Okay, I have a million thoughts now that I'm back in the states. Like, it's actually difficult to categorize how many things I have floating around out of reach.
So, instead of doing anything in-depth just yet, I'm going to make some general notes:
1. Everyone has rose-colored glasses for geographic locations and cultures. People don't realistically see the problems that a society has when they're in love with it.
2. Everyone in Italy smokes.
3. Everyone in Italy is far more formal and moderate than Americans. We're more extreme, either more or less eccentric than average. We're more emotive and expressive- more likely to be happy, angry, sad, etc. in public. This isn't necessarily good or bad, but I think it makes people far more boring.
4. Systems hold your hand in America for fear of accidentally leading you to believe that a stupid action is either safe or correct. Foreign lands don't seem to give a shit if you get lost because of horribly nonsensical signs and directions. Again, not necessarily good or bad, and frankly, I think America could stand to do a little less hand-holding. But the French? Oof. They're intentionally convoluted.
5. Everyone thinks they're better than everyone else. Moral of the story: We're all arrogant and pretentious fucks. We're all flawed. We're all opinionated, and we all think our opinions are best.
6. No one is fat outside of America.
7. Holy shit, foreign women are gorgeous.
8. Holy shit, foreign women with accents.
9. I am probably not likely to be terribly impressed by any nation. Each has its share of really absurd and stupid problems. Sure, Italians are more relaxed about life, but they're less driven, less motivated, less passionate. And sure, Americans are probably harder workers in general, but we're also workaholics with an unhealthy obsession for money and power, having idealized this notion of being "rich" and "making it." We allow our quest for material possessions to overshadow the simple quest for happiness and health. A positive psychologist's worst nightmare.
10. Venice's architecture is beautiful, but in all its grandeur, how many lives were ruined in its creation? How many lives were broken to create each church? How many buildings were used for subjugation, prejudice, and hatred? The history is fascinating, but it's also disgusting. By glossing over the ugly truths of history, we're complicit in their repetition in the present.
11. Every store in Venice is a mask store and/or a scarf store.
12. I have latched on to idle wishes and sentimentality where I must focus on practical endeavors and self-improvement.
13. Airports are the worst ever.
14. Ever.
15. Don't walk to the store in 0 degree weather and a foot of snow. It's a bad idea.
16. Venice was incredibly cool, and it was the experience of a lifetime, but not because any individual thing was gorgeous, or even because I got to get lost in the streets, but because I am tentatively learning that all places are awful in their own ways; sometimes subtle, and sometimes quite conspicuous.
17. Trying new things doesn't kill you. This one was important.
18. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was a great movie with many thoughts about the intersectionality between human experiences creating life. It also addressed very human sentiments about death, relationships, starting over, finding meaning in life, and doing what makes you happy.
19. I love who I am, and I hope I do not doubt my worth as often anymore. If I never doubt my worth, I'll become complacent and egotistical.
20. The food isn't any better in Venice. It's made from more natural ingredients, so it's arguably better for you, but as far as taste goes, their pasta is no better than ours.
21. People think I have a really good Italian accent, but I just felt like a jackass trying to blend in despite knowing just four words of the language.
22. I really want a cat.
23. Buses stop running during snow emergencies, leaving you stranded out of state.
24. Money is not worth health and sanity.
25. Life is beautiful and complicated.
I have a lot of thoughts, but it's very late, and I have a lot more processing to do. I can't help but feel as though I'm treading ever closer to a great journey. It is... Faexing.
-
Waddles
Phil loves Gravity Falls. I've spread the goodness to another soul.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Monday, December 23, 2013
Thoughts on Karma
So this is a topic I've had some wheelings and dealings with. Karma is one of those issues I discuss as though there was an objective principle existing in the world that seeks to maintain a balance between opposing forces.
I'm probably mostly incorrect when I speak that way. Why only mostly though?
Karma, the idea that if you do something good, good will happen to you, and if you do something bad, bad will happen to you (oversimplification of the day) has no comparable strict rules or laws in nature. You can choose to murder someone and still be completely happy in your life. You can also be the most pious person ever, cursed with depression and constant misfortune.
However, there is a natural force that somewhat aligns with the rules of karma- the human mind and its respective emotions.
Psychological studies show that when we do good, we feel good, and when we do bad, we feel bad.
Health and Volunteering
To get an idea for how "immoral" deeds make us feel worse, we need only look at the existence of guilt and shame. While shame can occur in the case of perceived failure, it also occurs in the case of perceived wrongdoing, along with guilt.
So, the body creates its own karmic justice. So what's the problem? As we've learned throughout the course of psychological studies over the years, the brain can be tricked into feelings things in inappropriate contexts. The brain can be gamed- exploited.
See the "Cheater's High"
We make constant rationalizations and justifications for our behavior in order to avoid (consciously or unconsciously) feeling guilt and shame, since they negatively impact our performance without really doing a whole lot to enhance our capabilities. We have an innate aversion to guilt and shame. For some people, this simply means avoiding doing things that produce those emotions. For others, it means convincing themselves that what they're doing should not elicit those particular emotions. For still others, their brain is hardwired differently such that those emotions are triggered differently, or sometimes not at all (in the case of sociopathy).
