post-turkey, no leftovers

Although the red and black of the label might make it look slightly devilish, Portus Blendium's Imperial Stout is almost nectar of the gods.  The brewery is new to me, but I always love a stout, and beers from the north of Spain have not exactly been unpleasant.

What do you see in this Rorschach test?

Rich blackness rushes out of the bottle, to be topped with a dirty dark beige head in the glass.  The aroma is slightly tart, although with a stout's fortitude.  A deeper whiff reveals something more chocolatey.  The taste is bitter, bitter, a kick in the palate at first.  Further gastronomic contemplation uncovers a little chocolate there too, although wrapped in smokiness.  Once that is revealed, not much changes to the bottom of the glass.  The beer stays mellow but flavorful, probably would have been okay with the turkey.  It would be nice with a dark chocolate cake too.

Supplier: Prost Chamberí
Price: ~€3.60 (I lost my receipt, but it's close to that)

How to be a Pacifist

Full disclosure: I am not a pacifist.  Oh sure, I would like to be, I would like to face the world with calm and grace.  I would like to not react with anger to every inconvenience.  Unfortunately, I am saddled with a great deal of anger, for reasons that only professionals would be able to come close to pinpointing.  What does it really mean to be a pacifist, though?  What traits should we expect from a person who claims to follow this pattern of behavior?  Utah Phillips told the story of his awakening to pacifism in several interviews and performances, basically in this way:

"You've got to become a pacifist," [Ammon Hennessy] said [...] "You came into the world armed to the teeth. With an arsenal of weapons, weapons of privilege, economic privilege, sexual privilege, racial privilege. You want to be a pacifist, you're not just going to have to give up guns, knives, clubs, hard, angry words, you are going to have lay down the weapons of privilege and go into the world completely disarmed."

The pacifist does not only not use weapons and tools of aggression, but also refuses to use the tools that can put others in inferior or disadvantaged positions.  For most of us, our privileges do not act on our lives in ways that we normally perceive, but they do make many of our interactions easier for us. Privilege tends to pressure those who do not have it to behave in ways that benefit those who do, even if they are unaware of being privileged in the first place.  The pacifist must find ways to empower the people around her and not have the upper hand in life.  This is because people have a tendency to react violently when they see themselves in situations of unfairness, especially if they feel they have no other recourse.  The pacifist has to obligation to promote fairness and provide options.  In this way, violence is avoided.  The trick is giving up the privileges we have, especially because we do not realize just how much we benefit from them.  The major difficulty is finding ways to reject one's own privilege that also have the possibility of opening doors for others, not just closing them for the privileged.  The pacifist must live in a world of individuals, rather than groups.  Every person has a different blend of privilege that affects her and those around her in different ways, and requires a different manner of reworking to establish the most level playing field possible.  Even the people who are underprivileged in a given situation, or most situations, can have advantages in other circumstances.  The pacifist must look another person in the eye and decide not to be aggressive or violent, to insist on treatment of others as sentient beings, not as automatons that can only be rivals.

A Wavering Participant also emphasized the individual choice of pacifism, reminding us of the admonition to "turn the other cheek" when hurt.  However, we need the ability to make such choices and have access to the information which allows us an informed choice.  Many religions put value on pacifist action, or at least having internal calm behind our actions.  There are also degrees of pacifism, with some choosing to be as completely non-violent as possible, while others take a more "practical" stance of simply not being aggressive.  Self-defense is allowable for many pacifists, for example.  She wondered whether an entire country could be pacific, given the individual nature of pacifism.  She also admitted the difficulty in choosing peaceful action, which could even be impossible in some cases.  There is also the question of whether simply not attacking with violence is enough to a pacifist's behavior, since many people act in ways we call "passive-aggressive".  They do not act in overtly aggressive ways, but do commit "microaggressions" which can have the same effect over time as a single act of violence.  This Participant believed that most people who behave in this way are not aware of it, although I have to doubt that; this is a social strategy, and people have learned to use this behavior to get what they want, whether it is wrangling favors from others or creating problems for them.

