Philosophy On Purpose

Resonance and Truth-

2011-03-18T05:48:00.000-07:00

Why do people become Republicans? Democrats? Christians? Buddhists? Why do they adopt particular affiliations associated with things (propositions, statements, ideas) considered to be true or even Truth?

Based on subjective experience and observation, I would contend it is largely resonance. A proposition just feels right. Granted, a portion of the population of humans will investigate propositions and make thought out decisions with regard to those propositions. Most, however, are the consequence of resonance.

Even the process of investigation can be (and probably mostly is) guided by this resonance. This alternative feels better than that alternative. Some might be associative. "My family has always been Republican Democrat Christian Buddhist Insert Your Own Thing Here." Some the consequence of extended hours of diligent comparison.

At some point, however, a decision has to be made. I would contend that resonance is the ultimate deciding factor. A lot of the study associated with this resonant choice becomes apologetics. "I am right and here is why" kind of study and argument.

When you think about it, thinking about it takes a lot of time. How many people have selected their political party through diligent and dispassionate study of all of the available literature? History, opinion pieces, analysis and dissection. How long would a truly exhaustive study of political parties take? Could one actually arrive at an unbiased conclusion and subsequent decision using this method?

How about religion? The complete and exhaustive study of one religion is more than a lifetime worth of work, much less every major religion and then consideration of the multitude of sects and sub-devisions. It might be possible, but I cannot see it being done. I doubt that it has been done.

Amazingly (but not surprisingly) people can be so intense in their beliefs as to die for them. More troublesome, they have throughout history been willing to kill for them. That is some serious resonance.

Discord is a consequence of incompatible resonances. Harmony is the joining together of various resonances in a manner that is appealing. The melding of truths can be discordant or harmonious, as well. Some of us like to believe that there is a conductor for this symphony that is the life experience. Others don't find that idea resonating in their own frequency. They fail to see it as truth.

It does take a degree of faith to believe that the conductor can incorporate the seeming discord into a larger harmony. Evidence often does imply the contrary. Some would argue that it proves the alternative, though I would contend that they have not examined enough evidence. They can't. They are too finite and the problem too large.

But that's alright. I choose to believe that their discord is part of a greater harmony. I don't really have any evidence. The idea just resonates with me. Oh, there are evidences that I also find compatibly resonant, and I will share them with others when opportunity arises. I don't expect to argue anyone into harmony, however.

Harmony is the job of the conductor.

Knowledge, Authority and Truth-

2011-03-14T17:48:00.000-07:00

In my youth I pursued Truth, truth with a capital T. My understanding of what Truth might be was understandably nebulous. I was a youth, a young person of limited knowledge and experience.

Truth with a capital T is truth that is true. It is absolute and stands above time and space and is not touched nor tarnished by either. Kind of like God in the absolute and monotheistic sense of who and what God is. Are. Am, as in "I Am." Which puts Truth with a capital T in the same realm as a transcendent God. Essentially, it is His exclusive property.

That leaves us humans on Earth with limited truth. This is truth that is true, in that it accurately (though finitely) reflects Truth that is absolute. I am obviously waxing Platonic here, except for such points as might be more Aristotelean in nature or not easily placed in either basket.

Now, human truth has for a long time been a matter of authority. Essentially some group (quite often priests of some sort) claimed exclusive stewardship of Truth. They either gained political authority themselves or somehow became the sanctifying agency of political authority, and doled out Truth in one form or another under that authority.

Sometimes independent Truth hunters found a bit of something they called Truth, but the stewards of Truth often took issue with the independents and did bad things to them. Or at least threatened to do bad things to them. Galileo could address this a bit better. Some day I hope to sit down with Galileo and one or two of the Popes, assuming any of them make it into Heaven. I hope they do.

So, we have authority dispensing and defending truth, and over time the independents get out from under said authority and start building new temples and priesthoods. Not that the prior authority structures ever became truly monolithic. They just used their public relations people to make them seem so, and backed it up with a lot of sharp pointy things.

Time passes, and Truth gets broken up and repackaged, at least here on Earth. I assume God has kept His in pretty good order. I have seen only local copies of His Truth, and it has been somewhat tarnished and lost its capitalism. Oh, wrong word that looks right. Lost its capital state, as in capital T.

I still believe that God has Truth. I also don't believe anyone here on Earth has Truth. They just have truth, which is true truth only when it reflects the Truth that God has and we don't. This could be upsetting and distressing, and for me has been upsetting and distressing. However, I really do think God is the best steward of the Truth, and knowing that He has exclusive possession and authority over Truth makes me much less upset and distressed these days.

I suspect that it is my Agnostic past that influences my suspicion of anyone claiming not only to hold the Truth, but to somehow have an exhaustive and exclusive grasp of Truth. Scientist or Theologian, Democrat or Republican, Communist or Capitalist, at best I may grant you some grasp of a minute fragment of what is true. I don't know, and because I don't know I have to assume it is possible that you don't really know, either.

Now my subjective experiences have been sufficient for me to find a balance in what I think and believe and believe about what I think and what I think about what I believe. I have chosen to believe that I am redeemed in Christ, that I have an eternity in Heaven awaiting me following this short experience that is called life. Do I know that it is true? I am not sure. Do I believe that it is true? I choose to so believe.

Having read this far you may have concluded that I am wrong and probably mad. Depending on where you draw the lines, I am. My way of thinking has come to serve me well enough. It keeps me on this side of what I have experienced of madness, and it is a comfortable enough place to be. It is often fun, as well. That may not be particularly relevant but it is rather nice.

So, in my quest I have indeed discovered Truth. It is in the stewardship of a sovereign God, and He permits me a glance now and then. He does not promise me the whole thing, and has over time shown me that I should be thankful for that. I am.

If you wish to discuss any of this with me, I am quite available. Facebook is currently one of the better places to find me. You can also leave me contact information in the comments. Please, comment freely. If you prefer to wait, we can discuss this on the other side of death.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is sufficient to overcome and triumph over your shortcomings, which are traditionally called sins. You simply have to trust enough to stand before God and say, "I have no excuses. I depend fully on the blood of Christ." I certainly have no other (or better) argument.

I hope to see you in Heaven. The music will be great and the catering superb. I will be hanging out with Galileo and a couple of the Popes. Jesus will probably be telling us just how wrong we were.

I suspect we will be laughing.

The Overwhelming Bigness of Everything-

2011-01-04T14:12:00.000-08:00

Sometime in the recent past I was watching No Reservations. Anthony Bourdain was in China, extolling the virtues of the roast duck cooked by a man who had been roasting duck since childhood. If I recall correctly, he inherited the roast duck business he ran from his father. Anyway, Anthony was going on and on about how much a man who had been roasting ducks for thirty years would know about roasting duck. How good and succulent and wonderful this particular duck was apt to be.

Thirty years, roasting duck. That would certainly broach the subject of expertise as Malcom Gladwell presented it in Outliers. In that book Gladwell presented the idea of 10,000 hours as the level of time committed to a practice in order to be an expert, a master. Thirty years of roasting duck every day. Yep, I would grant that duck man was an expert on the roasting of ducks.

As I have related before in this blog and some of my others, in my very early youth I developed a passion for knowledge. A passion developed before I realized the challenge of knowing everything. I never lost that passion, but often ran up against the degree to which things were inter-related. A question best answered in psychology would also impinge on aspects of sociology, and require input from archaeology and anthropology and political science.

Overwhelming. I have had periods of despair and depression as a consequence of being so overwhelmed. I suspect I have crossed the borders of madness more than once in my life. I have also touched on the ecstasy of deep intuitive insight. I have know the richness of pursuing a thought or idea through several channels of inter-connectedness to reach a deep understanding.

To choose any one discipline and plumb its depths would be a good thing. A wonderful thing. Many people do so, and some taste from more than one such well. Yet, to so choose is to roast ducks for thirty years. Not a bad thing, especially if you really like duck. Still, there are so many wells and their many more inter-connections. Roasted duck, even masterfully roasted duck, is much better with a variety of side dishes.

And a good wine or beer. Doh! Now we have another discipline; zymurgy. That relates to chemistry and biology and botany, and the many social and economic aspects of beer and wine. They sure do taste good, though.

Especially with roast duck. Mmmm!

The Context of our beliefs-

2011-01-03T07:22:00.000-08:00

When I was very young the Universe was believed to exist in a stable steady state. Like star stuff floating in a vacuous sea, everything remained pretty much where it was just a short time ago. Oh, there were relative motions, but for the most part it was not going anywhere or doing anything.

At least, that was pretty much what I recall being taught when the matter was approached at all. However, behind that theory was the growing acceptance of an expanding universe. Things were moving away from each other, as if all that is was blown away from some central point.

Of course, a few centuries before that the universe was much smaller. It was made up of various things, such as concentric spheres or a disk floating on the sea. For some it was no more substantive than dreams or illusions, and for others it is turtles all the way down. The universe, or at least how humans perceive it, has changed a great deal.

The universe of my childhood was going to simply cool down and die a very cold death. An expanding universe could die similarly, but if enough matter exists it could stop expanding and eventually collapse into a Gnab Gib. That's Big Bang backwards. OK. I agree it is dumb. However, being over 45 years old I am required to make dumb jokes from time to time. It's the law.

This is all dross and duck feathers to some fundamentalist believers of several major faiths. The universe was created and so-called science is just wrong. For other believers the seeming inconsistency between the universe of science and the universe of faith has to be compensated for in some manner. They may put their divergent beliefs in different compartments in their minds, taking out the one they need depending on what they must think and talk about at any given moment. They may simply appeal to "mystery," and not look too deeply.

I tend to believe that most of us assume that the universe is actually there, in some form. We bump up against it, have our senses stimulated, and draw conclusions. Many of us recognize that there are others similar to ourselves, and we have conversations and sex and babies and ideas and television shows in common with these others. The context of our bumping into each other frames a lot of our beliefs.

I haven't had a conversation with anyone who really believes that the universe is not there. I have had some interesting discussions with people who have a far different perspective on the nature of reality, one or two of whom I was sitting on (in the course of doing my job) while they received the medications that would purportedly aid them in managing their perspectives better. Never with anyone who really believed that they and the universe did not exist.

What would they talk about, anyway? And why? After all, I am not really there in that context. How interesting could I be? Why should they listen, and with what?

In the course of my bumping up against the universe I have come to some conclusions. One such conclusion led to my conversion to the Christian faith. I believe that the God of the Bible is the one true God, a belief I adopted as an aspect of my conversion. I am convinced that the only being in (and transcending) the universe who really knows what is True is that one God.

He has the necessary perspective. The rest of us can learn some pretty cool stuff, bumping around in His creation. We can often draw conclusions from these experiences that are more or less true. We can share these as we bump up against others, and refine our thoughts and ideas and the things we imagine. However, none of us can comprehensively comprehend the whole of what is quite the way God can.

The scope of my own ignorance and propensity for error causes me to grant people a lot of slack in what they say they believe and how they say it. I believe that I am a sinner, that I fail to meet even my own standards of belief and actions, much less the standards established by God as revealed in the Bible. I am an inadequate human being. However, God has provided a sacrifice in Jesus Christ sufficient to make up for those deficiencies, and I believe in the sufficiency of that sacrifice. In Jesus I am saved from the consequences of my sin, my rebellion against God.

I don't know everything. I don't even know a lot. However, if what I just said touched something within you, and you feel a need for the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, seek out a believer to bump up against you, and give you a new context for your beliefs. Open yourself to God directing your experiences.

If what I said does not spark some interest, then continue your own path of bumping up against the universe. The universe you experience is the context of your beliefs.

To believe is to choose. Choose wisely. Choose well.

Anti-lobbyist Lobby. A watchdog concept-

2010-08-26T13:06:00.000-07:00

The purchase of politicians is part of the business of Washington D.C., and most other centers of power in the United States. "Contributions" through the lobbying industry seem to be the way of demonstrating membership in the "system." It is probably not far different in essence from the way business was done in Ancient Egypt or Babylon. Oh, some of the particulars are uniquely American, but in essence it is buying an ear. Purchasing influence.

Once a system is entrenched it is quite hard to root out. Revolutions are messy, and most don't really improve the situation. One of the most admirable aspects of our own system is the relatively bloodless changes of power. Unfortunately, our electoral system seems to offer only two flavors, and they are hard to tell apart. Is this vanilla or French vanilla? I can't tell, and it really just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

So, I thinks a bit, does I. If you can't break down the system to overcome the system, why not mimic the system and undermine it? What I propose is a special lobby of sorts. For each professional lobbyist we field a shadow, an individual who will simply report where that lobbyist goes and with whom they meet. Then that information is made public.

This shadow lobbyist doesn't listen in, or do any spy work other than open shadowing. They follow the lobbyist to the big wig's office and just sit in the waiting room. Then they follow the lobbyist when they go out from there to meet another fat cat at a restaurant. Follow. Report. Follow. Report.

This could be a business opportunity for some enterprising American. Hey, if you are lucky the fat cats will buy you off. It could happen. It's a free country. It's even more free for those who have money, of course. If you are scrupulous you could provide a valuable service to Americans who are fed up with things as they are. If you aren't, at least you could make some money.

Just like real lobbyists.

Anti-Jihad

2010-08-23T23:02:00.000-07:00

My friends in the Blogosphere and in the realm of Facebook are rather varied. Some among them use titles such as Christian and Conservative. Others are proudly Liberal. There are Libertarians among them, as well as some Democrats and some Republicans. Some are even Atheists. From what I have seen, most are pretty decent people.

A few among them have periodically expressed sentiments I am classing as "Anti-Jihad." Those sentiments include a generalized fear of Islam, a willingness to deny radical Islamic people freedoms, and a vague and generalized tolerance of intolerance. I have viewed a few bits of Anti-Jihad propaganda, finding much of it to be fear-mongering. I think these friends need to engage their more rational selves a bit in considering their positions.

At the same time, I must recognize the existence of Radical Islam in various forms in various places. There is something to fear, in that it is not clear what the lesser extreme aspects of Islam might do if and when the radicals gain a degree of power. I certainly have not seen a lot of moderate Islamics generating anti-radical press and otherwise saying "These people do not speak for me." These radicals seem to be striving to achieve something, and I am pretty sure it is not the increase of my personal freedom and well being.

There is also a bit of history to recall. At least a modicum of aggressive Islamic expansion can be found from time to time and place to place in history. On some occasions the use of violence was relatively common! Imagine that! Oh, those Christians weren't very often as saintly as their Saints during some of those eras, but since they gained dominance for a number of centuries it is obvious whose side God is on, right?

What are my friends who express Anti-Jihad feelings really saying? I have seen little in the way of clearly thought out philosophies of Anti-Jihad. Currently it seems to focus on some Islamic body trying to build a Mosque in New York a bit too close to the target of a radical Muslim group we call Ground Zero. Understandable feelings, but not too clear as anything more than feelings.

Those I know who lean toward Libertarian thinking tend to feel that the Mosque builders should be free to go ahead, if they own the property. When you think about it, there is a strong point of argument in this position. Do we want to see denial of rights simply due to political or religious beliefs and doctrines? I would prefer to see reasonable laws and regulations enforced without prejudice in this country. My own liberties would then be protected.

Still, the Anti-Jihad feelings are valid as feelings. If an American chooses to hate all Muslims based on the actions of a few, that should be their liberty. Plenty of people think and feel similarly toward Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, the Irish, persons of Polish descent, males, females and short people. The freedom to hate without any real reason is a genuine American liberty.

So, lets think through Anti-Jihad. Since it is easier to hate all Muslims than to get to know the nature of Islamic peoples and cultures and analyze critically the genuine nature of the Islamic threat, it is probably best to go with that. How to affectively practice Anti-Jihad might be worth some consideration.

In my response to Anti-Jihad statements I say, "My knives are sharp, when do we begin?" This is actually a point of humor, with an intentional edge. The knife is a personal weapon, requiring the assailant to select the target specifically and engage with immediate physical violence. Also, I don't own any guns. Not that I don't like guns. They are expensive, and I prefer to buy iTunes and ebooks.

The point is, "You have expressed a concern. What do you intend to do about it?" Generalized hating, or even strongly disliking, is easy on the Internet. That is most often all that is done. Some will go so far as to actually back a candidate or political body that capitalizes on the fear factor. I suppose that is not such a bad thing, other than many of those seem to be as bad as the purported enemy. When you think about it, does it really matter who is taking away your freedom once your freedom is lost?

Carrying forward the idea of Anti-Jihad, I would propose that bombing Islamic schools would be one of the most efficient ways to curb the Islamic threat. If you kill the teachers and as many of the next generation as you can, the whole culture would soon be in chaos. Oh, killing the leaders seems to make sense, but they are few in number and can be easily protected. Nobody can protect all of those little children. There are just too many of them.

What about the political venue, you might ask? Hmmm. Well, I suppose if you are politically clever you could design laws that divest the Islamic communities of their rights without risking the rights of other social and religious communities. It has been done at various times in various places. Remember that Austrian fellow who made a bit of a ruckus in Europe last century? He manged that sort of thing. Sort of.

What do I plan to do? I plan to promote liberty for everyone, no matter what their label. I intend to keep my eyes open, and watch for real threats. Anyone who seeks to limit liberty in the name of anything is suspect, and probably the enemy. Even if they call themselves Christian, or Conservative, or wrap themselves in any other title that is supposed to automatically buy my respect and cooperation. My loyalty does not come cheaply, and I will generally require the pig to be removed from the poke before I will even consider buying it.

Oh, and I do have knives. Quite a number of knives, really. I have at least some notion as to how to use them. I also keep them very sharp. Just sayin'.

Industrial Espionage in World War II

2010-07-23T09:30:00.000-07:00

This morning I got to contemplating World War II and how the world changed at that point in history. The United States became perhaps the greatest economic power in the world at that point, largely be default. The war was massive, global in scale, and demanded a lot of resources. Being distant from the fields of battle, and being an advanced industrial nation, we were in a position to become the supplier of wartime goods to the rest of the beleaguered world.

I got to thinking on the strategies necessary to defeat the United States under those circumstances. Germany was its own source of production, drawing on the resources of conquered lands. However, the industries of Germany were in constant danger, as that nation was quite in the middle of the fighting. They may have established the fronts far from home, but air warfare eventually brought the battles home.

Japan was isolated, being an island nation, and so able to remain distant from most of the fighting. England less so, being within striking distance of missiles and aircraft. Japan, however, had little ready access to resources and so had attenuated supply lines, making that nation vulnerable.

Our own isolation was more significant. Nobody was within easy striking distance, and as a nation we were huge. We had a lot of resources within our own nation. Industries were spread out and not easy targets. So, how to attack the United States? Large scale industrial espionage. Slow, stop or destroy the industrial infrastructure to halt the production and distribution of war materials.

The Germans had established groups of people in the United States who were sympathetic to the Nazi cause. Some of them did, indeed, act as agents of destruction and committed acts of espionage. Since I am only recently entered into this line of thought I do not yet know the degree of their success.

The other threat was the body of Japanese in America. More recently come to the United States than the Germans, and more easily identified, they were suspect as a people. Their culture in America was also a factor. Not having assimilated yet in large numbers they remained in clannish groups, huddled in identifiable Japanese neighborhoods. The prejudices of those already established worked against the Japanese in America in many ways.

Additionally, it was a practice of many Japanese families who could afford to do so to send their children back to Japan for part of their education. This at least implied an incomplete loyalty to the United States of America. How many of those children might have been indoctrinated and trained to perform organized espionage in the United States?

Now, if I can come to this conclusion so many years later, what might the intelligence community of the United States waging a war of undetermined outcome have concluded? That they rounded up the Japanese in America and isolated them might more easily be understood in this light. It certainly changed my perspective.

That does not make it any less terrible, taking people from their homes and confiscating their property. It was not, however, without precedent. Look at the Trail of Tears. In retrospect, some policies enacted by the United States have been far from ideal. Had the German people in America been less assimilated and more easily identified, a similar policy may have fallen on them, as well.

I was born slightly after the end of World War II. The United States had been less damaged by the trial, and perhaps made stronger for the discipline of wartime production. As the only industrial nation of significance still standing we had the advantage. I have enjoyed growing up in a rather prosperous era in a nation of great wealth and opportunity.

Many made sacrifices over the years to create that prosperity. Many were sacrificed, to include Negro slaves, displaced Native Americans, and displaced Japanese Americans. I am grateful to all who contributed to the freedom and prosperity I have experienced, whether they gave willingly or unwillingly.

I am not faced with the circumstances that led the decision makers in the United States to rob citizens and resident aliens of their freedom to protect the nation from industrial espionage. However, after contemplating the matter, I am perhaps a bit less inclined to judge them for their actions. Halting a likely enemy from committing an act of war is not a bad decision in times of war.

Fear of Socialism-

2010-07-18T17:23:00.000-07:00

When I was just a lad, ever so many years ago, I thought how wonderful it would all be if we worked together to create the things everyone needed and just gave them to each other. I am sure my vision was not particularly sophisticated, but I shared it with my father. "Oh, that would be Communism." he said.

I was shocked. I was old enough to know that Communists were evil, the enemy of all that was good. In those days sirens would blare each month to test the warning system that would tell us the evil Communists were raining nuclear fire down upon us and that it was time to duck, tuck and cover.

How could my idealistic (though simplistic) way of living together be associated with something as evil as Communism?

In the passing years I learned that seeming evil was not quite so evil as painted. I also learned that seeming good was not quite as advertised, as well. Yet terms like communism and socialism are still freighted with that burden of generalized evil. Much as capitalism seems to have a more positive spin, at least in many parts of this country.

Oh, I have seen real evil. I worked for twenty years in a jail. You can't work in an environment like that for so long without confronting evil. However, even in jail evil was not common. I have met in that time only a handful of people who were so fundamentally evil that they were as an embodiment of that nebulous term. Most inmates were either mentally ill or given to a bent toward misbehavior. Sometimes extreme misbehavior, but not essentially evil.

