Writing our Stories

"The universe is made of stories, not atoms."
                                                                    -Muriel Rukeyser (Poet)

Remember this quote? It's back with a vengeance. Stories define our world. I'm not just talking about the masses or society as a whole, but speaking for the individual. When looking at the influence of stories on an individual level, the concept was explained to us that we breathe in stories everyday. Some hold more sway over others. We in turn breathe out these same stories in our lives.

The more stories you add to your repertoire, the more influence you hold. Furthermore, you gain the ability to choose your path in life through the stories you hold onto. It may lead to more power or it could box you in. This isn't necessarily a bad thing though because if this is solely a world of becoming then some restrictions may provide stability, which would keep us from going insane (a good thing). Also these can be fairly open, flexible restrictions that still provide movement within.

Now these thoughts are those from class, and I've put them here because I highly respect them. As you can see it is based heavily on a state of Becoming. Here's my interpretation of the above quote from a Being perspective.

I think John Locke was onto something with his concept of Tabula rasa. His philosophical theory was that the mind from the moment of birth was a completely blank slate and that all our mental content is solely the product of experience. It's a fascinating concept that experience is what shapes our lives, however I disagree that all blank slates are equal at the moment of birth.

What drew me in specifically was the blank slate itself. I believe that everyone is literally writing their own stories in life. From the second we're born, that infant is holding their own unique utensil, be it a pen, quill, charcoal, black, blue, or any other combination. That is what makes them unique. Where do they write? They write in the metaphorical book the world has given them. The environment they have been brought into (though will not affect the quality of their story, just a vessel as unique as the individual). It may be a raggedy leather-bound novel or a pristine hard-cover volume, but it is theirs just as much as their pen. The instant that baby breaths its first breath the pen touches down on the first blank page.

It begins.

Each moment of that person's life is being written as they live. It is a chronicle of their very life written by their own hand. Word choice, handwriting, everything. Like any story, the character depicted is not the same as he/she begins, but grows and changes through the course of the novel by the experiences they have. A life story is no different, but since the author and character are one in the same the writing style will change. The more pages we fill, the more diverse the contents, the more complete we become. The voice behind the entire novel will stay the same.

So where does the Being come into play? It's quite simple really. Though the vast majority of our pages are blank, there are areas that are written. Chapters that no matter the course we take, we are destined to reach. How do we know what is written when we get there? We are the author. We know when we stumble upon a page the world has written in our ink. The world's words echo. Our story slides seamlessly into it because that same world shapes itself so we approach it. Then we branch off again to chart our course until we meet a similar juncture once more.

There are some complete flukes in the world that mean absolutely nothing. Look for meaning in every little aspect of your life and you'll find yourself disappointed. Some instances in people's lives though are far too coincidental to be logical. Moments that seem too perfect to be contrived, certainty that seems inhuman and surpasses all logic, but cannot be dismissed by even the harshest skeptics. These instances are meant to be. I know this implies Being and I would not state it if I had not heard it from others and had a similar experience  myself.

The ultimate relation to Being comes at the fact that everyone is writing and reading their own stories. Different stories that the world plays a hand in and based in the very world of their creation. The sum of these stories is the creation of Being. Getting back at the quote, the world is not made of atoms, but stories. They all come together to form one collaboration of unique stories stretching from the beginning to the end of time. A single volume called The Universe. One voice. One story of life.

This is just my personal philosophy theory. Can I guarantee with absolute certainty that it's true to critics? No, perhaps their stories are meant to have a completely different view. It's an epistemological idea that I've grown rather fond of and always adding to. In a nutshell, I suggest we live lives of Being, in the illusion of Becoming, but we can sense moments of true Being. Should we be depressed our existence could be planned out in specific moments? No, because these are moments specifically tailored for us. Our stories. We shouldn't wait around for these "Being moments" either because they're just as important as any other word in your book. We are the product of every sentence we write, fated or not. They're our experiences and our story.

This is my story.

Never stop questioning.

Is There a Selfless Action?

We've been looking a lot recently on the potentiality of a society in which the government becomes little more than a protection agency to its people. The idea being that the personal freedoms of the individuals can be released without any kind of chaos due to spontaneous rule (order merely happens of its own accord by the people). The good news is that this video believes that such a society is definitely possible. The bad news is that it's based on the principle that human beings are inherently selfish.

John Nash created actual mathematical formulas to prove this behaviour using what is known as "Game Theory". It's a set of equations based on the idea of poker and how the move you make is based on what your opponent thinks you'll do. Basically how we're trying to manipulate one another for self-gain and are constantly suspicious of one another. It was the style of strategy used during the Cold War at the time, which Nash also applied to the people. If true, a functional society could be created, so long as we thought of everyone as an opponent. Our personal wants would be in balance and thus no chaos. (He won a Nobel Prize for this)

R.D. Lang supported this theory and tried to undermine trust and love. He also came up with disturbing results by mathematically proving through various matrices that relationships were really all about manipulation and control over one another. Focused on couples, this data could easily correlate to family and even simple friendships.

So is there such a thing as a selfless action or do we really only act in our own benefit?

She's in it for the free cookies.

When you really think about it, technically the answer is no. I mean any kind of known relationship is sketchy because if you do something nice or kind, you're getting into the person's good books. Even if you simply donate money to a charity anonymously you're getting a positive feeling from it, which can be seen as selfish. The show Friends tackles this issue when Joey challenges Phoebe to find a selfless good deed. She eventually comes to the realization that the only way to truly be selfless is by making herself miserable for the benefit of someone else.

I don't agree with that... at all. Yes, you can get a good feeling from doing something nice for someone, but is that really such a terrible thing? I mean there are people who donate their time and effort volunteering at soup kitchens for no reason, except to be helpful. I'm sorry, but there comes a point where you just have to say "screw the technicality". I think it goes back to the Kantian Ethic principle that it is the intention that matters. If you plan on doing a good deed and have absolutely no intention of getting something out of it, besides a good feeling or maybe a smile, I say you get it.