Evolutionarily, there's a good case to be made for shame and guilt benefiting humanity. Without a powerful, internal feeling compelling us to avoid certain behaviors human collaboration would likely be somewhere between impossible and counter-acted by destructive deeds. This would imply that the essence of karma is evolutionarily programmed into us as a species. Of course, everyone's a little different, and sometimes alterations occur. Moreover, it doesn't appear that this concept of karma is static. Rather, it can change over time as we learn and experience the world. Our ethical perspectives and principles are not set in stone, and indeed, they can pull a 180 in a relatively short time span, given enough pressure.
However, evolution is not perfect, it's merely a vague guideline by which the world naturally travels. As a result, it shouldn't be surprising that there are ways to fudge evolutionary benefits that are "inconvenient" towards personal gain. In this case, ethical behavior. In the micro-scale, acting outside of ethical boundaries caused immediate strife in small populations. It's hard to do something wrong and not be called out on it. Think about a family unit as an example.
However, at the macro-level, the population is simply too large to effectively police everyone, so systems are automated in an attempt to encourage self-policing. This lends itself to the ability for individuals with the knowhow to sidestep the system at multiple intervals along the way.
Undoubtedly, this type of exploitation is morally dubious, and yet humans are drawn to it like moths to a flame. If we can exploit without hurting anyone, we tend to feel significantly better for some reason. This is somewhat problematic in and of itself, because if you combine that with the knowledge that we can lie and rationalize to ourselves, then it's feasible to convince ourselves that we aren't harming anyone even when we are, which leads to reduced sense of empathy despite the pain being caused.
#complicated
Ethical notions are weird.
-
Waddles
I'm probably mostly incorrect when I speak that way. Why only mostly though?
Karma, the idea that if you do something good, good will happen to you, and if you do something bad, bad will happen to you (oversimplification of the day) has no comparable strict rules or laws in nature. You can choose to murder someone and still be completely happy in your life. You can also be the most pious person ever, cursed with depression and constant misfortune.
However, there is a natural force that somewhat aligns with the rules of karma- the human mind and its respective emotions.
Psychological studies show that when we do good, we feel good, and when we do bad, we feel bad.
Health and Volunteering
To get an idea for how "immoral" deeds make us feel worse, we need only look at the existence of guilt and shame. While shame can occur in the case of perceived failure, it also occurs in the case of perceived wrongdoing, along with guilt.
So, the body creates its own karmic justice. So what's the problem? As we've learned throughout the course of psychological studies over the years, the brain can be tricked into feelings things in inappropriate contexts. The brain can be gamed- exploited.
See the "Cheater's High"
We make constant rationalizations and justifications for our behavior in order to avoid (consciously or unconsciously) feeling guilt and shame, since they negatively impact our performance without really doing a whole lot to enhance our capabilities. We have an innate aversion to guilt and shame. For some people, this simply means avoiding doing things that produce those emotions. For others, it means convincing themselves that what they're doing should not elicit those particular emotions. For still others, their brain is hardwired differently such that those emotions are triggered differently, or sometimes not at all (in the case of sociopathy).
Evolutionarily, there's a good case to be made for shame and guilt benefiting humanity. Without a powerful, internal feeling compelling us to avoid certain behaviors human collaboration would likely be somewhere between impossible and counter-acted by destructive deeds. This would imply that the essence of karma is evolutionarily programmed into us as a species. Of course, everyone's a little different, and sometimes alterations occur. Moreover, it doesn't appear that this concept of karma is static. Rather, it can change over time as we learn and experience the world. Our ethical perspectives and principles are not set in stone, and indeed, they can pull a 180 in a relatively short time span, given enough pressure.
However, evolution is not perfect, it's merely a vague guideline by which the world naturally travels. As a result, it shouldn't be surprising that there are ways to fudge evolutionary benefits that are "inconvenient" towards personal gain. In this case, ethical behavior. In the micro-scale, acting outside of ethical boundaries caused immediate strife in small populations. It's hard to do something wrong and not be called out on it. Think about a family unit as an example.
However, at the macro-level, the population is simply too large to effectively police everyone, so systems are automated in an attempt to encourage self-policing. This lends itself to the ability for individuals with the knowhow to sidestep the system at multiple intervals along the way.
Undoubtedly, this type of exploitation is morally dubious, and yet humans are drawn to it like moths to a flame. If we can exploit without hurting anyone, we tend to feel significantly better for some reason. This is somewhat problematic in and of itself, because if you combine that with the knowledge that we can lie and rationalize to ourselves, then it's feasible to convince ourselves that we aren't harming anyone even when we are, which leads to reduced sense of empathy despite the pain being caused.
#complicated
Ethical notions are weird.
-
Waddles
Friday, December 20, 2013
On the Acceptability of Hatred
Alright, so in light of this Duck Dynasty BS, I've had a few thoughts about the nature of bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc. and its cultural acceptability.
This is, I think, a thornier issue than people are interested in making it. Let's first break this down into its fundamental perspectives so that we're not getting muddled with intersecting definitions.
