Rush Limbaugh: “Bill Nye is not a scientist!”

Rush Limbaugh, in the last hour of his show today, unhappy about Bill Nye’s views on global warming, said the following: “Bill Nye is not a scientist!”

Is this true?

If Nye’s Wikipedia page is to be believed, it is not. Nye, by any reasonable definition, is a scientist. Here are a few highlights from his career:

  • He majored at Cornell in engineering (one of the sciences), graduating in 1977.
  • He “developed a hydrolic pressure resonance suppressor still used in the 747.” 
  • “In the early 2000s, Nye assisted in the development of a small sundial that was included in the Mars Exploration Rover missions.”
  • He holds a number of inventor patents.

If Rush Limbaugh had wanted to offer fair pushback to Bill Nye, he might have pointed out that Nye’s opinions on global warming need carry no more weight than those of any other informed person because Nye is not a climate scientist. But that then becomes problematic for Limbaugh’s own strong opinions on the matter of global warming, for he’s not a climate scientist either and never has any climate scientists on his show to discuss the issue.

It’s easier, then, for Limbaugh to simply call into question Bill Nye’s credibility and assume that his listeners will never bother to fact-check his claim.

But wouldn’t it be nice if more climate scientists actually did take to the airwaves on the issue of global warming? Maybe it’s not a good idea to have Nye out front on such an issue. In the below interview with Nye, for example, Rachel Maddow asks him questions that really ought to be directed to a climate scientist.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Hell Belief

Three problems with it:

  • Hell belief is authoritarian. If it is true that most people go to hell, and it is eternal torture over flames to be there, then the only way to save yourself from such a ridiculous fate is to get with the program pronto and never fall out of line or question too much.
  • Because you may doubt your own salvation, hell belief sets up a viscous psychological cycle that drives one into self-recriminations and self-policing, accompanied by cowed submission before the authoritarian Father.
  • Capture-bonding. Hell belief tends to drive one into an emotional state akin to the experience of Winston Smith in Orwell’s chilling climax to 1984 (“He loved Big Brother”). It is the Stockholm Syndrome translated into religion (the source of love and hostage-taking is coming from the same source).

Hell belief is great for spreading religion, not so great for supporting the mental balance and critical thinking of converts.

But here’s a point in hell belief’s favor (sort of). In the terror of death and the fear of meaningless–the emotional hell that can accompany atheism–the electric fence of religious hell belief is a fair trade-off for a lot of people. Just stay within the fence and you’re at least given the hope of eternal life in a pleasant and God-ordered place after death.

Wouldn’t it be lovely if it were so?

Well, not exactly. Because heaven is then like living in Nazi Germany in the 1940s. You might think of yourself as okay personally, for you do not defy der Fuhrer, but how can you really be happy and unhaunted knowing that the bodies of others, at that very same moment, are being shoveled into ovens at Auschwitz? Living content under such circumstances is cognitive dissonance, complacency, conformity, and cowardice before a vast injustice.

1l split

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

An Interview with Charles Hood

Poet and photographer Charles Hood’s most recent book, South x South, based on a trip he made to Antarctica in 2011, has just been published by Ohio University Press (2013). Jordan Davis, poetry editor of The Nation, writes the following of the book: “I like to think the poems and prose in Charles Hood’s brief account of his residency at McMurdo Station are a sneak preview of the first literature we’ll actually make in outer space.” Hood lives in Southern California. I interviewed him this past week.

__________

TAFARELLA: You’ve written eight books previous to this one that are also based on strenuous travel (India in search of tigers in the wild, Africa in search of rarely seen birds, etc.). And now, apparently because there are no flights out of Los Angeles to the moon, you’ve gone to someplace very like the moon, Ant-fricken-arctica. Most writers manage to stay home. How does travel relate to creativity?

HOOD: Flights to space go for $200,000 at ticket. I knew I should have gone into banking, since we teachers just can’t afford that. Santi, in our lifetimes, “regular people” (well, regular rich people) will be going to space. Isn’t that cool? Wouldn’t you want to go, just to see the view? So far, when I think back, I don’t regret any of my world travel; I just regret the places I didn’t know I needed to rush to get to, like K-2, in Pakistan. The Baltoro Glacier area looks like Yosemite but with cliffs twice as tall. In college, hitchhiking around, I never imagined that it wouldn’t be safe, as a Westerner, to travel there. If I had known, I would have gone there first, put off my trips to Alaska until later. Now it’s too late.

The larger issue for any of us is what generates ideas, where do images come from, how do we manage to dislocate our sensibilities so that we see and hear the world fresh. Perhaps it’s playing into the myth of Romanticism, but I think when I saw the stone figures on Easter Island in person, that did something tangible that nothing on TV provides.

Just to give one example, the habitat is so utterly ruined on Easter Island that other than a few distant seabirds seen from cliffs, the island has no birds. Most places, even downtown Los Angeles, you can see ten kinds of bird: pigeons, sparrows, crows, and so on. On Easter Island all that had been native is gone, and hardly even any regular European house sparrows have been able to fill in the gaps.

TAFARELLA: The first two sentences of poetry in South x South are these: “Good place to meet dead people, / Antarctica. White like a hospital.” You then recount your father’s death in a hospital. When you wrote this, were you conscious of the Hamlet allusion? Is your persona in this book meant to be that of a newly fatherless man speaking from a “sterile promontory” (Act 2 Scene 2)?

HOOD: Is this the part where I say you’ve taught literature too long? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But yes, I too teach Hamlet, so the quotable lines are set into my imagination like radioactive fishhooks. More than that, for many of us, as we reach upper middle age, dealing with the decline of our parents remains an under-discussed burden. For my book Peyruis, thinking my father was stable, I had gone to France to work on some research. He died while I was abroad, and in fact, labor strikes meant that I nearly missed the funeral. By the time I went to Antarctica with my National Science Foundation grant, the reality was that both of my parents had passed away after some very difficult final years. Behind the grief, part of me was glad: finally, now, I could begin to get my life back.

As far as Antarctica itself, my late father would have said I was nuts to go. He fought in World War II and that was all the foreign travel he ever planned to do. It often feels that much of my current NPR-listening, world-traveling, art-appreciating life is a de facto repudiation of how I was raised. That’s liberating and yet guilt-inducing. That may be why I still go to church, and why in restaurants I order meatloaf.

TAFARELLA: I also thought I detected a Hamlet allusion in the title (“I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw” Act 2 Scene 2). Is the title alluding to that or something else? Perhaps a contrast with something in Hitchcock’s North by Northwest (which is itself a Hamlet reference)?

HOOD: Titles are tricky things, and in planning this book, I made a list of more or less the title of every Antarctica book published. It is super hard not to be cliché. With this book’s title, we worried about the movie allusion, which I don’t particularly like, but the press and I (and the other writers I checked with) all felt that the “x” was too lovely to give up.

Pronounced aloud, it means “by,” but doesn’t it also look algebraic? “Please solve for x.” And in formal biology, you indicate hybrid species with an x between the Latin species names. As a math problem, if you multiply some amount of south by some further amount of south, what would the product be?

