Quadsville

I will be the first to admit my doubts as to whether this will garner many hits, or if it does it will be due to some unintentional controversy or because of some misunderstanding...intentional or other wise. Recently I've read books by authors Martin Gardner and Christian DeDuve. The former wrote the math games columns for, "Scientific American," for a number of years and the latter is a Nobel prize winner and researcher into cellular biology. I've already noted many, many times that I'd love to be studying, learning and researching bio-chemistry, so I tend to really enjoy the thoughts and writings of such authors. I've also pointed out that on, "science blogs," you will find writings which are heavily liberal as well as many which are atheistic.

I've been made to feel uncomfortable in my beliefs for a number of years because of the feeling, one way or another of being caught on the horns of a dilema not of my own making. Which is to say the hard core atheistic left wing which seems much more intelligent questioning and the literalist fundamentalist right wing, which seems to have a greater sense of mystery, morals and responsibility.

At the same time I've been seriously put off by the superior attitude of the left, with it's dismissive attitude towards any Christian thought while frequently displaying a willingness to buy into any twisted mysticism put forth by other religions...particularly new age adherents. On the otherhand, for a great variety of reasons I've got trouble with folks who are fantastically moral themselves, but seem to question no traditional authority and judge others in the most insanely of harsh fashions. Recently, in a comment addressed to liberal Christians, I was appraised of the "teachings" to be found in the book of Judges Chapter 11. A horror story in the name of God is an apt description. Worse Jepthah was considered to be righteous and his loving daughter was celebrated as having done the right thing as well. This is a story to make a person really understand where literal fundamentalists are coming from and how they expect others to operate.

Which brings me to my readings. Philosophically I have a great deal of respect for and identification with, the manner in which authors such as Deduve, Gardner and novelist Neil Stephenson see things. In many regards this can be best illustrated by Plato's analogy of, "The Cave." To be honest if a visit is made to "Xocxoc," an animated, illustrated version of this can be found. Essentially the philosophy suggests that there is an utter genuine nature to reality. If you removed all observers from reality there would still be mathematical and physical laws in play. Folks like Einstein, Newton, Feynman, Watson, Crick didn't invent explanations or explain their own perceptions, they discovered laws of nature that work. Those laws always existed and were simply waiting to be discovered. "The Cave," essentially suggests that what we perceive as real and genuine are but shadowy caricatures and shapes of the ultimate reality which is beyond our immediate understanding. Through study and learning we come to understand a greater part of that reality. Feynman described it rather aptly as watching one corner of a chess board and attempting to understand the rules of the entire game/board based on what happens in that one corner. This all in many ways describes Platonism. There is a greater world a more abstract world than we see with our senses. The laws and mysteries of which can be understood, although imperfectly with study.

At the same time, all three authors have had difficulty with organized religion. One refuses to call himself an atheist but does not believe in an after life. All believe that religion does serve a purpose and generally don't consider all religious folks to be whacked. Although, admittedly they find that true to be of some. All three consider themselves men of learning, understanding and science...but seem to feel there is something more. Something beyond simple physical laws. I agree. I have a great number of problems with the explanations I've heard regarding why the Bible or Christianity says, this or that. I continue to believe in God and in the trinity, however, I think that despite claims of divine inspiration, the Bible is too frequenlty weaponized as an excuse to bring harm to others. The authors of the Bible were simply men trying to understand events they saw about them. They are products of a culture far different than our own and although there is frequently intellectual and emotional validity to what they report great caution should be taken in interpreting their veiwpoints.

Regarding chaos theory: Contrary to what many think...that it is a refutation of order...chaos theory actually suggests that in apparent chaos there is order. Chaos theory also suggests that the more data points the better, as well as the more strigently, accurately and precisely measured the better. Chaos theory and in particular fractal geometry can be used to demonstrate things such as the shapes of clouds or the shapes of coastlines, as well as weather patterns...the mathematics involved goes well beyond simple probability and more towards the creation of an accurate model. One of the greatest things I remember in reading and learning about chaos theory was a situation in which two researchers were looking at data on a 3-D graph. They were viewing this data as a map and where they expected to see valid results and modelling they saw none. When they "tipped" the map along it's "third" access where they expected to find nothing, they found great order and predictability. "The butterfly effect" which suggests small changes or actions can have large results on a global scale only goes a short distance in explaining a far greater theory.

I've rambled enough for today. Suffice to point out that within mathematics a description of X squared, sine, cosine and tangent are great for understanding a two dimensional plane. Shoot a numer line is fine for understanding addition, subtraction, multiplication and division and it is a one dimensional line. Spirituality, religion and philosophy is much the same. Many folks are happy living within one dimension and wish everyone would. Others understand planes and the geometry, algebra and trigonometry contained within...But, there is a third dimension with a calculus all it's own. It utlizes a set of rules involving X cubed, algebra, trigonometry,arithmatic, and geometry. Notice that how you represent X determines how many dimensions you are functioning within. Many physicists are currently considering the possiblity of "string theory" which purportedly exhibits 12 dimensions. Taken further, Feynman, a physicist had this to say about the situation, "math is to physics what mastribation is to sex."

Take that back to my analogy of spirituality. Put simply, what does it really mean to, "walk the talk."

I hope I didn't lose you.