The Educator agreed that education is at the heart of being a pacifist, but justice is also a key issue.  People should be able to live with dignity, out of poverty and with access to education and information.  The Leader had mentioned the need for skepticism in his writing, which she did not quite line up with.  Pacifists must be idealists, as they think a better world is possible and worth building.  Still, sometimes war is necessary to stamp out injustice, or for defense when another's fight against injustice spatters "innocents".  Can we be pacifists in the face of terrorism?  Is there any way to eliminate the need for violent reactions by individuals?

The Leader furthered his analysis of skeptical pacifists, saying no one is obliged to take action and a good skeptic does not believe something just because; we must find out information for ourselves and make our own decisions about what is best.  However, as he has often said, we do not have access to good information or accurate information, but are manipulated by governments and other authorities to behave in ways that benefit them, not necessarily us.  As for being a pacifist, he drew a distinction between physical violence and verbal violence, mostly limiting the pacifist to refraining from the physical variety but possibly indulging wholeheartedly in the latter.  He also mentioned that the lack of tit-for-tat reaction to violence can be seen as a form of aggression itself, in that it can be an infuriating response to an aggressor looking for excuses to continue their activity.  A few names were tossed out as examples of pacifists, one being Gandhi's, but the Leader pointed out that Gandhi benefited enormously from the circumstances in his non-violent protest.  The British had just finished fighting a costly war and were trying to rebuild their own country while fulfilling the promises made to their citizens in return for their wartime support, and were not really in a position to squash a peaceful protester.  Not only that, but other groups were using violent protest in the subcontinent at the time, so Gandhi was a convenient "alternative" to those who might follow more aggressive actors.  This same strategy has been used to play Martin Luther King Jr. off of more militant civil rights leaders as the example of the "good" protester.  The Leader came to the statement that pacifism has failed as an ideology, probably because it does not normally address the need for self-defense.  There are varieties that do, of course, but "pacifism" even as an ideology is not very well-defined and has become a catch-all term for any sort of protest behavior that does not rely on physical aggression.  We should know our limits in terms of how much pressure we can take when we want to take a stand, peaceful or not.  A certain amount of self-analysis is necessary and a will to solve our own problems instead of dumping them on society as a whole.  The Leader blamed the educational system, in part, for our aggressive tendencies, saying our system is competition based and encouraging of conflict.  We are taught simple cause-and-effect actions, but not how to analyze and avoid problematic behavior in the future or prevent it in the first place.  On the other hand, civilization does encourage its citizens to use less violence and more peaceful means of solving problems, and modern technology allows us to see others face-to-face, either by traveling or through communication technology, and it is easier than ever to see the similarities between all human beings.  The emphasis of differences come with vested interests that often have motives behind them that are not beneficial for humanity, but only a few individuals.

The Deep Thinker had only one short contribution, taking an almost Zen-like view.  He focused on the internal life of the person, saying that even actions that may seem violent can be taken by pacifists, but only in a state of inner calm.  Violent reactions are mindless reactions.  The pacifist can fight, but mindfully and only as far as necessary to prevent harm and damage.  To reconnect with Phillips, he also mentioned the acknowledgement of our own capacity for violence as a necessary step to curbing it.  We cannot stop behavior that we cannot control, and we cannot control it if we cannot accept it.

/drɪŋk miː/!

After a productive morning of phonetics teaching training, and staring at volatile rain-or-not weather, a good stout is a well-deserved evening treat.  It seems like I've picked up a number of fruity beers recently, so why let new traditions die?  Guineu's Raspberry Milk Stout was sitting lonely on the shelf, amid piles of others.  If it's the last one, that must mean people like it, right?  I can't resist giving it a try.

Hey...

The raspberries are clear in the smell, although it's less like beer and more like shampoo to me.  Thanks to our penchant for fruity body cleaners, I guess.  The beer pours out nice and dark, although somewhat lacking in head.  The taste starts with a light raspberry touch, covering something darker and bitter.  At first it's like dark chocolate with raspberries, but a smokier, more typical stout comes out after a few seconds and takes over completely.  The flavor seems to hold constant from beginning to end, although it does get a little heavier.  Not too syrupy, but a little more obviously berry accented.