In my own work, my next favorite title is Xopilote Cantos, taken from an indigenous word for vulture. I would love to do a few more “x” books before I die. I guess I should cut back on the meatloaf.

TAFARELLA: The cover photo of a fuel line snaking across snow to a plane on skis is stunning. Context?

HOOD: It shows an Air National Guard LC-130 offloading fuel at a research camp. I took that at a place called WAIS Divide, which stands for West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Now we are, as the Australians would say, really in the back o’ Bourke with this one. Funny thing is, you get there in a belly of a cargo plane that’s not all that cold inside. Let’s say for the flight across Antarctica, you’ve spent five hours at 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Compared to outside, that’s really warm. You take off after standing around in the open air on top of ice and you will land on ice, but in between, you’re inside a moderately warm cargo plane and so in all your gear, you’re too hot. So you take off some of your layers, your mittens, the three kinds of balaclava.

On that day, after many hours, suddenly we were down and I had to rush outside in a hurry, so crew could unload. In my flustered haste, I had left some of my discarded gear on board the plane, so I was trying to get this shot and it was 20 below zero. What an idiot I was. All this great winter weather gear, but there I was, freezing my cannoli off.

The thing about book covers your readers may not appreciate is how they represent a three-way wrestling match. The author has her or his notions, editors and book designers theirs, and perhaps the marketing department, theirs. Of that chorus of squabbling, usually the writer gets listened to least. Somebody I know wrote a book about home horse care yet the cover photo features a fat, out of shape horse. Needless to say, it’s not a choice she would have signed off on voluntarily.

I love Ohio University Press for letting me go with this cover, which to my mind, matches the text exactly. I did give them other ideas of course, but we had a strong consensus to go with this. I just hope the rest of the book is as good as the cover art.

TAFARELLA: At one point in South x South you write the following: “1783: How quiet and still the people on the ground / seemed, said the first people to rise / in balloons. Quiet as milk.” Would you say this book is about something lofty or something messy? Is that milk in a glass or spilled?

HOOD: The British explorer and hero (and martyr) Robert Falcon Scott had tried to use a balloon in Antarctica, failing in part I think because he didn’t have a head for heights, nor the vision to understand how elevation could help topographical research. He just didn’t like it. To write about that moment caused me to go back and study the history of hot air balloons, and to realize how noisy flight is for the rest of us now. I have flown in a glider in the Eastern Sierra in late fall, with crystal air and views from Mt. Whitney out for a hundred miles. Not only was it ecstatically beautiful, but above all, it was silent. I envy that stillness, that peace, often long to recreate it. Helicopters, ultralights, very small planes like the one photographer Michael Light has taken me up in—these offer delicious and haunting experiences, but still, we don’t have the silence. Icarus was luckier than he knew, even counting in the final end.

TAFARELLA: Ezra Pound famously wrestled, emotionally and intellectually, with Walt Whitman. What poet or poets from the past are you Jacob-wrestling with? Who do you hate? Who would you like to surpass?

HOOD: You may be teasing me, since you know that I still think despite his obvious moral failings as a human being, Ezra Pound has a much more ambitious plan for literature than does Eliot or Frost or Wallace Stevens. Pound’s ear was so true and so subtle it makes e.e. cummings seem tone deaf by comparison. Gertrude Stein said that Pound was just a village explainer, which was fine if you were a village, but if not, not. She was on to something, of course—his anti-Semitism was and is deeply repulsive, and his economic theories verge on conspiracy theory whacko—but if you go back to the Pisan Cantos, written in a detention camp as harsh as Gitmo, what he achieves musically has no equal. There’s no other way to say it other than to say he had a very, very, very good ear—on par with Shakespeare or John Dunne.

Yet I can’t write for the people we teach in our classes or even who you discuss in this blog. I am not trying to beat Ezra Pound. Sure, I appreciate that for you, Prometheus is not only unbound but part of a present-tense continuum from the Greeks to the Romans to Helen Vendler to your syllabus. Intellectually, that’s true for me, too. Yet when I come to language, I have to write in the cadence of my own time: I am not part of the 1920s Parisian cafe scene, no matter how many times I watch Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris.

Think of it like anthropology. Even though you know that the Maori men in New Zealand have fabulous facial tattooing, tattooing that you admire and make no negative judgments about, when your daughters get married, you’re going to wear a suit and a boutonniere, not a toga, a war bonnet, or a bird-of-paradise feather through your nose. (In New Guinea I met one hipster who had a ballpoint pen through his nose.) Spending a year getting elaborate facial tattooing won’t be part of the rituals that authenticate your daughters’ marriages.

So for me, I can’t wake up and say, “Whose ass am I going to kick today? Will it be Milton’s, or maybe just Robert Frost’s?” Separate from how that would be like Pluto saying “Today I plan to outshine the sun,” their language, their social framework, just isn’t mine.

In poetry, the free verse line has evolved tremendously in 100 years, so I have different options, but I also have different expectations. Whitman did Whitman’s thing, Pound did Pound’s thing, and every day when I go to work—and I write one to ten hours a day—I have to find out what my thing is going to be. What I am happiest about with the new book is that it achieves a line more varied and more risky than anything I’ve done before. I also like my decision to bring in elements from magical realism. I blend history, biology, whimsy, and confessional first-person narrative into something that goes past a Werner Herzog documentary.

Is it as good as the things my own teachers have done, Pulitzer-prize winners Charles Wright and Louise Gluck? Probably not. But then I wasn’t trying to do what they try to do; ours are different Olympic events entirely. Theirs might be like ballet—my event is closer to five drunk hippos, a bowling ball, and a pile of out of date fireworks.

TAFARELLA: Your poetry can be difficult, though this book is easier to decipher in its original research, allusions, and references than some of your others. You even have a page or two of endnotes. Was that your idea or the editor’s?

HOOD: Mildly helpful but slight opaque endnotes are a recent artifact in poetry. It’s an affectation, like epigraphs. Everybody does it, and yet even though most of us teach MLA citation for a living, most of us in our own books don’t worry about being too fussy in the exact bibliographic details. Endnotes these days nearly are a kind of found language poem themselves, and most defy or reject normal academic scholarship. T.S. Eliot started it in 1922 with the false breadcrumb trail he built at the end of Wasteland. Pound didn’t call him Possum for nuthun.

TAFARELLA: Related to that, when you write, are you generally content to leave those not “in the know” by the wayside? Despite the endnotes, I confess to being tripped up here and there when reading South x South. I don’t know for example, what “neoprene booties” are, and while I know that an “Auster Mk7c” is a plane and not a gun, I don’t have a clue what one looks like or its history. I suppose I could Google it. But are these things my fault? You’re not Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, returned from the dead, deliberately trying to mystify and disorient your audience, are you?

HOOD: I went to Antarctica twice. My plan was to focus on aviation, and in the end, to write nonfiction prose. That has evolved into multiple projects, one of which at one time was going to be prose poetry plus image, alternating, presented as an Internet-only book, since that would be a viable way of including a lot of photographs inexpensively. Some of the things that may bug you now with this book may be left over from my initial idea of text backed by photographs.

