Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Antonio Damasio: The quest to understand consciousness
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Chris Anderson: How YouTube is driving innovation
Step Up YOUR Game!
Light = Show Yourself to the World, Radical Openness, Open Source Everything
Desire = Social Status, Sex, Money, Credit (or something else)
Light = Show Yourself to the World, Radical Openness, Open Source Everything
Desire = Social Status, Sex, Money, Credit (or something else)
It is a Rue-Goldberg Machine, YOU are the teachers, Inventor, Mentor, Sustainability Champion
Organize your own Independent TED - Many to Many, No CENSORSMonday, November 28, 2011
Damon Horowitz: Philosophy in Prison
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
Occupy Wall St - The Revolution Is Love
Love is the paradox
Visit http://sacred-economics.com to learn more about his ideas for a new economy.
“Love is the felt experience of connection to another being. An economist says ‘more for you is less for me.’ But the lover knows that more of you is more for me too. If you love somebody their happiness is your happiness. Their pain is your pain. Your sense of self expands to include other beings. This shift of consciousness is universal in everybody, 99% and 1%.”CHARLES EISENSTEIN is a teacher, speaker, and writer focusing on themes of civilization, consciousness, money, and human cultural evolution.
Visit http://sacred-economics.com to learn more about his ideas for a new economy.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Paul Zak: Trust, morality -- and oxytocin | Video on TED.com
Paul Zak: Trust, morality -- and oxytocin | Video on TED.com
I think that this research is interesting, and does describe basic chemistry in the brains of social animals. However, the researcher, Paul Zak, is fundamentally incorrect about the "thin that makes humans different (than animals)". It is not MORALITY that makes us different, it is our ability to REASON, to model the world and the self in our minds, and reflect upon our actions. This is what makes humans different.
Any social animal has the empathic ability, and it isn't restricted to women. But only man has the ability to reason, and can thus define what is just, fair, and right, from that which is unjust, unfair, and wrong. Even those who have no oxytocin or testosterone can act morally, if they reason out what is right.
The test of "Trustworthiness" (actually charity) in this example is not one of morality. Morality can be divided into rational and irrational spheres; religious morality is irrational by its nature, because it depend upon supernatural authority for its foundations, but rational morality, or ethics, depends only upon reason and context. That which is ethical in the broadest possible context is justice, and doesn't depend upon your empathy, but upon logically weighing the act with the known outcomes given a particular set of values. Thus, what makes men truly ethical (moral) is not empathy, or chemical drugs, but the accuracy of our model of the world, and the values we choose to live by.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Combating Ignorance
Others spoke out and organized, but offered no framework for understanding the invasions - liberal Democrats who prefer less brutal methods of empire maintenance or simply reject wars started by Republican presidents; isolationists, including some Republicans, who think that reducing military adventures will preserve US affluence; and folks who identify as pacifist and reject any war.
So, we are right, and we are a failed movement. As someone who has participated in these organizing and education efforts, I have been part of the failure. I know that I could have done more, taken more risks, pressed harder - but I don't know if that would have made a significant difference. I don't know whether there was a winning strategy leftists could have employed, or whether historical forces doomed our efforts from the start. Whatever the case, we failed, and it's sensible to try to learn from that failure.
Manipulated Ignorance: Knowing Incorrectly
Some of that ignorance is the result of the conscious efforts to divert and deceive people. The sophisticated techniques to shape public attitudes developed by the public relations and advertising industries are used effectively by corporations and politicians, with the independent news media - consciously or unconsciously - often serving an important transmission function. Much of this is designed to make sure people don't know things, to create or deepen ignorance.
This ignorance matters.
With each misperception, support for the war increases, and in a society where basic facts can be so slickly and easily repackaged by power - where black is white and up is down - then there is no possibility of meaningful debate in the mainstream political culture.
Willed Ignorance: Not Knowing
As distressing as this manipulated ignorance can be, it is the willed ignorance of so much of the population that is most troubling. This ignorance is willed, the product of people making a choice to not know so they don't have to face the moral and political implications of knowing.
There seem to be two routine ways to ensure this not knowing.
One is to avoid exposure to any in-depth information and analysis, even though one has the resources and time to find and evaluate the material - keep your head down and don't look at what's happening. We can call this a deliberate diversion from a disturbing world.
