11/04/2014

Meaning and Certainty

Today I want to bring together three thoughts
(another poorly written essay with questionable coherence)

  1. Confusion of “Meaning” in life causes a longing for certainty
  2. Certainty by definition removes confusion and ambiguity
  3. Anger fills one with confidence and dominance

I believe it is in the nature of our human brains to look for patterns and order in the world around us. My armchair anthropology sees this pattern recognition as an evolutionary plus, from hunting, to fighting to figuring out agriculture. It gives us an edge in survival.

BUT, we try to take this wonder of cataloging and systematizing and apply it to emotional or psychological causes. So we move from “why do I also see deer at this spot now and how can I find it next time” to “there must be a reason the deer exist” (I know that was a little weak, but I'm still fleshing this out)

So there is “meaning” in how the physical world works and it is discoverable precisely because it is physical. But things like the “meaning of life” are less clear. Partly I think because there is an inherent imprecision in the nature of language the people usually ignore.

In any case the thing is, since this deeper meaning is not obvious the choice is to acknowledge the unknown or see an answer and accept it as an explanation. Like we accept the explanation that the moon controls the tides even though very few of us really understand the physics of gravity in a scientific sense.My point is not to question gravity and the tides, but to point out we often accept as truth things we really don't really understand.


Salafists, Khorchide explains, divide the world into good and evil, pious and non-believers. They offer orientation and cohesion to young people struggling to find a direction in life. (from Der Speigel)

Basically accepting any well defined world view from scientific materialism to radical fundamentalism we find THE answer to life, the universe and everything. Even if we don't know the details we have solved the fundamental puzzle of why we are here. If it feels good the solve the daily jumble or sudoku, imagine how great it is to know you have the answer to life itself.

So in the modern world where there are clear examples that the barbarity of past times is not necessary, why then are political and religious extremist not happy and satisfied with “knowing” the answers to the deeper or bigger question? Why must people become so angry when other disagree with them? And more amazing still, why do some have such a need to attack and kill?

I suggest it is the simply the joy of anger. That and the feel good time of righteous indignation. If one really gets riled up, and you KNOW you are in the right, MAN that can feel great.

Now, to bring it back to the start. What if “The World” IF it has any “Meaning” requires us to let go of trying to define what that meaning is. So paradoxically “meaning” of any substance comes from not forcing your brain onto the world. Rather you accept the world and along the way it defines you instead. You are part of the world and vice versa. ….No that is not quite right.

I slipped into myself without even realizing it. I was trying to precisely say what the meaning of life was. I don't think it can be done.

Maybe it is that if we ask for meaning we are asking the wrong question. When it is all said in done, humans evolved as a social animal even if we have many individualistic tendencies. There will always be a tension and really it is when we can look at each other without meaning and see we just a bunch of humanoids and life really would be better with a bit more compassion no matter what the other person is doing.

(I know I made a bit of leap with the compassion thing, but I wanted to get it down on virtual paper)

.  .  .  .

An analogy would be to try to analyze poetry with mathematics. In some cases it can be done (most obviously in Haiku structure), and may even be reasonable for considering a poem. BUT even if the structure has a "structure" we don't read poems for that, we drink them in emotionally, not mathematically.

and this from a guy who has problems appreciating poetry. But in a way when one finally does break through to me it seems all more remarkable.

.  .  .  .

From a Der Spiegel article on why children of Kurdish immigrants to Germany go off to join ISIS

He believes that many Islamic State supporters in Germany have limited interest in Islamic issues. Instead, he argues, they view Salafism, a particularly reactionary movement within Sunni Islam, as a kind of counterculture. "Salafism is a product of modernity," Khorchide says. He describes it as being similar to radical youth movements seen in many other societies. Salafists, Khorchide explains, divide the world into good and evil, pious and non-believers. They offer orientation and cohesion to young people struggling to find a direction in life.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-attracts-kurds-from-germany-to-join-jihad-a-997062.html

An article about Edward O. Wilson and his definition of meaning

In ordinary usage the word “meaning” implies intention, intention implies design, and design implies a designer. Any entity, any process, or definition of any word itself is put into play as a result of an intended consequence in the mind of the designer. This is the heart of the philosophical worldview of organized religions, and in particular their creation stories. Humanity, it assumes, exists for a purpose. Individuals have a purpose in being on Earth. Both humanity and individuals have meaning.

There is a second, broader way the word “meaning” is used and a very different worldview implied. It is that the accidents of history, not the intentions of a designer, are the source of meaning. There is no advance design, but instead overlapping networks of physical cause and effect. The unfolding of history is obedient only to the general laws of the Universe. Each event is random yet alters the probability of later events. ...

Whether in the cosmos or in the human condition, the second, more inclusive meaning exists in the evolution of present-day reality amid countless other possible realities.

Within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. Or, risking oversimplification, individual selection promoted sin, while group selection promoted virtue. So it came to pass that humans are forever conflicted by their prehistory of multilevel selection. They are suspended in unstable and constantly changing positions between the two extreme forces that created us.