The basic story you cite works though without specifics: it just says that once, to move a plane from camp A to camp B, they took the wings off and left the engine intact, and “drove” the plane across the ice like a strange kind of Florida swamp buggy. Wouldn’t that have been fun to see? The actual route had seals on it: what a great picture it would have made. I learned about that story on my way home from the second trip, when I had a layover in New Zealand. The detail comes from a very obscure book that I found in a public library. I am glad I saved it to live on another few years. It nearly became extinct as a moment of human history. Don’t Google it, just enjoy it, like a spice in new food you can’t name but which tastes amazing.

Large poets—by which I mean large in readership, large in prize status, large based on the fame of their host presses—manage to use the particular to illuminate the general. Roger Tory Peterson created the best-selling bird book in the history of the world by abstracting complex natural forms into simple outlines and key features. God bless all of them: wish I could do that, but my natural mode is to let the particular stay the particular. We live our lives moment to moment at the specific level, and if somebody likes Diet Coke, they usually dislike the taste and mouth fizz of Diet Pepsi. So too with paper or plastic at the market, dating or not dating redheads, Chevy versus Ford. The world brims with infinitely small distinctions. Somebody should tell Billy Collins that.

TAFARELLA: In retort to Socrates, the late Christopher Hitchens was fond of saying, “The unlived life is not worth examining.” But Emily Dickinson hardly left her house at all, and yet she still managed to have a rich and complex inner life and write some pretty darn good poetry to boot. To assist her art, would you have urged her to travel and stop futzing about in her papa’s garden?

HOOD: Would Xanex have helped or hindered Dickinson? I would like to assume her genius was so fabulously overscale that even had she suffered as John Clare did and been institutionalized, her imagination would have taken language far past everybody else anyway. As long as there had been paper and a pencil, she would produce great things. Conversely, had she taken her meds, conquered the anxiety disorder, found the courage to date and then marry the unknown, unnamed “Master,” maybe even have gone on to become the first Professor of Jurassic Technology at Harvard—that is to say, gone forth in the world—Miss Dickenson still would have been a galaxy the rest of us barely can see even with the biggest telescopes.

TAFARELLA: In Human, All Too Human (aphorism 208), Nietzsche writes the following: “Every writer is surprised anew how, once a book has detached itself from him, it goes on to live a life of its own.” Any signs, Dr. Frankenstein, that your creature has left the castle?

HOOD: Oh, so that explains all the villagers with their pitchforks and torches. What we have talked about before is the way that new delivery systems modify text. Prose writers (and some editors, but few professional book designers) might assume that words are words are words, no matter what the platform. I disagree: I’m one of those movie snobs who says that unless you see Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm on the big screen with fabulous sound, you have not seen it. South x South is out on Kindle, something I agreed to contractually but never really thought about. The press and I didn’t talk about how to handle line breaks, or what the cover would look like if shown in black and white on a dinky screen.

When I did finally buy my own copy for my home Kindle, I was both distressed and amused. It may or may not be a good book that way, but by golly, it’s a different book. Lines wrap oddly, stanzas no longer have the same flow: it’s like an experiment in collage or cut-up art, so that the notes to the symphony are the same, but their order in the score and even the instruments playing them all have changed. Sort of amusing, really. I probably make it worse since my Kindle defaults to large font.

Even the hard copy book is not really the perfect, definitive version. We had some typesetting issues in the galleys, and I didn’t see the most final, final, FINAL version before it went to print. Turns out, there’s a goof, and a stanza gets split in an ugly way: one line widowed on one page, its concluding line exiled to a different page. One book designer at an unnamed small arts press told me, “Look, next time? See if your next publisher will let me design it, for free. I can make all this better.”

Despite the implied snub, I was secretly pleased, since with every manuscript, I never can be sure that there will be a next time. It’s nice to have a vote of confidence.

TAFARELLA: You sound optimistic. Based on your discussion with other writers, your many books yourself, and your sense of students you mentor, what do you say to those who think poetry is dead?

HOOD: Genres may change rapidly: fine art publishers now solicit what they are calling “hybrid” manuscripts. I have a book in submission titled Mouth, and it has three things going on. Part of it is a set of self-portraits by the painter Christine Mugnolo, brutally honest and compelling documents of her face after serious oral surgery. Part of it is an adventure story of two women (in love and yet rivals) poaching mammoth tusks in present-day Siberia. They have all kinds of things happen, from a brutal raid by Soviet police to receiving help from ghosts and shaman figures. A third portion of each page is fond text from a 1930s botanical book, which includes work by female undergraduates that had been appropriated by the male author and which now has been re-appropriated (or perhaps, “un-appropriated”) by me to help deepen the story of the women in Russia. The whole thing is one wild ride, not unlike the script for Pulp Fiction or Thelma and Louise (but with a happier ending than those).

Meanwhile, more poetry books are being written, produced, sold, and discussed than ever before. Last March in Boston, at the national creative writing conference (what’s called “AWP”), 11,000 writers and lovers of the printed word registered for panels, workshops, readings, and an amazing book fair. I would guess each person left with 20 or 30 books and literary journals—I know I did. In fact, my wife and I brought an extra duffel bag, just to haul back swag.

So novels are doing great, creative nonfiction has exploded, poetry books fill the horizon like wildebeests migrating on the Serengeti, and now we have the field of hybridity, so odd and new nobody knows what even to call it. Lots to be optimistic about. In the same month, two books about Antarctica came out, both poetry. There’s mine but also Red Hen Press released an astounding book by Kate Coles, a book titled The Earth is Not Flat. We were in Antarctica the same field season, but on the far sides from each other. Her book is great, and is one reason I say it’s not “Prometheus unbound,” but “Poetry unbound.”

__________

Hood at the South Pole:

Hood at South Pole

__________

Hood’s book:

S x S cover shot

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Film That Appears To Be Worth Seeing

This looks good and has gotten a lot of recent attention and critical acclaim. It has also generated controversy. It opens in New York and Los Angeles May 24, 2013. Directed by Rasha Burshtein, an Orthodox Jewish woman who lives in Israel, it’s a window on ultra-Orthodox Jewish women and the world they inhabit. Of the film, Burshtein says the following:

It’s a portrait [of ultra-Orthodox life], but an honest one. I’m showing you the real thing without criticism.

Not everyone, apparently, views it as such.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Monster with Big Testicles in House Next Door

Quite a thing to discover. A man who participates in neighborhood barbecues also kidnaps and imprisons women. This is Hannah Arendt’s “the banality of evil” right next door. Charles Ramsey gives a compelling interview on his rescue of Amanda Berry:

_____

And here’s Hannah Arendt:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The GOP: Unhinged, Yet Still (Kind of) Popular?

Andrew Sullivan recently made the following observation:

[T]he GOP Obama faces is arguably the most partisan, factional and deranged that it has been since I started observing it in the mid-1980s.

Yes, and the GOP is nevertheless on track to gain seats in both the Senate and the House in the 2014 midterm elections. It’s an odd confluence of trends. Does the below video account for it?

