Supplier: Cervezorama
Price: €3.25
Saturday, May 30, 2015
a grill companion
Despite the more subdued label, the shape of the bottle ought to catch a beer browser's eye. The the name of the beer gets your attention: Smoked Saison. Doesn't that make you wonder? Anarchy Brew insists on its website that all its beers are flavorful and inspired, naming kiwi and lime as possible ingredients. Beer purists just might consider that anarchy, if not blasphemy.
There's a definite whiff of bacony smoke from the bottle when the cap comes off, although you have to get down into it a little. The color is a little surprising, being a pilsner-like clear yellow, with pristine white head; I was expecting something a little darker, and smokier. The taste is curious, but certainly has elements of smoke and saison. I think the saison spiciness is felt more on the tongue, while the smoke comes more from the smell, but each component is identifiable in a small mouthful. It's much less flowery than straight saisons, less "perfume" as some would say, and the flavor gets more blended over time. The smoke stays noticeable, but the saison spice dies back. It seems like a summer rauchbier, one that would go nicely with a barbecue on a hot afternoon. If I find the kiwi lime IPA, I might just think it's a good time to blaspheme away.
Supplier: Cervezorama
Price: €3.25
Supplier: Cervezorama
Price: €3.25
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
The Perversion of Democracy
While there is a semi-ban on politics as a topic for the group, systems of governance so sometimes sneak in one way or another. The trouble with this kind of topic is that we all assume that we know exactly what the term, in this case democracy, should mean and that the "perversions" we observe are not only undesirable but present through conscious intervention and avoidable. Generally, we consider democracy to be the rule of the people, although we are often in disagreement about who the people really are and what their rule entails. For a "true" democracy, perhaps we should assume that all the citizens participate. We can all agree that this would be the fairest form of government, as imposing laws, taxes and responsibilities on people who never have the opportunity to even see them coming on the horizon is abusive and improper in a society that claims to value all of its members. The problem, however, is that this true democracy would be incredibly inefficient, once the population passed a certain number. Referendums, elections, caucuses etc. take a terrible toll on the time of the citizen and many people simply do not have the patience for things they consider "frivolous" or "unimportant" issues, which a great many of the subjects of voting would be, since the immediate connection to the average citizen would not be apparent. It could be carefully hidden, in fact, but that is really another topic. The fact is, we have decided, for the most part, that a representative democracy or republic is the most efficient way of governing while allowing at least some control over the decisions of government. Where, then, is the perversion? For most of us in the room, it is the presence of corruption. This corruption can take many forms, in some places being mostly in the form of bribes and favors, and in others in the form of voter suppression. This is not to mention the other creative ways authority has of preventing the people from controlling anything but the most trivial parts of their lives. So, the perverted democracy is one in which the majority of the citizens have only the illusion of power and participation while a small minority have the real power of decision-making, especially in cases that will greatly and probably negatively affect the majority. If this is the reality, the natural follow-up is: what can be done? Unfortunately, change seems to be effected only forcibly, and occasionally through violent means. The righting, straightening out, or cleaning up of democracy is a goal many have but few if any will reach.
The Source told us she had voted that day, it being an election day where we are. She noted that their democracy is indirect, as the elections are for representatives who later have votes of their own on laws and policies. The problem is that they do not have any reason to explain why they vote for or against proposals to their constituents. There is a total lack of transparency. This being the case, there are ample opportunities for corruption and bribery, as in the case of Mexico with its drug kingpins "investing" in politicians. She mentioned the great number of influences on the life of a citizen and the values that citizen has, with the media exercising perhaps undue influence. This in turn leads to politicians either leaning on the media or being guided by it. We the people do not notice the manipulation that goes on, partly because we want to believe that we have control over our own lives and our surroundings. Later she mentioned transparency openly as being necessary for a proper democracy and asked if we had enough information to make worthwhile choices. We delegate the power we have as citizens, believing that our representatives will look out for what is best for us. In the best cases, of course politicians want to make the best decisions for their community, even if these decisions are not the best for the country as a whole, which is really another questions again. She by comparing politics and prostitution, saying prostitutes used to be the criminals but now we penalize the johns; could we move beyond blaming politicians who accept bribes to place to laying it at the feet of the corporations that bribe them?
The True Philosopher noted the different styles of government that claimed the designation "democratic", reminding us in his article that true democracies are few and far between. In the meeting he echoed the sentiment that leaders are supposed to act in the interests of those who choose them, but often act in the interests of business instead, since the money provided by the business got them elected in the first place. They are not in debt to the electorate, but to commerce. Towards the end he pointed out that we need to have biases, priorities, in order to help others in our communities. We cannot take every idea as exactly as important and valid as all the others, and neither can our politicians. The bureaucracy of democratic government requires qualifications in ways that we as voters cannot always predict. He asked us whether true democracy was in fact "rule by the people", and warned us that because of the ties to other governments and nations, an election can provoke the end of a democracy, as seen in the second half of the twentieth century when countries elected left-leaning governments with the audacity to be on the same planet as the US.
The Leader focused much of his attention on the benefit of the people and making good choices, as usual. In his writing, he warned us of the fallacy of assuming we can conceive of a "perfect" model democracy, mentioning several flaws with the system and the way it interacts with human nature. He said that there should be honesty among our leaders, as well as transparency in their decisions, but this is simply not the case. Even the decisions made that on the surface seem to have our best interests in mind can be in reality geared towards the pockets that campaign funds actually come from. Our modern educational systems are meant to prepare children to pass multiple choice exams, not to think. In this way, the elites maintain their hold on power, since education in any society is how the authority molds its citizens or subjects. Rather than democracy as an institution being perverted, it is the electorate. The people are trained to believe that the system will work for them, when in reality the system only maintains the power for those in power while barring others from accessing it.
The Seeker of Happiness had also mentioned the view of the people being the corrupted part of a democracy, either by power and money or by the promise of power and money. He admitted that some things should not be decided by popular vote, as they require a level of expertise that the average person does not possess, and also pointed out that natural laws and scientific theories cannot be voted on; pi is always pi, although the numerical representation is not always the same. He wondered if a communist society could be democratic, which brought much horrified derision from some quarters, but the concept is interesting. Why would a truly communistic system be incompatible with "true" democracy, since both require the participation of all the citizens? The problem is that neither system is possible when large numbers are present, either in terms of population or land area. While a cute thought experiment, true democratic communism can only be a hypothetical ideal. The Seeker then tackled the competing desires in politicians: to serve the constituency and to be reelected. One might argue that the first is much less important to most than the second. Although hr did not advocate the prohibition of special interests, he did say that lobbies ought to be better regulated. Furthermore, transparency on its own is not enough to secure a democratic system; the electorate needs to be educated properly, a statement the Leader echoed.
A Sometime Attendee wondered whether democracy was such a great thing at all. He said we were assuming that it is a positive advance in the development of society and politics, but in his opinion, democracy without intelligence is the worst tyranny of all. He also noted that benevolent dictatorships can exist, and can be more beneficial to those under their rule than a democracy run by corrupt and moronic representatives. The problem in any society, democratic or not really, is controlling the powerful and preventing them from abusing their power. We have the tools, but have to learn how to use them. Again, this is a question of education and being provided with useful knowledge.
The Deep Thinker, always something of a devil's advocate, warned us that democracy might not only not be the best system, but might not be good at all. He pointed out the "bad" leaders elected, those who we consider undemocratic, in fact, who have been chosen by the people to lead or represent their interests. At least under a dictatorship, the people can tell themselves that their bad government does not represent them, but under a democracy, we have to fool ourselves into thinking we are completely unconnected from our representatives, or admit that our democracy is a sham. The ideal politician for the Thinker is practically inhuman, a being without personal goals whose only desire is to solve the people's problems. A politician should therefore have ideas, but not an ideology. At the end, he suggested a random lottery to choose leaders, rather than elections, since leaving the outcome up to fate is less likely to involve corruption or coercion.
