The Individual Evolution and Accountability

One of the centerpieces of the Individual Evolution, the one for which I often get the most resistance from academics when the subject of personal identity comes up, is the concept of correctional institutions and the penal system.

My personal frustration with American law enforcement and the justice system aside, it's a good question.

If an individual is an accumulation of events, is it fair to punish people? Is incarceration a logical social reaction for the commission of a crime?

My answer is, and always has been, pretty flat:

No.

I don't answer that way because it gets attention. I answer that way because its true.

If the theory, as presented, is correct, and if an individual, as they exist at any given moment, is really the result of an accumulation of events (the product of the pushes and pulls of personal perturbation), it is not productive to simply imprison an individual in an environment even more prone to violent crime than the general population.

This is a serious problem with the theory of incarceration as retribution, which our justice system operates on. It's also one of the reasons why the criminal justice system has failed so miserably at rehabilitating criminals, and why prisons are subject to massive overflow, and are filled with repeat offenders.

The prison system operates on a central premise that I am attempting to undermine. That is:

Each individual has an inherent and constant nature which, while it can be changed under extreme circumstances, is relatively static.

My objection to this is simple. People don't change (generally speaking) when they're subjected to perversity, they become perverse.

Individuals have a tendency to embrace the environment they are a part of, to put themselves in positions that recreate experiences they've had before. There are plenty of reasons that I could justify this (many of them are semi-Freudian and, as a result, absurd, but many are viable, logical and simple).

Victims of pedophilia are far more likely to become pedophiles.

Why?

The logic of prisons suggests that exposing individuals to the harsh nature of hostile environments corrects them (assuming that "correctional facilities" are meant to be correctional, and not retributive; retribution may seem to fit the just prescription, but it does little to address the individual).

Given the prison method of logic it seems that one subjected to the suffering of sexual abuse, who understands how horrible and destructive and traumatic it is would be the last person to commit a sex crime.

This is, simply, not the case.

Rehabilitation, correction, or whatever term we're interested in using, needs to acknowledge that the nature of the individual, the state that the individual is in at the moment and the circumstances which dictate their future acts, are better off if an individual is exposed to circumstances which are, in short, a drastic improvement over the life they had before, not a crippling view of what life might become in a society of criminals (which is the "Dante's Inferno" or "Ghost of Christmas Yet-to-Come" approach that the prison system is about imposing).

Am I saying we should improve the lives of those who commit crimes?

Yeah. As a matter of fact I am.

What's wrong with a justice system that shows a person who steals a television that they can develop skills and get a job and buy their own television? In my opinion (and you are entitled to disagree, if you feel the urge) the notion of locking a person up so that they are in a small cell with only a few hours of sunshine a day, only to let them out, is more ridiculous.

When they get out, they still want a TV (maybe even more than they used to). They still don't have any money (because they couldn't get a job). Their circumstances are exactly the same as they were before. Why will their decisions be different?

If this sounds utopian, it is in a lot of ways.

There are cases where individuals will have to be incarcerated because they cannot be rehabilitated, their behaviors cannot be changed. It is not a universally effective method, but it is worth trying, given how large scale the failure of the modern techniques has been.

The "Christian Nation" Issue

One of the primary messages of the Republican Party (a party I might be able to associate with if not for their stance on this particular issue) is that the United States is, or ought to be, a Christian Nation.

I hear regularly, both from friends and from political figures, that this is a nation with an inherent Christian virtue, with Christian founders and a Christian ethos in its founding documents. Apart from my understanding of American history (which was offered up to me at a Catholic high school, and not the evil, secular public school system), which does not indicate that the founders of our nation were any more religious than the other world leaders of their time, and some were militant in their secular-ness. That's not a relevant point.

I'll check my religious bias at the door on this one, as best I can. Clearly, I like the idea of living in a secular nation better than a religious one, on a personal basis. This bias is undeniable, but hopefully my logic will codify my position enough that the rational basis for my points is obvious.

Exhibit A: The Establishment Clause.

Perhaps cliched, but, as a part of the Constitution inserted deliberately, it's worth mentioning.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Now, it may not be clear how this undermines the notion of a Christian Nation. Apart from the fact that, as Justice Souter put it, "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion," it undermines one of the fundamental principles of Christian ethics: the understanding that Christianity is absolutely right, for all people in all times.

This, with respect to Judeo-Christian teaching, is incredibly important, and the basis for the First Commandment, also known as the "You shall have no other gods" clause.

The Establishment Clause also permits, clearly, idolatry. After all, a religion which worships idols cannot be opposed by legislation in the United States. Not only is there no grounds for enforcing one of the most important of the Ten Commandments (which the Christians should recognize comes well before murder or adultery).

As if Fred Phelps needed better fodder, I bring to the stand my second piece of evidence.

Exhibit B: Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is not absolutely protected in the United States, it turns out. There are, to be sure, some things that we are not allowed to say. We can't yell fire in a crowded theater. We can't use hate speech.

However, we can blaspheme, and this is one of the pieces of the First Amendment that has not ever been challenged. Establishing that the United States Constitution allows for violation of the first three commandments seems a clear enough demonstration that we are a nation that, in its very foundation, defies the basis of Christian teaching.