Yes, for couple relationships I can see where they're coming from with the whole power struggle concept, but I think that if it's really that big of an issue it should be talked about or the relationship just won't work. It's all about a balance of give and take on both ends. Friendships are all about helping one another out and so long as it's not entirely one sided, I don't see a huge issue with it.

In the world we live in, I think a little good deed can go a long way to brighten up someone's day. Hold the elevator door, pay for the person behind you in the drive-thru, compliment a complete stranger. Little actions like that can go a long way, and studies show they're much more likely to perform a similar gesture to someone else. All this detailed disection into the nature of "selflessness" is really getting in the way and it's kind of sad we have to analyze this kind of positive action. Especially when these little gestures shine a ray of hope in the world.

Never stop questioning.

Individuality and Purpose

Song Lyrics

This was a very cool song and quite peaceful despite the title. Along with the smooth melody, it brings an interesting point about individuality. Is it really such a good thing to be a snowflake?



As we talked about in the past, human beings may enjoy the idea of choice, but, when it comes down to it, the truth is that it's actually really scary. If this truly is completely a world of becoming, then that means there's an infinite number of choices. Making a decision that is best for you involves a hell of a lot of indecision, especially since sometimes it's nearly impossible to determine the outcomes of your choice. The idea behind the song resonates with this concept; the whole idea of being told exactly what you're supposed to do and ultimately your purpose would make us much happier. We want some kind of direction.

So...many...choices...



When it comes down to it though, I don't really think that we have an "infinite" number of options even in a world of becoming. Many people for instance can dream about being a professional athlete, but even if they have the right mindset, you also need the right body. Without the combination, it's nearly impossible to occur. As terrible as this sounds, a person stuck in a wheelchair probably isn't likely to become a professional dancer either. All I'm saying is that we as humans have limits for what we can and can't do. At the same time there are countless real world situations where someone has surpassed all the odds and done something amazing (a la Gattaca).

I suppose what I'm getting at is that I think we're naturally drawn to the things we're good at and know we can do because our enthusiasm is often what makes us exceptional at it. Will a tall person always want to play basketball? No, but her passion for photography may make her a great photographer. Opportunity can also be a huge factor in choice because if you aren't given the chance to do something you won't take advantage of it. A poorer person is likely to have less options than one born into a rich family for instance. Enthusiasm in a certain area however will bring likely about opportunities to pursue in that field.

Despite being told we can do whatever we want when we grow up as a child, it's probably not going to be true. Suddenly an infinite number of choices becomes much smaller. Our interests may be diverse though which can still lead to confusion. I was interested in both biology and television production careers for instance, so the potential to be indecisive is still high.

The song's solution to the whole thing is being told you're going to do this. This is what you're meant to do. It makes sense because there's really no second guessing involved. More than that, I think the song is hinting about a want to fit into something greater; to know that your existence is going to make a difference (whole idea of being a cog in a machine). I don't like that idea though because I think it implies the want to be all the same, which I disagree with. Individuality should be encouraged, otherwise we'd be born the same. I think a more fitting metaphor would be a piece to a puzzle. The parts are the same, yet each is unique, will only fit in one place and only all together will they make a giant masterpiece.

The whole "knowing your purpose" idea is interesting. To be sure it would make things so much more easier, especially if we were all completely the same, but I disagree. I think we do all have a place in this world meant for us. Part of what makes life so intriguing is discovering what that is for yourself. It may take some wrong turns, but it makes the destination so much more worthwhile. When you're on the right path I trust that you'll know it's right for you.

Never stop questioning.

Stories and Metanarratives - Society

"Those who tell the stories, rule the society."
                                                                       -Plato

Just to re-cap, the idea of stories plays a gigantic role in our society. By "stories", what I mean is actually the morals/lessons that form the meaning of these stories (can even be those found in literal stories like nursery rhymes or the Bible). The morals repeated time and time again become those that are reflected in society and are known as metanarratives. These form a mock state of "Being" with which we can live by. So something along the lines of how we should respect our elders, share, be ambitious, etc. As we explored earlier, the easiest way to control a society is by keeping the stories in your favour, which is really easy to do when you're the storyteller.

Read between the lines.

We were challenged earlier this month to find the stories that illustrate the world we live in. I'll admit we didn't get all that far with that line of thought. I think the reason why is because society's stories have, for the majority, become second nature to us, so it's hard to dissect something that your way of life is based on. You need an external perspective.

Recently we've been going through the past century with politics and corporations in relation to society and it's actually extremely surprising to see just how much the metanarratives have changed over time. One of the more obvious one was the shift from a "needs" to a "wants" society in the Roaring 20's. The moral changed from just getting by, to a society of obtaining luxury to ensure happiness.

Then there was also the Counter Culture Movement in the 60's (around the time of the Vietnam War), when the public (especially the youth), spoke out and were skeptical/paranoid of the government as well as other agencies of potential control. Looking at history in steps makes these changes in metanarratives much more obvious and you can almost see how we slowly became the world of today.

Ambition!

I'd like to take another stab at answering the question of what stories rule our society at present. Gender role stories aside, I believe the greatest story that our society holds is that we should be ambitious and contribute in some manner to society. I'm not saying everybody needs to be the CEO of a major company, but there is a definite push to be successful at whatever field you are interested in. More than that, there's a focus that it's better to be extremely good at one thing opposed to mediocre in several different areas.

Whatever happened to being well-versed in many things? The world has so much to offer it really does seem a shame to focus yourself solely on one or two aspects of it. When factoring in society however, this view is entirely logical. Without contributors, the economy would effectively crash, so it makes complete sense that this would be a story circulated throughout society. In addition, the best way to make contributions to your field, and thus society as a whole, is by focusing all your effort on it (rather than splitting one's focus). A scientist is more likely to prove string theory if he works on it constantly opposed to also being an expert fisherman.

In this light, society repeats this story through demonstrating material gains for the "successful" individuals, that members of society see. Fame, fortune, etc. We do not see whether or not this person is truly happy. Ambition for the sake of ambition and not personal pursuit is doomed for depression.