Generalized and great evils such as communism are actually more fabrication than fact. The communists expressed a real intent to undermine capitalist regimes and replace those regimes with communist orders. Of course, from the communist perspective the capitalists were painted as evil. Had any of the communist states held to an idealized communism such as I had imagined as a child, I would find them quite attractive and far from evil. Unfortunately, they have not. At least none of which I am aware.

Indeed, the great flaw of Communism, more specifically Marxist Communism, is that it requires an evolutionary step away from human selfishness. Recognizing that selfishness may not die an easy death, Marx admitted the likely necessity to compel people by force to adopt the communist ideals. Most of the regimes which have claimed communism as their doctrine of order have been rather stringent managers and little interested in individual rights and desires.

The great flaw of Capitalism is the very same thing. Selfish humans can and will acquire power with wealth, and unregulated capitalism does not promise much for those who lack the drive and opportunity to capitalize on such an open system. Indeed, it is to the benefit of those few who have the wealth and own the means of production to control and hold down the masses, to maintain a cheap labor pool.

I am not expert, but it appears to me that the great consumer market that marks the present era in much of the world is the consequence of a regulated capitalism. One of my former professors observed that modern communist states act more as a state capitalism than anything like true communism. As such they could participate in a consumer driven capitalist market and still maintain their delusions of being communist.

I don't know if our current great consumer market is a particularly good thing, but I do enjoy ready access to affordable technology and communication. My current life is pretty good, so whatever is happening seems to be working well enough from a subjective and self-interested perspective.

Human cultures ebb and flow, and exist in a state of flux. Many Communist states take away freedoms to insure stability and security. Capitalist states, or more correctly market driven states, seem to allow more freedoms, but still gravitate toward levels of regulation that constrict individual freedoms to such a degree that some citizens consider it excessive.

Increased security requires the sacrifice of freedoms. The exercise of freedom requires the acceptance of some degree of insecurity. I have seen no model or example of any social order that allows for the increase of both. I am not convinced that any ideal social order can be brought into being by humans. The ebb and flow and continual flux is the only thing that can be expected as a constant.

Should we fear socialism? I can't see why. I do not see it as a tenable system, if taken to excess. The state just cannot find sufficient resources to simply "take care" of every human need. However, I don't see anything to fear in this. An unregulated capitalism offers little more freedom to the working class individual, since those acquiring capital can use that capital to gather more, and possessing most of the resources means denying them to the rest of the people.

Indeed, fearing socialism or capitalism or anything else with a label sets you up for being manipulated by people who will sling those labels just to fire up your fears. More often than not, they will offer their position as the solution. Pursue your own interests no matter who is in power, whether Socialist, Capitalist, or Lobotomist.

Fear is a terrible foundation for your life. Do not choose fear, even if there are Socialists nearby. They rarely bite, and generally just want to meet your needs. Most often, with somebody else's money.

Circle the Wagons!

2010-04-21T13:21:00.000-07:00

I have been reading and writing blogs for a couple of years, now. I regularly visit a lot of different types of blogs, and have observed some trends. For example, crafty blogs with a lot of cool pictures and on-topic writing have a lot of traffic. More philosophical or political blogs have smaller followings, for the most part, but have very strong supporters. Religious blogs are similar. In essence, the more "serious" and focussed the blog, the smaller the base of followers.

The philosophical/religious blogs have an interesting tendency to be defensive. There is a lot of "preaching to the choir," and sometimes some expression of openness to challenges, yet when a particularly sensitive area comes under scrutiny it looks like a wagon train pulling the wagons into a circle because someone saw a feather on the horizon. The enemy is near, circle the wagons!

Some of the Christian and/or religionists of Texas and the Mid-West are still in active conflict with the Atheist/Agnostic scientists of that same area over how evolution is to be presented in schools. Of course there are other related points in conflict, but this one is easier to focus on. I can see both sides of the argument, and two groups of wagons forming circles to defend fundamental truths.

The religionists want to prevent evolution from being the sole mode of creation taught in schools. This is a defensive response to a perceived threat to the spiritual well-being of their children. A threat to children is a serious threat, and so the response is strong regarding this threat. Circle the wagons!

The scientist see a threat in what is essentially a myth (from the scientific perspective) being placed on par with a body of scientific knowledge that has been assembled through the proven reliable method of scientific research. This causes a defensive reaction and the wagons of science are drawn into a circle.

Too often the venue for the subsequent battle is the court of law and the halls of the law makers. This third body, the makers and enforcers of laws, is in the unenviable position of trying to find a viable middle ground. The issues in conflict are not subject to compromise, and so the battle comes down to trying to shape and influence policies and rules and laws in favor of one camp or another.

An ongoing struggle with little promise of resolution. The scientific thinkers reflect on a past when new ideas were squelched by religious hierarchies, and fear the religionists gaining too much strength. If you examine history it is a reasonable fear.

The religionists fear the corruption of their children, who will be discouraged from faith because that faith does not submit to the rules of scientific inquiry. The educational practices of declared atheistic political orders in recent history lend some strength to such a fear. Think KGB and USSR.

What are your issues, the ones close to your heart or touching on something you really value? What causes you to bring your wagon into the circle? Are they so dear, so fundamentally part of your view of the world, that they are not open to discussion? Are there ideas out there that cause you to feel threatened?

Watch closely. I think I saw a feather on the horizon.

Yabba! Yabba! Merry Christmas, Baby!

2010-04-15T10:37:00.000-07:00

Or, What are the limits of Tolerance?

Here in the little town of Felton is a half-way house. A parade of inmates from the half-way house trek from the house to the small downtown area of Felton every day. Most are obvious victims of the drug culture, people with brains modified through the wonders of modern chemistry. A less generous person might call them "burn outs," but that would be contrary to our theme of tolerance.

This particular half-way house has been in operation for a number of years. It seems that the parade of burn-outs, I mean "victims," has been a fixture of Felton for quite some time. Long enough that it seems just another part of the town, like the Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park or the Roaring Camp Railroads. OK, maybe not quite all that, but something similar.

Walking in the park near our covered bridge my wife Linda encountered one of the inmates. Upon greeting him as she passed she received the reply, "Yabba! Yabba! Yabba! Merry Christmas!" from the otherwise stoical gentleman. On a subsequent day my daughter Beth was walking in that same park, pushing my granddaughter Abigail in a stroller. She was greeted with, "Yabba! Yabba! Yabba! Merry Christmas, Baby!"

Neither my wife nor my daughter found this experience particularly pleasant. Though not overtly threatening, it was none-the-less disconcerting. Walks in that particular park have become much less attractive. Since the person in question is most likely a resident in a long-time half-way house, the probability of that person being unusually violent is low. A respectable facility screens candidates and simply will not house an overtly violent person in an open facility.

There was a time in our culture when this man would have been locked away in a secured facility, and none of the more respectable members of our society would have been greeted with, "Yabba! Yabba!" It would have not been tolerated behavior, and the aberration would have been neatly locked away. That, or "Yabba! Yabba!" would have been driven to the frontier, to shout his greeting to the rocks and trees until such time as a hungry bear might come along and solve the problem.

Now we live in a time when we have little in the way of convenient frontiers, cannot afford to lock up our less-violent social embarrassments, and must learn to live with them in tolerance. I sometimes wonder if our greater promoters of tolerance happen to live near anything that needs tolerating, but I haven't the patience to research that particular aspect of toleration.

I do suspect, however, that in neighborhoods where average incomes are in the higher six-figure realm Mr. "Yabba! Yabba!" would conveniently be found committing some crime or other and whisked away to someplace else. Like Felton. This may simply be a bit of prejudiced opinion and speculation on my part. It probably is. I have no real facts to back it up.

Intolerance would be the intentional harassment of people like Mr. "Yabba! Yabba!" Whatever the events that lead to his current condition, it seems reasonable to allow him to enjoy a public park. Still, his rather strange greeting issuing from a patently strange individual can be disconcerting to more average citizens also enjoying the park.

There are no easy answers on the road to tolerance. My daughter is contemplating getting some pepper spray, just in case.

These days, even a walk in the park is no walk in the park.

Obama and Transparency-

2010-03-28T08:45:00.000-07:00

The most obvious fault of the Obama administration is the failure to follow through on the campaign promise of trasparency. The failure has been obvious enough that it mars his greatest accomplishment, pushing through universal health care reform. The failure to keep the promise of transparency has been obvious enough that a song has been written and produced mocking that particular failure.

I voted for Obama. I did not vote for him because of his promises, and certainly not for his promise of transparency. The philosophy of transparency is impossible in the environment of politics. I voted for him with the hope that someone new at the rudder would change the course of our nation.

I wanted to see the end of two expensive and stupid wars. Afghanistan was necessary in response to a direct attack by an enemy residing there. However, once the enemy had been driven into another sovereign state our mission should have ended. I have blogged elsewhere as to how the mission should have been completed. We should no longer be in Afghanistan.

As to Iraq, I don't think that the war was ever a good idea. Oh, a surgical strike to remove Hussein and destabilize that particular government might have been a good idea, but where do you stop with that? North Korea and a lot of Africa could stand the same treatment. It would probably never end.

Of course, the Bush administration never promised transparency. I never expected it from them. I did not expect it from the Bush-clone the Republicans ran for the 2008 election. Nor did I expect it from Obama, though he made the promise.

Transparency in government and flying pigs have a lot in common. Both are most likely impossible, and if they were possible they still don't seem like a good idea.

As to the universal health care thing, I don't expect much from that flying pig, either. It is an admirable ideal, and it is clear that the current system is driving toward catastrophy, but the government has a poor track record for managing much of anything.

Humans have a great capacity to muddle through just about anything. Though it will be inefficient and expensive and probably miss the target, we will muddle through universal health care just like we have everything else that has come before. We survived other administrations, and we will survive this one.

As to Obama's transparency, he may not truly be so. However, I suspect we won't be able to see him in the White House come the next Presidential election.

Watch out for flying pigs.

The Challenge of Transparency-

2010-03-27T08:25:00.000-07:00

When I was around twenty two years of age I embraced my whole self. I decided that from that point forward I would fully accept the consequences of my beliefs, opinions, and actions. Whatever I said or did, I would claim as my own both in my heart and publicly.

It is my belief that on that day I became a man.

I also adopted a philosophy of transparency. I did not wish to live a secret life, with the real me behind a facade. I intended to be true to myself, and present that self to the world.

For the most part I have found this a livable philosophy. However, it has not always been easy for others. It leaves me with no option but truth. I can either speak the truth always, or remain silent. Even silence feels like a compromise, a hidden lie, but to speak the truth always is not always possible in society.

People depend on small lies, and they often live in delicately fabricated worlds. Truth speakers can disrupt these realms of delusion, and actually hurt other people. Some people live so deeply in delusion that the threat of truth causes them to become dangerously defensive.

My desire to live as myself and embrace truth did not give me license to destroy the delusions of others. Yet in the dance we call society the truth speaker is often out of step. Success in society, advancement in work, placement in social orders is not determined by truth alone. Often it is not determined by truth at all.

Even success in such an intimate relationship as marriage is challenged by too much truth. It is doable, as my wife and I have been married over three decades. Fortunately, she does not depend on deep delusions to maintain her world. She even challenges me when I stray from my own chosen path.

I have gravitated most often toward people and sub-cultures that embrace or at least tollerate transparency. I have learned to avoid people and orders which are deeply delusional and dangerous to truth speakers. I have accepted that my philosophy is not popular and that it is not common.

Then again, perhaps transparency is simply my own delusion.

Draft Our Leaders-

2010-03-26T20:19:00.000-07:00

I have a standing personal joke regarding the President and Presidential elections. I suspect it is not funny. Which, of course, challenges its classification as a joke. I will leave all of that up to you. I intend it as a joke, so at least consider it as such even if it is really just a bit of jetsam from my mind.

"The President should be drafted." I would say. "A person who has run a Mom and Pop store somewhere on the South Side of Chicago for the past twenty years would be ideal." Of course, I don't know anything about the South Side of Chicago. I am assuming that it is a tough place to run a Mom and Pop store, and that in doing so both Mom and Pop exhibit qualities of tenacity, toughness and a very fundamental practicality.

Let's just forget the whole joke thing. What I am saying is that we need people like that running our country. I don't care if it is Mom or Pop. For that matter, in the case of President they will both be going to the White House. Let them work as a team. They already have demonstrated that they work well together. Running a store on the South Side of Chicago just doesn't sound easy.

My point is that the ongoing popularity contest that is our electoral system fails on that particular point of popularity. The politicians have to pander to diverse individuals and groups and please the populace rather than commit themselves to doing something that more than appears to be the right thing. It is expensive to try and appeal to the multitudes. It is time consuming.

A draft would be cheaper, and not take so long.

The initial selection could be quite random. Just one big national lottery, selecting a pool of candidates. It would probably be best that they be selected to represent their own districts, since the vested interest would compel them to seek what is best for their own friends and neighbors.

The initial pool could be thinned by eliminating persons with extensive recent criminal histories, any obvious mental illnesses that cannot be adequately managed with proper medication, persons too young or too old to handle the responsibilities and pressures. I would imagine that some kind of test of general knowledge would also help. It would not do for leaders to be unable to find the United States on a map, or look up and be able to read information needed to answer some simple questions.

So, now we have a smaller pool of suitable candidates from which to select the next person to sit in a particular seat of government. I would say that they should meet with the incumbent, who will relate the nature of the job and select three individuals who demonstrate some aptitude for the job. To motivate the incumbent to select well would be the stipulation that they would be brought back to the job if their selection lost a vote of confidence after a year of service.

From the final three the next person to assume any open seat of government would be selected. How? They could roll dice, or play Monopoly, or arm wrestle. At this point the final selection is reducing the best three to one, with a roll-off for second choice. Kind of a back-up in case of untimely death or some form of madness.

The lucky draftee now will serve ten years. Seats can be filled on a staggered schedule to maintain continuity. The ten year term is also for continuity, to allow for a period of training and a longer period of service. Each drafted public servant will be submitted annually to a vote of confidence by the other members of their particular governing body, and continue to serve for the next year should the pass that vote.

Draftees shall, of course, be permitted to refuse their term of office. They will then serve ten years in a high quality and nicely managed prison, processing government surplus cheese and the like. Public servants who fail to pass their annual vote of confidence will serve the balance of their ten year term in that same prison. It wouldn't be much of a draft unless the alternative was less pleasant than service.

Upon completion of their term in office the public servant shall receive some suitable tokens of gratitude. I would suggest a free home in the poorest and most crime-ridden area under their jurisdiction, and a pension equal to the average salary earned by working people living in that same jurisdiction. They would also receive lifetime health care equal in quality to the average afforded by constituents. That average would include in the calculation the persons who simply cannot afford health care and necessarily do without.

Just to keep things fare and equal in the event that the government initiates any war, the offspring of our public servants who are of service age shall be immediately drafted into military service and fast-tracked to the field of combat. Veterans of the military with combat service or who served a total of ten years in the military shall be excluded from the public service draft.

To provide some motivation to take good care of constituents, the public servant will receive as an annual salary the average salary of a working person in their jurisdiction. Their benefits package and perks will also be similarly defined and calculated. If they want to drive around the capitol in something other than a 1958 International Harvester pick-up with custom rust exterior, it will be necessary to do things to insure that the average Joe back home has a better option as well.

Keep your eyes on the mail for you public service draft notice. You may be the next President.

Presuppositions-

2010-03-08T12:26:00.000-08:00

In order to interact with our world, it is necessary to believe certain things. Some fundamental beliefs need not be formally structured or even articulated. Other living things interact with the world around them, exhibiting the "belief" that those things experienced in the world are real and significant. Again, not necessarily articulated.

A flea does not necessarily think about being a flea. It simply is a flea and acts accordingly.

In higher level animals there are behaviors that can easily be considered thinking. Creatures facing alternative choices do seem to ruminate. Unfortunately, none of these creatures can articulate their particular thoughts, so we are not privy to the process. None seem to doubt their own existence, however. They always behave as if their actions are in the context of a real world, and have a real outcome.

Humans have a capacity to think about and articulate their choices. This capacity seems to vary considerably from human to human, but they do have this capacity and act on it to varying degrees. Temperament can be a factor in defining presuppositions, and experiences can define and redefine presuppositions for many humans. It is a necessarily complex process in a relatively complex creature.

Presupposing one's actual existence seems intuitive and necessary. How that existence is perceived and how that perception develops over time is less intuitive and less necessary. We must accordingly absorb from our primary care givers certain assumptions about reality. This is by example, and also in the form of intentional instruction such as the telling of stories.

Children are deeply dependent upon their care givers. Structures of family, tribe and nation are presupposed by dependents such as children to be reliable sources of things needed. Not just physical necessities, but emotional and intellectual necessities as well. They do not consciously adopt these early presuppositions, but do so necessarily. An undeveloped and inexperienced human simply has no other choice.

For more advanced thinking and interaction it is often crucial to assume a presupposition or set of presuppositions prior to contemplation and discussion. For example, a student enters an institution of learning adopts the presupposition that the institution and its agents hold knowledge and shall transfer that knowledge to the student. This presupposition is more intuitive to small children and more intentional in students entering into higher levels of education.

Some institutions of learning require the assumption or adoption of prescribed presuppositions prior to gaining entry into the institution. This can be as informal as simply requiring some evidence of prior instruction in a similar institution. It can be as formal as signing a declaration of certain beliefs. Some institutions even require a prescribed garb or uniform to make the identification with prescribed presuppositions more obvious, and to reinforce the submission of the individual.

Some people may presuppose the fundamental nature of a set of interpretive rules. It can simply be the fabled rules set established by "common sense," or something more formal. The acceptance of this rules set as a sufficient foundation for observing and interpreting the world can be a personal world view, but is often entered into in concert with others.

Experientially, adopted presuppositions and their consequent observations can be so consistent as to appear self-evident. Hence, the individual and their associates perceiving the world through a similar set of experiences and adopting similar presuppositions may easily place themselves in judgement over other individuals with different world views. Everyone in the province recognizes these rules without even thinking. Any other way of thinking is wrong and probably evil.

Humans with a broader set of experiences will often adjust their presuppositions away from such a provincial attitude, becoming more accepting of people operating from different rules of interpretation. They are more "worldly." Not all humans have the same capacity to adapt, and many conflicts between people can be attributed to clashing presuppositions.

Presuppositions are the foundation of any world view, and editing them is frightening and often difficult. Conflict between any individual's world view and the new and expanded reality they might come to experience can be traumatic and even catastrophic. A defensive response is natural, and getting past such a response requires an act of the will. It is a matter of choosing presuppositions from which to operate.

Provincial thinking is easier. It does not require any degree of examining existing presuppositions. Existing presuppositions are obviously the only rules of interpretation, and any other way of thinking is simply wrong. Wrong, and dangerous. Sometimes sufficiently dangerous to demand fleeing or fighting.

Strong emotions can be attached to presuppositions. Fear and anger can easily surface when presuppositions are challenged, either by changes in the environment or challenges in thinking. Strong emotions do not generally contribute to objective thought, and so a reasoned adjustment of presuppositions is a rare instance. Most changes are inherently traumatic and often the consequence of trauma.

Consider your own presuppositions. What do you believe to be fundamentally true? How did you adopt this set of rules? Have you ever experienced a radical shift in your fundamental beliefs, your presuppositions? What changes did you make in your way of thinking, and why?

Wouldn't the answers to some of these questions make great material for a blog?

I look forward to reading yours. ;-)

Temperament Observed-

2010-03-04T11:16:00.000-08:00

The various classification systems relating to temperament are often useful, but hardly exhausting. Most of them have four or five major classifications, and subclasses established by combining two major classes into dominant/secondary pairs. These serve well enough, but are not exclusive as categories that may be observed.

Two types of people I have observed in my career in corrections have been the Regulators and the Enforcers. We tend to have an abundance of both in the law enforcement field, probably due to the many opportunities to practice these proclivities.

Regulators like to regulate, control, or manage things. I suspect they find their way into law making careers, or in another career field find their way into the regulatory branch. They really like rules, and at least from my own perspective they like rules for the sake of having rules. Considering the huge number of laws on the books in the State of California, there is no end to this need to regulate.

In our particular jail setting we have behavior management rules to aid the inmates in knowing how to behave, and to provide a reference for those charged with enforcing the rules. Time and time again I saw an augmented rule created by an officer eventually being enforced as if it were a sanctioned rule, even though that rule was never formally adopted.

Regulators do not like to give up any rules once they have been established and adopted. Over time conditions change and the purpose of a rule or set of rules no longer applies to the new state of things, yet it is nearly impossible to bring about a review of rules, much less practical changes. Rather than being focused on the purpose of our rules our temperamental Regulators simply want to hang onto those rules as rules.

Sometimes the perspective is as if dealing with a sacred thing, these little jail rules. I am sure that readers can find other examples from their own experiences.

Then there are temperamental Enforcers. There is some kind of deep and emotional satisfaction experienced by an Enforcer when he can apply a rule and set up a violator for punishment. I will grant that rules and the enforcement of rules are necessary for maintaining the order in a social order. The Enforcer goes beyond that. Each act of enforcement becomes a personal victory. Engaging such emotion can unbalance the system.

Most temperamental Enforcers love having lots of rules, and enforce even the least reasonable rules with a tremendous zeal. For them the purpose of the rule was less relevant than the existence of the rule and the need being met by enforcing that rule. Many Enforcers working in the jail would establish personal "rules" to serve over the course of their own shifts, and too many of those rules became so entrenched as to be enforced as if sanctioned.

On a larger scale, our State of California has a phenomenal number of laws. Again, Regulators and Enforcers naturally gravitate to positions of power within our social order, and the zeal for acting out their predilections can at least on occasion create laws that are truly counter-productive.

My thoughts tend to go from this point in a lot of different directions. Many examples come to mind, but most are more properly a new thread to the discussion. This hound finds many tempting cotton tails vanishing into the scrub, and so I think that it is time to move toward a conclusion.