The other strategy, employed by those who are too curious simply to ignore the world around them, is to bemoan the lack of trustworthy news sources, or express confusion over the mutually exclusive accounts of the world that circulate, or note the maddening level of complexity in a globalized world - whatever the reason, there are so many impediments that to actually know anything is impossible. We can call this a feigned frustration with a complex world.
Implications of Ignorance
My experience tells me there are conservatives and liberals in each of these ignorance camps, manipulated and willed.
So, we were right, but in this political culture it doesn't matter. The anti-empire movement hasn't been defeated by a superior argument that does a better job of explaining the world, nor has it been suppressed through the large-scale violence and coercion that has destroyed movements in other times and places (though in the contemporary United States such violence is used selectively and is always available should things get out of hand). Instead, this critique has been rendered irrelevant by power interests that work to create ignorance, and a citizenry that hides in ignorance.
To be clear: I am not arguing that the problem is that ''people are stupid.'' Yes, people often are stupid. I am often stupid. I say and do stupid things on a regular basis, and so does everyone else - that's part of being human. But also part of being human in a democratic political system is accepting the benefits and burdens of participation, and participation requires that we strive to not be stupid about politics. Democracy works only if we care enough to know about the world.
Avoiding Arrogance
I also recognize that I could be wrong on basic aspects of that analysis, and that even if I'm right, I should constantly be looping back to question my assumptions, collect new data, listen to counterarguments, and recalibrate strategy based on this process. Life is a balance of asserting what we believe with confidence and remembering how wrong we can be. With that caution, I return to where I started:
In addition to the crimes committed by the powerful against the powerless, we face even greater threats in the human assault on the living world.
The Living World
We face multiple, cascading ecological crises - groundwater depletion, topsoil loss, chemical contamination, increased toxicity in our own bodies, the number and size of ''dead zones'' in the oceans, accelerating extinction of species and reduction of biodiversity. And don't forget global warming/climate change/climate disruption/global weirding.
High-energy/high-technology societies pose a serious threat to the ability of the ecosphere to sustain human life as we know it. Grasping that reality is a challenge, and coping with the implications is an even greater challenge. We likely have a chance to stave off the most catastrophic consequences if we act dramatically and quickly. If we continue to drag our feet, it's ''game over.''
Whether people's ignorance about this is manipulated or willed - whether we deny climate change and pretend no change is necessary, or accept it but refuse to support those changes - the result is the same: game over. To date, the movements advocating these necessary changes have not been defeated by a superior argument nor suppressed through the large-scale violence and coercion. Instead, these movements have been marginalized by power interests that work to create ignorance, and a citizenry that hides in ignorance.
What can save us? My honest answer is, ''probably nothing.'' But that answer doesn't keep me from working in projects to promote social justice and ecological sustainability. I pursue that work without a guarantee of success, without illusions about my own ability to devise a winning strategy, without certainty that I know it all. But I'm pretty sure I'm right in my basic framework.
I'm also pretty sure that I can't argue people into accepting that framework, no matter how compelling a case I can present. The key to attracting more people to radical political positions is not to adopt the manipulative tactics of the powerful or to pretend we aren't facing such overwhelming challenges. Instead, I believe we have to think about how to create spaces for people to experience the solidarity that bolsters our courage to explore new ideas and to take risks to challenge power.
In Austin, Texas, people with varied interests in social justice and ecological sustainability have joined forces to create one such space in a community center with offices, meeting space, and gardens. The core organizers of ''5604 Manor'' (www.5604manor.org/) share a radical politics, but a radical badge isn't required for entry. The work going on there is focused not only on immediate political objectives, but also on creating resilient communities that can face the challenges ahead. The project may fail, but even in failure we will advance radical politics in this one place.
Our task is to create as many of those places as we can. In those places, we are right and it will matter.
An edited version of this talk will be presented at the Third Coast Activist Resource Center 9/11 anniversary event at 5604 Manor in Austin, Texas, September 11, 2011.
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Why Libritarian Morality Doesn't Work
Libertarian vs. Utilitarian Justice. by Richard Yetter Chappell of Princeton
Libertarian ‘entitlement theory’, which comprises three principles of justice. The first concerns initial acquisition, or how one becomes entitled to previously unowned things. Then comes the principle of transfer, specifying how titles may pass from one person to another. The idea is that repeated application of these two principles will yield a distribution in which everyone is entitled to their holdings. Lastly, a principle of rectification governs the treatment of injustice, that is, violations of the first two principles.
