A synergy, undone alone;
What Man can make of Man

Sam Harris has issued a challenge regarding his book 'The Moral Landscape'. He is expecting essays of 1000 words or less, each one being judged on "the degree to which it challenges the central argument advanced in The Moral Landscape." I will oblige. Below is the unedited version. To comply with the 1000 word requirement, the edited version (to be submitted to 'his website' tomorrow), consists of fewer Quotes from the book, a condensed introductory paragraph, and (in a couple of instances) more streamlined extrapolations. I appreciate the challenge in that it has been a very good thinking exercise.

Sam Harris is not an idiot. I agree that questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of rational disciplined thought. I agree that rational disciplined thought demands one avoid behaviors that move us toward a 'worst possible misery' scenario. I agree that a scientific method is as applicable to rational disciplined thought in the arena of morality, as it is to any arena of science. I agree that to ascribe a visual representation of multiple peaks and valleys is an apt analogy for a moral landscape; though I believe multiple islands separated by varying depths and distances of seas, and with varying flora and fauna (as described here), may better suit the rational disciplined thought necessary for this discussion. I do not agree with Mr. Harris' assertion that "a clear boundary between facts and values simply does not exist" and I intend to show that many of the arguments proposed by Mr. Harris actually help to define that boundary.

1. Definitions: In his words, Sam Harris defines 'values' as "the set of attitudes, choices, and behaviors that potentially affect our well-being, as well as that of other conscious minds." (I agree that what constitutes well-being has a finite range of answers.) A fact is 'a truth known by actual experience or observation.' Contrast that with his definition above and you will see that we cannot predict potential outcomes of attitudes that cause choices that cause behaviors, and this in itself creates a boundary between facts and values; and while 'in principle' there may be definitive (biological-based) causes of attitudes, the fact that we cannot trace and define this (infinite?) pathway of cause and effect makes this reasoning a transcendental truth; i.e. an unknowable certainty, beyond human explanation or experience; (see last week's post). Transcendental, in turn, being beyond common experience is often (rationally) considered to be spiritual. Many go on to interpret spirituality in a faith-based context. The fact that there is a line from values to spirituality (and for some, on to faith), and the fact that (instead of a line) it is a leap from facts to transcendental truths, again solidifies that boundary between values and facts.
2. Science: In his words, Sam Harris argues "that the division between facts and values is intellectually unsustainable, especially from the perspective of neuroscience." Surely he must have meant 'only' from the perspective of neuroscience, because I see no other evidence; and even this evidence, (based as it is, on perspective), is shaky. Facts and values are clearly different, even by his own definition. And though I agree with his comment that facts and values do have something in common, this does not mean they share an identity. That would be like telling someone with a strong preference for Coca-Cola that Pepsi-Cola is exactly the same; or that they are both identical to RC and Shasta Cola and Kroger's generic cola. For many people, one cola clearly stands out as 'the' fact of cola and all others are value choices made by a less-informed individual. It is no wonder that facts and values look the same to neuroscience; my value is a fact, but if we disagree, your value is a choice. I know what I like and these individual preferences show over and over that perception (in practice and in principle) is reality, and the division between a fact and a value is based on perspective, thus creating an intellectually sustainable boundary.
3. Free Will: In his words, Sam Harris states "that though our choices depend on prior causes, does not mean that they do not matter." In the same paragraph, he goes on to say that "decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, willpower, etc., are causal states of the brain, leading to specific behaviors, and behaviors lead to outcomes in the world;" and that "human choice, therefore, is as important as fanciers of free will believe." "Our choices ... do ... matter." This speaks for itself. And though I chose his words carefully, I did not twist them. Mr. Harris also writes "if I had not decided to write this book, it wouldn't have written itself." This exemplifies my evolving conception of free will: the conscious output of work / effort that can be quantified and has impact. These conscious efforts are a reflection of our personal values; and that being so, free will is (and should be) hard work. Mr. Harris also presents free will (or the lack thereof) as a never-ending line of cause and effect, portraying intentions as mysterious and their author as oblivious. Granted, there are many instances of illusionary control, but when I choose to walk six miles from work for my heart health, my intentions are not mysterious and I am not oblivious. As with Mr. Harris' book, my heart is not going to walk itself. And this example of free will (or not) again differentiates between fact and value.
4. Conflict: And finally, in his words, Sam Harris argues that "the goal is not to get more Americans to merely accept the truth of evolution (or any other scientific theory); the goal is to get them to value the principles of reason and educated discourse that now make a belief in evolution obligatory." In the same paragraph, he then goes on to describe faith as an "underlying condition" exemplified by "conviction without sufficient reason, hope mistaken for knowledge, bad ideas protected from good ones, good ideas obscured by bad ones, wishful thinking elevated to a principle of salvation, etc." If he is arguing from science, his comments are valid and thought provoking; but if (as he states) Mr. Harris is arguing for "reason and educated discourse," his arguments would be more effective from common ground. Condescension and 'hot button' proselytizing will not encourage rational, disciplined thought and discussion. The adversarial nature of his comments further solidify the boundary between facts and values by making apparent the emotional 'sense of me' found in many values, including his own. In a disagreement, despite a preponderance of evidence in any direction, an unmoving sense of fact is, in actuality, a value. A combative stance re-emphasizes the boundary by laying barb-wire along its length.