The Source told us she had voted that day, it being an election day where we are. She noted that their democracy is indirect, as the elections are for representatives who later have votes of their own on laws and policies. The problem is that they do not have any reason to explain why they vote for or against proposals to their constituents. There is a total lack of transparency. This being the case, there are ample opportunities for corruption and bribery, as in the case of Mexico with its drug kingpins "investing" in politicians. She mentioned the great number of influences on the life of a citizen and the values that citizen has, with the media exercising perhaps undue influence. This in turn leads to politicians either leaning on the media or being guided by it. We the people do not notice the manipulation that goes on, partly because we want to believe that we have control over our own lives and our surroundings. Later she mentioned transparency openly as being necessary for a proper democracy and asked if we had enough information to make worthwhile choices. We delegate the power we have as citizens, believing that our representatives will look out for what is best for us. In the best cases, of course politicians want to make the best decisions for their community, even if these decisions are not the best for the country as a whole, which is really another questions again. She by comparing politics and prostitution, saying prostitutes used to be the criminals but now we penalize the johns; could we move beyond blaming politicians who accept bribes to place to laying it at the feet of the corporations that bribe them?
The True Philosopher noted the different styles of government that claimed the designation "democratic", reminding us in his article that true democracies are few and far between. In the meeting he echoed the sentiment that leaders are supposed to act in the interests of those who choose them, but often act in the interests of business instead, since the money provided by the business got them elected in the first place. They are not in debt to the electorate, but to commerce. Towards the end he pointed out that we need to have biases, priorities, in order to help others in our communities. We cannot take every idea as exactly as important and valid as all the others, and neither can our politicians. The bureaucracy of democratic government requires qualifications in ways that we as voters cannot always predict. He asked us whether true democracy was in fact "rule by the people", and warned us that because of the ties to other governments and nations, an election can provoke the end of a democracy, as seen in the second half of the twentieth century when countries elected left-leaning governments with the audacity to be on the same planet as the US.
The Leader focused much of his attention on the benefit of the people and making good choices, as usual. In his writing, he warned us of the fallacy of assuming we can conceive of a "perfect" model democracy, mentioning several flaws with the system and the way it interacts with human nature. He said that there should be honesty among our leaders, as well as transparency in their decisions, but this is simply not the case. Even the decisions made that on the surface seem to have our best interests in mind can be in reality geared towards the pockets that campaign funds actually come from. Our modern educational systems are meant to prepare children to pass multiple choice exams, not to think. In this way, the elites maintain their hold on power, since education in any society is how the authority molds its citizens or subjects. Rather than democracy as an institution being perverted, it is the electorate. The people are trained to believe that the system will work for them, when in reality the system only maintains the power for those in power while barring others from accessing it.
The Seeker of Happiness had also mentioned the view of the people being the corrupted part of a democracy, either by power and money or by the promise of power and money. He admitted that some things should not be decided by popular vote, as they require a level of expertise that the average person does not possess, and also pointed out that natural laws and scientific theories cannot be voted on; pi is always pi, although the numerical representation is not always the same. He wondered if a communist society could be democratic, which brought much horrified derision from some quarters, but the concept is interesting. Why would a truly communistic system be incompatible with "true" democracy, since both require the participation of all the citizens? The problem is that neither system is possible when large numbers are present, either in terms of population or land area. While a cute thought experiment, true democratic communism can only be a hypothetical ideal. The Seeker then tackled the competing desires in politicians: to serve the constituency and to be reelected. One might argue that the first is much less important to most than the second. Although hr did not advocate the prohibition of special interests, he did say that lobbies ought to be better regulated. Furthermore, transparency on its own is not enough to secure a democratic system; the electorate needs to be educated properly, a statement the Leader echoed.
A Sometime Attendee wondered whether democracy was such a great thing at all. He said we were assuming that it is a positive advance in the development of society and politics, but in his opinion, democracy without intelligence is the worst tyranny of all. He also noted that benevolent dictatorships can exist, and can be more beneficial to those under their rule than a democracy run by corrupt and moronic representatives. The problem in any society, democratic or not really, is controlling the powerful and preventing them from abusing their power. We have the tools, but have to learn how to use them. Again, this is a question of education and being provided with useful knowledge.
The Deep Thinker, always something of a devil's advocate, warned us that democracy might not only not be the best system, but might not be good at all. He pointed out the "bad" leaders elected, those who we consider undemocratic, in fact, who have been chosen by the people to lead or represent their interests. At least under a dictatorship, the people can tell themselves that their bad government does not represent them, but under a democracy, we have to fool ourselves into thinking we are completely unconnected from our representatives, or admit that our democracy is a sham. The ideal politician for the Thinker is practically inhuman, a being without personal goals whose only desire is to solve the people's problems. A politician should therefore have ideas, but not an ideology. At the end, he suggested a random lottery to choose leaders, rather than elections, since leaving the outcome up to fate is less likely to involve corruption or coercion.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
can't let go of the darkness
Although Cibeles has become relatively widespread, you know, for a craft beer, I don't often find the stout. It's almost summer, not the best stout drinking weather around here, but it's early enough that we still get some cold wind. The stout's about!
Everything about the color and odor is standard and pleasing, from the dark brown-almost black to the barely perceptible chocolate. The head is fluffy and beige, not overly abundant. The taste is porter-sour at first, but quickly a little chocolate sweetness wells up, and the sip finishes with a nice smokiness. There's a tendency for the beer to get sweeter as you drink, which may please some and displease others, who prefer a smokier, more bitter stout. I can go either way, so I'm perfectly satisfied with it. It has the comfort of Halloween season and nights with a good movie, or in a good bar. While the more easily found Cibeles' have not always been at the top of the game, this bottle gave 100%.
Supplier: La Buena Cerveza
Price: €2.66
Supplier: La Buena Cerveza
Price: €2.66
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
How Fundamental is Mathematics?
This was another suggestion from the Dutch, which did not get chosen while they were here to vote for it. Still, it had a certain freshness, something different that I found attractive. It seems like we discuss the same things over and over, and we all make the same statements with little variation. At first, it seemed obvious that this topic would force us to take a different path, but when I considered it a little, I realized it was not nearly as different as I had thought. At least it is a different lens than the one we normally use.
When we ask how fundamental something is, there are several words floating in the background: important; basic; necessary. In this case, basic is mostly likely not simple as much as it is related to the beginnings of education, whether formal or informal/"natural". In the context of formal education, at least in the US, math has long been considered a basic building block, one of the three Rs - reading, writing and 'rithmetic. The fact that only one of those words actually starts with r probably says something about how seriously we have taken formal education. The first two subjects obviously have to do with communication, but what about the third? Do we communicate with numbers, beyond the odd "secret" code that children often play around with? Not exactly, I think. We use math for calculation, to predict. How long should we wait to plant, how far do we go for water, what angle to shoot the arrow, etc. In the modern world, we also need to calculate weights and angles for the stability of buildings, the functionality of supply systems, and regulation of traffic. In a way, mathematics shows itself to be the most fundamental of the so-called three Rs because of its work in the background and under our feet, important but not flashy. Yet, we have a sort of distrust of the smooth workings of numbers and a bit of disdain for those who use them well. The math geniuses we make famous are the strangest, even literally mentally ill, for example John Nash. Although all geniuses seem to have a looser grasp on reality than most, we do not assume good writers, musicians or painters must have mental problems. For some reason, numbers are isolating while words, sounds, and images are social. We have a visceral rejection of the use of numbers among people, complaining about being "reduced to a number", identifying numbers with prisoners. At the same time, we do have identifying numbers in developed societies, even several of them, displaying our begrudging acceptance of the need for numerical organization, perhaps.
Our Doctor was also intrigued by the topic, saying it was deserving of having some light shed on it. This is mostly because we do not know exactly what "mathematics" means, as the term is an abstract, not an object. In his field of neurology, numbers are used in tests of cognitive ability, asking patients to do simple calculations. This is not a purely numerical test, however, the doctor and patient must also share language of words so that the patient can understand the task that is required. Math or calculation facilitates life and our chances of survival. It did not appear as an abstract concept, but as a tool to aid us in daily life. He mentioned the term "vivencia", unsatisfied with the translations given in dictionaries, explaining it as the fact of having some life internalized, something that your body itself experiences. I wonder if "life experience" might be acceptable, but it sounds like the Doctor is thinking of vivencia as something deeper. Returning to medicine, he said patients ask for solutions, but sometimes doctors give bad or wrong solutions. The same happens to all of us in our lives. We try to calculate and predict to protect ourselves from things we do not know, since they might kill us. Big numbers dissolve into abstract concepts even when they directly affect us. The light of a galaxy 30 billion light years away reaching us for the first time a week or so ago sounds like trivia, but who knows what consequences it can have. 50 million cells die in the human body every second. That sounds like something with obviously personal effects, but the number shields us from feeling anything about it, really. Another of the Doctor's favorite points appeared in the form of the question, "What do you need?" It is one of the fundamental questions for survival and happiness, and we all need the same things and different things. "I don't know," is the worst answer there can be, according to the Doctor. Everything is in our brains, including math. We have to make choices in life, about what we do and where we go, but everything is connected. Science and art are the same thing, merely expressed in different ways. The Doctor insisted he was open to the things he knows, and even moreso to the things he does not know, even if he has to come to a philosophy discussion in English. He made sure we noted down his statement that we are incompatible with ourselves, because we do not know what we are. His final thought for the day was that philosophy is demented, something that would be difficult to argue against in our circumstances.
