tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-72382739925418102622024-03-14T05:28:32.427-07:00Battling ConfusionWrestling IdeasChuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-69703825714447494362011-07-20T10:17:00.000-07:002011-07-20T10:25:36.565-07:00Charitable Atheism is up and Running<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qEb36MCGr0Y/TicN3xlnPjI/AAAAAAAAAMg/0mYa_sbI-DI/s1600/CA.png"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 365px; height: 314px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qEb36MCGr0Y/TicN3xlnPjI/AAAAAAAAAMg/0mYa_sbI-DI/s400/CA.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5631485110905159218" border="0" /></a><a href="http://charitableatheism.wordpress.com/">My new blog project is up and running over at WordPress. </a> I'd like to invite those who have read this blog to make their way over <a href="http://charitableatheism.wordpress.com/">there</a> and comment on what you see.<br /><br />The project to audit <a href="http://chuckoconnor.blogspot.com/2011/07/battle-is-over-shutting-it-down.html">Professor Ed Feser's book on Aquinas will begin September 1. </a>The intellectual challenge of it seems to be appropriate to a "back to school" time of year.<br /><br />I've posted some blogs on current events and <a href="http://charitableatheism.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/a-purpose-challenging-the-jerry-maguire-defense-for-new-atheism/">the purpose of charitable atheism in my criticism of a New Atheist canard I call "The Jerry MaGuire Defense"</a>. I've already have been accused by fellow atheists of not being a "real atheist" due to my desire to expand reason through charitable investigation of belief rather than my prior strategy of debunking religious claims through shame and ridicule. So, I now am not a "real Christian" nor am I a "real atheist". I understand the criticism but, for me, the latter strategy allows for greater peace and happiness and therefore, my moral instincts seem to inform me that it may have greater ethical value. <br /><br />Thanks for the comments here and please comment on the new site.<br /><br />I'd love to hear your ideas for topics we might discuss at the new site and will take them under consideration as series ideas. Peace.Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-24579068809704678582011-07-15T09:26:00.000-07:002011-07-15T09:55:59.209-07:00The Battle is Over -- Shutting it Down<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W80C0W-ms7U/TiBvXKLK2LI/AAAAAAAAAMY/6LudNufXAKw/s1600/white_flag.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 235px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W80C0W-ms7U/TiBvXKLK2LI/AAAAAAAAAMY/6LudNufXAKw/s400/white_flag.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5629621977871997106" border="0" /></a>My friend <a href="http://thomstark.net/">Thom Stark</a> suggested to me yesterday that many atheists are still trapped by religion and I agreed with him.<br /><br />For the most part, this blog has been a project of me seeking to escape my religious bonds. I've, more than often, however, knotted the ties by which religion held me down, through a rage-filled response to a narrow theological tradition.<br /><br />My response was necessary to clear my mind of group-agreement and move towards a new world-view that does not seek safety within institutional authority.<br /><br />The time to maintain that position however, seems to be over so, I'm closing down this blog in the hope to start fresh in examining belief from a more charitable view.<br /><br />I've grown tired of the New Atheist cliche where rancor towards the religious is born out of a presupposed caricature towards religious belief and, would rather understand the religious mind, rather than seek easy (and fallacious) methods of debunking it.<br /><br />This desire is born from my appreciation of empirical realities and material truth.<br /><br />I've discovered that the limited strategy of mockery towards the religious to be a false premise that does not reflect the realities in which the religious move.<br /><br />My wife is a devout Christian and she isn't a stupid and superstitious person who simply believes because she is told to believe. Two of my best friends, Steve and Jen Bishop are devout Christians, Steve also holds an MDiv in Theology from Trinity Seminary, and they are two of the most thoughtful people I know. They wrestle with moral questions from a place of honesty and never accept blind belief as an answer.<br /><br />If I am going to understand what is real inside of belief than I need to expand my way of knowing what those beliefs are. The best way I can think of this is to begin the practice of Philosophical Charity where I interpret, a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, consider its best, strongest possible interpretation.<br /><br />This will be a fun challenge and I think will yield knowledge.<br /><br />That said, I don't think a blog committed to "battling" is appropriate to the project and therefore will be shutting this down.<br /><br />This choice also affords me the opportunity to move to WordPress software and begin anew.<br /><br />The URL for my next blog is <a href="http://charitableatheism.wordpress.com/">http://charitableatheism.wordpress.com/</a> and the first project I will attempt there will be an audit of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Oneworld/dp/1851686908">Ed Feser's book on Thomistic Theology entitled "Aquinas"</a>. Ed is a Roman Catholic and scholar of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism">Thomistic-Aristotelian ethics</a>. The former institution is something I distrust and the latter school is something I am ignorant of.<br /><br />My goals with the blog will be spelled out on the opening page but, generally speaking will be to pursue what I consider the true New Atheist goal - a public space where reason rules. This goal has been misunderstood by me in the past to mean, where science rules and, that misunderstanding, has led to polemic rather than insight. I'm sick of polemic. I'm tired of being angry. I want to be wise.<br /><br />I also want to leave a legacy for my son where he can choose disbelief as a world-view rich in wonder and peace and mystery.<br /><br />For those who have read this blog and commented, thanks. This has been cool. I don't think I attracted many readers but, I think I became a better writer for working on this.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />ChuckChuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-58460407358582759742011-06-24T08:17:00.000-07:002011-06-24T09:10:23.912-07:00Miss USA, pandering to supersition as a positive virtue or, an example of why I write "atheist screeds"I have been accused of being hateful towards religion. I think the accusations may be fair. I do hate certain aspects of religion. My hatred stems from the time I spent believing the presuppositions of Evangelical Christianity and how this belief led me to enable sexism, bigotry and willful ignorance under the guise of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism">complementarianism</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_world_theory">Just-World Theory</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy">Biblical Inerrancy.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span></a><br /><br />I started to doubt the virtue of my former faith and began to consider the positive intent within atheist arguments when I investigated the recent public conflicts regarding <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinian_evolution">Darwinian Evolution</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design">the preferred Christian "alternative theory" of biological diversity known as "Intelligent Design" (ID)</a>. <br /><br />I investigated this conflict as a bible-believing-Calvinist-Christian and came away a depressed agnostic. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html">The arrogance and unscrupulous dishonesty practiced by my fellow Christians </a>in defense of their "alternative theory" led me to doubt <a href="http://www.theology.edu/pneumato.htm">the doctrine of the Holy Spirit where, "The Holy Spirit has come to glorify Christ and bring attention to Jesus. He does this by empowering believers in the areas of evangelism and discipleship." </a> I had always believed that salvation in Jesus provided a moral sense via The Holy Spirit which would provide wisdom in discerning fact from fiction. <br /><br />Upon investigating the "ID" arguments I came to doubt a Holy Spirit as real. I didn't see any of the gifts of the spirit displayed in "ID" enthusiasts and, in fact, saw a contradiction to many of them. Where my religion said a believer should be wise, insightful, prudent, and knowledgeable, I saw frightened in-groups demeaning science because it challenged religious assertions with experimental fact. <br /><br />When I understood the conflict between atheist scientists like <a href="http://jerrycoyne.uchicago.edu/about.html">Jerry Coyne</a> and <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/">Richard Dawkins</a> and pious Christians like <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/10/01/evolution-when-atheists-and-baptists-agree/">Al Mohler</a> and the leadership of my home church, I became frightened. <br /><br />The atheists had a deeper commitment to evidence outside of their preferred bias than any Christian I knew. The atheist scientists practiced a truth-seeking method where they humbly admitted, "I don't know" and then allowed the probable facts to lead them towards a functional truth consonant with reality. <br /><br />Religion didn't work this way. It asserted the truth and demonized opposition to this assertion in defense of the assertion. The confidence in demonizing contrary assertions were supported by additional "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" namely, "Piety"; "Fortitude"; and "Fear of the Lord". <br /><br />I submitted myself to learning the theory of evolution in the face of this confusion and, continue to try to grasp its meaning. I have come to learn that life's diversity does not need a supernatural agency to explain its reality. My considerations have also led me to see the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as a superstition which keeps someone safe from the discomfort of ever having to change their mind, while ensuring the believer feels they have revealed knowledge which provides superior intelligence. <br /><br />A Christian can be certain they are correct about what life is without ever having to defend this certainty or have it tested by evidence.<br /><br />I was honest about my experience as a Christian and came to admit that the religion offered me the benefit of self-righteousness. This benefit was endorsed by a community of similar self-righteous people who could be blinded to their self-righteousness via the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It wasn't they who were operating in the revealed knowledge of the world, it was the Holy Spirit moving within them. So bold assertion with an obstinacy to objective investigation was not cognitive bias but rather a holy commitment to god's saving grace.<br /><br />I don't think this seemingly destructive idea is perceived as destructive by those who hold it. I think those defending Jesus against science believe they are pursuing something positive. <a href="http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/miss-usa-2011-interviews-should-evolution-be">The recent Miss USA pageant reminded me of my days in the Christian faith and why I am such a staunch critic of religion today. </a><br /><br />The ignorance and lies of Christians defending "alternative theories" to evolution are not what make me an atheist today. I am glad I no longer have to identify with a group of people who seem to hide behind emotional appeals to privilege as a means of avoiding the hard work of understanding the real world but, my atheism is more complex than my fear of this type of in-group.<br /><br />My fear however does motivate my criticism of religion and it is due to my unique understanding of the theories, like the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, that animate religious thinking. The Christian women in the Miss USA video are probably not aware of their ignorance of reality, nor the consequences towards social ill their anti-evolution and anti-science stance provides. My experience within the Church indicates they think their opposition to Darwinian Evolution is a positive thing because it allows them to evangelize for Jesus. Jesus is the only answer to every question. <br /><br />I see that religion allows a person to be proud of their pandering to superstition as a positive virtue and therefore I choose to be a critic of their belief.Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-30153344120311628962011-06-18T06:34:00.001-07:002011-06-18T06:43:55.619-07:00Mamet the Solipsist<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><a href="http://www.dailyhitchens.com/2011/06/david-mamets-right-wing-conversion.html">Christopher Hitchens has a scathing review of David Mamet's latest attempt at narrative essay</a>. The Hitch does an excellent job of exposing in Mamet's latest what I've always believed to be true about the playwright's attempts at playing philosopher. </span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Mamet's forays into narrative essay have always been lousy (as evidence I recommend his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Some-Freaks-David-Mamet/dp/0140124349">"Some Freaks"</a> which, if the publisher were honest, should be bound in straw to warn the reader of the quality of Mr. Mamet's premises). </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Mamet has been an excellent playwright but a playwright is not a philosopher. A playwrig</span><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">ht simply is able to bring to life unique people who may not have a thorough understanding of their own psychology and, put these characters into situations that demand they act based on their limited knowledge. Philosophy doesn't work the same way. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Mamet as a philosopher does a good job of evincing flawed dramatic character but, sadly, that becomes incoherent philosophy. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDbpzjbXUZI">Mamet is to narrative philosophy as Eddie Murphy is to pop-singing, a competent artist in one arena believing their talent can translate to all expressions. It is embarrassing.</a></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The theater craft invites the practitioner to remove inhibitions so he or she can take emotional risks. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meisner_technique">Mamet's Meisner-training</a> is a pretty advanced example of the kind of self-centered and reactive process actors indulge. This can lead to art that is powerful because it makes the illusion of pretend seem real but, can also empower the theater artist to believe their emotional response to external circumstance is reality. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Too often, the theater artist over-trusts his or her emotional guidance system and practices solipsism when they think they are practicing logic. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I quit the theater for 10 years because I saw the same in myself and recognized it may be false and shameful. I hope Mr. Mamet can feel the sting of a similar reality but, fear that his awareness that he is "DAVID MAMET" gets in the way of his thinking.