Party politics and third parties

Party politics is the source of a great deal of pettiness, small-mindedness, and irrational dislike. Period. Would the ascendancy of a third party change this dynamic? Maybe not, but (depending on which third party) this could bring more diversity of ideas into politics and represent the people more effectively. I’m voting third-party this coming election for a reason, and so should you. Whatever your reason might be, vote for the party that represents your own views best, rather than the party that compromises on your views most effectively, and sacrifices your principles with the greatest gain. If more people voted the way they believed, rather than the way that seemed most expedient, the two-party system would not have the stranglehold on government and political discourse that it does at present, and people would no longer see voting as a choice between the Demoblicans (or Demublicans, if you prefer!) and the Republicrats.

Scandals, human nature, and ‘Climategate’

What is a 'scandal'? I would argue that is an entertainingly sensationalized piece of gossip, glorified as news, about some instance of particular people, usually influential or important, acting in typically human ways with absurd or criminal results. A scandal is typical human behavior taken out of context. Basically, it is human nature in action, and then people act like they’re ‘shocked’- even though there’s nothing surprising about humans being human. What I mean is that people acting in ways that are sex-hungry, power-hungry, mean, prying, vindictive, conspiratorial, corrupt, and paranoid are just as much parts of us and our nature as all of our more likeable qualities. So, with Climategate-redux: Are scientists human and susceptible to bad qualities? Yep. Does that mean the science is bad? No, it means the merits of the scientific studies in questioned need to be determined by review of the methods of data collection and analysis used, to examine whether data was inappropriately excluded, ignored, or purposely misinterpreted, all of which are possible but, I think doubtful. Repeating what scientists say to each other in their capacity as colleagues with, inevitably, shared interests and a group mentality ('us' v. 'them' springs eternal in the human breast, no matter how intelligent the person) does not constitute systematic review of a body of data: it constitutes gossip that has been interpreted, incorrectly, as calling the data into question.

Procrastination, and the productivity of distraction

Dreading what you want is never conducive to productivity. For much of my life, I have wanted to put out a bound book of my poetry. Now I have that chance, albeit on a small scale (everyone starts somewhere) and the proofs are just sitting there. Admittedly, I’ve been busy. But now is the time to push myself to do it. One of Warren Buffett's principles, as noted by the reliable source of a sign on the wall at Jimmy Johns (which I had ample time to view while working there) is 'no thumb-twiddling.' I agree. Once you’ve made up your mind, act on your decision, without pausing to dread the work involved. It’s an approach to life that results in more productivity and less dread. Procrastination is one of several self-imposed forms of misery; people laugh about it, but as a veteran procrastinator, I know what despair and desperation can result! This does not mean that I commit to never engaging in it again- no, it is an exceptional source of what may be called the 'productivity of distraction.' Things such as cleaning the house, writing poetry, and, yes, blogging, instead of the form of productivity you are distracting yourself from. It does, however, mean that I am trying to make the productivity of distraction a rational choice, rather than a default mode of life. Now, on to editing those proofs.

As a writer- reflections on lazy writing

As a writer, you have to ask yourself, ‘What am I trying to say? And how can I put my ideas into sentences, following one after another, in a way that will take my reader’s hand and lead them to a conclusion- to a realization- that comes to them with a greater level of clarity than I myself experienced at the first blush of epiphany?’ Good writing is limpid, lucid, and as light as a sash in the wind. It does not settle on the floor of the reader’s mind and require muddling through, like an unwieldy mass of covers in the morning. It is not intellectualism, it is transparent transmission of ideas that floats from one mind to the other. It is written as accessible- as well, as clearly- as possible, so that it is nearly effortless. In looking over this blog so far, I have realized I have used a muddle of words. Initially, my self-justification was, ‘these are just the raw stuff of what comes out of my head, I can’t spend too much time editing it, that is what my manuscripts are for.’ But this is an excuse for lazy writing. Run-on sentences and unnecessarily long words are short-cuts many intellectuals, or would-be intellectuals (including myself) use to express themselves more swiftly. But they are also lazy, both as writing and as thinking. They sacrifice clarity, not for the sake of brevity, compression, or precision- not for the sake of making one’s thought accessible- but for the sake of thinking less. Which is another way of saying, editing less. Writing is thinking, and spending more time going over one can improve the other. That is, if you know how to edit! So, this shall be my test.