The Seeker of Happiness spent some time on the use of "fundamental", insisting fundamentals do not exist in mathematics, rather they come from described reality. Math is a language to describe rules and we adapt it, like all language to the reality we experience. Math adds firmness and strength to our words, certainty, if we may say so. He noted that many famous mathematicians of the past were also considered philosophers, and here he expressed his problem with the topic: abstract math is something beyond his normal understanding, as his work involves applied math and not theoretical math. He appeared mildly irritated at his own lack of familiarity, although he certainly had quite a bit to say about mathematician-philosophers. Some, like Pythagoras, believed math to be something divine, too "pure" to have come from the lowly human mind. The labeling of irrational numbers, things that do not play by the rules we thought existed, opened the universe up to the infinite, which we can represent with those numbers but cannot really comprehend. We use numbers to give our lives stability, and we do not like random events. We consider math to be a regular and regulated thing, and yet in the past century discoveries about the behavior of mathematics, and science, have removed some of the certainty we had before. Mathematics has proofs, it shows us evidence of the workings of reality, its tenets are demonstrated. Yet, after all the centuries of use, we can poke holes in it. What kind of proof of reality is that?
The True Philosopher makes no pretensions of being an expert in fields he is not expert in. However, he has come across some interesting views on the nature of mathematics in his time. He commented on the connection of mathematics as an academic field with others, like philosophy, and the adjective mathematical. While mathematics is an abstract, and perhaps taking us to quite advanced methods of reasoning, the mathematical is very basic. It can be likened to the logical, and common sense should have something logical or mathematical in it for it to be sensible. As mentioned in his short writing, many have wondered if mathematics actually is a property of consciousness, or if it resides somewhere outside of us. If math is not subjective, it must not be completely within the mind. But, if it is not within the mind, where can it be found outside? The Buddha compared it to the soul, as something that we all agree exists, but cannot be found in any tangible form. Mathematics should be within Plato's realm of universals - permanent, eternal, and true in all possible worlds. Where does that leave us as to the importance or basicness of mathematics? It is inescapable in life, being something not subject to only our own consciousness, so it must be a basic element.
The Leader tried to lay out some context for the topic, which is always sorely lacking in such short titles. In the meeting, he asked why words do not have single definitions (shades of Newspeak). He also said that what society needs is the basics; further questions are sophistication rather than the bare principle. We may feel some satisfaction in these developments, but we do not actually need them. In fact, many of these sophisticated processes are used against us by those in power, with a notable example being statistics. He disagreed with the Philosopher's proposal that mathematics is something in the ether beyond us, but neither is it an ingredient that is added to our lives. It is a process by which we identify models and their irregularities. Math is not natural in that it is not a part of nature, nature simply exists and takes pathways that lead to continuing life. When we come across randomness in nature, we may be bothered by it and look for ways to explain it "rationally", but in reality these seemingly random occurrences may have reasons behind them that we just are not capable of understanding. We impose our own meaning on the universe as human beings; our calculations are sometimes wrong, but that is more our problem than the universe's, or math's.
A Randomly Returning Participant was surprised by how much she ended up enjoying the topic, having little warm feelings for math, the result of a trauma from her school days. Since everything that moves has to make calculations - where to jump, how high, how hard to pull this branch etc. - it seems logical that calculation should have appeared in brains before language. Basic math seems to be almost instinctual. As a field, it has developed its own language; this Participant can glean some ideas from advanced texts in other areas of science, but not in math. She admitted, however, that we cannot organize anything without the principles of math, and no mathematics equals no rationality.
It was a small group for this meeting, and some people allowed themselves to explore at more length than we often prefer to have happen. There was complaint. The real reason behind this complaint, probably, is that only some people are scolded when they speak for long periods, something that seems unfair. I imagine it is a matter of presentation. Some people speak very well and are able to engage the audience, which leads us to be more tolerant, perhaps more than we should be for the sake of fairness. It is when the speaker is clumsy or difficult to follow that we tend to feel our patience run short. Unfair? Maybe. But nobody said life is fair.
When we ask how fundamental something is, there are several words floating in the background: important; basic; necessary. In this case, basic is mostly likely not simple as much as it is related to the beginnings of education, whether formal or informal/"natural". In the context of formal education, at least in the US, math has long been considered a basic building block, one of the three Rs - reading, writing and 'rithmetic. The fact that only one of those words actually starts with r probably says something about how seriously we have taken formal education. The first two subjects obviously have to do with communication, but what about the third? Do we communicate with numbers, beyond the odd "secret" code that children often play around with? Not exactly, I think. We use math for calculation, to predict. How long should we wait to plant, how far do we go for water, what angle to shoot the arrow, etc. In the modern world, we also need to calculate weights and angles for the stability of buildings, the functionality of supply systems, and regulation of traffic. In a way, mathematics shows itself to be the most fundamental of the so-called three Rs because of its work in the background and under our feet, important but not flashy. Yet, we have a sort of distrust of the smooth workings of numbers and a bit of disdain for those who use them well. The math geniuses we make famous are the strangest, even literally mentally ill, for example John Nash. Although all geniuses seem to have a looser grasp on reality than most, we do not assume good writers, musicians or painters must have mental problems. For some reason, numbers are isolating while words, sounds, and images are social. We have a visceral rejection of the use of numbers among people, complaining about being "reduced to a number", identifying numbers with prisoners. At the same time, we do have identifying numbers in developed societies, even several of them, displaying our begrudging acceptance of the need for numerical organization, perhaps.
Our Doctor was also intrigued by the topic, saying it was deserving of having some light shed on it. This is mostly because we do not know exactly what "mathematics" means, as the term is an abstract, not an object. In his field of neurology, numbers are used in tests of cognitive ability, asking patients to do simple calculations. This is not a purely numerical test, however, the doctor and patient must also share language of words so that the patient can understand the task that is required. Math or calculation facilitates life and our chances of survival. It did not appear as an abstract concept, but as a tool to aid us in daily life. He mentioned the term "vivencia", unsatisfied with the translations given in dictionaries, explaining it as the fact of having some life internalized, something that your body itself experiences. I wonder if "life experience" might be acceptable, but it sounds like the Doctor is thinking of vivencia as something deeper. Returning to medicine, he said patients ask for solutions, but sometimes doctors give bad or wrong solutions. The same happens to all of us in our lives. We try to calculate and predict to protect ourselves from things we do not know, since they might kill us. Big numbers dissolve into abstract concepts even when they directly affect us. The light of a galaxy 30 billion light years away reaching us for the first time a week or so ago sounds like trivia, but who knows what consequences it can have. 50 million cells die in the human body every second. That sounds like something with obviously personal effects, but the number shields us from feeling anything about it, really. Another of the Doctor's favorite points appeared in the form of the question, "What do you need?" It is one of the fundamental questions for survival and happiness, and we all need the same things and different things. "I don't know," is the worst answer there can be, according to the Doctor. Everything is in our brains, including math. We have to make choices in life, about what we do and where we go, but everything is connected. Science and art are the same thing, merely expressed in different ways. The Doctor insisted he was open to the things he knows, and even moreso to the things he does not know, even if he has to come to a philosophy discussion in English. He made sure we noted down his statement that we are incompatible with ourselves, because we do not know what we are. His final thought for the day was that philosophy is demented, something that would be difficult to argue against in our circumstances.