</span></span></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-64311540341414514372011-06-05T09:56:00.000-07:002011-07-08T08:34:38.816-07:00RIDING THE HYPE CYCLE<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Pursuing creativity leads me to experience an idea that dominates my imagination which moves me to make something with this idea. The making is often accompanied by invited (and too often unsolicited) criticism which makes me realize that what was in my head hasn’t been realized. I wallow. And sometimes, this is where the story ends but, when I have luck and providence, a new experience occurs—my failures evolve and the original idea matures into a vision that sparks greater ideas.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The cliché goes that one must suffer for their art and, try as I might to bracket this observation as stereotype, it seems the creative process is fraught with emotional pain. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Otto Rank, the existential psychoanalyst, in his work </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Art and Artist, </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">put it this way in distinguishing between a neurotic and a creative: </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"> <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The neurotic, in the voluntary remaking of his ego, does not get beyond the destructive preliminary work and is therefore unable to detach the whole creative process from his own person and transfer it to an ideological abstraction. The productive artist also begins . . . with that recreation of himself which results in an ideologically constructed ego; [but in this case] this ego is then in a position to shift the creative willpower from his own person to ideological representations of that person and thus render it objective. It must be admitted that this process is in a measure limited to within the individual, and that not only in its constructive but also in its destructive aspects. </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">This explains why hardly any productive work gets through without morbid crises of a ‘neurotic’ nature.</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">” (emphasis mine)</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> It seems that the pursuit of art can make an obsessive demand on the artist, which can resemble madness. Those who have faced a real or figurative blank canvas have felt their mind twist when they’ve had to consider disappointment bleeding towards despair.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> Rank summed up art as, “. . . life’s dream interpretation. . .“ and his method towards understanding its practice is stated well by Anais Nin in </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The Diary of Anais Nin, Vol.1:</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">when she describes the doctor by, “. . . his curiosity, not the impulse to classify . . . relying on his intuition, intent on discovering.” The psychoanalysis Rank practiced with Nin deviated from his fellow Freudians, in that he lived through the author’s “writer’s block” with her (to the point of a sexual relationship), rather than removing himself from it towards diagnosis, and emerged as a character within her work, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">“The Winter of Artifice”</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> Rank practiced a more active and egalitarian psychotherapy focused on the here-and-now, real relationship, and conscious mind and will, rather than past history, transference, and the unconscious. He therefore used empathy as a means to insight, which in turn made the creative process, and its inherent anxieties, </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">real.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> The words used to describe the creative process seem to validate the observation that creativity and crisis are inevitable partners. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> We speak of great works being “wrought” with “painstaking” attention and “born” from “vulnerable” places that can be “raw”, “tender” and “fragile”. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> But, why is this?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The creative cycle seems to follow a predictable path of awareness, introspection, self-criticism, despair, back to awareness. Each new Idea seems to come with a mix of enjoyment and angst. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> My writing process often goes something like this:</span></p><ol style="margin-top: 0in;" start="1" type="A"><li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I get excited about an idea I consider ambitious,</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I share this ambit<img src="http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif" alt="Numbered List" class="gl_list_num" border="0" />ious idea</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">People don’t get it and I get upset at their confusion</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Embarrassment follows when I understand and agree with the confusion </span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Despair strikes, I want to give up</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I start over </span></li></ol> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">F is usually the point where my inner-critic tells me to run from the embarrassment I’ve brought and suggests a scheme to do something else that has lower emotional costs. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">A sort of Rankian empathy from a fellow creative person (usually my wife) accompanies G with a call to improvise.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">It seems that the pain of creativity is related to the loneliness of disappointment and the cure for this pain is to consider that I’m not as terminally unique as I might think.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I’ve made a recent discovery that has accelerated my ability to get past my disillusionment.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">My “day job” is in the world of communications strategy and recently I’ve been doing some reading on an idea known as the "Gartner Hype Cycle". </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Considering the “Hype Cycle” has given me a better idea of how my creative process is not an anomaly, but rather a standard experience for any new idea that looks to be meaningful to other people.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Gartner is an information technology research and advisory firm located in Stamford, Connecticut and their "Hype Cycle" was developed to show a visual path for the maturity, adoption and social application of specific technologies. Here’s what it looks like:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 398px; height: 261px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-V2oADPCseiY/ThT58JSm5mI/AAAAAAAAAMQ/1rJf9st9mYU/s400/The%2BHype%2BCycle.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5626396646174025314" border="0" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">It’s easy enough to read. You consider a new idea against the visibility it engenders (e.g. sharing a play concept with a variety of friends) relative to the time it takes to make that idea meaningful to others.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">There is an initial peak of inflated expectations, and this peak is followed by an inevitable crash when the new idea doesn’t seem to live up to its expected importance (e.g. Microsoft’s “Zune” as a competitor to Apple’s “iPod”).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Recently, The Hype Cycle has been used to better understand how “old” media (e.g. TV and print) has become secondary to “new” media (e.g. Twitter feeds) and the resulting analysis that is needed in the face of strategic confusion and/or disillusionment (e.g. the inability for companies to monetize the attention their Facebook page gets, where the anticipated instant groundswell of “customer created” grass-roots campaigns has not resulted in immediate profitable product sales, despite the campaigns “branding” success, evidenced by the “likes” their Facebook page has received).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">For my creative discipline, play-writing, this cycle seems to approximate my creative process. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I refer you back to my A through F experience above.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I find it difficult to persevere sometimes while working on a play because I worry that the struggles I have evidence my illegitimacy as a writer. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">My wife is a choreographer and she has shared the same struggles.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">And while we are only a sample of two, it seems that the angst we experience is similar to that of fellow creative friends. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">These struggles have made me keep asking, why is that?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">But when considering the Hype Cycle, I’ve started to think that asking “why” is less important than asking “where”. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">It isn’t necessary I understand why I feel the way I do but rather what my feelings tell me about where I am in the process.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">If I am filled with certainty that my new idea will create a revolution within the concept of say something like, how exposition works, then it might be good to check my “Hype Cycle” and at least consider that I am riding a wave of inflated expectations. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">If I am in despair that I am dried up and no ideas can come to me after another scene in my writing group has failed to communicate my intention, then I might need to see that I am resting in a trough.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">And whatever my feelings might be in a given moment I can recognize that if I provide myself the charity of time there is a probability given the “Hype Cycle” that I can ride towards enlightenment and productivity.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The “Hype Cycle” and more specifically learning to ride my personal “Hype Cycle” seems a good navigation device to get through the emotional storms that crop up in the creative journey. I’m seeing how it can be a model for me to better understand that the despair I often feel when trying to create something has little to do with my personal failings, it might just be the creative pursuit’s objective nature. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Disillusionment stops being an abusive parent and instead becomes part of the process where the slow climb out of it towards future productivity is enjoyed over time.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">To reiterate Rank, considering the “Hype Cycle” puts me, “in a position to shift [my] creative willpower,” and seems to offer a partial answer to the question of creativity’s suffering.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">An artist is not that different than the "idea generating technology" Gartner has mapped. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I shared this hunch with my writing group and we seemed to agree that a writer grows as a writer when she identifies a process that brings her enjoyment or, as Rank puts it, when the artist can detach from their work and, “ . . . render it objective.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Letting go in this way helps new ideas to happen. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The question remains, why do creative pursuits hurt sometimes? </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The Hype Cycle offers an implicit answer, because they do until you understand that they do and, that’s what they are supposed to do and, then they don’t anymore.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">And you keep writing.</span></p> <!--EndFragment-->Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-77224192753599145862011-04-10T05:32:00.000-07:002011-04-10T06:41:21.146-07:00Flattering the King<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Anthony deMello an Indian Jesuit priest and psychotherapist Roman Catholic in the mold of that religion's social justice wing wrote a small parable I have often found inspiring. </span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">He references the father of cynical philosophy <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope">Diogenes</a> and demonstrates how individual integrity can be found in acting as a stoic. It reads, </span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">"</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The philosopher Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher <a href="http://www.mousa.gr/en/html/aristipus.html">Aristippus</a>, who lived comfortably by flattering the king. Said Aristippus, 'If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.' </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Said Diogenes, 'Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.'" </span></span></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">We are a country of lentil eaters who seek to flatter the King to improve our diet and we pretend this flattery somehow constitutes an enlightened philosophy.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">My criticism comes as a reaction to the recent budget dispute in Washington and the support working men and women have towards the Republican party's rhetorical fear-mongering that casts government, rather than unchecked plutocratic Capitalism, as the source of their restricted diet. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">My gorge does not rise because of the incompetence demonstrated by the politicians involved. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I think incompetence is the primary job description of those who truck in politics. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I am wasted by the popular opinion of my fellow citizens who somehow believe empowering policies that benefit the top 1% of wealth in this country translates to the best path towards integrity and a democracy for, of and by the people.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/04/the_one-percenters.html">Roger Ebert has an excellent piece on his latest blog</a> that demonstrates the by-product of our current financial ethics and the sheer stupidity of the former Middle Class, now the growing working poor, who deny our recent history in the hope of being excused from the lentil dinner they are forced to eat.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">This kind of popular cowardice dressed up as ideological discipline is not new or unexpected. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><a href="http://orwell.ru/library/essays/Spanish_War/english/esw_1">Orwell wrote in 1942 w</a>hen remembering his time in the Spanish Civil War, while fighting fascism for the sake of worker's rights, how conservative MPs cheered the bombing of British supply boats by Italian aircraft because these supplies would furnish aid and comfort to the Communist Russian forces looking to overthrow Franco (who had to be on the side of Capitalism because he opposed Socialism.) </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">History shows that the Communist Russian forces implicated in the pursuit of Franco never existed and were a bogeyman invented by Conservative politician rhetoric to furnish their industrialist base with perceptions of ethical integrity within their plutocracy and, when given the opportunity, Franco conspired with Adolph Hitler to bomb the shit out of England when he had the chance. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Orwell goes further and identifies how the primary desire of those that allow totalitarian rule is not individual freedom but mindless comfort when he rightly states, <blockquote>" . . . the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but <i>the past. </i>If the Leader says of such and such an event, 'It never happened' - well it never happened. If he says that two and two are five - well, two and two are five."</blockquote></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">We are living in the aftermath of a conscious decision to maximize greed as a catalyst for growth. And we ignore the fuzzy math of our recent history because to question the games played in the stock-market with home mortgages would demand that we interrogate our Capitalist system. It is easier to pretend that our enemies are those that would challenge Capitalism rather than ask <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act">why it was necessary to eliminate financial regulations put in place to avoid the kind of unchecked speculation that atomized the Great Depression. </a> Why was an allegiance to derivative math that could inspire exponential debt financing the best social policy? Or do we simply ignore this because trying to understand it takes some thinking power and it is better to invoke our collective risibility and believe 2+2=5.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">But when this speculative greed had to face its losses those that drove the gambling fit, the Wall Street Bankers, were protected by casino bosses, our Federal Government, and given better suites and more chips while those that cheered them on at the craps table, the average Middle-Class home-owner, were bounced from the club. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Instead of recognizing the bullying eccentricities of this collusive elite, the Middle Class has queued up like perky titted cheer-leaders looking to win the affection of the handsome football star (who unbeknownst to the fecund bubble-head in this analogy wants nothing more than to slip a roofie into her coke and sodomize her to his heart's content). </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">And yet the loudest outcry comes from a chorus of Aristippuses who will embrace all manner of irrational flattery and invite rape so they can deny the lentils they are left. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Ebert states it well when he writes, </span></span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">"</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 19px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">What puzzles me is why there isn't more indignation. The Tea Party is the most indignant domestic political movement since Norman Thomas's Socialist Party, but its wrath is turned in the wrong direction. It favors policies that are favorable to corporations and unfavorable to individuals. Its opposition to Obamacare is a textbook example. Insurance companies and the health care industry finance a 'populist' movement that is manipulated to oppose its own interests. The billionaire Koch brothers payroll right wing front organizations that oppose labor unions and financial reform. The patriots wave their flags and don't realize they're being duped."</span></span></blockquote></div></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;color:#181818;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">The self-interest we are succeeding in applauding serves the King well. I wish we would start trading lentil recipes and tear down his authority. I doubt it will happen. Imagined comfort is too tempting when realistic integrity needs facing.</span></span></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-73037793908917952072011-04-05T17:27:00.000-07:002011-04-05T18:20:19.346-07:00Anything, Nothingness and Becoming<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">At the end of Robert Bolt's play </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons#Themes"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">"A Man for All Seasons"</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> the Common Man who acts as narrator and audience-proxy assures us (with dripping irony) the nobility we opt for when we make our identity ulterior. </span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">He says, </span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">"It isn't difficult to keep alive, friends- just don't </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">make</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> trouble - or if you must make trouble, make the sort of trouble that's expected."</span></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">In the Preface to the Vintage International edition of the play Bolt explains this theme by offering the idea that, </span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">". . . we no longer have, as past societies have had, a picture of individual Man (Stoic Philosopher, Christian Religious, Rational Gentleman) by which to recognize ourselves and against which to measure ourselves; we are anything. But if anything, then nothing and it is not everyone who can live with that, though it is our true present position."</span></blockquote></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The themes of this play are relevant to me, probably because I am going through a mid-life crisis, while enjoying early fatherhood, and the worry I once carried about other people's impression of me fades in the face of my son's life and his smile. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The collision of these experiences have made me reconsider the necessity of basic values. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The world seems to invite each of us to be anything yet when this achievement is reckoned there is a nothingness about it. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><a href="http://markerelli.com/">Mark Erelli,</a> one of my favorite singer-songwriters, summed our current social values (when commenting on the recent teacher demonization in Wisconsin) by observing that, </span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">". . . </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">the American Dream has taken quite a hit in recent years. We have 'American Idol' </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 16px; font-family:arial;">but there's no popular TV show called 'American Expert.' We deride the educated as 'elites,' preferring instead the sexier narrative that one event or contest could pluck anyone from obscurity and set them on a pedestal to be revered and worshiped."</span></blockquote></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">There is a nothingness about a popularity that chases after notoriety for its own sake (as evidence of its value).</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">When faced with this nothingness, I've decided to take stock in my innate desires and consider what I am rather than what I do. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The adjustment has led to a joyful experience where the act of becoming has replaced a need to arrive.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Sir Thomas More says prior to the death sentence brought by his unwillingness to compromise his self and his values, <blockquote>"You have your desire of me. What you have hunted me for is not my actions, but the thoughts of my heart. It is a long road you have opened. For first men will disclaim their hearts and presently they will have no hearts."</blockquote></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">As I face the second half of my life I hope I can strive for this sort of courage and if I discover unexpected trouble I won't make my heart ulterior as a condition for "living".</span></div></div></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-18000563028308537402011-03-18T05:20:00.000-07:002011-03-18T09:03:02.198-07:00Happiness is not about looking cool<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I've been unhappy of late. </span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The Chicago late winter will do that. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The tease of March's menagerie of lions and lambs makes Mother Nature an alcoholic parent you find pissing in the new baseball glove she just bought for your birthday.</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I've also been unhappy because of a 3 month span of trying to sell myself to a profession I thought I left so I could accommodate my wife's hopes.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">My wife is from the East Coast and with the birth of our son she has been hoping to be closer to family. Her sister lives in Boston so I looked for jobs there. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I've worked in what is known as <a href="http://www.apg.org.uk/">"Account Planning"</a> for 10 years and about 3 years ago landed a job in a medical marketing agency. I never thought I'd enjoy the B2B nature of this market but took the job due to the scarcity of our new economy and have loved it.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">My love stems from the people I work with and the information we get to work with. We are geeks. A land of misfit toys. </span></div><div><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">A cardiologist with a latex allergy who works deciphering clinical trials. </span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">A flinty former punk-queen who left journalism to be a scientific writer and now mines data for new opportunities. </span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">A PharmD who has a weather station on his condo roof as a hobby and prides himself on having followers in Japan who tune into his web-site to check the Uptown barometer.</span></li></ul></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">We aren't cool but we annotate our data (we have to due to the multiple rounds of copy clearance we have to face).</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The ideas we share seem intrinsic. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">It is the secret of pharmaceutical marketing where you have clients who are Ph.Ds in things like bio-chemistry and therefore come to see what is real not by what is asserted with personality but proven with evidence.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">It is a different type of selling and, although selling can suck, it doesn't suck as hard as my other 7 years in planning because it doesn't demand I pretend knowledge I don't have.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">But my recent striving has been towards consumer agencies again and in my 3 years away much has changed and,in my mind, these changes are as illogical and disappointing as a Chicago March blizzard. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The driver of change is the multiple communication channels we have now. Various agencies sell themselves as prophets of the Interwebs with their trademarked social-media-strategic-models (usually using the term "friend" as a predicate) that are touted as the scriptural cure for a media agnostic environment. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The high priests of this religion are the Account Planners. I've written about the dangers of this clerical affiliation <a href="http://chuckoconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/job-vs-vocation.html">here</a> and <a href="http://chuckoconnor.blogspot.com/2011/02/digital-native-vs-digital-immigrant-or.html">here</a>. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">And because I've been looking to be ordained again in the church of consumerism I've been unhappy. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I think the reason seems to be that the priest of this religion is so busy trying to convince himself (and his congregation) what it takes to be happy he has to live in the past, touting his agency's capabilities, or predict the future using selective information to confirm the bias towards his agency's capabilities; it just doesn't make the world a happy place.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Not surprisingly, I didn't make the cut at either agency. I think being a "Charlie in the Box" was not "Out of the Box" in the right way to properly anticipate I could offer the right kind of ulterior communion. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">This reminded me of a <a href="http://happydays.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/happy-like-god/">New York Times Blog</a> I read a few years back. It was written by philosophy professor <a href="http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/faculty.aspx?id=10262">Simon Critchley</a> of <a href="http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/">The New School of Social Research</a>. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">(An aside - one of the ways I've tried to better work with the clinical data I have to communicate is by reading philosophy so I might spot logical fallacies and sharpen my critical thinking. This new interest seems like it may have been the cause to at least one of the reasons my reentry to the church of consumerism failed. It seems the "VP of Human Nature" at a big firm decided after a 30 minute conversation with me I wouldn't be a "doer" because I was too "philosophical" -- I would have loved to ask her what the attributes of "doer" are so I could fathom her antecedent arguments but . . . you get the point -- there is a pretense to the public intellectual about the Account Planning profession witnessed by this woman's job title which in reality doesn't operate as anything more than packaging). </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The blog talks about happiness and the author hints that it is found in intrinsic experience when he writes, </span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">"</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Happiness is not quantitative or measurable and it is not the object of any science, old or new. It cannot be gleaned from empirical surveys or programmed into individuals through a combination of behavioral therapy and anti-depressants. If it consists in anything, then I think that happiness is this </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">feeling of existence</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">, this sentiment of momentary self-sufficiency that is bound up with the experience of time."</span></span></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px;">Sadly, I think most consumer advertising misses this while asserting to be expert in it and I think it is why I'm glad I didn't make the cut. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px;">I get to stay on the island of misfit toys and find intrinsic joy in the relationships I have rather than pretending I hold the secret to unlocking the happiness of future relationships with a "gameification" strategy (yes that is the latest trend title within the Account Planning world).</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px;">Jackie is supportive and understands that happiness wrought is an intimate thing and can't be created with pretense to biased interpretations of past success or self-centered assertions to future gains.