The stories told by those in power are ones told to control. Not necessarily at the level of slavery, but to reduce the potential for chaos and create docile masses. They will do this however they can regardless of the individual's needs (satisfy subconscious desires through products, create skepticism, etc.). In terms of ambition, contributing to society is definitely important in some form. Don't sacrifice your own happiness for it though because it's your life, and the world is too big and interesting for you to spend all your time in a cubicle. I find it's often our side pursuits that make us so fascinating.

Final thoughts. The idea of stories being told as a set of universal ideas for the society to hold are unavoidable. The encouraging fact I find however is that we've witnessed how things can change over time. Leaders like Barack Obama trumpet the ideas of change. They have yet to deliver *grumble* *grumble*, but I truly believe the potential is there to bring fresh ideas to the table. Hopefully one where the powers can hold less power over the masses without chaos ensuing, or even a society where the individual actually holds power over the political system/media rather than the other way around. Time will tell.

Never stop questioning.

The Importance of Art

Okay, okay. No we haven't talked about art in this class yet, but I want to talk about art so dang it I'm going to talk about art! ...it's more so for review than anything.

Plato had an interesting love-hate relationship with art. While he did highly support the arts, he had certain particulars about the subject. First he believed that true art was that which depicted the origin of things because therein laid absolute truth. While some may argue that beauty for instance is a construct of society, Plato would counter that statement by saying that the reality is we know what beauty is before we are even born. It just is. Secondly he did not approve of anything that demonstrated the "bad side" of existence. This might include any pieces relating to hell or the underworld, constructing figures in decrepit states (not their ideal form) and lastly depicting negative emotions of hate, lust, sorrow, etc.

While I respect Plato's ideal to pursue true Being, I think he underestimated the complexity of such a statement. The whole point of Being is that it is something we are attempting to strive for, but can't necessarily pin-point.

Say we came together as a society and specifically defined what "beauty" is for instance. That would be how society would always view beauty. Just the same as we see the room shown above. According to Plato this would be correct. If we were to allow ourselves to diverge from that definition even slightly though...

Suddenly beauty looks entirely different! This is something we would never have seen if we stayed fixated on that one perspective. Art allows us to pursue ideas in completely different ways and answer the "What if" questions. My favourite example of this is The Curious Case of Benjamin Button where we ask, "What would happen if someone were to age backward while everyone else aged forwards?" By doing so we get to see how one might experience life, love, time and more from this perspective. Why bother? Because by asking all of these questions, even the ones unseen in reality, we explore all the possibilities of what something can be in our answers. This also means exploring the "good" and "bad" sides of existence because you can never truly appreciate one without knowing the other. Like we saw Becoming in class, the more ideas you have, the more likely you are to see things for what they truly are in Being. Art is about exploration.

Another vital component of art is expression. Plato says we need to avoid negative emotions because they will merely inspire those same emotions in their viewers. Logical, however I believe that just because these feelings aren't portrayed, doesn't mean they won't exist. If anything, art allows one to release these negative emotions. Art is also a means of communicating. Say I were sad about something and all I could do was say "I'm sad.". It wouldn't convey any real message to someone else because they can only associate it with what they define "sad" as from their experience. Art transcends the need for words by speaking in the universal language of emotion and says things simple words could never express. Dance, make a sculpture or even a short film truly capturing how you feel and it breaks down walls. Suddenly anyone can see your message because you're speaking the basic human language.

I could go on, but I hold a view similar to that of Aristotle, who encouraged all arts and believed it was the method we used to imitate life. I however think it's truly more than a simple imitation. Art is never about saying what something is or isn't, but exploring all of the possibilities of what something can be. Until we discover what these things truly are, art is here to stay.

Never stop questioning.

Individuality/Conformity Paradox

I know I've preached a lot about how important it is to be unique, but at the same time I've been forced to ask myself, "Is there a limit to how unique we should be?" It's something we touched on briefly in class, but really caught my interest. If you have a personality that is largely different than that from the norm, (such as walking around your day-to-day life in a spiderman costume, a tutu or even both) then others will likely avoid you. Yes we want to strive for independence, but at the same time part of our human nature is seeking acceptance. It's one of the reason we join clubs, teams and make connections with people. What we end up with is this this weird paradox that we should "be different", but want to "fit in".

Now obviously if you see a 70 year old man walking around with bunny ears you're going to walk the other way, however we don't want to be just another fork in the drawer either. The class conclusion (and it's a popular one for many similar debates) was that it's all about fitting in the Goldilocks Zone. Not too different, not the same, but just right.


Also never sleep in a stranger's house.


Personally, I don't think that this should be a huge issue for the majority people. I mean certain personality types aside, we're going to grow up wanting the company of others so we're going to have those social skills. Be it through day-care, school, etc. The trick is really discovering what makes you unique, which shouldn't be difficult either since our experiences and desires are often our own. So it's like we're all given often given the same colouring book (social structure) and we're free to do whatever, even colour outside the lines, with our experiences.

"If everyone is special, then nobody is."  - The Incredibles

 I'd have to disagree with the above quote because special has a much deeper meaning than we give it credit. I mean if I'm a fantastic poet and someone else is an incredible juggler they're both special but clearly not the same. Every individual has something unique to bring to the table and that's what should be encouraged, not silenced. Otherwise you just get white noise. Don't purposely distance yourself from the world though. It's only by being a part of the world that we can make our own unique voice heard.

Never stop questioning.

Also I changed my mind about Spiderman in a tutu.

No words.

The Subconscious Manipulation

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-678466363224520614#docid=-3986506414855430309
(Rather long video, so I'll summarize)

The above is a portion of a series known as The Century of the Self - Happiness Machines, which essentially looks at the origin of consumer manipulation from around 1917 until the beginning of the Second World War. Based around Freud's pessimistic views that people are not based in rationality, but animalistic instincts, he believed that the mass needed to be controlled in order to prevent chaos. To him civilization was not an evolution to come together, but a necessity to control the people from themselves and one another.





His nephew, Edward Bernays, took his uncle's principle into practice in America. People were governed by subconscious desires and he used it to revolutionize the advertisement industry by targeting these hidden wants. 

