hopelesshappiness.com

This week I read the short story "Liking What You See: A Documentary"---(written by Ted Chiang in his collection "Stories of Your Life and Others"). The narrative revolves around a technology that blocks the neural pathways dedicated to evaluating the physical beauty, (or lack thereof), in another individual or even oneself. The proponents of this technology are working to "assist" maturity and promote social equality by discouraging our natural / instinctive proclivity to judge each other based (even in part) on appearance, and, (by suppressing this instinct), turn the tables on exploitation and media manipulation. The opponents in the story are touting education, the freedom to choose, an acquired maturity, a truthful sense of reality, and a reasoned appreciation of beauty; and they are suggesting the possibility of a "new boss" with a constituency that has been physically blinded to the threat and/or reality of continued exploitation and manipulation. These are all reasonable arguments from each faction's foundation of basic beliefs. Amidst the back and forth within the story, a college professor makes the following observation and asks the following question:

"This debate isn't just about commercials and cosmetics, it's about determining what's the appropriate relationship between the mind and the body. Are we more fully realized when we minimize the physical part of our natures?"

There are many (seemingly) good arguments both for 1) sublimating one's physical nature in favor of one's mind and for 2) seeking a reasoned, natural balance. But by including the word "reasoned" am I already sublimating my physical nature? Or, if I exclude the word "reasoned" am I sublimating my mind? It is interesting that in most body / mind debates the division is between favoring the mind or finding a mind-body balance. I have seldom if ever, (at least in my adult life), participated in an argument for unrestricted or widespread physical free rein.

With that last thought perhaps a more equitable approach would be to first work at an understanding of how we might define a natural balance between body and mind, and then determine what a "disproportionate" amount of reason is. Though I am uncertain where this will go, I will first examine truthfulness (because it feels relevant), and then I will look at the beliefs and arguments summarized in the first paragraph. At that point I will assess progress; if any.

Am I able to uphold the integrity of truthfulness within myself if I favor my mind over my physical nature? Or is the truth of the mind a higher order truth than that of the body, thereby allowing (or even demanding) favoritism? In previous written thought I have said,

"Be Yourself, to yourself and to others. And to this end I absolutely believe in uninhibited truthfulness to oneself; you must first know yourself, and only then can you be yourself." (Uninhibited Happiness June 23, 2012).

But I go on to say that complete uninhibited truthfulness is an unattainable Ideal, and potentially dysfunctional; so I can never completely know myself, and I can never completely be myself. But alternatively, if, (as Jean Paul Sartre believed), "Existence precedes Essence" then perhaps I have it upside down. Perhaps I must first be myself in order to know myself. Perhaps truthfulness does begin within my physical nature and perhaps excessive thought (like superficial thought) is delusional thought.

Or perhaps the foundation of inner truthfulness is not an either/or...

And perhaps beliefs and arguments are a distraction...

And perhaps the foundation of inner truthfulness is not inner...

I want to look at some of the beliefs and arguments, (from within the story), for and against assisted maturity.

Since both sides argue against exploitation and manipulation, it is a wash. The proponent's claim is accurate, and the opponent's position that there will always be someone in power, able to take advantage, is valid.

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

On second thought, perhaps it is the remaining beliefs and arguments that are a wash. Because both sides are championing social equality, (the proponents through technology and the opponents through choice), the methods may be less relevant than any unexpected, unplanned, or unwanted consequence. To this end, perhaps one question we should ask is, "As I work toward social equality, how do I prefer to be manipulated?" In this scenario, those being manipulated and exploited pre-neural blockage are apparently comfortably oblivious; but those who choose to physically block neural pathways have become actively complicit and are potentially subjecting their self to being taken advantage of in other, perhaps less comfortable, ways. Put this way, it becomes a "Trolley" question; expeditious social equality appears to be the greater good, but if I choose "expeditious" I am repulsed by the thought of the personal physical intervention. This also clarifies the conflict in the story as an acknowledgement that we are not pitting mind against body, but rather we are choosing between the midpoint of the spectrum and its far end; balance and sublimation; freedom to choose and conformity; learning from mistakes and learning by rote; difficult and easy.

