The Meaning of -ism

The suffix -ism is used to name a concept or school of thought, often with either a scientific sense behind it, or a dogmatic one.  We often attach lofty ideology to words with this suffix, due to their prevalence in religion and philosophy, although there are more trivial uses as well.  When a word or phrase can be identified as representing a particular person's thoughts or manner of speaking, that person's name can become an -ism.  This is the case with malapropisms, spoonerisms, and more recently, Bushisms.  These uses of language are obviously not used to promote the misunderstandings, arrogance, or possible disability of the speaker, but simply identifying the mannerism, often in a humorous way.  In medicine too we find the suffix at work, in terms such as autism, coined to refer to "morbid self-admiration".  While the Source had the feeling that -ism words have developed a distinctly negative tone over the last century, it seems to me that the people attached to those -isms, the -ists, are the ones who are labeled as being negative.  When calling somebody a solipsist, a socialist, or a misanthropist, we are pointing out an assumed, or demonstrated allegiance to the philosophies or ideologies of the corresponding -isms.  While we do have some examples of positive -ists, philanthropist for one, when looking for an insult that dumps the target into a group of unthinking clods, -ist is the go-to suffix.  One might wonder if this is because of the religious connection, as most religions well know to us are -isms, with Christianity and Islam being notable exceptions.  There, too, we see the abstract concept as, at least more or less, neutral, while the Christianist or Islamist is a rabid ideologue, incapable of rational analysis and only acting on some emotional drive to commit violence and subdue others.  The blind allegiance is also referenced by those who speak of evolutionists, saying that the evidence for this particular process is either unconvincing or fraudulent, so those who believe it must be religiously faithful to it.  In general, the -ism has a noble ring about it, calling to other words in high registers of language.  I would argue that its meaning is merely that, giving a formal term for a set of ideas, without passing value judgements on it.  -Ist, on the other hand...

The Source gave the definition as generally being a suffix to indicate a school of thought.  It can be found to label social movements and political philosophies, historical concepts somewhat solidified.  However, in his opinion, the concepts of the last century have been increasingly negative, with perhaps too much assertiveness.  The use of the -ism suffix has fallen into a habit of denoting a powerful idea, which necessarily preys on weaker ideas, just as powerful people use the idea to prey on the weak.

The Leader saw another opportunity to attack the manipulation of information through the language used.  It is a topic he finds hidden in quite a few subjects.  He noted that there was some sort of boom in -isms in the mid 20th century, most likely because more people had access to higher learning and information than ever before, and more discoveries were being made and lines of thought being plumbed, necessitating new terminology.  Any modern negativity attached to an -ism comes from a select few examples and in no way reflects the group as a whole.  He lamented the need for labeling extreme ideologies, or at least their importance in the general lives of people, saying it is a sign that the middle ground has been defiled and worn away.  Finally, he repeated the opinion that the suffix does not in itself transmit negativity, it is only the association with oft repeated terms that taints it, and this repetition can be part of the manipulation of the public carried out by the authority.  The very abstractness of the -ism makes it easy to theorize over without considering human costs.  The term can easily be found in a library or google searches, but the real lives taking part in it are harder to see, or even actively hidden.

It was not the best meeting, there being very little participation and few contributors to the discussion.  The group is definitely at a low point.

Anti-Social Behavior

I did not even want to discuss this topic, but the list of choices was looking anorexic, so I threw it on to fill it out a bit.  Rather to my surprise, a bunch of dumbasses voted for it.  What a bunch of maroons!  Now, would those comments be considered anti-social?  Let us consider.  Like many psychological and behavior terms, there are two uses for anti-social: the clinical; and the colloquial.  Colloquially, an anti-social person does not want to participate in social activity out of disinterest, shyness or distraction.  Clinically, an anti-social person does not only not participate, but attacks society.  This is true of almost all "antis".  The anti-war protester shouts, marches, and perhaps vandalizes a few recruiting centers.  The anti-choice advocate screams at women trying to get health care, bombarding them with gruesome images, and on occasions even going so far as to threaten health care providers.  The anti-communist demands blacklists and witch hunts.  This aggression leaves the anti-violence adherent in an interesting position.  So, when one is clinically anti-social, there must be an attack on society, or at least some social mores.  There may be a long-term agenda behind it, or it may be a form of vandalism, but it is always an attempt to alter society in a fundamental way.  Anti-social individuals exist, although they may have little influence.  On the other hand, some groups mat get labeled anti-social when they are trying to create a change that they perceive as for the better; still, under this broad definition, they are working to modify society in a way that may affect every member in it, usually with a requisite change in social values.  In that way, they are technically anti-social, or at least anti-current-society.  I find the topic to be one of more psychological root than philosophical.  We did, however, attempt to make meaningful connections in the discussion.