The two great crises, and the well-springs of yearning and wonder

In human life, there are two great crises that we all experience, and we take their formative roles upon us- and the psyche of loss that they bring about- for granted precisely because they are universal. These two crises are birth- the loss of the physical parallel to Eden that is the womb (as indicated by Carl Sagan in Broca’s Brain, if I remember correctly)- and the loss of innocence, the loss of the state of mind that is Eden's other parallel. Between the two, we have a sense of yearning, of loss, of not being at peace or whole, that is the unconscious undercurrent of much of our lives. We are rarely aware of it, but this sense of missing something, of being incomplete, is the motivation behind many of our reflections, expressions, beliefs, and yearnings. It is also the source of wonder, which is the fundamental impulse behind philosophical thought and religious feeling alike. It is hard to look at the world through new eyes if they have not lost an older view, an older way of seeing.

Consumerism, advertising, and postmodern humanity

In looking at the role of advertising in promoting a consumerist mentality- advertising sells not just specific products, but consumerism, acquisitiveness, mammon, a mindset and a lifestyle- in making citizens into consumers, and then manipulating those consumers- it would be useful to look at what kids (and parents, for that matter) are like who keep their children away from television (and, hence, TV ads), and other forms of electronic entertainment and communication used to transmit advertising.

One of the things that makes me feel ambivalent about the internet, much as I make use of it myself, is that it has become so integrated into most people’s social and work lives, even in terms of email alone, that it is hard to avoid using it, but this has brought advertising, in every moment, into our homes and workplaces, made it always at the periphery of our state of mind, because whether emailing at work or doing Facebook at home, you’re seeing ads. It also contributes, of course, to overstimulation (hence, anhedonia and problems focusing, concentrating, being able to sustain a line of thought, as well as being able to think of original thoughts in the first place, or tending to think any thoughts at all).

Before the internet, an interdepartmental memo didn’t have ads attached to it- now, memos come through email, with ads on the side of the screen (depending on the email you use). Before Facebook, people would reconnect with people they hadn’t seen in a while who live elsewhere by a phone conversation- something more substantial than messaging back and forth or commenting on the same picture once in a while, or they would write a letter, and neither phone calls nor letter-writing requires seeing ads. Facebook does. What kind of effect does this have on us? Not just in the sense that ads promote consumerism and acquisitiveness, but a superficial focus on money, things, and a certain physical appearance and social manner for men and women?

What are we doing to ourselves? And how much of what we are doing to ourselves is really voluntary? How much of it is imposed upon us by pervasive societal structures, to varying degrees based on demographic factors such as class, race, and locale (urban, suburban, or rural), in ways that make it highly unlikely for us to opt out of them, or even make the choice to do so non-viable?

Identity, non-conformity, and self-conception

I read recently that there is a debate among psychologists as to whether outcomes are better for people who identify as transgender if they can be convinced to identify with their assigned gender. In reflecting on it, I think it is a debate with similarities to the old one about whether it is better, for people with homosexual desires, if they can be convinced to identify with heterosexuality. The arguments on behalf of rejecting transgender identity on the one hand, and homosexual or bisexual identity on the other, all boil down to the notion that it is easier to conform than not conform. But it is more appropriate to identify with your own deepest impulses, as long as identifying with them does not lead to other-regarding violations of moral obligations, than to be seduced by expediency into living a lie. Is it easier, in one’s external life, to live a conformist lie?

Generally, yes, at least in the short-term. But doing so is a source of psychological stress, and that stress can, in the long-run, crack through the façade of your artificial life and shatter it with your genuine impulses in their most defiant and repressed form. Would it be easier, sometimes, if I was not myself- if I was more similar to other people? Yes, at least in my external life. But that is the wrong question. The question is, can I be other than who I am, can I find peace in a life that is not merely an acquiescence to social standards in the ways in which I express myself, but a way of expressing myself that is utterly at odds with my own desires, values, and beliefs? The answer is no.