Perhaps the one conclusion I can take from these ruminations is to examine my attitudes and actions to determine if I am acting from a reasoned position, or if I am simply reacting from my own temperament. Such reaction from temperament might not always be bad, but a failure to examine both the temperament and the action for reasonableness and applicability would leave me incomplete and unbalanced.

This conclusion certainly reveals my presupposition that reason has a higher value in choosing actions than instinct or temperament. That, I think, should be approached in another blog.

Temperament-

2010-02-27T11:28:00.000-08:00

Periodically in Christian, non-Christian and popular self-help literature a book on temperament surfaces. I have read a couple of these books and have found them at least moderately useful in assessing myself and understanding a bit about my strengths and weaknesses. The essence of temperament is a predilection or innate inclination toward certain attitudes and behaviors due to some inborn quality. Kind of a hard wiring of the human system predetermining personal qualities.

As a self-help tool it at least gives you some boxes into which to place yourself, wholly or in part, for the purpose of self-analysis and self-instruction. The whole thing does seem to have some validity, having a considerable history and having been studied in the field of psychology. That makes it at least a bit more tenable than astrological horoscopes for self-analysis and guidance. They both can be tools of self-analysis, with a "use at your own risk" disclaimer.

The idea of temperament does seem to go along with the idea of hard wired inclinations in humans. In essence, it is at least possible that some of our tastes and inclinations are built-in. They are somehow a part of our being, so much so that the analogy of hard wiring can be applied and understood. Like temperament and even astrology this analogy can best serve as a very generally guideline.

The whole thing also touches on the nature vs nurture debate. The complexity of studying such ideas is daunting, at least to me. How do you isolate nature (temperament) from the great many different influences that impact any given life (nurture)? Even if any authoritative research can be done, how will it be colored by various factions seeking to serve their own purposes?

I recall reading about research that indicated that some criminal behavior might be linked to certain genes. This was simply reported in the news, essentially as information acquired as a by-product of other genetic studies. The mere prospect of such research going forward had civil libertarians reacting. They did not support such research, recognizing that any supporting evidence regarding a genetic predisposition toward criminal behavior could have significant impact on the rights of individuals.

Some of the more scientific bloggers I read hold to a purity in science, that bastion of research. In an unadulterated form science is a wonderful tool for exploring and documenting the nature of the observable universe. Yet considering the previous paragraph, can such purity be maintained? Perhaps. However, it might also be lost in the smoke and mirrors and muddied waters created by factions serving their own agendas.

Addressing the matter of some predilections being built into humans prior to birth, I would present the long lived idea of temperament as informal evidence. Temperament can also serve as an informal guide for aiding children in education, and can be used by adults conducting self-exploration for the purpose of self-improvement.

Food for thought, but hardly a feast.

Slide rules, chamber pots, and buggy whips-

2010-02-23T16:04:00.000-08:00

My first time in college was a few years back. For one class a tool was required. It is called a slide rule. It is a calculating device, used much like a calculator is used today. This was way back in 1971. Though electronic calculators existed, they were rare and expensive. The slide rule had been around for some time, and they were affordable to college students.

I learned to use it, after a fashion, but never mastered the tool. Now they are relics of another time, collectible in like fashion to abaci. Just for fun I also learned how to calculate with an abucus. I have considerable respect for the electronic calculator after having learned these more ancient calculating systems. I also have great respect for the people who built the present using such interesting tools.

How do they relate to chamber pots and buggy whips? Well, they were all produced through maufacturing, were once common and sold in sufficient numbers to be relatively inexpensive. They are now less common, rarely used, and more of a curiosity than a common element in modern life.

I can imagine that an owner of stock in a company producing these items would have seen a steady income for a good many years. However, if that owner of stock did not occasionally assess and update their portfolio, reliance on these particular sources of income would eventually have dried up and left the owner destitute.

Few people have a fondness for slide rules. An occasional collector, perhaps. I don't actually know anybody who depended on a buggy whip to accelerate their vehicle, but I can't see it being something that encourages feelings warm enough to want to return to those old ways. Having actually used a chamber pot, I know by experience that more contemporary plumbing improves the experience of eliminating waste by an astronomical degree.

Sure, collecting some anachronistic items can be fun. However, there are reasons people have moved past such things. It is good to retain the concept and some skills with old ways of doing and thinking. Keeping blacksmithing skills and similar arts alive in our culture provide educational perspective. They also insure a fall-back resource in the event of a catastrophic breakdown in culture.

Similarly, keeping alive some sense or flavor of old ways of thinking can serve to provide cultural perspective, and also add some leaven in thinking toward the future. To consider ancient ways of thought and hold the people of ancient times in disdain simply because they were "backwards" is disrespectful and unwise. Those old ways of thinking were steps toward how we think in our own time. A little effort to understand and respect old ways and how they became modern ways can yield a richness and depth of experience in living today.

I have intentionally sat at night on several occasions, writing with a steel nibbed pen (the kind you dip in a pot of ink) by the light of a candle. Giving myself over to the mood I used my imagination and felt an emotional link with the hundreds of generations of humans who sat similarly lighted at a similar task. I have used old methods for performing calculations to get a sense of history to enrich my understanding of applied modern mathematics.

Now is a good time to be alive, because it is the only time we are alive. The past is a resource, a source of information, richness and pleasure. The future is an adventure yet to be set out upon. Here and now is the place where potential becomes real, and where history begins.

The intersection of Here and Now. A great place to be alive.

Hard wiring, software, and imagination-

2010-02-19T13:37:00.000-08:00

The idea of human hard wiring has come up in a number of blogs I read, and the comments following those blogs. Hard wiring is a term relating to the physical elements of an electronic device (such as a computer) which are connected by wires. Often these wires are soldered together, forming a single physical device. In humans it would be the behaviors built into our physical systems, and by extension the thoughts and ways of thinking that are defined and limited by our physical structures.

I recall a discussion I had many years ago via computer (prior to the Internet modes we are currently using) with a very hard determinist. This individual believed that no thought or action arose from our own decisions, but that our very thoughts were predetermined by the interactions of physical matter right from the Big Bang. I contended that because we experienced apparent freedom in thought and action that some degree of freedom (and in the context responsibility) actually existed.

His argument was that all behavior is determined by a cosmic hard wiring. I am more inclined to believe that a lot of inclinations are hard wired, along with a set of basic instincts which are simply part of our automated systems. We don't learn to breathe or blink our eyes. We don't think about functions like that, we just do them. Beyond that we might find some inclinations (such as a love of books or physical games) so compelling as to indicate a degree of hard wiring.

Perhaps the system has some hard wired sub-components which are receptive to stimulation and very open to experiences such as soccer or cooking. It might just be that such apparently easy apprehension simply creates the illusion of hard wiring, and so we have adopted a technical term to represent what we think is happening. In the future the human brain and related components may well be mapped out and we shall understand these things better.

I have read a lot of Stephen King. In the course of his works he presents more than once the idea that we evolved consciousness as a by-product of more useful mutations. An interesting idea. In Cell he presents humans reduced to essentially their hard wired selves, and then does things to them only Stephen King can do. King is not a brain scientist, a social scientist, or even a professional philosopher. He is a writer who observes and thinks about people and writes stories. Still, he notes that our conscious selves are not necessarily necessary for our ongoing existence as animals.

That thinking self-awareness is the realm of our software. Software is the part of the computer which is composed of coded instructions. It can be installed, modified, and even removed. Like the hard wire analogy it has a lot of weaknesses if examined too closely. The idea is more of a general illustration than a sound description.

We are able to learn much better than most of the other beings we can observe on our earth. Our brains are programmable and re-programmable. We can not only solve survival related problems with our brains, but recognize a world beyond simple survival. We systematize and record our experiences so that we can share them and learn beyond our immediate experiences.

Beyond the hard wired hardware of our beings and the programmings of our software we have something most astounding. Imagination. Just another consequence of our evolution, useful in living our self-conscious lives but still a by-product of random events? Or, maybe the single most important element in a created being for relating to his transcendent creator? Hmmm.

We are dangerous creatures, we humans. Hard wired well enough to survive just about anywhere. Programmable enough to learn and expand our realms of knowledge. Imaginative enough to overcome the limits of our senses and reach beyond just what is, here and now. Perhaps imaginative enough from time to time to touch the face of God.

Imagination is the essence of being human. It is the core of religious experience no matter what context. It is the heart of exploration and learning. Yes, it can fuel our baser instincts, causing fear and repression and evil in many forms. It can also allow us to see beyond such dark moments, and find the pathways to greater light. It lets us go beyond simple knowing. Imagination allows us to believe.

To believe is to choose. Choose wisely. Choose well.

Everyday faith-

2010-02-16T11:54:00.000-08:00

People act on faith every day. They go to bed every night expecting the sun to rise in the morning. They plan for it as if it had already occurred.

They get into cars and hurtle at dangerous velocities on narrow pathways with other humans operating other cars, trusting in the rules of the road and the capacity (and willingness) of those other humans to follow them. As far as I am concerned, that is a huge leap of faith.

They use money. Now there is faith! I go to work, investing my time and effort in somebody else's interests, in exchange for pieces of paper that are no more than a promise. I trust that everyone else with whom I deal will also believe in that promise. These days I don't even get a piece of paper all that often. Sometimes I just get numbers recorded in electronic devices I have probably never even seen.

Faith is a part of life. It is believing a certain outcome will occur from a certain action. It is believing in effect following cause. Even those who know enough to doubt the veracity of cause and effect still live as if it were true. Faith can be a funny thing.

They sit in chairs without even thinking about their beliefs about chairs. Though I would hazard that most people have had at least one chair failure in their life, yet they still tend to sit as if there could be no doubt that the chair will chair and hold them up from the ground.

They choose to believe and act this way because life would be very difficult to manage without fundamental assumptions and beliefs. Such faith, such belief, is practical. It makes life work. We just don't have time to test every chair upon which we might sit. We can't afford the time and expense of seeing every chair certified and regularly tested to insure our safety.

What defines the cut-off? After all, we don't regularly trust ourselves to cars because they are absolutely safe. Accidents happen all of the time, yet we run that risk just to go to the mall, even when we don't really need anything. We get out on the road sometimes just for the experience of driving, even though there is some probability that we won't survive the adventure.

I recall a television program which featured a woman who could make herself drive after an accident, but would only make right turns. She would plot her whole journey to insure that she could make right turns all of the way to her destination and back. This behavior seems psychotic to most of us, and by definition it is. However, is it that much more crazy than the rest of us running the risk just to get a loaf of bread?

Faith, by whatever degree, is still faith. Trust me.

A well reasoned faith-

2010-02-15T13:12:00.000-08:00

In my prior post I presented a little video indicating (among other things) that one cannot argue unbelievers into the Kingdom of Heaven. I concluded with the statement that belief is a choice. I hold to that, because I believe it to be true.

If our faith is not based on reasoned arguments, but on something else, what is that "something else?" Ultimately, it is subjective experience. For the individual it is all that came to pass in their life that compelled them to believe in the existence of God, and all other subsequent related beliefs.

For some it is a culture so entwined with a belief in God that it is a small step from unbelief to belief. It comes so naturally that the very thought of unbelief is itself unbelievable. For others it is a complex amalgam of internal and external compulsions driving toward a dramatic change of core beliefs. I suspect that most believers have an experience somewhere in between these extremes.

Being social creatures, the outworking of such subjective experiences in concert with other human beings leads to faith centered social orders. In other words, churches and like social bodies. Modes of organizing thoughts regarding subjectively acquired beliefs have eventually formed vast libraries of reasonings. These would be the libraries of religious thought, vast bodies of documentation. Reasons for believing, brought together from a vast history of subjective experiences relative to the creator of all things.

I have been very general here, to be inclusive of all religious experience and the whole body of religious literature. I now narrow the focus toward the Christian faith, to which I subscribe. Over time a body of that literature became recognized by authorities in the Church as authoritative and inspired by God. Within that context a well reasoned faith will be based on such literature, and cite that literature to support the faith that was acquired subjectively.

For much of history a convert to a faith has been expected to subject themselves to the religious order into which they had been inducted. Such practice insured the new believer a context in which to grow in knowledge, and provided a lot of emotional support for the individual as well as a context for correction of both behavior and thought.

Such subjugation in family, tribe and culture has been pretty much the norm for many centuries. It had the positive effect of insuring a consistent context for living and the protection of numbers. It was a herd, moving together, but far more complex in dynamics. Religious orders grew up in such contexts, shaping and being shaped by them.

Our modern era has several challenges to a well reasoned faith.

First is the growth of individualism. Where in the past a convert would subject themselves to an order which superseded their individuality to a large degree, and which would impress them with their beliefs and the reasonings behind those beliefs, now a convert is left with a lot of that to do on their own. However, a well reasoned faith still exits within the context of a system of belief.

Secondly, our era has been subjected to a new way of thinking. Prior orders depended a great deal on their authority. You believed what they said because they had authority, which was granted by God. They were the context of knowledge and truth.

In an era of individualism such an idea is distasteful in itself. In an era of scientific thinking, it is unthinkable. Truth exists objectively. I hope to address the idea of objective truth in a future post. Suffice it to say that objectivity is a rather elusive quality, and objective Truth with a capital T not all that easy to find.

The body of religious literature was largely written in ancient forms of argument. They were not designed to be subjected to scientific analysis. The religious experience is largely subjective, and the direction of science is objectivity. Religious history and literature is the context of religious experience, and is purposed to support those subjective experiences.

A well reasoned faith need not stand up to the rigors of scientific analysis. Science can dissect your faith, and some information may be gained, but your faith may well die under that cold scrutiny. Faith is a living thing, and should be nurtured as such.

We don't come by our faith through scientific inquiry and analysis. We come by our faith through living, through our experiences and through the openness of our hearts. In my own case I was driven to it, largely against my will. Yet in the end it is something I chose.

Faith is choosing to believe, every day. Choose wisely. Choose well.

Faith in Perspective-

2010-02-14T20:12:00.000-08:00

I find the video at the end of this post rather intriguing. I have to imaging that my friends of faith will be a bit troubled by it, as it implies that ways of thinking that are not based on faith are somehow superior to faith based ways of thinking. Some might fear that it gives weight to atheism, or some other worldly way of thought.

Perhaps a person of limited or weak faith might be made uncomfortable by this little video. However, the video simply challenges the idea of proving the existence of God or any being or any thing that exists beyond the realm of direct experience or proof. God is such a being. God is far beyond proof or comprehension.

I have been a visitor in a great many sites on the Internet. A number of the interesting places I have found are run by atheist. Like any other group of humans, atheists are not all the same. They are not monsters, in fact quite the contrary. Some are very good people. For the most part the ones I have bumped into are involved in some realm of science. For some it is the incompatibility of science with faith that defines their particular unbelief. Others are simply not fond of the way religionists think and act. Some are just angry at the God they declare does not exist.

It has not been my purpose to argue these people into the Kingdom of Heaven. I prefer to consider any evangelism that occurs as a consequence of my visits and comments more catalytic. I go, I read, I consider, I comment. As a Christian my comment will reflect and contain something of my belief. Whether or not my comment has an evangelistic impact, it will necessarily be catalytic. I have introduced something into the discussion, hopefully in a loving and respectful manner.

In my own past I walked the path of the atheist, the skeptic, and the agnostic. I have fellowshipped with many forms of Christians, subsequent to my conversion experience. I have held to many ways of thinking, and have some understanding of other ways of thought and belief. Jesus is, indeed, the only way to God, but the pathways to Jesus can be many and varied.

My reason for presenting this little video is to encourage believers to recognize that those with whom you interact may have a very different way of seeing the world, and very different views of concepts such as God and faith. The video warns that a believer who elects to argue the faith must be ready to face some serious challenges.

View with caution. The arguments presented are not without flaws. Even some atheists have challenged the validity of some of the arguments presented in the video. However, it does make clear the challenge of offering testimony regarding the God who is there.

Should you go ahead and have a peak, and find your faith challenged, seek out those who are stronger in the faith. I think that this little video is worth viewing and thinking about. If it gives you pause, it may well indicate that you need to dig more deeply into what you believe.

To believe is to choose. Choose wisely. Choose well.

Dueling in 21st Century America, United States-

2010-02-07T17:35:00.000-08:00

This is a follow up to my previous post pointing out the emotional insufficiency of contemporary justice systems. More specific, the justice system of the United States. The criticism might apply in other modern nations, but this is my nation and the context of most of my own experiences.

I have served in the corrections end of the justice system, holding prisoners for the State of California and the United States both before sentencing and after sentencing. My observation is that as a system it is probably about as good as we might expect. Sure, it could do with some fine tuning, and should always be under development toward as fine a system as possible. However, it is not a train wreck. In general, the system works.

My point of contention was more in the area of satisfying the emotional needs of victims. Systems of vengeance were generally messy, and probably had little to do with any ideal matching the usage of the term "justice," but there was some degree of emotional satisfaction. I have to assume that a multitude of victims having "faith in the system of justice" find themselves quite unsatisfied in the emotional sense of balance and order.

I have seen drunk drivers who have robbed a family of a member through vehicular manslaughter do as little as a year in minimum custody. These drunk drivers were permitted, under supervision, to continue in their jobs while sleeping in a jail dormitory. There are usually other legal stipulations extending over a number of years, and a financial penalty as well.

Such sentences are well reasoned. To deny the drunk driver's family a source of income is to compound an already enormous tragedy. Additionally, the drunk driver did not get drunk with the intent to take a life. They were foolish, stupid and irresponsible, but not inherently terrible by nature.

That may be true, but the offended family may not be emotionally satisfied by such a sentence. It just is not enough. They lost someone they loved, someone who was part of their very life. This is a terrible tragedy, and it was the direct result of another human being's choices. It hurts, and such hurt demands an emotional satisfaction.

It is for that purpose that I would recommend that an organized system of dueling be brought into being. The offended could issue a challenge, which would be reviewed by a "fair fight" committee. A suitable venue would be provided, and appropriate handicaps established. The offended could exercise physical violence upon the challenged, who would be permitted a degree of self defense.

For example, a woman of advanced years had her purse snatched. The perpetrator is apprehended, tried and found guilty. The offended woman, having received a minor injury and considerable inconvenience and a loss of a sense of personal security, elects to exercise her right to challenge as part of the sentencing process.

A fair fight committee establishes a time and place for the duel. Considering the youth and vitality of the perpetrator, they assign leg shackles and the binding of one hand. After further evaluation, the perpetrator is also chained to the wall of the arena, having a limited arc of movement. He is provided with head protection to prevent damage to his brain and eyes, but is otherwise not protected.

The challenger enters the arena. She has been offered a choice of body armor, but elects to use only a bit of padding over chest, back and shoulders. Within the arena are a number of stick weapons, a paint ball gun with ten rounds, and a short leather lash. Training has been provided and counsel regarding how to approach the battle.

The limits on the battle were established by the committee to end the battle on first blood, any injury requiring medical attention, or the physical exhaustion of the challenger. Should the challenger fail to follow the instructions provided through training and counsel, and she closes with the perpetrator and he gain an advantageous physical hold on her, the battle would be ended and the challenger rescued.

I have to imagine that the battle would be interesting. A woman of advanced years laying down the ten allotted rounds of paint balls to bruise her victimizer from a distance, then selecting a suitable stick weapon or lash to apply a more direct satisfaction. Dancing and striking, avoiding the grasp of her victimizer as she tries to land a few blows. The eventual exhaustion of the challenger as the physicality of the battle overwhelms the emotional need for vengeance.

That is the sort of thing I see serving to provide satisfaction to persons offended. The challenge to building a working system of this sort, under the umbrella of a justice system, is to prevent abuses. Social orders which embraced dueling tended to have to deal with abuses. Expansion of a justified duel into feuds and civil wars. Thugs using the guise of dueling to exercise their passion for violence.

I could also see the potential for exploitation of such a system for entertainment. Videos marketed to purportedly offset the cost of the system itself eventually becoming a motive to expand the system and encourage more and more legally sanctioned battles.

Humans are often emotional and sometimes violent. A system of justice that is too abstract and sterile is not sufficient to meet those drives when confronted by injustice. Could a system that embraced carefully regulated dueling serve to meet the emotional needs of victims?

I really don't know. However, the image of a victim slapping their victimizer silly sure does put a smile on my face!

Justice vs Vengeance-

2010-02-04T16:38:00.000-08:00

Some of us have an appetite for vengeance. We feel strongly compelled to see wrongs made right, to see injustice corrected forcefully, directly and decisively. We may be driven by an innate passion for order, or we may be drive by an injustice observed or experienced. It is deeply ingrained, and feels like a compelling need.

I know I have such an appetite, such a compulsion. When I observe on the news someone wronged, I do feel for them and their immediate needs. However, there are many others who have that kind of compassion. My focus turns toward the perpetrator, and I am hungry to pursue the vile creature and inflict a comparable suffering upon them.

I recognize the ultimate impact of following through on such compulsions and refrain. Following through would most probably bring injury and suffering on myself, and may inflict such on innocents caught in the battle. I may err in selecting my target, blinded by my zeal and my ultimate lack of necessary skills in locating and bringing to bay the true perpetrator. I may well trigger a chain of counter assaults by my targets, guilty or not.

Modern societies developed systems of justice to provide for the capture of criminals and miscreants, and to administer punishment deemed consistent with the nature of the crime. Such systems are less messy, more likely to be accurate in selecting targets of justice, and inclined toward being fair.

In a perfect form such a system would be satisfactory, to society and the victim of crimes. Were the perpetrators less criminally self interested, they would also recognize the punishment received as fair and be satisfied. Such a perfect form, of course, does not exist.

Vengeance is driven by emotion, and acting out vengeance has an emotional satisfaction. Most systems of justice are simply bureaucratic machines, devoid of emotion and as a consequence devoid of emotional satisfaction for the victim.

They are also costly, and time consuming. For settling many disputes they are probably fine. Insurance claims, matters of rights, that sort of thing. However, for deeply personal injuries, such as rape, murder, and many forms of theft, they can be far from satisfying.