The Leader had little to say previously, but in the meeting did say that the question of intent is the real philosophical question to deal with.  While we agreed that anti-social behavior is an attack on social norms, the Leader was adamant that the motivation be more petty and distinguishable from mere illegal activity, thereby protecting protesters for better values from being lumped in.  Even acting in a violent way might be a reaction to violence committed previously, and even justified.  He questioned our education in etiquette, saying that people have to be taught to behave properly, we do not simply acquire manners in a vacuum.

The Actress shared a memory of her parents refusing to open their door when visitors appeared, saying that it might be considered anti-social to pretend one is not at home just because a visitor is not expected.  However, she had come to think that they might have had some justification after living through a war, and were living through their trauma still.  Vandalism was brought up as an example of anti-social behavior with few real consequences, and she wondered if the great privileges some enjoy could not be considered social vandalism.

A Returning Participant gave the example of graffiti as a lack of respect for others and a mild attack on the social idea of private property.  She also mentioned squatters as examples of anti-social behavior, but like the Leader, admitted that they might be justified in their actions when the general situation does not allow them any other recourse.  She also admitted the possibility of positive actions being considered anti-social, if they are not in the interests of the powerful.  The taking over of empty lots for gardens and public use might miff the higher-ups, but who could deny that these are actions with good intentions behind them?  She agreed that education was the key to promoting pro-social behavior, and wondered why governments were not very interested in establishing programs to disseminate it.  Authorities could also take an active role in keeping society fluid by constant mixing, preventing the solidification into strata that treat each other with disdain, mistrust and fear.

Intefacing With Technology

There seems to be a sort of love/hate relationship going on between humans and their technology.  I use the possessive because technology is clearly a human invention, something created by us and not anything that magically appears out of nowhere that we just pick up and use.  We always fear the affect of making us less human, and that is reflected in literature and film.  We wax nostalgic for "the good old days" when we lived more "naturally" and "in tune with nature".  While it is understandable and reasonable to be suspicious of changes, especially ones we put in motion ourselves, we forget that our nostalgia is removed from the realities of the past.  Much like anti-vaxxers insisting on the benefits of "natural immunization" and refusing to accept the facts of spectacular infant death rates in the past, people cling to the idea that modern technology separates us from others and insulates us from society, rather than helping us navigate it more efficiently.  But let us first specify what is meant by "technology".  We often seem to limit the definition to Information Technology, and occasionally include medical machines, but really technology is any tool that helps us do things better, whether faster, more efficiently, or at all, as in the case of airplanes.  True, the ultimate purpose of the airplane is to travel from one place to another, which we have always done by other means, but not by leaving the ground and traveling at astounding speeds.  Even our clothing can be considered technology.  How do we maintain comfortable body temperature?  How do we protect ourselves from the elements?  How can we show our allegiance to various groups at a glance?  Articles of clothing can serve these purposes, and we create ways of producing them as well as new materials for them to those ends, among others.  Perhaps the best way to interact with technology is to forget that it is such an alien and frightening thing as "technology" to begin with.

The Actress recalled hearing predictions about great changes in communication before the turn of the millennium, saying that at the time they seemed crazy.  Today, almost everything predicted has come to pass.  She took a critical stance on modern technology and our relationship to it, focusing on the frustrations it provokes.  For example, she once saw a man toss his computer out the window while she was walking down a London street.  Although she was not aware of the exact circumstances that lead to this action, we can suppose that simple difficulties with the technology are to blame, as we ourselves have certainly suffered similar situations.  The Actress also criticized the  laziness modern technology can appear to promote, as watching television relaxes the brain, while reading makes it work (according to some studies) and emails are sloppily pounded out, whereas writing a letter required more attention.  She was also suspicious of emails as being easy to fake, while a letter had a clear writer and sender, in her view.  The connectivity of email providers also puts our privacy at risk, not only under "legitimate"government surveillance for security, but under anyone who decides they want to poke into somebody else's life.