Note that whereas utilitarian justice aims at a particular ‘end-state’ without regard for how it got there, libertarianism is concerned exclusively with the operation of just procedures, without regard for what ‘pattern’ of distribution results from them.
Nozick puts it: “Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just”.
The correlative then must be: “Whatever arises from a unjust situation by unjust steps is itself unjust”.
Discussing the transfer of property rights begs the question of how one could acquire title over unowned resources in the first place. Consistency should commit the libertarian to denouncing unilateral appropriation of common resources as a form of theft, since it peremptorily deprives others of their liberty to use the appropriated resources.
Autonomy recommends that individuals “have a veto over appropriations which exclude [them] from the commons.” But Nozick denies this, claiming that “ the crucial point is whether appropriation of an unowned object worsens the situation of others.” This seems inconsistent with the core libertarian value of autonomy, but we might charitably interpret it as appealing to a general principle of ‘natural liberty’, whereby an action is permissible if it does not harm others.
This raises two issues: what sort of harm, and relative to what baseline? Libertarians typically restrict themselves to considering material well-being relative to a baseline of persisting common unownership, and this allows the limits to be easily met. But both these restrictions are unacceptable. Libertarians, of all people, should recognize the importance of autonomy and independence to the well-lived life. But once these values are taken into account, it is not so clear that unilateral appropriations make no-one worse off, even compared to continued unownership.
Moreover, our comparisons should also take into account the alternative systems of appropriation that could have resulted instead – anything less amounts to an “arbitrary narrowing of the options”. Once these are considered, it seems most likely that disproportionate appropriations of natural resources will not be allowed, for they disadvantage excluded people relative to more egalitarian alternatives.
Suppose that continued unownership of a pasture would be so unproductive as to cause several locals to starve to death. Nozick thus allows an individual to appropriate the land for himself, employ the able-bodied locals, and leave the disabled or talentless to starve just as they would have before. But if the land were distributed equally, the less able could rent out use of their land in return for a share of the products. This way everyone would survive. Unilateral appropriation would lead some to starve who otherwise need not have – it is absurd to say that they are not harmed by this.
However, broadened consideration may prevent the proviso from ever being met, since there will always be an alternative that is better for someone. Thus we may need to abandon this approach to initial acquisition, and adopt some alternative such as utilitarian or egalitarian shares instead.
But these too become problematic once the rights of future generations are taken into account. Their inclusion would require natural resources to be divided into indefinitely many shares, precluding each individual from receiving any. Yet it seems unjust to exclude newcomers from initial acquisition, so this may necessitate periodic compensatory redistribution.
Further, an absolute property right entitles the owner to dispose of their property however they wish – even destroying it, if they so desire. But surely it would be a gross injustice for the present generation to destroy the world’s natural resources. So we must not have any such absolute right after all.
Thus we find that, if utilitarianism neglects the past, libertarianism is mired in it. Entitlement theory suffers from a lack of foresight. Absolute property rights are not responsive to people’s changing needs, so – insofar as we hold that justice ought to be – we must reject absolute entitlements, replacing them with a more flexible system which allows for re-allocation in response to newcomers to the system and the changing needs of those within it.
Nozick objects to this sort of reasoning. “To use a person [for another’s benefit] does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice”. But this is foolishness. No-one is claiming that the demanded sacrifice is for his own good. Rather, it is to benefit someone else in greater need, another person for whom theirs is the only life they have. Nozick's egoistic objection is thus patently question-begging.
Further criticisms might derive from a belief that interpersonal welfare is incommensurable. But that is not plausible. If I get a paper-cut and you get beheaded, it is absurd to deny that you have suffered a greater harm. And it is similarly absurd to deny the moral counterpart, that it is more important to save your head than my finger. The utilitarian may grant that saving your head will not compensate me for my paper-cut, but it can still be of greater moral weight.
Libertarians hold that each person owns themselves, and others may not make use of their property (i.e. them) without their consent. Just as others have no right to shelter a homeless man in my house, so they have no right to tax the products of my labour and redistribute to the needy. But the free market requires ownership rights over both self and external resources, and we have seen that the latter is problematic. Moreover, self-ownership is a merely ‘formal’ notion that does not guarantee substantive freedom or power over one’s own life. For suppose that natural resources are initially owned by everyone rather than no-one. On this view, a self-owning individual may not make use of the material world without others’ consent. But, as Kymlicka asks, “how can I be said to own myself if I may do nothing without the permission of others?” Such merely formal freedom has no worth. Yet this is the position of the poor and disadvantaged within a libertarian capitalist society.