The values of the United States Constitution are not at all Christian. I have heard it argued that "Do Not Murder" is a Christian value, but (apart from contradicting two thousand years of Christian history) that is not a value directly built into the United States. It is not written, in the founding document of our nation "do not murder." That law exists within a social contract built by our legislature.

The purpose of the Constitution defies Christianity, not just in the letter of the law, on which the two will never agree, but also in principle, and this is the final piece of evidence.

Exhibit C: Democracy

The United States was founded with the intent of creating a social contract that could be dictated by the people. The Constitution lays the groundwork for a society governed by those who live within it.

Christianity demands a society governed, not by the people, but by the unquestionable word of the Christian diety.

The acknowledgment of the will of the people, the presence of popular sovereignty is a defiance of Christianity. Christian society demands theocracy. A Muslim society demands adherence to the will of Allah. A Jewish society demands adherence to the law as passed down by Moses and taught in the Talmud. These are the bedrock of those societies.

Democracy is not a matter of faith in the will of the god who operates the subtle mechanisms of the universe based on his own celestial will. It is not a matter of placing the future of a civilization in invisible, omnipresent hands.

The foundation of democracy is faith in the people who control its law, the recognition that the future of any nation will be guided by those who live within it.

This is the principle difference on which those first two pieces of evidence hinge.

Instead of instilling the Christian ethic, which demands respect for the teachings of a long dead Nazarene preacher and an ancient desert god, the Constitution offers us the freedom to choose whether we accept that morality. That freedom, to choose what we believe and what faith we practice and what we say, is patently un-Christian.

An Outright Lie about the Abortion Rights Movement

I apologize ahead of time for being such a political fist pumper the last few weeks. I was trying to stay away from it on this blog, but this pissed me off enough that I saw fit to write something about it.

In a debate posted on PBS.org, Troy Newman presented one of the most annoying lies I've ever seen, a card ignorant of the facts that should be seen as absolutely reprehensible.

Newman says (or writes, it's hard to tell, given the debate format):

Attempts to smear Operation Rescue with false accusations of culpability in the brutal murder of Tiller fall flat. Accusations that our rhetoric caused the slaying are untrue and only serve to inflame emotions. The pro-life movement is the most peaceful social movement in our nation's history. We preach and teach a message of life while refusing to skirt the truth of the painful fact that an abortion is, in and of itself, an act of violence that kills an innocent child. The truth is that Roeder has reportedly been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Early police statements were that he appeared to have acted alone. A lone student shot up Virginia Tech, but not all students are murderers. Postal workers have been known to kill fellow employees, but not all mailmen are terrorists. Muslims killed 3,000 Americans in the 9/11 attacks, but not all Muslims act out Jihad. However, all abortionists murder children.

I think the comparison between Islam and the "pro-life" movement is a little much. However, the comparison between the pro-life movement and a radical sect of Islam (like, say Wahhabi) seems incredibly appropriate. That, though, is a problem for another day.

The point is that what Newman has said is an outright lie.

I won't argue that the African-American Civil Rights movement was completely peaceful. The approaches of the Nation of Islam were a blemish, as were the aggressive positions of many leaders in the movement who dissented from the peace-based position of Dr. King and A.J. Heschel (who I mention, because he was a great leader and an interesting voice alongside Dr. King's).

Still, if one looks at the protests opposed to gay marriage, or in support of it, there's far less violence on that issue.

You know why?

Because the term "murder" doesn't get thrown around.

If Troy Newman feels the term is appropriate, he's entitled to his rhetoric, but he's an idiot if he thinks it doesn't have consequences. Any pro-life activist who uses the term murder is entitled, by the First Amendment, to say whatever they like. However, since murder is a crime punished in the Bible by retributive execution (death) and that practice of killing murderers is still common in parts of western society (and not dead in the United States), people here the term "murderer" thrown at an abortion doctor and (you know what they think?) he's a murderer.

This mindset quickly becomes:

What do we do to murderers?

Kill 'em.

And there goes the pro-life term.

Just to solidly debunk Newman's claim that the pro-life movement is peaceful, here are just two events worth remembering from within three months of each other in 1993.

Murder of Dr. David Gunn. In March of 1993, Dr. David Gunn was shot and killed by Michael F. Griffin. Posters of Griffin with a wanted style appearance (if you get the connection to the above) had been distributed by Operation Rescue.

The first shooting of Dr. George Tiller (RIP). In July of 1993 Dr. Tiller was shot outside of the abortion facility where he worked in Wichita, Kansas. The shooting occurred at the same time as a demonstration by Operation Rescue outside of the clinic.

Of course, I mention these because Newman's organization has been tied to both incidents, as well as the fatal shooting of Dr. Tiller on May 31st of this year.

The Washington Post piece links above makes the hard connections to Operation Rescue (so that I don't have to). That said, it's despicable that Newman would make that claim, as its so patently false. I hope he understands what an idiot he sounds like.

Progressing Islam

My father is reading an interesting book by a progressive Muslim author on Islam in the modern world. While the book has a tendency to glorify Islam and, from the excerpts I've read, seems incredibly dismissive of some of the inherent issues within the Muslim world and a little to ready to blame the problems that Islam has on the media, which does not create problems (though it does often make them worse, or appear worse).

Religions are often hijacked by political movements looking for a way to get unquestioning masses which are already engaged in a church to accept their political ideology and develop a certain degree of xenophobia to demonize their opposition. We've seen this with the Christian Right in America, which has used the fear of an ever more secular world to demonize a "Secular Left."