The Leader put a lot of energy into the topic, having been a victim of technological troubles himself.  He emphasized that we are completely dependent on technology for our survival.  It is an extension of ourselves even as it can be physically separate.  Not only physical tools are technology, but abstractions like language can be considered as such, in that it is a way of making our lives better.  It is also a method of discrimination, like other sets of knowledge; being unknowledgeable about certain technologies condemns us to a lower standard of living, just as not speaking certain languages leads to exclusion.  Technology both drives and is driven by evolution, as we have to keep adapting to what we have and improvements and new ideas are presented, under the guise of making our lives better, but often with the real purpose of improving profit margins.  We still maintain some separation from our tools, but also romantically think of them as being "perfect" and much more reliable than people.  When things go wrong, we attribute it to "human error" as often as possible.  The Leader reminded us that appliances and electronics used to come with manuals and instruction booklets.  Today we have to search for guidance on the internet, since everyone is expected to have access to it, and the Leader was also of the opinion that the technology itself was supposed to be intuitive and not need so much self-training.  We might think children have a natural ability to use new technology, but for the most part it is merely the fact that they have access to it at an early age when we are most focused on learning life skills.  The Leader lamented that basic interfacing is not taught specifically in schools, at least as a matter of course.  He also pointed out a misunderstanding about our access to knowledge: we can find out information quickly, faster than ever before, but it is merely abstract information, not knowledge or know-how.  It is the latter that truly allows us to live well.  We learn to evaluate the information, or at least we should, and decide which Google result is the most appropriate to use.  As for the surveillance, while we might be uneasy about our lack of privacy, we can also rest assured that the very government that collects information is easily hacked and actively leaked through those same means.  Interfacing with technology is getting into the spirit of our age, and using its language.  We are encouraged to improve and grow.  Technology that works as it should is never a problem, rather when it does not work.

An On-and-Off Participant gave an example of attempting to idiot proof technology, even a very old one that we should be familiar with by now.  This example was the instruction to wear new canvas boots on feet.  While it is true that we are overguided in our using technology, this is less a function of our incompetence with it and more that of the social willingness to make others responsible for our mistakes.  He was not convinced by the title, thinking "coming to terms" spoke more to how we feel about modern technology.  In his opinion we are not coming to terms with modern technology, we are falling more and more into a trap of giving away information and losing our individuality.  This Participant also was troubled by the amount of surveillance the authorities are capable to doing on individuals, in fact he quipped that we are anonymous to ourselves, while our governments know everything.

Another Sometime Visitor remarked that the annoyances of past technologies, such as spam mail, have not stopped or been reduced by new technologies.  If our problems are human problems, mere technology will not solve them, this harkening back to the Leader's description of technology as an extension of ourselves.  The Visitor noted, somewhat darkly, that our social interactions have changed dramatically and forever.  Yet, we have achieved something people have been searching for ever since we realized our own mortality - even if the body dies, Facebook is forever, and our profiles with it.

The Animal In Us

We humans like to think of ourselves as rational and critically thinking animals.  Actually, we usually do not like to think of ourselves as animals at all; the whole point of the expression is that we are something more than mere animals and any similarity is some left-over evolution has not yet eliminated.  The "animal" is the part of us that behaves without thinking, acting on instinct instead of planning out and considering consequences.  For some people, this is a handy excuse to do whatever they want without any risk of punishment, or at least serious punishment.  "I couldn't help it," they plead, "It was my animal instinct!"  They seek the safety of lack of responsibility.  We do not judge animals to be responsible for their actions; with very few exceptions, animals are not considered criminal and are not put on trial or expected to pay for what they do.  By giving in to the animal, a person is no longer in control of him/herself, and therefore not responsible.  However, things are not this simple, nor should they be.  For one thing, we do not just let animals that cause us harm or even mere bother to continue doing what they want or naturally do.  A dog that attacks a person is put down.  A bear that habitually wanders into town might be shot.  A fly gets swatted.  We do not put up with any trouble from other animals.  Other humans are given much more consideration, even when their actions are much more damaging and, moreover, intentional.  Even a serial murderer is not guaranteed treatment in kind, although it is not terribly unlikely.  By appealing to the animal, a person might try to get the best of both worlds, so to speak, in that we might accept the explanation of lack of control and also refrain from simply killing the person, probably because belonging to the human race gives us hope for better self-control in the future, besides our natural soft spot for those like us.  Being compared to an animal as a whole is generally considered insulting, although there are a number of exceptions.  At the same time, partial resemblance to animals can be considered a good thing in many cultures, as animals represent different strengths and weaknesses based on our observations of them.  People speak of totems or spirit animals.  However, these animals do not represent the whole person, but merely one aspect of the whole, or a goal to strive for in what they represent.  The animal in us becomes an ideal to emulate and to incorporate into the crazy quilt of our greater personalities.

The Source was typically spiritual in his explanation of the topic.  He had originally considered only the arrogance of believing ourselves to be "more" than animals, especially when those who insist so fiercely on this idea are often those who display the most "animalistic" behavior.  In this case, the Source was referring specifically to the habit of shouting down opponents that can be seen so often, for example in politicians.  The urge to fight against agreeing to disagree does not seem proper to him.  He felt that attempts to convince others of one's own rightness were displays of violence, cheating us out of discovering information for ourselves.  While there are undeniably abusive ways of trying to convince others to change their opinions, it is also true that some ideas are worth defending loudly and rudely, and allowing others to wallow in apathy and ignorance does nobody any favors.  To give an example, ideas about universal human rights and civil rights often need to be vigorously discussed, lest they be trampled by blithe privilege.