</span></span></div></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px;">I'm glad we can get back to living in the moment rather than thinking that we need to position ourselves to be ride the next trend towards the future.</span></span></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-26597586554290474582011-03-16T10:48:00.001-07:002011-03-16T10:50:15.643-07:00The Skeptic in the RoomMost people think I am an asshole due to my opinions and therefore <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=player_embedded">this might be my new anthem</a>.<br /><br />H/T to PZChuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-62523056487970842232011-03-16T05:30:00.000-07:002011-03-17T05:52:22.872-07:00Job Vs. VocationIs your job your vocation? Mine isn't. <div><br /></div><div>I've worked for the past 10 years in advertising as an Account Planner. That's been my job. </div><div><br /></div><div>The past year I've gotten back to my vocation, playwriting. </div><div><br /></div><div>I've come to see the difference between a job and a vocation because even though my job title is a Group Planning Director; I now work in scientific communications and promote regulated science and therefore no longer need to entertain the idea that the pseudo-science driving most consumer advertising "insight" is real. I work more as a scientific communications strategist working within strict guidelines and the limits of science rather than the "science" of account planning. <a href="http://www.trendwatching.com/briefing/">See this for an example of said account planning "science". </a> </div><div><br /></div><div>I've also gotten back to practicing my first vocation, playwriting, by becoming a network playwright at Chicago Dramatists Theater and understand the vast difference between creativity and advertising. </div><div><br /></div><div>Creativity tries to solve cultural problems that seem apparent.</div><div><br /></div><div>Consumer advertising (or branding, or changing the conversation, or motivating talk between brands and people, or disrupting category conventions) invents problems to motivate corporate profits. </div><div><br /></div><div>The former demands introspection, intellectualism, an appreciation for others while concerning oneself with the history of great ideas. </div><div><br /></div><div>The latter demands jargon often based on ill-defined <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau">portmanteau</a> and a pair of <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelholden/5455551030/">hipster eye-glasses. </a></div><div><br /></div><div>I was drawn to the field of planning because the guy I worked for during a survival job stint between theater gigs ten years ago at a big Chicago ad agency was smart and kind.</div><div><br /></div><div>I thought that he represented a job that invited an opportunity for humanism in business. </div><div><br /></div><div>What I didn't understand was that this boss is what marketing people would call an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier">"outlier"</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>He offered support when I tired of auditioning and financed my MBA while talking to me of things like Shakespeare and the history of mathematics. </div><div><br /></div><div>Subsequent planning jobs have put me into situations where similarly smart and humane people in the practice have often longed to do something else. </div><div><br /></div><div>One boss who hired me primarily because I was a playwright told me during a particularly frustrating day that he was looking to deter his daughter from pursuing advertising and how he wished he still sold skis in Aspen.</div><div><br /></div><div>Another boss said to me when she was leaving the ad agency where she hired me, "In theory, planning is interesting . . ." (she expressed to me that in reality she probably would enjoy being a Pilates instructor). </div><div><div><br /></div><div>The person I know who projects an air of necessity within account planning (and seems to enjoy it in almost a manic way) has admitted to never reading anything other than <a href="http://www.good.is/">Good Magazine</a> and likes to collect non-traditional versions of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_collateral">marketing collateral</a>. He also expresses chagrin with a hint of self-deprecating pride when people comment on his combo outfit made up of <a href="http://hubpages.com/hub/how-to-find-indie-t-shirts">ironic t-shirts he buys from Target </a>over button down dress shirts. </div><div><br /></div><div>He also repositioned an agency around a "social media theory" based on what he admitted was bad math to validate his opinion that brands that make friends are successful. When I pointed out to him that his theory seems to enable the post-hoc fallacy (mistaking correlation for causation) he responded by sending me to his slide share deck (because sharing ideas is cool) but didn't realize that the content in the deck validated the reality he enjoys the post-hoc fallacy.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><a href="http://www.22squared.com/">I'd suggest you check out any major ad agency web-site right now</a> and ask yourself if the personalties projected there don't remind you of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World">Soma-stuffed idiots from Huxley's dystopian vision in "Brave New World"</a> (for those band planners reading this, "Brave New World" is a novel written by a man named Aldous Huxley who looked to understand applied ethics using the genre of science fiction. A novel is a book which is sort of like a trend-report only longer with no pictures. And genre means a type of story, sort of like the intellect's version of an SKU.)</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm grateful for my job and I like many of the people I work with now that I get to deal with real rather than invented science but have revisited the world of consumer advertising recently, by joining a couple of account planning groups on social media sites, and realize that the joy planners have with their fuzzy reality is something I think is unreal.</div><div><br /></div><div>I can only hope that those who celebrate the efficacy of account planning will be made to validate their european eye-glasses and show how their <a href="http://socialmediaecosystem.blogspot.com/">trend mining into the social media eco-system</a> actually leads to real results. </div><div><br /></div><div>I have a feeling however that it will be exposed for the hucksterism it is and be regulated to the world of dousing and homeopathy. </div><div><br /></div><div>I expect an ironic t-shirt coming to your nearest Target to announce this. </div></div></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-32889285893276758932011-03-13T07:27:00.000-07:002011-03-13T07:47:26.533-07:00Reinforcing Taboos Worries Me<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">What makes "New Atheism" novel is not its atheism but its desire to hold religious truth assertions up to the same method of higher criticism we hold other truth assertions. </span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Sam Harris makes mention of this when he says, </span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">"</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">It is taboo in our society to criticize a persons religious faith... these taboos are offensive, deeply unreasonable, but worse than that, they are getting people killed. This is really my concern. My concern is that our religions, the diversity of our religious doctrines, is going to get us killed. I'm worried that our religious discourse- our religious beliefs are ultimately incompatible with civilization."</span></span></blockquote></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">It is the willingness to address taboo due to founded worry in the actions of believers that is "new" in "New Atheism". When I investigated Harris's arguments I recognized I agreed with this and wondered why I called myself religious. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/having-religion-faith.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Andrew Sullivan, a gay Roman Catholic political conservative</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> (I wonder if the accidents of the Eucharist and material dualism of transubstantiation makes one proud of such incoherent titles), </span><a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/03/british_2011_census"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">tries to make a case for the defense of faith as distinct from religion by linking to an Economist article decrying the British Humanist Society's campaign to get the non-religious to report with honesty their non-belief. </span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">He seems to only reinforce the deep entrenchment of the taboo against religious criticism. The article seems to suggest that there is a form of bullying even in the most mild form of suggesting that non-belief in one's childhood religion is in reality non-belief. It isn't. It is an invitation to honesty and fact.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The fact that an atheist journalist would dismiss the distinction seems very much evidence of a need to reinforce taboos and It is worrying.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/4364/record_number_of_stealth_creationism_bills_introduced_in_2011/">In a related article, the reason this type of acquiescence to taboo is troubling can be seen in the actions of the Republican party and their committed anti-science efforts with legislative power. </a></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(24, 24, 24); line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Not criticizing privileged myth encourages ignorance and pretending that religion and faith are somehow distinct is dishonest. </span></span></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-31199793146038357642011-03-12T06:27:00.001-08:002011-03-13T07:27:08.980-07:00Tweeting, The Loss of Surprise, Modesty and Common Enterprise<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">My friend </span><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=756539428"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Lori</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> shared a column yesterday by </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/opinion/11brooks.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-TMM-031111-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">David Brooks entitled "The Modesty Manifesto"</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">.</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Brooks's point is that our current social ills might be an effect caused by our inflated sense of our selves. I balked at this notion at first but changed my mind. I think Brooks is right.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">My mind was changed when I considered his premise relative to another day within the advertising community and the adoration for the increase in unoriginal observation facilitated by Twitter and Facebook status updates.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I remember when being "followed" was a sign of paranoia or a federal investigation not a pretense to importance based on 140 characters.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Brooks writes, </span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">"</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">In short, there’s abundant evidence to suggest that we have shifted a bit from a culture that emphasized self-effacement — I’m no better than anybody else, but nobody is better than me — to a culture that emphasizes self-expansion."</span></span></blockquote></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">My sensitivities to this may be enhanced by the surfeit of pride exhibited by social media strategists who speak of consumer "eco-systems" in tones that can only honestly be defined as pseudo-intellectual. I mean when did "people-pleasing" become an avenue for insight into human nature? My survival job too often sacrifices intellectual rumination and deep thought to the acronym adorned altar of social media. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The providing philosophy of the industry is predicated on normalizing the self-erosion found in popularity contests. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Which of course is driven by the fallacy that everyone is an individual as long as everyone's individuality mirrors the individuality of everyone else.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">It seems that the level of scrutiny that empowered the parachute pants rage in my teens is now the considered form of self and social reflection. Fads will always be a constant in our lives because we are social animals and our evolved survival instinct makes us want to be accepted by the herd but today the time horizon for fad adoption and rejection is measured in hours rather than months. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Does the lack of privacy we invite with every social experience we encounter lead us to a damaged sense of modesty which deprives us of the level of idiosyncratic joy that inspired the first parachute pants wearer to don his pseudo-military garb and "pop and lock" at the back-to-school dance?</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I love social media and am addicted to Facebook and have a Twitter account (which I use as a news feed mostly) but think it might be healthy for our culture to investigate the encroachment on modesty and privacy these technologies have and how the instantaneous publishing possibilities they render keep us from paying attention when new ideas demand reflection rather than tweeting.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I was researching depression yesterday which led me to listen to Nirvana and that reminded me of their acoustic gig on MTV where </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKT1P7x_Pzo"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Cobain finished the set with the Leadbelly tune "Where did you Sleep Last Night". </span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> I YouTubed the performance and watched it.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Two things struck me. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Everyone in the audience was staring at this grunge god croaking out a folk-song about murder (no one was tweeting) and the performance made me long for the time when an artist might make the "F-it" adjustment and share a real risk based in a long-held private love that informed his entertainment (but might have contradicted his expected brand image). </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The former observation is simply a recognition of the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">innovation adoption curve</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> with MTV as an artifact but the latter seems to me evidence of why I think instantaneous reach for everyone is troubling. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Cobain loved folk music and if you listen beneath the dropped D tunings and distortion peddles of his grunge hits you will hear the same melodious rumble that drives great story songs. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">That love demands time, awe, and modesty enjoyed in a very private space where the inspiration for the affection can become personalized with rumination. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">I don't think we have the same sense of slowness today but instead are addicted to the speed at which we can </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">emoticon</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> our every nano-second and somehow think this is allowing us an honest understanding of our selves. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">My industry of course encourages this behavior because the shape of the flock and its density is all that matters when considering the price of bird-feed. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">But the thing we are missing when chasing after all of our tweets is that true evolutionary adaptation happens at the local level. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Richard Dawkins speaks of this rather well in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" </span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">using an example of </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH-groCeKbE"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">starling flock behavior.</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">From the outside it looks like starling group flight is the work of a grand choreographer and the beauty of its design is rooted in the sameness of its constituents. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">It isn't. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The flock only occurs because </span><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=U8AFxmc76rcC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=dawkins+starling+flocks&source=bl&ots=nzt7GJwc9l&sig=XXKsUbzfJQRTO8ZO4INlVgffqYs&hl=en&ei=TX57Td6QKcOErQHezcnfBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">local biological laws</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"> within individual birds correspond to the environment in such a way to create the flock. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The real beauty is the individual adaptation made at the organism, even cellular level, not the product of these local laws. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">The flock of starlings that offer grand geometric predictability is predicated on an individual bird's response mechanism to her immediate surroundings. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Cobain's passionate performance was predicated on his local response to his immediate surroundings. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Both adaptations take an appreciation of time working on individuals that seems ill-afforded in our current media space.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">When I consider the emphasis we place on our personal uniqueness and desire to be followed I worry about our common good and the ideas we miss for the desire to be the first to announce how special we are.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Or as Brooks says, </span></span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">"</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Citizenship, after all, is built on an awareness that we are not all that special but are, instead, enmeshed in a common enterprise."</span></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"></span></span></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-46560766709065688342011-03-09T08:29:00.001-08:002011-03-09T08:34:58.044-08:00Religion and Dissonance TheoryMy latest interest is <a href="http://chuckoconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/i-was-wrong.html">dissonance theory</a>. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237.html">Phil Zuckerman has a great piece at Huffington Post that does a nice job of illustrating the theory at work.</a><br /><br />He focuses on the contradicting practice and theory of modern American Christian theology and its seeming hatred towards the positions taken by the man, Jesus, believers call their "Lord and Savior". <br /><br />He illuminates how this hatred isn't really a conscience contempt but rather it reveals a confirmation bias that ameliorates the prosperity American Evangelicals enjoy which would be anathema to the eschatology of Jesus's 1st C. Apocalyptic Judaism.<br /><br />Zuckerman: <blockquote>"Evangelicals don't exactly hate Jesus -- as we've provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him. They can't stop thanking him. And yet, as for Jesus himself -- his core values of peace, his core teachings of social justice, his core commandments of goodwill -- most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain."</blockquote>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-84284180860249765172011-03-09T08:03:00.000-08:002011-03-10T05:03:30.253-08:00If Social Media is High School I need a Guidance CounselorMy wife is an introvert and I am a misanthrope so in this age of social media that means she is often AWOL on common forms of communication and I am hostile.<br /><br /><a href="http://smartblogs.com/socialmedia/2011/03/08/10-tips-for-social-media-introverts/">SmartBlog on Social Media has a recent post on 10 tips for social media introverts. </a>This trips off some <a href="http://chuckoconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/i-was-wrong.html">dissonance</a> for me. I had hopes that social media meant that I didn't need to worry about the pretty people and the nerds might win.<br /><br />For the love of Kurt Cobain's shot-gun blasted ghost can't we all just enjoy flying our individual freak flags rather than using the creative power of social media to conform?<br /><br />Here's what they say:<strong><br /></strong><ol><li><strong>Pick your playground.</strong> Decide how you want to position yourself on the social media platforms you wish to participate in. Do you want to keep your professional and personal lives separate? Position yourself for where you want to be.</li><li><strong>Wear the uniform.</strong> Stake out your name on various social media platforms. If you have a common name, consider how you will distinguish yourself. How will you brand yourself on social media? Think tag lines, background colors, photographs, videos and links.</li><li><strong>Realize that you’re not alone</strong>. On each platform, find your family and friends for personal interactions and customers and colleagues for business engagement. Reach out to them on these platforms and personalize your communications. This is an easy way to develop a social media tribe and catch up at the same time.<span id="more-15004"></span></li><li><strong>Mind your manners</strong>. Social media is small talk on a public online platform that has a very long memory. Remember people’s birthdays to show you care. Comment on people’s walls, the social media equivalent of chit-chat. But don’t overshare — even your mother doesn’t want to know everything you’re doing.</li><li><strong>Learn the lingo</strong>. Remember how the cool kids had their own verbal shorthand? So do social media networks such as Twitter. It’s just the social media version of pig Latin. Also, note that some social media platforms allow <a href="http://heidicohen.com/does-your-medium-match-your-marketing-message/" target="_blank">many-to-many communications</a> in addition to one-to-one and one-to-many.</li><li><strong>Join extracurricular activities</strong>. Like in high school, here’s where the action is. This is the path to joining the in-crowd. Among the places to look are Facebook fan pages, LinkedIn Groups and <a href="http://heidicohen.com/twitter-chat-guide/" target="_blank">Twitter Chats</a>. Here, I strongly recommend <a href="http://heidicohen.com/usguys-social-media-case-study/" target="_blank">#UsGuys</a> and #TweetDiner since they’re welcoming to new members.</li><li><strong>Share your knowledge</strong>. Like helping others during study hall, here’s where you can contribute to the community and show what you know. While no one likes a show-off, social media networks have the goal of sharing useful information and entertaining content. For example, provide insights on LinkedIn Questions and Answers, or add your feedback on ratings and review sites like <a href="http://www.tripadvisor.com/" target="_blank">TripAdvisor</a>.</li><li><strong>Pay it forward</strong>. Get over yourself! Social media’s about the community, not you. To this end, help others with targeted information, retweet other people’s more interesting tweets, and comment on other people’s blogs. Also, think about recommending former and current colleagues, staff and bosses on LinkedIn.</li><li><strong>Be the star of your social media story</strong>. Use videos and photographs to build an online version of yourself that’s more engaging and outgoing. Invite others to engage with you and your business.</li><li><strong>Make a date to get together.</strong> Unlike all of the above-mentioned actions that you can do from the comfort of your desk, this means actually getting out from behind your computer and meeting people in real life. Use <a href="http://www.meetup.com/" target="_blank">MeetUp</a> to find other like-minded people and activities that are fun and helpful to your business. Meeting your social media buddies face to face is a great way to strengthen relationships.</li></ol>In fairness, these seem like good ideas to play nice on the 'net but what if High School was a time where popularity seemed elusive and bred contempt? I guess if you are like me then you will have to wait for the 10 tips for social media misfits.Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-45472066025488819312011-03-08T05:55:00.000-08:002011-03-08T06:25:27.418-08:00Why I Love the Theatre - Its Humanism<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">When I am not expressing political or religious opinions that enflame others and alienate my friends I spend my time writing plays.</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I've had a few plays produced and have had some staged readings of other scripts and I study writing at </span></span><a href="http://www.chicagodramatists.org/home/index.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Chicago Dramatists Theater</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I also attend as much theater as I can afford to see (being the Dad of a 9 and 1/2 month old limits my time and discretionary income).</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I fell in love with the theater while in college where I experienced an interpretation of </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spalding_Gray"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Spalding Gray's </span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">adaptation of </span></span><a href="http://theater.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?res=9A0DE1D9113DF930A15757C0A960948260"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Chekhov's Rivkala's Ring</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">. I was amazed by the willingness of an actor (</span></span><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1586284060"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Jay Magee</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">, who later became my friend and mentor) to stand in an empty space and have a conversation with strangers sitting in the dark. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Theater does what no other medium can do because of its transitory reality. When it is done it is done. No two theater performances are alike and if you have ever worked on a show you will know this (for good and bad). You will also know that despite the attention the actor's receive, the entire company holds a level of mutual respect for one another that I have yet to experience anywhere else. I think this exists because without any one of the many crafts-people that conspire to create theater the transitory moments that make up its magic could not be realized. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html?emc=eta1"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">David Brooks has an interesting column today in the New York Times where he identifies the nature of humanism science is uncovering comprised of a mash-up between reason and emotion.</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> Brooks's commentary reflects for me the magic of theatre and why I am drawn to it. He writes: </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"></span></span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">"Y</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">ou get a different view of, say, human capital. Over the past few decades, we have tended to define human capital in the narrow way, emphasizing I.Q., degrees, and professional skills. Those are all important, obviously, but this research illuminates a range of deeper talents, which span reason and emotion and make a hash of both categories:</span></span></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 15px; "><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Attunement: the ability to enter other minds and learn what they have to offer.</span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Equipoise: the ability to serenely monitor the movements of one’s own mind and correct for biases and shortcomings.</span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Metis: the ability to see patterns in the world and derive a gist from complex situations.</span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Sympathy: the ability to fall into a rhythm with those around you and thrive in groups.</span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Limerence: This isn’t a talent as much as a motivation. The conscious mind hungers for money and success, but the unconscious mind hungers for those moments of transcendence when the skull line falls away and we are lost in love for another, the challenge of a task or the love of God. Some people seem to experience this drive more powerfully than others." </span></span></p></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 15px; font-family:georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif;"><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I urge you to go to the theater (or better yet work on a show) and feel the full effects of your own humanism.</span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pat.foltz"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">H/T Pat Foltz</span></a></span></p><blockquote><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.467em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pat.foltz"></a></span></p></blockquote></span>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-75358184890652162022011-03-01T04:56:00.001-08:002011-03-03T08:07:59.894-08:00I Was WrongI was wrong. How often am I willing to say that? How sincere am I when I say it? Is it an honest expression of new information gained or simply a tactic to diffuse conflict? <div><br /></div><div>When faced with flat criticism of our selves that challenges a core sense of our self-identity we experience cognitive dissonance (that spike of spite that stops agreement with oneself or others) and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkqgDoo_eZE">turns us all into Arthur Fonzerelli in our capacity to say, "I was wrong."</a><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Yesterday I listened to a podcast from the <a href="http://www.forgoodreason.org/carol_tavris_mistakes_were_made">James Randi Educational Foundation and their show "For Good Reason" with DJ Grothe where he intereviewed Carol Tavris.</a> Tavris describes dissonance theory and confirmation bias. The former being the upsetting feeling we experience when faced with criticism that contradicts our self-image and the latter being the stories we tell ourselves to wish away the upsetting feeling.