Shalom.

I know, I should wish for world peace...but, as Lisa Simpson says, that is a given. I also know I should be a grown up about it and simply be grateful for what I get. That also is a given...actually.

I guess I just kind of find it funny in an odd way. I'll put out a fantasy list to be cute, then I'll mention things that people can actually afford, and wait for the big day. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to be a part of a family in which there are a number of gifts exchanged. But, before we even opened the gifts I felt like I had a little heart ache over the whole thing. I like Christmas and want it to last quite a while. I'd prefer to spend all evening with my family, eating, listening to music, going to church and ultimately opening gifts. We do our thing Christmas eve, so in my eyes, it is kind of like a thing where you should at least wait til midnight to open the gifts since you're already opening them early.

Well, most folks seemed to indicate they didn't care, but, we had this one family member who is a teen, but considerably younger than the rest of us and as the "baby" of the family tends to get her way. So, if she wants to open gifts before seven and has her church service at 9...that's what we do. I was really disappointed. We really didn't get the thing started til after five, supper was served after gifts and it seemed like there were an inordinate number of snarky comments. We are a very far cry from dysfunctional but there are times when I think our biggest problem is every member except the matriarch trying to out cool one another.

Anyway, we get the gifts. I ended up with two pair of pants, the wrong size. A gift I showed speculative intersest in that really doesn't work as advertized and it's secondary function doesn't compare to what I already have. Another item I wanted that had set on a shelf for a month before Christmas was sold off the shelf before a family member went for it. Two shirts of a style I didn't want and ultimately a really cool gift that the giver down played because of the low cost.

Now, please bear with me...anyone of these things in and of themselves is no big deal. But, this is how my Christmases have gone for several years. A great build up of hope and then a series of gifts that are almost, but not quite what I wanted. Along with clothes that don't fit right or shoes that are the wrong size. Shoot, I could even handle one year of catastrophic failure...but this sort of thing happens on birthdays as well. Basically, any time there is a holiday in which it is customary to give a gift...I get something that is almost, but not quite right and almost but not quite entirely wrong.

Now, I have to be honest, there are a lot of things you can learn from not getting what you want. As an example, my icon is my cat. I've always liked black cats. White barn cats as well. So, if I were to go out and get a cat...that is pick one out, it would've been an all black or all white one. But, this one showed up on my step and he has proven to be my favorite cat ever. At the same time, a couple of winters ago a grayish brown tabby went running in front of my car. It was outrageously cold, so I stopped and called to him and the cat came back. I took him home and gave him to my younger brother. He is colored like a bobcat or your average looking feral/barn cat. He is the most lovable cat I've ever known and always comes when you call him. He is also my favorite cat ever. I guess I'd call it a tie. My point is, that if I'd had a choice I might have thought I wanted something different...but what I got was really much cooler and worked out fine.

At the same time, when I was in high school, I ran around with a bunch of pon pom girls. Very pretty girls, very attractive. I remember feeling really lonely at one point and actually praying that God would see it through that I would date one particular girl...bear in mind they were all friends of mine...but this one is the one I really wanted to date. I pretty much immediately felt like a fool. What was God going to do? Take away her free will and turn her into a mindless automaton that would be attracted to me? I realized that if the attraction was there things would work out. I didn't need God putting the idea into her mind...and shoot, if I was dating someone, without their chosing to be with me, what good would it be? Of course this sort of rationale is why I've always had a problem with understanding psycho stalker, hostage taker types...if you don't want to allow a person to make up their own mind or can find no means to make a real friend other than harrassing them or turning up everywhere they go, how do you think they will react? It is difficult to believe that anyone would think that a woman would be impressed by someone who would act that looney for them. Ultimately, these situations have nothing to do with the woman(or man in the case of female stalker) but some perceived lack in the stalkers life. A sense of looking for affirmation from without...But, after that I draw a blank, what is so lacking in a persons life that they believe another person can fill some internal void?

So, again, not getting what you want can teach a valuable lesson. In the case of the cats, you learn to be happy with what you have and can discover that what you have is better than what you wanted. Of course the same thing could be true with a mate. But, is that really the lesson you want to learn? Isn't it more important to understand that you shouldn't use or need other people or relationships to affirm that you are a good person?

At any rate, after it is all said and done, I'm pretty happy with my Christmas. I love my family a great deal and like being around them. The thing is the shirts I did get are pretty nice and in good colors. The pants maybe big but in the winter time it will allow me to dress in layers. That spec item I wanted will work fine as a back-up. The cool item is just cool. That item from the gift shop? Well, I really thought the original symbolized a great deal of my personality...but what I got instead is also a great symbol of how I feel about things and see the world. It was a pretty good Christmas after all.

I still hope next year I can get what I want....

I started listening to Christmas music.  Frankly, the same old thing can get a little old.  Even worse, if you favor a particular type of music it can get a little uglier because your favorite sorts of artists don't record a lot of Christmas music.  Or cool songs aren't so cool after you've heard them every Christmas for twenty years.  The best examples of this are Bruce Springsteen's, "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," or John Mellancamp's, "I saw Mommy Kissin' Santa Claus."  They are good songs...and I don't mind tradtion...these are traditional songs...but they lose their freshness.