Supplier: La Birratorium
Price: €3.45

Embracing Mistakes

The most common interpretation of this idea is probably the one in which we learn from our mistakes.  That is to say, we do not ignore or pretend those mistakes did not happen, but rather we acknowledge and even analyze them to find ways of avoiding them in the future.  We also can embrace the mistakes of others for our own education, or simply embrace the person with all the faults one might find.  Part of being human is making mistakes, and part of being a member of human society is allowing others to make some mistakes without fear of being ostracized.  There is a definite culture of fear that surrounds mistakes, and many people simply cannot admit that they have not done something perfectly.  This may be detrimental to our mental and even physical health, as the stress of doing everything perfectly and the shame when it does not work out can eat away at us, and leave us husks of nervous self-depreciation.  We should be able to admit that we are not perfect, as no human being is perfect, and allow ourselves a certain amount of leeway for being mistaken.  As the meeting went on, a thought occurred to me with regards to mistakes and criminals.  There are a great many choices that result in crimes being committed, and which are not exactly defended, but excused as "mistakes".  Some criminals who try to rebuild their lives after serving time refer to their crimes as mistakes.  They insist that they have learned form them and will make better choices in the future, or they lament the lack of information they had to work with.  Can we embrace the mistakes made by people who break laws?  Can we embrace those people when they have served the penalty required by law?  It may depend on the attitude they show, being contrite or defiant.  Those who seem to have learned from their mistakes and are determined to prevent others from making them might earn our admiration, while those who hide behind the shelter of "not knowing" end up looking like lazy manipulators who do not want to learn and grow as human beings.

A Randomly Reappearing Participant tried to define mistakes, something we were probably missing.  Mistakes, simply, so not produce the intended results.  We should take responsibility for our mistakes, especially when they are made in arenas that affect large numbers of people, e.g. industrial mistakes.  In many situations, those with the money can cover their mistakes with witnesses bought and paid for, who say the mistakes made were not the fault of the company, but rather another individual or outside forces.  In some circumstances, it is true that admitting a mistake can diminish one's credibility; however, we also have to take into account the effect finding out about the mistake later will have on that same factor.  We also have to be alert to the happenings around us, as sometimes the mistakes we make are the ones which we could have seen coming.

The Permanent Guest mentioned the phrase, "We all make mistakes," saying it was in actuality trite, but something that depends on many factors.  What we need is to accept the responsibility for making mistakes, which may be why there is such a taboo on admitting them.  There is a culture of avoiding responsibility and not admitting any mistake made, which does not lead us to a space of honesty.  She said governments have a duty to get information before acting, which may be applied to individuals as well.  Finally, she lamented that we do not learn from our own mistakes or from history either.

Another participant was troubled by the subjectivity of mistakes, saying there is a root of unintentionality.  Mistakes are seen after time passes.  The point is that we do not mean for the outcome to be what it is, and the responsibilities for negative outcomes are difficult to quantify.

The Leader laid out the difficulties of learning from our mistakes if we are discouraged by "blame culture" from even admitting to them in his short writing.  The theme continued in the meeting.  He noted the difference between making mistakes due to lack of knowledge or experience and making bad choices through malice or negligence, and said that the level of importance in the outcome of our actions should regulate somewhat the degree of punishment for mistakes; a life-threatening activity may require no punishment, because making a mistake means losing one's life, while simply making a wrong calculation means a lower test score.  He criticized the educational system for being so inflexible with mistake-making, treating everything as a possible life-threatening error.  He also wondered why failed studies were not published, since knowledge of dead ends would save everyone time and money on further study.  As for medical mistakes, when they are genuine slip-ups and not malpractice, the victims of them deserve compensation and should be allowed access to it, probably instead of long court battles.  It is also true, however, that we cannot know the thinking behind many mistakes and actions leading to them, even if the agents attempt to explain themselves.  Litigation against companies could be used as barometer for the fairness of society's recognition of mistakes, as the amount of compensation fairly available, rather than just people looking for easy money.  It is a reflection of the society we live in.  There is a system of investigation in place to discover whether a claim is based on a real understanding of events, and whether there is responsibility for a stupid mistake or intentional poor decision.  He returned to the opportunity to learn, asking how we learn from mistakes, and what, exactly, we can learn.  He also noted that not all mistakes actually have negative consequences.  What should be learned in those cases?  Should we know certain things before we take action?  If so, what are those things?  He ended by attacking the formal system of education once more, complaining that not only does it punish mistakes unduly, it refuses to teach us to recognize mistakes and how to prevent them from happening in the future.