</div><div><br /></div><div>Tavris also discusses tactics in conversation when faced with cognitive dissonance and how one might be tempted towards confirmation bias. What is the goal when challenging contrary ideas? Is it simply to debunk someone we disagree with or is it to alter that person's perspective so we both can find information that will afford a shared sense of knowledge? Debunking affords emotional release but often reinforces confirmation bias due to the cognitive dissonance it generates. Once again this illustrates the virtue of skepticism and how often "critical thought" can be simply criticism practiced for emotional equilibrium. Cognitive dissonance can be ameliorated by a lot of confirmation bias but the forward thrust of education is stifled because the confirmation bias one practices also creates dissonance in another which in turn leads to further confirmation bias etc ...<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>It was a good podcast and afforded me a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance where I had to wrestle with confirmation bias last night and consider how my past actions may have contradicted my desire for critical thinking.</div><br /><div>When faced with the discomfort of competing ideas it seems wise to understand the discomfort rather than reacting to it. </div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-81278441227051453172011-02-26T06:09:00.000-08:002011-03-03T07:53:10.404-08:00Faith defeats Intellectual Humility<span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/debmski-pwned-ant-trails-and-intelligent-design/">Dr. Coyne has a good post where he exposes the arrogance of Intelligent Design (ID) theory once again. </a> </span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">I am often a critic of religious thinking and I realize that makes some of my friends angry but this post by Dr. Coyne exposes the danger of how too much religious faith presents a problem to knowledge and explains my criticism (in a way). </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski">One of the leading proponents of ID is William Dembski</a> and he gets biology wrong again so he might cherry pick observations in service of his preferred religious belief. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">Dembski seems like a nice guy but his credulity is beyond reason. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><a href="http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/01/william-dembski-on-faith-healers.html">For example, he is the father of a severely autistic son and for the sake of his supernatural commitment he allowed himself and his family to be duped into an emotional manipulation by a faith healer because this superstition was recommended efficacious by his faith community. </a> He admits the damage this choice did but demands we all continue to follow his fideistic commitment to lesser degrees when wrestling with reality. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">He wishes we all would be subject to his level of credulity and ignore the foundation of health science rooted in Darwinian evolution for the sake of Christianity. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">William Dembski is an engineer and a fundamentalist Christian and a smart man but he is not an evolutionary biologist yet feels he has the authority to try to falsify known science for the sake of Jesus. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy">He is either a cynic or a dupe animating the Intelligent Design community's political campaign to over-turn Darwinian evolution because it defeats the notion of a personal creator god.</a> He fails with facts, intellectual charity and reasoning but believes he is right (and is well-funded in this belief) due to the emotional benefits Jesus belief brings. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">It is obvious to me that his assertions have no intellectual humility because he wishes to be an authority on a subject he has no formal training in simply because he has made an emotional commitment to a creation myth with societal privileged protection. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">It frightens me because it undermines the course of intelligence in intellectual humility which can make us all better for a faith commitment that makes the believer feel good despite its dubious claims on reality (like Mr. Dembski's experience with the faith healer and his son). </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">It also angers me because when I challenge the theological assertions by believers (e.g. The phenomenon of an invisible intelligent agent known as "The Holy Spirit" that becomes part of a human's reasoning faculties when an acceptance of Jesus is entered) I am told that I don't know the theology I am citing. My inexpert stance obviates my criticism despite the fact I am simply relating the theology taught to me when I was a Christian but </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">Christians have no problem avoiding the intellectual charity they demand of critics when looking to challenge ideas that hurt their thesis.</span></span></span></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-84074884048726023152011-02-21T10:29:00.000-08:002011-02-21T11:07:07.637-08:00A Closing Argument on the Supernaturlist's claim to "Evidence"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">A commenter named clamat over at </span><a href="http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=14230#comments"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"Common Sense Atheism"</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> added something to a comment string I'm participating in that I find to be brilliant writing. </span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It creates a perfect argument as to why supernatural-centered thinkers fail to impress me. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">He frames his POV as a closing argument to a court case because a fundamentalist Christian "</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(17, 17, 17); line-height: 22px; font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;"><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">challenged the atheist to present a compelling, rational, and evidential case for your views."</span></i></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I recommend reading through it and wrestling with the ideas therein.</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Here it is:</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(17, 17, 17); line-height: 22px; font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:14px;"><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "></p><blockquote><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Ladies and gentlemen of the jury;</span></p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">You understand the cases being presented by both sides. Your duty is to weigh the evidence supporting each case, and determine whether that evidence satisfies the respective burdens of proof.</span></p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">[dramatic pause]</span></p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We all agree that the Natural exists. When we look outward from the tiny little space we occupy, the Natural appears to be…well…pretty much everything. The Natural stretches out in space and in time as far as we have the ability to measure. Every element of our existence appears to be built on the natural, from clay bricks down to charm quarks. From our daily bread to our nightly dreams, the immediate explanations of virtually all of our experiences appear to be Natural. Indeed, the progress of Man is measured by the ever-increasing set of things for which once we did not know the Natural cause, but now do. This includes the “intangible” qualities that define us as people. For example, its appearing more and more that love really </span><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">is</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">a matter of chemistry.</span></p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In short, the Natural exists on a scope so brain-boggling that we humans, in the infancy of our species, are only just beginning to understand how very </span><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">little</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> we know about it. The evidence supporting the case for the Natural is so ubiquitous, so omnipresent, that only a madman would deny it, and it satisfies any standard of proof.</span></p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">But </span><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">some</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> among us claim there is something “beyond” or “outside” or “other” than the Natural. And not only this. These people claim that this thing is actually </span><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">greater</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">than the Natural. Super-natural. Even more amazing, </span><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">some</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> people claim this Supernatural expects the people living on this lonely speck of dust in a backwater of the universe to live our lives in </span><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">very</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> specific ways, and will inflict all sorts of punishments on us if we don’t.</span></p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">On its face, this is a pretty amazing claim, isn’t it? Doesn’t it demand an extraordinarily high burden of proof? I mean, if you, ladies and gentlemen, were sitting in a criminal case you would be told you could convict only if the evidence showed “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accused was guilty. Some call this the standard of “moral certainty.” It’s a very high standard. But surely this claim of the Supernatural– which some people think would convict </span><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">every single one of us</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> of a crime — demands an even greater standard of proof?</span></p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">So what evidence do the Supernaturalists offer to satisfy their burden?</span></p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">They don’t offer any evidence of the Supernatural that can be directly seen, heard, tasted, smelled, touched, or measured in any way. Indeed you’ve heard expert testimony that it’s not </span><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">possible</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> to measure the Supernatural scientifically </span><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">because</span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">it is Supernatural. This isn’t evidence; it’s an explanation for why there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, doesn’t it sound just a little too convenient to you?</span></p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">They can’t say where the Supernatural exists; they can’t point it out on a map. They claim that the Supernatural “created” and affects the Natural, but don’t offer any evidence of a mechanism or how the process actually </span><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">works</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. Lots of times, they don’t even really say what it </span><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">is</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, and instead say what it is not, using words like “immaterial” and “timeless.” Do you actually understand what these words mean, ladies and gentlemen, because I sure don’t. Whatever they mean, one thing is clear: They are not evidence.</span></p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">So, I ask you again – where is their evidence? Saying “You don’t know capital-E Everything” over and over again is not evidence. Saying “but it’s </span><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">possible</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">” over and over again isn’t evidence. Saying “but I’d really, really like it to be true” over and over again is not evidence.</span></p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The closest they come is to offer “philosophic” evidence. Now, we lawyers are accused all the time of speaking unclearly on purpose, of using jargon and big words to confuse things and make juries see things that aren’t there. And, ladies and gentlemen, I must admit, sometimes we’re guilty. But don’t the Supernaturalists take the cake? I mean, you remember the witnesses say things like “the impossibility of an actual infinite” and “irreducible complexity,” right? This sounded awful smart, I admit, but I ask you again, do those things actually </span><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">mean</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> anything to you? Is this</span><b style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><i style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">evidence</span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">?</span></p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that it is not. I submit the Supernaturalists have not offered any evidence at all, and simply want you to take it on their say-so. To take it on faith. Don’t let them get away with it.</span></p></blockquote><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "></p></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(17, 17, 17); line-height: 22px; font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:14px;"><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"></span></span></p></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(17, 17, 17); line-height: 22px; font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:14px;"><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"></span></span></p></span></div></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-87715187173153202972011-02-21T09:55:00.000-08:002011-03-03T07:50:56.634-08:00Creative Handles and Creativity<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">One of my most creative and insightful friends, </span><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pat.foltz"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Pat Foltz</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, sent me </span><a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/151/mayhem-on-madison-avenue.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">a link</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> which shows once again how the creative industry may deny itself creative thinkers by over-simplifying creative challenges. </span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Corporate creativity (e.g. advertising and marketing) when it works really well emulates the creative arts (e.g. Theater, Music, Dance etc . . .) because it sees itself as a craft which demands intellectual orientation; rather than as an automation that is best enabled by logistical organization.