Now these songs aren't new, but I haven't over heard them, and I'm currently listening to "You tube," and finding things I'd forgotten or things I never knew existed...so here's some stuff I found or remembered that is pretty cool.  At the end I'll list my favorite.

1.  Blackmore's Night:  "We three kings," "Three Ships," and "Hark the Herald Angels Sing."  Ritchie Blackmore from Deep Purple..sounds like a minstrel music mostly...but very, very cool.

2.  Joan Jett, "Little Drummer Boy."

3.  John Lennon, "The War is Over(Happy Christmas).

My absolute favorite, without a doubt is The Pretender's "2000 Miles."  Just beautiful and it makes me tear up a little hearing it.

How 'bout you?  What say you?

I've spent a good portion of my life believing that people did things because they were either logical or compassionate.  At this point I tend not to believe this is true in many cases.  People do have higher ideals.  They do want to appear logical.  They generally hope to be seen as compassionate.  Don't get me wrong.  Most folks probably wouln't suggest these things were their top priorities...but if you peeled things back...they will believe their actions reflect both logic and compassion.  Even if frequently what those actions most probably reflect are confirmations of childhood belief systems or taken out of a desire to conform to a given culture or society.

That is more cynical than I've probably ever been in my life but it comes at the end of a long period of time in which I've listened to a variety of rationale for some incredibly poor behavior.  At any rate, I want to point out a couple of "issues of logic," that happen with relative frequency, as well as some conclusions that aren't really accurate depictions of given usages.

1)  Circular logic.  I can think of two and they both involve the same bad habit:  "I drink because I'm hung over."  Obviously this goes round and round.  I'd point out that the corner stone of addictive behavior is that ongoing use occurs to avoid withdrawl symptoms.  Do you smoke first thing in the morning?  Well, you've not had a smoke for eight hours.  You're mind and body crave another fix.  So, you smoke.  The second example regards two people:  a)  he drinks because she nags.  b)  she nags because he drinks.  A never ending situation of circular logic in which both caustic behaviors will continue because of a never ending circle.

2)  Internal logic that doesn't apply externally.  This could be confused with arguing from authority.  But, usually involves a personal belief system and not the actual system of belief.  Many Christians argue citing the Bible as the authority.  Whatever point they are trying to argue they will cite scripture to support.  They of course fail to realize that the logic of their entire argument is based not only on the belief that Christianity is a ruling dynamic system for everyone(it is what God wants, or God inspired the words, therefore...)  But, their arguments are also based on the notion that everyone interprets a given scripture in the same fashion that they do, said intrepretation is the only correct interpretation and the only interpretation possible.

Actual logic isn't simply internally logical.  Math is logical thinking symbolized.  If you suggest that a triangle contains 180 degrees.  You are correct.  But, only in certain applications and generally those applications are limited.  The fact is that in the real world a triangle frequently contains more than or less than 180 degrees.  It depends entirely upon what you are putting said triangle upon.

Go to the North pole.  make a 90 degree angle with two legs heading south.  At the equator make a line connecting these two legs.  You've created a triangle with three 90 degree angles.  270 degrees.  On a concave surface you'd have less than 180 degrees.

Stating a triangle has 180 degrees is an internal logic to plane geometry.  It is true.  Within that system.  But demonstrably, not always true.

3.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  This is obvious but perhaps folks aren't aware it is also a tool of manipulation and mind control.  Used by coaches and boot camp instructors.  Basically, you want folks to do what you say in the face of horrible outcomes regardless of what they do.  It is a way of creating a sense of nearly omniscient authority, fear, and futility of autonomy on the part of the person on the receiving end.  I listened to  a shrink suggest it was a way to induce schizophrenia with the following example:  a)  If the kids don't follow your directions they will be punished.  When it is raining out make the following statement:  "You kids have to go out and play.  But, don't get wet!"  Soldiers in boot camp have a biochemical within their brain which is elevated.  This same chemical is elevated in schizophrenic patients.

4.  Catch-22.  Although many folks think this is the same as the above...it is not.  Catch-22 implies only one course of action and there can be no deviations from that action.  Although convoluted it is best exemplified by the example from the book.

a)  No sane man would fly combat missions.

b)  an actual crazy man would enjoy the missions.

c)  In order to be grounded you have to be certified insane.

d)  If you see the flight surgeon because of mental duress and you don't want to fly you're sane, therefore you must fly.

5.  Ad hominem attacks.  A person makes an argument against your belief system.  Rather than attacking the argument you attack the man's character.  An example would be, someone who questions AA's belief.  The response is, "they are in denial."  "They need to grow up." "They still suffer from a disease."  "They are on a dry drunk."

This sort of attack is intended to deflect argument and questions from the actual source of the dispute and instead create a sense of defensiveness within the questioner, or to call said person into such great question that all of their actions or beliefs will be disregarded as part of a character flaw or as being misguided.

Another example would be Clinton.  Any good the man did was chucked out the window because of his adultery.  He could make no statement and can be taken seriously in very few quarters because no matter how good his intentions his womanizing will be such a great distraction.

Generally in life this sort of attack can work very well in social situations.  Actual character is relatively irrelevant and such slanderous attacks or ongoing descriptors can be used long after a problem was cared for or even long after others have passed by the person who was slandered.