I have argued that there is a clear boundary between facts and values. So what? So, instead of pitting science against religion, let's use this boundary to narrow the borders of a common ground covering rational, disciplined thought. So, if Sam Harris could bring himself to acknowledge 1) the existence of values (that may vary by belief but do no physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of spiritual speculation, and if Religious Activists could bring themselves to acknowledge 1) the importance of valuing simple spiritual speculation (without the excess baggage of religious dogma or physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of scientific exploration and advancement, then we have narrowed the borders to encompass a rational understanding of morality that utilizes the synergy of science and spirituality.

Mr. Harris claims that "some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life." This does not have to be. Once we have found common ground, and once we discipline ourselves to rationally find mutually beneficial Goodness (beginning with 'Do No Harm"), we can practice that Goodness instead of divisively discussing principle. We have the potential to evolve transcendentally, as we have empirically, thereby narrowing the varying degrees of 'right' and 'wrong' to a point where an increasing majority can actively accept these 'value' differences and admit to simply varying degrees of 'right'.

According to New Atheism God is no longer necessary because science now explains (or has the potential to explain) what God previously explained. If this is true, science and scientists are not doing an adequate job of explaining and/or filling the gaps. As a lay person, I certainly still have many, many questions, and I believe there are a number of transcendental truths (unknowable certainties, beyond human explanation or experience) and spiritual speculations (unknowable uncertainties) that will never be explained. To this point, it does not appear that science has explained away God; or eliminated the need to believe; or quashed spiritual speculations; or even eliminated that gray area of transcendental truth that lies between fact and spiritual speculation. (An example of a large transcendental truth would be explaining the unmoved mover in the argument of cause and effect; if the truth is The Big Bang, neither science nor religion can prove or disprove an ultimate, transcendental cause of said truth.)

While acknowledging the rational validity of scientific exploration and advancement, one must ask if the condemnation of spiritual speculation by New Atheism is valid or useful; and some may ask the same about any attempts to disprove (or prove) the existence of God.

According to many Religious Believers morality and good values depend on a belief in God; (57 percent of Americans agree). Yet there are many secular nations (including Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and The Netherlands) that consistently rate better on life expectancy, crime, literacy, economic equality, education, political stability, and a number of other measures of societal well-being. And there is some statistical support for some circumstance in which religion may actually contribute to societal dysfunction. (Statistical information quoted with supporting citations from 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris.) At this point, it does not appear that religious faith has justified organized religion; or eliminated the utility of science; or advanced world-wide, synergistic Goodness; or even consistently raised societal / cultural levels of morality and good values.