Once we recognize the importance of substantive rather than merely formal freedom, our aim becomes to enable people to live the lives they want to live. This commits us to ensuring access to education, health-care, and basic human needs like food and shelter, since all of these are essential prerequisites to any form of freedom worth having. If provision of these goods requires us to compromise self-ownership, so be it.
Utilitarians deny that there are any independent facts about ‘fair shares’ or ‘just deserts’ prior to the utility calculations which give equal weight to the interests of all. But if we find this response implausible, we may feel some pressure to reform the theory so as to take justice as prior to – and part of – the utility calculations, rather than a consequence thereof. However, this would yield a just theory of utilitarianism, rather than a utilitarian theory of justice. We would thus require some independent account of justice. We have seen that the libertarian ‘entitlement theory’ is not a plausible candidate. Although the principle of transfer enjoys much intuitive appeal, it cannot get off the ground without a principle of initial acquisition, and the problems there appear to be insurmountable.
Libertarianism ignores the future; utilitarianism, the past. Perhaps what we need is a theory of justice that looks both ways before trafficking in the present.
Let's start with cooperation, then compete.
Libertarian ‘entitlement theory’, which comprises three principles of justice. The first concerns initial acquisition, or how one becomes entitled to previously unowned things. Then comes the principle of transfer, specifying how titles may pass from one person to another. The idea is that repeated application of these two principles will yield a distribution in which everyone is entitled to their holdings. Lastly, a principle of rectification governs the treatment of injustice, that is, violations of the first two principles.
Note that whereas utilitarian justice aims at a particular ‘end-state’ without regard for how it got there, libertarianism is concerned exclusively with the operation of just procedures, without regard for what ‘pattern’ of distribution results from them.
Nozick puts it: “Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just”.
The correlative then must be: “Whatever arises from a unjust situation by unjust steps is itself unjust”.
Discussing the transfer of property rights begs the question of how one could acquire title over unowned resources in the first place. Consistency should commit the libertarian to denouncing unilateral appropriation of common resources as a form of theft, since it peremptorily deprives others of their liberty to use the appropriated resources.
Autonomy recommends that individuals “have a veto over appropriations which exclude [them] from the commons.” But Nozick denies this, claiming that “ the crucial point is whether appropriation of an unowned object worsens the situation of others.” This seems inconsistent with the core libertarian value of autonomy, but we might charitably interpret it as appealing to a general principle of ‘natural liberty’, whereby an action is permissible if it does not harm others.
This raises two issues: what sort of harm, and relative to what baseline? Libertarians typically restrict themselves to considering material well-being relative to a baseline of persisting common unownership, and this allows the limits to be easily met. But both these restrictions are unacceptable. Libertarians, of all people, should recognize the importance of autonomy and independence to the well-lived life. But once these values are taken into account, it is not so clear that unilateral appropriations make no-one worse off, even compared to continued unownership.
Moreover, our comparisons should also take into account the alternative systems of appropriation that could have resulted instead – anything less amounts to an “arbitrary narrowing of the options”. Once these are considered, it seems most likely that disproportionate appropriations of natural resources will not be allowed, for they disadvantage excluded people relative to more egalitarian alternatives.
Suppose that continued unownership of a pasture would be so unproductive as to cause several locals to starve to death. Nozick thus allows an individual to appropriate the land for himself, employ the able-bodied locals, and leave the disabled or talentless to starve just as they would have before. But if the land were distributed equally, the less able could rent out use of their land in return for a share of the products. This way everyone would survive. Unilateral appropriation would lead some to starve who otherwise need not have – it is absurd to say that they are not harmed by this.
However, broadened consideration may prevent the proviso from ever being met, since there will always be an alternative that is better for someone. Thus we may need to abandon this approach to initial acquisition, and adopt some alternative such as utilitarian or egalitarian shares instead.
But these too become problematic once the rights of future generations are taken into account. Their inclusion would require natural resources to be divided into indefinitely many shares, precluding each individual from receiving any. Yet it seems unjust to exclude newcomers from initial acquisition, so this may necessitate periodic compensatory redistribution.