There were comments defending animals as well-behaved, even bordering on superhumanly wise, due to the lack of war, sport killing or other excesses in their behavior.  It is true that wild animals tend to be svelte, but a look at many domestic animals shows them overeating the same way their owners do.  One could argue that this is due to human influence, but it is more likely a simple outcome of the instinct all animals have to eat when food is available.  There was then discussion about the power we humans have to know that food will be available to us tomorrow, but others pointed out that many people are not in a position to know where their next meal is coming from.  We might have the mental capacity to plan, but not all of us live in societies that allow plans to come about undisturbed.

The Educator was almost impatient when speaking of the differences between humans and animals, or more precisely, the lack thereof.  She stated flatly that we are animals for better or worse, and no philosophical finagling would change that fact.  We are without a doubt the dominant species, being able to train others to do our bidding and enclosing them in zoos and circuses for our amusement.  Still, there are more similarities than some might be comfortable with.  We often speak of language as purely human, but animals also communicate, perhaps even with rudimentary languages based on sound.  Animals can create complex structures such as birds' nests and insect dwellings.  Some animals even farm their food; some ants cultivate fungi in their nests while others have herds of aphids to produce "milk" for them.  She also brought up the symbolic animals first in the meeting, mentioning their use in folk tales and fables.  Later on, she was reminded of the Chinese zodiac with its animal years.  Also, the idea that labeling people with animal terms removes their humanity troubled her, as we know what happens when groups of people are thought of as "dumb animals" and "subhuman".  Looking back over history, she wondered if slave owners were able to see their slaves as belonging to the same species as they.

The True Philosopher spent a little time turning the concept on its head, laying out the idea that we are actually worse than other animals because we have mental capacities that we use stupidly and selfishly.  What we label animal behavior is the most human thing we have.  Although he did blame us for our prideful destruction of our own environments and general cruelty, he took pains to emphasize that it is a "natural" outcome, what evolution has allowed us to develop.  The traits that have helped us survive as a species seem to come with the price of pride and arrogance.  He said, jokingly, that rather than evolution we have experienced "devolution", as we find ourselves more and more separate from nature and our roots, perhaps to our eventual detriment.

The Leader had written about the problem of dumping negative human behaviors into the animal category, and spoke also about the ever-present language problem.  We might say someone behaves "like an animal" but we are also aware of the intentionality of that person's behavior, something which we do not generally assign to animals, as previously mentioned.  We have overcome evolution, or perhaps been fooled by it, as we have the capacity to learn and adapt consciously, rather than waiting for the species as a whole to develop characteristics that promote survival.  In this, we seem to be different, and perhaps better suited for survival, than other animals.  He was not convinced by the argument of violence in the attempt to convince others proposed by the Source, saying there is a clear difference between politics and normal conversation.  He admitted that killing is a natural phenomenon, and unavoidable as practically every living thing must kill in order to survive; however, we humans can and perhaps should hold ourselves to a higher standard because we know we can find alternatives when basic survival is not at stake.  As science advances, it may be that we do not even have to kill to eat.  The bottom line is that we consider animals to act without reasoning, so any irrational behavior on the part of a human can be labeled "animal", even if the behavior taken by itself has nothing to do with any action any animal in its right mind would take.

Talking Too Much

This is not a topic I voted for.  For one thing, it comes off as a vulgar and simplistic statement, and for another, everyone knows why it was proposed.  While the nature of the meeting allows everyone to speak her mind, it also has the weakness that some participants abuse the privilege.  Monologues tend to drag down the energy of the group and impede discussion, especially when they are essentially hot air empty of substance.  However, we must also remember the subjectivity of "too much".  All it means is an amount that one person is bothered by.  When a person we like talks for a long time, we find ways to enjoy what is said, either because we find it interesting or amusing, or because we care about how that person feels regarding her powers of communication.  On the other hand, a person we do not like much or at all does not have to talk for a long time at all to be considered to be talking too much.  Two words from somebody we despise are two words too many.  At the heart of it, the question is really about human interaction.  How can we moderate ourselves to avoid boring and frustrating others, and how can we tolerate others' lack of respect for our time?  How can we reach a point where, even if not everyone can be entertained, nobody is upset or angered by the flow of the conversation?  Unfortunately, there needs to be a minimum of respect for these questions to have any answer, and there are situations where that requirement is simply not met.  Resentment and mistrust have ways of making us behave in unfriendly ways, especially when mixed with entitlement and lack of self-awareness.  Sometimes the best option is to cut off all contact with a bad conversationalist.  It will be better for everyone's nerves in the end.  There is also a less subjective interpretation of the phrase, although still not entirely objective, which is its use to refer to giving away secrets.  There is still no total objectivity, however, because it remains for the listener to put two and two together from the information accidentally given.  Mostly, talking too much in this sense causes more suspicion than it gives away real secrets, but as in the previous interpretation, negative feelings are enough to warrant being upset about careless words.