The Seeker of Happiness spent some time on the use of "fundamental", insisting fundamentals do not exist in mathematics, rather they come from described reality. Math is a language to describe rules and we adapt it, like all language to the reality we experience. Math adds firmness and strength to our words, certainty, if we may say so. He noted that many famous mathematicians of the past were also considered philosophers, and here he expressed his problem with the topic: abstract math is something beyond his normal understanding, as his work involves applied math and not theoretical math. He appeared mildly irritated at his own lack of familiarity, although he certainly had quite a bit to say about mathematician-philosophers. Some, like Pythagoras, believed math to be something divine, too "pure" to have come from the lowly human mind. The labeling of irrational numbers, things that do not play by the rules we thought existed, opened the universe up to the infinite, which we can represent with those numbers but cannot really comprehend. We use numbers to give our lives stability, and we do not like random events. We consider math to be a regular and regulated thing, and yet in the past century discoveries about the behavior of mathematics, and science, have removed some of the certainty we had before. Mathematics has proofs, it shows us evidence of the workings of reality, its tenets are demonstrated. Yet, after all the centuries of use, we can poke holes in it. What kind of proof of reality is that?
The True Philosopher makes no pretensions of being an expert in fields he is not expert in. However, he has come across some interesting views on the nature of mathematics in his time. He commented on the connection of mathematics as an academic field with others, like philosophy, and the adjective mathematical. While mathematics is an abstract, and perhaps taking us to quite advanced methods of reasoning, the mathematical is very basic. It can be likened to the logical, and common sense should have something logical or mathematical in it for it to be sensible. As mentioned in his short writing, many have wondered if mathematics actually is a property of consciousness, or if it resides somewhere outside of us. If math is not subjective, it must not be completely within the mind. But, if it is not within the mind, where can it be found outside? The Buddha compared it to the soul, as something that we all agree exists, but cannot be found in any tangible form. Mathematics should be within Plato's realm of universals - permanent, eternal, and true in all possible worlds. Where does that leave us as to the importance or basicness of mathematics? It is inescapable in life, being something not subject to only our own consciousness, so it must be a basic element.
The Leader tried to lay out some context for the topic, which is always sorely lacking in such short titles. In the meeting, he asked why words do not have single definitions (shades of Newspeak). He also said that what society needs is the basics; further questions are sophistication rather than the bare principle. We may feel some satisfaction in these developments, but we do not actually need them. In fact, many of these sophisticated processes are used against us by those in power, with a notable example being statistics. He disagreed with the Philosopher's proposal that mathematics is something in the ether beyond us, but neither is it an ingredient that is added to our lives. It is a process by which we identify models and their irregularities. Math is not natural in that it is not a part of nature, nature simply exists and takes pathways that lead to continuing life. When we come across randomness in nature, we may be bothered by it and look for ways to explain it "rationally", but in reality these seemingly random occurrences may have reasons behind them that we just are not capable of understanding. We impose our own meaning on the universe as human beings; our calculations are sometimes wrong, but that is more our problem than the universe's, or math's.
A Randomly Returning Participant was surprised by how much she ended up enjoying the topic, having little warm feelings for math, the result of a trauma from her school days. Since everything that moves has to make calculations - where to jump, how high, how hard to pull this branch etc. - it seems logical that calculation should have appeared in brains before language. Basic math seems to be almost instinctual. As a field, it has developed its own language; this Participant can glean some ideas from advanced texts in other areas of science, but not in math. She admitted, however, that we cannot organize anything without the principles of math, and no mathematics equals no rationality.
It was a small group for this meeting, and some people allowed themselves to explore at more length than we often prefer to have happen. There was complaint. The real reason behind this complaint, probably, is that only some people are scolded when they speak for long periods, something that seems unfair. I imagine it is a matter of presentation. Some people speak very well and are able to engage the audience, which leads us to be more tolerant, perhaps more than we should be for the sake of fairness. It is when the speaker is clumsy or difficult to follow that we tend to feel our patience run short. Unfair? Maybe. But nobody said life is fair.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
smell it in the air
 |
| Seriously, who is that? |
Supplier: La Buena Cerveza
Price: €4.05
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Modern Feminism
This was the topic suggested by one of our visitors last week, and the winner probably because of them too. I had some reservations about the discussion, but in the end it turned out well enough. Maybe I should stop being so pessimistic.
The trouble with modern feminism is mostly that nobody knows what it is, in my opinion. While the feminists of the 19th century had clear and specific goals, that were achieved for the most part, modern feminism is more about attitudes than legislation. Even the Second Wave had clear targets. Now, the obstacles to equality are more in people's minds and behavior than in the law, which makes them much more difficult to overcome. This is especially true because many people do not even know these obstacles exist in others, not to mention themselves. Even being equal before the law does not mean we are treated equally in practice, as any minority can attest, and this is the mindset that modern feminists try to attack. As humans, we have a tendency to group people and consider the group an individual belongs to rather than the qualities of that individual, not in an attempt to discriminate for the sake of discrimination, but simply for efficiency. Unfortunately, we no longer live in small groups of a few hundred. Our biology is not set up to tackle cities of thousands and millions, especially when a great number of groups are represented in the population. We have to fight against our "instincts" to be good modern humans. Feminism focuses on women and the problems they face, naturally, but the goals of feminism are good for men as individuals as well. When each individual person is responsible for him or herself, rather than automatically being expected to be attached to any number of other people, stress is lowered. Men should not be expected to sacrifice their health by working excessive hours just as much as women should not be expected to sacrifice their working lives for the possibility of having a family. Some people might make those choices for themselves; the key word there, however, is "choice" rather than simply doing what is expected. If more resources exist for women to escape violence in their families, or deal with physical and mental violence from coworkers or even strangers, it is because we have organized and created those resources or been able to convince the authorities that it makes sense to protect a vulnerable population. Also, the idea exists that women are more sensitive and in touch with their feelings than men, and more capable of using a network of people to support them, while men are go-it-alone types who do not need such help and who should never complain about difficulties. By breaking down that stereotype, we can allow men to access the same mental health support offered to women, without the disdain they commonly receive today. Things can change. Things do change. One failure of feminism has been the fact that, while women are more allowed into men's spaces, women's traditional spaces have not been given enough respect to be attractive or acceptable to men. Women can wear pants and nobody, except certain religious whackaloons, says anything about it, but if a man wears a skirt he is a rebel or a weirdo. We celebrate CEOs and scientific researchers who happen to be women, but suspect Mr. Brown the kindergarten teacher or Mr. Green the daycare provider to be pedophiles. We wonder, why would any man want to be around children, especially children who are not his own? We are still stuck with the idea that only women nurture and there is something terribly wrong with a man who does so.
Another problem with modern feminism, which has actually existed from the beginning of the movement, is the lack of attention paid to intersectionality by leaders of the movement. From the beginning, it has been for the benefit of women like me - white, educated, from an industrialized country and at least middle-class socioeconomic background. Not to mention heterosexual, able bodied and without any glaring mental illness. Women of color, women with disabilities, poor women and transwomen have felt themselves excluded from the movement, and some even refuse to use the term feminist when they agitate for greater equality, preferring to be called "womanists". They have legitimate complaints about the movement, but why would the people it most represents not be feminists? How can people who claim to believe in equal rights not accept the label of feminist? Some believe it is a term for a sort of activist, and if they do not participate in rallies or marches, or write letters and emails to their government representatives, they do not fit the description. Others have bought into the propaganda spread by social conservatives who use scare tactics to guide people away from all social justice movements. They claim feminism wants to simply reverse the social order, making men slaves to women. They see any recognition of the rights and inherent humanity of those not in their group as a reduction of their rights and humanity. The Leader has mentioned in many meetings that the powerful use the fears and obligations of the less powerful to maintain the status quo and continue the social hierarchy, and this is exactly what it happening. A leveling of social status is terrifying to those on top, not because they would then be on the bottom, but because they simply cannot conceive of those from lower strata is being as human as they are, and as deserving of respect.
Our Doctor began with the opinion that there was not much to discuss concerning the topic, since everybody agrees that we should be equal. He brought up the victim blaming so common when a woman is attacked or raped, not supporting it fully, but saying that provocative clothing does bring out certain instincts. He also reminded us that feminism is different in different areas of the world, which is certainly true, but given our circumstances we most likely should limit ourselves to its manifestation in the West. He admitted his perspective of women can only be from his own experiences, and ended his first speech with a rather romantic statement that women are the best thing in the world, so it makes to sense to discriminate against them. He gave us a more medical viewpoint next, explaining that biologically men and women are different animals. We have (some) different organs, our hormonal balances are different, bones develop in a different way, etc. Again, he fell into a romantic mood, describing the superiority of women in terms of physical resistance and intelligence. He also insisted that the law today tells us we are equal, but socially, he admitted, we still have some way to go. He later blamed money for the continued sexism in society, as it also promotes other social conflicts. Regarding us as individuals, he reminded us that our genetic code is unique, in all the universe. We do not understand each other because we do not even understand ourselves. We are looking for a perfect state of mind, an absence of passion, but so many factors influence our mental state that we are forever entrapped in our passions. One of his final thoughts was that reality is very unreal, a statement easily interpreted in a multitude of ways.