Legal:
This is really the most cut-and-dry of the perspectives on hatred. Is it legal to hate people? To be intolerant of them?
The answer is "Yes, but..." with the caveat that you're not allowed to let your intolerance affect how you treat people whom you do not accept. Granted, there are some laws that specifically circumvent this legal issue, allowing for the bullying of people on the basis of religious beliefs, etc.
However, on the whole, you simply cannot treat people differently depending on whether or not you like them or their choices.
Unless, their choices directly impact the environment/people around them. Alcoholics who show up to work drunk, people who have anger management problems that come out in public, people who physically abuse others, etc. We can be intolerant of these choices because they play a direct role on the surrounding environment of the perpetrator.
Where the issue gets murkier is when there's indirect consequences to the choices we make. We don't have a sufficient legal system set up to handle indirect causation. For example, anger management problems are an issue if they affect the environment, but what if our anger management problems stem from something else? Something that doesn't directly affect the environment? What if our anger management issues stem from a personally-held racist ideology that is never revealed to the public? What if it stems from our religion? From our sexual fetish? From any other personal opinion we hold that doesn't directly sway our actions?
Is it still acceptable if it causes the anger management problems? Or are we allowed to be intolerant of it at that point?
Moral:
This one is probably the most subjective since personal morality varies from person to person. Are we allowed to be intolerant of something if it causes moral problems?
For example, the bullying of gay youths- I would pretty strictly say that intolerance causing moral qualms is unacceptable, but I cannot deny the argument of utilitarianism here. If your immoral intolerance results in a better world overall, who's to argue that your actions are not just?
Obviously, the problem here is that someone is actively making the decision for what makes the world "better." A judgment call that no one has the power to make on their own. So, we as a society have to establish what consequences result in a "better" society. This is an unfortunately complicated issue and is almost literally just an impossible endeavor based on the subjective nature of the undertaking.
This is the issue raised when we ponder whether or not it's okay to hate hatred; to be intolerant of intolerance; etc.
Is free speech inherently ethical? Or is there a line whereupon free speech crosses into immoral territory? Who decides that? How do we decide the line? Does free speech become unacceptable when it harms another person? How are we defining harm?
What if we tell someone they cannot hate? What if bottling that hate hurts them?
Is there a way to determine aggregate societal benefits like that?
Physical:
Physical intolerance is basically the one issue that we can write off right away. It only causes harm to be physically hateful to another person for any reason. This harm is nothing more than vindictiveness, isn't it? Or is there some retribution in it?
Once again, who gets to decide that? Is it based on outcomes? What if vengeance truly satisfies some people? Is it acceptable?
Emotional:
Emotional hatred is probably the one I find to be the worst. It causes the most long-term damage, but is the hardest to define or prove. It's the easiest to commit this act of hatred unintentionally. It's the hardest to see the damaging effects on others when we do.
If our hatred elicits feelings of persecution, solitude, desolation, isn't it immoral?
What if it is, again, an intolerance of hatred itself? Are people expected or allowed to feel solitude and isolation when they're not allowed to hate?
Ultimately, I think the greatest good is produced by refusing to accept hatred in general. That isn't to say hating hatred. We must understand it and its necessity, but politely decline it from entering our society, our hearts, and our minds. But that's an ideal. In the meantime, is it acceptable to fight fire with fire? Hate the hatred? Be intolerant of intolerance?
It would be arrogant to assume I know what's best. I have ideas and hypotheses, but nothing more than that.
Hatred is natural, and we must accept its existence, but we do not have to tolerate its presence when it causes undue harm. I wish I had a more solid answer than that.
Thoughts?
-
Waddles
This is, I think, a thornier issue than people are interested in making it. Let's first break this down into its fundamental perspectives so that we're not getting muddled with intersecting definitions.
Legal:
This is really the most cut-and-dry of the perspectives on hatred. Is it legal to hate people? To be intolerant of them?
The answer is "Yes, but..." with the caveat that you're not allowed to let your intolerance affect how you treat people whom you do not accept. Granted, there are some laws that specifically circumvent this legal issue, allowing for the bullying of people on the basis of religious beliefs, etc.
However, on the whole, you simply cannot treat people differently depending on whether or not you like them or their choices.
Unless, their choices directly impact the environment/people around them. Alcoholics who show up to work drunk, people who have anger management problems that come out in public, people who physically abuse others, etc. We can be intolerant of these choices because they play a direct role on the surrounding environment of the perpetrator.
Where the issue gets murkier is when there's indirect consequences to the choices we make. We don't have a sufficient legal system set up to handle indirect causation. For example, anger management problems are an issue if they affect the environment, but what if our anger management problems stem from something else? Something that doesn't directly affect the environment? What if our anger management issues stem from a personally-held racist ideology that is never revealed to the public? What if it stems from our religion? From our sexual fetish? From any other personal opinion we hold that doesn't directly sway our actions?
Is it still acceptable if it causes the anger management problems? Or are we allowed to be intolerant of it at that point?
Moral:
This one is probably the most subjective since personal morality varies from person to person. Are we allowed to be intolerant of something if it causes moral problems?