The Source explained that he had been noticing too much talking in many places, not the least of which among campaigning politicians.  With the amount of talk and speech essential to the job, he felt they should be able to be more concise.  He also admitted the main problem of subjectivity, saying he himself was probably talking too much for some people.  He suggested we in our meetings have more feedback from the audience to get an idea of how our ideas are going over, which got some chuckles, but is really too complicated to implement in what is supposed to be a free-speaking group.  He tried to give more shape to the feeling of excess, saying taking too much time to speak is usually the fault of needing to organize one's thoughts.  If one is not prepared before beginning to speak, it is easy to waste time with unnecessary explanations or lose one's train of thought.  Again, he proposed feedback as a useful tool for organization of thoughts, or encouragement to do so.  It also encourages the audience to pay more attention to the speaker in any case, since they know they will be allowed to make their opinions known.  Giving feedback is evidence of interest, and the opportunity to do so can be a stimulus of interest as well.  He finished by emphasizing the limits on our time, both in the meeting specifically and in life, and asked for respect when taking such a precious resource.

A Returned Participant mused on the lack of substance in too much talk.  She also pointed to politicians as prime examples of this behavior, and also reminded us of another trick they use: commandeering terms and controlling the discussion.  In some ways this reflects our view of talking too much, in that there is little real information in what is being said, but it is also a way to shut opponents' mouths rather than allow one's own time to speak.  She identified talking as a basic need of humanity as a form of communication, but also said that there are many registers of speech, not all of which need much time to be used.  Our daily communication, just keeping in touch with those around us, tends to be simple and repetitive.  On the other hand, scientific language can use up a lot of oxygen or ink, but it is also more detailed and informative.  We need to have an interest in understanding the language being used for it to be useful to us, however.  The Participant insisted that most people do develop the ability to read an audience and at least know how well they are communicating, even if they do not find ways to salvage a failing speech.  We should be able to see the engagement of the audience when we are speaking well and usefully; if we do not see any engagement, we should reevaluate our speech tactics.

The Leader also explained the personal interpretation inherent in the expression - it is a negative impression of the person speaking, not just the amount of time spent listening.  Still, he noted one advantage of allowing people to speak as much as they want, especially in politics and business, this being our tendency to reveal information accidentally or speak too honestly about our opinions.  In part, we can blame the stress of having to communicate under the circumstances set by politics and business, but there is also a certain fear or discomfort when we are in silence.  We fill "uncomfortable silences" in conversations with empty chatter, just to fill the space in our ears left by empty air.  The Leader conceded that there may be situations in which a person seems to be talking to much, but is justified, perhaps by a mental problem that impedes social interaction.  Again, he stated the way we measure the excess is not in terms of time, but in terms of the effect the words have.  There are also cultural differences, of course, with different standards for use of speech and timing.

The Educator had also observed this terror before moments of silence and the compulsion people have to fill it.  We try to eliminate any gap in conversation, ignoring or not realizing that silence and listening are the keys to communication.  Besides words, we must be aware of body language, as it can communicate more efficiently and honestly that our verbal language.  Problems with excessive speech are problems of awareness and sensitivity.  Even when people reveal too much in their talk, in situations where it is desirable like gossip shows, we might feel uncomfortable receiving the information, rather than entertained.  We should put more value on our words, and ask ourselves if what we have to say really adds anything to existence.

Alien Life

The only philosophy I see in this topic is what it means for our view of ourselves and our place in the universe.  Many people have the firm belief that we are special beings, unique in all of existence, the only "intelligent" species.  For believers, the fact that we have no proof of any other worlds full of living things means that their god(s) have created us and us alone, and we are the special snowflakes of all of creation.  Of course, there are also believers who are open to and even excited about the idea of extraterrestrial life, saying it would prove the glory and power of their god.  Non-believers are in a similar position in terms of accepting or not the possibilities of alien life.  We might be anomalies in the universe, or nature might be so fruitful as to have other species somewhere, the like of which we have never dreamed of.  Alternatively, they could be very much like us.  In fact, some experts warn of this exact thing, since the traits that have lead humanity to the top of the food chain would logically also be found in successful species from other worlds, assuming they have had to adapt to similar conditions as we have.  What traits would those be?  Well, creativity, sociability and cooperativeness are often considered human traits, and necessary for our cultural advancement.  However, we are also aggressive, warlike, competitive.  We discriminate and divide our species, sometimes in ways that seem almost arbitrary in their uselessness or outdatedness.  An extraterrestrial that comes in contact with us will probably have traveled on its own here, thus showing a higher level of technology than we have.  We know what happens when we run into civilizations with less technology.  There might be attempts to create agreements and partnerships, especially if we have some resources the aliens need, but in all likelihood there will be conflict and perhaps conquest.  We worry enough about cultural differences in our own species; do we really think we could deal with a truly alien culture?