The Flapper Movement of smoking cigarettes in public for instance didn't begin as a movement of breaking free, but actually a motion brought about by Bernays to increase the sale of cigarettes. (Link) Though disposing of the taboo that was women smoking and providing a feeling of power, was some of that message lost when it was made in this manner? Bernays would argue no, and that fulfilling these desires made the people happy, thus docile and therefore pacified them of their animalistic natures. Women wanted power. Bernays gave them it. This was the moment where society was pushed from a "needs" view to one of "wants".

I can see where Bernay is coming from and how he was able to use this technique to control the public, but he's saying the masses are the equivalent to a herd of sheep. It's based on the idea that people are stupid. The biggest problem is that now we had people controlling people, meaning the potentiality for mistakes in this manner is not only possible, but likely. When the depression hit, the people had an even greater fall because they had been built up on the concept of "want" that was thrust onto them.

I typically dislike Freud and his theories generally because of the pessimism displayed. The concepts are genius and intriguing, but cast a very sad light on true human nature that I don't agree with. I mean we say that the public's reaction to the recession is one example of our chaotic nature, however our fall from grace was partially due to advertiser manipulation. What I really liked, and gave me hope was Roosevelt's idea of the common citizen being rational enough to have insight on how their country should be run, corresponding to the classical liberalism view we discussed. When the society was in ruin it wasn't consumerism that picked it back up, but a democratic view.

I would have loved to see the outcome of this line of thought further, however once society picked itself up and started walking, companies caught up and proceeded to do the same as it had before with success. The difference was that they were able to manipulate the marriage of Capitalism with Democracy instead of a struggle, which of course brings us to society today.

The idea of selling us what we want to make us happy is a genius idea, but, as the video shows, what we want isn't necessarily what is best for us. Companies don't care what they sell so long as they're turning a profit. The only way I think we can counteract this thought is by trying to think for ourselves. We need to change what we fundamentally want in order to alter the messages out there. Sex for instance sells and is in advertising because it subconsciously works, though can at times appear degrading. The smoking campaign however brought about power for women by bringing a subconscious message they wanted to come forward for the better. The intentions of the company were of course in their own interest, but it brought empowerment as well. Perhaps we could take the same approach with other ideas that need to come forward, like equality. This is all thinking on a giant scale of course. Independently, don't be afraid to be a black sheep.

Never stop questioning.

Changing Memory

Memory is a remarkable quality in anyone's life. When we look back on the past we can see birthdays, friendships, inside jokes, sadness, laughs, little snapshots of things that have happened in our lives. Some of these have become vague, while others have remained crisp and clear, almost seeming immune to the sands of time...or so we may think.

We looked at an article some time ago and it was all about how human memory is actually ridiculously inaccurate. The human brain is not a machine and we only truly perceive everything through electrical impulses (from various senses) that our brain interprets. The problem is that these same processes are created through imagination as well. What this means is that it becomes remarkably easy to manipulate memories. Researchers were able to convince subjects of memories such as hugging Bug Bunny in Disney World as a child with the right faked evidence (Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. character, would never be at Disney). As I said before, it also shows yet again how unrealistic it is in court to rely on eye-witness testimony.

Metaphor!

What would it be like to have perfect memory? Only one woman on Earth can answer that question and that is a subject known as AJ. She possesses the ability to remember precisely what happened on any given date of her life down to the smallest detail. It's a skill that has utterly baffled neurologists. She's lucky to have the perspective of it being a gift, however she admits it's difficult when you can remember terrible memories in vivid detail. How awful would it be to have the ability to play back some of the most hurtful moments of your life perfectly?

No, AJ is not an elephant.

If memories have the potential to be so unreliable, why do we even bother with them? It's because memories are a big part of who we are. As cool as it would be to remember everything in vivid detail for a few days, it wouldn't make you happy. Memories are meant to be the past, not the present. That said, being able to look back on memories is important because it can give you some standing about how you got to where you are today. If you took a high-paying corporate job for instance and realized after three years you had no happy family memories, it might be a wake-up call to make a change. We are the product of our past experiences.

The ability to erode memories is actually a survival instinct if you ask me. In fact, if I recall, the article stated that the mind will actually shape memories to benefit you more. Fantasize them up out of their reality. Anyways, forgetting. It's not because I believe all memories are inherently bad, not true at all. The fact that they do though is only more inspiration to create new ones. If a memory is something that isn't meant to linger, than we realize that the moment is infinitely more precious.

Never stop questioning.

Links!
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1738881&page=2 -AJ
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/perfect-mem/ -AJ

The Illusion of Confidence

"Fake it until you make it." -Steven Tyler

We talked about masks awhile ago and I think it's pretty self-evident that we all wear masks, or in the very least have worn them at some point in our lives. It's just a natural survival impulse that if the environment is a certain way we should act in whatever manner will likely lead us to survive or ideally towards success. I greatly dislike the idea of a mask drastically different than one's self, but subtle aspects such as being more outgoing may play out to your advantage. That said, I believe one of the most common masks people wear, or what they strive for in their individuality, is confidence.

Timmy is ready to take on the world.

I mean it's only natural because people are much more certain of and trust those who know what they're doing, which confidence portrays. It's not typically the people who stutter or mumble that you see in successful positions, especially not in the corporate world.

Confidence is an interesting trait because it doesn't really mean wisdom or skill, but merely a sense of certainty in one's self. I was going through the library recently and stumbled upon an interesting book called, The Invisible Gorilla. All about how our intuition commonly fails us; I read a section detailing how any confidence was more or less a hoax.

The example given was that a person who acquired lyme disease went to the doctor, who grabbed their medical book and used it as a source to indicate the condition and prescribe a treatment in front of the patient. This was appalling to the patient because when we go to the doctor we of course want someone who knows what they're doing... or apparently appears to. A study was done and patients felt much more at ease when their doctor prescribed a treatment, despite them being unsure and not saying so. The patient who received the reference however was cleared up in no time after the prescription was filled. Isn't that the important thing?