The best example of that I can come up with is the girl in high school who develops a reputation.  She might only have a partner or two.  But, gets married soon after school and settles down.  Meanwhile the corporate crowd goes on to college and life and has many more partners...yet they don't earn the reputation.

6.  Arguments of logic from social convention.  Actually this just occurred to me.  But, it is also accurate.  Jusst because someone follows a social convention doesn't make them better than someone who doesn't.  Please consider the following two women:  a)  This lady gets pregnant, realizes too late her boyfriend isn't all of that.  So, she doesn't get married because she doesn't want the mess.  Years pass, she's careful, but gets pregnant again.  This time, the man backs out on her.  Two kids, different dads, folks are talking serious smack.  She lives on the fringes.

b)  This lady gets married, has two kids, has a decent life for a while because of the decent situation.  Gets a divorce, gets the house.  Get's married again.  And again.  And again.

Lady b will generally be seen in a more positive light because she followed convention.  Of course it could've been argued...in 1950...that said convention got her a house in times of trouble...but, do you really think she is a better or more moral person? What if both ladies weren't responsible for the behavior that led to the partner leaving?

Look, at it's end, simply because something is a social convention doesn't make it right...or logical.  It is a system of providing comfort, which at one time might have served a logical purpose.

7.  I'd point out that some systems and groups display more of these issues than others.  Some systems are built on these errors of logic and dysfunctional interpersonal patterns.  For that reason they should be strongly questioned and although, when a given individual believes them there might be relatively little harm...enough individuals will frequently gather and they will take actions against others or to recruit others and their tactics might be more than a little coercive.  All those guilty take 12 steps forward.

The other day while at U.T. I had a conversation with a guy that has been around similar circles to myself.  In this conversation he revealed himself to be a very well spoken and intelligent human being.  To a degree I enjoyed the conversation a great deal.  As part of our discussion I brought up the notion that the extreme right wing seemed to be based in fundamentalist, literalism and questioned the idea of global warming.  On the other hand the extreme left wing seemed to be rooted in new atheism, false intellectualism and questioned vaccinations.

I pointed out that on the right they were driving people away from Christianity based on their extreme position, while on the left they were going to drive people away from science by equating research and science with extreme atheism(in such a case, any faith is considered a sign of extreme stupidity).  I said, "...after all, for most people, if you ask them to choose between science and God..."

And my friend answered, "They'll choose life."

Now, at this point a whole series of alarm bells went off in my mind.  Not because I disagree with his statement, but because when I've heard such statements in the past, there has been a whole series of beliefs that go with it, and those beliefs lend themselves to a willingness to interfere in the lives of others, making tactless statements that indicate the belief in the superiority of ones faith...regardless of any proof or statement to the contrary...and ultimately a self righteousness that make any real sense of diversity impossible.  Such a person is only truly comfortable hanging about with persons who see the world in a nearly identical fashion.

All of this put me in mind of an old psych experiment.  In the experiment infant rhesus monkeys are put in a cage which contains two fake mothers.  One is a bare wire frame which has a plastic,  abstract monkeys head on top.  It has a bottle of milk within the frame.  The other mother is constructed the same with the addition of a cloth cover, but no milk. 

What researchers found is that the monkeys preferred the cloth mother to the feeding mother.  Now, frankly, I'm sure that research has gone much further than this since, but this is generally taken to mean that the babies prefer a nurturer to a food bringer.  But, that sort of conclusion seems a little short sighted. 

After all, the baby needs to stay both warm and fed if it is going to live.  It doesn't spend most of the day eating.  It spends most of the day trying to maintain a decent body heat.  I'd also point out that the cloth mother doesn't really do anything nurturing.  It is just warm.  The wire monkey on the other hand, though cold, does something.  It gives food.

In human mythology, "bringers," aren't usually considered good guys.  Lucifer is the, "light bringer."  Prometheus is the "fire-bringer."  Ultimately, both were sentenced to exist for eternity in nightmarish torment.  Both, were also seen as defying the rule of God or the chief God.  Although in the Christian myth of the Garden of Eden, it is possible to put a genuine sexual spin on the situation, both symbolically and possibly historically(due to local competing tribes which had temple prostitutes and sexual actions being used as "getting closer to god) the thing is the tree was the "tree of knowledge."  Thus, it can be concluded that the tree wasn't just about sexuality but about the human pursuit of knowledge in defiance of "the will of God."

In a binary thought pattern it could be argued that the two false monkeys in the experiment are how many people view God and science.  God would be the clothe monkey which keeps people warm and folks concluded that it is natural to prefer it, while at the same time the wire monkey is cold, like science, but provides food.

Now, obviously, spiritual/religious folks will say there is more to it than that.  But, consider:  They accept they can't pray and just get their way.  They can't pray and through prayer without action accomplish anything.  At the same time, giving scientists...( who have ensured we have proper sanitation, sewage, greater food production, warm homes, longer lives amongst a myriad of other things that make life better)... the power of God seems more than a little foolish.

Thus, we have the constant dire warnings about scientists usurping the power of God.  Of course that is only the case if they believe they are above those ethics and rules which limit the behavior of others.

