I recently left a job of four years in Virginia to move back to Massachusetts where I lived for 17 years of my life. I left behind low-paying employment, benefits that left much to be desired, an inferior health care system and an absence of family. I also left behind a low-stress work environment, low cost of living, four beautiful seasons and, as I slowly came to realize my last week, many close friends.
Roanoke Virginia never felt like home and my wife and I had trouble making friends. Most people were either older than us, had kids or both. For the most part, my wife and I spent our weekends watching movies, drinking coffee at Barnes & Noble and mostly keeping to ourselves -- and that was fine.
Which is why it was so astonishing to watch how emotional people became as the days of my departure approached. A woman who worked on another floor presented me with a going-away gift that she had personally bought for me. Our interactions typically consisted of her asking if I had made any coffee that morning.
The office manager in my department, on three separate occasions, mentioned how much she was going to miss me, emphasizing the sadness of the Monday following my exodus. When picking up a purchase order from her office I would make small talk, but rarely did our communications go any further.
My supervisor's eyes became misty when the department treated me to lunch and he handed me a card with an almost-too-generous amount of cash. He had much more trouble reigning in his tears as he shook my hand on the last day. I borrowed his truck when moving a year ago but, for the most part, we never hung out when the work day ended.
Being a Navy brat, I was living in my fourth state by the time I was four years old. I left a close group of friends behind to travel seven hours to college in western New York. Four years later, I left my college friends, mostly from Buffalo and Rochester, upon graduation. Then, I left everyone when I got married and moved 600 miles away to Virginia. By the time I moved back to Massachusetts, I was quite comfortable with the concept of leaving people for an indefinite amount of time.
What I've come to realize is that, no matter how detached I feel, I am a significant part of other people's lives. When I voluntarily remove myself from their lives it is going to affect them (and I'm sure some people were happy to see me removed from theirs) in some way.
One of my criticisms of Ayn Rand's objectivism is her concept of autonomy. She believed that man should be completely free to pursue his own happiness. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is just one way of looking at reality.
It fails to put man into context and acknowledge the complex web of strings which attaches him to his community. The Buddist doctrine of dependent origination states that "phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect." We are all tied together by various degrees of separation, whether we like it or not.
I do agree with Rand's assessment that man's ultimate goal is his own happiness. However, it doesn't take a sage to realize that that goal is often impeded by the happiness of those around us.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Why Can't They Just Be Crazy?
The title is Chris Rock's response to the media's questioning of what role music and film might have played in the Columbine shootings. I like Rock's whole bit, but it recalls a paradigm shift in our culture: modernism to postmodernism, the individual to the environment, nature to nurture.
According to Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, there are four ways of looking at reality. Without delving too much into verbose explanations, I will just say that any particular view only paints a fraction of the picture.
If you haven't figured out the inspiration for this blog post then the words "Arizona" "Loughner" and "Sarah Palin crosshairs" probably have no meaning to you. Yes, I am taking about the Arizona shootings and the left-right blame game that quickly followed.
In addition to Jon Stewart and David Brooks' more eloquent takes on the tragedy, I was really moved by this piece from Robin Wright. Make no mistake, Loughner was crazy and it is hard to find a tie between him and the Glenn Beck's of the world. He made a conscious decision to start that terrible tragedy. This is the modern/nature/personal responsibility side of the argument. But Wright makes an interesting point.
"But it doesn’t matter who Loughner got the idea from or whether you consider it left wing or right wing. The point is that Americans who wildly depict other Americans as dark conspirators, as the enemy, are in fact increasing the chances, however marginally, that those Americans will be attacked."
There is no evidence that Loughner ever watched Glenn Beck's show, or even Fox News for that matter. People are certainly free to watch what they want and believe what they want. That, however, does not absolve Beck from the influences of his actions (I also hold the Keith Olbermann's of the world in the same regard).
Wright Continues:
"My own view is that if you decide to go kill a bunch of innocent people, it’s a pretty safe bet that you’re not a picture of mental health. But that doesn’t sever the link between you and the people who inspired you, or insulate them from responsibility. Glenn Beck knows that there are lots of unbalanced people out there, and that his message reaches some of them.