This backfired, of course, but it hasn't backfired in the Muslim world. In point of fact, it seems that Muslim leaders have had an easier time hijacking political movements than political leaders have hijacking Islam. The example of the Taliban is perpetual.

The Taliban is a movement unmistakably political in nature, and its use of strict interpretations of fundamentalist Islam, to the point where no freedom to dissent is possible (one of the most powerful and dangerous statements which can be made by a political movement) seems to indicate that it is a political movement which has used Islam as a means of developing a certain degree of popular support and creating dissent for the "Secularized" or "Judeo-Christian" West (sometimes it's the Jews and Christians attempting to oppress the Muslim world, sometimes it's the secularists, it waffles). It is hard, when looking at their roots as the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, to dispute this point.

Of course, there are other examples of fundamentalism in the Muslim world where it has been the religious clerics, not the political activists, who have brought Islam into the political arena, and into the world at large, as a means of enforcing strict interpretations of the law. We saw this with the Ayatollah, who went from being a powerful religious figure to enforcing his will over the political arena internationally, and we've seen similar acts of enforcement by religious clerics choosing to force European legislators to engage not simply in Muslim apologetics, but in the oppression of free speech.

What is interesting about the book that my father is reading is that it points out a few very interesting things the western world has come to accept about Islam that are certainly, objectively untrue.

The author makes valid points about women in education and leadership roles (and it is worth noting that women have taken leadership roles throughout the Muslim world, while it has been far more difficult for them to establish power in the US). Those, though, I think are worth overlooking for a moment.

The American media is under the impression that Muslim fundamentalism is somehow radically different from Christian fundamentalism (and Jewish fundamentalism, though the Jewish political position stays out of the spotlight, because they are more of a lobby than a voting block). This is disputable. While it's true that Muslim fundamentalists engage in acts that we find terrible, that we term terrorism, so do many Christian fundamentalists.

The KKK is an explicitly Christian organization, which engages in acts of terrorism and is seen by the United States as a terrorist organization engaged in the same form of hate speech that Muslim fundamentalists engage in. While they don't kill the same number of people (though they did about forty or fifty years ago), they still engage in the same acts of intimidation, high levels of illegality and political activism (i.e. David Duke).

That analogy from the opening, post-9/11 episode of the West Wing still rings true today:

[Muslim] Extremest is to [Islam] as the Klu Klux Klan is to Christianity.

Of course, the Klan is only a singular example of Christian fundamentalism. It is important that we recognize that Christian fundamentalism extends far further. If the Phelps family had political power and social relevance, they would be in a similar position to the Saudi Arabian Royal Family, without a doubt. The different, of course, is that in the west, these groups are not empowered. Those who are transparently and unashamedly racist have been pushed to the fringes of western society.

Muslim countries are working to push these political movements to the fringe of their world, but it is not easy. It was not easy for us, in the west, and anyone who thinks that the Muslim world is having a harder time than we did is lying to themselves. Let us not forget that we had openly racist leadership in this country for generations, that even a man considered one of the most progressive and praiseworthy leaders in this nations history, Abraham Lincoln, was not without staunch political opposition, and that his successor was a man who allowed for the moral failure of this country to lead to hundreds more years of racial inequity.

Of course, the Muslim world is not about racial oppression, it is about religious and social oppression, which is a far more dangerous dynamic. In the United States, we had a first amendment which ensured the freedom to politically dissent from opposition. The fact that America was a nation that came into being out of political dissent and discourse allowed it to ensure that the minority opinion, however conservative or progressive, would be heard.

There is no first amendment right assuring free speech in the Muslim world. It is not a right supported by Islam, and those who claim the right of Islam claim to right to protection from any sort of dissent, because dissenting from them is dissenting from Islam, and to dissent from Islam is death.

The west is under the impression that our right to dissent offers us some degree of moral superiority and, perhaps, there is a cultural superiority when political opposition can be open and stand in the street with signs and shout at the top of their lungs without fear. However, that feeling is not productive, that statement that "we are living right and you need to shape up and be like us" gets us nowhere in conversations with the Muslim world.

Understanding Islam is difficult, and America doesn't have a grasp on the religion that acts as a language for political discourse in the Middle East, just as it doesn't understand the history of tribal warfare that defines the African continent. It would be unfair to advocate that we should remain silent in issues which deeply affect our country, but it is not so outlandish to suggest that in a time of political strife within these nations we should ensure that we, at the very least, attempt to understand that these countries are moving forward in a way that we did, and that while America did not get to where it is without the help of powerful leaders, that vast majority of that leadership came from within a nation that wanted to change.

It seems that countries in the Muslim world want to change. They see the way that we live, and the way that the world is changing around them and understand this much, and often their governments ask for our help, as Pakistan has asked for help in their ongoing war with the Taliban. However, it is not our place to believe that we are capable of mediating conflict in the Muslim world, or that we are capable of enforcing peace, or that we even have a duty to.

In listening to President Obama speak to the Muslim world, one thing has become clear, there is a single gift that the western world can offer the Muslim world, a gift which, unlike the AK-47, unlike the anti-tank weapons, cannot be turned on other governments by the rogue leadership of political movements (like the Mujahadeen) which we once supported. That is the gem of free political discourse.