Of course real mothers(and God) are neither "wire monkeys" or "cloth monkeys."  They are more than all of that.  Which brings us to an issue which is similar.  Recent research has suggested that for most people the way in which they interpret God, the will of God, spirituality and religion tends to be in tune with what they already believe.  In short they believe in a sock puppet God.

Personally, you can hear any number of folks who will proclaim that "God doesn't always say what I want to hear!"  As if they are making some great pronouncement about how faith is not always comfortable and it doesn't mean doing what they want.  Sure, but such a faith does allow for a world view such a person enjoys.  Meaning, it allows them to feel good about themselves because they don't do the things God tells them not to.  While at the same time people who do those things can be seen as defying God or going to hell.  This view allows such a person to engage in extremely judgmental behavior, and convince themselves that any gossip, interference or actions they take against persons who aren't "acting right" are justified and they are "saving a life."

In short, people who don't believe in God the same way they do, are choosing to die, suffer eternal torment and aren't choosing life!  Thus, any actions they take are life saving, life affirming actions even if said actions are damaging, harmful or painful to the person they are acting against, or in their mind, on behalf of.  Such an attitude is the ultimate form of ego-centrism as it allows the believer in this sort of deity to feel good about themselves, judge others and take negative, caustic actions which are labeled as life saving and considered to be life affirming...in their belief system.  All to get someone else under their own belief umbrella.

Of course God isn't really like that.  In the past, when I first discovered Myers Briggs testing I noticed that people do tend to engage in this sort of sock puppet God.  Myself included.  My God tended to reflect the views and opinions I had grown up with as well as an ENTP personality type.  Of course this isn't accurate at all.  God is more than that and more than I can imagine.  The problem of course is that the bulk of a culture or population can begin to act in such a sock puppet fashion and suddenly there are a thousand years of dark ages.  Or an inquisition.  Or rigid blue laws.  Or only one religion is found to be acceptable without severe social limitations or social isolation.

Now, do I have anything against my friend?  Of course not.  He seems to be a genuinely well intended guy who wouldn't hurt anyone.  Of course, there is the possibility, that if the conditions were right, he would appear exactly the same way, even while being convinced that it is okay to take children away from non-believers so they could come to the true faith.  Or suggesting that non-believers be kept poor and powerless until they toe the line.  But, we don't live in such a world...do we?

I read Science Blogs and recently on a blog titled, "Not Exactly Rocket Science," by Ed Yong, there was an article regarding the effects of testosterone in a double blind study.  Mr. Yong is an award winning science writer based out of London and the study in question was a double blind study which is the sort of thing you want to get if you can.  Essentially, you are testing an idea in which neither the subject nor the experimenter knows who is getting a substance and who is in the "control"(normal/untreated) group.

Here's what they did:  They got a couple of groups of women and in one group they gave placebo's to some of the women and testosterone to others.  The experimenters then told the women they were getting testosterone and asked them to play a game.

In another group they did the same thing, with the exception that they didn't tell the women what they were receiving.

The results were spectacular.  Women that thought they were receiving testosterone whether they were receiving it or not acted more aggressively, more selfishly...generally more in line with the cultural message of what testosterone would do.

The women that had no idea they had gotten a dose of testosterone were significantly more likely to play the game with greater tolerance, and greater fair play...the game involved sharing money...those who had gotten the hormone were more likely to not only be fair but give away more money.

In short the hormone itself made a person more fair, tolerant and giving.  But, if a person knew they had gotten it or believed they had gotten it...that belief overrode the *ACTUAL* effects of the hormone.

This, to me, was amazing.  I'd strongly encourage anyone with an interest to read Ed Yong's blog, "Not Exactly Rocket Science," as I have no wish to be accused of plagiarism and in fact he is a much better writer and presenter than I am.  If you go, there are many writers on Sci-blogs who present great information.  There are skeptics as well.  But, be warned, there are also some hard core atheists who are as rigid as hard-core fundamentalist Christians...most of them aren't just commenters they are bloggers.

As a guy who has played sports, been in a scuffle or two...generally to defend someone else...or because someone was acting in a bullying fashion I found this to be fantastic information.  I think that although women get demonized for their hormones, the same thing happens to men.  That doesn't mean I want to go out in the woods, wear a loin cloth, bang a drum and cry on some dudes shoulder.

It means that women get slammed because some men believe their hormones make them too emotional.  Men get slammed because their is a belief that testosterone makes them too aggressive or violent.

Turns out, it would appear, societal, cultural expectations might have a lot more to do with that then the actual hormones themselves.

Maybe the estrogen/progesterone mix makes one more nurturing.  Testosterone makes one more prone to fair play...if those things were the case it puts a whole different spin on how you perceive the notion of biology, evolution and what it means to be human...

Perhaps we are evolving with a greater emphasis on more virtuous qualities, than more selfish qualities.

Which in turn puts a whole new spin on the idea of "good," and "evil."

With all respects to my fellow bloggers I was headed towards a blog today that had to do with the notion of, "two sides to every story."  Years ago I had encountered a situation in which I found that no matter what response I would give, I was facing something that was diametrically opposed to what I had said.  When I questioned the situation I was told, "THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY."

My response made no one happy.  I pointed out that the world was not black and white.  Not only were there many shades of gray but there was a whole world of color which made the world a better place.  Recently I wrote a bit on this concept that had to do with ethical decision making.  Essentially an action isn't usually simply right or wrong.  The reasoning behind the action and the context it was taken in are the important things.