__________

My own take is that the national Republican Party is where the California Republican Party was in 1994 (the year that the GOP pressed hard for Proposition 187, the “Save Our State” anti-immigration initiative). Republicans won that battle, but have since lost badly the long-term war for voters. California has been largely dominated by the Democratic Party throughout the roughly 20 years since Proposition 187 passed. If the national Republican Party follows a similar trajectory (winning the 2014 off-year election using its “old time religion” themes, but causing serious damage to its brand in doing so), Democrats can expect to be pretty darn happy for at least two or three decades thereafter.

As can pot smokers. Democratic dominance probably means a dialing back of marijuana laws–the end of the buzz kill.

Groovy!

The demographic bus seems to be leaving many Republicans behind. In a decade, not even Texas will be a safe Republican state. Will the national GOP leadership grouse at this from the sidelines (as the California Republican Party leadership largely does today) or adapt?

21st century America is now the Republican Party’s home. It is not back in the 20th century with Ozzie and Harriet and Ronald Reagan. Do Republicans know that?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Tao of Emily, the Calm of Lao Tzu, and Trouble from Blake

Below are two couplets of flower power yin-yang from Emily Dickinson’s poem, “Awake ye muses nine, sing me a strain divine,” written in 1850 when she was aged nineteen. Insofar as anybody knows, it’s the first poem she’d ever written (and also her longest, clocking in at 40 lines):

The high do seek the lowly, the great do seek the small,

None cannot find who seeketh, on this terrestrial ball;

The bee doth court the flower, the flower his suit receives, 

And they make merry wedding, whose guests are hundred leaves;

According to the nineteen year-old Emily, our terrestrial ball’s diversity of things conceals a puzzle of ultimate unity that can be worked out with effort. And moving about on such a ball, you cannot help but bump into what (or who) will match and complete you sooner or later, fitting you most perfectly into that unity.

So be the bee and get to buzzing.

Here’s another union-of-opposites couplet from her poem:

Oh the Earth was made for lovers, for damsel, and hopeless swain,

For sighing, and gentle whispering, and unity made of twain.

But here’s a warning:

The life doth prove the precept, who obey shall happy be,

Who will not serve the sovereign, be hanged on fatal tree.

The sovereign here, by implication, is the Greek god Dionysus (the god of wine and therefore of the dissolution of the rational, armored, and sovereign individual). He calls the single to life’s messy dance of risk-taking, but carries with that invitation a warning to those who stand along the walls:

Thou art a human solo, a being cold, and lone,

Wilt have no kind companion, thou reap’st what thou hast sown.

Don’t do that. Instead, find one with whom to make a particular union–”seize the one thou lovest, nor care for space, or time!”–and bring that one deep into the dark heart of one’s wilderness:

Then bear her to the greenwood, and build for her a bower,

And give her what she asketh, jewel, or bird, or flower–

And bring the fife, and trumpet, and beat upon the drum–

And bid the world Goodmorrow, and go to glory home!

“And bid the world Goodmorrow, and go to glory home!” is the poem’s last line, and so it leaves us with an ongoing tension between isolation and union, for Emily advises union not with God or the world as a whole, but with a singular other, which then turns into its own singularity–a singularity of two–where each person in the dyad functions as a port to the other in the harsh and indifferent storm of existence.

Put another way, God and nature as a whole do not answer to our longing–they are silent–but another person might.

In this sense, the Tao of Emily is not the Tao of Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching, for Emily’s Tao includes entering into the Sturm und Drang of passions via the insight that the union and dissolution of opposites is the way of the world, whereas Lao Tzu calls for us to chill our passions via that very same insight. Here’s Lao Tzu at the beginning of passage 5 of the Tao Te Ching (as translated by R. L. Wing):

Heaven and Earth are impartial;

They regard All Things as straw dogs.

Evolved Individuals are impartial;

They regard all people as straw dogs.

Talk about a romance buzzkill! These are not the lines you want to recite on a first date. But Emily would agree with Lao Tzu that the world is burning, though she wouldn’t draw an impartial implication from this. And both Emily and Lao Tzu share the view that to conceive of oneself as singular, not really embedded in a larger and dynamic system of things, is a mistake.

In light of this, should one quell passions or ramp them up, falling under the rapturous but ultimately painful spell of the god of hot intoxications? Is William Blake–and by extension Emily–right that “the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom” (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell), or is the palace of wisdom reached by Eastern routes of stillness, self-control, and meditation?

During WWII, Britain’s propaganda office famously produced a poster that quite stoically and eloquently admonished the following: “Keep calm and carry on.” The Buddha or Lao Tzu could have said the same thing. But Blake and Emily give one pause about such advice.

In the below lines from “Auguries of Innocence,” written in the first decade of the 19th century, Blake makes the claim that suffering and joy are necessarily woven together—and are, metaphorically, the clothing of the soul. But why suffering must accompany joy–and vice versa–the poet does not explain (55-62):

It is right it should be so:

Man was made for Joy & Woe,

And when this we rightly know

Thro the World we safely go.

Joy & Woe are woven fine,

A Clothing for the Soul divine;

Under every grief & pine

Runs a joy with silken twine.

Blake is very near to Buddhism’s “Middle Way” here, and as Freudian psychology this sounds right (sublimated beneath every no is a yes; behind each pain lurks a pleasure). Blake is also sympatico with Liebnitz—the philosopher parodied in the character of Dr. Pangloss by Voltaire in Candide for insisting that the world as it is, with all its absurdity and suffering, is, nevertheless, ”the best of all possible worlds.” Blake is also in line in this instance with Nietzsche (who embraced suffering as necessary to the assertion of one’s ecstatic will).

Yet, contra Blake, how could, for example, the Holocaust possibly be incorporated as part of the “right” functioning of the universe and the soul’s “Joy”? Emily’s retreat to the bower with one other person and Lao Tzu’s dispassionate matter-of-factness about the cosmos’s indifference to humans as straw dogs seem a bit more sane than Blake’s mystical Christian and Hindu-like confidence that love and bliss (ananda) are at the deepest heart of creation.

So who sees it right, and which path should we take? Should we be ironic and lifelong connoisseurs of inward bliss and pain, the mind’s doubts, and death’s ambiguity, heightening our experience of them and singing of them, finding occasional sanctuary in loved ones (Dickinson); keep calm and carry on (Lao Tzu and Buddha); or express an optimistic faith that all is ultimately well and will be well (Blake and T. S. Eliot in the Four Quartets)?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Mind a Fluke of Nature?

According to atheist and University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne, probably:

As for mind being nothing but a fluke of nature, well, that’s probably true, at least the human mind, since I don’t see our evolution as inevitable (it may have depended on mutations that are based on quantum effects).

Coyne doesn’t elaborate on what he means by the relation of the human mind’s evolution to “quantum effects,” but bringing quantum physics into the issue of the mind’s relation to matter, my question then becomes the following: Why start with the axiomatic assumption that matter is prior to mind and must be responsible for accidentally causing human consciousness? Doesn’t quantum physics (via Schrödinger’s famous kitty), imply that matter requires mind (an observer) for a particle to move from a possible state to an actual state–that matter is in some manner inextricably bound up with the mind?