The Muslim world has voices of moderation and progression, though, like the voices in the early years of the United States, those voices are silenced by gunfire, it seems the Muslim world is progressing towards a more fulfilled understanding of the value of dissent from a political position, and hopefully this will allow for a dissent from religious values, and lead to the progression of a society which understands the virtue of personal freedom.

Freedom, though, cannot be enforced by military might. There cannot be a free people when they need a tank and a dozen American military personal to police their streets. A free society must stand on its own. These are lessons from our own history that we have forgotten to apply to the Muslim world, because we think it is radically different from our own.

Make no mistake: The Muslim world is radically different from the one that we live in, but it is not different from the world that, not so long ago, our great-grandparents tried to change, and then our grandparents, and then our parents, and now us. Theirs is a world moving forward, just as ours is, and to refer to them as a backwards civilization run by religious fanaticism is dismissive and overlooks that, not so long ago, we, too, were just the same.

NOTE: I have been told before that I am anti-Islam. This is true. I believe that there are primitive aspects to Islam, and to Christianity and Judaism (and Buddhism, and Hinduism, and so on), that are not conducive to life in modern, civilized society. That aside, the answer is not to enforce secularism in the Muslim world, or anywhere, the answer is to allow for political dissent, and to let debate over the merits and beneficial nature of religion ensue, so that the people, on an individual basis, can decide whether it is something that their society wants to embrace. This is a principle of Freedom, and expressed clearly in the first amendment.

The Gay Marriage Debate and Biblical Support

The more I listen to the gay marriage debate and the Biblical citations it entails, the more I realize that it takes a secular individual to act as a substantial intermediary, because they are capable of looking at what the Bible says without attempting to justify it.

There are a few groups that take the Old Testament and New Testament statements about the evils of homosexuality very seriously. The one that jumps immediately to mind is the Westboro Baptist Church. Of course, the WBC is all about the old time punishment of homosexuality: Death.

Most Evangelicals used to accept this position as valid, but now only a few extremists in the Evangelical movement accept the proposition. I say this because if we look at the number of people who think its ok to legislate against gay marriage, and then look at the number of people who think its ok to legislate against homosexuality, there's a discrepancy. My point is that there shouldn't be.

The first point of Evangelical hypocrisy and (it must be said) stupidity is that it maintains that the Bible proposes a concept of One Man and One Woman (some, like Rick Warren, would tag "for life" on the end of that, but since the divorce rate in this country is so high, I'll leave that alone for now).

The Bible does not state that the institution of marriage is between one man and one woman. Of course, the Christian Right makes the points about Adam and Eve (Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, and so on), but the truth of the matter is, the Bible happily endorses polygamy.

Jacob (Israel), one of the great Patriarchs in the Old Testament, had two wives, as well as children by two additional concubines.

According to the 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives. While Solomon's wives are depicted as evil women, the act of polygamy is hardly decried.

The Bible never addresses these as sinful and both are considered blessed figures, especially Jacob. This account of traditional marriage is a failure in and of itself, but is not the largest failure of the argument.

The point that needs to be made is simple: the Bible does not condemn marriage between homosexuals, it condemns homosexuality.

It is true that the Bible openly condemns homosexuality. Moderate Christians can attempt to apologize for this point, attempt to minimize its impact on society, but it's a fact. The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. It also condemns a lot of other things (like, for instance, divorce), but let's not get caught up in those.

One who accepts the Bible as the literal revelation of the word of a god who created the universe must acknowledge that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and do similarly. This is standard progessional logic.

The Bible is true. (P1)
The Bible is law. (P2, drawn from P1)
The Bible condemns homosexuality as "an abomination." (P3)
Homosexuality is an abomination. (C)

Of course, I reject premise one and, as a result, premise two. That said, it is important to make note that there are those who accept these points, but reject the conclusion on the grounds that it is not desirable.

You can't have it both ways and claim a logical position. This debate on gay marriage is an issue of the failings of those who read the Bible to differentiate between "opposing gay marriage" and "opposing gays."

As someone who hears from many anti-gay rights activists that they don't hate homosexuals, I have to ask "why?"

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. Why don't you agree with that statement? Where's your Biblical support?

And the answer is, there is none, but they don't want to be portrayed as literal, closed minded, hateful, religious fundamentalists, even when the Bible says they should.

Pro-Life, Kinda

In memory of the late Dr. George Tiller.

The murder of Dr. George Tiller is not something that should be taken lightly and I have debated using it as an opportunity to raise what I think is a serious difficulty of the rhetorical "pro-life" position.

Of course, I don't refer to anti-abortion activists as pro-life, because I don't think they are. I refer to them as "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion," as I feel those are fair characterizations of the position.

The reason I use the term is that, it seems to me, that those who advocate for "life" don't actually advocate for life in all instances. What they're advocating for is fetal rights, generally out of the belief in a soul instilled at conception.

I could point out, easily, that alleged "pro-life" activists generally don't object to the killing of doctors who perform abortions. That's not entirely true, though, and it would be silly to make such a gross generalization. Of course, those who do advocate the murder of physicians have absolutely no right to use the term, and their hypocrisy should be noted and thrown in their face at every opportunity. As should the hypocrisy of those who don't openly decry the act.

The reason why I don't think there are really "pro-life" activists, though, is simple.

If you are truly "pro-life," if you advocate the defense of life under all circumstances, you must adhere to that as a primary principle, and very few actually do (I'll get to those rare instances later).