At that time I discovered a couple of word origins that made a lot of sense.  One was the word science that comes from an old word meaning, "to cut."  Similar words are schizm, school, and sh--.  The other word was rational.  Which has the same word origin as ratio.  Ratio obviously can mean 1:1, 3:4, 5:7 or any infinite answers you can come up with.  In short being rational means you can think in a fashion other than binary.  An action is not simply either good or evil.  It is somewhere in the middle.  At the same time, there are usually many more than two answers to a problem.  There are also any number of infinite positions on an issue.

Frequently, due to the desire to sell information, media outlets will play to emotional responses rather than simply the desimination of information.  Even if they aren't resorting to fear, simple dichotomies can be created to create the appearance of "fair and balanced."  In short, if a person doesn't believe that vaccines work, bringing on two experts to give a "fair and balanced" report looks right.  The problem is 99.9% of the medical community realize that anti-vaxxers are full of it.  But, by giving the appearance of a 1:1 ratio within the medical community it inspires a sense of doubt or the belief that one position is as good as the other.  Presenting the reality would be truly responsible reporting:  999 doctors/scientists stating their case, then the looney, brought to stage in straight jacket to state his reasoning behind putting children at risks.  All joking about straight jackets aside, folks need to bear in mind that many times this has nothing to do with politics.  Rather some celebrity, usually of liberal leanings believes that by fighting the "medical establishment" he is fighting "the man."  This can also be further propped up by the false intellectualism of "new atheism."

Too many people are to willing to listen to simple dichotomies and emotional appeals.  The fact is that the far right might well have some pretty strange things to say, but the far left which wants to equate atheism with research and science isn't helping the whole thing at all.

These are kind of goofy, but are examples I've encountered and some might not always seem specific to the issue.  But, as an example:

1.  A belief in God doesn't mean a lack of understanding of science.  To utilize an episode of, "South Park," maybe evolution simply explains the how, not the why.

2.  A belief that science works and an understanding of it doesn't mean a lack of faith in God.  If you've got to use Galileo as an example of running counter to prevailing opinion, bear in mind he was running against the opinion of the church.  Not science.   His faith might very well have gotten him through...but, he was ex-communicated in the name of science.

3.  An unwillingness to engage in a homosexual act doesn't make one a homophobe.  I actually ran into this.

4.  If you suggest I have an "addictive issue," such as over-eating, gambling, drinking, or drugs and I won't attend a meeting with you...it doens't mean I'm in denial.  It means you have an opinion of my use that I don't have.  Or it could mean that I disagree with the 12 step method which relies not simply on quitting, like most folks do to lose weight, give up cigarettes, etc....but rather taking on a new religion in which I'm required to attend meetings several times a week and going out and trying to convert others.  Seems more than a little extreme for most issues.

5.  The fact that I don't want to be "born again," doesn't mean I don't believe in God.  The fact that I disagree with the interpretation of a verse doesn't mean I don't believe in God. 

6.  Having nothing to hide, doesn't imply I should have to discuss suspicions, insinuations, accusations nor does it mean I fear living my life as an open book.  It comes down to nothing more than there is such a thing as a right to privacy.

7.  Finally, and this is really important:  The ends never, never, never, ever justify the means.  I can very strongly agree with your conclusions.  I might completely oppose you for the methods you use.  Okay, I violated the first rule of the topic on this one:  clearly, at some point the ends do justify the means.  But, unless you have an ocean liner full of infants being tended by nuns and you have to punch a murderous terrorist to get the information...the ends don't justify the means....usually...in real life.

I was skimming a recent issues of "Scientific American," when I came across an article that suggested that one of the ways to help the world became a better place was to advocate education for women in developing nations.  This isn't just about getting college degrees.  It is about basic education and sex/reproductive education.  In many cases women in these countries are kept in situations in which their lack of education or basic medical care keeps them essentially imprisoned in a situation that first and new world women would never have to endure.

The reason for the title is that within that article it was stated that the current government of Afghanistan, the one we support and are fighting to preserve, has a law in which it is legal for a man to with hold food and allow to starve, a wife who will not have sex with him.  Bear in mind that there are other scary things that went on under the Taliban and due to the religious practices engaged in on the African continent/Middle eastern region.  But, it amazed me that a step forward is to come to a point where a person can be starved for not having sex.  You know, don't rock the boat...it was better than it was.  How screwed up is that?

There is a big part of me that is grateful for living in the U.S.  We don't have honor killings that are socially condoned.  We don't have women who become pariahs due to obstetric complications.  We don't have female circumcision.  We don't have women being stoned/killed because they tried to get an education.  Women aren't put in prison because they wore the wrong clothes in public.  They can vote.

There is a fantastically large part of my psyche/imagination that wonders what would happen if we simply announced:  "You and your children can come to the U.S..  Granted, you will probably be at the poverty level in the U.S.  But, it is better than living in wealth, for you, here."  Forget funding a war.  Forget fighting the men in the region.  Get the women and kids out, try to sort out the non-terrorists and allow the SEAL teams in to track down terrorist cells.  No man would want to live there.

"Scientia Vincere Tenebras."