Eye-witness testimony was another example and how despite an individual's extremely confident testimony is more likely to sway juries, it is generally only 70% accurate. That means that roughly a third of the time it's wrong. Finally, there's the correlation between ignorance and higher confidence. Poorly skilled criminals for instance are generally much more confident in their abilities, whereas more knowledgeable individuals in any profession are a better judge of their abilities. This tends to be why you see so many duds on shows like American Idol. The general consensus was that people will often overestimate their abilities, while only a small few will actually underestimate said skills. Doing the extreme of either can have dire consequences.

Confidence is really the most important element of rhetoric and sadly has a huge influence in how likely we are to instill trust in people, whether based in fact or not. The problem is that when a doctor admits that they don't know someone's condition it usually stuns the patient, despite it probably being in their self best interest to find a doctor who can. This is why second opinions are extremely important.

Personally, I believe that confidence is a valuable skill because it transitions into your work and growth, however it should be a product of skill rather than simply general persona. That said, experience should be what we look for when trusting individuals, not primarily how they carry themselves. The above quote about temporarily faking confidence until you achieve it is fair, but you wouldn't want a doctor to take the same approach, so I think that true confidence is accepting when you're out of your element. Moral. Show reasonable confidence in yourself and careful skepticism in that which is shown by others.

Never stop questioning.

Can We Ditch Our Bias?

"Bias has to be taught. If you hear your parents downgrading women or people of different backgrounds, why, you are going to do that." -Barbara Bush

This blog has talked a bit about individuality as well as advertisement and society, but something I never really touched on to any real extent was the nature of bias itself as a concept separate from ourselves.

Bias can be seen as these glasses in which we view the world. Everyone has them and can look at the same object or circumstance, but see entirely different things. Justice and science often try to view things from an objective point of view, almost like trying to see things for what they are. The problem is that human beings are not objective thinkers, but subjective by nature. By trying to view things with a completely objective point of view, we're really just trying to throw another pair of bias glasses over the pair we typically wear. The outcome is trying to combine two completely different prescriptions. It doesn't work and you look funny.

Exhibit A.

That said, I think it's a safe assumption to say that human beings are biased by nature, and the easiest thing to do about this is to just accept it. It's a natural human trait, but the question is whether or not we're stuck with the same glasses forever.

There's a website I'll link to the bottom that's all about you filling out this little test to tell you what your bias is toward certain ideas (sexual preference, whether you have a nationalistic view of the world, etc.). Of course it's not meant to be a guarantee of anything by any stretch of the imagination (I know a happily married man who according to the survey is slightly gay, and I myself got that I apparently have no preference for gender) but it brings up the idea of us being ignorant to our own biases. Think about it. How often do you see someone being racist and when you mention it to them they flatout deny it?

Don't bother grandma, he's ignorant.

Anyways, one of the quizzes I took was the gender association one (deciding which gender was better associated with the sciences and which with the humanities) and the result was a little disturbing.

"Your data suggests a moderate association of Male with Science and Female with Humanities compared to Female with Science and Male with Humanities."

The quiz is essentially saying that I don't agree with the feminist movement and support the idea that women don't have a place among the profession traditionally reserved for men. A bit off the deep end? Perhaps, considering the test just asked which gender I associated more with what. Still, I can't help but feel like I wasn't overly surprised... which is awful. For starters, it's not even something I feel is true; I mean men and women are different for sure, but I don't really put one above another for intelligence. They think differently. On the one hand society apparently agrees thinking this view is right, but on the other hand I have some close friends who demonstrate the opposite on a daily basis. Is my bais shaped by both sides? How can I contradict myself by believing one idea so strongly, yet have a hint of doubt?

I guess the question I poise is whether we can truly change a bias, especially if it's one you don't agree with. I like to think that we can, but we have to be smart enough to open ourselves enough to allow these changes to take root. It's not easy though, and if you close yourself off it'll never happen. If it weren't true, then society would be the same as it has been from the beginning. Despite society depicting the world as being solely male-dominated, do I think that should be the case? Hell no. It is high time for a change in favour of equality. I live by the idea of "loving to be proven wrong" because if I am, then my theory only gets stronger from adapting to the correction. This case is no exception and I encourage it because I can actually see it becoming true in the eyes of the determined people in my life. If you can believe it, you can make it true. I look forward to the day I can look back at my broken pair of glasses and laugh. If I can do it, then anyone in society can. Go ahead world. Prove me wrong.

Never stop questioning.
*Here's the link if you want to try some tests yourself*
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/canada/selectatest.jsp

The Human Connection

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7583894250854515095#t

The above is a clip... well actually the entire phenomenal film that is Waking Life. There are countless philosophical theories and ideas to tackle in this piece, but what struck me truly deeply was the idea of collective consciousness (the scene around 21 mins in if you're interested).

The idea of a connection between every human being is not a new one, however what truly fascinated me in this dialogue was the use of examples to support it. I mean there are examples throughout society of similar concepts springing up at the same time completely independent of one another. The telephone is one example, so much so that it actually became a race who could patent it first.

What truly got my attention was the crossword experiment. Basically the test was that several researchers monitored the abilities of avid crossword enthusiasts for some time. One day they slipped in a day old crossword, one that had already been solved by thousands of people, and their scores increased by 20%. A dramatic jump.

But were they brave enough to use pen?

One can say that this is all philosophy so it doesn't really hold water out in the real world. That person wouldn't know a thing about "Noetic Science". It's a legitimate field of science aimed towards the human consciousness and its relationship with the physical world. It looks into questions like, "What is the weight of the human soul?" and even has experiments to research the matter. The book, The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown is what first introduced me to this, and although as a work of fiction it stretches the possibility of the material, the basic principles seem pretty grounded.

The reason I chose to explore this principle is because in class we focus a great deal on the idea that Being is nothing more than a figment of our imagination. While I agree that Becoming plays a gigantic role in our world there is a layer beneath that runs much deeper in our veins behind the scenes. This metaphysical line of thought of whether there is a soul or the idea of cumulative memory are such concepts. I personally agree with such thoughts and if they hold true, perhaps no human being should ever truly feel alone.