For example, the bullying of gay youths- I would pretty strictly say that intolerance causing moral qualms is unacceptable, but I cannot deny the argument of utilitarianism here. If your immoral intolerance results in a better world overall, who's to argue that your actions are not just?
Obviously, the problem here is that someone is actively making the decision for what makes the world "better." A judgment call that no one has the power to make on their own. So, we as a society have to establish what consequences result in a "better" society. This is an unfortunately complicated issue and is almost literally just an impossible endeavor based on the subjective nature of the undertaking.
This is the issue raised when we ponder whether or not it's okay to hate hatred; to be intolerant of intolerance; etc.
Is free speech inherently ethical? Or is there a line whereupon free speech crosses into immoral territory? Who decides that? How do we decide the line? Does free speech become unacceptable when it harms another person? How are we defining harm?
What if we tell someone they cannot hate? What if bottling that hate hurts them?
Is there a way to determine aggregate societal benefits like that?
Physical:
Physical intolerance is basically the one issue that we can write off right away. It only causes harm to be physically hateful to another person for any reason. This harm is nothing more than vindictiveness, isn't it? Or is there some retribution in it?
Once again, who gets to decide that? Is it based on outcomes? What if vengeance truly satisfies some people? Is it acceptable?
Emotional:
Emotional hatred is probably the one I find to be the worst. It causes the most long-term damage, but is the hardest to define or prove. It's the easiest to commit this act of hatred unintentionally. It's the hardest to see the damaging effects on others when we do.
If our hatred elicits feelings of persecution, solitude, desolation, isn't it immoral?
What if it is, again, an intolerance of hatred itself? Are people expected or allowed to feel solitude and isolation when they're not allowed to hate?
Ultimately, I think the greatest good is produced by refusing to accept hatred in general. That isn't to say hating hatred. We must understand it and its necessity, but politely decline it from entering our society, our hearts, and our minds. But that's an ideal. In the meantime, is it acceptable to fight fire with fire? Hate the hatred? Be intolerant of intolerance?
It would be arrogant to assume I know what's best. I have ideas and hypotheses, but nothing more than that.
Hatred is natural, and we must accept its existence, but we do not have to tolerate its presence when it causes undue harm. I wish I had a more solid answer than that.
Thoughts?
-
Waddles
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
On Mindreading
It's not a terribly protected secret that I've been having a lot of thoughts about truth, honesty, and openness lately. I've begun opting into conversations that would normally make me incredibly uncomfortable out of sheer desire to conquer the fear of vulnerability. I've begun telling people the things I truly want, rather than hope they determine through some act of providence before proceeding to carry out that wish.
It's obvious that such a methodology is laughably ill-designed. It requires not only that people take subtle hints and extrapolate solid ideas from them, but also that they be certain enough about their interpretation to inspire action.
I dunno' about you, but I'm never certain enough of anything to inspire stalwart action.
People can pick up on subtle hints. It's something humans are innately pretty good at. But we don't necessarily speak the language of these hints. Rather, we take the hints in and interpret them as emotions. We get "vibes" from people. We sense emotions and turn around to exude those ourselves. But these aren't explicit things. They're not clearly defined or solid. They're malleable, translucent, foggy, and hard to grasp.
So, if we're reading other people in such a vague language, it stands to reason that our hints will almost never be properly translated. Moreso, even if they were properly translated, we're so uncertain about our interpretations that we won't act on them except in a tentative manner (well, I say "we," but I'm neglecting to note that there are arrogant people who definitely assume that their interpretations are objectively correct).
Humans aren't mindreaders. Explicit desires and thoughts must be conveyed in an explicit manner in order to be explicitly understood. Not every thought or desire is important enough to warrant such conveyance, but some of them totally are. Some people want to be included. Remembered. Loved. Validated. Complimented. Treated as an equal. Lots of these wants coincide with each other, and possess similar implications as well as resulting in similar emotions. But, each is distinct in a variety of ways. Given the subtle differences, we can conclude that the nature of human desire is incredibly nuanced and a complicated language. It's normal to not have a solid hold on this language. It's even more normal to not have a solid hold on how others use and interpret that language.
It's for this reason that we have communication. Verbal and non-verbal; In order to better express our thoughts and ideas.
This isn't just a capacity we have, but a need. A yearning. We want to be understood. We want our thoughts and desires to be heard and responded to. Even if they're rejected, there's a sense of closure in having our thoughts directly addressed. That closure is satisfying and stress-reducing.
For many of us, that need for closure is, unfortunately, quite ongoing. I, for example, suffer from anxiety and paranoia. I need to have my value explicitly reaffirmed with just the right amount of frequency or else I start to get really stressed out. Too much, and I stop believing the words. Too little, and I trust that the absence of words is proof that the feeling doesn't exist.
While my next step is to try to find medication for this imbalance, I've started to recognize in the here and now that I have that need, and I've begun actively seeking for people to fulfill that need rather than let my paranoia fester to an unreasonable state. It makes me come off as needy, but I'd rather that than be compulsively worrying about little details constantly. I got an ulcer from that already. It only takes one for me to realize how unsustainable living under those conditions is.