The Leader agreed that aliens we might run into are probably aggressive, much as we are.  He was somewhat more interested in the search for alien life and the science driving in than in the ramifications of its discovery.  He distinguished between finding proof of life outside our world and actually meeting representatives of that life, also making the point that they would likely consider us savages compared to themselves.  He linked two podcasts in his blurb, summing them up as asking what the point of searching only for life was, since we gain nothing from the mere knowledge that something exists.  Even if we were to meet an alien life form, how could we communicate?  Can we assume that they would use language in the way we do?  On the other hand, we may find evidence of an alien civilization on another planet, but one which has not advanced enough to have developed technology to contact us.  They may not even know we have come across them, depending on what technology we are using at that point.  A further possibility is that we discover the remains of a civilization, one which flourished in the past but by the time we come to it has been long gone.  Even on our own planet we find archaeological sites for which we have no explanations.  For those who doubt any other intelligent life could exist, he said that the fact we do exist means the probabilities are greater than zero.  The probability of making contact is another issue, nevertheless.  Going back to language and communication, we have no way of knowing how their perception could function.  Human beings have a rather limited range of perception of light and sound; many other species just on earth are far superior to us in those areas.  It may be that the narrowing of focus gives us other advantages and forces us to be more creative, hence an alien species would be similarly limited, but what if they are operating in a different level?  Furthermore, we have to take distance into account.  In the neighborhood of our world, we simply have not found any evidence of advanced lifeforms, so if they exist at all, they are probably far away.  If we have trouble getting to them, we can assume they also have trouble getting to us.  Some mentioned wormholes as methods of transportation, but the Leader was unconvinced, saying there is simply no empirical evidence of them working in that way.  Of course, we do know that life in a general sense exists off of the earth, since viruses and bacteria can survive on comets and meteors.  The Leader was impressed by their hardiness, labeling them "genius" lifeforms.  He closed by saying the universe is too big for there to be no other life; so big, in fact, that it does not even matter.  Why should we worry about getting to other planets or have their citizens come here, when it is bad enough getting home from our meeting place?

The Returned Participant was hopeful that we would be accepting of alien life, and thought its existence to be the more likely thing.  Those who doubt have a provincial point of view.  Although we normally think of encountering intelligent life, we should remember that even unicellular organisms are alive.  She also pointed out the lack of evidence for highly evolved life and civilizations on other planets, saying we have only theories and science fiction.  Still, we are always making new discoveries and reevaluating what we already know.

The Deep Thinker was more optimistic about the character and intentions of possible interplanetary travelers, theorizing that the advances in technology they have made could only be possible if they have also found a way to tone down or even do away with aggression and violence.  The meeting could be the most important event in human history, if we are prepared to take advice from the aliens on peace and appreciation of life.  It would be a great opportunity to rethink our place in the universe.  As for distance, it was the Deep Thinker who first brought up the wormholes, and he also mentioned communication through radio waves.

The Educator insisted too that we cannot be the only forms of intelligent life in the universe.  We may be rare examples, lucky enough to have planets with the resources we have, but with the quantity of potential fertile worlds in the universe the probability should lie with others existing.  Some experts say that carbon and water must exist for there to be life, but these building blocks are being identified in many places we had not found them before.  She also wondered about communication, but reminded us that verbal language is not the only way even humans communicate; images and music can also play a role in transmitting ideas.  We might not have the right technology to receive and interpret messages sent by other civilizations, even if they are sending them to us.  For that matter, some people propose that gods in most mythologies were actual beings, but aliens.  The Educator mentioned the miracles of Jesus as an indicator that he was not like other people; perhaps he was an alien with different abilities, or just better technology.

An Occasional Attendee reminded us that humans live in a wide variety of conditions on earth, so there is no reason to think other life forms might not adapt to harsh conditions on other worlds.  Our planet also supports a broad spectrum of life forms.  As for communication, we should be patient, remembering that our technology has changed radically in the span of just a few decades.  We could catch up to a more advanced civilization, or a lesser one could catch up to us.  She was also cautious, however, echoing the sentiment that aliens will likely not be interested in us, but in something we have.