This doesn’t make him morally culpable for the way these people react to things he says that are true. It doesn’t even make him responsible for the things he says that are false but that he sincerely believes are true. But it does make him responsible for things he says that are false and concocted to mislead gullible people."
A year or so ago the following video began circulating around the internet.
In it, we see a young, chipper, gregarious Glenn Beck. So what has changed between that guy and the teary-eyed, big-government-bogeyman, conspiracy-theory pundit we see now? Not much. Glenn Beck is doing what he has always done; utilizing a personality that sells. After seeing this video, I changed my opinion on Beck. I don't think he's crazy or stupid or believes even half of what comes out of his mouth. He's just become a master of demagoguery who knows how to tell a mass market what they want to hear.
When Beck has as strong an influence as he does, he has to be aware of the effect of his incendiary words. What people choose to expose themselves to paints a part of their environment. Not the entire picture but certainly enough to wield an influence. This is the postmodern/nurture view of reality.
So maybe political pundits had nothing to do with any of this and Loughner killed despite the knowledge of their words. Despite his apparent mental illness, however,Loughner got his conspiracy ideas from somewhere. But the question we should be asking is: do pundits give people the tools, metaphorically speaking, to commit violent acts? Is preying on the unreasonable fears and biases of a fringe political group worth the fanfare if it pushes them to hateful crimes.
So why can't he just be crazy? Because his crazy is partly due to his environment. Because we are his environment. Because to ignore our influence, is to distance ourselves from his sins. That would be the convenient thing to do, but rarely is the convenient thing the right thing.
According to Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, there are four ways of looking at reality. Without delving too much into verbose explanations, I will just say that any particular view only paints a fraction of the picture.
If you haven't figured out the inspiration for this blog post then the words "Arizona" "Loughner" and "Sarah Palin crosshairs" probably have no meaning to you. Yes, I am taking about the Arizona shootings and the left-right blame game that quickly followed.
In addition to Jon Stewart and David Brooks' more eloquent takes on the tragedy, I was really moved by this piece from Robin Wright. Make no mistake, Loughner was crazy and it is hard to find a tie between him and the Glenn Beck's of the world. He made a conscious decision to start that terrible tragedy. This is the modern/nature/personal responsibility side of the argument. But Wright makes an interesting point.
"But it doesn’t matter who Loughner got the idea from or whether you consider it left wing or right wing. The point is that Americans who wildly depict other Americans as dark conspirators, as the enemy, are in fact increasing the chances, however marginally, that those Americans will be attacked."
There is no evidence that Loughner ever watched Glenn Beck's show, or even Fox News for that matter. People are certainly free to watch what they want and believe what they want. That, however, does not absolve Beck from the influences of his actions (I also hold the Keith Olbermann's of the world in the same regard).
Wright Continues:
"My own view is that if you decide to go kill a bunch of innocent people, it’s a pretty safe bet that you’re not a picture of mental health. But that doesn’t sever the link between you and the people who inspired you, or insulate them from responsibility. Glenn Beck knows that there are lots of unbalanced people out there, and that his message reaches some of them.
This doesn’t make him morally culpable for the way these people react to things he says that are true. It doesn’t even make him responsible for the things he says that are false but that he sincerely believes are true. But it does make him responsible for things he says that are false and concocted to mislead gullible people."
A year or so ago the following video began circulating around the internet.
In it, we see a young, chipper, gregarious Glenn Beck. So what has changed between that guy and the teary-eyed, big-government-bogeyman, conspiracy-theory pundit we see now? Not much. Glenn Beck is doing what he has always done; utilizing a personality that sells. After seeing this video, I changed my opinion on Beck. I don't think he's crazy or stupid or believes even half of what comes out of his mouth. He's just become a master of demagoguery who knows how to tell a mass market what they want to hear.
When Beck has as strong an influence as he does, he has to be aware of the effect of his incendiary words. What people choose to expose themselves to paints a part of their environment. Not the entire picture but certainly enough to wield an influence. This is the postmodern/nurture view of reality.