I appear to be making some progress; I have traveled from body and mind to body-and-mind-balance; but I still have a divide to cross; I have to keep moving; no rest periods; think-action; back-and-forth; inside-and-out; upside-and-down; building the bridge; to-the-other-side; and back; and-again. There.

If asked for a one-to-one-to-one association with the mind and the body in one column, action and thought in a second column, and outward and inward in the third column, I am confident that a very large majority of us would associate mind-thought-inward and body-action-outward. I have spent a Lifetime structuring my beliefs, thoughts, arguments, and actions in this manner. I would like to reconsider.

Instinct is a non-verbal body-thought.
Experience is action interpreted.
My mind is movement; outward.

These elements trip all over each other. Perhaps my Mind requires a fundamental Biota consisting of my Body and Inward and Outward movement of Thoughts and Actions. Perhaps my Mind IS this Biota as one whole.

That would mean that the appropriate relationship between mind and body---the natural balance---is that which exists in any given moment; their relationship is simultaneously ephemeral and inseparable.

And, the foundation of inner truthfulness is not an either/or; nor is it exclusively inner.

And, an amount of reason would be disproportionate if one, in any manner, sublimates any other component of this biota; including one's physical nature.

And, excessive thought that ultimately manifests as action, is not delusional thought; unless one or more of these Mind Biota components are artificially, deceitfully, or forcibly suppressed.

And, I believe that every thought, to some degree, manifests as action in this moment and/or in a future moment.

And, we are more fully realized when we work to know all the elements, and allow them to talk to each other; unimpeded.

And, it will never be easy.

And, we will never be 100% fully realized.

This concept of one super-organism, constantly fine-tuning contrast and balance, does not work against any basic beliefs but rather asks us to listen carefully to the groans and creaks and pops coming from the structure we have built upon this foundation, and from there work toward an uninhibited truthfulness with oneself. An Existentialist can still focus on outward experience. A Buddhist Monk can still focus on inward enlightenment. A Kinetic Hedonist can still focus on the body. An Epistemologist can still focus on the mind. A member of the herd or flock can still focus on following. An individual can still focus on serious thought.

And I, as a serious thinker, must focus on the one whole---the Mind Biota---in an effort to move closer to the unattainable Ideal of Happiness.

I love a good analogy.

This week I am reading "10% Human: How Your Body's Microbes Hold the Key to Health and Happiness." This fascinating book, written by Alanna Collen, is taking me on a compelling and thought-provoking journey from my mouth to my gut to my brain, and to other biological landscapes that provide an entirely new microbial perspective on modern disease and health.

Within this backdrop, I have found a striking similarity to our recent political landscape. If you consider the digestive system, from the mouth (input) to it's delta (output), as (in addition to the skin) an outer layer or surface in the sense that it provides potential entry points into one's body, then we can equate the gut to a border, the body to our nation, the immune system to political policy, the cells to people, inflammation to aggressiveness, life-threatening infectious disease to waves of life-threatening immigrants, autoimmune diseases to counterproductive casualties, and the reactive microbiota to police action.

The quote immediately below is taken directly and exactly from the book; and the one following is the same quote but with the above equivalencies inserted [in brackets].

"This inflammation comes in the form of an overactive immune system, reacting to the illegal immigrants crossing the gut's border into the body... ...Sometimes the body's own cells get caught in the cross-fire, resulting in autoimmune diseases."

This [aggressiveness] comes in the form of an overactive [political] system, reacting to the illegal immigrants crossing the [nation's] border into the [beloved homeland]... ...Sometimes the [homeland's] own [people] get caught in the cross-fire, resulting in [counterproductive casualties].

Her point (as I take it) is, that since we have cleansed the body of many dangerous infectious diseases (such as smallpox, cholera, tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, and measles) and dethroned infectious disease as the leading cause of death (as it was in 1900), our immune system, utilizing the body's microbiota, has overreacted to less dangerous threats, creating autoimmune diseases.