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">For example, the latest theory in advertising is that creative solutions will best be wrought by professionals who grew up with the Internet. This theory recognizes communications has gone digital and therefore young people should have the greatest facility for digital communications due to the inference that they grew up with it. The theory offers intuitive appeal because we know that psychology follows the theory of evolution where environmental pressures define traits selected for future success but I struggle with the implications because the theory folds into itself a concern for craftsmanship with what appears to be an automated solution. I think this due to how the industry defines the theory relative to the people working in the industry. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The segment handle to organize the theory reaches for superficial considerations and I question the validity of it due to this. <br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Young people who are supposed to lead the creative and strategic charge in advertising are called</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Helvetica;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> "Digital Natives". Those not age appropriate are known as "Digital Immigrants". One's citizenship in the land of Digital (Native vs. Immigrant) </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">is rooted in one's age. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Helvetica;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Helvetica;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The thinking behind this organization I fear is too general to be logical. </span><a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/151/mayhem-on-madison-avenue.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">A recent article in Fast Company exposes the generalization. It does this by both promoting the argument and defeating the thinking surrounding digital citizenship with its description of the creative demands digital communications invites.</span></a></span></span></div><div><div style=";font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">For one to say that the Millennial Generation are "Digital Natives" because they grew up in the age of the Internet is equivalent to saying all Librarians are quiet and shy because they work in a silent environment. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">A person's age relative to media is predictive of their creativity with that media as much as any creative person's age is relative to a problem that needs solving; incidental at best. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The Fast Company article articulates this well when they say, "(Digital Natives) need to behave more like improv actors - 'story building' instead of 'story telling" - so they can respond in real time to an unpredictable audience." </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">It seems that digital "citizenship" has less to do with age and more to do with mindset. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I'd love to hear your thoughts.</span></span></div></div></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-1725265324477367862011-02-20T02:18:00.000-08:002011-02-20T02:49:32.415-08:00Beliefs I've evicted and some new tenantsI've been examining my beliefs to identify those that have proven to be free-loaders; ideas that don't "pay rent" (beliefs that fail to lead to predictive realities).<div><br /></div><div>Here's a list of beliefs I've evicted followed by new tenants I will further evaluate to see if they pay their future fair share.</div><div><ol><li>Free markets make free people has been replaced with the more predictive belief that free markets must exploit portions of its population or the population of other countries to maximize economic profit</li><li>A middle class is a by-product of Capitalist competition has been replaced with the belief that a middle-class is a result of Socialist policies that allow workers to own their labor</li><li>Subjective conscience is evidence of non-material realities has been replaced with the belief that subjective conscience is best understood by seeing it as a combination of brain chemistry interacting with one's external environment</li><li>Spiritual terms as actual realities has been replaced with the belief that spiritual language is a metaphor leveraging present culture to describe #3</li><li>A requirement for career satisfaction is that one's primary source of income needs to correspond closely with one's passion has been replaced with the belief that a job can subsidize one's true vocation</li></ol><div>More to come . . .</div></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-27494278454096561612011-02-18T12:19:00.000-08:002011-02-18T13:04:55.162-08:00Making Beliefs Pay Rent<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UTIgO77y1k4/TV7bj46_g0I/AAAAAAAAALc/wrWzfc2J45E/s1600/The_Rent_Is_Too_Damn_Highw1oStandard.png"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UTIgO77y1k4/TV7bj46_g0I/AAAAAAAAALc/wrWzfc2J45E/s200/The_Rent_Is_Too_Damn_Highw1oStandard.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5575134798352974658" border="0" /></a><br /><span class="author"><a href="http://yudkowsky.net/"></a></span><span class="date" style="font-family:arial;"><a href="http://yudkowsky.net/">Eliezer Yudowsky of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence</a> has a tantalizing notion I hope to practice further. He calls it <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_anticipated_experiences/">making your beliefs pay rent</a>. His simple description is as follows, </span><blockquote style="font-family:arial;"><span class="date">"</span>Any belief (the mental state in which an individual holds a proposition to be true) should restrict which experiences to anticipate, to be potentially useful and thereby <b>pay rent</b> and earn its keep in your mind, so to speak. If a belief does <i>not</i> affect what you anticipate experiencing—if the world would look exactly the same whether the belief is true or whether it is false—then how could you possibly <i>tell</i> if it were false? And if there's no circumstance under which you would be able to notice your belief were false, then why do you believe it <i>now</i>?"</blockquote><span style="font-family:arial;"> This principle illuminates my vague notion that there is something wrong with my past respect for intuition as master of reason. I used to be drawn to big personalities who said bold things and referenced vague language that seemed to access intuitive revealed knowledge.<br /><br />I remember one boss who would encourage those that worked for him by declaring that each one of us were forces of nature who held vast creative power to change the world.<br /><br />This is good rhetoric but the reality is we would have been more comfortable working together if we admitted the limits of our powers and sought to maximize our efficiencies by recognizing that simply being human does not give one phenomenological abilities to bend the laws of space-time.</span> <span style="font-family:arial;"><br /><br />I think the belief we had "force of nature" powers was not true and probably was a product of our inferiority complexes and our boss's fear.<br /><br />I also have become uncomfortable with creative folks I meet either in my day job in advertising or my vocation in play-writing who invoke a devotion to irrationality as a way of understanding reality.<br /><br />A few folks I know have said recently that logic is good as far as it is practiced in science but within living life one must surrender to something other than logic (they never say what exactly, maybe they mean intuition) as the compass for understanding truth.<br /><br />I recognize the sentiment to embrace the power of now by sounding my barbaric yawp over the rooftops of the world (because I've sung this song of myself in the past, usually accompanied by anxiety or nervousness) but no longer see that expression as a disciplined way of seeking after what is true.<br /><br />It seems more like an energetic blast of belief to rationalize what I'd like to be true.</span> <span style="font-family:arial;"><br /><br />The beliefs we hold might allow us to enjoy emotional experiences based on their imagined causative links to real experiences but if the belief does not anticipate an actual external experience then the rent it is costing to take up brain space is, to quote <a href="http://www.rentistoodamnhigh.org/id44.html">Jimmy McMillan</a>, "too damn high!"</span> <span style="font-family:arial;"><br /><br />I'm going to blog further about what I discover when practicing this principle.<br /><br />I can see now that the first lesson it teaches me is that what I held as beliefs are not true and the intelligence I thought I had, I don't.<br /></span>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-44727085932373757962011-02-15T05:21:00.000-08:002011-02-15T06:04:06.874-08:00Evangelical AtheismTwo days ago I was told that my blogging and reading and posting on atheism and/or the real conflicts between religion and reason in our culture is the existential equivalence of Christian Evangelism. <div><br /></div><div>It was done as a dismissive criticism. It fits the epistemic game of offering rhetorical equivalence in terms between ideas to damn an action by aligning it with its apposite. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is the current apologetic tactic of sophisticated Christians who deconstruct the meaning of "faith" to show that "faith" is practiced by all, even those who choose skepticism. </div><div><br /></div><div>It seems silly to me because it is rooted in shame (which always seems silly to me) but also because it needs to make its argument by risking equivocation to provide some perceived equivalence between skeptical criticism of supernatural "truth" and the promotion with certainty of supernatural "truth".</div><div><br /></div><div>The accusation upset me.<br /><div><div><br /></div><div>I was upset not because I disagree that there is an "evangelical" quality to those of us who once were held sway by religious nonsense and have come to see that critical thinking is a more sustainable and moral choice but because the accusation was so poorly reasoned.</div><div><br /></div><div>I guess in a simplistic way anyone who has a concern for a given topic, follows thought leaders in that topic, writes about it on his or her free time and disseminates this information would be considered "evangelical". </div><div><br /></div><div>The person who made this claim on another occasion talked to me about the liberating effects heavy marijuana consumption has and how America would end their trade deficit if we stopped subsidizing farmers and instead legalized pot so that it could become the international cash crop it deserves to be. I thought it was an interesting point but didn't dismiss it by saying, "Man, you sound like some Evangelical Christian trying to convert me."</div><div><br /></div><div>The online etymology dictionary traces the term "evangelical" to the 16th century meaning one who spreads the Gospel. Gospel in that context is proper and it relates to a specific authority on reality with the aim of conversion to that authority.</div><div><br /></div><div>My aim is not conversion. I don't want anyone to believe anything I say simply on my authority or the authority of my character or the authority of any inquiry I make into belief or atheistic argument I entertain.</div><div><br /></div><div>I want people to reason. </div><div><br /></div><div>I would imagine people would enjoy reasoning.</div><div><br /></div><div>It also seems that what people dislike about me through this blog is the tone I choose when communicating the ideas I have. I'm told that my point of view promotes my "rightness" at the expense of others "wrongness" and the position I'm suggested to take is a laissez faire association to ideas that endorses either the "rightness" of all ideas or the celebration of another's subjective unreal assertions because that makes life beautiful.</div><div><br /></div><div>I find those arguments unconvincing. Here's why:</div><div><ol><li>I aspire to be a writer. The writer's job is to be critical of assertions and promote ideas that give insight into truth not subjective comfortable belief </li><li>I was emotionally and psychologically harmed by theologies that suggested self-hatred is a sacramental holiness and see these theologies continuing to animate the need for supernatural belief today. I think it moral to help others who may be trapped in self-punishing premises to realize that there is little logic or reason to the belief they are held sway by invisible forces</li><li>I have a 9 month old son who I need to protect from religious people who will try to convince him that his opinions or desires are evidence of his depravity or weakness and if only he give over to authority he will be safe</li><li>80% of the US population denies or misunderstands the mechanism of natural selection within Darwinian evolution and in this misunderstanding seeks to interfere with science education because it is onerous to their beliefs</li><li>George Bush's gut level thinking regarding weapons of mass destruction became the electorate's approved method for international politics because there seemed to be an adoration of instinct over analysis</li><li>The major theologies of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism contradict one another but all lay claim to Jerusalem thereby stoking nuclear intentions in the Middle East and even leading many people to believe a nuclear incident there would be "good" (based on their theologies)</li><li>The fastest growing Christianity in Africa is Pentecostalism which has led parents to accuse their children of witchcraft (sanctioned by the bible) and has led these parents to set their children on fire or have them drink battery acid</li><li>Traditional Islam demands that a woman's clitoris be cut out and her vagina sewn shut to ensure that she is a virgin on her wedding night</li><li>The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has been uncovered as an institution that used its wealth and influence to collude to keep child rapists protected within its walls and continues to obfuscate on these crimes despite evidence that criminal collusion occurred at the highest levels of its clerical authority. It also has intellectual influence over the fastest growing economic populations in South America and continues to obstruct women's reproductive rights despite evidence that a tight correlation exists between poverty alleviation and a woman's right to choose if she will be pregnant</li><li>Pastor Rick Warren of the Purpose Driven Life (NYT Best Seller) has supported the Ugandan legislation that would make homosexuality and colluding to keep homosexuals safe a capital crime worthy of the death penalty </li></ol><div>So yes, I guess I am an Evangelical but to associate me with an Evangelical religious person (specifically Christian) is to ignore the facts we are facing as human beings.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>I will continue to be Evangelical in my atheism and I have very little shame in it.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-91212083389775012332011-02-13T07:54:00.000-08:002011-02-13T08:54:35.976-08:00The danger of apostasy<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">It seems to me that most people maintain whatever religious association they have not because they experiment with their theology to test its veracity against reality but because the shared ideas that make up that theology allow for social acceptance.</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I think it is why people like me who call for proof of the claims made by their former religions are seen as mean-spirited, hostile, bigots or crazy.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">We've broken the rules of polite social engagement.