So maybe political pundits had nothing to do with any of this and Loughner killed despite the knowledge of their words. Despite his apparent mental illness, however,Loughner got his conspiracy ideas from somewhere. But the question we should be asking is: do pundits give people the tools, metaphorically speaking, to commit violent acts? Is preying on the unreasonable fears and biases of a fringe political group worth the fanfare if it pushes them to hateful crimes.
So why can't he just be crazy? Because his crazy is partly due to his environment. Because we are his environment. Because to ignore our influence, is to distance ourselves from his sins. That would be the convenient thing to do, but rarely is the convenient thing the right thing.
Friday, January 7, 2011
I Used to Think I Knew What the Civil War Was Fought Over
The nonpartisan fact-checker PolitiFact has debunked the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans PR rep Ray McBerry for his claim "'You’ll find blacks in almost every regiment throughout the South who fought right alongside white Southerners [during the Civil War]."
I always find these assertions that the Civil War was about state's rights and not slavery to be one of my favorite examples of cognitive dissonance. Wikipedia states that "cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously." People justify, blame and deny to reduce this dissonance.
The people who argue the state's rights theory (mostly white southerners) are conflicted. They know slavery is wrong (or at least don't want to admit otherwise) yet don't want to lend any credence to the north, bigger government, or anything that tramples upon their concept of freedom. Therefore they seek to convince themselves that the war was fought for some reason other than slavery, even going as far as to seek "evidence" that slaves fought alongside their masters.
State's rights certainly was a prominent factor for the Civil War. After all, it was the southern colonies' attempts at secession that began the war. If you stop looking there, it makes sense. If you look at this New York Times' piece revealing the language in some of the states' declaration of causes, it makes it harder to ignore the impact of slavery.
In fact, slavery is a very conflicting issue in America. It is a major supplier of dissonance to the two documents that (mostly conservative) Americans hold dear to their hearts: the Constitution and the Bible. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is completely tolerant of slavery. If we, as a society, agree that slavery is wrong (and if not, feel free to stop reading this blog), then we must accept one of three options regarding the Bible:
1.) God is wrong about slavery
2.) We are wrong slavery
3.) Whoever wrote the Bible is wrong about slavery
I've never conducted a survey but I can imagine that I'd be in the majority of people who accept the third option. This means that we have to pick and choose that in which we believe.
This also means that to accept the words of the framers of the Constitution as gospel (a phrase that loses a little weight given my previous conclusion) is to accept the tolerance of slavery. However, if we can acknowledge that there were flaws in the morality of the framers and that the world is an infinitely more complex place now than in the 1700s, we can begin to accept that we will need to be more pragmatic thinkers as we make our decisions.
Our past is certainly not something to be ignored. The framers of the Constitution were some of the most brilliant minds our country has ever seen. The words of the Bible provided civility and peace to societies and the minds of individuals that may have fallen into chaos. However, if we cannot transcend the wisdom of our ancestors and make the world a better place, we do them no good.
We also shouldn't berate those who exhibit this type of cognitive dissonance. As humans, we are all prone to this type of behavior in some fashion. What we should do is become more aware of these mental obstacles so that we can transcend them as we search for truth. Or wait for Christopher Nolan to make a movie about it.
I always find these assertions that the Civil War was about state's rights and not slavery to be one of my favorite examples of cognitive dissonance. Wikipedia states that "cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously." People justify, blame and deny to reduce this dissonance.
The people who argue the state's rights theory (mostly white southerners) are conflicted. They know slavery is wrong (or at least don't want to admit otherwise) yet don't want to lend any credence to the north, bigger government, or anything that tramples upon their concept of freedom. Therefore they seek to convince themselves that the war was fought for some reason other than slavery, even going as far as to seek "evidence" that slaves fought alongside their masters.
State's rights certainly was a prominent factor for the Civil War. After all, it was the southern colonies' attempts at secession that began the war. If you stop looking there, it makes sense. If you look at this New York Times' piece revealing the language in some of the states' declaration of causes, it makes it harder to ignore the impact of slavery.