The True Philosopher does not consider himself an expert in the subject area, but came up with a short article pointing out some of the achievements and the obstacles still in our way. In the meeting, he told us that there is a noticeable difference in the popularity of feminism in different areas of his country. In rural areas, traditional gender roles are more strongly enforced, and influence from the West is minimal. Women's liberation is a non-issue. In cities like Manila, on the other hand, the movement does exist, I imagine with the same problems of class and social status that plague Western feminism. Interestingly, matriarchal societies do exist in Pacific island cultures, and even in the Philippines, ostensibly patriarchal, there are realms where the woman reigns and the man does not venture, for instance, regarding the marriage of children.
The Leader, too, did not profess great knowledge of feminism in particular, but has displayed strong opinions on social inequalities in general in the past. He questioned the success of the movement, first in writing, then in the meeting, pointing out that even so-called "wins" have had serious negative consequences for women, using maternity leave and its detrimental effect on the career as an example. He hammered away at the idea of male privilege in the workplace, insisting that men are favored because they are easier to manipulate, having to comply with the social image of the "family provider". The Leader suspects, perhaps more than just suspects, that married men are given more weight in the hiring and employment process because of their supposed greater responsibility. Furthermore, in those fields where women have entered with little difficulty, the reason is not that their qualifications were recognized but that men left the field, so that the gap had to be covered. This is most evident in wartime, at least in past wars when large numbers of men were shuffled off to the service. Women were allowed to take over the heavy lifting at home, even in the factories as famously promoted during World War II, but when the men came home it was back to the kitchen. He disagreed flatly about the importance of biological differences in regarding men and women. There are some obvious differences, but there are also obvious differences between individuals, which are really more important. People should be given what they need, or the means to get what they need, according to the Leader, and in the case of discrimination against women the blocking of access to health care is clearly wrong and inhumane. He is also aware of the problems feminism has in serving all women, even in a single country, and blames the lack of progress on the movement's attachment to political ideas instead of social ones.
A Sometime Participant spoke of the superficial changes that have been applied, but warning us that the public face that celebrates modern equality can be the private face that clings to old inequalities. Change does happen through all levels of society, but only little by little. Echoing the True Philosopher's observations on rural women, she stressed that claiming rights depends on education. For this reason, societies with higher levels of education might seem to be more unstable and less happy, because people are aware of what they can have and are demanding it. By extension, we can guess this is the reason some cultures wish certain groups, women in particular, to remain uneducated. The same could be said for the slave owners of the past, who punished those who dared to teach slaves to read. Finally, this participant wondered why the rates of domestic violence and rape are so high in such egalitarian countries as the Scandinavian ones, a question many ask simply as a gotcha. However, one reason may be just that a more egalitarian society encourages people to report abuses; they are confident that their complaints will be taken seriously and they will not be victimized again by police and other authorities.
The Educator did not much care for the bio-determinism from the Doctor, insisting that despite some physical differences, humans are more similar than dissimilar. Much of the trouble is our resistance to change, so all the prejudices of the past linger far longer than they should. Religious superstitions should be counted among those prejudices, for example the story of Eve and the serpent, which blames women for the hardships we suffer in our lives. To support her thesis of similarity, the Educator reminded us that when women have power, they are perfectly happy to start wars and be aggressive towards other countries. The problem is not having testicles, it is having power. Although some believe feminism to be an extremist movement, it is necessary in her opinion. Women suffer more poverty and abuse, even in "advanced" societies, and are objectified to sell other objects to men. Even if the reverse were to happen, the goal is to respect people, not turn them into things to have and use. She also fretted about the culture of beauty that women face every day, feeling pressure to use make-up, heels, and flattering clothes while men just have to show up. Other participants stated that they used make-up only because they enjoyed it, and the Leader told us it would behoove men to pay more attention to their grooming as well, not let everyone forget about it. In any case, the point is to respect people as entire individuals, not as the shells they parade around.
A Prodigal Participant remarked that the discussion really should even be necessary, since we theoretically agree that civil rights are due to everyone. We have to morally reject violence against women. He scolded us a little for our generalizations of men, saying that men do not get together to decide what the collective opinion on women is. Just a reminder of how easy it is to see an opponent as a monolith and all similar individuals as your opponents as well, no matter what their actual views may be.
The Seeker of Happiness believes that voting is the key to all social changes, if only we would exercise our right properly. He also thought that the general attitude of society that scorns children as unimportant in reality, meanwhile exulting them as all important in the abstract, is the major source of discrimination against women, since we are the ones who actually "produce" children. He, like the rest, insisted that the fight must continue, that we cannot allow resignation to overcome us, because there is still work to do. He is confident that the causes of violence and disrespect will be identified and eliminated in the future.
The trouble with modern feminism is mostly that nobody knows what it is, in my opinion. While the feminists of the 19th century had clear and specific goals, that were achieved for the most part, modern feminism is more about attitudes than legislation. Even the Second Wave had clear targets. Now, the obstacles to equality are more in people's minds and behavior than in the law, which makes them much more difficult to overcome. This is especially true because many people do not even know these obstacles exist in others, not to mention themselves. Even being equal before the law does not mean we are treated equally in practice, as any minority can attest, and this is the mindset that modern feminists try to attack. As humans, we have a tendency to group people and consider the group an individual belongs to rather than the qualities of that individual, not in an attempt to discriminate for the sake of discrimination, but simply for efficiency. Unfortunately, we no longer live in small groups of a few hundred. Our biology is not set up to tackle cities of thousands and millions, especially when a great number of groups are represented in the population. We have to fight against our "instincts" to be good modern humans. Feminism focuses on women and the problems they face, naturally, but the goals of feminism are good for men as individuals as well. When each individual person is responsible for him or herself, rather than automatically being expected to be attached to any number of other people, stress is lowered. Men should not be expected to sacrifice their health by working excessive hours just as much as women should not be expected to sacrifice their working lives for the possibility of having a family. Some people might make those choices for themselves; the key word there, however, is "choice" rather than simply doing what is expected. If more resources exist for women to escape violence in their families, or deal with physical and mental violence from coworkers or even strangers, it is because we have organized and created those resources or been able to convince the authorities that it makes sense to protect a vulnerable population. Also, the idea exists that women are more sensitive and in touch with their feelings than men, and more capable of using a network of people to support them, while men are go-it-alone types who do not need such help and who should never complain about difficulties. By breaking down that stereotype, we can allow men to access the same mental health support offered to women, without the disdain they commonly receive today. Things can change. Things do change. One failure of feminism has been the fact that, while women are more allowed into men's spaces, women's traditional spaces have not been given enough respect to be attractive or acceptable to men. Women can wear pants and nobody, except certain religious whackaloons, says anything about it, but if a man wears a skirt he is a rebel or a weirdo. We celebrate CEOs and scientific researchers who happen to be women, but suspect Mr. Brown the kindergarten teacher or Mr. Green the daycare provider to be pedophiles. We wonder, why would any man want to be around children, especially children who are not his own? We are still stuck with the idea that only women nurture and there is something terribly wrong with a man who does so.
Another problem with modern feminism, which has actually existed from the beginning of the movement, is the lack of attention paid to intersectionality by leaders of the movement. From the beginning, it has been for the benefit of women like me - white, educated, from an industrialized country and at least middle-class socioeconomic background. Not to mention heterosexual, able bodied and without any glaring mental illness. Women of color, women with disabilities, poor women and transwomen have felt themselves excluded from the movement, and some even refuse to use the term feminist when they agitate for greater equality, preferring to be called "womanists". They have legitimate complaints about the movement, but why would the people it most represents not be feminists? How can people who claim to believe in equal rights not accept the label of feminist? Some believe it is a term for a sort of activist, and if they do not participate in rallies or marches, or write letters and emails to their government representatives, they do not fit the description. Others have bought into the propaganda spread by social conservatives who use scare tactics to guide people away from all social justice movements. They claim feminism wants to simply reverse the social order, making men slaves to women. They see any recognition of the rights and inherent humanity of those not in their group as a reduction of their rights and humanity. The Leader has mentioned in many meetings that the powerful use the fears and obligations of the less powerful to maintain the status quo and continue the social hierarchy, and this is exactly what it happening. A leveling of social status is terrifying to those on top, not because they would then be on the bottom, but because they simply cannot conceive of those from lower strata is being as human as they are, and as deserving of respect.