It is a pernicious form of social control to tell people they would be happier, ‘better-adjusted,’ if they repressed rather than expressed their own recurring desires and self-conceptions, and constructed a personality and conscious self-image based on artificial social constructs of normalcy. People should respond to the pull of their own will to construct themselves and their lives as they feel is most genuine and reflective of how they see themselves, and the sole constraint upon this should be moral obligations, not subjective conceptions of ‘well-adjusted’ lives at the cost of inauthentic selves.

The artificially low cost of oil

As with many products, perhaps most, the cost of oil, whether we see it as high or low, is artificially low due to the externalizing of costs. In the case of oil, the price is further lowered by subsidies and tax breaks for corporations involved in the supply chain of bringing oil and its derivative forms (gasoline, kerosene, etc.) to market. Externalized costs include military, diplomatic, environmental costs, foreign aid to oil-producing countries, and the detrimental effect of extractive industries on regional economies in the United States and elsewhere. Then factor in the corrupting influence of oil lobbyists (powerful even among the despicable campaign slush-fund of lobbyists in their be-suited legions in the halls of Congress) on democracy, and you have a mere indication of the true costs of oil.

Even if only 5% of U.S. spending (a remarkably conservative number, I would wager) on the military, diplomacy, foreign aid, and environmental clean-up (i.e., only the monetary aspect of environmental damage) can be traced to our dependence on oil and ‘energy security’ in the Middle East and Libya, the sum is massive. And none of this sum is reflected in the price at the pump.

So the next time the price of oil shocks you, think again, and consider walking, biking, or using public transportation instead. Support candidates that maintain and strengthen environmental regulations and the power of regulatory agencies. Petition for the removal of all subsidies and tax breaks for corporations involved in the production of oil, and other finite, dirty-burning sources of energy. And, as always, reduce, reuse, and recycle. Choices by average individuals are not enough to combat global warming, but, when combined with political activism, they increase the chances that we will be able to do so effectively.

Motivations of creativity and self-expression

In the Renaissance, melancholy was associated with creativity, with genius. And rightly so. Democritus may have been a laughing philosopher, but he was one of the exceptions. Intellectual endeavor is a form of creativity too, after all. And among the artists, the writers, so many were sad people, and led sad lives. Heraclitus is a famous example of melancholy among philosophers. It is not an observation unique to me, but melancholy among writers and artists is often a layer beneath hedonism, and a layer above dissatisfaction, and the self-questioning of self-doubt.

People inclined to sustained expression in a disciplined form, whether intellectual or aesthetic, tend to be unfulfilled, meaning-hungry. They make things that mean something because they are working through their sense of futility, meaninglessness- trying to make an elusive meaning manifest- or convince themselves that meaning is not elusive, by trumpeting the illusion that there is one that exists apart from our fallacies and inconsistences, objective and lasting.

But the question of meaning- of seeking it, or dissatisfaction with its fleeting moments, and its fleeting from moments formerly whole and satisfying in themselves- this is fundamental to the drive for expression, whether personal or epic, academic or transcendental. There is this sense of trying to hold onto time: what we love within it, what we want to remember (the two are not always the same), what we want others to remember through the lens of what we have made.

The test of whether you care about something

The test of whether you care about something does not come when you have it, but when it is gone. It is an old observation. It is easy to say you don’t care about money, status, etc., when you have it. When you lack it, and neither miss it nor seek it, that is the sign of not caring about it. If you care enough to keep it, then you care about it- regardless of what you say to the contrary. What we do not care about, we give away, we leave behind.

The United States- hegemony or empire?

The United States fits the definition of a hegemon more neatly then it fits the definition of an empire. It is less intent on conquest than on exerting power, and exerts power more for economic and political purposes, both internal and external, than for purposes of increasing territory or controlling foreign populations directly. The latter- increasing territory, controlling foreign populations directly- are only engaged in for the short term (i.e., a decade or so), and only when doing so serves economic and political aims, or is a consequence (not always desired, but sometimes) of attempts to meet these aims. This does not make our foreign policies any less despicable, but criticizing them effectively begins with seeing their character (hegemonic, rather than imperial) accurately.