That means opposing the termination of life:

as retributive punishment

as a means of defending oneself or ones property

as a means of spreading political ideology

These are the three primary situations, and while many may oppose capital punishment (an issue on which Mike Huckabee is consistent), very few would object to the termination of life for the starting of a war. For Christians, this is problematic, as Christianity has deep roots in spreading itself through war, and it's a problem for Republicans (where we find the most vehement in the use of the term "pro-life") who support the war in Iraq, or in any other country.

Of course, the termination of life as a means of defending oneself seems like a huge leap. It may seem like a dramatic extension of the position, but if it is true that life is sacred, then it needs to be a part of the principle that life cannot be taken by one who adheres to a truly "pro-life" position.

The position of those who wield the rhetorical title, though, is not based on the preservation of life. It does not adhere to the rhetorical position they claim to espouse, which is:

Life is sacred. Period.

What they mean to say is that the life of a fetus is as much a life as that of a full grown adult, but the fetus cannot defend itself.

This is a logical position (at least in that it is a conclusion based on premises, not in that it is logical) on which I disagree.

I do not think that the life of a fetus is equivalent to the life of a full grown individual, but this is a position that I may go into at another point. It's not so much that it's a long argument, but rather that it's an argument that deserves its own time.

My point is not that the anti-abortion lobbyists are wrong (they are, in my opinion, but that is not my point, at this particular moment).

My point is that they do not manifest the rhetorical position that they claim as their own. They embrace the title of "pro-life" happily, because it sounds great. I mean, we all agree that life is a good thing. Of course, they're not in favor of life in all circumstances.

Their position has its own logic, but they're not "pro-life."

"Good" Memes

As this blog was initially started to document personal thoughts, I figured I might as well do some of that.

I've been working on adding footnotes and adding an addendum to the journal article I presented a while ago. I've been learning that the academic world is slower than I personally would like it to be, but that's another issue.

Every time I begin to discuss the new advance in memetics that the article discusses on the connectedness of memes in the public consciousness, I am faced by a persistent and annoying question.

Is it good?

Of course, this is a question about the technology.

Is it good that the internet allows us to communicate so much faster?

Is it good for our culture?

Is it good for the quality of information?

I object to the question, of course. This is not uncommon. Much of the time, a question built to commandeer a conversation is objectionable, and this is one of those occasions.

The objection is on two grounds.

The first is that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. If technology is going to have an impact, it's going to have an impact, and we can't (and shouldn't) sacrifice technology because of it. The advance in technology is not simply good, but necessary.

The second is that it's not really offering an arbitrary criteria for good.

Is good a matter of the beneficiality for us, for human beings, as a species? Or is good a matter of increasing the success of memes?

Of course, it seems obvious to the person asking the question that they were inquiring about the first one, but I make the differentiation intentionally.

As memes develop, as they evolve, they are not at all concerned with us. Dawkins makes a point of that in the Selfish Gene, when the concept was introduced, but it is clear simply through observation. The memes use us when they need to, they destroy us when it suits them better. They operate on their own prerogative (it's not a conscious decision, but rather one dictated by the circumstances under which they evolve; that's not important, though).

If we want the memes to be good in that first sense then we have to make a point of propagating the memes that are beneficial.

Some regard this as a sort of memetic eugenics, like artificial selection. It's not. It's a natural selection. As a medium of replication (and, make no mistake, the human being is a medium of replication), its within our best interest to select in favor of memes that are beneficial. That's a natural function, and part of the role we play as meme machines.

So, as cliche as it sounds, the memes have always been what we make them. The technology changes those memes, but they are still what we make them.

Dan Dennett talks about waging a war on destructive memes, and this is a good idea. Natural selection tends, historically, in favor of memes that advance the survival of their hosts, but that is not always true, and some of the most successful memes are destructive ones.

It is important that we find ways to minimize those destructive memes, maximize the success of the memes most beneficial for us.

This, of course, is the general purpose of my endnote, but it really isn't fair to write an addendum to address a question that I then claim is a stupid one. It also seems a bit nonsensical to answer a question that I think is stupid (though I find that I do it a lot of the time).

Anyway, as this is what my life is coming to, I figure it might be worth writing about.

Religious Teaching and Executive Orders

In the third season finale of the West Wing there is a heavy plotline discussion of the virtues and vices of political assassination, a concept certainly ripe for ethical discussion. That aside, there's a single line in there that, when I was young, struck me. As they discuss the principle of the Execute Order, Leo McGarry, the White House Chief of Staff, points something out: A President can rescind his own executive order.

This is not surprising to me. After all, any single body capable of dictating policy is generally also credited with the ability to overturn that policy.

Still, I was having a conversation with a friend, who's very religious, and we were discussing some bits of religious ethics that have never sat particularly well with me and, all of which, I've come to notice, hinge on this sentence of Monarchy Ethics, which allow the High Authority to suspend his own commandments.

I posed to him a few premises that gave him some issues, as a pretty secular ethicist, and I'll explain why those problems arose in a little bit.

The Law proposed by an Omniscient God is Absolutely Right.

In being Absolutely Right, the Law cannot be suspended based on circumstance.

How can God suspend what is Absolutely Right?

These two premises gave him some issues, and that's because he, like any person who believes that a morality can be created and enforced by people, believes that Absolute Right in as intrinsic value, which is to say that if a law is Absolutely Right, it cannot be suspended.