A number of my short stories deal with vengeance. It is a problem I think on, from time to time. How to provide emotional satisfaction to victims when the matter is not just a technical crime, but an offense against the person. I recognize that a society must maintain a system of justice and to maintain such a system they cannot allow citizens to bypass the system for personal satisfaction.

However, is justice devoid of such satisfaction a true form of justice? A citizen denied such satisfaction will have a grievance against the system that failed them emotionally. Too much of that kind of dissatisfaction can erode a society from within. Yet to maintain order a society cannot be driven by the vacillating emotional states of the citizenry.

I shall propose a solution in a subsequent post, a solution that could exist within the existing system of justice, a solution that could provide more immediate emotional satisfaction to victims. However, I would like to throw this out there for discussion. I look forward to seeing where this may go.

Follow Your Dreams-

2010-01-31T12:00:00.000-08:00

Sound advice, actually. Not quite so easy as this fluffy, warm and fuzzy phrase sounds, but still sound advice.

However, I wonder how many people have a dream that can be followed? I remember in my own youth (we're talking very young here) I dreamed of knowing everything. I hungered for knowledge. At that age I lacked perspective, and really that is a very general sort of dream. Probably more of a longing.

As I gained perspective I learned that getting knowledge required time and effort. I don't really think I had a problem with the effort. I actually like the act of learning. No, the issue is time. Everything is virtually infinite. How much time would be needed to learn everything?

Infinite time.

Not a practical pursuit for a finite creature with a finite lifespan. Consequently, I was frustrated early in life. I would not be able to achieve my dream. No lesser dream sufficed. I never resolved to follow another dream, but rather just drifted through my life. I still loved learning, but it was random and undisciplined, and never developed depth.

In our childhood some of us have dreams. "I want to be a policeman" or some such thing, that holds and directs our lives. Some people follow through, and do become a "policeman." I have no idea if they are happier over all, but I like to believe that following such a dream has some degree of fulfillment. It gives direction and order to life, at least.

Interestingly, my disordered approach to living led to me being a "policeman." A correctional officer, actually, but still a law enforcement professional. To be quite honest, though the job provided well for my family my heart was never in it. I did it well. I appreciate the job, but I never had a sense of fulfilling my dream.

Here I am, late in life and trying to find a viable dream. The quest leads me to the idea of becoming a resource for others seeking their dreams. More of a notion than a dream, at least for me, but the idea promises some degree of fulfillment. Some kind of dream agent, a dreamer's assistant. Concierge of the Dream.

How does one turn that into a career?

Can dreaming become a philosophy, a philosophy on purpose? Perhaps, if the dream leads to concrete plans and actions. Plans that are flexible enough to survive the rigors of actual living, and actions that are focused enough to move toward fulfilling the dream. Perhaps, if it generates or modifies the dreamer's world view.

Is hunting for your dream the same as following it? It is at least a pursuit, an occupation, a thing to do. It is not easy, answering this kind of question. That may indicate that the question is simply not the right question.

I still have the urge to know everything. I still recognize my limitations relative to fulfilling such a dream. No, I need to cast this aside, and follow a more realistic dream.

Perhaps I shall become The King of Suede. Yeah.

Exit Strategy-

2010-01-18T13:37:00.000-08:00

When we were attacked on 9/11, it was necessary to go to war. We went to Afghanistan and bloodied some of those who attacked us, and some of those who supported those who attacked us. I supported that, because it was necessary. If you are strong and powerful, insults can be tolerated. Assaults can never be tolerated, or there will be no end to them.

I was, however, concerned as to the objective. Capturing Bin Laden and his associates was a laudable objective, but not necessarily a sound condition of victory. We were not there to take over the country, or destroy whatever government was in place. Afghanistan is not a singular entity, and such a condition for victory can never be met.

Then we became entangled in Iraq. That was simply ill advised, though I could buy a surgical action to take out Saddam Hussein. Threat eliminated, we could have withdrawn and simply promised to return if they didn't behave. It could have gone like that.

That didn't happen, so now we had two protracted wars with no clear definitions for victory in either case. Then came a lot of political jargon and some kind of offal about "exporting democracy." At this point it was clear that our decision makers did not have any idea as to the nature of our enemies.

I am not a genius, but I certainly do not assume that the rest of the world longs to adopt the American Way. I find it hard to believe that any of our "leaders" could hold to that. I am not convinced that the world would become a particularly attractive place if we compelled the "rest of the world" to become JUST LIKE US. Narcissistic paranoia is not a particularly attractive state of mind, and certainly not worthy as a major item of export.

So, the Presidential Election of 2008 loomed. I did not wish for any Bush clones. He and his masters had not proved to be particularly good stewards of my future. Obama? Not my first choice. I actually supported Libertarian candidate Christine Smith. However, she was too hard core as a Libertarian for even the Libertarian Party, and I didn't want to vote for compromised Libertarianism, especially since the stood very little chance of success.

Eventually it was Obama as the most likely candidate to win and (hopefully) end these wars. Though slow, his administration has been (seemingly) winding down the war in Iraq. Well, that's half of the battle.

Afghanistan, however, may prove problematic. Obama seems committed to shifting resources being wasted in Iraq to being wasted in Afghanistan. Those resources are our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and whatever economic future we may all have. All to be spent on an ongoing war in a distant land, and no real victory in sight.

So, we still have a war with no clear exit strategy, and no clearly defined condition for victory. We still have a politician in the White House dispensing rhetoric instead of wisdom. I don't believe any one administration can do too much damage to the country, so I don't fear Obama being nominally at the helm. However, I had hoped for more.

If Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are our objective our current method will not work. Armies topple governments. To hunt weasels you need hounds. Hounds that are not restricted by rules. Hounds that do not recognize national borders as impediments. Hounds that will fight just like the enemy fights, only better.

War is an ugly business. Politicians like to dress it up and make it pretty. It is not. Soldiers know what it is, but serving the politicians they dress pretty and allow their hands to be tied. Consequently the wars go longer than necessary, rarely accomplish much more than filling graves, and the world muddles on making redundant history.

It is time to release the hounds, and bring the other soldiers home. If our "leaders" cannot find the testicular fortitude to release the hounds, perhaps it is time for a rogue pack to go out and do what is necessary.

Hounds don't necessarily need an exit strategy. Just a suitable Scooby snack.

Little Old Lady Philosophy-

2010-01-08T06:49:00.000-08:00

I have coined an awkward phrase. "Little Old Ladies of any Age and Gender." It needs the qualification, otherwise people will think I am speaking of literal little old ladies.

The phrase refers to the prissy and provincial little old ladies (literal) that we have probably all known. Women who have lived sheltered lives, for the most part, and who think that their own narrow little world is all the world there is. Anything else is false, offensive, and without value.

There are plenty of people like that who are not literally little old ladies. However, they think like little old ladies, and so earn the title. With the qualifier, of course.

I recall sitting under the teachings of Dr. John Mitchell of Multnomah School of the Bible. Dr. Mitchell was fond of cigars, but refrained from smoking them due to the prejudice of some Christians, who considered smoking sinful. Dr. Mitchell did not hold to this view, but for the sake of these little old ladies (literal and figurative) he refrained.

This was an admirable accommodation, but I don't believe that he extended this accommodation to church leadership or matters of doctrine. He was a powerful church leader and teacher for most of a century. Such an achievement could not have taken place in an atmosphere of accommodating little old ladies.

I have thought about these little old ladies, from time to time. I have wondered how accommodating Little Old Ladies of Any Age and Gender might have adversely affected churches, states and other institutions. Prissy thinking is not the exclusive realm of churchy little old ladies.

The term Politically Correct is linked with a political orthodoxy, not a religious one, and is generally secular. Hypersensitivity to words and phrases deemed "offensive" can be very Little Old Lady. The fear of offense can cripple creative thinking and affective action.

This is not to say that lighting up cigars (figuratively and literally) in the presence of genuine little old ladies is good practice. Giving offense on purpose is rude and generally counter-productive. Granted, an occasional shock can shake loose some people that need shaking, but for the most part such intentional offenses will work against ideas and the people associated with those ideas.

I have no idea how to fix this phrase in our language, other than to throw it out into the world and see what happens. Little Old Ladies of any Age and Gender. LOLAG? Hmm. Perhaps. Maybe not.

More important than the phrase is the awareness. Is my thinking LOLAG? Am I being prissy, provincial, and small in my thinking? Am I content with my thoughts going unchallenged?

For any (literal) Little Old Ladies who happen to be reading, I apologize for any offense. Really. Just don't be so LOLAG.

Roast Duck-

2009-08-24T22:46:00.000-07:00

No, this is not a recipe. I suppose there is a philosophy of cooking, perhaps even a philosophy of recipes, but this is not a blog on that aspect of cooking. In fact, it is not about cooking. Not really.

I like to watch the Travel Channel when I watch television. That, or Food Network. I like travel, and I like eating. The shows that combine these things are my favorites.

Anthony Bourdain has a show called No Reservations. I really like his style. He does a lot of the writing for the show, and his narration is a bit cynical without being harsh and unpleasantly caustic. He is also willing to be surprised by positive aspects of his experiences as he travels, meets people and eats a lot of different foods.

In one episode he is sampling roast duck in the backwaters of China. The video shows the roasting pit, and the ducks, and the man doing the roasting. Anthony quips about the extended experience of the man roasting the duck. His observation is that a man who has roasted duck for forty years will probably produce an excellent roast duck.

If I recall correctly, Anthony did indeed find the duck to be excellent.

It caused me to wonder, however, about a man who would roast ducks for forty years. A man who probably received the duck roasting recipes and techniques and even the business as a family legacy.

Forty years. Roast duck. Probably duck done by time honored techniques and tradition. Generations of duck roasting.

Part of me wants to be such an expert at something. Part of me is horrified by the prospect of roasting ducks for the whole of a lifetime.

Granted, in much of the world a man (or woman) who received a successful family business and the skills to run that business would consider themselves lucky. Though the work is long and hard and ever so much the same, it is also valued and skilled and allows for a good life without too much suffering. Perhaps even a very good life, relative to the context in which it is being lived.

This should give me perspective on my own life. I have lived very well, and in the context of human history I am a man of great wealth. I have more than enough to eat, and eat more than I need all too often. I live indoors when I wish. I have family, and steady employment. I, in company with a major bank, own a home. I own land, a thing coveted by generations of humans.

My health is pretty good. It is great, most of the time, and even when it hasn't been it has not brought about long-term adversity. I do not struggle against those who would take my wealth or freedom or health, except in a very general and extremely indirect way.

I have not been compelled to roast ducks for forty years of my life. In fact, I have never roasted a duck, though I actually would like to do so. I have chosen to do some things I have not found fulfilling in order to fund the balance of my life, but no one thing for forty years. I perceive this as a price I pay for a relatively good life.

Is a roaster of ducks for forty years a man fulfilled? Anthony Bourdain may speak with admiration for such a man, but Anthony moved on in his chosen field and then moved out into related broadcasting. He paid some serious dues, but he was never a roaster of ducks for forty years.

In thinking on the roasting of ducks I find more questions than answers.

It also leaves me hungry.

Profound Trivialities-

2009-07-23T02:53:00.000-07:00

I was responding to a blog the other day, and had occasion to relate something as to how this particular philosopher developed. I related to my youthful atheism, the transition to agnosticism, and my eventual conversion to Christianity.

Somehow, thinking on this I am reminded of the time I pointed out to a friend that our being together at that moment was the culmination of all of History. Yep. All of the events, great or small, that preceded our existence at that place and that time were represented in that moment. Us, together, talking about profound trivialities.

The atheism of my youth was largely a response to the apparent disorder of the world in which I lived, the presence of evil in the world, and an angst that was probably hormonal in nature. It was also partially ego driven. I felt cool declaring myself to be an atheist.

My agnosticism that followed was more thoughtful. I realized that the scope and potential of my human knowledge did not allow for an intellectual base large enough to declare God as non-existent. This occurred at a time in my youth when I was becoming profoundly aware of the scope of my ignorance. I perceived myself as a speck of dust on a speck of dust, and declaring the non-being of God was tragically egotistical.

Over the next several years I recognized that starting from the presupposition of a profound ignorance I tended to think on things with fewer biases and to be open to more ideas. I also embraced the concept of tentative belief as the starting point of any investigation.

That was, of course, during such times as I was actively thinking and building a world view. Keep in mind that I was young and often driven by my hormones and lurching maturation rather than careful thought.

For a time I thought Science would provide the avenue for expansion and exploration. It indeed was a realm of great interest, and some of the disciplines of thought rubbed off as I dabbled. However, I saw scientific study as an ever narrowing focus in which the scientist learned more and more about less and less. To exhaust the narrowest speciality in any given field of science was an impossible task.

Study was endless, but life is short. Throw in the threat of being drafted and sent to Viet Nam as an agent of our great nation and a sense of mortality grew deep and morbid. I responded by dabbling in sensuality but was not really cut out for it. Always I returned to the life of the mind.

It was the Age of Aquarius, and I was caught up in the wave of mysticism. I contemplated learning from the major religions by practicing each one for a time. As I explored the scope of my intended project I was often overwhelmed. So much to learn and do, and so little time.

I explored Hinduism first, cobbling my own mystical adventure as I sought knowledge. I might have sought formal guidance, but I joined the Army in hopes of avoiding Viet Nam. I reasoned that nuclear weapons were not deployed in active war zones, and so sought training in that field. My course was altered, however, by my inability to focus on the required training and my own inner explorations at the same time.

Failing my training in the maintenance of nuclear weapons I was sent to the Quartermaster corps, and became a Army supply specialist. That time of training in supply management was transitional. I was brought into constant contact with the first Christian I had ever met who was wholly committed to his faith.

His faith was intriguing. I reconsidered my course of exploration, and decided to explore Christianity next. I decided to believe in this Christian's God, and in this Jesus who somehow saved me from sin. I did not really know much about sin and salvation, but I embraced the things I learned as if I did believe.

Over a matter of weeks I did believe, and I began to grow in the faith I had adopted. My path took me through several of the many sub-sets of that which is Christian, and my own beliefs took form as a consequence of the experiences.

So it went for many years. I have held many jobs, been married for over three decades, raised three children to adulthood, and assumed my greatest title in that time. The whole course of my personal history, which was a consequence of all of history before my time, made me a grandfather. The title "Papa" is my greatest achievement.

Trivial. Everyone has a grandfather or two. Profound. No other experience is like loving and being loved by grandchildren. It is a mystery beyond mere knowledge, the confirmation of magic in the Universe.

I have no hope of knowing all I long to know. My mortal life is too short, and my resources are too few. However, I have hope of knowing what is best. I have walked dark paths, and seen the face of evil more than once. They are nothing compared to the light of love my grandchildren have shown me. That love is but a glimmer of the love that my God has for me.

How do I know? That is the mystery, and the mysticism. As I have only recently come to understand, my agnosticism has shaped me as much as my faith. I still love knowledge and learning, and embrace the experiences that give me both. Knowing and believing is only part of the experience. Greater, by far, is the mystery.

What, then, beyond this life? Yes. What then?

The Death Penalty-

2009-07-13T03:12:00.000-07:00

Over time I have reconsidered my support for the death penalty. Perhaps some is the consequence of the changed perspective of many years of living. A great deal is the consequence of working many years in a county jail.

I have learned something of what life in prison is like. Even in our relatively humane modern prisons life is difficult and brutish. It is no favor to the guilty to sentence them to a life in prison, especially without prospect of parole.

With that in mind, the appetite for vengeance that drives the passion for the death penalty for many people can be satisfied with the knowledge that it is not a pleasant life to which the guilty are assigned.

Additionally, by sentencing a person to a life in prison it does remain possible to reverse the sentence should additional evidence vindicate a sentence server. That simply cannot be done in the case of an execution. On this point the opponents to the death penalty are right, no matter what their actual motive for that opposition.

From a cost only perspective a quick execution of those found guilty of murder would be a savings. However, few executions soon follow a sentence, and death row inmates are expensive to hold. Calculating a break even point in the cost of a life sentence as opposed to a death sentence might prove difficult.

I don't have the data, but the rough figures I have seen in the past indicate that the greater expense of death row housing over the protracted periods inmates reside in such housing hint at a probable savings in an alternative a life sentence.

While working in jail I have transferred a lot of young people to prison. Some I have transferred repeatedly. As the inmates aged they tended to get longer sentences. I don't recall seeing any of these repeat offenders come back after reaching the age of forty five or so.

Are they dying in prison? It would seem so. Many become diseased due to chronic abuse of drugs, alcohol, and dangerous sexual practices. Many practice violence in their youth that eventually comes back upon them as they are sentenced to long terms later in life. The probability of a long life is not high in prison.

I shall not be joining any protests of the death penalty. I shall not strive to halt any particular executions. I shall support elimination of the death penalty as a voter. I will probably not consider the position of a candidate on the death penalty as critical with regard to my support and my vote.

I am reminded of one inmate I transferred to prison. He had three consecutive life sentences. I was confident he would serve the first one. I doubted he would make it through the other two.

Death was too good for him.

I Sell You Fish!

2009-07-12T22:26:00.000-07:00

Years ago I had a friend and co-worker who was from England. He was an older gentleman, a working class fellow with working class values. He would, from time to time, relate stories from his past.

This is one of them.

The Second World War was raging as he came of age. Barely of age. He joined the British Navy at the age of seventeen, and spent some time in the North Sea and the English Channel. He was engaged in the D-Day assault, and support work after that significant day.

During one of those support cruises his ship was taking on supplies off of the coast of France. A French fisherman was selling his catch to the English liberators.

One sailor quipped, "I bet you are glad to see us."

The fisherman continued to unload his catch. As he did so, he said "When the Germans were here I sold them fish. Now you are here. I sell you fish!"

I could visualize this practical man who drew his living from the sea. Before the German occupation of France he sold his fish to the French. With the German occupation he sold his fish to the Germans. With the liberation he sold his fish to the English.

His life probably did not change much over the course of the war. His life was well ordered, though probably far from easy. He knew how to fish. Fish provided food, and procured the other things he needed in his simple life. He may have been contemplative, a deep thinker as well as deep fisher.

By his answer I would think he was probably not.

I certainly find appealing the idea of a life unaffected by the social and political winds. I just don't see our country falling to an outside foe. We still have too much power for that. I do see the possibility of us falling to economic changes, and some inward upheaval which will redefine the United States of America as something else.

Could I ride out such a shift? Could I sell my "fish" to whomever comes seeking them?

In thinking about this, I realize how bound I am to the existing way of life. I have vesture in a government pension, one for which I have worked and upon which my later life shall largely depend. I am not yet old but I am far from young. To be compelled by world events to start over is a rather unpleasant and overwhelming prospect.

It is unlikely that I shall ever be tested in this. Thinking about it, however, does emphasize just how dependent I am on the system as it is. I may long for change in that system, but I can no longer comfortably harbor thoughts of radical change.

Thinking about this old story, one I heard years ago, has compelled me to think a bit more about myself.

Perhaps I need to go fishing.

Lines of Tension-

2009-06-23T22:54:00.000-07:00

Some years ago I came up with the idea of lines of tension existing between various aspects of my being. Not just my own being, the concept would apply to everyone. However, I am only fully familiar with my own being, and these were my own thoughts.

As an example, take the ideas of freedom and security. Currently the world is troubled by some nebulous threat called "the terrorists." In exchange for greater security from this threat it is expected that we give up some of our freedoms. Thus, we can see that there is a line of tension between the concept of freedom and the concept of security.

To get more security one must give up some freedom. To gain freedom one must sacrifice security. Tension.

I follow a blog called Geeks on Tour. In the post linked here Chris relates a line of tension I had not thought about. Dreams----Duty. The example was two movies. Follow the link, as Chris relates the two films quite nicely, demonstrating the line of tension between following one's dreams and following one's duty.

In my vague theory on these lines of tension I see happiness/contentment/fulfillment existing for each individual somewhere along each line. My mother-in-law Alta would be quite content to give up a great many freedoms to gain security. I, however, will tollerate considerably less security to have freedom. We are at different places on the line of tension, each seeking whatever happiness/contentment/fulfillment we can find.

Life is comprised of many aspects that exist in tension. Dreams and duty are another two. I responded to Chris's observations because sacrificing dreams in the name of duty had caused considerable trouble within me in the past. I was falling into a debilitating depression due to the level I had sacrificed dreams to fulfill duties. It was necessary to bring these aspects of myself back into tension in order for me to regain stability and begin working toward whatever happiness/contentment/fulfillment I might hope to find along that given line.

A perfectly balanced life would exist for any particular individual at that place where all lines of tension are in balance. Not the absolute center of each line, of course. It would be the place where each line is occupied at just the right point. It would be the ideal life for that individual.

I can only imagine such a place, and wonder what it would be like. I generally find balancing one line throws another off balance, and I am constantly recovering from previous imbalances. I suspect that my experience is not unique.

At best this model of lines in tension can be useful in assessing conflicting aspects of life. Perhaps I will find the time to asess my life in the light of my little theory. Make lists. Draw lines.

Time. Hmmm. Time----

What is at the other end of that line?

Perspective-

2009-05-06T06:11:00.000-07:00

I follow a number of blogs. I don't add blogs to my list without consideration. I have to find something of value in the blog, a perspective that is either beneficial in some way or one that challenges my own thinking.

I really don't think anyone grows if surrounded only by like minded persons. I find that my own ways of thinking are challenged by the ideas of others, and I have to constantly assess my own ideas and think about how to express those ideas. I like this challenge.

Some of the blogs I follow are travel blogs. Others focus on things like story telling, or photography. Usually I am attracted by the work itself, but I also find myself becoming interested in the people behind the activities about which they blog.

Some blogs are idea blogs. I follow a Presbyterian minister, and another who is a student of Puritan theology and philosophy. I follow others who are not believers in God, even some who are quite atheistic. I enjoy examining their ideas, and also find myself fascinated by their humanity.