I find this disheartening.  Not only because it is probably a fair characterization but because there was no real outcry.  I support Obama as a democrat, but realize that all politicians are flawed.  I also believe the big flap over the hacked e-mails is a distraction from the real problem.  My whole point is that after eight years of a Republican refusal to accept science, we know have a slight acknowledgement of science because it was a politically astute thing to do.  In short I do believe that global warming is occuring but because it is so incremental in it's advance and the great lag before those consequences will be felt...generally it is hard to get excited about...in an ongoing fashion.

 Further, there are great strides that can be made in all areas of science but lack of funding and public awareness makes it a difficulty.  Obviously, folks are willing to do a great number of things, "for the cure," but take the time to understand where current research on cancer actually stands(they're all related), or to understand basic principles of how cancer develops.  It can be even more shocking because although breast cancer is a devastating diagnosis to have it is not the number one killer of women.  There are also any number of other medical issues that if addressed collectively could lead to a great boon for many, many people.

 I'm also reading a book called, "Unscientific American," which addresses these issues and others.  Essentially because broadcast media has been de-regulated there are much fewer minutes dedicated to broadcasting science information.  There is in part  a lack of public interest which  has led to most newspapers dropping a science section if they had one.

 Lastly, and I found this discouraging for a couple of reasons.  During the last election a group got together in order to encourage a debate on science policy amongst the candidates.  Clinton, McCain, and Obama all refused to participate.  Consider that:  the three major candidates at the end of the last cycle and they are unwilling to answer, publicly, any questions regarding science.  This also means there can be no follow up questions to find out how well they understand the policies they are advocating.

 I find this disheartening on the one hand because it shows how little the general public is concerned with science.  If they'd been concerned they'd demand a debate.  It also shows how low of a priority these politicians consider science.  It also shows how concerned these politicians are about maintaining public perception.  A good reason to avoid such a debate is that if you say something stupid or come across looking stupid...it could cost you.  It says a lot not only about a politicians priority of science, their own ability to understand science, but also about their courage and willingness to simply discuss something without simple talking points.

And even that is only sometimes and depends on the monkey in question.  Shoot, even that statement is inaccurate as we aren't really closely related to monkeys.  It would be the great apes.

The fact is that genetically speaking we are more closely related to bonobos and chimps than to gorillas.  And much more closely related to those apes than to orangutangs.  But, from there things get a little more funky.  Chimps and bonobos are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas.  Gorillas are more closely related to us than they are to orangutangs.

All of this strikes me as kind of amazing because we can teach chimps and bonobos to use sign language at about the level of a four year old child.  There have been two different border collies that have been able to learn and recognize more than 300 words.  Further, there have been dolphins which not only were able to learn sign language, they were able to understand grammer and word order in that sign language.  Things can also get a little tricky when you realize that although chimps don't get pointing and tapping to indicate where hidden treats are, they are capable of deceipt and understanding what you might be thinking.  Dogs on the otherhand do understand pointing and will retrieve objects which are indicated by pointing.  It is thought that dogs might do this by constant contact with humanity over thousands of years.  However, a dissident Russian scientist who was forced into Siberia was able to engage in an act of "forced evolution" with silver foxes.  In a very short span, though impossible by any scientist, including darwin, these foxes were domesticated in 40 generations.  They were not selected for intelligence, but for friendliness with humans.  However, it appeared that this domestication made them more intelligent somehow.  They also developed star spots on their foreheads, floppy ears and curly tails...they started looking like dogs.

All of this strikes me as interesting and odd in that their are human children who are incapable of displaying this level of intelligence, yet we consider them to be children of God and these animals are not.  I have to wonder how we can be so sure that we understand what they creator intended.  Galileo was ex-communicated because he suggested a heliocentric universe.  In fact, ultimately, the church was even more incorrect than Galileo thought.  You have to wonder if the same thing applies to these animals.  If they have this level of intelligence and an ability to work cooperatively, and an ability to cross a species barrier to communicate...how sure are you?

It seems to me that generally the few remaining anti-evolutionists are trying desperately to maintain the illusion that man is the epitomy of all creation.  Second only to God.  This is based on the notion that man is created in God's image.  Many folks have not gotten past the "Big guy in the sky" notion of God.  I remember though my first Sunday school teacher telling me, that being created in God's image didn't mean he was a man or looked like a man.  It meant that there was some essence, some ethereal core, some part of man that was like God.  Men wrote the Bible, they might have been on to something.  It was a woman who told me that God didn't look like a man.  By which it was clear she meant any human.  But, could that idea of some core similarity be the notion of thought, love, cooperation?  If so, it looks like these animals think.  They obviously cooperate.  Given my experience with cats and dogs...yeah, even cats...it seems to me they are capable of giving love as well.

The idea that the earth is at the center of the universe and man is at the center of creation seems so ego-centric as a species to me that it is really hard to bear.  I'm frankly reminded of Christ being petitioned by John and James to sit on his left or right hand in heaven.  Ultimately immediately prior to his ascension from earth to heaven Christ was flanked on the left and right by a thief and a repentent thief.  Our own hubris seems to be our greatest downfall.