She suggests that in the body the solution is to introduce a greater diversity of microbes; thereby enabling greater regulation of the excitable immune response, thus lessening the characteristic inflammation that leads to autoimmune disease and other health issues.

I might suggest that in our nation the solution is to introduce a greater diversity of peoples and opinions; thereby enabling greater regulation of extreme political policy, thus reducing aggressive police action and its resulting counterproductive casualties.

Others are suggesting that the cleansing must continue; insisting that the political policy is necessary to ensure safety and security, and warning that a greater diversity will only lead to a breakdown in order and discipline.

When we wage germ warfare, (a personal war against unwanted germs), the purpose is to keep unhealthy or dangerous elements (i.e. foreign bodies in the form of bacteria, viruses, fungi and archaea) outside the sacred confines of one's personal body.

When we wage cultural warfare, the purpose is to keep unhealthy or dangerous elements (i.e. foreign bodies in the form of zealots, subversives, misfits, and intruders) outside the sacred confines of our beloved homeland.

Unfortunately, in both of these instances, there is a portion, (perhaps a large majority), of these banished and unwanted outsiders that are not only "not" unhealthy or dangerous, but if allowed entry would add to the health and well-being of the host body or nation.

But because of our fear we are left with a practice of discriminatory, indiscriminate cleansing.

Because of our fear we exercise power to keep those with power, in power.

Because of our fear we pretend to be in control instead of choosing to recognize, acknowledge, embrace, and learn from our fear.

Because of our fear we abide by prevailing opinion and we do not ask hard questions.

Because of our fear we remain the silent majority; obviously in action and results, if not also in word.

Because of our fear...

...discriminatory, indiscriminate, harmful cleansing.

For as long as I can remember, I have been working to turn subjectivity into objectivity; with very limited success. I have had no success turning lead into gold either; though I understand it is possible. I have however, turned ketchup into marinara. Dictionary.com gives a definition of alchemy as "any magical power or process of transmuting a common substance, usually of little value, into a substance of great value." I would like to examine the latter two alchemies to determine if these successful processes may aid me in my quest for objectivity.

First, An Examination of Values:

In the early and middle years of my search for unequivocal objectivity, I placed a below-market value on subjectivity. But in my travels I have come to realize that the trailhead for any search for Truth is subjectivity. From there the path has to wind through varying degrees and gradations of both subjectivity and objectivity to move toward Truth. I have found some shortcuts, (such as rational skepticism), but I now believe there is no bypass around subjectivity. Consequently, I have more fully recognized the market value of subjectivity. And, though I have always insisted that an ultimate Truth is unattainable, I have also stressed the importance of diligently seeking Truth believing the search will move me closer, and the proximity will result in progress; and for me, this proximity to Truth as pursued through rational thought remains highly-prized. So to find a definitive process that would consistently transmute subjectivity to objectivity (for me) is alchemy. I also maintain my description of the other processes as alchemy, because I do value gold over lead and a properly-made marinara over (even my homemade) ketchup.

An Examination of Lead to Gold:

I have read that it is possible to extract gold from lead, and scientists have successfully changed bismuth to gold, but the process to do so will apparently always cost considerably more than the value created in the minute amount of gold produced. Could the same be true of my efforts to transform subjectivity into objectivity? Or, if my efforts cost far more than my tangible results, are there intangibles that will lessen, or possibly eclipse that value gap?

An Examination of Ketchup to Marinara:

One evening this past week I texted my daughter, (she was at work and I was going to bed), to let her know that the grilled chicken, spaghetti squash and marinara sauce were in the refrigerator. The next morning she asked me what I did differently with my marinara sauce. I told her, "nothing. I made it the same as I always do." She said it was bad, so I pulled the bowl off the bottom shelf, from behind the beer, to check it out as she was pulling a jar of my homemade ketchup off the top shelf to show me it was different. For approximately 8 hours my ketchup led a double life as marinara. It was late, she was tired, the ketchup was front and center on the top shelf, with a tomato base, and I had unknowingly practiced the ancient art of alchemy, magically turning ketchup into marinara.