The Presbyterian minister is a hunter, a sports fan, and devoted to his church and family. He has depth to his beliefs and his way of living. Another I follow is a physician who is an amystic. Rejecting the mystical he is left not believing in God. He presents clear arguments for his beliefs, but more than that he shows himself to be a compassionate human being.

Some blog about their homes and display a deep love of their domestic lives. I sense a richness in their lives, and many share that well.

One of my bloggers blogs about Legos.

I am not, by nature, a socially involved person. Indeed, I have a reclusive tendency which I actively work against. I can be quite content in isolation, and must work to keep myself involved with other people. My fellow bloggers aid me in this task.

In the course of these interactions I find myself compelled to try and support my fellow bloggers. I have selected people who are genuine, and have depth, and express themselves well. Though a few of the blogs invite energetic discussion, I find that I approach these discussions with a bit of restraint. I value the exchange of ideas and perspectives, but am not so compelled to prove myself "right" that I assault my fellow bloggers with my keyboard.

My blog list grows slowly. I cull the blogs that prove monochromatic, that exist only to promote a particular perspective or agenda. I also cull those that don't seem to be growing or going anywhere. I add others with care. I am a frugal gardener, wanting to get the greatest yield possible from my little blog patch.

The real fruit of all of this is perspective. I see the world through different eyes, and grow a bit in the process.

It is a good thing.

I Kant Kant-

2009-05-04T05:27:00.000-07:00

I read Critique of Pure Reason twice. Two different translations. I don't have the text with me right now, but I sold one and kept the other. The one I kept had a better translation, and was somewhat easier to read.

Not necessarily easier to understand. I do not claim to understand what I read. I thought that this was largely my own fault. I suspect that I did have a lot to do with my own inability to understand, but I later learned that others found the language and presentation a bit ponderous.

It was described in one article I read (and of course do not have handy to cite) that the German philosophers of the time of Kant (and for some time after) felt it "scholarly" to couch their concepts in ponderous prose. I do not know if that is true, but it would explain the difficulty in getting an untrained brain around many of the concepts.

I think another aspect was the effort of Kant to describe the very generalized ideas of knowing and reason. What can we know? What can we not know? How are the regions defined? Not small or simple questions.

Not quite so general (and perhaps meaningless) as "What is the meaning of life?" However, it was not quite so particular as making a measurable observation of some natural phenomenon. Then again, not all phenomena are easy to observe and measure.

I will probably drag the book out again, someday soon. I will read it, and perhaps convince myself that I understand a bit more than before.

Maybe.

Then again, perhaps I simply Kant Kant.

Evolution vs Creation in Education-

2009-05-04T04:21:00.000-07:00

I find this debate terribly sad. It is sad because most of the players have very good intentions. It is sad because there is no compromise. It is sad because someone must lose something of value in the end.

The parents promoting creation/intelligent design wish to protect their children from a godless science. Not necessarily from science, but from a science that excludes God from the issue of creation. This is a genuine desire to protect, and the drive to protect offspring is powerful.

On the other side are scientists, striving to protect science education from being polluted by bad science. Unfortunately, God does not readily submit to scientific inquiry, and so good science will most likely be Godless. Not that all scientists are godless. Those who believe, however, cannot derive their faith from science.

Sadly, from what I have seen the creation/intelligent design faction does indeed promote bad science. This does not mean that they promote something that is not true. It does mean that creation/intelligent design may well belong in another venue.

I do not know if believers in God can begin with the evidence available through years of scientific inquiry and present a set of arguments that will pass the rigours of established scientific review. I an not so sure that they should.

I am still not convinced that science is the final arbiter with regard to what is true. It has proven valuable in building human knowledge and building a better world. It is worthy of a place of great honor. I am not convinced that it is ultimate.

A large part of the issue in this debate is good stewardship. Strangely, I find both the creation side and the science side are striving for good use of public funds in education. The scientist don't want to see public funds spent on teaching bad science. The creationists don't want what they view to be truth excluded from the education process for which they must pay through taxes.

Nobody wants children confused by different views of what is held to be true. However, lacking a consensus on what is true with regard to how things came into being, the educators are caught between waring factions. The children are destined to seek their own answers on the matter.

Perhaps that is the real focus. A system of education that teaches thinking, not just indoctrination. This is dangerous, of course. It will produce children who will not always think as parents may wish. It may produce children who think outside the box called "science," as well.

A generation of rogue thinkers might prove very interesting.

Dangerous children. Worth the investment.

Lines in Tension-

2009-05-03T22:24:00.001-07:00

Music can be produced from a broad variety of instruments that have lines in tension. Guitar, violin, piano, and wash-tub bass. Many instruments which contain the potential for music in lines of some material drawn to a precise tension.

I find an analogy in ideas. Freedom and security, for example. A line stretched between absolute freedom and absolute security, representing the need to sacrifice freedom to obtain security, or to sacrifice security to obtain freedom. A line in tension.

With regard to this particular line, various people will prefer different points on the line as their particular place of comfort. Additionally, social orders that move too far toward one extreme or the other are more likely to fall than those that find a viable range somewhere toward the middle of the line.

A gross generalization, but one that seems to apply. There is no music if there is no tension. Too much tension and the line breaks. Not every sound that comes forth is music, either. Neither is music just one note.

Drums have planes in tension. A bell has a tension built into both the shape and the material of the bell. These instruments must be played in concert with similar instruments, due to the limits of their individual ranges. Even stringed instruments, though more flexible in range even in just one string, generally have several strings to expand the range of musical potential.

Many instruments come together to form bands and orchestras, bringing forth music from lines of tension.

I try to see families, tribes and nations in a similar way. Individuals living along various lines of tension, interacting with one another. Often it is noise. Sometimes it is music. Not always the same music, and perhaps not music to every one's liking, but a form of music none the less.

This idea of lines in tension sometimes aids me in understanding another human being. I look at how they live, what they are saying, what they are doing. I try to see the lines of tension that make up their individual life. Occasionally I can find a harmony between us.

This is a rather small thought to share. Not particularly deep, and perhaps not that insightful. Yet it is a way of thinking that might be helpful to someone.

That is why I share it. Let us make music together.

Thinking about Thinking-

2009-04-15T23:55:00.000-07:00

I have recently engaged in a few sparing matches on another blog. Pliny is a scientific thinker and strong proponent of a scientific view of reality. He and his followers seem quite concerned by the conservative Christians who have been striving to incorporate creationist models into the system of education. For the most part Pliny and many of his followers do not have high regard for either the creation model or Christians and their way of thinking.

Pliny is quite fond of the evolutionary model. As a scientist and one who does not hold a Christian world view, that makes a great deal of sense. Most of his concerns and criticisms have been well thought out and well presented. In wrestling with some of those ideas as he presented them I have been compelled to think a bit.

I don't mind. I like thinking. Unfortunately, the last few years I have neglected my thinker, and so I am getting my thinker back into shape. Many of the half-baked mental models I played with many years ago remain half-baked. That is not to say they are not serviceable models, just that I never completed them.

In the past I did not have venues in which to exercise my thoughts. I was no longer in school, and my jobs did not present the right circumstances for mental exercise. So, my thoughts remained incomplete largely due to not having any sounding board. I had nobody to wrestle with. In recent years I exercised my mind less and less, and now it is as flabby as my physical form.

Not a pretty sight.

Having the Internet, I started this blog as a place to exercise my thoughts, and perhaps get some mental models assembled and made presentable. However, I still wrestled with some emotional issues, and was unable to get down to some serious thinking.

Visiting Pliny's place demonstrated to me that I really need to get my mental muscles back into fighting trim. Unlike physical combat, where my flab at least provides a useful mass for restraining combatants, mental wrestling requires some serious conditioning.

I am assessing some areas that will need exploration, and the exploration will provide the conditioning to prepare me for more intellectual adventures.

My problem has always been a curiosity greater than my lifespan. I have trouble narrowing my focus. I see so many avenues that are bright and interesting, and I want to travel them all.

Evolution and creation are only two models that I long to explore. However, associated with that exploration is an examination of contemporary Christian culture as it relates to the conflict between evolutionists and creationists. There is also an interesting avenue in which I long to explore the contemporary culture of science, and learn how that culture selects what is (and is not) knowledge.

That brings me back to the conflict I experienced in my youth regarding the perspective of the scientist as opposed to, say, a mystic. While science as a system reveals things that are true about the universe in which we live, I wondered about those areas that seemed unsuited for scientific analysis. The mystical was only one such area.

I still want to define more ways of thinking. This was the essence of my conflict in one discussion at Pliny's place. I contended that science was a belief system, a way of thinking. It is a system with a set of presuppositions, a perspective on reality, a particular vocabulary, and limits as to what it can encompass.

Pliny and his followers did not agree. My presentation left a lot to be desired, and I recognized that I was at fault for having not even clearly identified my position.

Of course, this points to another area of interest. The psychology of belief. That seems to be a subset of epistemology as well as psychology. Two rather large fields to explore.

It would be so much easier if one area of thought would catch my interest so intently that I could focus on that to the exclusion of all else. I would only delve into other related fields to help in understanding my darling. I would specialize and master something.

My broad interests have resulted in a little knowledge about a lot of things. This has earned the moniker Dr. Lockridge in my present place of employment. One associate likened me to a children's show host. Doctor Lockridge's Wading Pool of Knowledge. Though it is a bit of a dig, it is such a comical image (and true) that I have embraced it.

So, can I use this venue to focus my mind, and perhaps put together something that serves the name of this blog?

I can't wait to find out.

The Internet, Blogging, and the Exchange of Ideas-

2009-03-30T22:44:00.000-07:00

I was recently engaged in a few discussions over at Pliny's blog. Though Pliny has a small following, the people are thinkers and Pliny presents some interesting perspectives to explore. I responded to a few blogs, and found my own perspective to be somewhat different from those of Pliny and his other followers. For the most part the exchange was pleasant, and I learned a few things in the process.

One thing I learned is that the years of little intellectual interaction has dulled my capacity to engage other thinkers. I am a bit rusty in presenting my thoughts clearly and challenging ideas different from my own. Hopefully I can correct that by engaging in the exchange of ideas more frequently. Nothing like exercise to regain the tone in the intellectual muscle.

Another thing I observed is the difficulty of exchange in the blogging forum. The blogger presents an idea in the form of a short essay. Guests may respond in a comment section. Pliny has followers who receive his blog entries automatically. Most seem to agree with him in general perspective. In the blog world this leads to generally short comments expressing that agreement.

In challenging the blog, or aspects of the blog, it is necessary to present an argument. Unfortunately, this begins to look like a blog within a blog and deviates from the idea of a comment. While some of my arguments inspired some exchange, it was not quite the same as might occur in a classroom or similar venue intended for such exercises.

So, the blog format is good for expressing ideas, but not quite as effective in exchanging ideas. It serves well as a news and comments forum, but is not sufficient as a serious discussion forum. If my observation here is incorrect, I have yet to find a place where it is better applied.

Another thing I noted was the anonymity of the blog realm. A blogger can adopt a persona, and engage in vindictive exchanges instead of seeking to grow one another in knowledge. Rant style blogs can invite and encourage these types of exchanges, but they can easily leak into what might be intended as a serious blog intended for the exchange of ideas. It is not unheard of for anonymous bloggers to attempt to overcome a blog of a different perspective by loading it with noise.

Granted, there are tools for managing these disruptive practices, and such management must become part of a blogger's toolbox. I value an open exchange, and such openness requires some exposure to minds less inclined toward teaching and learning and more inclined to fighting battles on the Internet. As a consequence of that openness, I will have to master some of those management skills as well.

Due to the nature of the blog as a vehicle of short essays, it will be necessary for me to develop more discipline in my own thinking. From years of rattling around in my own head I find I do not have the proper discipline to form well thought out opinions and cogent arguments. My writing skills are up to the task, but my mind has grown fat and sloppy.

At present my mind tends to be all over the place. I begin thinking along a particular line and my mind races ahead, sniffing at the many trails that lead off from where I am thinking. While that has been adequate for solitary musing, it does not serve for putting ideas together in a way that inspires discussion and real learning.

My experience exploring the realm of the blog indicates that people of particular hobbies do some of the best blogging. Crafters, photographers, and other artists sharing their crafts and their thoughts create some of the finest blogs. Some are very good, indeed. I find visiting many of these blogs to be life-enhancing.

Can I explore my own thoughts and opinions, and create a place that is life-enhancing for visitors?

We shall find out.

Evolution, Creation and Belief-

2009-03-03T00:08:00.000-08:00

Many years ago I was quite interested in the Creation/Evolution debate. As a convert to Christianity it appeared fundamental. Evolution represented the "old" way of thinking, my pre-Christian framework. Creationism obviously was a "new" way of thinking and essential to the change in the way of thought my conversion necessitated.

I am less convinced of the necessity and centrality of these concepts to the divergent frames of thinking at this point in my life. I have examined the issue from time to time over the intervening years, and have found problems with a hard-line position on either side of the argument.

Used as models each of these ways of thinking have merit. The creation model can provide a useful foundation for thoughts regarding God and that which He has created. The evolutionary model provides a good framework for scientific thinking about how things might have come to be as they are. Each model is useful.

When evolution is introduced to thoughts about God and His relationship with His creation some challenging questions come about. The conflict is sufficient to cause advocates of one model or the other to perceive problems with the ideas of God, creation, science, and evolution fitting into a complete world view.

It is hard for me to challenge evolution because I do not fully understand the theory and its application. As a generalized model it seems to describe much about the universe, provided I make certain assumptions about the universe. However, I find the same circularity of reasoning in much of evolution (as I have been able to understand it) that the proponents of science throw out as a challenge to biblical systems of thinking.

The anti-entropic nature of evolution is problematic. Things tend to fall apart unless a conscious effort to hold them together is made. Yet evolution is a tendency for unconscious things and stuff to fall into ever more complex relationships. Matter naturally tends toward simple states, not greater complexity. It is hard to describe evolution creating increasing complexity without some inclination to give it a consciousness.

The absence of transitional species is also a challenge in adopting a singularly evolutionary view of reality. Adaptability within types can be representative of good engineering on the part of a creator, without necessitating transitions between types of creatures. Taxonomic rules seem to have been formulated to support the evolutionary model, but my understanding of taxonomy is just inches from complete ignorance. Evolution seems to depend much on taxonomy, but again that impression may be just a shadow in my mind.

Creationism does not always answer well the challenges of observing nature. Unfortunately, it is a biblical doctrine, not a scientific system of thought. Since it is not intended to address the many questions a scientific examination of creation inevitably will bring about, it appears inadequate. For such an application it is inadequate.

By way of illustration I refer to a study I once did. Jesus once proclaimed the mustard seed as the smallest of all seeds. He did this to illustrate a biblical concept regarding faith. Jesus was scientifically inaccurate. My research showed that the orchid has a much smaller seed than the mustard seed. However, nobody in the time and place Jesus was speaking had that knowledge. The common knowledge was that the mustard seed was indeed the smallest of all seeds.

Jesus being who he was (and is) might well be expected to know the scientific truth. However, for his purpose of illustration the popular knowledge was sufficient, and in context his statement was true. Historical, social and physical contexts are important in assessing even the nature of seeds.

By nature the doctrine of creation is deductive. It is drawn from a document proclaimed to have been revealed from God, and discerning the truths and teachings from such a revelation is necessarily deductive in nature.

Evolution is a theory developed inductively. It attempts to explain creation by creating an overall set of rules to explain what is observed. God and His relationship to creation are not relevant to the theory. While the existence of God and His act of creation may be inferred by the evidence, it is not essential from a scientific perspective. As a needless complication it is simplest to leave God out of the evolutionary picture.

I suspect that this is generally done, and the godly perceive the godlessness of evolution as an inherent evil and so cast out the whole theory as ungodly and wrong.

The universe is today perceived as a much larger place than in the times that the creation model was first presented. Indeed, the universe as now perceived is a much larger place than when I was born. In the context of that smaller universe a literal creation story was sufficient for many, many generations. Today it may need just a little explanation to make that context clear.

It is not much different from sermons on the analogous relationship of faith and mustard seeds in a world where orchids are now relatively common.

Neither is the theory of evolution static. It is a piece of inductive reasoning subject to constant reassessment and revision. It is science, and that is the nature of scientific knowledge. Science is useful as a tool, but insufficient as a faith.

For me the human experience is dynamic and existential. The depth of my knowledge is insufficient to be absolute. The evolutionary model is beautiful. The creation model is equally beautiful, but quite different. I can experience each in turn, and recognize that they exist in the universe I inhabit.

Perhaps not a decisive conclusion, but an honest one and one I can live with.

China-

2009-01-29T09:38:00.000-08:00

I am not a China scholar. However, with the advancement of China in the world economy I began watching a bit more closely. I read a history of China, to get background, perhaps a decade ago. At that time I made a prediction based on the long tradition in China of holding the merchant class in low esteem. I predicted a slow development into the world economy because of that prejudice.

I was wrong. China today is where I expected them to be in about thirty more years. They are advancing fast. I have not been surprised by the "communist" Chinese government embracing a form of capitalism and developing a stronger economy as a result. The Russian "communists" had a state capitalism that brought them rapidly into the world economy. The Chinese have done the same.

No, the real impediment I expected was the ancient prejudice toward the merchant class. I really don't know how the dynamics are working at the individual level, but China is a real economic force and moving fast.

What I expected to be a real issue for a repressive government has been the Internet. Though they try to contain the exchange of information and opinion, I expect the Chinese to fail. This article indicates that the erosion is progressing. It will be interesting to see what develops as more and more Chinese acquire ready access to information.

For other nations, such as our own, I see a progression toward reduced freedom. This will be the result of two factors. The first is population growth. Freedom necessarily diminishes with crowding. It is simply not possible to allow unrestrained freedom on an individual level when people are confined to small spaces.

The second factor is the nature of regulatory bodies such as governments. Regulators regulate, and they will naturally move toward greater regulation of societies. Mature and aging governments become choked with regulations due to this trend. Increased regulation will necessarily diminish individual freedom. Hence, as governments mature freedom naturally declines.

These last two are matters for another discussion. My point is that China is becoming progressively more interesting. This particular movement might be repressed, but it cannot now be done quietly. The world of the Internet is aware, and watching.

The American Waffle Party-

2009-01-02T10:22:00.000-08:00

I truly do like the ideals of the Libertarian Party. However, it is true that they are not likely to get a high level representative elected. The two party system is deeply established and any other parties seem to draw suspicion on the part of the public.

The Libertarians have been inclined to compromise the more radical ideals in order to be a viable party. That may be necessary, but it is the radical change in government that I long for.

This last election I was compelled to vote for Obama. I do not care for the Democratic Party for the most part. I do not care for the Republican Party, either. Neither has demonstrated any real competence in managing the country. My vote for Obama was a vote for change. The Bush administration has taken us in a direction I do not support. Perhaps Obama will change direction.

This brings us to my proposition for a new Party. The Waffle Party. Members of the Waffle Party do not put forth candidates. There is no particular Waffle Campaign.

What do Wafflers do? They vote the incumbent out, each and every position in each and every election. Don't let them sit long enough to do anything.

Perhaps not much will get done under the influence of the Waffle Party, but at least nobody will be in power long enough to create a particularly large mess. Cleaning up after the incumbent will become the singular task of anyone elected.

So, vote the incumbent out. Waffle for a better America.

Epiphany-

2008-12-01T22:53:00.000-08:00

I have never been particularly religious. My family was not particularly religious, except perhaps for short periods at various times in various individual lives. I did not grow up with a particular religious slant.

My father was a professional educator and held his profession in high esteem. I grew up in the 60's, an era when science was given great weight in education. I valued science as a model of how we should think, and desired knowledge in a way that was probably religious in nature. However, God was not a common subject in the course of my growing up, and not often on my mind.

Even so, in some early day of my life I one night felt the vastness of the universe and the smallness of my place in that vastness, and cried out for God to love me. I experienced a warmth of love in that moment. It was a childhood epiphany.

It did not send me off on some grand quest, or cause me to commit my life to some great cause. It was just a moment in my life. A profound experience, and one that remains clear after a great many years. However, it is still only one of many experiences that made up my early days.

My second epiphany occurred years later. I had abandoned finding meaning and purpose for myself through endless acquisition of knowledge. I was on a spiritual quest, seeking some idea or experience that would define my life and give it purpose.

The path I was following was a self-made path. I had learned that elements of the Hindu faith were among the oldest know religious beliefs, and so I was trying to acquire knowledge of these beliefs through reading Hindu literature and practicing what I could learn of Yoga through books. I was opening myself up to mystical experiences that were not defined by reason alone.

During this time I was exposed to the witness of a fervent Christian. He had a depth to his belief that was greater than I had seen in other Christians. After months of talking and listening, he took me to a church.

Foreshadowing my epiphany and subsequent conversion to the Christian faith was a period I refer to as a pursuit by the Hound of Heaven. It was like God Himself was herding me toward the Christian fold. I tried to evade through argument and periods of drug and alcohol use, but it proved to be not enough to escape the Hound of Heaven.

Thus I found myself in a Christian church, surrounded by Christians and their doings. In that place a great golden light just beyond actual seeing flooded the church, and bathed me in a warm glow. It was like my childhood epiphany, but many times greater. I sensed a vastness and agelessness and a depth of love greater than I could grasp or express. It was something I simply had to accept, or reject.

I accepted. Not being particularly religious nor particularly fond of religious motions I continued my spiritual quest as a personal journey. At times I have shared in fellowship with other Christians, but I never fully accepted the culture. It did not seem necessary.

I still value reason, and think it should be applied to all learning and experience. However, neither my reason nor the reason of others is sufficient to judge all things. I continue to embrace mystery as a valuable part of all that is, as well as such knowledge as I have acquired and such knowledge as others will share with me.

Over time I have studied several systems of theology, and had fellowship with many different Christian groups. Ultimately I have come to the conclusion that our reason is an aspect of our faith, it is not the whole of our faith. Our relationship with God is dynamic and experiential. It is informed by customs, traditions, doctrines and most importantly the Bible. However, what is most real at any moment for any believer is the experience.