For example, physicists Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, both at the University of California at Santa Cruz, call the mind’s relation to matter a “quantum enigma”—indeed, the central quantum enigma—and ask rhetorically in their book of the same title, the following:

[D]oes it not go without saying that there is a real world ‘out there,’ whether or not we look at it? (4)

But according to Rosenblum and Kuttner, quantum physics suggests that our intuitive ‘yes’ to that question may be spectacularly wrong. Likewise, I would suggest that the intuition among materialists that human minds and purposes must be generated by determinate matter first, and thus cannot really be necessary to matter or impact the direction of otherwise determinate particles, may also be spectacularly wrong.

According to Discover magazine, physicist Andrei Linde is also reported to entertain a mind dependent cosmos:

[C]onsciousness may be a fundamental component of the universe, much like space and time. He [Linde] wonders whether the physical universe, its laws, and conscious observers might form an integrated whole. A complete description of reality, he says, could require all three of those components, which he posits emerged simultaneously.

If true, that’s dumbfounding and makes for quite an ontological mystery. Linde is quoted in the Discover article as saying the following:

Without someone observing the universe, the universe is actually dead.

So why be a strict materialist and physical determinist when our most empirical science–physics–doesn’t seem to actually demand it?

But if one is set on positing that the mind is a fluke, doesn’t that also make matter a fluke as well? In other words, on atheist terms, matter just is. It has no explanation outside itself, but it’s here (what Stephen Hawking calls “the ultimate free lunch”).

But did matter just jump into existence out of nothing, or has it always existed? Atheists don’t know (and, of course, neither does anyone else). But however conceived—whether as atoms and void or as Plank-level vibrating strings—there’s something properly basic at the bottom of all things—an ontological mystery, if you will, that exists without any antecedent causes—and for the atheist this just happens to be matter.

In other words, it’s a fluke. To quote the writer of Ecclesiastes, “time and chance happeneth to all.”

So now we have two flukes: mind and matter. But this isn’t really satisfying. We seem to be at an aporia (an impasse) of explanation, which in turn seems to demand neither atheism nor theism, but agnosticism.

In our wars of religion and irreligion (and indifference to religion and irreligion), we don’t actually know where, what, or who we are, do we? Why then the desperate displays of confidence atheism and confidence theism, and the resentment on both sides toward the compromisers and indifferent (the lukewarm)? What’s at stake?

I think Terror Management Theory (TMT) offers the most plausible psychological answer: death is unbearable, and therefore doubt is unbearable. Consequently, depending upon our temperaments and contingent circumstances, we sublimate our revulsion at our own deaths and not knowing by casting our lots into competing immortality and meaning projects (one person pours herself into raising children, another into a sport, another into nationalism, another into writing a book, another into religion, another into advancing science, etc.). Every individual thinks her immortality or meaning project, in the face of death, is the sanest and that a lot of other people, maybe even most people, are crazy, superficial, cowardly, or wicked. And in the diversity of the projects people pursue, they invariably crash into one another (the Boston marathoner meets the jihadist; Jerry Coyne gets sent a book by the theologian John Haught, etc.).

But what haunts all of us is a mystery that destabilizes what we think we know, calling all our premises–and immortality and meaning projects–into uncomfortable question. That mystery is death and suffering in a cosmos that consists of two seemingly inexplicable flukes: matter and mind. And God, if God exists, isn’t talking.

Is the answer then agnosticism and to be kinder in tone and rhetoric with one another? Or must we take sides to weed out the most flagrant stupidities, to be cruel to one another only to be kind?

_____

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 49 Comments

David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water” 2005 Kenyon College Commencement Address

Wallace is totally the Buddha in this speech, preaching attentional choice, vigilance in looking, and imaginative awareness. It’s a shame he hit bottom in 2008 and, in the grip of a severe depression (a recurrent scourge that plagued his life), committed suicide. The world, it would seem (echoing Wordsworth), was too much with him.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Rush Limbaugh Blames Women for Advertiser Boycott Success

This is at Salon this week:

Limbaugh, in case you’d forgotten, called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” after the Georgetown University student spoke out in support of insurance mandates for contraceptives. He later apologized – profusely so – but the damage was done. People were fed up, and they took to the Internet and social media to send a message to Limbaugh’s advertisers that they won’t support any business that supports Limbaugh’s brand of radio rabble-rousing. Jittery over the response, advertisers began to bolt. Some never came back, including Geico, Sears, John Deere, Netflix, Capitol One and hundreds of others.

It has been 14 months since the controversy first began, and the boycott continues. Under the hashtag #StopRush, Twitter users signal out Rush-friendly businesses — Dairy Queen, the Home Depot, Golfsmith — telling them enough is enough, [...]

And what is the result? The boycott is working. And Limbaugh is now blaming a very particular group of women for his advertising blues. Here’s Salon again:

One of the basic tenets of the free-market system is that the market participants choose what gets produced and from the looks of things, they’re not choosing Limbaugh. Not that Limbaugh himself sees it that way. On his radio show, he’s made it clear that he believes “media buyers at advertising agencies are young women fresh out of college, liberal feminists who hate conservatism.”

Oh, so that explains it. It’s a female-driven conspiracy. A castrating Sisterhood of media buyers is targeting him and other conservatives. They have burrowed into the American corporate structure, and he has become a victim of their nefarious shenanigans. Glub, glub, glub.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Emily Dickinson’s Poem, “My Life had stood–a Loaded Gun–”

I’d like to offer an existentialist interpretation of Emily Dickinson’s famously perplexing poem, “My Life had stood–A Loaded Gun–” (poem 754 in her collected works). Here’s the poem:

My Life had stood–a Loaded Gun–

In Corners–till a Day

The Owner passed–identified–

And carried Me away–

__

And now We roam in Sovereign Woods–

And now We hunt the Doe–

And every time I speak for Him–

The Mountains straight reply–

__

And do I smile, such cordial light

Upon the Valley glow–

It is as a Vesuvian face

Had let it’s [its] pleasure through–

__

And when at Night–Our good Day done–

I guard My Master’s Head–

Tis better than the Eider-Duck’s

Deep Pillow–to have shared–

__

To foe of His–I’m deadly foe–

None stir the second time–

On whom I lay a Yellow Eye–

Or an emphatic Thumb–

__

Though I than He–may longer live

He longer must–than I–

For I have but the power to kill,

Without–the power to die–

What might this “Loaded Gun” be a trope for? My thought is that it’s the directionless and fearful self–the self lacking an immortality project (some family, aesthetic, religious, or nationalist purpose for ordering energies toward leaving a legacy). This is the self standing idle “In Corners,” free, but not really knowing what to do with itself. This is the self that ultimately dies. The mortal, godless, and doubting self, “a stranger and afraid / In a world I never made” (A.E. Housman).