Another reason to question how we choose to be or to have.

To Be or to Have

This is a question of defining who we are as people, at the heart of it.  What is it that makes us who and what we are?  What are the characteristics that make up the description/definition?  "Being" is obvious, at first, as personality traits or emotions.  However, emotions are temporary, and we can show traits in some situations but not others.  It is difficult to know for sure what traits are native to a person, even oneself.  Then, we "have" many things which are easy to see, but how much should they count towards defining us?  We might think only about physical objects and tangible possessions at first, but we also have many things which are not tangible - knowledge, training, experience, etc.  Language muddles things even more, with the variety of expressions for describing people using these two verbs, occasionally having phrases for both of them - have success vs. be successful.  Have as a verb seems to separate the possession from the person, making it more external than the verb be, which feels more like integration into the person herself.  Following the example, being successful is an inextricable part of that person's self, while merely having success can be in a single instance only.  Many of the things we have, we acquire for the benefit of others who wish to define us, that is helping them define us in the way we want to be defined.  A degree or certificate is a signal of what kind of person we are as much as a big house or fancy clothes.  Being, as previously stated, is less reliable because it is very situational.  Although we differentiate in English between someone who is generous and someone who is being generous, it is still not easy to know for sure which behavior is inherent to the person and which is just a temporary reaction to special circumstances.  The fact is, we cannot avoid being as human beings, and we also need to have things in order to survive.  Everything beyond the bare minimum for survival is decoration, but also a natural thing for us to do as self-aware creatures, and part of how we navigate society and our relationships to others.  Probably, neither one should be more important than the other, and our definition should be based on the combination of the two.

The Actress began by saying that people praise who you are more than what you have, and you are born who you are rather than being created over the course of your life.  It is therefore easy to be, but having requires effort.  Even making an effort sometimes is not enough, since one has to acquire the right things to get access to places and people who want to see a particular projection of those around them.  Our accessories, handbags for instance, are not just accessories, but extensions of ourselves.  We can be good people, but if we do not have the right keys, society opens no doors for us.

A Returned Participant said first that have and be should be considered equal terms, in that both of them are necessary for our survival.  At the same time, we do not need most of what we have anymore, in our times of abundance.  Social values dictate what you have and what you try to have, by placing value on certain possessions, especially physical ones.  She felt that religion promotes being more than having, which is certainly the idea religions have about themselves.  Morality can be considered as having its foundation on being mindful of others and generous to those in need.  Being is more complicated than having, as it is something that happens internally, and can even be a synonym of thinking.  What we think is influenced by what others think.  Moving back to having, she commented that we acquire possessions thinking about the future and the limits on available resources, choosing the most necessary and the most valuable.  We make decisions about the future based on what we see others having in the present and predict what will be needed.  Finally, she also commented that things have both a practical value and a social value, and returning to being, what we are helps us in our search for things to have.

The Leader disagreed with the placement of "be" in a passive category while "have" lies in the active; both require action and decision making.  There is an implicit exchange involved in having, as well as subjectivity in the value of what we have.  Something cheap can have sentimental value, making it worth more to its owner than any $2000 version.  He stated that our possessions can, in fact, affect our character, and wondered who gets to decide who we are in the first place.  As for religion and its emphasis on being, he commented that it may be cheaper to promote that, but the trappings of religion itself can be quite expensive.  Religious leaders certainly have plenty of things.  Our self is a combination of what we think we are and what others think we are.  What it comes down to oftentimes is how much backbone we have and whether we can project the image of ourselves that we want others to have.  As mentioned by others in the discussion, there is a definite influence from the society around us when it comes to building our character and it is very difficult to escape those influences even when we are able to recognize the harm in them.  What we are is not only our we use our inherent traits, but also others' reactions to us and our reactions to their reactions.  The intangible assets we have, such as intellectual property, can now be monetized more than ever before and those reflections of what we are allow us to have more things, physical or non-physical.  The Leader saw a cause and effect relationship between being and having, although they seem to go in an endless cycle and which one is the ultimate cause is something of a chicken-and-egg question.  As a slightly morbid conclusion, he reminded us that we do not take our tangible possessions to the grave with us, but our knowledge and ideas do go.  In the end, what we have is only a collection of tools to make us happy, and we cannot expect the fact of having to produce happiness or satisfaction.