While acknowledging the rational validity of spiritual speculation, one must ask if organized religion has outlived its usefulness; and some may ask the same about religious faith.

Mystery allows Scientists to research and Believers to rejoice; and both camps should be allowed to do so, rationally.

So, if New Atheists (in particular) and Skeptics (in general) could bring themselves to acknowledge 1) the existence of values (that may vary by belief but do no physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of spiritual speculation, and if Religious Activists (in particular) and Religious Believers (in general) could bring themselves to acknowledge 1) the importance of valuing simple spiritual speculation (without the excess baggage of religious dogma or physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of scientific exploration and advancement, then we have narrowed the borders to enclose a common ground and we have reduced or (perhaps) eliminated animosity.

This common ground is not a stretch for Religious Believers or Skeptics and it should not be a stretch (but rather a beginning) for Religious Activists and New Atheists; if it is a stretch for anyone, they are not practicing rational, disciplined thought, thus becoming the irrational, undisciplined zealot as portrayed by their opposite number.

Last week I ended the post 'The Art and Magic of Happiness' with "Magic is a song of fear - Art is a dance of courage." This week I heard that song of fear and I am dancing that dance of courage; it seems though, that so far this week I am not dancing fast enough, and, I have two left feet. It is interesting that some sing the song to others and(/or) some sing it to themselves, whereas the dancers typically dance alone. My impression is that at any given moment there are many more singers than dancers, and the members of the audience far outnumber the entertainers. I believe those who cannot sing well, simply don't; they sit in the audience and listen; (though we all sing in the shower). But there are many dancers who simply must dance, regardless; and it is scary to dance alone. The audience can be unkind. To dance alone often invites criticism and may create some insecurities and uncertainty. Some dancers combat this by adding song to their dance; sometimes their own - sometimes another; this is a mistake; this song of fear (as a reflection of Magic) takes away from the dance. It is best to dance through the insecurities and embrace the uncertainty.

... ... ... ...

For a couple of days I have been attempting to ignore uncertainty and I have added song to my 'now-frenzied' dance, all in search of certainty and safety. I feel uncertainty shadowing me; closely.

... ... ... ...

I am unable to ignore it, so now I have stopped singing, turned around, once again embraced uncertainty, and we are doing a slow waltz while I catch my breath.

... ... ... ...

Three days ago, I felt I had lost my moorings. While it is scary to dance alone, I experienced more fear chasing the siren song of safety and certainty. The quiescence of conformity is stifling. The potential found in this ineffable (perilous?) dance with uncertainty is preferable.

"Magic is a song of fear." Safety and certainty is a sham; a reflection of the singer's repressed fear and an illusion of hope for those listening.

"Art is a dance of courage." A dance with uncertainty; a dance of solitude; a dance of potential.

Magic: A deft manipulation of inattention and misdirection creating an expectant assimilation of myths and symbols; an avoidance of reality.

Art: A deft manipulation of attention and focus, using myths and symbols to create an ineffable awareness of Dark and Light; a confrontation with reality.

We want to believe in magic, but we are better served by art. Magic is mind-numbing; simple; pleasant. Art is thought-provoking; complex; filled with shadows. Magic is a safe-in-your-seat spectator sport. Art is a full-contact, participatory pursuit. Magic is characterized by an unquestioning desire to believe. To appreciate art requires cultivated intuition and intense skeptical scrutiny. Magic is characterized by a bureaucratic herd mentality. To fully appreciate art requires the pain of solitude. Magic is sleight of hand. Art is depth of mind. Magic is showmanship. Art is the (sometimes fluid, more often arduous) meshing of internal and external harmonies. A magician takes credit. An artist gives credit. Magic is exclusionary. Art is available to everyone. Magic takes itself too seriously. Art takes innovative risks. Magic is pedestrian. Art is spiritual. Magic has boundaries. Art is forever. Magic is a song of fear. Art is a dance of courage.