I'm not very good at it, after all I have spent a large (close to 8 years and counting) of my life expressing myself in numbers, equations relating them, and the restricted semantics of programming languages, but lately, slowly, I am starting to gain a exquisite/poignant feeling for words, their nuance. It's a wonderful feeling, and at times when you not only express yourself as you desired, but sense recognition in your audience, it is an intoxicating feeling.
So, to be stickler for definition, and to follow on the thread of my previous post, I wonder what I mean by 'doing', what does it mean (especially these days) to perform an action. (As a small aside, perhaps a disclaimer, I sometimes think about my thinking, and scare myself into how infantile it is. I think it must be vanity, and not hope that dies last, as I somehow find the strength to persevere ;).)
And so, what defines an action? i.e. an external output that you (person) may be (should be?) judged by? My impulsive naive attempts to map everything down to a binary map is quite obviously too simplistic. I guess, a first attempt would be to assert than an action will/must affect someone else. But in that case, is the generation/publication/vocalisation of a meme an act? If you have some crazy idea, relate it to a person, and they go ahead to implement it, who is to blame? It seems that there are instances when this could be answered either way. Or even more complicated, is the facilitation of the successful propagation of a meme an action? (like an 'accessory' to the act?)
Hmmm....time to think :)
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Introspection
Recurring thoughts.... things you hear people say, and are then surprised that you actually listened. I guess this is what happened to me, when I heard Goodman say (to paraphrase) - 'people are essentially good'. What a load of crap.
or is it? So this is what I have been thinking about recently: what does it mean to be a bad person.
It's almost a given, that most people consider themselves 'good' (defined here best by its negation, i.e. 'not bad'). And yet, most people will admit to doing 'bad' things, i.e. stealing, lying, cheating, etc. With the caveat that they do this on a small scale, and rarely - only when they are particularly angry, upset, lost control, emotional, 'not thinking clearly' blah blah. Additionally, most of the time, the 'bad' action is assessed so only in retrospection. Very few people consciously perform a bad act, i.e. with their 'super ego' monitoring the situation.
Most people think they are good, but will admit to sometimes doing bad things.
So then the question is, when do their/your actions begin to define who you are? When does a bad action make you bad? How many bad things do you have to do to become bad? Is that possible? Is there a tipping point? is it reversible?
I don't know. But I offer this as a possible measure - introspection. A person 'becomes bad' when no longer are their actions subject to the scrutiny of the super ego - or perhaps it drifts far away from the society that the person occupies. No one can live with themselves long thinking they are bad - it's a terrible stress on the psychologically, and physiologically. Consequently, something has to give, and it is either the persons actions, or their definition of them.
Ultimately, and fortunately (?) it's not really important whether you 'are' bad or good. What matters is how your actions reflect in the society that you live in, starting from your family society, friendship group, and of course the society at large. However, I do think that this is an important point to identify - people 'do' bad things.
Perhaps it is not possible to define a bad/good person, yet strangely this word combination exists in many languages, and is frequently used. It's a label that is applied to people all to thoughtlessly, and consequently has the potential to color/taint every subsequent action, as well as your reaction.
My final thought is that language is a powerful weapon, our own vocalisations mould our subconscious more than we would like (hence I'm typing! :)), we not only hear ourselves talk, we actually listen - so we should choose our words wisely.
or is it? So this is what I have been thinking about recently: what does it mean to be a bad person.
It's almost a given, that most people consider themselves 'good' (defined here best by its negation, i.e. 'not bad'). And yet, most people will admit to doing 'bad' things, i.e. stealing, lying, cheating, etc. With the caveat that they do this on a small scale, and rarely - only when they are particularly angry, upset, lost control, emotional, 'not thinking clearly' blah blah. Additionally, most of the time, the 'bad' action is assessed so only in retrospection. Very few people consciously perform a bad act, i.e. with their 'super ego' monitoring the situation.
Most people think they are good, but will admit to sometimes doing bad things.
So then the question is, when do their/your actions begin to define who you are? When does a bad action make you bad? How many bad things do you have to do to become bad? Is that possible? Is there a tipping point? is it reversible?
I don't know. But I offer this as a possible measure - introspection. A person 'becomes bad' when no longer are their actions subject to the scrutiny of the super ego - or perhaps it drifts far away from the society that the person occupies. No one can live with themselves long thinking they are bad - it's a terrible stress on the psychologically, and physiologically. Consequently, something has to give, and it is either the persons actions, or their definition of them.
Ultimately, and fortunately (?) it's not really important whether you 'are' bad or good. What matters is how your actions reflect in the society that you live in, starting from your family society, friendship group, and of course the society at large. However, I do think that this is an important point to identify - people 'do' bad things.
Perhaps it is not possible to define a bad/good person, yet strangely this word combination exists in many languages, and is frequently used. It's a label that is applied to people all to thoughtlessly, and consequently has the potential to color/taint every subsequent action, as well as your reaction.
My final thought is that language is a powerful weapon, our own vocalisations mould our subconscious more than we would like (hence I'm typing! :)), we not only hear ourselves talk, we actually listen - so we should choose our words wisely.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Denial - a positive sign of a progressive society?
I guess I just cannot help it - I had decided for myself after attending a relatively miserable debate on the subject of "Whistleblowers" organised by the Frontline Club I would steer clear of such events. I had originally had high hopes for the event - Assange was to attend, as well as many interesting people 'in the know how'. I battled a bunch of Assange groupies to sit right up the front where to my great disappointment the infantile nature of the event unfolded right in front of me. Only a few of the speakers made any attempt to keep to the subject, mostly it was not even run as a debate... Anyway, that went past, and I decided that I had nothing to learn from Assange, that he had grown completely outside his own humanity and was no longer capable of hearing, or listening, unless it was the projection of his own voice and simple ideas.