In terms of what we've been discussing lately about society, the idea of cumulative knowledge lends some element of ease that we're less likely to make the same mistakes our ancestors did. So instead of society in a constant cycle, the human race would be in a perpetual movement forwards. It also encourages the idea that individuals with new lines of thought (in terms of government) might not be the only ones.
Whether you like it or not, humans have a strange paradox of society. We enjoy the freedoms of individuality and fulfillment our personal needs, while also seeking to form some kind of community. I agree with the above clip and it forges a deep bond between all humans. The concept of this wealth of information within our subconscious is fascinating. It brings new meaning to whether we are learning how to live in the world or whether we are simply remembering. Perhaps it's both. Maybe we're taking our human past and current knowledge to explore the future. Each generation passing along the torch towards a new horizon. Just a thought.

Never stop questioning.

Links!:
http://www.noetic.org/about/what-are-noetic-sciences/ - Noetic Science
http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id787.html -Weight of the Human Soul

Questioning the Majority

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2808374571100926940&hl=en#
-Self-confidence

A great deal of the time in these past few blogs I've stood by the optimistic idea that the majority knows best what it wants for itself. The entire time however there was always this nagging idea in the back of my mind that I was supporting an idea of conformity. A theory that the ideas of the whole should eclipse those of the individual. The video above is a small documentary on Socrates and the idea of self-confidence; how we should be hesitant to believe those in power simply because they appear to know what they are doing.

The video takes a look back at Socrates who encouraged questioning, not just his superiors, but anyone who would stop for a moment. Yes, he frustrated a great many people, but only because by asking someone a question like, "What is Justice?" the person gets the feeling that the asker knows the answer and is trying to show off. His questioning along with that demonstrated in the video demonstrated how people's beliefs tend to crumble when brought to question. The point of this wasn't to make Socrates seem smarter, but to encourage people to think for themselves about why they think what they think.

The secret ingredient is philosophers.

I recently ran into the infamous "Denny's Philosopher" with Kyler, who's basically this awesome waiter who sits and talks about philosophy with you while you eat. The experience just forces you to think about different things in your life; both the content of the talk and the moment itself. As I was trying to recount one of the topics we had discussed with a fellow employee at work she said "Well duh." and before I could respond I was kinda dumbstruck for a second.

What struck me wasn't her immediate acceptance of that one idea, but the fact that questioning one's beliefs shouldn't just happen because of a single moment. I'll admit that there's the traditional "near death" experience that causes one to question everything (like a push in the right direction), but in reality thinking through our beliefs shouldn't be an alien concept at all.

Socrates was all about every man/women putting real thought into why they live their lives the way they do. The video goes on to bless this ideal and I agree with the principle that it doesn't take a degree in philosophy to do so, nor one critical event. We all have the potential and should use it throughout our daily lives. In this light, perhaps I wasn't entirely wrong in my initial belief in the majority. If something is logical to us perhaps it can be right, but in the grand scheme of things my hope is that the majority is logical enough to think things through to see what is best. The important thing is to always try to think things through to ensure what you believe makes sense to you, not just because someone or many people says so.

It's vital to strike a balance though. Question everything in your life constantly and all you'll only ever be met with indecision in yourself. Be confident in what you believe, but don't be afraid to remind yourself why you think the way you do.

Never stop questioning (within reason).

The Political System

"Man is by nature a political animal."
                                                         -Aristotle

If politics is all about "power", then by saying man is a political animal by nature, we are saying we have an instinctual (reference to animals) drive for power and control. On the other hand though, Aristotle could be arguing the fact that we instinctively seek to form community, which in turn creates a government. It could really be either or even both. Ultimately however, Aristotle is saying that we have a primal urge to act in some political manner. The trick is defining precisely what politics truly is.

Politics: Activity or process by which we make decisions about who gets what, when and how.

That's all well and good, but how precisely do we create government so that it is most effective for us? As we discussed in class, it comes down to how we define humanity because that will provide the fundamental foundation on which we create a successful society. If our fundamental definition is one of biological significance, we would want a society that would allow us to best procreate and prosper. If we are artists/storytellers, then our laws should focus on individual rights and freedoms (expressions).

The problem is of course that we cannot label humanity under one particular quality. Rules encouraging one definition (freedom) may conflict with others that we find equally important (safety). Moreover we each have our own specific ideology, preconceived ideas about the world, so it's impossible to be objective. The main lesson we were taught from this was to essentially say, "Nice Try" to anyone who tries to define human nature.

The above quote illustrates how we are focused on politics in some way, but how are we supposed to arrange politics if no one form of government will ever perfectly fit our needs? There are plenty of theoretical concepts of the ideal government (a la communism), but they only seem to work on paper. Why are we so fixated on making a government/society work when it will apparently never be obtainable?

The reason why we do this searching is because we will always have some form of government. I feel it is impossible for a people to have a community without one. We have one in power even now, so although we may never find the perfect "fit" we must try to get as close as possible to best suit the needs of our people. To add to the challenge of defining humanity, we have to remember that the society on which it's based is also changing.

As we said in class, a corrupt government of many leaders during Aristotle and Plato's time was said to be a democracy. At the time however that was because the majority consisted of many farmers or "country bumpkins" with little education. Giving a vote to all the ignorant in their eyes was utter chaos. Today however that figure has been flipped, with child education becoming a public endeavor.

The world in which we view humanity is changing, so we must work to both fit humanity and the world in which we live into our system of government. Laws shouldn't remain in place just because they've "always been", but for their purpose. We should never assume that something must remain set in stone because in a world of becoming there is always room for improvement. Times change, laws must change to adapt.

Concepts and ideals one-hundred years ago (such as rules against African American people in society) no longer fit and were changed for the better. Politics should not be a rock, but a living, breathing creature. Fundamental ideas may be allowed to stay if their reasoning remains sound. It's true that not all change will be beneficial, however if one constantly stays the same, either in a government or one's personal life, they will never improve.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."                                                                                -Albert Einstein

Never stop questioning.

Stories and Politics

"The universe is made of stories, not atoms."
                                                    -Muriel Rukeyser

The building blocks of life.