Then this self gets converted. It generates a before-and-after testimony of being swept away from purposelessness into an immortality project larger than its mortal self (in this case, a religious one, becoming a tool of God):

My Life had stood–a Loaded Gun–

In Corners–till a Day

The Owner passed–identified–

And carried Me away–

This is a very Protestant, evangelical–even charismatic–way to talk, and it’s the very thing in real life that Emily Dickinson could never do: give her uniqueness, solitude, and existential freedom over to the will of another (whether to God, a husband, or a cause). Dickinson saw herself as “a kangaroo among the beauty,” a freak, a misfit, and her “Loaded Gun” poem is an ironic critique of the things we give ourselves over to for the sake of meaning, and the consequent rages against Nature and other human beings that follow in our defenses of it:

To foe of His–I’m deadly foe–

None stir the second time–

On whom I lay a Yellow Eye–

Or an emphatic Thumb–

We obtain our immortality by killing at various levels, and we display great confidence where we know that it is actually not warranted, putting us in what Sartre would call “bad faith.” Thus we kill the “little” self–the formerly free but flailing self–to obtain a delusional self– the “bigger” self that we imagine going on after death. We “speak for Him,” not ourselves–we become the instrument to Another’s purposes–and so live under the curse of puppetry:

For I have but the power to kill,

Without–the power to die–

Our immortality projects are paid for with great violence. That’s my reading of Dickinson’s poem.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Howard Kurtz is My Hero

Journalist Howard Kurtz has been goofing up lately, but the way he addressed it this past weekend is incredibly impressive (as can be seen in the below video). It’s rare, almost unheard of in any context, for someone to so maturely grapple with the truth of his own errors and flaws. (How refreshing is honesty!)

The very fact that CNN allowed this interview to take place at all is fascinating. Talk about, however briefly, a “no-spin zone.” And the journalists assigned to grill him don’t pull a single punch.

Can you imagine this happening at Fox News? Would former Pope Benedict ever sit down for such an interview?

In any case, this is a life-affirming example of someone recommitting himself to adult behavior and reason. George Orwell would be proud of Howard Kurtz. It is what vulnerable and honest discourse looks like. Would that we could all face uncomfortable truths before the gaze of others so admirably.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Social Butterfly Becomes a Submissive and Hijab Draped Caterpillar

The Protean nature of the self (that is, the water-shifting nature of the self, from the ancient Greek sea god Proteus) is on disturbing display in Katherine Russell, the widow of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Here’s The New York Times:

When Katherine Russell arrived as a freshman at Suffolk University just over five years ago, she seemed to bond so well with her new roommates in their lively dorm opposite Boston Common that one classmate likened them to sitcom characters. “They reminded me of the show ‘Sex and the City,’ ” he recalled. “Two of them were free-spirited, one was materialistic and Katherine was the social butterfly.”

Then Ms. Russell began dating Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a boxer from Cambridge, Mass., known for his flashy clothes, and her life began to change. As he became a steadily more religious Muslim, Ms. Russell converted to Islam. She started to cover her head with a hijab in public, startling some classmates. She dropped out of college in 2010, the year they got married and had a daughter.

She moved into his family’s run-down apartment in Cambridge, trading her old life of New England comfort and privilege — her father and grandfather both went to Phillips Exeter Academy and Yale — for the struggles of an immigrant family, with money so tight that they were on public assistance at times.

Isn’t that an amazing transformation? The power of religion to shapeshift the personality is astonishing.

Lauren Sandler, trying to come to terms with the attractions of fundamentalist religion, writes the following in her book Righteous: Dispatches from the Evangelical Youth Movement (Viking 2006, p. 246):

Our [secular] culture needs to offer more than escapism.

In other words, in the presence of death humans need immortality projects with some oomph. Buddhist meditation and yoga classes mixed with consumerism probably aren’t going to be enough going forward to sustain secular culture against the subterranean psychological furnaces that produce revivals of medievalism and fanatic nationalism (both on display in the mind of Russell’s husband).

But if we’re secularists, what can we do? We’ve got nothing to offer the average person but nihilism and distraction–that is, whistling in the dark. Perhaps this is sufficient for the especially gifted and creative, but in general the human psyche doesn’t seem especially stable absent the balm of religion–of some substantial immortality project. Read, for example, an Emily Dickinson poem to get a feel for what it’s like to be sensitive and yet go through life without the delusions of religious hope. Here’s a stanza from one of her poems (poem 328):

A Bird came down the Walk–

He did not know I saw–

He bit an Angelworm in halves

And ate the fellow, raw, [...]

This sort of sustained and unblinkered seeing into the rough nature of the world is too much for most people. Not even Moses could look upon the face of God and live. It is the lightning. Too direct an encounter with truth can drive us, Oedipus-like, to pluck out our eyes. Here’s Emily again (from poem 1129):

As Lightning to the Children eased

With explanation kind

The Truth must dazzle gradually

Or every man be blind–

The truths behind secularism are painful. Here, for example, is the philosophical compass for a recently launched science magazine that aspires to be “a New Yorker version of Scientific American.” Here’s The New York Times yesterday:

[Nautilus: Science Connected] uses as an epigraph a 1995 statement from Stephen Hawking, the English physicist and man about the universe: “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies.”

True, but not conducive to cathedral or nation building. For its quarterly published paper edition, Nautilus hopes to have a subscription base of 5,000. By contrast, within seven miles of where I live is a mega-church that actively promotes young earth creationism. It draws in more than 5,000 attendees every week.

Who’s winning–and what’s really being won?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Alan Watts Sings

Sort of.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Contemporary Life in Perspective

A stunning statistic (via Bloomberg Businessweek):

The global median income is around $3 to $4 a day.

That means that half of the world’s population lives on less than that.

Here’s another stunning statistic (from the same source):

According to the World Bank, current world GDP is about $76.4 trillion, [...] The OECD predicts world GDP will be about four times in 2050 what it is today. World population may have reached 9 billion.

The world is getting richer at an impressive clip, but the disparities between rich and poor are stark. The OECD prediction suggests to me that, even in 2050, global median income will be just $12-16 a day.

I wonder if Big Data might change the equation. Some are claiming it will have an internet-sized impact on the world in the near future. This comes via Derek Mead:

As photographer Rick Smolan tells it, Big Data is now like the internet was in 1993: People are just learning what it’s about, and people are just figuring out what it is. But then you hear Google CEO Eric Schmidt say things like “There was 5 exabytes of information created between the dawn of civilization through 2003, but that much information is now created every 2 days, and the pace is increasing…People aren’t ready for the technology revolution that’s going to happen to them.”

Are you strapped in?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

What’s the Point of Having a Buddhist Meditation Practice?

Is the goal of the Buddhist meditator the same as the scientist (the breaking of spells and the dispelling of ignorance)?

Ron Liefer, psychiatrist and Buddhist meditator, in his book The Happiness Project (Snow Lion 1997), writes the following (14):

From the Buddhist point of view, the unwillingness or failure to see the facts of life as they are, to see ourselves as we are, and to conduct ourselves in harmony with these realities, is the chief cause of our self-inflicted suffering and, therefore, the chief obstacle to our happiness. This state of denial, or lack of realization of the facts of existence, is called avidya in Sanskrit–literally, “the failure to see, or know”–translated as “ignorance.” [...]

In other words, Liefer locates two categories of facts around which we live in ignorance: facts surrounding existence in general and facts surrounding individual existence.