In fact, slavery is a very conflicting issue in America. It is a major supplier of dissonance to the two documents that (mostly conservative) Americans hold dear to their hearts: the Constitution and the Bible. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is completely tolerant of slavery. If we, as a society, agree that slavery is wrong (and if not, feel free to stop reading this blog), then we must accept one of three options regarding the Bible:
1.) God is wrong about slavery
2.) We are wrong slavery
3.) Whoever wrote the Bible is wrong about slavery
I've never conducted a survey but I can imagine that I'd be in the majority of people who accept the third option. This means that we have to pick and choose that in which we believe.
This also means that to accept the words of the framers of the Constitution as gospel (a phrase that loses a little weight given my previous conclusion) is to accept the tolerance of slavery. However, if we can acknowledge that there were flaws in the morality of the framers and that the world is an infinitely more complex place now than in the 1700s, we can begin to accept that we will need to be more pragmatic thinkers as we make our decisions.
Our past is certainly not something to be ignored. The framers of the Constitution were some of the most brilliant minds our country has ever seen. The words of the Bible provided civility and peace to societies and the minds of individuals that may have fallen into chaos. However, if we cannot transcend the wisdom of our ancestors and make the world a better place, we do them no good.
We also shouldn't berate those who exhibit this type of cognitive dissonance. As humans, we are all prone to this type of behavior in some fashion. What we should do is become more aware of these mental obstacles so that we can transcend them as we search for truth. Or wait for Christopher Nolan to make a movie about it.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Spin . . . Spin . . . Stumble . . . Cut to Black?!?
Unless you have seen Christoper Nolan's brain scratcher, Inception, my title will make no sense to you. In fact, the movie did not make complete sense to most viewers anyway.
Aside from all the dream-within-a-dream, planting-ideas, extracting-ideas, why-is-Michael-Caine-in-all-of-Nolan's-movies? scenarios involved with the film, the most talked about element was whether or not the top falls at the end. I've read many interpretations but have my own. I will cover all possibilities first.
Scenario 1: the top falls. Everything plays out exactly as it appears and we have a happy ending. We start to see the top wobble just before everything cuts to black to suggest that it will soon fall. The only other times we see the top spinning in a dream (Cobb at the table with the old Saito and in limbo with Mal) the top never wobbles and spins with perfect balance into seeming perpetuity. Therefore, this wobbling top is either an outlier or it is on its way to falling.
Scenario 2: the top never falls. Cobb is still in a dream and we begin to question how much of the movie was even real to begin with. If Nolan intended for it to fall, he would have shown us before ending the film so abruptly.
Scenario 3 per Salon.com's interpretation: it doesn't matter. Cobb does not care because he is home with his kids and all that is all that matters to him now. This is why he walks away from the top, his kids mean more to him then questioning reality. This seems to fly in the face of the last conversation Cobb had with Mal. He turned down a lifetime in limbo with Mal and his kids because he knew they were not real, just projections of his mind. He would never know all her "perfections and imperfections". Therefore, Cobb obviously does care whether he is truly dreaming or not when he sees his kids.
(My) Scenario 4: intentional ambiguity. Even Christopher Nolan does not know if it falls. The fact that people are even talking about proves his point: we are never certain what is real.
I am a big fan of both of Nolan's Batman movies, and I quite enjoyed The Prestige as well, but Inception and Memento are his two biggest achievements because they deal with the two biggest questions in philosophy; what is real and what is truth? There seems to be a little bit more closure in Memento but the viewer is still not quite sure what happened, what are facts and what are lies. The point is to stir up conversation and consider possibilities you might not have considered before.
If knowing that Nolan's plan to guide you to a coffee house chat about philosophy turns you off, then focus on the intrinsic features of the film. The snow scene seemed to be right out of a James Bond movie. The hotel scene with Arthur can be viewed repeatedly and still seem mind blowing. Watching Ariadne roll back a city scape like a tidal wave was startlingly impressive. There's a lot to enjoy about this movie beyond the writer/director's intentions.
Aside from all the dream-within-a-dream, planting-ideas, extracting-ideas, why-is-Michael-Caine-in-all-of-Nolan's-movies? scenarios involved with the film, the most talked about element was whether or not the top falls at the end. I've read many interpretations but have my own. I will cover all possibilities first.