I like this quote a lot. The story is a metaphor of change and progression (no examples come to mind of stories that are ever stuck in one place), so when applied to the universe we can see that it is capable of change in itself. This quality is further established by saying it is not made of atoms. What it is referring to in my eyes is not the tiny particles of matter, but physicality itself. It's a metaphor for a world constructed by immobile substance incapable of any alteration.

Just for the sake of noting, Mark in class had a different take on the subject by saying every element of the world is defined by a story. Atoms themselves have a story about how they came to be.

From what we talked about in class, stories define our world, and the large variety of stories illustrates the infinite possibilities of becoming. The stories that we are told the most have the most power, thus we attribute them to being (or at least as close as we can get). These are meta-narratives because they are big stories told to explain the world we live in.

How does this fit in with politics? Easy. The meta-narratives of the day are what constitutes as real, or being reality. The cool thing is that in english "real" comes from "regal" or pertaining to a king. The Spanish are much less subtle as "real" in Spanish means royal. The ideal King is one who reigns over everything he can see. What he cannot see is not royal, so thus not real.

It's definitely interesting, especially considering that the best way to keep power is to keep the stories told in your favour. The concerning factor behind this is that politicians will do anything to create and stay in this positive light as much as possible. Jean Cretien himself said that a good leader wins elections... nothing to do with moral character. The reason I dislike politics is due to the fact that you rarely seem to get a straight answer from politicians for the simple reason that not doing so is a more effective tactic. They use careful wording, with multiple interpretations so there's always a back-door.

I can agree my opinion seems cynical, however the existence of "The Prince" would say otherwise. It's essentially "How to be a Leader for Dummies" by Machiavelli in the 16th century. Featured inside are ideas like,

"Criminal acts do not show real virtue because crime lacks glory. The solution presented however is not to avoid crime, but to make sure crimes do not languish over ones whole career, but are done at a stroke. This, Machiavelli says, changes criminal virtue to virtue because it allows glory."

...The only problem with criminal acts is a lack of glory... so here's how to make it glory... wow. It's pretty sketchy and it also happens to be a novel carried around by many political figures. Now I'll admit I haven't read it myself, but just looking up chapter summaries will demonstrate shocking ideas, all aimed at staying in power.

So what can we do as a people? Be well versed in the issues. Rhetoric is a powerful tool in our world, especially since it is the medium our stories are told. When it comes to politics, the best thing we can do is to make educated choices and stand up for what we deem is right. As I've said before, sometimes a vote cast in ignorance is just as bad as not voting at all.

Never stop questioning.

Neo-Evolution and You

http://www.ted.com/talks/harvey_fineberg_are_we_ready_for_neo_evolution.html

The video basically goes into the three different possibilities for human evolution. The first is that we have ceased to evolve by forcing our environments to adapt to us and removed the isolation necessary for it to occur. The second is that evolution is impossible to stop and is always working behind the scenes (isolation necessary for it to occur will definitely be present if we colonize planets). Lastly there is neo-evolution, which is essentially when we take our evolution into our own hands.

Fineberg doesn't impose an opinion as far as answering the question posed, however delivers enough background information to come to our own conclusions. What might occur in society should neo-evolution take root?

Ask and you shall receive.

The name of the film is Gattaca and it's easily one of the most inspirational movies I've ever seen. More than that though, the protagonist (Vincent) lives in precisely the world illustrated by neo-evolution. In his world, "natural conception" is replaced with a screened procedure to ensure the best possible genes are given to your child. It's still a product of the two parents, just the "best" combination. You can determine everything about your child (gender, eye colour, no inheritable diseases, etc.) before impregnation. Your estimated age of death is determined seconds after your birth. In this society, genes are so important that they are your resume, your status, your very identity. Nature is everything.

Aww, what pretty brown eyes.

There's a ton of different things to look at from a Nature vs. Nurture perspective, but, relating back to what we discussed in class, I'd like to focus on the society. Just before concluding the Ted Talk, Fineberg expanded the possible traits to improve from memory and fitness to characteristics like empathy and how competitive you are. As he says, we could use this to make society "better", but what precisely does that constitute? Would we conform to one set of characteristics or choose to diversify (some traits for one group of people and some for others)?

In Vincent's reality there was a great deal of choice offered to the parents in the creation of their child in virtually every aspect of their character. They could be mold them however they wished, but that ultimately "success" seemed to be the end many strove for. So much so that society was diversified by the collection of certain genes making one person superior to another. They were the Elite. Work ethic or personal dreams didn't matter if you didn't have the right genes to back it up. Although an apparently optional process, it became a mandatory procedure if the parents wanted their child to amount to anything.

I think the scariest thing is that this line of thought isn't science fiction anymore, but becoming our reality. Although not guaranteed, we currently have methods in place for individuals to choose the gender of their future child (a vital option for areas with a one-child policy). If this concept were in the same extent as Vincent's world, it wouldn't take much for the government to manipulate the process slightly to silence genes capable of say, potential criminal conduct (tendency towards violence or depression for instance). The potential to shape a society of peaceful minded individuals is a possibility, but merely a single optimistic outcome. How much should be allowed to change? Where do we draw the line?

With genetic manipulation of a potential life, we're really playing God. Moral issues aside, we just aren't capable of seeing the long term effects of our actions. How could a society function if everyone was incredibly driven for instance? Would the society thrive or fall apart as these individuals were competing for success? Or how would one try to force genetic diversity? There isn't one right answer, but the important thing to take out of this is that we have to begin drawing lines now. Although preventing genetic disease is fantastic, I believe that tinkering with personality is too far. There are just too many unknowns to map an entire society around. More importantly, a government should be created to best suit its people, not the other way around.

On an individual level, I think nurture plays a greater role than nature, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to choose the ink for my son or daughter to write their story with. We each have our blank pages to fill and what makes life so interesting is the fact that the authors aren't built, but simply phase into existence. Each to weave their own unique tale.

Never stop questioning.

Influence - Advertising

"The secret of my influence has always been that it has remained secret."
                                                                                                         -Salvador Dali

Very simple quote. The secret to powerful influence is in its subtlety. If people realize that they're being influenced they are much more likely to ignore the message, or even lash against the attempted manipulator. True influence slips through the outer barrier and into a person's subconscious. Advertisers know this and have experimented countless times to do so with mixed results.