Epiphany is not the normal mode of experiencing God. Though I have had two such experiences, it is a tiny part of my overall Christian experience. It is a tiny part of my human experience. Important, defining, but still just a part.

These experiences have informed my approach to evangelism (sharing the faith with those who do not yet believe) and interacting generally with other people. I cannot expect, much less demand, that others follow the same path I have followed. No, I can share my experiences, share what I know, and even offer advice and encouragement.

In the end I can simply be part of their experience, found on their own path. I can afford to be genuine, rather than a "fake" Christian. That means that they will see that Christians are not always nice or pleasant. I certainly am not. By being myself just as I am in my place along my path I can be available as an element in the experiences of others.

It is quite possible that I shall be some other person's epiphany.

Not likely, but with God who can say?

Building Economic and Social Models-

2008-11-17T23:29:00.000-08:00

Occasionally I spend some time speculating about how the world will be in the not-too-distant future. At times my intuitive speculations work out. I foresaw the period of economic stability in the 1990's, and was actually surprised that the bubble burst so far from the turn of the century. We had five more years than I anticipated.

What was my prediction based on? Mostly my understanding that people don't really want to mess with something that is working well at the beginning of a period of prosperity and stability. I remembered the periods of inflation and shortages of fuel and some items such as sugar. Most people making decisions were familiar with those things, as well. Huge interest rates, big swings in the market.

I think that most of the people monkeying with the system gave up after those volatile times, and the economy was permitted to flow more naturally and freely. As it stabilized and some emergent technologies began to integrate into the general flow of the economy, nobody wanted to do anything particularly radical.

Perhaps the best example was when the Republicans pretty much reelected Bill Clinton for his second term. Not that anyone was actually thinking that Clinton was responsible for the period of prosperity. Just that nobody wanted to alter things too much. Don't mess with it. Let it grow naturally.

So, we had a good run. However, it became comfortable enough for some people who made a crap load of money in this period to try to turn that crap load into a shit load of money. Monkeys. It finally tipped a bit, and other monkeys put in their hands to get a piece before it all fell apart.

Of course, emerging economies such as China and India had a significant impact as well. It shifted the demand side of the equation and certainly opened things up for speculation. The comfortable became uncomfortable, and they began trying to control things. Too many monkeys.

Along with this is the unknown element of multinational corporations. People could no longer align their interests simply along national lines.

Add to the mix the massive flow of information across the Internet. Not just "things I want to know" information. Money. Property. The blurring of the lines between virtual worlds and the world we perceive as real. Information is power, but power flowing out of control is chaotic. It is explosive.

While I truly believe in Libertarian principles, I recognize that they won't really form the foundation for a model for societies or their economies. I will continue to promote liberty, because I see it threatened. However, the Libertarian model really won't work.

I really can't come up with a model. The world has become smaller even in my individual experience. In recent years I have interacted with people around the world. I have touched and been touched by people in distant lands and different cultures via the Internet. Each day, as I reach out through the new media, I am changed and being changed.

A small world does not really allow for great personal liberty. In this I think Japan is a model. A large population living in a limited space created a culture that is not particularly Libertarian. It is a culture that is ruled by conventions.

That being said, Japanese people have found ways to be creative and inwardly free. I do not know how to think and feel Japanese, so I really don't know to what degree an individual living as a member of that culture might long for and realize personal freedom. Still, when I look upon that culture from outside I see things that look like individual expressions of personal liberty.

I don't think Japan is our model, however. Nor the changing cultures and economies of Europe. American culture has a large influence, but it is not big enough for the world. For all of our American bluster and shared egos, we are not sufficient. The Neo-Cons are wrong in thinking that America should dominate the world in this century. We are not big enough.

No existing nation or culture is big enough. This is a huge shift, and nobody really has a model that is comprehensive enough to represent what is going on in the world.

I will keep watching, and keep thinking. I may not have a model, but my intuition tells me that things will be exciting.

Exciting, in the best and worst senses of the word.

The Gentle Marxist-

2008-11-02T23:19:00.000-08:00

Some years ago a friend of mine, Mike Wilson, invited me to come and visit his philosophy class. The class had a Marxist coming in as a guest speaker. Mike and I had spent much time in discussing our Christian faith and what kind of philosophy might come from that faith. He respected my opinions and even more he valued my questions.

Questions have always been my strength. I tend to be good with questions, especially questions that would lead myself as well as the person I was questioning toward deeper understanding of ourselves and our subject matter. Mike wanted to bring this strength into the class and see what happened.

A large part of what happened was me probing gently into the nature of this man's Marxism. He was a gentle soul, and truly believed that Marxism offered a step forward out of the selfishness and emptiness of our current society. I used my questions to aid him in clarifying his position.

His Marxism was remarkably pure. Most of the expressions of Marxism since the days of Marx have been modified forms, often brutal. I do regret I cannot recall this Marxist's name, but I cannot. To me he is the Gentle Marxist, because of his choice of how he was spreading the Marxist doctrine.

We both agreed that Marx considered his social and economic model to be an evolutionary step in human development. A kind of economic Darwinian evolution. We also both agreed that no state in our present world had really "matured" (in the Marxist sense) to be ripe for true Marxism. We even both agreed that the Communist states then in existence were not truly Marxist states, but something else entirely.

This Gentle Marxist was working in adult literacy. He was using the same tool that Christians had used in advancing Christianity. The power of the written word. However, instead of teaching literacy using the Bible he was using the teachings of Marx. He was acting in kindness and a genuine belief that he was laying the groundwork for the coming Marxist revolution.

To be quite honest, I understand the drive toward true Marxism under the circumstances Marx described as catalytic to the revolution. Great wealth held by few who dominated by using that power and repressed the working class. Such a circumstance would demand some form of revolution, and an ideal state such as Marx's pure communism would be a fantastic alternative.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that humans are on the verge of a great evolutionary step, and that this evolution would lead to a pure communist state. Even under the circumstances that would bring about the worker's revolution the workers remain selfish and imperfect. They would ultimately seek their own good over the good of the masses, and some would seek more than their share.

The Christian doctrine is of humanity in need of redemption. We do not need an improved economic model, we need a fundamental change of our sinful nature. We need the salvation that is in the completed work of Christ on the Cross, not a redistribution of wealth. We need people motivated by the love of God, acting out that love in whatever economy they might happen to live within.

I sometimes wonder if the Gentle Marxist I met that day might have eventually come to embrace the Christian faith, and experienced a shift in his philosophy. Several of the Communists I had previously known had done so. Would the zeal survive the transition? It doesn't always.

The Gentle Marxist did set a valuable example. He was meeting real needs, and sharing his philosophy as he did so. He was acting as a secular evangelist. The best Christian evangelists generally act in the same way. Meeting needs and sharing Christ. Many other Christians fall far short of the example of the Gentle Marxist. That is quite sad.

I am not sure that the economic model under which we live is particularly important. More important is freedom. Freedom to think, and freedom to share thoughts. Freedom to meet needs and have needs met. In an environment of that kind of freedom the love of God could be freely shared. An economy that allowed for such freedom could be lived within, no matter what name it held.

In the end the Gentle Marxist and I found ourselves in two different philosophical camps. Religion in general and Christianity in particular do not fit within the teachings of Marx, and so a true Marxist must oppose such philosophies. Our Gentle Marxist ultimately could not allow the freedom of which I just wrote to stand.

That said, it is not the communist economic model that is a problem but the opposition of Marx to religion. In that point there is conflict. Indeed, the problem with the economic model is not a failure of the model itself, but the selfish nature of humans. Without compulsion they would not hold to the altruism of mutually shared resources. Always there will be the feathering of nests.

Like Plato's Philosopher Kings the voluntary communists of Marx's philosophy sharing the means of production and the fruits of labor equitably is nothing but a dream. Humans are flawed individually and corporately, and in need of redemption and resurrection to make them whole.

Only Jesus Christ offers that. I hope our Gentle Marxist finds the way.

Bogeymen and Socialism-

2008-10-20T23:19:00.000-07:00

The term "socialist" has recently been cast as an aspersion on Obama during these later gyrations in the campaign process. It is said much like calling him a "bogeyman." I am not particularly surprised by the use of the term "socialist", but am somewhat fascinated that it can be a term that serves to strike fear in people.

I must assume that those who fear and loath the term "socialist" must somehow identify themselves with capitalists. In the United States these terms are generally used as antithetical to one another. That is a logical way to deal with the terms, but the emotional identification with capitalism I find surprising.

Most of the people at whom the term "socialist" is being cast for emotional impact don't actually practice capitalism to any real degree. Most are citizens who are working within the existing system to make a life for themselves. Many use resources (such as roads and electrical power) that are partially or wholly socialized without any real thought to the matter. Why, then, is the socialist a bogeyman in their eyes?

I am inclined to believe that capitalism and the prized liberties of Americans are closely linked in the American mythos. Since socialism is antithetical to capitalism it must also threaten liberty. It therefore is anti-American. Ergo, if Obama is a socialist he is anti-American. Hence, working class Americans who don't significantly practice capitalism still identify with capitalism as a root of the liberties they enjoy. They may thus be influenced away from supporting Obama because he is now perceived as a threat.

Obama has become a bogeyman.

While casting aspersions may be a viable campaign tool, it does nothing for clarifying for Americans the culture in which they live. Most social orders in our world practice varying degrees of socialism. It is practiced to some degree in this country. The degree will vary over time, as people and organizations respond to changes in the world.

The dynamics of a system that can adjust to changes in the environment are signs of health. The question is not whether Obama is a socialist. It is whether or not Obama's policies are the right dynamic for our system in the current changing environment.

I presently don't really care. I want change. I do not think the current dynamic is right for our continued survival in the changing environment. Obama represents change. For me he is a convenient force that can be applied to the system to change the system. Once the direction is changed we can adjust the course.

One term of Obama may be sufficient. Two may be too much.

To use a colorful expression often used by a wino I once knew, "I don't give a flying rat's ass" about the degree of capitalism or socialism applied to the system. I simply want a system in which I can live with reasonable freedom and security. For me that would be weighted toward optimal freedom. Security need only be the power to keep what is mine and do with it what I choose.

I don't need people trying to frighten me with bogeymen. I need real information for making real choices.

Obviously campaign rhetoric is not a valid resource.

Influence or Regulation?-

2008-10-20T22:47:00.000-07:00

As a Christian and a Philosopher (to whatever degree I am much of either) I have considered my place in society. As either (or both) I impact my world with what I say and what I do. I hold that what we do rises from what we truly believe.

Some of my fellow Christians are activists. They intentionally act to influence our society to become more consistent with Christian principles. I cannot fault them for zeal and active endeavor to realize such ideals. Yet in my own life I chose not to strongly associate myself with these people.

The problem for me is in believing that the best Christian influence is through regulation. Ultimately I see such activism creating a Christian culture in which Christians are comfortable, but non-Christians are likely to be uncomfortable. This would drive unbelievers to move away from such environments, and the influence of Christians on non-Christians would become less by virtue of that distance.

I also often find that the culture of Christians tends to be narrow, shallow and lacking in interest. It need not be so, yet in areas where American Christian culture has deep roots there is often a distinct provincialism. There tends to be a failure to interact with ideas, since so many living together think much alike.

This kind of culture would offend the part of me that is the Philosopher.

For me an ideal culture would be diverse in thought and action. Regulation would be minimal, and ideas and beliefs would be free to interact in an organic and catalytic fashion. It is more of an environment of Influence rather than Regulation.

I cannot help but feel that ideas thrive in environments of freedom and diversity. While tight regulation may make some people feel secure, it seems repressive to me. Freedom on all levels of life allows for freedom of thought.

Such must necessarily be difficult for orthodoxy. To hold believers to beliefs that are consistent with Christian doctrine in an environment of free thinking must necessarily present a great challenge. Yet the opportunity for those believers to interact with unbelievers is much greater in an environment of free thinking.

Or so it seems to me. My love of freedom does not require the abandonment of order and discipline. Indeed, these are needed even more in a realm of great freedom. They are, however, freely chosen and adhered to, rather than simply regulated into being.

So I would say I value Influence over Regulation in the exchange of ideas. It must be what I truly believe, because it is how I live.

Same Sex Marriage-

2008-10-20T03:52:00.000-07:00

I consider this in the specific a moot point. The real issue, in my mind, is having the government involved in marriage at all. I have not researched marriage, so I am largely expressing an uninformed opinion. My impression, however, is that marriage is a personal and religious issue.

It seems to me that a great many of the cultures of the world have marriage as a social institution. It may vary somewhat, but it essentially is a bond between two people within the context of a religion and a larger social order.

How such a social institution is the business of government evades me. Perhaps I will one day study the history, if it ever grabs that much of my attention.

It does make sense for government to be involved in marriage if the church and state share a lot of responsibilities and authority. It would be my guess that this is the manner in which the American government became involved in marriage in America.

If marriage were not entangled with government I don't believe that same sex marriages would be as large of an issue as it currently seems to be. Part of the contention (besides some valid moral arguments by the various parties) is the larger issue of fiscal impact on society as a whole.

Were marriage not entangled in government this would simply be a social issue between factions.

I really would prefer that government not be so involved in our personal lives that marriage and how we define our families would be a matter of policy. Government would oversee shared infrastructure and management of some shared resources. Marriage would not fall under those umbrellas.

Government makes sense in managing things like roads and sewers. Leave other matters to the individuals and the institutions they form when they join freely together.

Victory in Iraq-

2008-10-03T18:29:00.000-07:00

Bush, and now McCain/Palin have constantly beat the drum of "victory in Iraq." I have not yet seen the Bush criteria for victory. They seem to think that exporting a Western style democracy to that state will be the victory.

I am no expert in international affairs, but I do have experience with human interactions and criminal gangs. I have observed things I attribute to a tribal psychology to these groups. I may be wrong, but I did find some support in this web site. It relates to Somalia, another place America got involved in tribal issues and military engagement.

Generally, as long as a tribe exists there is a shared identity. Only the benefit of the tribe is important. The individual is not important, and other tribes and individuals are not important. To bring the tribe in line with some presumed higher purpose will require either constant violent shepherding or the destruction of the tribe.

If you have not yet read the article, please do so. It is not long, and expresses what I have intuitively held since we began our war in Iraq.

Iraq is not, by the nature of its population, a single national entity. It is an area on the face of the earth in which several tribes exist. We have accomplished what little has been accomplished entirely by force. Our strength is greater than their strength, especially since they will not readily unite even to drive us out.

They do, however, have patience. Their conflicts have gone on for many generations. They can wait until we eventually go away, and then return to the conflicts that have been their tradition. They know that we will eventually go away.

There is no victory in Iraq, unless we are willing to join one faction in genocide against the others. We will not do that, because it is contrary to the nature of our way of thinking.

It wasn't always. We nearly decimated the Native American populations. Again, by superiority in numbers and better technology. I have to wonder how the matter of westward expansion would have been handled by modern American politicians.

So, since we won't kill off the people living in the place called Iraq and claim the land as our own, we should just leave.

It will not be a defeat. For a defeat to exist there had to be the prospect of victory.

Since victory can easily be a matter of definition in a situation like this, we can draw a line somewhere that we have already crossed. That line will define our "victory." Let the Iraqi people evolve their own democracy when they are ready. Or not.

Then we can get the Hell out of there, and begin cleaning up the crap we have at home.

Ivy League Leftists and Neo-Cons-

2008-09-27T04:05:00.001-07:00

I have been poking about a bit, trying to get a more solid grip on the lovely title "Ivy League Leftist." Mostly because I had heard the term used as a pejorative aimed at Obama. Because he was of the Democratic Party (left of center) and graduated from Ivy League schools (perceived as the home of left-leaning educators) the term was applied to get reactions from those hearing it who perceived themselves as conservatives.

Essentially, an inflammatory term intended to manipulate emotions, evoking generally negative feelings and applying them to an object (Obama, in this case) to make that object less attractive.

The term Neo-Con (new conservative) was intended for use like that. Somehow it was embraced, and some web sites use the title proudly.

Generally I have perceived the left-leaning of the Democrats and the right-leaning of the Republicans as only a few degrees from center. Of course, this requires some kind of political continuum in which to view the objects under consideration. I can't see this as a line, necessarily. Indeed, I can't ever seem to find a visual to use that really applies in any meaningful way.

These parties have to come together with common goals, but are not as homogeneous as portrayed. As a Libertarian I learned that there are Libertarian elements within each of these parties. They are "working from within." That's great, for those who are Libertarian and can live with the significant compromises necessary to live in those environments.

I am glad they are there.

I know there are some pretty radical leftists wandering around in the Democratic party. I am not so sure of the Republicans, though the degree to which some of them list to the left might make it seem so. Ultimately, they are bodies in which compromises are generated in the form of policies and political goals. They each comprise a spectrum, and they both face the same challenges that face the nation.

Often I see them as two flavors of vanilla ice cream. Not the same, yet not all that different.

Neither one seems bent on loading us all into a hand-basket and sending us on a journey. For the most part, they express good intentions. They will probably fail at most of what they do, and that failure might be the best thing for us all. They have been largely failing for over two hundred years, and from my perspective things are not that bad.

Here's to another four years of muddling on.

Interesting Times-

2008-09-24T03:30:00.000-07:00

I will forewarn you, readers. I am going to address partisan politics. I have seen some people get upset on other blogs when that happened. However, if you are reading something with the title Philosophy on Purpose you ought to expect politics to come up from time to time.

I visited Repicheep just a bit ago. I had not been there in weeks. I added his blog to my list of Following so I don't neglect a place I enjoy visiting. Repicheep expressed some strong support for McCain for President. Good arguments. Considering all that I have read and know, people who vote knowledgeably for McCain are not making a bad choice.

I am not voting for McCain. I shall vote for Obama, hoping that his victory shall put the brakes on and change the course of this country. I shall vote for him only once. I shall hope to see him out of office after four years.

I do not want "more of the same." Heinous and criminal things have taken place in the course of the Bush administration. He failed to take the nation in a viable direction, even when 9/11 gave him the potential to make great strides. No, he laid the foundation for a potential economic disaster through short-sightedness and bowing to the wealthy.

He did right going into Afghanistan. An open assault by a known enemy is an affront that must be answered by force. How it has been managed since then I do not support, but the initial response was right and good.

Manipulating that 9/11 event into justification for an entirely separate protracted war with no defined parameters for victory was criminal. Diminishing the freedoms of Americans in the name of "security" was criminal. Lying constantly and deceiving the American people was criminal. That he did so in a misguided belief that this was all good for America is tragic.

I do believe that Bush holds this course because he truly believes it to be the right course for America. I also believe he is fundamentally wrong.

McCain has sufficiently expressed his support for that course to convince me that his tenure as President would just get us in deeper. There is no victory in Iraq. No matter what we do that nation will fall into squabbling factions once we leave. Any unity they seemingly had in the past has been held by force. They will play along to get us out, then fall on one another to see who is strongest.

On to the Ivy League Left. Obama is the one left standing, but Hillary Clinton is also such a creature. I need to study these people, for I don't fully grasp what makes them tick. I understand Leftists. I have met screaming Communists, and evangelistic Communists. I have known many Socialists. They often have high ideals, and most are well-meaning people. They were all working-class people. How the Ivy League went Left I do not fully understand.

The problem I have is not with the ideals, but with the fundamental error of believing that the government is the best medium for bringing them into being. People should feed, clothe and care for themselves as much as possible, in an environment of freedom. They should not need nor desire to have the government do it. They should not be compelled to have the government do it.

Why vote for Obama, then? To begin dismantling the machine Bush and those he truly represents have been creating. Fascism may be to harsh for the direction they have been heading, but I have not seen an expansion of freedom and opportunity for the common American resulting from the present course.

It has long been my belief that the greatest strength of our system of government has been the ability to keep any one group from having power long enough to really mess things up. If nothing else, we have the option of throwing out the incumbents and altering course. Our system seems to allow this with the least fuss and bloodshed, relative to the many systems functioning today.

I long for less government and more freedom. I would love to vote Libertarian once again this year, but the need for change is too great for making statements or gestures with my vote.

This election I vote for Obama, in order to dethrone Bush. Even if his name is McCain, I would not have Bush for another four years.

Changing boxes-

2008-09-16T22:21:00.000-07:00

We need categories in order to think about things. Things need names, and they need a "box" to show their association with other things. I say "things" even though ideas are also objects of thought. It is a simpler way to think about thinking, and ideas as objects is not an unreasonable concept.

So we put things (and ideas) into boxes. A particular thing might fit into quite a number of boxes, each box lending an element of understanding regarding that particular thing.

Political and economic ideas fit into boxes. Sometimes we confuse the box for the thing, and I think our understanding becomes muddled as a result.

As a Christian I adopted some ways of thinking that were different from my native thoughts. I adjusted my old ways based on the authority of the Christian teachings to which I had chosen to submit myself. Sometimes I adopted the American Christian cultural biases along with the more objective Christian truths. I rarely did so intentionally.

It was by virtue of this that I became a Republican for quite a number of years. Many conservative Christians with which I associated tied the Republican agenda closely to the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. I early on found flaws in this thinking, and never was fully able to embrace the Republican Party as a result.

Strangely enough, I was associated with the Christian Left at one time. I have always had sympathy for the idea of an ideal communism. It is efficient and fair, and I like that. However, any examples of Communism I have ever seen have been far from efficient or fair, and often were worse in their corrupt forms than other models being acted out throughout the world.

The association was never official, nor was it really mine. Others made the association based on my expression of the belief that the hungry should be fed, and that all people should be clothed and sheltered. I think that these are good things, and right. However, I am not Left enough to adopt the belief that government is the proper medium to provide them.

Indeed, I have never had a strong trust in government. I recognize the need of regulatory bodies to keep people from injuring each other and taking unfair advantage of those who are somehow weak. I do not necessarily believe that the government is the medium through which all people should receive all good things.