She believed, and it was.

...For 8 hours.

What if I had never told her? Would she have lived her whole Life believing a delusion? Or would she have dug deeper to find the Truth? And what if someone presented her with this new Truth 50 years from now, (shortly after I had passed on), trying to convince her that marinara was actually ketchup? Would she believe them? Or would she continue to believe the Truth she had known for a majority of her Life? And how does this all apply to my attempts to turn subjectivity into objectivity?

Lastly, An Examination of Subjectivity to Objectivity:

Subjectivity is a common substance; much more common than objectivity. And because of its prevalence, subjectivity is typically considered to be of a lesser value than objectivity, which is why I frequently convince myself that my outlook is based more on facts and certainty than on opinions and uncertainty; even when it is not---(which I believe to be the case more often than not).

Since I am unable to efficiently extract objectivity from subjectivity, I believe I must embrace and work to understand subjectivity in order to more readily recognize it as it runs alongside my objectivity; this will not only raise the value of subjectivity but it will also aid in my learning and progress, bringing me closer to Truth. Additionally I believe there is added value to a rational partnership as opposed to an adversarial estrangement based on a perceived difference in values. This week, in a meeting, I found myself saying the words, "Your subjectivity is not a negative, and your efforts to turn it into objectivity will devalue this process!" Wow! From my mouth? Yes. In some circumstance I now find subjectivity to be equally as valuable, or even more valuable, than objectivity.

But this (immediately above) is an argument for valuing subjectivity, and not necessarily an argument for working to find objectivity through subjectivity. It is important to recognize each for what it is, and to understand that (theoretically) they are inseparable. There may come a point where one believes they have found a Truth, and they may very well be correct, but I believe, (as do many others), that rationality requires some degree of uncertainty to ensure continued skeptical examination and further questioning. Certainty kills effort. Uncertainty is the critical intangible, as a byproduct of subjectivity, that perpetuates effort. Therefore I must believe that subjectivity and objectivity, to some degree, are always inseparable; and I must always start again at the trailhead---subjectivity---to gain ground on Truth and to make tangible progress.

To believe subjectivity is (or can be) unequivocal objectivity is delusional. To believe in certainty is delusional. To believe something simply because you have always believed it is delusional. I cannot magically turn subjectivity into objectivity. But I can reason through subjectivity in order to balance it with objectivity. I believe in most instances I should work to see that this balance favors a rational objectivity, but in order to determine this with a lesser degree of uncertainty, I must stay well-acquainted with subjectivity.

Just because something is front and center, on the top shelf, with a tomato base, does not make it marinara.

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Classical Foundationalism holds that there are two kinds of belief: basic beliefs and non-basic beliefs. The basic beliefs are rational even when not held on the basis of other beliefs, whereas non-basic beliefs are only rational when supported by basic beliefs."

"According to the classical foundationalist, the only beliefs that are properly basic fall into one of the three following categories:

1. evident to the senses,
2. incorrigible, or
3. self evident."

Each individual may perceive sensory input differently, but for the most part there is less disagreement and/or more understanding within this ('evident to the senses') classification of basic beliefs.

From dictionary.com:

"Incorrigible: firmly fixed; not easily changed, swayed, or influenced."

"Self Evident: Evident in itself without proof or demonstration."