My favourite quote from The Persuaders was:

"They are the ones who make clutter. They are therefore also the ones who are always trying desperately to "break through the clutter." That's the line you always hear in ad agencies, "We can break through the clutter with this." Well, every effort to break through the clutter is just more clutter."

It quickly and concisely portrays the "white noise" effect of influence. Companies are always trying to find that element to give them the competitive edge. Something that will not only catch your attention, but mesmerize you.

A message that transcends words.

We witnessed the evolution as words like "delicious" or "bright" lost meaning and brands were forced to use their commercials to convey the feeling behind the product. Subtly placing them in movies, while even creating narratives surrounding them in television programs. Two more interesting concepts however were Market Guru Rapaille's idea of the "subconscious code" and the idea of "cult worship".

Rapaille's concept was that the human mind is actually quite illogical and that every word; be it coffee, car, or even mother, all have a mental imprint in our minds, forming this mental highway or subconscious code. All one has to do is to break the code and suddenly companies have the key to a vast majority of consumers. It's still a work in progress in some cases, but it ties in with the next idea. "Culthood" is essentially what all companies are striving for. They want their products to not just be an item, but a very lifestyle that they live (such as Linux Users, Apple, WWF fans from the film). It sounds a little far fetched, but combined with Rapaille's code breaking and the concept of cult "branding" will become much more mainstream in the future.


A world where advertisement owns our subconscious...

So if this were to occur, where exactly would this line of thought take us? As said in The Persuaders,

"Once a culture becomes entirely advertising-friendly, it ceases to be a culture at all. It ceases to be a culture worth the name. It has to have the constant mood that shoppers require."               -Mark Miller, New York University

I especially like this analogy because in it the individuals are literally replaced by shoppers. There are only those shaped by advertising. This is dangerous because it means the media will control our definitions of everything. What men are, women, how we should act, speak, the possibilities are limitless. Yes I suppose you could say society already implies such rules for how we should act, but in many ways that's to keep us safe, not in the interest of being used. Telling us whatever will bring in the highest numbers.

The further integration of advertising is unavoidable, along with the messages they send. All we can really do is encourage you to think for yourself. If we really don't like the message put forth by a company than the product needs to be boycotted by the people. This is far from an easy answer, but if the messages of advertising are unavoidable we should really do our best to ensure the messages are those benefiting a culture, not a shopping mall.

Never stop questioning.

More Individuality - Masks

“If I'm going to sing like someone else, then I don't need to sing at all.”
                                                                                           -Billie Holiday

“Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive."
                                                                                          -Howard Therman

There was a lot we talked about in terms of individuality a few days ago, so to avoid a complete mass of hypocritical ideas here's some of the concepts we talked about, but I didn't get to last time.

-Is individuality "good"?
-Are "copycats" or "posers" being themselves?
-Is it right to judge people as being true to themselves?
-Can people pretend to be someone they're not?

 I'm going to get that first point out of the way immediately because I do believe individuality is a great characteristic we possess. The ability to see things differently opens up possibilities and solutions that may not be possible to view looking a single way. True it allows the possibility of conflict, but it also opens the door to new ideas. I like new ideas because, although we cannot conventionally achieve "perfection" (or being), there is always room for improvement. Be it law, education, etc. If we stick with a flawed system, we will only ever get flawed results.

As for "posers" it's a bit trickier. These are the kind of people who will intentionally scratch up their skateboards, walk around with them without truly knowing how to even ride them. These are people who want to be judged as "cool". Could they be hiding who they are? Mark from class argued that "who we are" is untouchable, we just play many, many different roles as we go through life. I like that a lot, but it kinda forces you to wonder if you can ever break free of your mask or see through that of others. I think so and think that some people are capable of being "themselves" most of the time (a rare few) because they hold a strong inner confidence that is who they are. As for the others, it requires an intimacy not typically reserved for all to see. We all wear masks at some point.

There are instances where copying other people however can have dire consequences. I remember a video a few years ago where celebrity look-alikes started believing themselves to truly be the people they were impersonating. They felt a loss of identity. One instance in particular was when one man was kidnapped by Saddam Hussein to serve as a body double. When he eventually returned to his family years later he appeared to have adopted many of the harsh personality quirks (abusive to women for one) of his role. I can't even imagine the stress undercover cops must have trying to hold one identity while not letting the "original" go.

What face to wear today?

In this light, the masks we choose to wear can ultimately hold much greater influence than we may realize on the person they hide. The more you put into the mask the more it will affect you in turn. How does one hang onto their identity? I can't say I've been in that situation, but if I were to guess it would be by linking ourselves to a strong inner desire. A passion for music for instance could be the chain one uses to anchor themselves to who they are, no matter the face they wear. Why would we bother to do that if change is supposed to be good? I think the reason why is because the mask we wear isn't always a good one (or we agree with), sometimes it's for survival.

Can we really judge people based on their mask? We all know the saying "a first impression is never right", but it is effectively an evolutionary safety mechanism. If we see a bear in the woods our instinct is to judge because it will keep you safe (assuming your mental judgement is, "Holy crap a bear!?! Walk away slowly!" opposed to "I wanna pet it!!"). For judging others it's a bit of a toss-up because, to use the cliche, you really shouldn't judge a book by its cover. Never assume you know someone based on a first impression. People will surprise you, so always be on your toes.

The idea of people wearing masks is an interesting one, especially when you consider it in terms of their creation to fit in with "society" (more on that later). If we know that everyone wears masks, how can we ever trust anyone to be who they say they are? I think the reason we can is because the masks we do wear are often just an extension of who we are. Yes, there are huge exceptions, however I feel a lot of the time the masks we wear do have some reflection of who we are, perhaps a little more confident or outgoing. If you're having a bit of an identity crisis over which is real, just act without thought and it'll come to you. I think the easiest mask for you to portray is your own skin. Not necessarily the easiest for society to accept, but the important thing is to always stay true to yourself. Whoever that may be.

Never stop questioning.