The Educator was not offended by the Leader's interpretation of the state of formal education, but said herself that some things needed to change.  She tries to be an example better teaching, having had to apologize for a mistake to her students more than once, without shame, in her words.  She rejected simple poor decision making as being representative of mistakes, especially in the area of criminal activity, saying they have to be made by accident.  Still, nobody is perfect, and even such highly trained professionals as doctors can make mistakes.  To reduce the possibilities, perhaps they should always work in teams, in part to cover different fields, but also to reduce the arrogant behavior that can lead to both mistakes and refusal to recognize them.  Many people consider defects in nature to be mistakes, although there is no intentionality in nature at all.  Finally, she said we need to make mistakes in order to grow and develop, and it is possible to make defects into virtues.  To become "flawsome", as Tyra Banks might say.

black cat a little late

I was warned that this beer was a bit disappointing in terms of power and flavor, but it's a label I can't pass up, and why not give it a try just in case?  Keltius has had hits in the past.  Los Suaves Ourense porter might end up being OK in the end, although the name itself tells you not to expect super strength.

It doesn't smell particularly weak, with a nice sweetish and portery aroma, kind of fruity.  Hint of apple, I think.  The color is what seems a little less opaque than usual, being an almost clear chestnut.  The head starts out abundant and fluffy, but calms down into a thin beige covering.  So the taste?...interesting, but a little underwhelming, possibly due to some priming.  It's more bitter than a lot of porters, but not too much so.  The hint of apple also makes an appearance, but more as an aftertaste, so not as much tartness or fruitiness as most porters I've tried.  I also find a funny woodiness that tags along with the apple, not as appetizing, although not a complete turn-off.  It is true that Los Suaves doesn't throw its weight around like other dark beers do.  I think it's probably better as a drink accompaniment, without having to stand too much on its own.  A little sour snack brings out some more of the porter identity to the beer.

Supplier: La Birratorium
Price: €3.15

What is the Definition of Being Happy?

The trick in this topic is the word definition, since it does not really mean what makes us happy or how can we be happy, but a description of the state that we identify as being happy.  In a way, it disconnects the state from our emotional perception of it.  We might argue that having the needs of Maslow's hierarchy met could be a definition, since having any of these worries can easily prevent the feeling of happiness from surfacing.  It was mentioned that people can have all their needs met and still not be happy, which is true.  All we can do with this definition is say those who meet the criteria should be happy, not that they are undoubtedly so.  Giving a definition is a bit limiting in this case.  Small arguments were had over the style the definition should follow and in the end the Leader questioned the possibility of ever arriving at any definition.  Other steps to take were put forward, such as removing the mind from thinking as much as possible, but I would consider this a confusion of correlation and causation; it is not the fact of not thinking that makes a person happy, but the situation in which this person does not have to solve problems.  Simply ignoring problems in the interest of not thinking will only cause more problems in the long run, if not sooner.  It also seems to be the case that conservatives, at least in the USA, rate themselves as happier than liberals.  A snarky response would be that they are simply refusing to think, but conservatives by definition have most of what they want already, they only need to conserve it.  They are not harried by desires.  Liberals, in contrast, want many things to change and long for some future when things will be as they envision.  Also, conservatives tend to have a path laid out for them, with few deviations.  Liberals like to have choices.  Lots of them.  While the feeling that we are choosing our own path can be empowering and a factor in feeling happy, too many choices only overwhelm us and make us more frustrated and unhappy.  Apparently the definition of being happy is also being a US conservative, although those who show up in the media do not seem to be very happy at all.