Some of our needs are physical. We need to be alone. We need to be surrounded. We need pleasure. We need to weep with empathy. We need intimacy.
Some of our needs are spiritual. Philosophical. Emotional. Mental. But the thing that remains constant through our needs is that they're individual to us. They are unique in exactly how much we need, when, and what kind of stimulation. Given the incredible variance between people and individual needs, it would be impossible to expect these needs to be met without explicitly asking.
So, start communicating. Start expressing your needs to the people that you want to fulfill them. If they refuse or mock you for it, they probably weren't worth having in your life anyway. Moreover, they probably weren't someone who would fulfill those needs if you hadn't asked.
If they respond positively, then your relationship has gotten just a bit stronger, and you'll know you can trust them in the future.
Ask people what they need. And not in a passing "do you need anything?" way; that implies the possibility that they don't need something. A consideration that gives them an excuse not to open up. Ask "what" someone needs.
What do you need? Right now? From me? From someone else? From anyone else?
Communicate that need. If it can't feasibly be met, then you need someone to complain to. Someone who will listen and not judge.
Why be ashamed of what you need? Will that help you? To ignore and avoid your needs and wants?
Somehow, I doubt it...
-
Waddles
It's obvious that such a methodology is laughably ill-designed. It requires not only that people take subtle hints and extrapolate solid ideas from them, but also that they be certain enough about their interpretation to inspire action.
I dunno' about you, but I'm never certain enough of anything to inspire stalwart action.
People can pick up on subtle hints. It's something humans are innately pretty good at. But we don't necessarily speak the language of these hints. Rather, we take the hints in and interpret them as emotions. We get "vibes" from people. We sense emotions and turn around to exude those ourselves. But these aren't explicit things. They're not clearly defined or solid. They're malleable, translucent, foggy, and hard to grasp.
So, if we're reading other people in such a vague language, it stands to reason that our hints will almost never be properly translated. Moreso, even if they were properly translated, we're so uncertain about our interpretations that we won't act on them except in a tentative manner (well, I say "we," but I'm neglecting to note that there are arrogant people who definitely assume that their interpretations are objectively correct).
Humans aren't mindreaders. Explicit desires and thoughts must be conveyed in an explicit manner in order to be explicitly understood. Not every thought or desire is important enough to warrant such conveyance, but some of them totally are. Some people want to be included. Remembered. Loved. Validated. Complimented. Treated as an equal. Lots of these wants coincide with each other, and possess similar implications as well as resulting in similar emotions. But, each is distinct in a variety of ways. Given the subtle differences, we can conclude that the nature of human desire is incredibly nuanced and a complicated language. It's normal to not have a solid hold on this language. It's even more normal to not have a solid hold on how others use and interpret that language.
It's for this reason that we have communication. Verbal and non-verbal; In order to better express our thoughts and ideas.
This isn't just a capacity we have, but a need. A yearning. We want to be understood. We want our thoughts and desires to be heard and responded to. Even if they're rejected, there's a sense of closure in having our thoughts directly addressed. That closure is satisfying and stress-reducing.
For many of us, that need for closure is, unfortunately, quite ongoing. I, for example, suffer from anxiety and paranoia. I need to have my value explicitly reaffirmed with just the right amount of frequency or else I start to get really stressed out. Too much, and I stop believing the words. Too little, and I trust that the absence of words is proof that the feeling doesn't exist.
While my next step is to try to find medication for this imbalance, I've started to recognize in the here and now that I have that need, and I've begun actively seeking for people to fulfill that need rather than let my paranoia fester to an unreasonable state. It makes me come off as needy, but I'd rather that than be compulsively worrying about little details constantly. I got an ulcer from that already. It only takes one for me to realize how unsustainable living under those conditions is.
Some of our needs are physical. We need to be alone. We need to be surrounded. We need pleasure. We need to weep with empathy. We need intimacy.
Some of our needs are spiritual. Philosophical. Emotional. Mental. But the thing that remains constant through our needs is that they're individual to us. They are unique in exactly how much we need, when, and what kind of stimulation. Given the incredible variance between people and individual needs, it would be impossible to expect these needs to be met without explicitly asking.
So, start communicating. Start expressing your needs to the people that you want to fulfill them. If they refuse or mock you for it, they probably weren't worth having in your life anyway. Moreover, they probably weren't someone who would fulfill those needs if you hadn't asked.
If they respond positively, then your relationship has gotten just a bit stronger, and you'll know you can trust them in the future.
Ask people what they need. And not in a passing "do you need anything?" way; that implies the possibility that they don't need something. A consideration that gives them an excuse not to open up. Ask "what" someone needs.
What do you need? Right now? From me? From someone else? From anyone else?
Communicate that need. If it can't feasibly be met, then you need someone to complain to. Someone who will listen and not judge.
Why be ashamed of what you need? Will that help you? To ignore and avoid your needs and wants?
Somehow, I doubt it...
-
Waddles
Monday, December 16, 2013
Despite
Despite
Despite what I once believed,
I'm not a robot. I'm not a statue.
I am happy despite being bereaved.
My tears had run dry, an idea I'd conceived,
Born of a blackness in my heart that isn't there,
Despite what I once believed.