Further, an absolute property right entitles the owner to dispose of their property however they wish – even destroying it, if they so desire. But surely it would be a gross injustice for the present generation to destroy the world’s natural resources. So we must not have any such absolute right after all.
Thus we find that, if utilitarianism neglects the past, libertarianism is mired in it. Entitlement theory suffers from a lack of foresight. Absolute property rights are not responsive to people’s changing needs, so – insofar as we hold that justice ought to be – we must reject absolute entitlements, replacing them with a more flexible system which allows for re-allocation in response to newcomers to the system and the changing needs of those within it.
Nozick objects to this sort of reasoning. “To use a person [for another’s benefit] does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice”. But this is foolishness. No-one is claiming that the demanded sacrifice is for his own good. Rather, it is to benefit someone else in greater need, another person for whom theirs is the only life they have. Nozick's egoistic objection is thus patently question-begging.
Further criticisms might derive from a belief that interpersonal welfare is incommensurable. But that is not plausible. If I get a paper-cut and you get beheaded, it is absurd to deny that you have suffered a greater harm. And it is similarly absurd to deny the moral counterpart, that it is more important to save your head than my finger. The utilitarian may grant that saving your head will not compensate me for my paper-cut, but it can still be of greater moral weight.
Libertarians hold that each person owns themselves, and others may not make use of their property (i.e. them) without their consent. Just as others have no right to shelter a homeless man in my house, so they have no right to tax the products of my labour and redistribute to the needy. But the free market requires ownership rights over both self and external resources, and we have seen that the latter is problematic. Moreover, self-ownership is a merely ‘formal’ notion that does not guarantee substantive freedom or power over one’s own life. For suppose that natural resources are initially owned by everyone rather than no-one. On this view, a self-owning individual may not make use of the material world without others’ consent. But, as Kymlicka asks, “how can I be said to own myself if I may do nothing without the permission of others?” Such merely formal freedom has no worth. Yet this is the position of the poor and disadvantaged within a libertarian capitalist society.
Once we recognize the importance of substantive rather than merely formal freedom, our aim becomes to enable people to live the lives they want to live. This commits us to ensuring access to education, health-care, and basic human needs like food and shelter, since all of these are essential prerequisites to any form of freedom worth having. If provision of these goods requires us to compromise self-ownership, so be it.
Utilitarians deny that there are any independent facts about ‘fair shares’ or ‘just deserts’ prior to the utility calculations which give equal weight to the interests of all. But if we find this response implausible, we may feel some pressure to reform the theory so as to take justice as prior to – and part of – the utility calculations, rather than a consequence thereof. However, this would yield a just theory of utilitarianism, rather than a utilitarian theory of justice. We would thus require some independent account of justice. We have seen that the libertarian ‘entitlement theory’ is not a plausible candidate. Although the principle of transfer enjoys much intuitive appeal, it cannot get off the ground without a principle of initial acquisition, and the problems there appear to be insurmountable.
Libertarianism ignores the future; utilitarianism, the past. Perhaps what we need is a theory of justice that looks both ways before trafficking in the present.
Two diametrically opposed theories of Justice: Libertarian and Utilitarian, demonstrate the stark difference between individual and communal justice. Cooperation vs. Competition is a mistake, it is not either/or, it's both, each in its own place for the appropriate time. Now the question is when and where to use each and why?
Let's start with cooperation, then compete.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Daniel Goleman on Empathy and Compassion
One of my favorite authors is Daniel Goleman a psychologist who developed the Emotional Intelligence Quotient. He asks us to notice each-other.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Global Classroom
I don't do this often, but this is a special case. When someone states the obvious truth, it cuts across all lines, and I must post it everywhere.
"If Issac Newton had done calculus videos on YouTube, I wouldn't have to. (assuming he was any good) - Salman Khan"Why do good students fail in our public schools?
Traditional Classroom Model penalizes you for experimentation and failure, "DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?". Kids COMPETE with each other, but does not expect mastery.
Assign the lectures as homework, and do the homework in the classroom.
Pause, work at your own pace. Stay on that bicycle, experiment, failure is OK. Reward success, don't penalize failure. Allow students to COOPERATE, and you will see that your 'slow' students are just as smart as the 'gifted' kids.
But expect mastery.
Build a Global, One World Classroom.