We will find a way eventually to live with our inborn turmoil, and perhaps find pleasure in viewing it as the primary source of our creativity.

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/11/04/e-o-wilson-the-meaning-of-human-existence/

from a self help business website I stumbled upon that kind of started me thinking in the way

It was obvious that the person yelling was frightened but was not going to admit to that. You see anger often makes people feel dominant because it raises endorphin levels. That’s why anger is such a powerful drug. The term endorphin rush is sometimes used in normal speech to refer to a feeling of wellness caused by exercise, danger or stress.

http://lisbethcalandrino.com/2013/09/03/a-little-anger-can-be-a-dangerous-thing/

10/31/2014

Art?

I really believe that human beings can be taught to love what they do not love already and that the privileged moment exists for all of us, if we let it. Letting art is the paradox of active surrender. I have to work for art if I want art to work on me.

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/10/27/jeanette-winterson-art-objects/

10/17/2014

Posting Goodreads Just have some thing to put here

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or SucceedCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I think Diamond gives a pretty even handed account of the way societies fail (and how a few succeed), and I don't think any world view he has skews his research. Although if you love the Montana wilderness and marvel at its beauty you almost inevitably come down on the side of environmentalists wanting to preserve that beauty. Is that a bias, or just a recognition of reality?

Anyway, a good book but maybe a bit too long. He tries to offer some cautious optimism at the end but for the most part it is an emotional beat down. The history of it all is very interesting, but usually it involves tales of how people are short sighted and just plain too arrogant to imagine things might go bad. And the modern tales of Rwanda with its Malthusian dilemma is horrible.

If you follow politics even only slightly you know big business and the republican party in particular, hate regulations and always feel individual rights (or more precisely, big corporation rights) have a higher value then environmental concerns. Yeah, yeah, I know, the Democratic party is not much better, but at least occasionally they sound less strident.

Anyway he says things like this...

“The challenge of deciding which of a society's deeply held core values are compatible with the society's survival and which ones instead have to be given up.” Pg 410

“the remaining solution to the tragedy of the commons is for the consumers to recognize their common interests and design, obey and enforce prudent harvesting quotas themselves”. Pg 429

I just don't see ANY nation, state or even a group of people of any size honestly looking at the way things are, and changing core values. It just ain't gonna happen. Maybe my pessimistic view skews my interpretation...but I doubt it.

The bad times may not come in my lifetime, but it seems they are going to come some time.

“So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish ”

View all my reviews

7/15/2014

Neil deGrasse Tyson - addendum

So I read this book about Narcissism called The Life of I by Anne Manne. I found this one bit about some well known Physicist who are repeatedly used by Climate Deniers. She was trying to understand why these few science guys would ignore all the research....

"The culture among physicists, studies have found, requires a macho (or highly competitive and confrontational) style of self-assertion, even bravado, while disdaining and being contemptuous of the work of others"

It just reminded me of Neil deGrasse Tyson telling me how stupid I was. And I started thinking the quote kind of applied to NDT.  There is a bit of confrontation in his Cosmos presentation and from his philosophy comments he certainly is contemptuous of the work of others. So maybe it is just a Physicist thing.

I found this interesting blog post contra NDT and Tyson actually replies in the comments section

http://www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/2014/06/dear-neil-degrasse-tyson-dont-be-stupid-about-philosophy/

7/12/2014

You Are Not What You Think You Are

"There is, it seems, no mechanism in the mind or the brain for ensuring the truth, or at least the veridical character, of our recollections. We have no direct access to historical truth, and what we feel or assert to be true...Frequently, our only truth is narrative truth, the stories we tell each other, and ourselves—the stories we continually recategorize and refine. Such subjectivity is built into the very nature of memory, and follows from its basis and mechanisms in the human brain. The wonder is that aberrations of a gross sort are relatively rare, and that, for the most part, our memories are relatively solid and reliable."

"We, as human beings, are landed with memory systems that have fallibilities, frailties, and imperfections — but also great flexibility and creativity. Confusion over sources or indifference to them can be a paradoxical strength: if we could tag the sources of all our knowledge, we would be overwhelmed with often irrelevant information."


Just another thing to remind us that the world and ourselves are not what we think."Reality" is not what we remember. Or maybe it is only what we remember (perhaps erroneously) that becomes what is real.

Thank you Oliver Sachs, for breaking another bubble

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/02/04/oliver-sacks-on-memory-and-plagiarism/

7/05/2014

Video I just want to remember

7/03/2014

Random thougts

Neither is conservatism a makeshift fusion of capitalists, Christians, and warriors, for that fusion is impelled by a more elemental force—the opposition to the liberation of men and women from the fetters of their superiors, particularly in the private sphere. Such a view might seem miles away from the libertarian defense of the free market, with its celebration of the atomistic and autonomous individual. But it is not.

When the libertarian looks out upon society, he does not see isolated individuals; he sees private, often hierarchical, groups, where a father governs his family and an owner his employees.

http://coreyrobin.com/2014/06/30/why-go-after-women-and-workers-the-reactionary-mind-explains-it-all-for-you/