So this stream my eyes have weaved
Is proof that I am human- still alive.
I am happy despite being bereaved.
I can move forward; There's much to be achieved.
Like forgetting lost talents and forging ones anew-
Despite what I once believed.
Don't you feel a bit relieved?
To know that this fire burns brighter.
I am happy despite being bereaved
In all that I have perceived,
I'm startled to find it's quite true;
Despite what I once believed,
I've found happiness in spite of my grief.
Despite what I once believed,
I'm not a robot. I'm not a statue.
I am happy despite being bereaved.
My tears had run dry, an idea I'd conceived,
Born of a blackness in my heart that isn't there,
Despite what I once believed.
So this stream my eyes have weaved
Is proof that I am human- still alive.
I am happy despite being bereaved.
I can move forward; There's much to be achieved.
Like forgetting lost talents and forging ones anew-
Despite what I once believed.
Don't you feel a bit relieved?
To know that this fire burns brighter.
I am happy despite being bereaved
In all that I have perceived,
I'm startled to find it's quite true;
Despite what I once believed,
I've found happiness in spite of my grief.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Health Insurance, Regulations, and a Lie
So I had a lovely debate with a gentleman recently. A man who was furious about Obama's lie that "if you like your policy, you can keep it" regarding the ACA.
For an in-depth analysis of this particular lie, you can look at Politifact, which called it the Lie of the Year.
Basically, this person was not wrong in what they were saying about Obama either being wrong or being ignorant. He chose to express his position in incredibly offensive and condescending terms, but ultimately, what he was expressing was correct. Obama promised something that was expected to be false.
But, let's look at this a little closer, since I don't favor an entirely cut-and-dry take on the issue:
The ACA raised the minimum standards by which insurance carriers could offer policies. As a result, certain gaps in policy coverage had to be filled in and patched over, otherwise the policy would no longer be legal. As a technicality, it was entirely up to the insurance carriers whether or not they were willing to bring the policies up to code or else disband them completely. To that end, while Obama didn't explicitly lie, he did suggest something that put insurance companies in a very tight squeeze; lose profits or look like the bad guys. Unfortunately, the plan backfired and was turned on Obama as the villain of the escapade.
I'm not so much interested in the actual incident itself as the implications of minimum standards being raised, so I'll leave it to you, my dear reader, to formulate your own opinion on president Obama's choice of words in connection with the ACA.
It was in this argument that I was confronted with this particular position:
"The notion that no job at all is somehow better for someone who had a job before is just.... Well, in the words of the Dude, 'It's just your opinion, man.' Shouldn't the person accepting the job have something to say about it?"
As far as argumentation goes, this is at once a very typical and an incredibly stalwart defense. In order to defeat it, I have to admit that it's better to regulate people for their own good in certain circumstances. Fortunately, I'm completely okay with this. Of course, it means that the argument dissolves therein because it becomes a simple matter of opinion.
I do not think it's an unreasonable proposition to suggest that people will accept substandard living conditions if it's all that they can get. From there, I do not think it's unreasonable to suggest that standardizing a minimum living condition has a long-term viability that is completely lacking in the philosophy of "it's better than nothing."
Maintaining the status quo is only a healthy course of action if the status quo provides. If it does not provide, then we must dismantle it and build a new status quo. The unfortunate reality of this ideal is that people will get caught in the crossfire. During the transition, insurance carriers will drop millions of policies, leaving many without insurance- including some who were "fine" with the substandard policies they had.
This is a very Big Brother notion. That we can choose what's best for people. Ultimately, that's a complicated issue that no one wants to address directly. Why?
Well, just look at our prototypical sides of the issue. Liberals want no regulations on issues of abortion and birth control. Conservatives want no regulation on issues of guns.
Liberals want to be rid of our stringent regulations on marijuana. Conservatives want to be rid of our stringent regulations on corporations.
In truth, both sides are playing both sides of the fence. Sometimes, we like to regulate, and sometimes we feel that regulation is inherently problematic. At what point can we reasonably start to regulate behavior? There's no distinctly simple answer, but the easiest one I'm going to lay out for you is when they negatively impact the lives of people around us who don't otherwise have a say in the matter.
This is... a step with many philosophical implications, and I am not committed to it, but it seems the most consistent position.
This would effectively allow us to regulate smoking, weapon ownership, emissions, obesity in parents, wage laws, working conditions, insurance policy standards, treatment standards, and depending on how we define "people," abortion.
This strikes an odd resonating note with me, because I'm actually very pro-choice, but I cannot deny that if we define human life as anything before birth, then abortion becomes a philosophically inconsistent position to support. There's no straightforward solution to that problem either. The definition for life is so convoluted that it would be impossible to objectively define it. We have to arbitrarily pick a point that represents when life is first determinable. Alternatively, we could allow select abortions in this gray area with a lot of "if - then" statements. Neither option is particularly appealing, as they both lead to very complicated scenarios.
"If the mother's life is in danger, then..."
"If the fetus has a developmental or genetic problem, then..."
"If the parents are determined to not be ready, then..."
"If the child cannot be supported, then..."