A religious fundamentalist should take issue with the notion of Absolute Right, and here's why:

The value of "Absolute Right" is not intrinsic.

The Law is "Absolute Right" because God says so.

Ergo, if God decides to say something is not Absolutely Right, then that is true.

Basically:

The Law is Good because God says it's Good.

Goodness does not exist on its own merit. It exists based on the opinion of the Universal Curator. This is the religious position (not mine).

With this proposed, we can get to the Biblical issues that we were discussing.

God says in the sixth commandments: Thou shalt not kill.

However, refraining from murderous behavior is only bad if God says it is. There are instances throughout the Bible of God choosing to suspend this verdict, and many occasions when God states that the it is Good to kill.

The same is true for Idolatry as presented in Islam, and could be made manifest (though it might not be) in any monotheistic religion that praises its Divine Ruler as the single authority on the law.

For those who are wondering about the example of Idolatry in Islam that I alluded to, God says there shall be no Idolatry (a point Muslims make clear), but that ruling does not apply to worship of the Kaaba, which becomes a central vessel of worship for Muslims (the very definition of an idol).

This can be reconciled, of course.

However, in the reference that religious leaders so often make to the Brothers Karamazov, that thought that "without God all things are permitted" there is a sense of hypocrisy, and something to be said for dirty pots and kettles.

With the permission of God, we see that which we consider Evil made Good. We cannot acknowledge the existence of a Moral Absolute beyond the Divine Opinion, and any morality dictated by opinion can never be called Absolute.

This, of course, is not a refutation of the religious principles, but rather an observation of the failure of religious ethics to live up to the high principles they claim to possess.

Human Nature and Physiological Predisposition

I hear a lot of talk, as a philosophy student who occasionally deals with ethics (especially Hobbes vs. Locke questions), about human nature and this question of what is innate in human beings, behavioral speaking.

Are we naturally rebellious?

Are we naturally predisposed to order?

What is the innate state of human nature?

In dealing with Locke and Hobbes, and ethics in general, I think this is a terribly important question. I think it's important not simply because Locke and Hobbes want to make use of (Locke) or circumvent (Hobbes) what they see as pieces of human nature, behavioral tendencies in individuals.

"What is human nature?" though, seems like the wrong way of phrasing the question, and here's why:

"Human Nature" is not an individual, isolated function within the body. "Human nature" is not like the kidneys, an individual organ performing a singular specific function. Rather, it is the collection of functions in the body that define what human beings do in an uninhibited state, when not restricted by social laws or manipulation.

It is important to acknowledge that these functions can be understand, that certain innate characteristics are present in human beings, not in an abstract, ethereal sense, but in a physiological, concrete way.

There are two definite patterns in human beings:

1. The human being, because of the way that the brain is organized, has a tendency to pursue that which is pleasurable. We see this in the pursuit of sex and sweet things. Of course, there are certain cases where it may seem as though the human being is indulging in pain (sadomasochism), but they are doing it to serve a function that offers them some degree of pleasure, though perhaps not immediately physical.

2. The human being has an aversion to pain. We spend a good deal of our time avoiding things which are painful, and we create ethical concepts like "white lies" and euthanasia as ways of averting pain in a way which we can perceive as ethical (whether those two things are ethical is not in question at this point).

These patterns, its important to recognize, are built on neurological processes.

The pleasure centers of the brain emerge out of some degree of evolutionary beneficiality (as do the emotional centers). The pain centers emerge out of a need to avoid that which could cause physical harm (we are in pain when we put our hand in fire because we have evolved the feeling of displeasure with that action).

I hesitate to assert that there is more to human nature than that. We search for food when we are hungry because we like the pleasure of eating and want to avert the pain of starvation. This is the source of natural drives among animals, similarly.

The real question that Locke and Hobbes pose is whether the devices created by this desire need to be repressed or released for the continued success of the species and civilization as a whole.

Basically, "Is it good that we are driven by pleasure and pain?" and the corollary "Should it be socially permissible?"

Societies are built on social contracts (whether Rousseau was the one who introduced the concept is beside the point; the system of law had existed before, whether people accepted the social contract by passive participation in society or tried to alter it through revolution). The question is whether or not it should be a part of our society to acknowledge and accept human nature.

Like a Justice trying to slip onto the Supreme Court, I generally answer the question without answering the question.

The answer is: Sometimes.

There are some moments where the visceral, natural response is the right one. When we are pursuing our own happiness by finding chocolate cake and indulging our sweet tooth, that should absolutely be acceptable within the modern social contract. No one questions that there should be a taboo laid out on chocolate cage for those who want it.

Still, there are moments when it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to kill someone because they are standing on your toe. It may cause you pain and the anger that you feel may be a natural reaction as a result of the human "fight or flight" response, but we can agree that such an act is not permissible in the social contract.

Human nature is relevant to the discussion, as it acts as a perpetual motive for human behavior.

Pascal was right when he made note that "All men seek happiness." It is the cornerstone of any study of human behavior, and needs to be well understood if any practical sociological or governmental system is going to go anywhere.

That aside, we cannot build a social contract on an absolutist understanding of human nature. Absolute freedom with blind trust of the common man will lead to chaos, and the presence of a dictator enforcing policies which bind that same common man are both unacceptable ways of living. There is a happy medium which can and must be understood.