Hahaha, gosh, that felt better!
Anyway, so, I was firm in my decision not to attend the next Frontline organised event where Assange was to 'star': http://www.frontlineclub.com/blogs/WikiLeaks/2011/07/live-assange-zizek-and-goodman-in-conversation.html
....but I couldn't help it, I tuned in to listen.... And it was fascinating! Wow - I am deeply impressed by both Zizek and Assange. Zizek is hilarious which was refreshing, but also provocative. Assange came across as having had given the ideas under discussion a lot of thought and had a sense of maturity.
But I'd like to pick up on an interesting point that was raised and seemed to carry through the discussion - namely that the presence of censorship in a society is a good thing, as it is indicating that the 'government' is afraid of what people think. To me this smells of a logical fallacy, so let's explore. By analogy, this is perhaps like saying that it is a good sign that garbage is being manufactured by society - that means that there is progress? Perhaps poor analogy.
Okay, so let us keep with the validity of this statement, but then Assange's outlook for the future, namely that it would be ideal that the unadulterated truth is preserved in historical records which are accessible to all, must be in contradiction. And here I start with some generalisations: humans are terrible/horrible creatures - we commit atrocities, and what is worse that being in possession of consciousness means we do these things with our eyes open. As of course Wikileaks has undeniably revealed to us. And yet, most of us would like to think that it would never be us - 'we' would not be so spiritually ugly and base. It is others, because they are dumb or thoughtless, or ruthless etc. We spend most of our lives living under one lie or the other.
The very fact that honesty is a virtue I think is a lie. "We do not see things as they are but as we are" - Kant.
You never say things as they are if you want to live in a civilized society - you use analogies, and euphemisms, because true words are weapons. In your life, you allow very few people the luxury, privilege, and also the responsibility of enlightening you to the facts of a matter outside your own mind. But why? why this cloak of denial, deception, etc? why? because we recognise our capacity for ugliness, and we have a reasonable sense of understanding that it is unacceptable if we want to satisfy our desires for social living. And I think that is itself a good sign - our own lies to ourselves, our own innate capacity for self-censorship, means that we want to be better than we recognise that we are. And to now extend this to the whole global society - the fact that most of us cannot, and don't want to deal with the truth of brutalities committed in our name, is that we globally 'think' we are better than that.
To see history written just as it is, not white washed and painted pretty would be to have to abhorrent truth stare us in the face everyday - to be the Dorian Gray's with their painting hanging in the living room for all to see. It would be at first I am sure very educational, but also with time sterilise us emotionally to it, as it becomes a matter of fact.
This is just one idea - but perhaps for us to continue to fight for beautiful ideals, we cannot strut our ugliness in public? "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Nietzche
However, on the other hand of course, a good dose of reality is necessary to keep us in check, like a strong dose of antibiotics.
Basically very interesting discussion! Next time I guess I'll just have to go battle some groupies :D
Hahaha, gosh, that felt better!
Anyway, so, I was firm in my decision not to attend the next Frontline organised event where Assange was to 'star': http://www.frontlineclub.com/blogs/WikiLeaks/2011/07/live-assange-zizek-and-goodman-in-conversation.html
....but I couldn't help it, I tuned in to listen.... And it was fascinating! Wow - I am deeply impressed by both Zizek and Assange. Zizek is hilarious which was refreshing, but also provocative. Assange came across as having had given the ideas under discussion a lot of thought and had a sense of maturity.
But I'd like to pick up on an interesting point that was raised and seemed to carry through the discussion - namely that the presence of censorship in a society is a good thing, as it is indicating that the 'government' is afraid of what people think. To me this smells of a logical fallacy, so let's explore. By analogy, this is perhaps like saying that it is a good sign that garbage is being manufactured by society - that means that there is progress? Perhaps poor analogy.
Okay, so let us keep with the validity of this statement, but then Assange's outlook for the future, namely that it would be ideal that the unadulterated truth is preserved in historical records which are accessible to all, must be in contradiction. And here I start with some generalisations: humans are terrible/horrible creatures - we commit atrocities, and what is worse that being in possession of consciousness means we do these things with our eyes open. As of course Wikileaks has undeniably revealed to us. And yet, most of us would like to think that it would never be us - 'we' would not be so spiritually ugly and base. It is others, because they are dumb or thoughtless, or ruthless etc. We spend most of our lives living under one lie or the other.
The very fact that honesty is a virtue I think is a lie. "We do not see things as they are but as we are" - Kant.
You never say things as they are if you want to live in a civilized society - you use analogies, and euphemisms, because true words are weapons. In your life, you allow very few people the luxury, privilege, and also the responsibility of enlightening you to the facts of a matter outside your own mind. But why? why this cloak of denial, deception, etc? why? because we recognise our capacity for ugliness, and we have a reasonable sense of understanding that it is unacceptable if we want to satisfy our desires for social living. And I think that is itself a good sign - our own lies to ourselves, our own innate capacity for self-censorship, means that we want to be better than we recognise that we are. And to now extend this to the whole global society - the fact that most of us cannot, and don't want to deal with the truth of brutalities committed in our name, is that we globally 'think' we are better than that.
To see history written just as it is, not white washed and painted pretty would be to have to abhorrent truth stare us in the face everyday - to be the Dorian Gray's with their painting hanging in the living room for all to see. It would be at first I am sure very educational, but also with time sterilise us emotionally to it, as it becomes a matter of fact.
This is just one idea - but perhaps for us to continue to fight for beautiful ideals, we cannot strut our ugliness in public? "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Nietzche
However, on the other hand of course, a good dose of reality is necessary to keep us in check, like a strong dose of antibiotics.
Basically very interesting discussion! Next time I guess I'll just have to go battle some groupies :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