Scenario 1: the top falls. Everything plays out exactly as it appears and we have a happy ending. We start to see the top wobble just before everything cuts to black to suggest that it will soon fall. The only other times we see the top spinning in a dream (Cobb at the table with the old Saito and in limbo with Mal) the top never wobbles and spins with perfect balance into seeming perpetuity. Therefore, this wobbling top is either an outlier or it is on its way to falling.
Scenario 2: the top never falls. Cobb is still in a dream and we begin to question how much of the movie was even real to begin with. If Nolan intended for it to fall, he would have shown us before ending the film so abruptly.
Scenario 3 per Salon.com's interpretation: it doesn't matter. Cobb does not care because he is home with his kids and all that is all that matters to him now. This is why he walks away from the top, his kids mean more to him then questioning reality. This seems to fly in the face of the last conversation Cobb had with Mal. He turned down a lifetime in limbo with Mal and his kids because he knew they were not real, just projections of his mind. He would never know all her "perfections and imperfections". Therefore, Cobb obviously does care whether he is truly dreaming or not when he sees his kids.
(My) Scenario 4: intentional ambiguity. Even Christopher Nolan does not know if it falls. The fact that people are even talking about proves his point: we are never certain what is real.
I am a big fan of both of Nolan's Batman movies, and I quite enjoyed The Prestige as well, but Inception and Memento are his two biggest achievements because they deal with the two biggest questions in philosophy; what is real and what is truth? There seems to be a little bit more closure in Memento but the viewer is still not quite sure what happened, what are facts and what are lies. The point is to stir up conversation and consider possibilities you might not have considered before.
If knowing that Nolan's plan to guide you to a coffee house chat about philosophy turns you off, then focus on the intrinsic features of the film. The snow scene seemed to be right out of a James Bond movie. The hotel scene with Arthur can be viewed repeatedly and still seem mind blowing. Watching Ariadne roll back a city scape like a tidal wave was startlingly impressive. There's a lot to enjoy about this movie beyond the writer/director's intentions.
The Difference Between Hyperbole and Abuse of the English Language
From an NPR piece about today's youth culture's addiction to technology:
"I don't go anywhere without my iPhone. It's literally glued to my face."
No, it is not!
If your phone was literally glued to your face, it would be stuck on your cheek and you would be having a very awkward conversation with a room full of surgeons.
"I don't go anywhere without my iPhone. It's literally glued to my face."
No, it is not!
If your phone was literally glued to your face, it would be stuck on your cheek and you would be having a very awkward conversation with a room full of surgeons.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Meta Writing
One of my favorite bloggers, Katya Andressen, has pledged to blog everyday throughout the year.
"Blogging forces you into a state of mental depth and rigor, and we can all do with more of that. It’s one thing to have a thought. It’s quite another to think it through and post it publicly. You have to work your brain harder."
In that vein, I want to use this blog for meta writing; writing about writing. I want to improve my craft as it is the core of my job. I use writing as a persuasive element to build relationships and ultimately solicit support for my employer.
I also want to spend more time writing creatively, as that was my first passion in the arts when I was in high school. I had brief bouts of furious fiction spewing from my keyboard that now I mostly think of as amateur drivel. Only within the last few years have I begun writing fiction, or more broadly, creative writing, again.
Other than "for my own enjoyment", I often struggle with the question: what is the purpose of fiction? I read on a forum that I frequent that fiction should never be didactic. I wholeheartedly disagree even if I do not have an answer as to what fiction "should" be.
When speaking about writing, my English Professor issued the following quote:
"There are three points of view
from which a writer can be considered:
he may be considered as a story teller,
as a teacher,
and as an enchanter.
A major writer combines these three -
storyteller, teacher, enchanter -
but it is the enchanter in him
that predominates
and makes him
a major writer."
Vladimir Naboko
The story teller is fairly easy to identify. You've got a protagonist, some conflict and a resolution. Hollywood is very good at this but rarely goes any further. As an example of a teacher, my professor mentioned the works of Michael Crichton. The story telling is still there, but the reader is learning something new and often complex.
The last aspect was never defined in that class. I think it is because enchantment cannot be quantified; the reader will know it when he sees it. Since it is up to each one of us to define enchantment, here is my elucidation: when you wake up in the middle of the night or first thing in the morning and your mind is so entrenched in a thought that you can tell it was thinking about it in your sleep. If that thought has been derived from literature, that my friends, is enchantment.