What are these facts? As to existence in general, Buddhism has its Big Two:

  • All things are in flux, transient, fleeting. “Everything is burning” (Buddha’s Fire Sermon).
  • The self is ultimately empty, an unlocatable illusion when we search for it closely, a narrative convention upon which awareness too narrowly and intensely identifies and attaches. This ultimate emptiness applies to everything else as well. “No flower in the flower.”

Ignorance and repression of these two facts causes suffering because we wish that some of the things that are contingent, empty, and transient (including ourselves) were necessary, essential, and permanent. And so, in our desires and aversions, we cling to smoke.

What also causes suffering are the contingent facts surrounding each individual’s existence that are not accepted. You might, for example, be dishonest in some aspect of your life, but are not acknowledging this to your (transient) self or others, thus generating yet another layer of illusion for your awareness and expending mental and bodily energy in its maintenance. And so Leifer writes the following: (17):

From an overarching perspective, the spiritual journey involves the transformation of our ordinary state of denial, repression, defensiveness, armoring, self-constriction, tension, anxiety, and negativity into a state of courageous openness, honest awareness, guileless spontaneity, trusting vulnerability, and joyous equanimity. It requires accepting and relaxing into existence as it is, rather than anxiously rejecting and fighting it because it is not what we want it to be. Easy to say, difficult to do.

Hence the need for a meditation practice. Meditation conditions you into habits of awareness that make it more likely you’ll face reality with some degree of calm and openness (most especially when it is unpleasant). That’s a pretty important skill to acquire. As George Orwell, in a different context, quipped in an essay for London’s Tribune titled “In Front of Your Nose”:

[Because we view things through the lenses of] either wish or fear [...] To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.

In other words, the difficulty of life is to not look away; to face the truth without, Oedipus-like, plucking out your eyes. Thus the nice resonances of Buddhism with the goals of scientists and therapists. If religion and the sciences are anywhere not in conflict, it would seem to be within Buddhism.

In fact, combining the culture of critical thinking, objectivity, and evidence that scientists and therapists attempt to practice with training in calm acceptance (as Buddhists engage in) is a pretty potent combination. If you want to live a life in touch with reality, you could do much, much worse.

So yippee! Science and religion on the same page for a change! And that would seem to be at least one good reason to take up some form of Buddhist meditation practice.

If you’re a novice to meditation, where might you start? Let’s let the two “Uncle Allens” (Allen Ginsberg and Alan Watts) sing us out.

__________

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Which Religion is Best? The Admirable Superhero Criterion

There are five major world religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They can be judged by any number of criteria.

Which one has the most admirable superhero?

There are certainly compelling characters in four of the five: Jesus is awesome on many levels; Buddha is calm, brave, and thoughtful; Arjuna is an emotionally complicated hippie-pacifist; and the writer of Ecclesiastes, playing the tormented existentialist, is one of the most compelling persons in the Hebrew Bible.

Mohammad, unfortunately, doesn’t make it into the top-tier of admirable characters of any sort and so pretty much leaves Islam a dismal failure by admirable superhero standards. He’s simply too violent. Islam’s history is akin to if Christianity got its start with Constantine. It would be hard to admire Constantine as the founder of a religion, and it’s hard to admire Mohammad for the same reason.

Mohammad does have one thing going for him over Jesus and the other nonviolent and internally tormented religious superheroes. At least Mohammad’s religion is honest about the role that coercion plays in the advance of religion.

Mohammad was an actual political leader in a coarse and violent time (even more coarse and violent than ours), and so had to make hard calls and justify them–and he did. After his death, Jesus had his Constantine. Mohammad didn’t enjoy that luxury. Constantine did the dirty work for Jesus, securing as a world historical phenomenon the religion started by him (or more accurately, the religion started by the apostle Paul). Mohammad didn’t outsource, and so he gets direct blame for Islam’s subsequent acts of coercion and imperialism.

Religious leaders like Jesus, Paul, and Buddha have plausible deniability on the coercion and imperialism fronts. This makes them more attractive and sympathetic figures than Mohammad. But that doesn’t change the fact that the religions that carry their imprint have gotten big pushes through history from political leaders and wealthy men expending their money, power, and tools of violence and coercion on their behalf (exactly like Islam has).

And Moses and Joshua in Judaism and Arjuna in Hinduism also suffer from the same coercion problem that Mohammad does. Their embrace of violence (the invasion of Canaan in the Hebrew Bible; Krishna’s ultimate persuasion of the reluctant Arjuna to fight in a civil war in the Baghavad Gita) makes them hard, ultimately, to admire and imitate. Like jihad in the Koran, the violent acts in the Hebrew Bible and the Gita have to be deliteralized and turned into allegories of the inward struggle (as Gandhi did with the Gita) to make them tolerable and not repulsive for use in the 21st century.

Jesus and Buddha, however, were pretty consistent in their nonviolence, and so can’t be as readily blamed for the behavior of all the subsequent dunderheads who claimed to follow them.

Therefore, by the criterion of most admirable superheroes, Christianity and Buddhism get measured nods from me, and Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism get points for honesty.

Where, however, are the heroines? A big thumbs down to all five religions for their long and sexist focus on the wiener.

But there’s one other ancient superhero that certainly stands up well against Jesus and Buddha, but only if we count secularism, in its rise since the Enlightenment, as now among the world’s great and competing religions. I think secularism does qualify as a new and pervasive human religion if we accept Paul Tillich’s famous definition of religion as “the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern” (chapter 1 of Christianity and the Encounter of the World’s Religions, Columbia University Press, 1963). Most secular people have ultimate concerns (political or otherwise) that give their lives larger meanings other than the day-to-day and animate them in a religious manner. Secularism, in other words, has its humanist (and sometimes not so humanist) religions and causes. And that means secularism’s ur-hero deserves to be in play here.

I’m referring of course to the archetypal man of doubt, Socrates. He denied that he really knew anything, and therefore, in contrast with the rest of pretentious humanity (including Jesus and Buddha), could readily be described as the wisest man in the world (and the oracle at Delphi did so). Socrates did not live in the error that he knew things that he actually didn’t, or that he had arrived at the One Right Path (as Jesus and Buddha had done). Instead, he asked questions, he deferred to reason, he stayed open. He declined the dubious bullhorn of proclamation for the gentle step-ladder of dialogue, and generally lived admirably, giving birth to a sane, non-neurotic, and profound intellectual lineage (Plato followed by Aristotle). His manner of death also showed him to have powerful inner resources–the inner resources of a superhero.

So for me, with regard to the question–”Which religion has the most admirable superhero?”–secularism wins the big crown and Islam gets the biggest smile turned upside down.

And there is justice in this verdict, for history has shown the five great institutional religions to have actually been quite fittingly designated as such, and thus not really deserving of much (if any) enthusiastic praise. Here’s one of Socrates’s disciples affirming a difficult, but necessary to acknowledge, truth about them:

__________

And here’s Jacques-Louis David’s famous 1787 canvas depicting Socrates, after having been condemned to death on grounds of denying the gods and corrupting the youth of Athens with doubt, willingly, bravely, and philosophically receiving from one of his students the cup of hemlock that would end his life.

File:David - The Death of Socrates.jpg

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

10 Questions to Ask Before You Believe Something

How well does a belief that you currently subscribe to hold up under these ten questions? And wouldn’t it be nice if we all asked such questions before professing belief in something?