The conversation then evolves into case studies and the circumstantial debate over ethics, and while that does not seem as glamorous or as glorious as an absolute understanding of ethical principle, it's good that we allow moderation to win out over absolutism in this case, as the acceptance of moral absolutes, we learn from Godel, leads to far more problems (and paradoxes) than it can ever solve.

Modern Physiology and the Soul

I spent a portion of my weekend, a few weekends ago, at a conference on philosophy, and there were more than a few presenters on Plato.

Now, I have a lot of problems with the old Greeks (even Epicurus, who’s by far my favorite), but one of the things that came up in a few of the presentations, two of which were specifically on the topic, was the three part soul, according to Plato, and this is a major sticking point for me.

For those who haven’t read book four of the Republic, the statement of the soul is pretty simple. This soul consists of three parts:

Logos – The rational mind
Thymos – The emotion, spiritedness (generally considered masculine)
Eros – The appetite, desire (generally considered feminine)

Now, of course, all of this makes sense in the context of Plato, who noticed that there are three distinct functions in the individual. That we have the capacity for logic, we have a certain degree of desire and that we sometimes see the need to fight, to stand up for something. These are the three functions that he is trying to showcase.

I have no problem with Plato for presenting these three functions. My problem is with the attribution of these functions to the soul.

I am, by no means, an expert in physiology, but it seems to me that these three functions can be explained physiologically.

We know that the temporal lobe controls our capacity for foresight and reason. We know that the adrenal glands fuel the fight or flight reaction. We know that the limbic system controls most of our visceral emotional reactions, including many of our desires (that which do not come from other physiological components, like the physical hunger felt in a starved stomach).

With this new data present, doesn’t this undermine Plato’s version of the soul?

When I presented this to the young man on stage he responded by saying that it does, which I’m glad he did (because it was very intellectually honest of him, in my opinion). He then went on to explain that in the context of Plato’s time, Plato’s soul is a very powerful device. That’s fair, but it doesn’t explain why were should continue discussing his version of the soul in a time when we know it does not exist.

After posing the question, I had a few issues and a few ideas.

The first is something I’ve known for a while, but thought was worth bringing up, as the debate over the existence of a soul hinges on this:

The existence of something can be verified through its function. Which is to say, if something performs a function, then we can be sure that it exists.

I am fairly comfortable with that criteria for existence. It’s a criteria I have used for some time, and while it generally takes some explanation for people who don’t understand that being the object of a verb (like, say, if something is seen) is performing a function, it’s a solid qualifier once we get around that point.

That said, what is the function of a soul?

We’ve removed Plato’s functions, as they are performed by something else entirely.

The function of creation is not entirely understood, but it largely assumed to be the product of the physical brain and interactions within various structures (Dr. V.S. Ramachandran has some very interesting statements about the root of creativity based on interactions within the brain).

The function of consciousness is no longer explained through the use of the soul (which was the placeholder for some time). The top students of consciousness now recognize it as the product of neurology within the brain.

The capacity for morality can be largely attributed to the consideration of consequences, which is a function performed by the temporal lobe, which gives us that ability to make predictions.

So, what is the function of the soul? What function does it still act as a placeholder for, that we do not already have at least a rudimentary understanding of?

In the age of science, is this conceptualization of a part of ourselves that is inexplicable really necessary? Is it true?

I concede that I lean towards denying the existence of a soul categorically, as I cannot find a function, but it is an open question and, if such a function can be demonstrated, I would be very happy to see it.

Youtube and Retroviral Memes

Since I presented a paper last weekend on one of the impacts that the internet has had on memetics that is pretty well exemplified through wikipedia, I thought I’d post something on another impact that the state of the internet has had on the memes themselves, and the way they travel.

The more I deal with youtube, the more I realize how incredible it is as a way of transmitting information. It’s not all, what some would consider, “high quality” information (though, since you can actually get access to clips from popular news and television shows, as well as full length lecture, on youtube, so some of it is), but the memes themselves are incredibly viral.

Because of the way that television and radio transmits, with memes only reproduced every so often (a piece of music on the radio might get one play a day), there is a limit to the amount of replication. Not only is the replication limited by the transmission, but by the lack of control listeners have over content, so they can’t replay the same memes over and over, or select which memes (or group of memes) they’re going to focus on.

As a result, the advent of youtube, which allowed for people to pick and choose which memes they wanted to listen to or watch, and to select all of their own content, offered a whole new way of transmitting memes.

There were viral memes in the age before the internet. We can’t forget that there are certain ideas that have absolutely taken over society purely by way of the television, radio and printing presses. Beatle-mania and Bible-mania were both, certainly, viral.

But it’s unfair to classify what has happened in the internet age in the same way we might classify what happened to earlier cultural phenomena. After all, these memes process and fade much quicker, but they also replicate much faster as a result of the medium.

A lot of this is a result of the user-based content on youtube. The fact that people can post their own content means there are far more memes in circulation. This, as a result, means that the memes which permeate the social membrane, which enter our consciousness and conversation are far more viral, having been forced through a far more competitive process.

Still, what’s interesting is the replicating medium for memes.

The memes themselves replicate at a rate which is more than just viral. Viral memes, historically, take some time to evolve and set in. These memes are far more quick.