Who gets to define "ready"? Who gets to define that arbitrary point that we call life? Do we just pick a spot and never stray from that? Is it 8 weeks? 12? Why? What criteria are we using, and why does that criteria take precedence?
Potentiality is an equally problematic argument, since every egg and every sperm have potentiality.
Anyway, this is all wandering off-topic towards another abortion discussion, which I'm okay having another day. My point is this: Regulation is necessary to the betterment of humanity. "It's better than nothing" is not a sustainable approach to life in the long run. It destroys the have-nots and gives more to the haves. Basically just entirely unacceptable in a fair and just society.
Gah, life is complicated.
Thoughts?
-
Waddles
For an in-depth analysis of this particular lie, you can look at Politifact, which called it the Lie of the Year.
Basically, this person was not wrong in what they were saying about Obama either being wrong or being ignorant. He chose to express his position in incredibly offensive and condescending terms, but ultimately, what he was expressing was correct. Obama promised something that was expected to be false.
But, let's look at this a little closer, since I don't favor an entirely cut-and-dry take on the issue:
The ACA raised the minimum standards by which insurance carriers could offer policies. As a result, certain gaps in policy coverage had to be filled in and patched over, otherwise the policy would no longer be legal. As a technicality, it was entirely up to the insurance carriers whether or not they were willing to bring the policies up to code or else disband them completely. To that end, while Obama didn't explicitly lie, he did suggest something that put insurance companies in a very tight squeeze; lose profits or look like the bad guys. Unfortunately, the plan backfired and was turned on Obama as the villain of the escapade.
I'm not so much interested in the actual incident itself as the implications of minimum standards being raised, so I'll leave it to you, my dear reader, to formulate your own opinion on president Obama's choice of words in connection with the ACA.
It was in this argument that I was confronted with this particular position:
"The notion that no job at all is somehow better for someone who had a job before is just.... Well, in the words of the Dude, 'It's just your opinion, man.' Shouldn't the person accepting the job have something to say about it?"
As far as argumentation goes, this is at once a very typical and an incredibly stalwart defense. In order to defeat it, I have to admit that it's better to regulate people for their own good in certain circumstances. Fortunately, I'm completely okay with this. Of course, it means that the argument dissolves therein because it becomes a simple matter of opinion.
I do not think it's an unreasonable proposition to suggest that people will accept substandard living conditions if it's all that they can get. From there, I do not think it's unreasonable to suggest that standardizing a minimum living condition has a long-term viability that is completely lacking in the philosophy of "it's better than nothing."
Maintaining the status quo is only a healthy course of action if the status quo provides. If it does not provide, then we must dismantle it and build a new status quo. The unfortunate reality of this ideal is that people will get caught in the crossfire. During the transition, insurance carriers will drop millions of policies, leaving many without insurance- including some who were "fine" with the substandard policies they had.
This is a very Big Brother notion. That we can choose what's best for people. Ultimately, that's a complicated issue that no one wants to address directly. Why?
Well, just look at our prototypical sides of the issue. Liberals want no regulations on issues of abortion and birth control. Conservatives want no regulation on issues of guns.
Liberals want to be rid of our stringent regulations on marijuana. Conservatives want to be rid of our stringent regulations on corporations.
In truth, both sides are playing both sides of the fence. Sometimes, we like to regulate, and sometimes we feel that regulation is inherently problematic. At what point can we reasonably start to regulate behavior? There's no distinctly simple answer, but the easiest one I'm going to lay out for you is when they negatively impact the lives of people around us who don't otherwise have a say in the matter.
This is... a step with many philosophical implications, and I am not committed to it, but it seems the most consistent position.
This would effectively allow us to regulate smoking, weapon ownership, emissions, obesity in parents, wage laws, working conditions, insurance policy standards, treatment standards, and depending on how we define "people," abortion.
This strikes an odd resonating note with me, because I'm actually very pro-choice, but I cannot deny that if we define human life as anything before birth, then abortion becomes a philosophically inconsistent position to support. There's no straightforward solution to that problem either. The definition for life is so convoluted that it would be impossible to objectively define it. We have to arbitrarily pick a point that represents when life is first determinable. Alternatively, we could allow select abortions in this gray area with a lot of "if - then" statements. Neither option is particularly appealing, as they both lead to very complicated scenarios.
"If the mother's life is in danger, then..."
"If the fetus has a developmental or genetic problem, then..."
"If the parents are determined to not be ready, then..."
"If the child cannot be supported, then..."
Who gets to define "ready"? Who gets to define that arbitrary point that we call life? Do we just pick a spot and never stray from that? Is it 8 weeks? 12? Why? What criteria are we using, and why does that criteria take precedence?
Potentiality is an equally problematic argument, since every egg and every sperm have potentiality.
Anyway, this is all wandering off-topic towards another abortion discussion, which I'm okay having another day. My point is this: Regulation is necessary to the betterment of humanity. "It's better than nothing" is not a sustainable approach to life in the long run. It destroys the have-nots and gives more to the haves. Basically just entirely unacceptable in a fair and just society.
Gah, life is complicated.
Thoughts?