For some beliefs there is widespread agreement as to its self evident nature and incorrigibility; but for other beliefs there is widespread disagreement on its identification as basic or non-basic. Widespread disagreement comes about when each individual formulates a personal concept of self-evident based on their framework of reference, and each individual chooses his or her evidence in order to build and strengthen a personal foundation of basic beliefs, from which rationality is then constructed. (A common example of this 'widespread disagreement' process is our varying beliefs surrounding God and religion.) As this construct is built and varyingly reinforced, in many cases it becomes very difficult to argue that it is not built on a foundation of basic beliefs. I believe one's personal foundation should be impressionable, but not submissive or compliant. I believe a majority of personal foundations are unyielding and incorrigible, and a large majority are unyielding and incorrigible and/or submissive and compliant. When faced with another's rigid foundation, if my personal foundation is in opposition, argument, (no matter how logically constructed from my foundation), will likely prove futile. So I must begin by understanding 1) the unassailability of their position, and 2) that rational arguments from their position will likely be perceived as irrational when seen from my foundation (and vice versa). I must then assess their irrational / rational arguments and search for more agreeable creative alternatives. Some may call this compromise. In a disagreement, I have frequently encouraged seeking common ground. I suppose common ground may be interpreted as a form of compromise, but I do not believe that compromise will always lead to a common ground. If I follow the process above and find an agreeable alternative that they interpret as rationally consistent with their foundation, before compromising my principles, I must determine if it is also rationally consistent with my foundation. To do this I must poke around and between the edges of both foundations to possibly unearth some common ground. By poking around the edges of his or her foundation, I may also draw them out, and may even enlist their aid.

If, on the first pass, the disagreement appears to be unresolvable, and the other individual remains ensconced and girded smack dab in the middle of their incorrigible position, I keep digging and poking until I come to a backbreaking point where the disagreement remains unresolvable...

Which brings me back to, "How does one argue against incorrigible basic belief?"

Given propitious recourse, one could use force or power; i.e. wage battle. If successful though, the resolution could possibly be short term; only until one's opponent is able to amass their own resources and continue the cycle. Additionally, a battle may persuade (or force) actions, but an argument is meant to persuade thoughts and views, leaving one to then determine their own actions. The argument is preferable.

Perhaps some misdirection? If I pick a different argument where there is a greater likelihood of common ground, perhaps the distraction would at the least maintain status quo. Though if I am the one working to initiate a change, this plan may likely defeat that purpose. And again, misdirection is likely a short term solution.

It was Max Planck who said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I believe this to extend beyond the scientific and also be applicable to (too) many new truths of varying credentials. So I suppose that waiting for the other individual's descendants to evolve and come around to see the wisdom of common ground... No. That will not help in the current circumstance.

((BRIEF INTERLUDE: There will be a  day, (though I likely will not live to see it), when coffee shop etiquette evolves to exclude LOUD, monopolistic laughter and conversation. My typical experience is that a fairly large majority understand the necessity of quiet conversation, and it is seldom a problem. But today, it is a problem. ...Despite the fact that these two ladies are several tables away, on the other side of the room. Perhaps I should care about David's prostate surgery, but in this setting I find that very difficult.))

So far I have not come close to answering the question, How does one argue against incorrigible basic belief?

Approximately 12 years ago I began questioning many of my basic beliefs that I had held, (up to that point), for a Lifetime. I have always been a skeptic and I have always very much enjoyed thinking outside the box and playing the role of devil's advocate; but I had always done so (mainly) with the beliefs of others. It was between 10 and 12 years ago, and then again 7 years ago and 2 years ago, that some major Life changes, (coupled with my inherent skepticism), increased the impressionability of my personal foundation, creating internal opportunities for more extensive skepticism, more pointed questioning, a deeper self-evaluation, and the upheaval of constructing new foundations. My common ground with others expanded considerably and I began reading / self-educating in many areas I would not have touched upon previously. We cannot, (nor would I want to see us), intentionally bring about disability and/or health issues to duplicate these circumstances in anyone, but perhaps we could at least, (as adults pass into the second half of their Life), encourage a serious contemplation of one's (very, very) short Life compared to all past, present and future Lives, which should lead to thoughts of one's mortality, and then provide further encouragement to consider the widely varying beliefs surrounding an afterlife. I believe the resulting humility may perhaps soften some unyielding, incorrigible foundations.