Our Doctor began with the opinion that there was not much to discuss concerning the topic, since everybody agrees that we should be equal. He brought up the victim blaming so common when a woman is attacked or raped, not supporting it fully, but saying that provocative clothing does bring out certain instincts. He also reminded us that feminism is different in different areas of the world, which is certainly true, but given our circumstances we most likely should limit ourselves to its manifestation in the West. He admitted his perspective of women can only be from his own experiences, and ended his first speech with a rather romantic statement that women are the best thing in the world, so it makes to sense to discriminate against them. He gave us a more medical viewpoint next, explaining that biologically men and women are different animals. We have (some) different organs, our hormonal balances are different, bones develop in a different way, etc. Again, he fell into a romantic mood, describing the superiority of women in terms of physical resistance and intelligence. He also insisted that the law today tells us we are equal, but socially, he admitted, we still have some way to go. He later blamed money for the continued sexism in society, as it also promotes other social conflicts. Regarding us as individuals, he reminded us that our genetic code is unique, in all the universe. We do not understand each other because we do not even understand ourselves. We are looking for a perfect state of mind, an absence of passion, but so many factors influence our mental state that we are forever entrapped in our passions. One of his final thoughts was that reality is very unreal, a statement easily interpreted in a multitude of ways.
The True Philosopher does not consider himself an expert in the subject area, but came up with a short article pointing out some of the achievements and the obstacles still in our way. In the meeting, he told us that there is a noticeable difference in the popularity of feminism in different areas of his country. In rural areas, traditional gender roles are more strongly enforced, and influence from the West is minimal. Women's liberation is a non-issue. In cities like Manila, on the other hand, the movement does exist, I imagine with the same problems of class and social status that plague Western feminism. Interestingly, matriarchal societies do exist in Pacific island cultures, and even in the Philippines, ostensibly patriarchal, there are realms where the woman reigns and the man does not venture, for instance, regarding the marriage of children.
The Leader, too, did not profess great knowledge of feminism in particular, but has displayed strong opinions on social inequalities in general in the past. He questioned the success of the movement, first in writing, then in the meeting, pointing out that even so-called "wins" have had serious negative consequences for women, using maternity leave and its detrimental effect on the career as an example. He hammered away at the idea of male privilege in the workplace, insisting that men are favored because they are easier to manipulate, having to comply with the social image of the "family provider". The Leader suspects, perhaps more than just suspects, that married men are given more weight in the hiring and employment process because of their supposed greater responsibility. Furthermore, in those fields where women have entered with little difficulty, the reason is not that their qualifications were recognized but that men left the field, so that the gap had to be covered. This is most evident in wartime, at least in past wars when large numbers of men were shuffled off to the service. Women were allowed to take over the heavy lifting at home, even in the factories as famously promoted during World War II, but when the men came home it was back to the kitchen. He disagreed flatly about the importance of biological differences in regarding men and women. There are some obvious differences, but there are also obvious differences between individuals, which are really more important. People should be given what they need, or the means to get what they need, according to the Leader, and in the case of discrimination against women the blocking of access to health care is clearly wrong and inhumane. He is also aware of the problems feminism has in serving all women, even in a single country, and blames the lack of progress on the movement's attachment to political ideas instead of social ones.
A Sometime Participant spoke of the superficial changes that have been applied, but warning us that the public face that celebrates modern equality can be the private face that clings to old inequalities. Change does happen through all levels of society, but only little by little. Echoing the True Philosopher's observations on rural women, she stressed that claiming rights depends on education. For this reason, societies with higher levels of education might seem to be more unstable and less happy, because people are aware of what they can have and are demanding it. By extension, we can guess this is the reason some cultures wish certain groups, women in particular, to remain uneducated. The same could be said for the slave owners of the past, who punished those who dared to teach slaves to read. Finally, this participant wondered why the rates of domestic violence and rape are so high in such egalitarian countries as the Scandinavian ones, a question many ask simply as a gotcha. However, one reason may be just that a more egalitarian society encourages people to report abuses; they are confident that their complaints will be taken seriously and they will not be victimized again by police and other authorities.
The Educator did not much care for the bio-determinism from the Doctor, insisting that despite some physical differences, humans are more similar than dissimilar. Much of the trouble is our resistance to change, so all the prejudices of the past linger far longer than they should. Religious superstitions should be counted among those prejudices, for example the story of Eve and the serpent, which blames women for the hardships we suffer in our lives. To support her thesis of similarity, the Educator reminded us that when women have power, they are perfectly happy to start wars and be aggressive towards other countries. The problem is not having testicles, it is having power. Although some believe feminism to be an extremist movement, it is necessary in her opinion. Women suffer more poverty and abuse, even in "advanced" societies, and are objectified to sell other objects to men. Even if the reverse were to happen, the goal is to respect people, not turn them into things to have and use. She also fretted about the culture of beauty that women face every day, feeling pressure to use make-up, heels, and flattering clothes while men just have to show up. Other participants stated that they used make-up only because they enjoyed it, and the Leader told us it would behoove men to pay more attention to their grooming as well, not let everyone forget about it. In any case, the point is to respect people as entire individuals, not as the shells they parade around.
A Prodigal Participant remarked that the discussion really should even be necessary, since we theoretically agree that civil rights are due to everyone. We have to morally reject violence against women. He scolded us a little for our generalizations of men, saying that men do not get together to decide what the collective opinion on women is. Just a reminder of how easy it is to see an opponent as a monolith and all similar individuals as your opponents as well, no matter what their actual views may be.
The Seeker of Happiness believes that voting is the key to all social changes, if only we would exercise our right properly. He also thought that the general attitude of society that scorns children as unimportant in reality, meanwhile exulting them as all important in the abstract, is the major source of discrimination against women, since we are the ones who actually "produce" children. He, like the rest, insisted that the fight must continue, that we cannot allow resignation to overcome us, because there is still work to do. He is confident that the causes of violence and disrespect will be identified and eliminated in the future.
Saturday, May 9, 2015
my god, they're everywhere
Due to recent events, I couldn't let Idiot IPA pass by. In spite of the name, its own label describes it as a "intelligent brew", possibly referring to the sharpness of the taste. Five types of hops are used in its brewing, promising a complex blend of flavors. The label advertises "tropical fruit". We'll see about that.
The beer comes out a lovely golden color and gives off that typical citrusy IPA scent. The head is white and foamy, although quick to fade. The taste does not disappoint, if you're looking for a strong craft IPA flavor; the bitter rushes in with a tail end of sweetness, but it's mostly the bitter part that you'll remember. It has a powerful, mouth-filling feel, relaxing and refreshing. It's undeniably a craft IPA, and a good beer for the warm evenings that we're seeing now. While I can't identify much fruit beyond citrus, it's still a pleasant beer to sharpen one's wits with, or at least one's tongue.
Supplier: La Buena Cerveza
Price: €5.23
 |
| Sterner than the Starbucks mermaid |
Supplier: La Buena Cerveza
Price: €5.23
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Can We Understand the Oriental Mind?
It seems there is an angry lurker skulking around. Well, if people do not like what they read here, they can go write their own summaries. Ain't nuttin' official hereabouts.
We were privileged to have the presence of a group of Dutch philosophy students from the University of Amsterdam with us. They did not come all the way to Madrid just for the meeting, but they took the opportunity to drop in while they were visiting. Unfortunately, the Leader was not able to moderate this time around, so I got to wield the scepter, so to speak.