The Possible Permanent Guest stated that happiness is an individual experience, and not easily defined, besides which some people cannot be happy.  What makes us happy changes as we pass through life, as our priorities and motivations change.  We might start out coveting material things, but in the end we might want something more spiritual.  Those who come out as the happiest in worldwide polls are often from poorer countries, and poverty stricken areas of those countries.  The act of reaching a common goal can also make people happy, more than reaching an individual goal in some cases.  She was also of the opinion that the lack of responsibility for heavy thinking could help to produce a situation of happiness, and simplicity in life is a clear aid to create happiness.  As for biology, we know that certain chemicals are essential for a happy state in the human brain, and when the proportions of those chemicals are out of whack it is hard to be happy.

The True Philosopher pondered the possibility of defining "being happy" due to its inherent subjectivity.  It is a state that is personal, expressed in behavior and/or the statement, "I am happy," but it can also be shared by people with the same goals or tastes.  There can also be contradictory situations, when one person is made happy and another unhappy by the same thing.  Regarding thinking and happiness, he first laid out the need for verification of belief to make it knowledge, which requires thought.  The security in one's beliefs being true, or solid knowledge, can be a factor in happiness.  However, one of the social mechanisms that seems to grant a good deal of happiness is religion, which deals with knowledge not at all.  The truth behind one's religious beliefs is irrelevant, only faith matters.  The sense of security that not having to think through and reevaluate values and beliefs makes a great many people happy, to the point that they devalue the knowledge of others.  However, if religion is analyzed, faith can disappear.  The True Philosopher's experience as a seminary student took his faith from him, as it became an intellectual concept rather than a daily experience.  The question remains, though, of whether knowledge or ignorance is a better happy pill.

The Leader was not satisfied with attempts to reach a definition, pointing out that the conditions for happiness are different in each society, as well as the conditions for survival itself.  He struggled with the underpinnings of the cause, not just the effects, as noted in his short article.  The knowledge of what is available to us and our possibilities of acquiring it is important to our emotional state, as well as the awareness of how much control we really have over our own lives.  He finally was of a mind to throw out the likelihood of finding a set definition, but was willing to mull over a probabilistic one, since there are things that make large numbers of people happy, even if they do not work for every single person.  He was quite skeptical of the "no thinking for happiness" suggestion, being a strong proponent of knowledge acquisition.  Knowledge is not something to be acquired without some thought.  He later pointed out the folly of personalizing happiness to the point that we cannot conceive of what makes us happy as not automatically making everyone else happy, and repeated his suspicion that the bridge between the stimulus and the feeling is not as straightforward as we were trying to make it.

Someone Passing Through was critical of the language used to formulate the question, finally calling it a category error.  What we should be discussing is probably what makes us happy, rather than trying to define a subjective state.  We can judge mental states based on behavior or on neural maps, but interpretation is still involved with some room for mistakes.  We should even be skeptical of self-reporting, both because people can deliberately deceive us and also not interpret their own emotions in a meaningful way.  While knowledge can be useful to us, information overload is a typical stressor of modern life.  He was left wondering in the end if we are able to control our emotions to the point of making ourselves happy.

The Deep Thinker introduced simple reporting as a way to gauge happiness, and first recommended not seeking a universal definition in favor if individual experiences.  He gave the term a Buddhist spin, saying happiness is linked to absence of desire; when we do not want, we do not suffer; when we do not suffer, we are happy.  He promoted his view that thinking too much is a block to happiness, saying we should try to reach a level of mental activity that does not interfere.  We could even be happy despite other emotions, simply because we exist.  We should try for unconditional happiness.  He conceded that we need to think a little, but an excess of mental gear grinding was responsible, in his opinion, for much unhappiness.  He also showed himself as a big supporter of self-knowledge, insisting that we discover who we are to find a path to being happy.  We need to tackle our problems in a contemplative way, however.  He did not believe the analytical approach was worthwhile in this case, because of the subjectivity of the topic.  He chewed on the possibility of a scientific faith, an atheistic faith, that would allow people the flexibility to experience themselves and their environments without needing a higher power to force them to reinterpret their own lives.  In the end, we are left with nothing but intangible ideas or the fruits of our physical labor, and how happy we feel about that is what we can convince ourselves to feel.

Octopus Pie is the best