-
Waddles
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Confronting the Truth
Writing this following an exchange I had with a coolperson. To give a tiny bit of background, I expressed fear regarding the notion of going outside of my bubble; where that fear comes from, what makes it so prevalent in my life, why, etc.
I've known for a very long time that this was a baseline fear that I had, but this conversation dredged the anchor up from the seabed. Where I had only caught glimpses of a wavering shape in the swirling waters before, I was now standing directly in front of what it was that kept me bogged down.
We all have thoughts and fears that we try not to think about too hard- that's normal. Spending too much time on your fears rules your life and destroys your drive. But if we don't actively reflect on our fears with some diligence, it's possible that we continue to gloss over the most glaring truths in our lives.
It is a discomforting sensation. Heart pounding, hands sweating, and every instinct telling you to run away before you confront what lies at the end of the chain that is everpresent in your life. But it is only after confrontation that we can hope to set sail again (Continuing with my weird "Life is a boat" metaphor). It is only after fighting the hard, necessary fights that we can truly begin to move forward. Still, it takes a tremendous amount of willpower and presence of mind to begin that fight. With everything else in your life at once, maybe there's just too much. If the fear isn't causing you any problems you can't live with, why hassle with it?
Suffice it to say, this was one of the most grueling and nerve-wracking conversations I've allowed myself to participate in in quite a while. And it was only able to happen with someone that, for better or worse, I took a chance with regarding that particular topic. But, I do not trust easily or often. So it's possible that this is a phenomenon that is easier to achieve for others. It's possible that this uncomfortable knowledge is something others are used to. Something that does not, by nature, require an immense amount of effort and voluntary reflection.
Nor can I pretend that this is a revelatory experience that is necessarily common upon such reflecting.
However, I would at the very least urge you to examine your fears.Truly appraise them from the top down. What are your surface fears? What thoughts do they stem from? What situations do they lead to? What do these fears keep you from doing? Would your life be better if you rid yourself of this fear? Is there someone you could trust to show you how? How much worse is your life if you keep these fears?
Being vulnerable is hideously uncomfortable, but doesn't it tire you out to spend all your life building walls? They're cumbersome things. They get in the way of human connection- even if they do lend some protection. There are pros and cons to the walls we build.
It is not easy to admit an uncomfortable truth to anyone, least of all yourself. However, this is the surest sign that we are human. That we are fallible. That we are irrational. That we are timid and scared creatures. That we exist. That we feel. That our lives are unique and have meaning.
Each uncomfortable truth is special to you because it's born of your circumstance- no one else's. Each uncomfortable truth is a reminder of who you are. It services to pull back the curtain and reveal your existence.
It may be absolutely terrifying to find out...
But is it better not knowing?
I don't know...
I've known for a very long time that this was a baseline fear that I had, but this conversation dredged the anchor up from the seabed. Where I had only caught glimpses of a wavering shape in the swirling waters before, I was now standing directly in front of what it was that kept me bogged down.
We all have thoughts and fears that we try not to think about too hard- that's normal. Spending too much time on your fears rules your life and destroys your drive. But if we don't actively reflect on our fears with some diligence, it's possible that we continue to gloss over the most glaring truths in our lives.
It is a discomforting sensation. Heart pounding, hands sweating, and every instinct telling you to run away before you confront what lies at the end of the chain that is everpresent in your life. But it is only after confrontation that we can hope to set sail again (Continuing with my weird "Life is a boat" metaphor). It is only after fighting the hard, necessary fights that we can truly begin to move forward. Still, it takes a tremendous amount of willpower and presence of mind to begin that fight. With everything else in your life at once, maybe there's just too much. If the fear isn't causing you any problems you can't live with, why hassle with it?
Suffice it to say, this was one of the most grueling and nerve-wracking conversations I've allowed myself to participate in in quite a while. And it was only able to happen with someone that, for better or worse, I took a chance with regarding that particular topic. But, I do not trust easily or often. So it's possible that this is a phenomenon that is easier to achieve for others. It's possible that this uncomfortable knowledge is something others are used to. Something that does not, by nature, require an immense amount of effort and voluntary reflection.
Nor can I pretend that this is a revelatory experience that is necessarily common upon such reflecting.
However, I would at the very least urge you to examine your fears.Truly appraise them from the top down. What are your surface fears? What thoughts do they stem from? What situations do they lead to? What do these fears keep you from doing? Would your life be better if you rid yourself of this fear? Is there someone you could trust to show you how? How much worse is your life if you keep these fears?
Being vulnerable is hideously uncomfortable, but doesn't it tire you out to spend all your life building walls? They're cumbersome things. They get in the way of human connection- even if they do lend some protection. There are pros and cons to the walls we build.
It is not easy to admit an uncomfortable truth to anyone, least of all yourself. However, this is the surest sign that we are human. That we are fallible. That we are irrational. That we are timid and scared creatures. That we exist. That we feel. That our lives are unique and have meaning.
Each uncomfortable truth is special to you because it's born of your circumstance- no one else's. Each uncomfortable truth is a reminder of who you are. It services to pull back the curtain and reveal your existence.
It may be absolutely terrifying to find out...
But is it better not knowing?
I don't know...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)