I was not terribly pleased with the topic, but neither was I with the previous one, which did not turn out badly. The problem I have with the title is that it seems dangerously close to an insulting and racist mindset, cleaving human minds into "Oriental" and ... whatever the other one should be. Actually, looking at it now, it does not necessarily limit the number of minds to two, but we do tend to think in a very binary way. There seems to be a risk of carving humans into groups and then thinking of those groups as monoliths, with every member perfectly interchangeable with any other member of the same group. Even in Asian cultures, where an individual's contribution to the group is more valuable than the individual's self, I assume people are aware that each person exists as a distinct individual. As usual, however, the context of the suggestion brings at least some clarity: in the previous meeting we had been discussing the possible interpretations of Bruce Lee's line, "Be water, my friend," which brought up the differences in worldview between Western countries and China, specifically. There were attempts to explain the differences in simple terms, but some people were left nagging doubts, evidently, and wanted to focus more time on that aspect. Still, the meta-question might be if any person can understand a worldview different from the one she was raised with, with the case of Eastern mentality for Westerners being an example. Otherwise, it sounds as if the Euro-American "mind" is the "natural" or "correct" one, and the "Oriental mind" is some sort of deliberate distortion or mutation, created simply to confuse us. Given this context, my inclination is to say that we cannot understand the "Oriental mind", but not because we lack the physical/intellectual capacity, rather it is because we just do not want to. Shifting a worldview, even for the purpose of gaining empathy with another human being, takes effort, and we are lazy. Humans want to expend as little effort as possible. However, the question can go on; many people do in fact study other cultures and worldviews, collecting vast amounts of information about them. After spending perhaps half of one's life immersed in that culture, is it fair to say this person lazily refuses to understand the hosts? Is it fair to say this person does understand the host culture, based only on the fact of physical presence in it? The key to a real answer is probably the definition of "understand" when the question is asked. If we limit the meaning to having data on hand, my answer stands. We have the possibility of understanding, but the constraints of time and energy in most cases prevent it. On the other hand, if understanding requires a deeper feeling, empathy and identification with the subject, then there are probably a great many things external to the cultures of our youth that we will never understand. Even when trying to insert ourselves into a different mindset, the values and expected behaviors are still being filtered through our internalized culture. Although we know intellectually that a particular behavior is perfectly acceptable or even desired in another culture, we feel free to reject it out of hand as "uncivilized" or "weird" based on the values we have been taught since birth. This is a difficulty that many people ignore, even, sadly, social scientists. Unless there is a way to consciously connect with some omniscient mind, we will probably have to live with the reality of our prejudices.
Our Doctor seemed quite pleased with the presence of so many visitors, especially with such young and eager minds. Part of his enjoyment is surely derived from the fact that all of his lines are heard for the first time by half the group, for the first time in a long time. He started with one of his favorites, "I am against everything." He explained that he has learned many things over his lifetime, and much of what he had learned turned out to be wrong. He advised us to be cautious about what gets called knowledge. Regarding the topic, he spoke first as a neurologist, saying that we do not even know what the mind is, much less specific categories of mind. Works of art as representations of culture are easy to understand; we feel immediately what a musician or painter wants to tell us. Words, however, are different. We must know the culture perfectly if we are to understand its words. He mused on changes in perspective over the recent decades, reminding us that Europe itself has smoothed out some differences, at least outwardly. Once North and South were a great divide; now they are less so, at least in theory. He also mentioned the internet as a tool of removing differences, pronouncing the arrival of a new cyber person. Thirty years ago, the topic would have been discussed in a very different way, although he did not go into detail about what differences there might have been. As he has been saying recently, he prescribed death for old legends and false philosophies, saying the future is where we are going and where we need to go.
The True Philosopher argued hard for the need to not limit our understanding to "minds", although he also insisted that there are noticeable differences in mentality, although the term "Oriental mind" might not be the most accurate. Today especially, the countries that we consider to be the seat of this worldview have been heavily Westernized, although they maintain a certain degree of their own traditions. The Philosopher's own country does not fall under his definition of Oriental, having been thoroughly colonized by the West, especially the US. Going back to what he had pointed out the week before, he emphasized the speculative nature of Eastern philosophy, and the close relationship, practically impossible to separate, this philosophy has with religion. He also mentioned a recent example of culture clash between East and West, in the form of Australian protest to the treatment given to the Bali 9, 8 of whom were executed in Indonesia. After others discussed the difficulties of language, he told us there were two aspects of philosophy, the discursive and the reflective. We cannot always express ourselves directly, and use metaphor as a tool for communication. Eastern philosophies, like Buddhism, use metaphor as a means of communicating a vision of reality, whereas Western philosophy relies more on argument. In response to a question about translations, he said we fail by using word for word translation, something many translators would agree with undoubtedly. Echoing the Leader, he warned us of confusing information with knowledge. While many Westerners have traveled to the East in the past, in order to gain an understanding of the culture and mindset, today many people rely exclusively on the ease of internet information. Information is not experience is not knowledge.
The Worldly Australian made an appearance, probably heeding the promise of young people in attendance. He is not exactly a patriot, saying his country has plenty of blood on its hands from the past, and its government's criticisms of other countries do not reflect the views of its citizens, nor do they make it easy or enjoyable for those citizens to spend their vacations in the criticized countries. One difference he saw between East and West is the respect for authority that is taught to members of Eastern cultures from birth, authority being anyone in a higher social position, or age group, with various combinations of those conditions involved. He later focused on a particular and rather widespread idea from Buddhism, that of non-attachment. The Australian could not bring himself to understand the ins and outs of leaving behind desire, saying it seemed like giving up any will to keep surviving. He also told us of a project he was assigned while in school, in which all of his class had to do research and a report on a foreign country. He chose the Netherlands, coincidentally, and was fascinated to discover how many differences existed between his country and that one. He believes that he enjoys and celebrates differences, while his government promotes that feeling in schoolchildren but at the same time does its best to squelch difference in the world. As for understanding any other mindset, we can delude ourselves into believing anything.
One of our visitors brought up the problem of translation, also asking if there are as many problems of translation when the writer is using a language not the native one. He prodded the Doctor a bit on some of his statements, to which the Doctor advised him not to believe in what he heard. The Doctor refused to define a good translation and warned us all to listen to words with care. Another visitor tried to defend language, saying we can only communicate with language, since experiences are not transferable between people. The first tried to return the discussion to the topic, saying the term "Oriental mind" seemed a crass generalization, a way of othering people when it suits us to emphasize differences and an excuse to lazily say we are not capable of understanding. If it is possible to understand any other mind, it is possible to understand all human minds, in spite of some having more barriers than others. Another feared our attempts to understand another culture would crush it in a sea of our own cultural identity rather than reveal to us the inner workings of something different.
The Seeker of Happiness took some small refuge in mathematics as a constant. If all cultures use the same mathematics, why should we not be able to understand them? Why have some universal means to convey meaning. One of our visitors wondered if mathematics was the best way to convey meaning, and what did not get mentioned is the fact that many languages/cultures use very different ways of counting and quantifying than we do.
An Inconsistent Participant returned to the problem of feeling in understanding. She did not believe herself competent to understand others when she cannot feel their experiences. Like the Doctor, she does not put her trust in the old necessarily, saying the traditions of ancient cultures act as chains on the free will of modern people, dragging everyone down. She commented on the use of so-called Eastern philosophy in self-help books, as something that is fashionable and exotic to us, but shorn of its deeper meanings.
The visitors left behind the topic for the next meeting; I imagine the same crank who is not happy about my summaries will fall into MRA talking points, so I can preemptively refer him to this. As a representative of the typical MRA mindset, it is clear that this person needs to be reminded of how humans normally interact in a world that is not created for the pleasure of a single group to the detriment of the rest. The need for adoration and worship regardless of any worth held or value provided is a mindset I will never understand.
We were privileged to have the presence of a group of Dutch philosophy students from the University of Amsterdam with us. They did not come all the way to Madrid just for the meeting, but they took the opportunity to drop in while they were visiting. Unfortunately, the Leader was not able to moderate this time around, so I got to wield the scepter, so to speak.