Governments tend to become corrupt, either from self-seeking people taking control of them or from age and ossification. They are not really the ideal medium for compassion. They serve well in regulating and enforcing, but generosity is not an inherent characteristic of such bureaucracies. It seems that those bodies that seek to be all to their people demand much in the way of reduced rights and freedoms in exchange.

Over time I have come to the conclusion that a minimal government is best. Let it be charged with whatever regulations and enforcements are necessary to keep people from injuring one another and some means to protect the weak from oppression. A nominal regulation in guiding people in settling conflicts seems necessary, but it should be quite carefully managed.

I believe that optimal freedom for individuals is best for all. It allows even the Christian freedom to live as they chose, and to share their beliefs freely. The Christian beliefs would have to compete in an unregulated marketplace of ideas, of course. I don't see that as problematic. In a truly open marketplace ideas that are strong would thrive.

The compassionate would be free to exercise compassion, unhindered by needless regulation or the compulsion to support some inefficient bureaucracy. Those who are less compassionate would not have their resources stolen by a system engineered to enforce compassion.

So I believe. Unfortunately, my former associates the Republicans (not without compromised assistance from the Democrats) have embroiled my country in a fruitless war. This election I will be supporting the Democrats in choice of leaders, though I do so with trepidation. I am convinced that the war must end and have a slightly greater hope in the Democrats doing so than the Republicans.

That being said, I am not jumping into their box for more than the act of voting. I see the Democrats as inclined toward creating that benevolent and intrusive government I despise. Republicans have proved intrusive without the benevolence, except for a soft heart for the wealthy. I would cast them all aside for greater freedom and less government.

Though I think in boxes, like everyone else, I recognize that life is not so neatly packaged. I am open to changing boxes, either to gain a new perspective or to bring about some desirable result.

The boxes are a tool for thinking, and should liberate thought. When they serve to confine and control, it is time to change boxes.

Government and trust-

2008-09-16T02:53:00.000-07:00

I grew up in the 1960's. Turbulent years. Years of change.

My father has always been an American patriot. He instilled a respect for an idealized America that I adopted readily. He grew up in difficult times. Turbulent years. Years of change. My father loves his country, and has always had hope for the future.

The idealized America I learned to love was not just a fabrication of my father's experience. It was sculpted in the 1950's. Post World War II America, on top of the world as a consequence of changing events. Growth and prosperity. A time of reformulated identity.

I grew up in the 1960's. There was a war in those days. A protracted war in a distant land. I grew up with the growing belief that the country I loved intended to gather me up and send me to that distant land, to kill and probably be killed.

Needless to say, this challenged my love for my country. It did not destroy that love, but it did change the nature of that love.

I joined the Army in 1972. I had no other solid prospects, and it seemed wise to go into the inevitable with some degree of control. I had trouble in those days seeing past my probable death in Southeast Asia. It impacted my capacity to dream of any kind of future.

I did not go to Viet Nam, and I did not die there. I fought the Cold War in Germany, and on the whole it was a good experience. However, I had lost my trust in the government of the nation I still loved. I was proud to have served the people of America, but I was not sure I felt that way about the government I served.

The years between then and now have been filled with challenges to that love of country. I still believe our system of government is one of the best in history. It is not, however, the unsullied gift from Heaven that the glorious 1950's painted.

There were lies then, and there are lies now. People have died as a result of the lies. Sacrifices offered by the rich and powerful in the name of a Great Nation. Sacrifices they did not have the right to make, even though they were rich and powerful.

I am still idealistic enough to believe that a nation founded on lies is unworthy of the trust of its people. I am still naive enough to believe that a little gained by truth is better than a lot gained by lies. I am wise enough to know that we would not survive long as a nation if those who governed were so rigidly idealistic.

The realities of the world demand compromise, and compromise always diminishes ideals. Yet to abandon ideals is to yield to a pragmatism that will spirals down into a meaningless existence. It devolves into a mindless cannibalism devoid of purpose.

Perhaps that is the purpose that government ultimately serves. It is a system by which we act out the struggle to rise above the chaos that is the absence of ideals. It is constantly compromised, and always falls short. In falling short, however, we still rise above the chaos.

The ideal government can be trusted. A government compromised by lies cannot be trusted. However, even a compromised government can stand above the chaos of the absence of ideals.

I will never again trust my government. However, I need not abandon that government, for in the course of governing much good is done. It is imperfect, and bears constant watching. It requires constant attention, and over time it can be made better. The ideal of truth can still be the goal toward which I will move the government of this nation, to whatever degree I can as a simple citizen.

It would be nice to be able to trust our government, but we cannot. The history of lies denies that trust. We can strive to make it better. We can hope for a day when such trust is warranted.

It is hard for an idealist. We have so far to go.

Four Square and my World View-

2008-09-12T15:23:00.000-07:00

I entered the American public school system in the late 1950's. Most of my education took place in the 1960's. One of my earliest life lessons came early in those years.

At recess from classes we went to the playground. Painted on the surface of the tarmac were squares. Probably twelve to fifteen feet to a side. Each square was divided into four equal lesser squares. The game was played with the ubiquitous red rubber ball.

A player stood in each of the squares. The lead player would establish the rules of the game, and then bounce the ball to another player. That player would return the ball or send it to another player, according to the lead player's rules. Children wanting to enter the game would line up along the side of the major square. When a player missed the ball they were out, the remaining players advanced one square, and the next player entered the game.

That is the idealized version. Unfortunately, it was played by humans. The lead player was, in those days in my schools, generally a dominant female. She would always assume the lead, and place her friends in the remaining squares. She would often adjust or interpret her impromptu rules to keep herself and her friends in control of the game.

This was my introduction to human social games. I did not like it. Generally, to become the friend of a lead player required a certain devotion that I never really comprehended. After trying this game, and some of the others, I eventually gravitated to the far side of the field. I just hung out there, watching the other kids play or looking out through the fence.

I apparently do not have a strong social need. More than one person has observed, "Mike, you don't need people, do you?" It is true. That need is small in me. So, I failed to learn a lot of the basic social games that were taught unofficially on the playgrounds of my schools.

Nature, or nurture? I can't really say. I always come to the conclusion that it has to be both, and the dominance of one over the other is not consistent from person to person. Anyway, I elected quite consciously to not learn a lot of the social games. The few I played were conducted with such a cynical twist that I was not really playing those games, either.

Antisocial? Not really. I have come to care for some people quite strongly. More like asocial. The inherent need was not strong, and I think that the need drives the games. My conscious decision to avoid or abandon most of the human games shaped my world view.

What is your Four Square influence? Have you identified it? How has it impacted your world view?

Philosophy. On purpose.

Inaction-

2008-08-29T12:49:00.000-07:00

I must admit I haven't made much of this wonderful tool. Here I have the Internet as a place to play with my philosophy, and little has happened.

Part of the problem is Real Life. I have living issues to deal with, and don't find the time for fleshing out my philosophy. I have changed to the night shift, and that is impacting my time and energy. I am working or resting from work, and constantly adjusting to this night/day living. I haven't found my personal cycle in these hours, and as a result I haven't much focus or energy.

A big part of the problem is me. I recall in my youth being fascinated by the trappings of science, and thus thinking I wanted to be a scientist. However, the vague desire was not sufficient to drive me to learn HOW to be a scientist. I just liked science "stuff." I liked the impression I had of science and scientist, not the actual science.

Science is hard. Like any field it requires dedication and effort and time. I did not have enough dedication to commit the time and effort.

Philosophy attracted me, as well. To think great thoughts, to know things in depth. However, again I did not have the dedication to put forth the effort and time.

I have proved to be an intellectual wanderer. I drift from one thing to another, reading and studying and observing. However, I don't do it systematically, or consistently. I do it in passing.

There is so much to know, and so little time. It is a bit like my hunger to travel. What is on the other side of the horizon? What might I see? I long to travel like that, but to do so is to give up the place I now live. I would not have the depth of knowledge of a place. Similarly, with the intellectual wandering I do not gain the depth of knowledge of a field of study.

At one point in my life I was trying to study philosophy, and also learn how to become wealthy. My desire was to gain enough wealth to care for my young family so that I could focus on studies. However, becoming wealthy is hard. It requires dedication and effort and time. Since wealth was not really what I wanted, I did not do that well.

I have done little. I am a bit of a drifter in everything I do. I wander from one pretty idea to another, but never stay long. My mind is a butterfly, but lacking the purpose of even a butterfly.

Still, this blog exists for a purpose. To explore and give flesh to my personal philosophy. Perhaps, over time, something of worth will collect here.

Time will tell.

Answers to Prayer-

2008-07-23T01:12:00.000-07:00

One of my work associates is a follower of Shamanism. She is an intelligent and articulate person, and did not fall into this pursuit lightly. It is a genuine belief, and one she pursues with diligence.

She shared one of her books with me. It was an interesting book, as it was essentially a book of testimonials by believers in the ways of the Shaman. It had an amazing parallel to Christian testimonials to answered prayers. Indeed, other than a few words now and then that reflected the true roots of the beliefs of those testifying, it could be mistaken for a piece of literature from contemporary Christian culture.

I simply found it curious. I could see how someone inflamed with an anti-Christian bias could argue that it was evidence against the existence of the Christian God. I could see how an insecure Christian could experience doubts about the Christian faith, seeing that such experiences as answered prayer occurred in beliefs quite contrary to what is Christian.

When I examined evolution I saw something similar. Perhaps not a true parallel, but still an example worth considering. The evidence presented in favor of evolution was the significant similarity of human DNA to the DNA of a chimpanzee. How could one not conclude that both humans and chimps were descended from a common ancestor?

Again, the anti-Christian would readily load this bit of evidence into their God-busting cannon. Again, an insecure believer might experience doubts about the Christian faith. How can these things be, in a God created world?

That, however, is precisely the point. Is it unreasonable that God, in His creation, would use similar patterns in the elements of His creation? That is simply good engineering. It is simply good design. So, we should not be surprised to find parallels in DNA patterns. DNA as a building block is obviously part of God's design, given the assumption and belief that God exists and is Creator of all that is.

As to answered prayer? God created this world, and he created people to live in this world. Our interactions with that creation will be similar, whatever we believe. The degree and form of direct intervention by God is an unknown. Though He has the power to interact with His creation in any manner He sees fit, it is quite obvious that His interaction is quite subtle except for a few rare occasions.

He does not move mountains if allowing a pebble to follow its natural course will adequately execute His will. Not only is He an excellent engineer, He is also quite adept at being God.

Much of what people perceive as answers to prayer is simply pebbles following their natural courses. It should therefore be no surprise that a Shamanist would perceive answers to prayer much like the Christian does.

God may execute His designs according to His own wisdom, and extends His grace to whom He chooses. We may attribute what we experience in His creation to whatever and whomever we like. Answers to prayer are not proofs of the existence of God, nor are they the foundation of true faith.

The book my Shamanist friend shared with me was a curiosity, and very interesting. I am glad she shared it with me. It gave me something to think about. It will be interesting to see what others who find this blog might think, as well.

A Full Belly and Sound Sleep-

2008-07-22T03:24:00.000-07:00

I have been on the night shift (again) for only a few days. However, I have spent probably about half of my working life on nights. I don't mind it, and sometimes like it. There are times, though, when I am a bit tired.

Though we can adapt and train ourselves to live in the night, we seem to be more naturally day creatures. I refer to our species. Probably due to our natural equipment. We don't see particularly well, so more light is good. Our sense of smell is not particularly keen, so we often use our eyes to sense danger. Night is something we can do, but not always well.

Tonight I am not much of a philosopher. I am a bit tired.

I have sometimes said that it is easier to be a liberal on a full stomach. I don't recall reading that anywhere, but it probably belongs to someone else. Liberal attitudes seem to rest more easily on the shoulders of those who are comfortable and have the leisure time to feel guilty about it. Others must have noted the same observation. Whether or not they did, I would contend it is true aside from who might have first made the observation.

To be a philosopher may well require at least a fundamental level of comfort, and I would contend that a decent amount of sleep would be a good idea as well.

Oh, maybe a touch of deprivation and some sleepless nights could contribute to a sound philosophy. The belly knows its own philosophy, however. Hunger can dictate some very strong conditions.

A fuzzy head does not produce particularly sharp thoughts, either.

Hopefully future nights will offer richer thinking. Tonight I am hardly here.

Serendipity Scholarship-

2008-07-20T21:54:00.000-07:00

In line with my idea of learning often being catalytic, I have a concept of serendipity in learning. It is the form of scholarship I often practice. It is openness to learning, and a willingness to follow untrammeled paths. It is willingness to allow the course of inquiry to be directed by the unfolding of your life, rather than the dictates of a regimen of learning.

The modern era of connectivity is a grand place for the serendipity scholar to live. Connectivity is the set of tool that allows serendipity to become the essence of the scholar’s life. Using these tools the scholar can follow inspiration and curiosity as they occur. If that freedom does not exist, the scholar can make meaningful notes that easily become active study when time and other resources are available.

I practice this serendipity scholarship, using my various tools. A thought comes to mind, and if I am not immediately able to follow that thought I have my phone. I can make a voice recording on my phone, and refer to it later or even send it to myself as an email. If a photo will help, I can take a photo with that same tool and store or forward the image for later use.

The computer connected to the Internet is the central tool. Following a moment of inspiration, or following up on a recorded thought, I can begin researching. I can find photos, articles, organizations and individuals. All are resources. Even busy individuals can be accessed by email. Not everyone, of course, but a surprising number of knowledgeable people will respond to a clear, concise and polite email.

The many Wiki resources provide a fabulous wealth of information. Wikipedia is an essential tool, and many specialized areas of interest have a Wiki site of their own. With most articles containing hypertext, the next leg of the intellectual journey can be just a click away. A wealth of literature and a crowd of individuals are just a finger’s motion away.

Wiki resources should not be relied upon exclusively. These are sources of information provided by and edited by contributors. Accuracy is achieved over time, as others shape the articles in the Wiki resources. Unlike more formally published resources, there are no official checks for accuracy. While fresh and dynamic, Wiki resources are at the same time risky.

As the Serendipity Scholar explores, seemingly random ideas and events take on amazing degrees of connectedness in the online realm. Following a whim can lead to a wealth of knowledge. It may not serve as a course of training in a particular field, but a life of Serendipity can be exciting and adventurous.

Of course a lifetime of following such connections with whatever tools are available can have an impact on your life. My nickname among my work associates is “Doctor Lockridge.” I have been dipping into the pools of knowledge so often and for so long that I have a bit of knowledge about a multitude of things. Where I don’t know, I have a very good idea how to find out.

This was once referred to by a friend as “Doctor Lockridge’s Wading Pool of Knowledge.” broad, but not too deep. I think it was intended as a good hearted insult, but the description is apt and I have adopted it. It is a mental image that begs for a caricature.

If you love learning for the sake of learning, and knowledge as a thing in itself, intentionally adopting Serendipity Scholarship can be quite satisfying. You may already be a Serendipity Scholar. Now what you have been doing has a name.

Catalytic Learning-

2008-07-20T21:36:00.000-07:00

I think a lot about learning. I am interested in the acquisition of knowledge. I am also interested in how we know what we know. The mechanics, and what happens beyond the mechanics.

This affects how I think about teaching. I have great respect for teachers. Professional teachers and those who are teachers by accident or nature. Incidental teachers and lifelong teachers.

Educational systems are difficult to manage, but must be managed in some way. This leads to interesting applications, phenomenal successes, and occasional disasters.

I have to reflect on an imaginary scenario that has often come to my mind. A little schoolhouse in the Midwest in the latter part of the 1800's. Children compelled to memorize the capitals of states and nations they would never visit. Places far away that, in their era, would not impact their lives in any way.

The exercises were intended to exercise the mind. They also provided a way of measuring how much learning had taken place. The content and state of another person’s mind is impossible to know without some kind of exchange. These exercises provided ways to measure the success of education as an institution.

These educational institutions have existed in various forms for centuries. They go through changes, of course. They struggle to succeed and remain useful and current. It is a difficult task, and my respect for teachers is extended to good administrators for making it work to some degree. It is not an easy task.

What these institutions fail to provide for is the person who is wired differently. Not all humans have mental systems that absorb and regurgitate information on demand. Unfortunately, it would be a Herculean task for administrators to fund and manage a system that meets the needs of every individual. That ideal is far from reality.

So, these strange individuals get pushed to the edges of the educational system (whatever that happens to be in any given time and place.) Out on these frontiers these people cultivate new cultures. For those who succeed, it is good. Failures, however, get pushed farther and farther out.

I will deal with my idea of frontiers in another entry. For now I will get to my point.

I would contend that the mind exists in conjunction with a biological organ, the brain. The mind is a consequence of the function of the brain. Data passes to the brain from the senses, and affects the brain in various ways. Only one of those ways becomes stored information.

I would also contend that this process is more analogous to catalytic chemical reactions than to physical constructions. Just like the catalyst entering into a chemical solution and causing a reaction and subsequent change in the state of the solution, stimuli enter the brain and can cause similar changes of state.
We now live in a world that has become grossly interconnected. Information flows at up to the speed of light. Our intake and interaction with the stimulus of information is slower, but from a historical perspective it is now very fast. It will grow faster over time.

Not only is there speed, but volume. We are not far from the point where we will be virtually interconnected with everybody else. That is a lot in the way of stimuli.

This is both good news and bad. For those living on the edges, the stimuli they needed to grow will be abundantly available. For those living in the old ways of thinking, of simply storing and regurgitating information, it will be a challenge. The machines will do most of that for us. Such people will be challenged to find a new place for their old skills.

Institutions founded on trying to control the availability of information and the uses to which information is applied will find that control eroding. The institutions will have to adapt or become useless anachronisms.

For those of us who value thought and expression on an individual level, this will be a very exciting time. Stimuli will be everywhere, and the results will be wonderfully unpredictable.

For those who like structure and control, these will be very scary times.

My vision is not Utopian. One of the consequences of these changes will be violence, destruction and death. Not for everyone, but there will be cataclysmic events in various places as a direct result of the shift in how humans interact.

There will also be beauty and wonder beyond our present imagining.

Get ready. These shall be very interesting times.

The American Perspective-

2008-07-19T21:31:00.000-07:00

I really have no idea how to view the world other than from the grossly independent American perspective. I exist at the end of a line of genetic and social development that culminates in the strange land called America.

In reality, it is the United States of America. Perhaps it is somehow indicative of the American perspective that we have preempted the titles "America" and "American." Canadians are Americans. Mexicans are Americans. Uruguayans are Americans.

But none are Americans like Americans are Americans. I am an American, and really can see myself as nothing else.

One of my readings in recent years touched on what I think may be the root of the intense independence and individuality that is America. Our nation came into being, a transplant of the British Empire. A strong body of educated people formed this country with a structure that grew out of that empire, but embraced from its very beginning an ideal of independence.

Working with established forms of government and economics, that body built the beginnings of a nation. With a sound foundation, that young nation went forth to encompass a great area of land. We had several things others had not had before us. A mature foundation, and room to expand.

Consequently, the free thinkers always had a place to go. The spirit of independence and self-reliance had a frontier. For those with the necessary temperament, this was freedom with a capital F.

The more significant consequence of this freedom to "move on" was the creation of a robust middle class. Even laborers could simply choose to "move on" if the circumstances made life where they were living intolerable. In lands of developing industry where that freedom to "move on" was restricted, a vast pool of cheap labor (and resulting hoards of poor people) came into being.

Not in America. If things were not to your liking, you could "move on." Starving in a city is not much different than starving on a frontier. What was there to lose?

Consequently, many people had a degree of wealth, a strong sense of independence, and considerable freedom.

It has been like this for generations. Though we now have filled much of the land that made the freedom to "move on" possible, the spirit is still strong. We see the rest of the world from this perspective of individuality and freedom. It is an American Perspective.

Because the world grows ever smaller due to changes in the technologies of travel and communication, this perspective faces challenges. Challenges, and inevitable changes.

I really cannot speculate as to how this will work itself out over time. My thoughts go first one way, then the other. The ever increasing population of humans fill the available spaces and tax the available resources. This indicates a trend toward restrictions on individuality and freedom. Yet the existence of a new space, cyberspace, hints at liberation and expansive creativity.

What shall we do? What shall come of all of this?

I don't know. I do know, however, that even these words shall build what is to come. Words that spring from an American Perspective.

My Libertarian Leanings-

2008-07-19T19:30:00.000-07:00

At times I have referred to myself as a Mercenary Anarchist. This is a reference my work in corrections and my personal libertarian leanings. Though I lock people up according to law, I don't always believe in those laws for which they are locked up.

I do, however, believe in law and order. Just not a lot of it.

Many of the people I lock up are incarcerated for drug related crimes. I believe that laws protecting persons and their property are necessary. I do not really think that the elaborate and expensive drug enforcement current in our society is similarly necessary. However, the laws are not difficult to abide by. I do not have a particularly difficult time earning a living locking up people who elect to be stupid.

I would eliminate most of the laws regulating the drugs and their marketing. Simplify the system to protect children from predation and easy access, and eliminate any laws that simply relate to drug possession and sales.

On the other hand, prosecution for behavior related crimes would not be mitigated by drug use. Being under the influence would not provide any form of excuse. The choice to use any drug would encompass any consequences of that choice. Laws protecting persons and property would be firmly enforced.

All other laws would be assessed and simplified, as well. Regulation would be minimal, and freedom maximized.

I realize that this is all a pipe-dream.

It is such because of the various natures of people. Some have a temperament to regulate. Once they have regulated what is minimally necessary to insure free human interaction, they will continue to find things to regulate. It is the fundamental compulsion of who they are.

These people make use of a valuable resource. The people with a temperament to enforce. Unless it is taken to extremes, this is a useful pairing. The regulators regulate, giving the enforcers something to enforce.

It is easy to see how this can cascade out of control. More laws. Laws that are well intended, but become complex and sometimes contradictory. More enforcers to enforce the expanding number of laws. All of this creates a greater overhead for regulation and enforcement. The cost of the system grows ever greater.

At this point in my life, I live and work with the enforcers. Most are dedicated and do a great job. However, most do not think much about the laws they enforce. Since more laws feeds the need to enforce, they are often supportive of the regulators.