Often times literary snobs (I'm not casting stones, I openly self-identify as both a beer and coffee snob) get hung up on prose. It is quite a talent to give long, beautiful, descriptive, original imagery in a novel. I imagine that all enchanters are quite good at this. However, I see good writing as a pyramid of story teller, teacher, and enchanter. Each is not separate, but builds upon the lower level, transcends and includes its foundation. Some writers have wonderful prose that few others can match but they lack the compelling story telling capabilities that can complete them.
For me, the teaching element is necessary. I have a curious mind and if I'm not learning something new, I'm not interested. It doesn't have to be Michael Crichton explaining to me the complexities of dinosaur DNA. It could be Kurt Vonnegut describing the bombing of Dresden and the concept of fatalism as seen through the eyes of an alien species (The Tralfamadorians, in my opinion, were the crux of the novel. Not the war). We all have unique experiences to tell about and they should be included in every story so that the reader always has something new to learn.
Others simply want to be entertained and they need the refined wordsmith to do so. This thinking about thinking has gotten me to thinking, or meta meta thinking, so I guess I've done my job. I will write more on this later.
"Blogging forces you into a state of mental depth and rigor, and we can all do with more of that. It’s one thing to have a thought. It’s quite another to think it through and post it publicly. You have to work your brain harder."
In that vein, I want to use this blog for meta writing; writing about writing. I want to improve my craft as it is the core of my job. I use writing as a persuasive element to build relationships and ultimately solicit support for my employer.
I also want to spend more time writing creatively, as that was my first passion in the arts when I was in high school. I had brief bouts of furious fiction spewing from my keyboard that now I mostly think of as amateur drivel. Only within the last few years have I begun writing fiction, or more broadly, creative writing, again.
Other than "for my own enjoyment", I often struggle with the question: what is the purpose of fiction? I read on a forum that I frequent that fiction should never be didactic. I wholeheartedly disagree even if I do not have an answer as to what fiction "should" be.
When speaking about writing, my English Professor issued the following quote:
"There are three points of view
from which a writer can be considered:
he may be considered as a story teller,
as a teacher,
and as an enchanter.
A major writer combines these three -
storyteller, teacher, enchanter -
but it is the enchanter in him
that predominates
and makes him
a major writer."
Vladimir Naboko
The story teller is fairly easy to identify. You've got a protagonist, some conflict and a resolution. Hollywood is very good at this but rarely goes any further. As an example of a teacher, my professor mentioned the works of Michael Crichton. The story telling is still there, but the reader is learning something new and often complex.
The last aspect was never defined in that class. I think it is because enchantment cannot be quantified; the reader will know it when he sees it. Since it is up to each one of us to define enchantment, here is my elucidation: when you wake up in the middle of the night or first thing in the morning and your mind is so entrenched in a thought that you can tell it was thinking about it in your sleep. If that thought has been derived from literature, that my friends, is enchantment.
Often times literary snobs (I'm not casting stones, I openly self-identify as both a beer and coffee snob) get hung up on prose. It is quite a talent to give long, beautiful, descriptive, original imagery in a novel. I imagine that all enchanters are quite good at this. However, I see good writing as a pyramid of story teller, teacher, and enchanter. Each is not separate, but builds upon the lower level, transcends and includes its foundation. Some writers have wonderful prose that few others can match but they lack the compelling story telling capabilities that can complete them.
For me, the teaching element is necessary. I have a curious mind and if I'm not learning something new, I'm not interested. It doesn't have to be Michael Crichton explaining to me the complexities of dinosaur DNA. It could be Kurt Vonnegut describing the bombing of Dresden and the concept of fatalism as seen through the eyes of an alien species (The Tralfamadorians, in my opinion, were the crux of the novel. Not the war). We all have unique experiences to tell about and they should be included in every story so that the reader always has something new to learn.
Others simply want to be entertained and they need the refined wordsmith to do so. This thinking about thinking has gotten me to thinking, or meta meta thinking, so I guess I've done my job. I will write more on this later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)