I was not terribly pleased with the topic, but neither was I with the previous one, which did not turn out badly. The problem I have with the title is that it seems dangerously close to an insulting and racist mindset, cleaving human minds into "Oriental" and ... whatever the other one should be. Actually, looking at it now, it does not necessarily limit the number of minds to two, but we do tend to think in a very binary way. There seems to be a risk of carving humans into groups and then thinking of those groups as monoliths, with every member perfectly interchangeable with any other member of the same group. Even in Asian cultures, where an individual's contribution to the group is more valuable than the individual's self, I assume people are aware that each person exists as a distinct individual. As usual, however, the context of the suggestion brings at least some clarity: in the previous meeting we had been discussing the possible interpretations of Bruce Lee's line, "Be water, my friend," which brought up the differences in worldview between Western countries and China, specifically. There were attempts to explain the differences in simple terms, but some people were left nagging doubts, evidently, and wanted to focus more time on that aspect. Still, the meta-question might be if any person can understand a worldview different from the one she was raised with, with the case of Eastern mentality for Westerners being an example. Otherwise, it sounds as if the Euro-American "mind" is the "natural" or "correct" one, and the "Oriental mind" is some sort of deliberate distortion or mutation, created simply to confuse us. Given this context, my inclination is to say that we cannot understand the "Oriental mind", but not because we lack the physical/intellectual capacity, rather it is because we just do not want to. Shifting a worldview, even for the purpose of gaining empathy with another human being, takes effort, and we are lazy. Humans want to expend as little effort as possible. However, the question can go on; many people do in fact study other cultures and worldviews, collecting vast amounts of information about them. After spending perhaps half of one's life immersed in that culture, is it fair to say this person lazily refuses to understand the hosts? Is it fair to say this person does understand the host culture, based only on the fact of physical presence in it? The key to a real answer is probably the definition of "understand" when the question is asked. If we limit the meaning to having data on hand, my answer stands. We have the possibility of understanding, but the constraints of time and energy in most cases prevent it. On the other hand, if understanding requires a deeper feeling, empathy and identification with the subject, then there are probably a great many things external to the cultures of our youth that we will never understand. Even when trying to insert ourselves into a different mindset, the values and expected behaviors are still being filtered through our internalized culture. Although we know intellectually that a particular behavior is perfectly acceptable or even desired in another culture, we feel free to reject it out of hand as "uncivilized" or "weird" based on the values we have been taught since birth. This is a difficulty that many people ignore, even, sadly, social scientists. Unless there is a way to consciously connect with some omniscient mind, we will probably have to live with the reality of our prejudices.
Our Doctor seemed quite pleased with the presence of so many visitors, especially with such young and eager minds. Part of his enjoyment is surely derived from the fact that all of his lines are heard for the first time by half the group, for the first time in a long time. He started with one of his favorites, "I am against everything." He explained that he has learned many things over his lifetime, and much of what he had learned turned out to be wrong. He advised us to be cautious about what gets called knowledge. Regarding the topic, he spoke first as a neurologist, saying that we do not even know what the mind is, much less specific categories of mind. Works of art as representations of culture are easy to understand; we feel immediately what a musician or painter wants to tell us. Words, however, are different. We must know the culture perfectly if we are to understand its words. He mused on changes in perspective over the recent decades, reminding us that Europe itself has smoothed out some differences, at least outwardly. Once North and South were a great divide; now they are less so, at least in theory. He also mentioned the internet as a tool of removing differences, pronouncing the arrival of a new cyber person. Thirty years ago, the topic would have been discussed in a very different way, although he did not go into detail about what differences there might have been. As he has been saying recently, he prescribed death for old legends and false philosophies, saying the future is where we are going and where we need to go.
The True Philosopher argued hard for the need to not limit our understanding to "minds", although he also insisted that there are noticeable differences in mentality, although the term "Oriental mind" might not be the most accurate. Today especially, the countries that we consider to be the seat of this worldview have been heavily Westernized, although they maintain a certain degree of their own traditions. The Philosopher's own country does not fall under his definition of Oriental, having been thoroughly colonized by the West, especially the US. Going back to what he had pointed out the week before, he emphasized the speculative nature of Eastern philosophy, and the close relationship, practically impossible to separate, this philosophy has with religion. He also mentioned a recent example of culture clash between East and West, in the form of Australian protest to the treatment given to the Bali 9, 8 of whom were executed in Indonesia. After others discussed the difficulties of language, he told us there were two aspects of philosophy, the discursive and the reflective. We cannot always express ourselves directly, and use metaphor as a tool for communication. Eastern philosophies, like Buddhism, use metaphor as a means of communicating a vision of reality, whereas Western philosophy relies more on argument. In response to a question about translations, he said we fail by using word for word translation, something many translators would agree with undoubtedly. Echoing the Leader, he warned us of confusing information with knowledge. While many Westerners have traveled to the East in the past, in order to gain an understanding of the culture and mindset, today many people rely exclusively on the ease of internet information. Information is not experience is not knowledge.
The Worldly Australian made an appearance, probably heeding the promise of young people in attendance. He is not exactly a patriot, saying his country has plenty of blood on its hands from the past, and its government's criticisms of other countries do not reflect the views of its citizens, nor do they make it easy or enjoyable for those citizens to spend their vacations in the criticized countries. One difference he saw between East and West is the respect for authority that is taught to members of Eastern cultures from birth, authority being anyone in a higher social position, or age group, with various combinations of those conditions involved. He later focused on a particular and rather widespread idea from Buddhism, that of non-attachment. The Australian could not bring himself to understand the ins and outs of leaving behind desire, saying it seemed like giving up any will to keep surviving. He also told us of a project he was assigned while in school, in which all of his class had to do research and a report on a foreign country. He chose the Netherlands, coincidentally, and was fascinated to discover how many differences existed between his country and that one. He believes that he enjoys and celebrates differences, while his government promotes that feeling in schoolchildren but at the same time does its best to squelch difference in the world. As for understanding any other mindset, we can delude ourselves into believing anything.
One of our visitors brought up the problem of translation, also asking if there are as many problems of translation when the writer is using a language not the native one. He prodded the Doctor a bit on some of his statements, to which the Doctor advised him not to believe in what he heard. The Doctor refused to define a good translation and warned us all to listen to words with care. Another visitor tried to defend language, saying we can only communicate with language, since experiences are not transferable between people. The first tried to return the discussion to the topic, saying the term "Oriental mind" seemed a crass generalization, a way of othering people when it suits us to emphasize differences and an excuse to lazily say we are not capable of understanding. If it is possible to understand any other mind, it is possible to understand all human minds, in spite of some having more barriers than others. Another feared our attempts to understand another culture would crush it in a sea of our own cultural identity rather than reveal to us the inner workings of something different.
The Seeker of Happiness took some small refuge in mathematics as a constant. If all cultures use the same mathematics, why should we not be able to understand them? Why have some universal means to convey meaning. One of our visitors wondered if mathematics was the best way to convey meaning, and what did not get mentioned is the fact that many languages/cultures use very different ways of counting and quantifying than we do.
An Inconsistent Participant returned to the problem of feeling in understanding. She did not believe herself competent to understand others when she cannot feel their experiences. Like the Doctor, she does not put her trust in the old necessarily, saying the traditions of ancient cultures act as chains on the free will of modern people, dragging everyone down. She commented on the use of so-called Eastern philosophy in self-help books, as something that is fashionable and exotic to us, but shorn of its deeper meanings.
The visitors left behind the topic for the next meeting; I imagine the same crank who is not happy about my summaries will fall into MRA talking points, so I can preemptively refer him to this. As a representative of the typical MRA mindset, it is clear that this person needs to be reminded of how humans normally interact in a world that is not created for the pleasure of a single group to the detriment of the rest. The need for adoration and worship regardless of any worth held or value provided is a mindset I will never understand.
Saturday, May 2, 2015
don't hog it
The art comic label can't help but draw the eye, and I couldn't help but pick up the bottle. Monsieur Gordo purports to have just what I'm looking for, since I'm in the mood for a good dark beer, with just a touch of sweet. The label gives interesting suggestions, like consuming within the next 30 years, unless it's worth more than you paid for it, in which case you should sell this bottle right now.
It seems thicker than even a normal stout while pouring into the glass. Also, the head is light but fizzy. There's a little fruity sweetness in the air around it. It's just barely dark brown instead of black, but that's good enough for me. The beer is thick and smooth in the mouth, the texture being more noticeable to me than the flavor at first, but the mild sweetness does surface pretty quickly. It's not an identifiable flavor to me, not like apple or honey that I've found in other beers, but tasty of course. It might be a little heavy for the temperatures of the moment, although I personally would have stout anytime anywhere. It does get a little sticky towards the end, but that's to be expected. It remains tasty to the end, more sweet than stouty bitter, a nice dessert in a glass.
Supplier: La Birratorium
Price: €3.75
 |
| Also, don't consume with fast food |
 |
| Are those...sentient triangles at the bottom? |
Supplier: La Birratorium
Price: €3.75
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)