Everywhere I have lived the regulators have held power by permission of the people being regulated. Over-regulation is at least slowed and minimized by systems that allow for the removal of regulators that become unpopular. That would include regulators that do not control their enforcers.

Still, I see a continuous expansion of regulation in the world in which I live. This is contrary to my love of freedom, and the consequential aversion to regulation.

I have no real hope of seeing a world of true liberty. Perhaps that is not really possible, given the nature of humans.

I must adapt to ever growing regulation, and seek to exercise such liberties as I can.

True Agnosticism

2008-07-13T12:53:00.000-07:00

At around the age of fourteen I flirted with atheism. I did not hold to that position for very long, probably due to an innate sense of integrity. I knew that I perceived the reality in which I lived from a finite perspective. I simply could not know enough to make the absolute declaration that God did not exist.

It was at that point in my life that I adopted an attitude of agnosticism. I recognized that I did not know if God did or did not exist. I eventually expanded that philosophy to become what I referred to as True Agnosticism. This became the starting point of my spiritual quest.

Keep in mind that I was still a child at this point in my intellectual growth. I had thought through the implications of science. I loved the trappings and language of science. The romance of science. However, the limits of time and space denied me the prospect of answering my deepest questions through science. Science defined the how of things, but did not often touch on the why.

I wanted both.

So, I approached the world in which I lived with as few preconceptions as I could manage. I tried to be a blank slate, awaiting some spontaneous automatic writing to inform my carefully cultivated ignorance. I also tried to eliminate my emotions as much as possible. They appeared to me to be irrational, and inclined to inform my experiences in ways that were not conducive to gaining knowledge.

Of course, I was just making my best guesses as to how to “build a philosophy.” I suspect that such is pretty much the way it is done if you don’t have a master to follow.

As a True Agnostic, I determined the best way to examine systems of thinking and believing was by acting as if I believed the basic tenets of that system. I first attempted to explore Hinduism. Unfortunately, the same limits applied. I was young, and I was finite in time and space. Still, I preceded as best I could in my blindness and ignorance.

During this unguided period of exploration I moved from place to place. While my personal focus was a vague quest for “Truth,” I was also compelled to live a human life. I lacked a guide, and was in many ways floundering in a great and confusing sea of possibilities.

In the midst of this turmoil I made the acquaintance of a follower of Jesus. This happened at a strange confluence of human events that became known as The Jesus Movement. I was ripe for evangelism. Christianity was on my list of systems to explore. As a True Agnostic I adopted the Christian beliefs as they were explained to me.

Over time, as I explored Christianity doctrinally and historically, many of those beliefs became my beliefs. However, I never adopted the evangelical culture as my own. I recognized many rifts in the overall Christian system, and again faced the daunting task of sorting it all out as a finite being.

It is still something I wrestle with.

In retrospect, my greatest error was adopting the preconception that human emotions were bad and to be eliminated. Granted, they are complicating. However, I have come to recognize that we are largely emotional beings, and stunting my own emotional growth was neither healthy nor was it profitable.

True Agnosticism is a valid perspective in that it recognizes the value of ignorance. If we begin with the statement “I don’t know” and move honestly forward from there, we can gain knowledge with perspective. Ignorance establishes a baseline.

True Agnosticism may be adopted at times to assess our own preconceptions. If I drive myself back to ignorance, and move carefully forward, I can more honestly assess what I believed to be true before I began examining my experiences.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of True Agnosticism is that it compels honesty. We really don’t know much, and assessing what we think we know from a baseline of “I don’t know” can show up the weak points in whatever belief structure we are currently living within.

Is True Agnosticism a good way of thinking for everybody?

I don’t know.

Design II-

2008-07-02T13:13:00.000-07:00

Engineering is closely related to science. Indeed, as an engineering technician I worked at one point for a man holding the title Scientist. I am aware of a philosophy of science. If there is a philosophy of engineering, I have yet to see it. So, off to Wikipedia I go. Yep, here it is. Amazing.

Design is inherent in the task of the engineer, and so there must be a philosophy of design. Ah, here that is. Aesthetics is an element of design engineering, along with a design that suits a purpose and performs a task or set of tasks correctly. My thought is that the ethical element of social influence should be an element of design.

In particular, making things as comfortable and user servicable as possible. That would be attention toward access of parts and assemblies, and the various ways such assemblies go together. Plumbing, electrical, or simply a matter of structure. The design should also account for adaptability to special needs.

Automobiles seem to be designed foremost with aesthetics and intangibles in mind, with the focus on the sale of the machine. Ease of maintenance and repair is not always foremost in the design. As a result the owner cannot assume a lot of the repair and maintenence tasks without ultimately defering to a specialist. The specialist often faces a daunting and unpleasant series of tasks performing many repairs and upkeep tasks, due to the design not taking their needs into account.

Houses are often the same. Plumbing is hidden away, and so difficult to access. Electical elements are not always easy to access without much effort. The repair and maintenence are not high on the list of design considerations. I would contend that the aesthetic demands that establish these tastes are driven by the upper class in society, where maintenence and repair is religated to a lower class and can be simply paid for. The lower classes are stuck with these sensibilitied they inheret (and perhaps even intentionally adopt) from the higher class.

This is, of course, a speculative contention on my part. I am, in essence, expressing my own values which tend toward easy owner maintenence. My own life philosophy places value on simplicity and designs that empower the owner of an artifact to keep and care for it themselves. I recognize that my own values are often at odds with the society in which I live.

This does reflect the fact that there are social and ethical elements in philosophies such as the philosophy of engineering and the philosophy of design. Aesthetics, economics, marketability, availablility of resources. Many factors that don't necessarily come readily to my own mind.

My own longing is for a philosophy that contributes to autonomy and individual empowerment. I want to be free of the aesthetics of the wealthy. I want to live in a user servicable world.

That is the essence of my philosophy of design.

Design and social strata-

2008-07-01T15:00:00.000-07:00

I know by reading that the social divisions in England were quite strong, and even in the early and mid 20th century there were abundant evidences. It reflects even in such works as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Though the relationship between Frodo and Samwise is relatively close through the course of the adventure, there remains the sense that Sam is in a separate class. This, a fantasy in an imaginary world still reflects something of Tolkien's culture.

In the United States we do not have as strong a sense of social class defining us as persons. However, the service jobs tend to still be looked down upon by "professionals." I have done some of this service work, having been a janitor at various times in my life.

I was thinking on how such things as plumbing in our modern houses may well reflect a lack of regard for plumbers. When plumbing was a new thing, it was added to houses on the outside. That, of course, was necessary. Accessible, easy to work on. I have to imagine that the exposed plumbing was a point of pride for the new owners.

Sensibilities changed. It would be more attractive to place the plumbing inside the walls on new houses. It would be less apparent, and look better. However, now the task of plumbing was more difficult. This, however, was a lesser consideration. Plumbers were "working class." They were paid to bend and crawl to do their work.

Or so it seems to me. It is quite possible to design things to be easily serviceable. It is quite possible to respect the professional that must perform the services. After all, they really are
professionals.

Of course, I have an ulterior motive for such changes in design. User serviceability. I would love to have my plumbing and electrical be modular and accessible. I could then do the work myself. The same with the design of my car, and other elements of my life that can wear out or break down.

In the end, perhaps I have the least respect for professionals. I would rather keep my money, and be able to take care of the things in my life myself.

Young philosophers-

2008-07-01T09:43:00.000-07:00

I was poking about a bit in cyberspace, and came upon a question in someones space regarding her son. He was interested in becoming a philosopher, and she was inquiring about the prospects for employment. In philosophy, that generally means an academic career.

Sadly, I could find no way to comment as a guest on that particular forum. It is an exhausting prospect, signing up and logging onto all of the many forums out there just to make one comment. However, her question is one dear to my heart.

So, to answer, I recommend that her son pursue the dream. In the days when I became an adult there was a glut of professors, courtesy of the Viet Nam war and student deferments. Since philosophy is a huge subject, never-ending, it allowed students to ride the deferment train a long, long time. So, I faced a world in which there were a lot of competitors for the few philosophy professorships.

It was not necessarily a mistake on my part to turn from the dream of becoming a philosopher by profession. However, I do think that we pay a very large price in forsaking a dream. Dreams are vital to the soul, to the essence of each of our individual beings. Forsaking a dream is sacrificing a part of oneself. That sacrifice should never be made thoughtlessly. If possible, it should never be made at all.

Pursue the dream, young philosopher. Be flexible, be creative, but do not forsake the dream. Attend to the practical, but never let it overwhelm the dream. There are a thousand little deaths down any other road. Seek life. Follow the dream.

Carbon footprint-

2008-07-01T08:34:00.000-07:00

I actually awoke this morning thinking about carbon footprints. What my dream must have been I do not know. The idea was in my head upon waking, and I immediately began writing about it in that very same head.

On the matter of my blog compulsion I wrote a quick blog this morning on blogoholism. That, however, is something else.

Carbon footprint. A really good idea. A way to quantify something that is otherwise rather nebulous. It is a term that paints a picture in the head of the reader.

Already I see changes. Some have come over my lifetime. I still recall the “Don’t be a litterbug” jingles and advertisements of my youth. I remember observing the visible change as the amount of debris along highways diminished in my growing up years. It stuck, at least with me. I would have to make an effort to cast trash on the ground. I WON’T be a litterbug!

I have long believed that changes in cultures come about largely due to economics. Granted, the litterbug campaign was a successful political ploy to alter the culture. However, many government manipulations fail or go astray. No, change will be driven by money.

The cost of gasoline is going up, and will not come down. This is due to other parts of the world finally advancing into modern economies. The demand is up, but the supply is limited. Add the complication of the politics of use of resources and the situation insures higher gas prices.

For nearly a hundred years our culture has grown and been fed (literally and figuratively) on fossil fuels. Now that will change.

Yuppies going green won’t really change it. Composting systems in up-scale New York apartments won’t do anything in itself. People converting fuel burning cars into electric cars, doubling the expense (or more) of the vehicle won’t do anything in itself. However, they will drive changes in technology and the availability of that technology by spending money on green things.

As these new “green things” become more common, the price will drop and they will be integrated into our way of life.

Our big, sloppy carbon footprints will eventually become smaller and cleaner. Will it be enough, soon enough? I don’t know. I do know that the potential for profit will drive people to innovate. When the cost of doing nothing becomes great enough, even the least motivated members of planet Earth will get moving.

You will be able to track them by the ever shrinking carbon footprints they leave behind.

Rambling-

2008-06-09T10:06:00.000-07:00

My experience in the blog realm thus far have been quite interesting. The way I think has changed a bit since I began blogging.

In the past I filled my mind with conversations with straw men. These were images in my mind of people with whom I would like to converse, but did not have the convenience of their actual presence to permit me to pontificate. They were straw men, or perhaps more properly straw people.

Since they lived in my mind, they always responded well to my thoughts and ideas. They asked the right questions, and never interrupted. They always recognized the genius of my thinking. As a result some of my thoughts became well developed, and I had a good idea of what I thought on various subjects.

So, having inner dialogues has been a rather normal thing for me.

Now there exists a medium into which I can inject these thoughts, and there exists the possibility that someone else will read them and respond. Actual people, rather than the virtual straw creations living in my head.

You see, the weak point of living in your own head is the lack of ideas and opinions from others to shape your own ideas and opinions. It is a hothouse of ingrown concepts. Concepts that may have validity, but are undeveloped and stunted due to lack of outside influence.

What have I learned in the blogosphere? Well, one can continue this inner dialogue as a monologue, but the influence of others can still be lacking. Why? Because it is still just pontificating, it is still just rambling.

Oh, there is the benefit of having to write down the ideas. That does help. They have to be written with some kind of structure, as if someone else must read them and understand what is said. However, it is still just ideas going forth.

Having enough ego that I want my ideas to go forth, I write and post them. Now, I face the problem of how to get others to read them.

Here is where things get interesting. In order to get read in the blogosphere, you have to read. You have to read, and comment. You have to interact with people!

In the ancient days of straw people, I did not really have the venue for pontificating and receiving criticism of my thoughts. In the blogosphere, however, there are real people! I can conveniently interact with multitudes!

That is what I am learning to do. I may still be rambling, but now there is a chance I might get somewhere.
Anybody want to buy a set of well-used straw people?

Truth and Integrity

2008-06-06T09:07:00.000-07:00

I have generally held that truth and integrity are correlated terms. I have thus assessed the organizations and people with whom I have been associated by this perception of correlation. However, one of my coworkers said that he did not believe this correlation to be true. I found this to be interesting, since he is one of the people I work with who generally exemplifies the correlation of truth and integrity.

This presented a challenge to examine my thinking on the matter. A cursory examination of the reference to truth as noted above (follow the link) presents the complexity of the issue.

If I say that I will do something, and then do not do what I say, I damage my integrity. My word is less reliable, due to my own inconsistancy. It is not so much an issue of truth, as a matter of consistency and reliability. The reason I fail may be due to unforseen circumstances, rather than a deception. I prove unreliable, but not untruthful.

If I claim to be one thing, but in reality I am something else, I damage my integrity and violate truth. A person, a people, or an institution which is not consistent with truth and integrity cannot be relied upon. They exist as a deception, an intentional departure from truth and integrity.

Perhaps it was this distinction that my coworker recognized. There are times when the best of us use deception for a higher purpose. The lie is perceived to be the higher moral choice. Thus, though truth is violated, integrity is maintained.

Integrity is strained, however, when the justification for deviating from the truth is weak and self-serving. Integrity can be eroded to a meaningless term if it does not maintain a strong relationship with truth.

Truth and integrity are correlated terms, but not equivalent terms. Like many such words they work together to describe the relationship between ourselves and each other. They help to describe the relationship of ourselves and the world in which we live.

Philosophy of-

2008-06-05T14:37:00.000-07:00

Many years ago I discovered a group on the early Internet called the History of the Philosophy of Science (HOPOS) news group. I was just exploring some news groups in the wee hours of the night as I tried to stay awake at work. I made contact with some very interesting people on that site. I still don't know how I was able to join that group. I probably just got missed and somehow authorized.

There was a lot of traffic between these high-level academician. Not a lot of argument or discussion, but much communication. I even participated a few times, though this was a far different world than the one in which I lived.

I had not realized such a field existed. I knew about science and scientists. I knew about history and historians. I knew a bit about philosophy and philosophers. This, however, had some very interesting implications. There was a separate field of philosophy that related to science. In addition to that, there were historians who studied the history of the philosophy of science.

I found this fascinating. A field of scholarship defined in such a way. I wondered what other fields had defined philosophies, and histories of those philosophies. How did they originate? How did they develop?

Since that time I have discovered interesting little niches in academia. The University of California at Santa Cruz has a clutch of scholars dedicated to Charles Dickens. These scholars coordinate with similar enclaves in other universities around the world. All of this energy focused on a popular writer from another century and another land.

Science as a field grew over time. The philosophy upon which modern science is based also developed over time, and helped shape the future growth of science. It makes sense that the development of this philosophy should have a formal history. Knowledge of that history would inform and shape both the development of science and the future of the philosophy of science.

Any other field of human endeavor could be similarly defined by a history, a philosophy, and a history of that philosophy. It is unlikely that most fields would be formally defined and studied in this manner, yet it is interesting to see that at least informally most fields develop in this way.

There would probably not be a very large amount of money available for scholars working on the history of the philosophy of tatting, but it seems a sure bet that both the history and philosophy exist informally in the minds of those who tat.

It almost seems worth writing the grant application, doesn't it?

How I am doing this-

2008-06-02T09:08:00.000-07:00

I find that I wish to express myself sometimes where I cannot post to any of my accounts. A dilemma for a mind that is ramping up to Internet speed. So, I create my little essays in files on my thumb drive using whatever computer is available. It is a dream world for a lifelong thinker.

If that is not enough, I can make mobile notes on my phone. Imagine that! I can record voice messages to myself, and even email them to me! If you are young enough not to see how wonderful this is, try to imagine what it must have been like when the idea of electric light was just getting started.

"Martha! Would you look at that! Just turn a switch, and you have light! No dipping tallow to make candles. No more kerosene. Just turn a switch!"

"Oh, Tom. How you go on. This will never catch on! I've had enough of the fair. Let's hitch up the buggy and go home."

So, I am collecting essays, keeping them short. I post them as I can, but not too quickly. Time to think, and savor the experience.

Time to hitch up the buggy and go home!

Truth and truth

2008-06-02T09:00:00.000-07:00

I recall in my youth feeling a compulsion to learn the Truth. Being young, I saw truth as an entity, a self-existent thing which defined and gave order to the world I faced as a child. The Truth (with a capital T) existed outside of the world. It was incorruptible, and always true.

Lacking a religious upbringing, my Truth occupied the place of God. I was just a child, and unable to think through what my compulsion caused me to believe. What I find fascinating at this later point in my life is how perceptive I was. The equation of God with Truth may be found in Judeo-Christian literature.

Later in life (though still in my youth) I comprehended the limits of my ability to accumulate knowledge. I was on a quest to find Truth, yet knowledge alone could not be the path. I had not the resources within myself to accumulate enough knowledge to verify the Truth. I little realize how quixotic this quest actually was.

Most probably I was compelled to this quest by my childhood insecurities, a strong intellect, and an appetite for knowledge. I longed for a world that was clearly defined, safe, and secure. However, I was perceptive enough to see beyond the security and safety of my family. I recognized that the world was large, confusing, and quite unsafe.

It was my good fortune to have a solid family in which to wrestle with these insecurities. There was moral consistency in my early experience, a model that developed into a strong sense of the value of integrity. Unfortunately, I seem to have been born with a romantic and idealistic nature. I expected the real world to reflect my internal concepts of Truth and integrity.

As I became an adult, I sought reasons to hold onto my childish longing for Truth. No longer able to rely simply on the acquisition of knowledge, I entered into a spiritual quest. I thought to examine and practice the many religions of the world. How, I was not sure. Yet I intended to try.

Reality intervened. In those days there was a protracted war, and to feed the need for bodies the government could then draft soldiers. Since quixotic spiritual quests are notoriously bad careers, and I faced the probability of being drafted, I joined the Army. Not your usual path for a pilgrim, but one that seemed right.

I selected Hinduism as my first sample. I read the Bhagavad Gita (ref.) and began practicing Yoga. I recognized the difficulty of creating my own path to the knowledge that I was seeking, and was often frustrated by the lack of guidance. I was quite unsure of my way, but was compelled to try.

During this time I was exposed to a Christian. Lawrence Lee Clark lived his Christian beliefs as no other person I had met. He was challenging and compelling. I began examining the Christian faith, as it was one of the systems of belief I had purposed to examine. Unlike my self-styled Hinduism, here I had a guide.

I was eventually converted to the faith, accepting Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour. I accepted the Christian God as the One True God. I continued my studies in that belief.

The Christian faith does not have only one presence on earth. Though the faith is in One God, the expression of that faith is quite varied. I adopted the belief that God would guide my quest, recognizing that exhausting all of the knowledge of the various expressions of Christian faith would exhaust me. Better to trust God to guide me.

At this present point in my learning, I would contend that Truth is the Divine perspective. It is how God sees creation and the things within that creation. A thing is true to the degree that it agrees with the Divine perspective. This sounds quite simple. I don’t think it really is.

How does one get the Divine perspective? In the Christian system of belief the source of the Divine perspective is the Bible. However, the Bible is not exhaustive. It does not contain all knowledge. It is the revelation of God, but it is limited. It is what God has elected to reveal of Himself. It is true, but not all truth.

Our perception is limited, and so our knowledge of truth will necessarily be limited. Yet truth can be known, at least in part. A dilemma, and not the only one in contemplating the relationship of man and God. As in all areas where our limitations as finite beings come into play in such things, I believe we depend on the grace of God to carry us through.

How, then, does this reflect on truth and integrity in our daily lives? My testimony here simply reflects the value I place on truth. I do not perceive it to be malleable, a thing to be bent and stretched to suit my purposes. I have integrity when I am consistent with the things I believe to be true. My integrity is diminished when I deviate from my own truth.

Note I say “my own truth.” Not the Truth. My truth necessarily deviates from Truth, due to my finite limitations and my own moral inconsistency. This lack on my part, this inability to bring my truth into line with Truth, is the gap overcome by grace. God is adequate where I am not.

I am content with that.

Philosophy on purpose-

2008-06-02T08:41:00.000-07:00

I have been blogging for less than a year. I am really just getting started. However, I have kept a written journal for over thirty years before I started writing out here in cyberspace. It seems that I am expanding, seeking ways to get my thoughts "out there."

From my youth I have been a philosopher. A lover of knowledge, and a big fan of thinking. It has been such a habit that people have referred to me as a philosopher without my outwardly encouraging them to do so. It is my manner of speech, my modes of thought, and my perspective on life. I have been a philosopher on purpose.

The changing world has given me a most amazing outlet for expression. The Internet places my thoughts "out there" where everyone can view them. The only requirement is that I write them down and post them.

My first blog was a venue for my short stories. They languished in a drawer, and when I learned to blog I found a place for them to be shared. Then I began a blog on barbecue. I was just beginning in the art of serious barbecue, and I wanted to share my adventure step-by-step.

This, however, is bigger. I will be expressing opinions and playing with ideas. I will be doing this "out there" where others can read and react. This particular blog will be low-key, in that I won't promote it and play the "blog-game" of trying to get more hits than anyone else. These will be thought seeds scattered to see what grows.

I shall be posting many of these little essays on MySpace.com/mlockridge01. However, I know that MySpace is blocked in many places that Blogger still might be reached. So, I scatter the seeds a bit more widely.

In the days of my youth I sought a philosophy that encompassed everything. I have learned that systems of religion and philosophy are worth studying, but none seem to be the all-encompassing manual for living that my naive younger self sought. However, that does not stop a philosopher from thinking and studying and building a personal philosophy.

Indeed, the idea of building a philosophy on purpose is quite appealing. So, here I begin.