Suppose you are in a war time situation.  You live in a village and you and your fellow villagers are crouching in a burned out basement, unarmed, as a squad of enemy soldiers pass through.  You can't defend yourself against these soldiers and if they find you, they will kill you.  You are holding your child in your arms.  It starts to cry.  You cover it's mouth.  The soldiers are near.  If they hear the baby, they will find you and kill you and your neighbors.  If you continue to hold your hand over it's mouth...you will kill the baby.  What do you do?

I just finished reading an article by a psychologist who discusses such issues.  He points out that in such situations we have two parts of our brain which disagrees.  Oddly, historically, it is possible that what was once considered the more rational approach maybe more emotional and the more historical emotional philosophy maybe more logical.  To put it more directly:  In the situation you are obviously not going to want to kill the baby.  But, more people will live if you do.  This sort of problem, I'm told, is frequently part of Catechism(sp?) classes for young Catholics.  The greater duty is to sacrifice that which you love for the greater good.

Although I'm not particularly interested in pscyhology at this point in my life I admit that moral problems and how we solve them has always fascinated me.  In regards to psych I see moral dilemmas and a good working theory of personality/personal differences as something that could really help us to understand a variety of human conflict and misunderstanding.

In the rather short article the psychologist went on to point out another moral dilemma which I found to be further illuminating into my own thought processes.  You have to bear in mind as you hear the problem, there is no wiggle room.  You can't change the characters to be either more or less good or evil than they are presented.

You are standing near a trolley track.  A run away trolley is approaching and five people are on the track dead ahead.  They will be killed if you don't take action.  You can hit a switch which will divert the trolley and send it onto a sidetrack where it will kill one person.

In this case it was found that most people considered this a 'no brainer,' they would hit the switch and kill one person.  There is no real dilemma in mind.  Five people or one.  You can save five for the price of one.

But, if the dilemma changes a bit?

You're standing near a trolley track.  The run away trolley is approaching and five people are on the track ahead.  They will be killed if you don't do something.  There is a large person standing next to you.  If you push them onto the track the trolley will be stopped.  You are not large enough to stop the trolley and the other person will be killed.  What do you do?

In this case most people's response changed.  They will not push another person onto the track.  Even though the 'price' is still the same, this time it is different.  It is personal.  This sort of thinking effects how we view torture and what it means to work for the greater good.  In short, if you think it is possible I'm a bad person...you might not want to torture me personally, but when inflicting pain becomes something abstract and less personal, it becomes easier to inflict.  Particularly if it is seen as being part of the greater good and not some form of punishment.

As I read these dilemmas I personally considered the idea of warfare, violence and aggression...not simply the idea of the greater good.  If you want to protect your family and you believe someone is an unstoppable threat how ready are you to spend fifteen minutes variously beating, punching, kicking and strangling that person until they are dead.  Further, despite what they show in movies, even if you distance the violence from yourself by using a weapon, a stick or a knife...death isn't likely to occur within seconds...it would be a long horrible process in which you would probably get very dirty and listen to the person who presents the threat screaming, yelling, begging and pleading.  But, it would be for the greater good of your family, so you would steel yourself to do it.  If you used a gun, the closer you were, the harder it would be to do.  Using a sniper scope would make it even easier.

Sitting in a dark room somewhere and pushing a button and then going to view a body would be even easier.  Having photo reconaissance would make it easier still.  It would be still easier if you pushed a button and knew the person who threatened your family died a humane death.

But, all of that supposition involves a threat from one person to the greater good...and the fact is, we'd all be more comfortable with it, the further we are removed from it.  If you don't like someone it is much easier to simply torment them from a distance or do so in a fashion that allows you to avoid "getting your hands dirty."  Simply put, you're not connected with their pain and there is less guilt involved.

In the case of these dilemmas in which emotional response is tied to rational thinking and it does not involve some hated enemy...things become even more difficult.

The last scenario the psychologist presented was a bit different.  Suppose you are walking in a park.  You've just spent $500 on a new set of clothes.  They are amazing and you look very good in them.  A child is drowning in a pond, in the park.  You can save them.  But, you don't want to get your suit wet.  So you don't.  Are you a monster?

Most folks would without a doubt say, "yeah, you're a monster."

So, consider this:  You're sitting at home.  You get the mail.  In it is a plea from UNICEF for $500,  They could save ten children with that rather small donation.  But, you've have had your eyes set on a $500 dollar set of clothes.  So, you pitch the letter.  Are you a monster?

Most folks would say no.  You're not a monster.  Those kids aren't your problem.  Why should you worry about it.  Those kids are the worlds problem and someone else will take care of it.  So, you're not responsible at all.  You've done nothing wrong.

So, let's change it a little bit.

You've been to a convention and those gathered take a break and go to the city park.  You're all wearing your brand new set of $500 clothes.  A small child is drowning in a pond in the center of the park.  Are you a monster for not saving them?  Are you a hero for saving them?  What if there was no danger of anyone, other than the child, drowning?  You just had to get your suit wet(and ruined)?  What does it say if you all just stood around and waited to long?(watched)

Ethical answers and morality often appear to be something simple.  Frequently, they are not so simple and a variety of factors can come into play.  Suggesting something is right or wrong on it's face doesn't make it so.  But, I can tell you this, whether it involves an "enemy" or the greater good distance makes harming someone easier and saving someone less imperative.