  1. Do I have any actual evidence for the thing I say I believe, and what is the extent and quality of that evidence?
  2. If I don’t have direct physical evidence or data that support my belief, do I at least have other good reasons—deductive, inductive, abductive—for believing what I say I do? (Abduction is reasoning to the best hypothesis: laying out all the logical possibilities and asking which one best fits the evidence.)
  3. Given the quantity and quality of the evidence and reasons available to me at this time, how strongly should I actually hold my belief?
  4. Is my belief coherent with my background knowledge (the things I think I already know about the cosmos and how it works)?
  5. Have I actively sought out disconfirming evidence and arguments against my belief?
  6. Have I weighed alternative beliefs or explanations about this matter, and really come to the best belief and explanation on offer? (In this question, we’re back to abduction.)
  7. What framing or spell-casting associations, stories, metaphors, or analogies have I been telling myself in support of this belief which, on closer inspection, might be misleading me, making it difficult to think clearly about the matter at hand?
  8. What role is desire or aversion of any sort (pleasure, hope, fear, optimism, group approval, pessimism, ego gratification, financial interest, aesthetics, comfort, etc.) playing in my conclusion?
  9. What blind spots might I potentially have about this belief, and what might be causing them? (This is a hard question because it brings us into a confrontation with our psychological repressions, projections, sublimations, compartmentalizations, etc.)
  10. Are there forces at work that are fogging my ability to objectively, patiently, and clearly focus on this matter (time pressures, illness, electronic distractions, noises, decorum, lack of sleep, envy, guilt, strong-willed influencers, emotional blackmailers, authority figures, pessimism, etc.).

A lot of us are brought under the spell of false beliefs because we can tell a good story about how they might be true, they are consistent with logic (they are logically possible), and we want to be believe them. And so the above questions would certainly clear up a lot of life’s fog if we actually asked them.

In 1946 George Orwell wrote an essay for London’s Tribune titled “In Front of Your Nose.” In it, he lays out a theory for why critical thinking is so hard: “In general, one is only right when either wish or fear coincides with reality.” It’s a funny line, and it rests on a powerful syllogism: our deepest hopes and fears lead our reason; they rarely match reality; therefore, our conclusions rarely match reality. And so, in the same essay, Orwell also writes the following: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Orwell provocatively suggests that the difficult part of critical thinking is not the act of concentrated attention to a problem, but that of reducing subjectivity and increasing objectivity. The struggle is to never look away; to face the truth without, Oedipus-like, plucking out your eyes. The above questions might actually help you do that (should you really want to).

And wouldn’t it be nice to take hands with Truth and samba through life with it (as opposed to Falsehood)?

Maybe not.

Therein lies the problem. Contra Keats’ memorable line from “Ode on a Grecian Urn” (“Beauty is truth, truth beauty”), such things as beauty and comfort, unfortunately, are not always on the side of truth.

Do we, therefore, need our distortions, illusions, fantasies, and delusions–our false beliefs? Something or someone that stays with us, right or wrong, till death parts us? Do we want to be wed to the truth or do we want something else?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Jihad in Boston

A razor sharp bit of analysis from Rafia Zakaria, a Pakistani columnist in Pakistan, on why the Boston Marathon bombing grips the world’s attention even as the death count is low:

As a weekly columnist for the Pakistani newspaper Dawn, I’ve become adept at writing about bombings. Pakistan suffered 652 of these last year; terrorist attacks took down everything from girls’ schools to apartment buildings and felled members of Parliament, singers, and school children—each person sentenced by coincidence to be at a given location in the moment it became a bomber’s target. [...]

There may be fewer victims and less blood, but American tragedies somehow seem to occur in a more poignant version of reality, in a way that evokes a more sympathetic response. [...]

[T]he American normal is one of a near-perfect security that is unimaginable in many places, especially in countries at war. The very popularity of the Boston Marathon could be considered an expression of just this. America is so secure and free from suffering that people have the luxury of indulging in deliberate suffering in the form of excruciating physical exertion; this suffering in turn produces well-earned exhilaration, a singular sense of physical achievement and mental fortitude.  The act of running a marathon is supposed to be simple, individual—a victory of the will over the body, celebrated by all and untouched by the complicated questions of who in the world can choose to suffer and who only bears suffering.

In other words, the prosperous and solitary marathon runner who chooses suffering as a test of individual will contrasts with two religious nationalists who resent their tribe’s communal suffering and the thwarting of its communal will. Harboring bitter group grievances (unwanted suffering of ancestors as well as contemporary brethren), they lash out against the comfortable and indifferent Other (the marathon runner and his spectators).

And while one–the marathoner–embraces internationalism, running alongside people from around the world, and has an “immortality project” focused on body testing and personal happiness, the other two are focused on nationalism and the religious spirit. One is Emersonian, focused on creative and private struggle, the other two are Mohammedan, focused on the Old Text and territorial disputes. The free Nietzschean I will encounters the monotheist’s thou shalt.

When jihadist terrorism happens in America, it is thus not one insular and religious sect attacking another (as when Sunni attacks Shia in Iraq), but medievalists attacking urban and progressive secular culture worldwide; that is, it is an attack upon the children of the Anglo-French Enlightenment (those who are quite obviously taking over the world). It is Johann Gottfried Herder engaging in a rear-guard action against Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. It is the revenge of the counter-Enlightenment.

Ultimately, then, this is not just about Huntington’s “clash of civilizations,” but a clash over religion in its deepest sense, which Paul Tillich famously defined as “the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern” (chapter 1 of Christianity and the Encounter of the World’s Religions, Columbia University Press, 1963).

It is the clash of ultimate concerns that we are witnessing today. This is due to the Internet, international travel and communication, increased education, and global trade. We cannot escape one another. Innocence and distance has turned into experience and proximity. The persistent, indeed relentless, in-your-face encounters between people who have very different ways of making meaning along their forced march to death (whether through some version of religion, secular utopianism, or private distraction) is ever on the ready to break out into rage and violence.

And sometimes it does.

We are in a bad existential situation as human beings, It’s a psychological pressure cooker. With each passing moment we get closer to death. Some snap in the heat of this fact. They become fundamentalists, hyper-nationalists, racists, conspiratorialists . . . enthusiasts and fanatics. It relieves the pressure. Small pleasures on one’s way to becoming a meal for maggots and flies, such as taking up marathon running, are not for them. They need to make a bigger splash in the infinite cosmic pool before it swallows them whole. Some become sympathetic to the international jihad on behalf of Allah and find themselves in Boston (of all places). In an ironic twist on a hippie slogan, it comes into their minds to think globally and act locally.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Vicarious Voyeurism is “In the House”

Recommended to me by a colleague, the new French film, In the House, sounds interesting. A high school teacher encourages one of his students to write ever more dramatic scenes for him to read, knowing full well that by doing so he is ramping up the student’s voyeurism and risk-taking for the sake of obtaining new creative material. No doubt the film ends with a lot of human wreckage strewn about. And there’s a MILF at center stage. Hmm. Here’s the trailer:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment