On the Migratory Habbits of Bloggers

If anyone is still checking this blog directly and not through the links I share elsewhere, this is to let you know that this will likely be my last post here.  This will not be my last post overall, though, as I am migrating to a new blog and hope to post there with more regularity, using this opportunity to start fresh and focus more on my writing.  My first post is already live there, and I invite you to read it.

Thank you to everyone who has read this blog and supported me in any way!  I hope you follow me to the next one: The Deep Thought Initiative!

The Truths We Have Forgotten about Truth

Our government has decided that we, the voters, are incapable of discerning truth for ourselves.  They have decided that we cannot hear both sides of the climate change issue and determine for ourselves which to believe.  They have decided to make the decision for us.  What is worse, they have decided not to debate the information, or to disprove it, but to silence it.  They have decided not to affirm their stance, but to remove the opposition.  That is not the position taken by those seeking the truth, but those seeking to shield themselves from it.  After silencing scientists and whistleblowers and proposing to cut funding to public, educational media, it is no huge stretch to believe that our government will go after the mass media that the president has already been speaking (or tweeting) out against.

For a country founded on the principles of the self-evident truths of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all, we have certainly strayed far from our roots.

The nature of truth has long been lost — neglected and abandoned, even — in the quagmire of noise of each side of every issue trying to shout above the other, insulting the opposition and bolstering their own side with propaganda.  The nature of social and mass media has given each of us a soapbox, and so every one of us is standing tall and shouting — often merely echoing the words of peers and pundits alike — until we barely have time to listen, especially to any opposing views.  And as moderate views gain moderate responses, the polarized and polarizing responses bubble to the list of top comments and viral posts.  Affronted by the polar opposites, we rally to our side and against the other, worsening the noise and widening the gap.

Undoubtedly, there is plenty to be said about the issues that inspire such noise, but I think it would benefit us all to wade into this quagmire, venturing off our usual paths for a moment, to recover some truths about truth itself.  Foremost, truth does not cower away from efforts to disprove it, nor does it lash out at alternative viewpoints.  Truth survives such trials by fire, tempered and honed by it, and becomes stronger and more refined for it.  If you believe something that you do not yourself try with all your might to disprove or explain with alternative theories, then you have no right to say you fully believe it.  If you attack opposing beliefs or dodge efforts to disprove your beliefs, you either misunderstand the nature of truth or already fear your beliefs are untrue.  This does not mean that, when confronted with opposing or alternative explanations, that you should twist the words and statistics to fit your truth.  If such actions are necessary, it is not truth you are forging but a work of fiction.  The truth will survive the attacks by its own merit and does not need protected.

Because the truth need not shy away from efforts to disprove or debate it, it has no reason to fear falsehoods and misinformation.  The truth can indeed seem lost at times in the quagmire of noise, but if we remove contrary evidence instead of rightly considering it, or if we silence opposition instead of meeting them in the arena of reason and fact, then what we are left with, more often than not, is not the truth.  We are imperfect agents of incomplete knowledge — error is inevitable.  As such, if we do not proceed forward with a mind to correct our errors, we will remain in error.  If we do not learn from others and teach what we have learned, then we stifle ourselves further.

Certainly, there will be those who refuse to see the truth, busy protecting their own views and beliefs, unwilling to face the fire.  They will continue to attack the truths they disagree with.  They will continue to fail to understand the truth.  This is no fault of truth, that some fail so completely to recognize it.  Those who thus fail seek their own pride before truth.  If you, then, in turn, retaliate and attack their beliefs, you are doing the truth a disservice, forcing them to rally in defense of their own cause.  If your views are, indeed, true, then you have nothing to fear from the attacks of opposition.  Seek to find understanding.  Meet them where they are so you can guide them to where they should be.

Sometimes it seems that the truth is being held hostage, and we must rush to its rescue.  Yet, every hostage negotiator is taught that the best way to save the hostages is to calm down the hostage taker. First, we reach common ground: In a real hostage situation, this often involves commending them for not hurting any hostages or otherwise making the situation worse.  Similarly, in arguments, we need to find a little piece of something we both agree on.  Next, we hear them out.  This does not usually mean we have them list their demands, but instead we usually inquire why they are doing what they are doing:  What made you take people hostage?  What made you believe what you believe?  Concessions can be made without giving into their less reasonable demands: In hostage situations, this may require arranging food to be delivered.  In other debates, it may be buying them a coffee or a beer.  All the while, it is important to treat them respectfully, to remain calm, and nevertheless to remain in control, not conceding to their every wish — remembering, though, that in any such discourse we may be the one who is wrong, being always careful that we are not the ones holding truth hostage.  Often, it is best to remind them that both sides want to find the best solution for everyone, and, if we hold true to this, we can convince them to meet us somewhere in the middle.  With respect, understanding, a little effort, and a little time, we can free truth from even the most stubborn of hostage situations.

 

Although he may have gotten his daughter back safely, he would have made a lousy hostage negotiator.  Really, he is more the person you send in when all hostage negotiations have failed.  Sadly, this does not translate to an effective debate tactic.

Note, though, that facing opposition and attacks is not indicative that you, yourself have found truth.  All beliefs, true or otherwise, will inevitably face attacks if they are not squirreled away and hidden from the opposition.  Seek to understand the opposition and alternatives, to try to prove their views and disprove your beliefs, and to see that the truth remains despite your best efforts — it is only then that you can find what is true.  It is only when you challenge your own biases, check and double check your own logic and reasoning, and understand the contrary evidence presented that you can hold your beliefs to be true.

And if, along the way, you find that your beliefs do not hold against the tides of opposition and competing evidence, then change your beliefs.  There is no fault in changing your mind, but there is fault in stubbornly and pridefully adhering to beliefs against all evidence.  You must not put your own pride in the beliefs you have held before the pursuit of truth, but must instead let truth come before your pride.  Ultimately you should take pride in finding the truth, not in having it all along.

It seems we have collectively forgotten the nature of truth.  It seems that we have buried rationality and fact below mountains of ego and emotion.  We quote bad arguments because they support what we believe.  We fail to examine statistics or sources if we like the conclusions that have already been made.  We protect ourselves and believe we are protecting truths.  We attack others and believe we are attacking falsehoods.  We grow comfortable with our answers and stop asking questions.

Lost in quagmires and buried under mountains: If Lord of the Rings has taught me anything, it is that the truth is probably lost somewhere in New Zealand.  (Image: Zach Hodgson, Creative Commons)

These falsified and flimsy arguments we lazily fall back on can even hurt causes otherwise founded on the truth.  They create weak points and strawmen for our opponents to attack (which they usually invent enough of on their own).  They can convince more rational opponents that our arguments are flawed and unfounded.  Perhaps worst of all, they reinforce the fallacies and biases of both sides, reassuring us that there is nothing wrong with twisted statistics, shaky logic, or attractive fictions.  If we truly seek the truth, we must not undermine it with fallacies.

René Descartes said, "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."  Truths are not subject to our beliefs.  If we are doing things right, our beliefs should be instead subject to truths.  If we try to challenge truths "as far as possible", and they yet hold, then we can accept them as truths.  Yet the most important truths — the truths that guide our society, government, economy, and religion — should not be examined only once in our lives.  These should be held against all new evidence and alternatives as they arise.  We should moreover seek to hone our own tools of examination — our abilities to rationalize, our understanding of statistics, and even our knowledge of common biases and fallacies — to make sure that our methods of holding truth to scrutiny themselves can be held to the same scrutiny.

This is not the first time I have used this image.  This will likely not be the last.

Keep asking questions.  Keep doubting the important things.  Go so far as to question your doubts and doubt your questions.  Change your mind.  Try to argue for the opposition once in a while, at least in your own head.  It sounds like a recipe for unending uncertainty but, truly, it is the only way we can be certain in the end.

A Short Guide to Systemic and Individual Discrimination

 
Okay, everyone, here's what's up: Systemic and individual discrimination are two different things.  Some of you know that, and most of you are probably vaguely aware of it, but since there are so many people who fail to understand it and so few who step up to explain it, I wanted to lay it out here.

Systemic racism/sexism/etc. means that a minority child is more likely to be born in poverty, receive education from an under-funded school, and not be able to afford college or even have the grades to get scholarships because of the below average education they received.  It doesn't mean anyone actually discriminated against them (although that happens, too), it just means that they're in a shitty situation because their parents were poor because their parents were poor because someone discriminated against them or even their parents.  Somewhere along the line, discrimination happened and left whole groups of people in shitty situations.

Systemic sexism is when there is a pay gap, no matter how you try to hand-wave it away with explanations.  All people ever accomplish by presenting evidence to deny the pay gap is identifying the cause of the pay gap, not dismissing it.  Sure, it's less likely that a woman will get paid less outright because of them being a woman in the same job as a man, but there is systemic sexism when women fall into gender roles — even though no one teaches them those roles — just because it's the societal, statistical norm.  It's systemic sexism when they get marginalized out of certain jobs or promotions because they might perhaps want to have a baby at some point and actually have some time to spend with it.

Individual racism/sexism/etc., on the other hand, is the one we all know, where we decide that someone is likely a bad character because of their race or religion, or we decide that someone is bossy because they're a woman instead of deciding they're a good leader like a man.  It's also the kind that builds into systemic discrimination, such as when we decide that we want to build a wall to keep Mexicans out or pass a law to keep all Muslims from entering the country.

The point of all of this is twofold:

Firstly, it is very possible to discriminate against the majority.  Anyone can be racist against white people or sexist against men.  It happens.  But it happens less often because it's not facilitated by systemic racism/sexism, and it's less of a big deal when it happens because they haven't already been oppressed by a societal structure stacked against them because they were born into the wrong family, gender, or class.

This doesn't mean we should be okay with objectifying men or tolerating violence against white people.  In fact, allowing the continuation of racism or sexism against anyone weakens the cause of equality — not only directly, but by allowing others to see themselves as vindicated, saying, "See?  They do it to us, too!"  This does mean when someone supports feminism or declares "black lives matter" that they have more cause to say that then us white men have to say "we matter, too!"  There are a hell of a lot fewer people telling white men they don't matter, so can we white men just shut up about ourselves for a bit and help out those who need it?

Secondly, systemic discrimination will not go away even in the absence of individual discrimination.  It's been around long enough to be built into society.  It's why we have affirmative action, not because of some made-up "reverse-discrimination" (which, unlike individual racism against whites or sexism against men, does not exist).  Although affirmative action is typically applied like a bandage on a still bleeding wound, trying to make up for the problem after the fact, it's nevertheless better than just letting it bleed out.

Moreover, systemic discrimination paves the way for individual discrimination.  The problem isn't that there are women who want to be pretty or happen to be timid, but the fact that it's so normal that many women feel they have to be that way.  The problem isn't simply that impoverished people take up crime, but that minorities are more likely to be poor and join gangs or become criminals, and then others begin to associate those minorities with criminal behavior, worsening the effect and perpetuating the cycle.

So even if you're not sexist or racist or homophobic or anti-Muslim, you probably still need to do more to undo the divides built into society.  Even the little things help.  Encourage girls to be smart and strong and take charge.  Donate to a scholarship for minorities or the underprivileged.  Help explain these things to someone who wants to limit the rights of gays or Muslims or whatever, or even someone who cries “All lives matter” or who says that they think someone should get rewarded based on their merits and not their race/sex/whatever — although this is overall true, we have created a system where certain races, sexes, etc. typically get a head start while others are left behind, and we have to do something about that.  At the very least, shut up about yourself when someone else asks for help.

The Mind and the Mirror: An Introductory Guide to Yourself

You are who you are.  Five words, three letters each.  A seemingly simple statement — almost tautological to the point of meaninglessness — yet, examined carefully, we can find surprising depth to what it says and, especially, what it does not say.  Like the equation 1 = 1, it says exactly what it needs to by being so oversimplified and direct as to only contain the axiomatic truth.  Ultimately, this is the only definition of self that matters — the only mirror that holds any real meaning.

You are who you are now, not who you were nor who you will be.

The first thing to know is that you can change.  Who you are right now is crystallized by the reality of the moment, but the moment by definition passes instantly, and the present remains a constant progression, defying crystallization.  The past may be solidified into the course of causality, but we have no reason to repeat it moving forward.  We can change, and the only reasons not to — from laziness to tradition — are just excuses we tell ourselves, illusions generated for our immediate, shortsighted benefit.  Moreover, because the past is irreversibly fossilized, we should not dwell on our past failures.  Certainly we could and should try to rectify the consequences of our mistakes, learn from these mistakes, but regretting them only shifts our focus away from the future we yet can change toward the past we cannot.

This is not to say that our past is completely independent of us, only that the past, like ourselves, is what it is — the path that has brought us to where we are but not a path we are committed to following further.  Like Shuzan's staff and the reality it exists in, our present and past are both connected together and each separately what they are.  To deny the context that the past is the past and the present, the present is an obvious fallacy, but to deny the flow from present to past is just as fallacious.  We need not therein deny our mistakes, we only need not regret them.

To continue to grow, we cannot abandon our roots, but remember: our roots are there to provide strength as we grow outward, holding us steady and nurturing our furthest branches as they extend, reaching to ever greater heights. They are the foundation for a tower, not the anchor for a ship.

Moreover, whatever mistakes we have made will not be our last.  Even at our best, error is inevitable.  We are each only a small part of the universe, and since science has yet to discover a way to represent a comprehensive knowledge of the entirety of everything in the universe from quark to quasar within anything smaller than the universe itself, our knowledge is inherently incomplete.  Even if we were somehow infallible agents in utilization of our knowledge, we would nevertheless be subject to the inherent limits of our knowledge.

St. Augustine argued "Sum si fallor": "I am because I err" — a philosophical grandfather of Rene Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum".  However, it is just as true to say "I err because I am."

Yet the fact that failure is inevitable is not reason to either dread the future or withdraw from acting.  Instead, accepting the inevitability of failure grants freedom for experimentation — we should avoid making mistakes and lay in place safety nets for when we do make them, but we need not avoid exploring the unknown because of the mere possibility of making a mistake; inaction can often be a bigger mistake than any we make by acting.  Additionally, true experimentation is performed without bias towards results, allowing the truth to speak for itself.  Error, being the disparity between intention and result, is negated if we allow for whatever result comes our way.  So, go out and try new things.  We are at some point going to fail whether or not we experiment, so we might as well get something out of it.
 

Sorry, Yoda, but there is "try".

The Zen-inspired aesthetic of wabi-sabi maintains as one of its core creeds the idea that perfection is impossible, and imperfection makes things (and even people) approachable and relatable, gives room to grow, and removes unrealistic expectations of perfection.  Error is inevitable, and perfection is further impossible because so many skills that we could try to perfect have no upper limit, but instead offer a continued journey beyond any claims of mastery.  To expect perfection of ourselves, therefore, is ego — either the belief that we are perfect, even though we are not, or the belief that we should be perfect, despite its impossibility.  Moreover, expecting ourselves to be either perfect or even better than we are is to ignore our path for growth, failing to start the journey because we believe we should already be at the destination.
Moreover, rigidly defining the outcomes we desire distracts us seeing the beneficial outcomes we could not have predicted (being fallible beings and all).  The chaos of our lives is best worked with and, if need be, redirected, instead of struggled against.  Pleasant surprises and beneficial opportunities are plenty if we open ourselves to them.  The idea that perfection is something we can achieve is only slightly more fallacious than the idea that perfection is something we, with our limited knowledge, can define.

Yet simply because we are certain to err and should not regret our errors does not mean we are free to carelessly charge through life.  We are not free of the consequences of our errors — even errors beyond our knowledge or control — but we can free ourselves from self-imposed consequences, such as guilt and regret, so that we can better focus on avoiding errors in the future.  We should feel free to experiment, but we should be prepared to accept whatever happens when we do.  We should not dread error, but neither should we ignore it when it happens.  Cleaning up after ourselves should be as much an inevitability as making messes.

Another cultural artifact that spawned from Zen ideals is the Daruma doll — a hollow doll designed to resemble the founder of Zen, Bodhidharma ("Dharma" becoming "Daruma" in Japanese).  According to one tradition, the doll is bought with both of its eyes plain white.  The owner paints one pupil upon acquisition of the doll, and decides a goal to pursue.  Only upon completing the goal does the owner paint the other eye.

One-eyed Daruma doll, awaiting completion of a goal so that it can be completed itself.

We all have our own one-eyed Darumas — unfinished projects and unachieved goals.  The important thing is to remember the ideals tied to the Daruma: it is not about reminding us of what we have failed to do, but what we have yet to do and therein what we are going to do.  Moreover, according to this tradition, Daruma are acquired once a year, meaning that each goal we accomplish (or not) is part of a progression.  And much like the past and present, we need not argue whether it's about the destination or the journey, because even destinations require journeys, and every journey is just a series of destinations.

________________

You are only who you are, no more, no less. 

Just as we should not waste our time, focus, and effort dwelling on past reflections of ourselves or things we have yet to achieve, we should not regret anything we are not.  All our grief comes from the disparity between what we believe should be and what is.  Certainly, this blog talks a lot about what should be — the human capacity for considering hypotheticals is among our greatest cognitive capabilities; to deny ourselves this tool would be a great injustice.  Hypotheticals, though, are to be pursued, not simply expected.  First we paint one eye of the Daruma, then hopefully, later, the other.

We need not abandon our capacity for creating hypotheticals and illusions, but just as we keep in mind that we are what we are, we need to remain aware of the fact that the illusions are simply illusions (the tool of acknowledging things for exactly what they are remains ever useful).  Grief arises because not that we perceive alternative possibilities and realities, but because we believe that those are the ones that should exist presently, confusing the boundary between our illusions and our reality.  Disparaging ourselves or each other for what we are or are not is simply clinging to illusions over reality.  Moreover, we should avoid replacing illusions with other illusions, as is so often the case: We tell ourselves that we are not too fat, but instead we are beautiful, and in the process forget that what we are rallying against is the emphasis on body image to either end so that we can instead focus on quality of character or health.

Acknowledging something for what it is, like a good mirror, shows only what is there.

Contrarily, it can be just as dangerous to define ourselves by things we actually are if we do not define ourselves wholly, and creating complete definitions of ourselves is an insurmountable task, ignoring our subtleties and dynamics.  As such, there is no need for any of us to define ourselves infallibly and fit everything we are into tiny, neatly organized boxes.  By announcing that we always do one thing or never do another without underlying reason, we limit ourselves to our present reality, preventing growth in new directions.  Such guidelines can be useful for maintaining beneficial behaviors, but, as all else, we must remember them for what they are and not mistake them for immutable facts.

The idea that we need to search for ourselves seems to lead us away from ourselves.  The self is what is left when all the illusions are stripped away — those created by ourselves, those created by others around us, and those created by society.  The self is the part that simply is.  It is not defined, invented, or created by ourselves or others.  It is defined by what we actually are.  In that sense, Yoda was right.  We do not need to try to be ourselves, we need simply allow ourselves to be.

________________

You are who you are, no one else.

Just as we should not compare ourselves to others, despairing over who or what we are not, we should also acknowledge that we are each only one person.  As simple as the equation 1 = 1 is, it is just as simple to understand that 1 ≠ 2.  We cannot each do more than one person, and so we should not expect ourselves to.  We cannot do everything, and to not allow others to help in our endeavors is ego, ultimately limiting both our own potential and that of those we could be sharing our efforts with.  Trying to do for others is definitely good, but trying to do more than we are able — even if not everything — for others is at its core selfish.

There is a common fallacy that not needing help is a sufficient dismissal of an offer of help.  Simply because we can be — and, in many cases, should be capable of being — self-sufficient does not mean we should deny ourselves or others the opportunity to do more through cooperation.  As is a recurring theme in this blog, the universe is full of emergent phenomena, and likewise our efforts combine with others to produce more than the sum of its parts.

Moreover, we should avoid competition whenever possible.  Certainly, competition can drive progress, but if that is the only motivator, then when either a clear victor arises or a stalemate is reached, progress is also stunted.  Given that we live in an era of abundance, we are typically competing for resources we could be cooperating over and for, increasing the wealth for everyone, and there are far better motivators for progress.

When playing guitar, we should not worry about which hand is better than the other, but what they can do when they work together.

Surely, there are tasks that can only be performed by one person, and other situations where adding another person to help is inefficient if not infeasible — there simply is not room in the kitchen for another person, or the amount of time and effort it would take to explain a project to catch someone new up would not be returned in the benefits they bring to it.  This, though, is not carte blanche to refuse help.  We should simply be mindful of the nature of help for what it is, and offer it and accept it freely to the best of our abilities.

________________

You are where you are.

"You are here" — a seemingly less useful statement when not on a map.

The places we find ourselves and the situations we encounter there are just what they are.  They do not define us.  Moreover, they do not control us.  Yet neither do we control them.  We may influence our situation, but only in as much as one person can.  Although we can try to effect particular outcomes, we may not always succeed.  We need not despair when things do not go how we want them; the universe will do what it does regardless of how we feel, and thus it is our desires we should reconsider.

To blame our own actions — or even emotions — on external factors is to give up control over the one thing we do control: ourselves.  Even if we do find ourselves victims, whether simply of circumstance or the ill-intent of others, simply declaring our victimhood does little to rectify it.  Moreover, we cannot invariably expect others to rectify our problems for us, even those they cause.  Certainly there are those who err unknowingly, and bring the problem to their attention will lead them to correct their path.  Yet there are plenty of others who will either err knowingly or neglect to correct their path once informed of the error, and to continue to simply shout accusations and shake fists is a futile endeavor.

Yet just as there is no problem with seeking change internally so long as we do not disparage ourselves for having not already achieved it, there is no problem for seeking external change in the same way.  Whether changing our environment or traveling to a completely different environment, we are free to improve our situation as long as we remain mindful — mindful that the destination is not where we should be now but where we seek to be in the future, mindful that our environment does not control our emotions, mindful that our journey is only partly in our control, and mindful that if we improve our situation at the expense of others we ultimately limit our own potential.

Most of all, we need to remember that the one thing in the world we do control is ourselves.  If we hope to achieve anything in the world beyond ourselves, we can only do this through the self.  As such, if we hope to better our ability to achieve anything, this is done through the betterment of the self.  If things go wrong, it may be because of things beyond our control.  Yet we do still control ourselves, and we therein must remember that all influence we have on the world is through ourselves.  If we lose control of ourselves, we have nothing left.  However, this is not a point we should grieve; understanding what we can and, moreover, cannot influence underlies our ability to enact whatever influence we do have.  If we understand our abilities, then we can use them; if we do not understand our limitations, we will overstep and falter.  If we understand both, we can be at our best.

________________

So go forth and be yourself.  Change yourself if you desire and are able, but do not despair if you cannot.  Better yourself.  Help others, and accept their help.  Ask for help sometimes.  Make mistakes and clean up after them.  Experiment.  Be open to the unexpected.  Above all else, remember to consider things as they are.

Proper Use and Maintenance of Electric Monks

A 16th century clockwork monk.

The Electric Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder.  Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe.
- Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

There is a certain irony in the number of posts that spread across social media that decry the various pitfalls of social media:  A video or comic exaggerating the tendency for no one to look away from the perpetual onslaught of glowing screens we are surrounded by, often by our own choice.  Mockery of and "How Not To" lists about all the inane posts on the trivial details of our lives that contain neither interesting nor useful information, adding to the overwhelming trend toward white noise in the content of social media.  And, as Facebook adds and enhances an algorithm to filter through the clutter of content to attempt to deliver us the cream of the social media crop (while also giving Facebook an excuse to demand money for delivering content to fans), growing concern mounts that Facebook will devolve into an echo chamber, delivering us only the content that conforms to our existing preferences, feeding back into our biases, and failing to provide challenges to our ideas or intellects.

Although it is certainly a possibility that Facebook's filters will exacerbate our existing biases, pointing fingers at Facebook only serves to distract us from the fact that these biases exist anyway, and that without addressing our own fallacies (such as blaming external factors like websites for our failures) we will continue to find the same faults reproduced in whatever media we use.  Similarly, complaints about the noise on social media and the tendency to prefer even this noise to direct, personal interaction is like blaming a hammer for not pounding the nail in properly — the tool is only as useful as our use of it.  Certainly, tools can be faulty, but even then if we continue to use them instead of replacing them, then we forfeit our right to reasonably complain.

"Truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror."

Social media, like any form of communication, is only as useful as the messages we use it for.  Being social creatures by nature, it is only natural that we desire to communicate.  Moreover, as is a recurring theme in my writing, communication is our most effective tool for combining our efforts with those around us, expanding our influence and growing ourselves.  The thing we need to remember, though, whether using social media or speaking with someone directly, is that communication is important, but so is having something worth communicating.

The tendencies toward self-gratification and reinforcement and a preference towards shallow, low-risk interactions seem plenty prevalent in person; social media just tends to amplify our noise.  Small talk prevails and discussion of deeper matters such as religion and politics is often taboo.  We avoid offending each other because we are so easily offended ourselves, seemingly incapable of fathoming that anyone might have and even adhere to an opposing point of view, or that we could tolerate such differences in people.

Often we see the opposing view not as a passing disagreement but as an affront on beliefs we hold dear.  Other times, we seek validation because we do not believe others see us the way we see ourselves, or because we fear we are not living up to our own expectations.  As with much of our lives, problems arise because of the disparity between what we expect to be and what is, often because what we think should be is what we think we deserve.  Problems arise because we fail to challenge our own beliefs — we fail to determine how much our beliefs reflect actual truths, and moreover we fail to examine how much these beliefs actually matter.

________________

When I first read Adams' description of the Electric Monk, I thought the idea a comical exaggeration of tendencies towards gratification for minimal effort, shirking the intellectual responsibility of actually having to believe anything or consider whether any of our beliefs were objectively true or otherwise worth adhering to.  I imagine this was at least part of the intended tone, considering that in another book, Adams described humans as "ape-descended life forms...so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea."

Yet, surrounded by both our own beliefs and those of others, it becomes difficult to remove ourselves from the context of such beliefs to consider their efficacy.  Perhaps, like social media, the Electric Monk as a tool reflects its wielder.  Granted, the Electric Monk is so far purely a construct of science fiction, but the important use of the tool is not that it believes things for us, but it frees us from having to believe those things.  Why could we not, then, simply take a moment every now and then to stop believe anything, to simply observe, and to determine what beliefs arise from what we can ourselves determine?

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." - René Descartes

How far, then, can we doubt our beliefs?  Should we believe in our own existence?  Surely, cogito, ergo sum.  What about others?  We can witness their behavior, and it certainly seems intelligent, at least sometimes.  But what about our perceptions?  Can we not believe we observe something that is not there or fail to observe something that is?  Whether or not we believe what we perceive, we have no other evidence to act upon besides our perception, so we might as well use what we have.  Object permanence seems a safe enough belief, but it is still only a belief.  However, until evidence starts to suggest that there is a flaw to my assumption of object permanence, I am comfortable believing in it.  It certainly so far seems a useful assumption that things continue to exist when they are not in my immediate perception.

Easy enough so far.  What about the real challenges?  How can we attribute our emotional responses to the world when our emotions are purely in our own heads?  What are we doing with our lives, and why?  Is there a God?  If there is, what then?  If there is no God, what then?  I do not know what you believe, and, moreover, telling you what to believe would defeat the purpose of suggesting the pursuit of our own individual understandings grounded in truth instead of derived from logical fallacies or the dictates of others.  If you are curious as to my beliefs, you will find many of them in my writing, and moreover I welcome anyone to further explore their curiosity by leaving a comment.

Eventually, though, we inevitably encounter questions we cannot answer and beliefs we cannot prove with pure objectivity, observation, and reasoning.  The first things we must ask is what happens if our belief is wrong?  I have been lead to believe by various articles that water has been found on Mars.  However, I have not visited Mars, nor do I ever expect to, and therein will likely never have direct proof of whether there is water on Mars.  Yet, if there turns out to be no water on Mars, I doubt my life will be significantly altered.  I might have to change my beliefs slightly, and I imagine the nature of the scientific articles I read will change.  What about more immediate things?  I have never seen an atom, for instance, not even by using any sort of electron microscope — the workings of which I would in turn have to have some faith in.  Yet what I know about chemistry is supported by the evidence I encounter in my life, and therein, like object permanence, so long as that holds true, I am comfortable accepting such beliefs.

What of beliefs we cannot prove and questions we cannot find answers to, even through evidence provided by others?  The first thing we must do is ensure that the beliefs do not contradict evidence, even if neither evidence does fully justify them.  Secondly, we must consider alternative possibilities and weigh why any one holds more merit than others.  Lastly, we must consider the consequences of a belief.

Is there a God?  As I have said before, I am agnostic, lacking even context for a definition of what a god is to begin assessing available evidence. Nevertheless, I can examine the question: Does the belief in God or the absence of God contradict available evidence?  If we maintain a belief in young-Earth creationism, perhaps.  Otherwise, the nature of a possible God is so arcane and abstract that it can easily be defined to be supported by or contradictory to available evidence, depending on our desired endgame.  Similarly, alternative possibilities are difficult to consider when we do not know which ones play into the definition of God.

What then, of the consequences of the belief, one way or another?  Morality and meaning can be found outside of the context of a God — a pursuit I have devoted much of my thought to.  On the matter of an afterlife, all I know is that if my destiny postmortem is determined so decisively by my answer to an unanswerable question, it is done so by a deity I do not wish to follow.  I hope that, if there is a God, He is as merciful as dictated in some sources, and that my efforts to seek and share truth are as valuable to Him as they have been to me.  If, somehow, I am wrong, then in the end I hope to be less worried about myself and more worried about the good I have done for others.  Indeed, there is probably more use trying to do good in Hell than Heaven.

________________

Not long after we are introduced to Adams' Electric Monk in Dirk Gently, we find that it had already begun to malfunction, specifically believing all sorts of unusual things:

The Monk currently believed that the valley and everything in the valley and around it, including the Monk itself and the Monk's horse, was a uniform shade of pale pink.  This made for a certain difficulty in distinguishing any one thing from any other thing, and therefore made doing anything or going anywhere impossible, or at least difficult and dangerous.

Yet whether we believe in the existence or nonexistence of God or in uniformly pink mountains and valleys, problems arise when we fail to consider whether available evidence supports or contradicts our beliefs.  Moreover, when these beliefs dictate our actions, we can be hindered ourselves or even led to hinder others.  We cannot let our perspectives of ourselves be determined by our or others' beliefs, nor can we let those beliefs alone dictate our actions, whether on social media or anywhere else in life.  Neither can we dictate the beliefs of others; we can only hope to point out the same truths we have discovered, but it is up to others to discover these truths for themselves.  Moreover, when they point elsewhere, we must be willing to accept the possibility that we are the ones in error and consider the possibilities they present.  Even if we find we are correct, we may find that their view is just the truth from a separate perspective.  Otherwise, should they err, we are best able to help them by leading them from where they are, not by shouting at them from across a gap.  And, most of all, never forget that we must occasionally put aside our beliefs and question, as far as possible, all things.

A Few Words on Words

Kyogen Oshō said, "It is like a man in a tree, hanging from a branch with his mouth; his hands grasp no bough, his feet rest on no limb.  Someone appears under the tree and asks him, 'What is the meaning of bodhidarma's coming from the West?'  If he does not answer, he fails to respond to the question.  If he does answer, he will lose his life.  What would you do in such a situation?"

- Mumonkan by Mumon Ekai, translated by Katsuki Sekida

Words carry power.  Through words, we can — with some luck — communicate our stories and thoughts across thousands of miles and over thousands of years.  The Norse considered the power of their alphabet supernatural, attributing magic to their runes.  Their runic alphabet is even said to originate from their chief god, Odin, after a period of sacrificial contemplation (often told as him impaling himself to Yggdrasil, the tree whose roots bind together the realms of the universe, for days).  Väinämöinen, a chief god in Finnish mythology, was said to have a magical voice, able to command supernatural effects.  In Jewish mythology, the Hebrew language holds power, even able to bestow life to a lifeless statue to create a golem.

Yet words hold no inherent power; simply telling a stone to move does not make it do so.  An understanding observer is necessary to draw out the power of words, but similarly, without words, that same intelligent observer is limited to their own understanding, cut off from shared experiences that cannot be immediately observed.  Words, instead, allow us to learn from the experiences of others — even those far removed by distance or time — and to share our experiences in turn.

Yet to find an individual who is completely understanding is more than any of us can hope.  Our interpretation of words is guided by our own experiences, and these are unique to each of us.  Yet, if we were ever to find an individual who completely understood the nuances of what we had to say exactly as we did ourselves, then we would have someone who was either an echo of ourselves or contextually omniscient, and either way the words would be a pointless redundancy to them.  We could, perhaps, try to establish formal definitions for every word and an infallible syntax structure, but it is difficult to pin down formalized notions for such things as "nostalgia" or "beauty", and too often already do so many debates devolve into arguments over semantics instead efforts to find truths.  Moreover, as the mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated, no sufficiently expressive system is not without its paradoxes, but that is a discussion for another post if not another author.

Taoist and Zen teachings both maintain the limitations of words.  The Tao Te Ching begins:

The way that can be articulately described is not the Unchanging Way.

The name that can be said out loud is not the Unchanging Name.

This seems like a rather counterintuitive way to start out a book, announcing the author's intention to put into words that which cannot be put into words.  Yet both the philosophies of Zen and Tao have at their core a pursuit of thought patterns at cognitive levels other than surface thoughts — ways of thinking that therein cannot be reached purely through the mere reading of words without deeper consideration.  Because of the inherent limitations of interpersonal communication, we can encourage patterns of thinking with words, but cannot guarantee them.  Opening the Tao Te Ching by announcing that the concepts within it cannot be fully articulated is simply to warn the reader that they must not be simply a reader but a student, not simply receiving the words but considering them more thoroughly, or else their actual meaning would be lost on the reader.

As Sekida tells it, Kyogen, while a student of Zen, encountered the limitations of words.  He had studied the teachings of Zen thoroughly, but knowing the words and reaching the mindset they described were two very different things.  Seeing that the words hindered Kyogen, his master, Isan, proposed a question to him that he knew he would not find an answer to in his texts.  After attempting to answer and begging for an explanation, Isan replied, "What I say belongs to my own understanding.  How can that benefit your mind's eye?"

Frustrated and defeated, Kyogen burnt his books and abandoned his study, declaring "You cannot fill an empty stomach with paintings of rice cakes."  Leaving his school and his master, humbled if not humiliated, he went to take up the lowly job of grave-keeper.  However, it was this acceptance of insignificance that allowed him to abandon his ego and begin his path to Zen enlightenment.

It is not lost on me that one of the most significant moments of my own life was when I, too, was feeling insignificant.  More importantly, though, was not that I felt insignificant, but that I decided to accept insignificance.  I found that it is not whether or not one's self is significant that is itself significant.  The consideration of the self should not be purely of the self, but of one's place in the world, even in a purely literal, physical, causal sense.  The egocentricity we possess imposes our beliefs upon the world and muddles the truth.  The disparity between what really is and what we believe should be — often what we believe we deserve — is the source of despair, anger, greed, etc.  Our habits of comparing ourselves with others furthers this disparity and alienates those others from us, creating jealousy and conflict when we could be cooperating to combine our efforts into something more.

Shuzan held out his short staff and said: "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now, what do you wish to call this?"

The short staff is what it is, but considered only unto itself and not within the context it exists, we know nothing about its reality.  Similarly we should consider ourselves, not as isolated individuals, but as parts of the universe we exist in.  We should strive for the abandonment of ego; not only is that part of the path to Zen enlightenment, but the Christians, too, teach "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."

The Zen moreover teach the pursuit of awareness as a tool to find one's place in one's environment — for considering oneself in the context of everything else.  For Kyogen Oshō, pure awareness was said to have been achieved when, while sweeping, he heard a stone strike bamboo, and the sound was considered not simply as a categorized and semantic piece of experience as we tend to approach everything but in its pure form as it truly was, resonating and echoing, and stilling of Kyogen's thoughts.  For me, the first time I encountered my true, contextual self was when my thoughts were similarly arrested by a thunderstorm, and its immensity as well as my recent life experiences left me humbled, yet led me to discover that I could do far more as part of the universe than as an isolated individual.

Words, like ourselves, short staves, and everything else, should therein be considered in context.  We should know both their power and their limitations.  Relying purely on words leaves us in a situation like the man hanging from a tree by his mouth, doomed to fail whether he answers or not.  Yet we are not capable of telepathy or Vulcan mind melds; words are in many cases the most effective tool we have in communicating our thoughts, and therein participating in this pursuit of acting in context with the rest of the universe — acting with those others capable of receiving our words.

Abandonment of ego, it seems to me, is only the first step.  Exploring the potential of the larger patterns we are part of is the natural logical progression.  Yet to fully do this, we are often left with little more than words to share our thoughts and experiences.  It is through words that we can extend our intellectual essence into others, and allow their words to build us up — being careful not to simply stare at paintings of rice cakes, considering words at their surface and neglecting to explore deeper truths.  Words may often be all we have, but, then, it is a good thing that words carry power.