I have never been one to advocate for more laws---(AaaaaAaaaaaa!!!)---so I am uncertain as to how to implement this educational initiative. Perhaps a required introduction, (incorporated into existing requirements), for 16 to 20-year-olds with a Web site encouraging staged self-study into one's 30's and 40's and 50's and 60's.

Again, this does not help us today.

Today, it feels like our options are limited. Today, it feels like change---(progress)---(learning)---must be initiated by the initiate. Today, it feels like progress is slow. I actively hope it is not too slow.

Today, it feels like my "active" is not sufficiently active.

So again, "How does one introduce a new truth to an incorrigible basic belief?"

Today, it feels like we must concur with Max Planck and wait for old truths to die; or, lose an election.

It took one week for Donald Trump to do something stupid. Against all counsel, (because he did not seek any), he spread his new wings, flew past conventional process, and from 10,000 feet shat on the U.S. Constitution, creating confusion and bafflement at borders, in airports worldwide, and on both sides of the aisle. On Monday, he compounded his shortsightedness by commandeering the bureaucracy of the badge and raising his personal skull and crossbones over the Department of Justice. (In this moment), this is not a question of right or wrong. This is a question of methods. Our new president is a bully.

It appears Mr. Trump now has the Department of Justice safely tucked under one wing, and with the Legislative Branch presumably tucked under the other wing, the only question that remains is how long will he be able to stay aloft with 2 right wings.

I see hope on two fronts. One, the *Judicial Branch, has already spoken, though, (it seems to me), rather meekly. They need to step up and do their job, as specified by the framers of our Constitution. It was James Madison who said, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

The second hope lies in the Republican feathers ruffled by Trump's shenanigans. Though not a majority, a significant number of Republicans have spoken out against his unorthodox maneuvering, including Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) who said, "...President Trump's executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security. Such a hasty process risks harmful results."

Though I typically do not imbibe, political commentary, discussion, and exploits may become more of an influence on my thoughts and words. If there is a runaway train and a high likelihood of a train wreck, no matter how intensely I yearn for otherwise, how can I tear my eyes away? This administration will test our Constitution and the entire concept of separation of powers. At this juncture, less than two weeks in, I still have faith that stupidity will not run rampant through all branches and departments of our government. Bureaucracy alone is enough of a daily challenge. Though at this juncture, less than two weeks in, I am sad that I feel the necessity of such a strong response. I have previously said that "ignorance is immature stupidity" (and part of the learning process), and "stupidity is grownup ignorance" (practiced by those who should know better), and "the challenge is to outgrow ignorance before it becomes entrenched as stupidity." This challenge is a never-ending, lifelong endeavor. It appears that Donald Trump's ignorance is entrenched. He should know better. Instead of seeking common ground, he is throwing up roadblocks and building walls. Divisiveness is not the answer.

Trump's executive order on immigration is an interesting juxtaposition to some crime statistics I have looked at this week. I find it fascinating and actively hopeful to see the rate at which violent crime has decreased. Despite what we may see and hear from the media, and despite what some may maintain as reality, according to fact, we are getting smarter. I interpret decreasing violent crime rates as a strong indication of greater tolerance, understanding, empathy, intelligence, and a broadening of common ground; all necessities for the ultimate, long-term survival of Humanity. I interpret Donald Trump's actions in this past week as a strong indication of greater intolerance, divisiveness, combativeness, stupidity, and a narrowing of common ground; all necessities for ego and, (if not curtailed by the Judiciary and by autonomous, responsible Republican legislators), a recipe for tyranny.

All Hail, Tyrannosaurus Trump!

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

*Friday night, a court order temporarily lifted the immigration ban. Today the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security dismantled Trump's order, restoring travel privileges. Trump predictably responded with a tweet calling the judge a "so-called judge" and the restraining order "ridiculous!"

After two weeks of Trump, I am inclined to believe that the impact and influence of his daily blustering swagger will continue to fade into irrelevance. As long as we are diligent in our efforts to rationally battle his divisive rhetoric, (just as with his immigration foolishness), he will continue to be exposed for what he is: a Tyrant Wannabe King.