The Educator also agreed that we cannot survive without having some things, and even the poorest among us have something.  The difference between the terms is a matter of perspective - personal identity vs. personal property.  At the same time, we allow what we have to define us.  We live in a consumerist society, where we are encouraged and even pressured to acquire things that are not absolutely necessary for biological survival, but are necessary for social survival.  She told us of people in her country who committed suicide when they fell on hard economic times, not because they had lost everything, but they had lost enough to lose social status.  For some people, moving down the social ladder is a fate worse than death because their being is so tightly bound to what they have.  As for the influence of society on our development of our personalities, she said that those who are strong enough can remain consistent in their values and do not feel much pressure to bow down to society's demands.  The question remains, though, of how we can develop values that are different from those of the society we live in.

No Is The Answer

I think we have been a little hard on the word "no".  Everyone hears about positive thinking being the best; we all want to hear permission to do what we want; language is generally weighted towards the positive.  We get trained to seek out that affirmative and shun the negative whenever we can.  Yet, looking at it more objectively, the best answer is actually no.  How can this be?  For one thing, no is sure.  Yes is oftentimes conditional or temporary, tentative permission until something changes and then the negotiations begin again.  On the other hand, no is forever.  Do not bother coming back.  Do not call us, we will call you.  In fact, any answer other than no is uncertain and given to change and disappointment on all sides.  "Yes" can open up possibilities, which is what we are told we should be looking for, but having too many choices only leads to indecision and stagnation.  We need "no" to guide us by shutting off the bad choices.  We learn from no, not from yes.  "No" is the guide and compass to something better, instead of the invitation to complacency that "yes" embodies.  When one receives a yes, one can only continue doing the same thing as before, but "no" means it is time for change.  Indeed, it is time to live, since life is only change.  We ought to live the no instead of dreaming the yes.

The Actress concurred that no gets a bad rap, and that we should be careful of yes because it is often given falsely.  We say no because we are sure of what we want, which can be upsetting to those who might wish to manipulate us.  There is a blending in the public imagination of "no" and rejection of common social mores, but there is no reason for that to be so.  In fact, a sincere no can be harder than simple rejection.  Towards the end of the meeting, she noted that we learn "no" as children before we learn "yes" in any meaningful way; we might conclude that "no" is more necessary for survival and more important.

The Educator first mentioned that learning in childhood in the meeting.  Parents want to hear yes because we expect obedience from children.  At this point I was brought to thinking about the egalitarianism of "no", since we can say this to our inferiors - or our equals.  We become "yesmen" to superiors and and leave honesty behind.  The Educator agreed that it is necessary to set limits for ourselves, and this requires being able to say no.  She mentioned the problem faced by many women, even adult women, in modern society, which is that some men feel that they have the right not to hear "no" from any woman, ever.  Some people do not want others to set boundaries.  It is also a feature of the business of sales, since accepting "no" means fewer sales.  We can feel a certain pleasure in saying "no", seeing the frustration that others experience, but it is also a pleasure of being recognized as a sovereign individual.  The problem with not saying no is that others take advantage.  It becomes a burning need to understand that other people have their own responsibilities and have to do what they have to do, regardless of how it affects us.  Boundaries are necessary for civilized society between civilized people, and those who do not respect them should not be pampered in their arrogance and disrespect for others.

An Occasional Participant agreed that there are rational and irrational noes, and the rational no is one that is clear and decisive.  Of course, there are many ways of asking for things which can muddy the waters and make it harder to give a clear no for an answer.  In other cultures, no is so strong that it is impolite to use it.  We might have trouble getting an answer at all, if people are afraid of saying no.  Now, people often say that lack of clarity makes it impossible for them to take anything other than a clear and undiluted "no" as a real negative, but studies show that people understand a soft no perfectly, they simply refuse to accept it.  The Participant concluded that "no" is the protective answer, the one we use to save ourselves from insecurity or change.

The Leader wrote briefly on circumstances of giving and receiving noes, and commented that one of the hardest tasks we have is to know what we want.  It is probably easier to know what we do not want.  There is a difference, however, between "no" and total rejection; a no does not mean we should not try again, but something needs to be adjusted, either the circumstances need to change or our presentation needs improvement.  There are also situations, especially in business, where we cannot afford to say no, as much as we would like to.  We cannot even use a "soft no" sometimes.  Human emotion often clouds the issue as well, as instinct or common sense may urge us to say no, but the emotions surrounding the choice we must make lead us to say "yes".  He also mentioned that although children learn to say no by themselves, we also encourage them to use it more forcefully around strangers and dangerous situations; a no at the right time can save us a lot of grief.

While there were several calls for balance and harmony between yes and no, we have to agree that they are not equivalents or even sides of the same coin.  This is especially true when "yes" carries obligations, as it very often does - it is "no" that sets you free.

How to be a Pacifist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Embracing Mistakes

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the Definition of Being Happy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Octopus Pie is the best