I’ve been playing a lot with the connection between the retroviral replicators observed in HIV/AIDS as opposed to the replicators of a typical gene. Because HIV/AIDS is a retrovirus, it’s ability to reproduce and mutate are far faster than the species it is competing with, as well as the immune systems of the creatures it infects, this increased replication and method for increasing mutation is a lot like what youtube offers. Of course, one might argue that it happens without the epidemic, but youtube really is a social virus of epic proportions.

The youtube replicator has drastically increased the speed at which memes travel, and the way in which they are transmitted and mutate.

The case study of Susan Boyle is an interesting one, as her performance on Britain’s Got Talent is a meme that probably would never have gotten to the United States without the retroviral replicator, but, at last count, she has close to forty-five million replications on a single copy of the video.

Anyway, it’s just a thought.

It’s impossible to deny that the internet has drastically shifted the way that memes travel and the way that they replicate, as well as the way that they are linked together (which is what I discussed in my paper last weekend). It’s important that the people who really focus on memetics start to consider the impacts of these changes, because I think they are far more powerful, socially, then that of people knowing about a 42 year old singer. Hopefully I’ll post more about that later.

On Pain

I'd say that I've been on an Eastern Philosophy kick lately, but that would be a lie. My entire life is an an acid trip on Eastern Philosophy, it's just been more properly indulged this semester, as I'm taking a Buddhism class that's given me the opportunity to read a lot of first hand documents I usually wouldn't.

There are a lot of things worth talking about, but it's usually good to start at the beginning and, with Buddhist philosophy, that means starting with the First Noble truth:

In life there is suffering.

Now, every western philosophy either dismisses suffering as something that can be overcome, in large part, with the indulgence of joy or it channels our masochism (a la Nietzsche).

This puts me in a problematic state, as I neither want to simply ignore the existence of suffering, nor do I want to pretend that suffering is the be all and the end all. Suffering doesn't need to be the epicenter of our lives, but casting it out is no good.

In my personal life, I have dealt with enough suffering that I do not need to do as Nietzsche sometimes proposes, make that suffering unbearable. Instead, I learn from what suffering I have to deal with, take the lessons as they come, and then work in pursuit of happiness.

Epicurus was on to something when he acknowledged that there is great joy to be had, when he wrote on pleasure. In fairness, the Kama Sutra beat him to the punch, but it's still an excellent point.

Life can be a bitch and life can be good. We don't need to live in one life all the time, and almost nobody does (which is a good thing).

Joy is worth pursuing, and since I've been doing a lot of work with this form of ethos lately, I'm sure I'll get into it a little more later, but let's simplify it.

The Buddha's truth suggests "in life there is suffering." What the Buddha means to say is that life is empty and that even our Epicurean joys are not enough to fulfill ourselves. On this point I politely dissent.

Live through joy, and savor it, but also endure and learn from suffering. There is enough suffering in most lives that it does not need to be enhanced by Nietzschean masochism.

On Love

When I admit that I don't believe in god, or fate, or souls, people often ask me if I believe in "true love." It seems like a jump, but I can see where it comes from.

The part of the phrase that bothers me is the "true" part. Tolkein wrote, in a letter:

Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might be found more suitable mates. But the real soul-mate is the one you are actually married to.

Sometimes people freak out and say "you're not a romantic, then."

If romanticism is defined by the insistence that there is one person out there who I can love for the rest of my life, then I am most expressly not a romantic. However, I don't believe that's what romanticism is, nor do I believe that love is about finding someone and being together forever.

Some people insist that love is instant, that when it comes it is like a bolt of lightening, and it strikes you and you are changed forever.

To me, love is like a flower. You plant it with someone that you care about, someone that you like and think is interesting, then you cultivate it, through experiences and understandings and discoveries about one another. Love is not something we receive, it is something we build through compassion and mutual affection.

It's Valentine's Day, which is an opportunity to cultivate love, if you have it, or simply enjoy the prospect (like I do). Enjoy the day.

What We Call Randomness

I'm reading Dan Dennett's book Freedom Evolves. I'm about 120 pages in, and it's absolutely wonderful. Anyone who likes Dennett will like the book, and anyone who's read his other stuff will find it enriching, as it helps to tie the ideas together.

I've considered what it means to be "random." In acknowledging, as I often have (as a determinist, or at least I think I am) that the outcome of a situation is dictated by the conditions leading up to it, I've been forced to reconsider a definition of the term "random." After all, it'd be silly to throw away perfectly good word.

The point, though, is that I think I've found a way to change my understanding of the adjective without changing the nouns that it speaks for.

When we engage in a "random" coin flip, we are not engaging in randomness in that conventional sense, as the result of the coin flip is predetermined by the nature of physics, the forces exerted by the thumb that does the flipping, gravity, air resistance and any number of other things.

What we are actually doing is availing our decision to forces outside of our mind. What we are doing is taking that internal mechanism, that thought process that leads to decisions, and circumventing it by making the decision contingent, not on our past experience or our current inclinations, but on the laws of physics and the forces on a coin.

Randomness becomes an expression of sacrificing control. When you consider this, you may acknowledge that this is already something that you thought about randomness, that this was already the definition.

Random means, literally, an occurrence without aim.

That is what we need to redefine randomness as. Occurrence without intention, not "occurrence without cause," which is the present definition.

Occurrence without cause is not possible. Occurrence without intention makes sense.