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">A recent article in the New Yorker detailing Paul Haggis's apostasy from Scientology is a great object lesson in what transpires between people when the metaphors that make up belief are questioned for their reality.</span></a></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The apostate's sanity or honesty are called into question despite the objective evidence one has to justifiably infer a religion's theology is bunk.<br /></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">For example, I've come to see that a post-enlightened world of common descent, quantum mechanics, and the double-helix of our DNA does not afford much space for the interventionist god of </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">abrahamic theism</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> or the unmoved mover of </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">classical theism</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">. I therefore think it is silly to call myself Christian or Spiritual in any substantive way. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The metaphors that make up the definition of Yahweh, Jesus or spirits are unconvincing in the discoveries science has provided.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I don't think many modern believers if challenged would argue for supernaturalism when faced with naturalism's victories either.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Of course there are the Pat Robertson followers who will seek to understand god's "to do" list by analyzing natural disasters (e.g. The Haitian earthquakes as god's vendetta against Voo Doo or the snow-storms hammering the US East Coast as god's retribution against the gays) </span><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=SeGd_Ry34_MC&pg=PT309&lpg=PT309&dq=jonathan+edwards+experimental+religion&source=bl&ots=gu8GMTIOjI&sig=p2u6aBZpwykDcu6ApCVjxNk_Ko8&hl=en&ei=QQlYTdnnEMKB8gbwqLWjBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=jonathan%20edwards%20experimental%20religion&f=false"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">but the pre-enlightened "experimental religion" of Jonathan Edwards</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> is resigned to the cultural scrap-heap of faith-healers and Tarot card readers. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I doubt anyone who has built their career on the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">observation of Christ-centered teleology</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> will be named President of Princeton, as Edwards was, anytime soon. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="http://www.purposedrivenlife.com/en-US/Home/home.htm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Most modern believers see a god concept as a form of self-help to navigate a world that involves modern institutions (evidenced most notably in the work of Rick Warren). </span></a></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">These modern institutions rely on both </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">methodological and metaphysical naturalism f</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">or their invention (e.g. the germ theory of disease as a basis for inoculation rather than spirits as a source of affliction) and therefore avoid supernaturalism as a cause. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The supernaturalism for most functioning believers in a modern world has regressed to a personal philosophy that allows emotional spikes to be framed by terms that offer a short-hand method for admitting them or justifying them. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">For example, in my former experience as a Calvinist Christian, sin was a reality evidenced by the lack of perfection I experienced in either my thinking or behavior which in turn motivated a theological practice towards better behavior. I couldn't however point to a generator of sin because it was a function of my soul and therefore a product of a non-investigatable entity. Thus sin operated more as metaphor in explaining the basic reality of what I've come to see as biological and brain functions rather than being basic unto itself.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The result of metaphors like sin become theology and theology offers easy access to a social group and belonging based on the shared belief that the metaphor is basic. I don't begrudge this. </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">It feels good to count on a society that will agree with you and always love you. </span></a></div><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">It does suggest however that a belief in unseen agents (e.g. "God" or "gods") is a function of emotional experience rather than testable ideas and therefore it seems to be more about wishful thinking to navigate one's inner life rather than understanding what makes up our shared external world.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I also think it is why when one admits apostasy towards a given religious tradition it often invites both aggressive and passive hostility from the people with whom the apostate once shared religious belief.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">A person who sees theology as metaphor, and admits its usefulness is in providing comfort for those believing in the symbols of that theology, seems to be behaving like a bully telling another their organizing ideas of reality are of no deeper substance than </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodnight_Moon"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">"Goodnight Moon"</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I of course believe that all theologies are of the same essential substance as fairy-tales, and don't mind believers who wish to admit this, but also find the need to justify these stories in ritual as ineffective to any real moral or intellectual aims. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The difficulty however is that believers who will dismiss the efficacy of their theology when faced with real circumstances modernity has tackled (e.g. antibiotics as first-line therapy for Streptococcus rather than the </span><a href="http://bible.cc/1_timothy/4-14.htm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">laying of hands by elders and the anointment of oil)</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"> will not admit the subordinate nature of their metaphor when considering reality.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">They insist that their metaphor is real.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I've offended many people in my short time as an atheist because I've challenged the assertions they feel to be real as real in any meaningful way outside of their feelings. I once was concerned that I needed to apologize for this unintended offense but now see it as the inherent danger of apostasy. Now that I admit the function of religion as a natural phenomenon I can understand why I make so many of my former friends uncomfortable and, while sad for the friendships I seem to have lost, I no longer worry about what I could have done to change the outcome.</span></div></div></div>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-29920831786887531092011-02-09T05:51:00.000-08:002011-02-13T11:40:49.507-08:00Humility before the Facts or Religious Shell-Games<a href="http://choiceindying.com/2011/02/08/but-then-came-darwin/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"> Eric Macdonald at Choice in Dying has an excellent post</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"> that illustrates why I get angry with religious people in their doctrinal certainty and why religious leaders like </span></span><a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/02/07/the-new-atheism-and-the-dogma-of-darwinism/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Al Mohler</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"> seem immoral to me. 2 things I disagree with Dr. Mohler in regards to his latest post on the dogma of atheism.<br /><br /></span></span><ol style="font-family:arial;"><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">He distorts Sam Harris's thesis towards religion by painting him as a person who seeks to eradicate religious liberty. It is a lie about </span></span><a href="http://www.samharris.org/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Mr. Harris's thesis against the moral sustainability of competing religions</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"> and Dr. Mohler offers no attribution to support it. His slander defeats his premise that the new atheists engage in scientism by necessitating an unattributed assertion to support his conclusion.</span></span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Darwinian evolution offers a theory on the diversity of organisms and not abiogenesis or cosmology. He conflates scientific terms to make his claim and relies on what seems a non-sequiteur to damn Dawkins with scientism when the theory Dr. Dawkins adjudicates Christianity as false is mute on the subjects Dr. Mohler claims.<br /></span></span></li></ol><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"><br />When I was a Calvinist Christian I would have been cheering Dr. Mohler's authority without any knowledge of my ignorance or possible immorality. As I have moved to disbelief I find Dr. Mohler's position immoral and am sad that he has influence over people who will be confused to the difference between biology (Darwinian evolution), chemistry (abiogenesis) and physics (cosmology) while claiming perfect knowledge in the bible.<br /><br />I also can infer from my experience that the hardened certainty Dr. Mohler asserts and the epistemic pride his ideas will engender will not lead to the shame it should. The "faith" that will be felt by the believers in the depravity of atheists will be justified in the moral good evidenced by their obedience to their thought-leader with no comprehension how he needs to misrepresent facts as a means to proclaim absolute truth.</span></span>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7238273992541810262.post-86542186477095919602011-02-03T10:52:00.000-08:002011-02-03T14:18:47.248-08:00How do you deal with your doubts?<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">My friend and pseudonymous author of </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://chuckoconnor.blogspot.com/2011/01/prophecy-as-post-modern-adventure.html">"Confessions of God" JohnThomas Didymus </a><span style="font-family: arial;">asks me a question regarding my post focused on </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://chuckoconnor.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-faith-once-one-understands-evidence.html">faith vs. evidence.</a><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;"></span></span><blockquote style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"Allow me to ask you a question, friend. In what way do you conceive of the reality of your own existence in its subjective dimensions?" </span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This is a tough question to answer and often seems to be the stopping point for epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge). I mean do I live in Chicago, Illinois or </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpraOJUqN7P19pdZXcDfEe5wjtsmA7bI0PiRAHci3qQteTvQhyphenhyphenigxTmLFuGYKSRg8LgvKummJLr1WnLyaKVq0PvbdOAicv_Bppz8UcdyY6ZlBo7C0i6FDFFlabc-B3_4jqMeak6cJ5mzxa/s1600/matrix-red-blue-pills.png">The Matrix?</a><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">What we say we know is predicated on certain basic facts which ultimately we need to accept otherwise we get to an infinite regress of "why?" </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">The heart of JT's question challenges this basicality and seems to challenge me to consider the nature of my doubts relative to how I come to my knowledge (subjectively speaking).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">I of course concede that I am a novice of </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/evidenti/">evidentialism</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> where some sort of objective method must be practiced when considering claims otherwise we become subject to our intuition which, given subjective license, has shown itself to be a poor predictor of what is real.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Therefore I take faith-claims as poor evidence but JT challenges this in fairness by illustrating how my comfort with deduction demands a faith proposition in </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/HistTopics/Beginnings_of_set_theory.html">set-theory</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> (the foundation for mathematics) due to set-theory's honest criticism (like </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein">Wittgenstein's</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> critique of set-theory relative to infinities and thus its illusory nature).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">I don't share JT's concern however when addressing the question of religious faith vs. testable evidence and my apparent "faith" in set theory. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Set theory works at a primitive level when cultural noise is included. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">It simply is and is basically real. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">2+2=4 has the same meaning across cultures but not necessarily across all religions as my friend </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://ladyatheist.blogspot.com/">Lady Atheist</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> pointed out when she wrote me and said that 2+2=4 can mean,</span></span><blockquote style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">"For Unitarian Universalists 2 + 2 = well, that depends on who's counting<br />For Mormons 2 + 2 = not enough wimmin<br />For Creationists, 2 + 2 = 22<br />For UFOlogists 2 + 2 = 42<br />For Scientologists 2 + 2 = 2384792.19827"</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">and so although deduction may depend upon faith in the subjective "realness" of set-theory; set-theory can't be twisted by the subjective popular or social response a set-theory believer has in it (or we would have to see Lady Atheist's illustration as computational rather than satirical.) </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">The question brings to the front for me the nature of doubt. It seems that there are at least two types of doubt when considering faith and what we know. There is <span style="font-style: italic;">emotional doubt </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;">epistemic doubt. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Emotional doubt </span>can use religion as a resolution of it (although the practice of certain theologies like my former Calvinist Christianity actually feeds the doubt due to concepts like sin) while <span style="font-style: italic;">epistemic doubt </span>demands an analysis of data hygiene through methodological means like set-theory.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">If one wants to assert that they have had a subjective experience with God and it has resolved their fear of death then it seems the subjective nature of this information offers resolution to a real </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">emotional</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> doubt and it can't be analyzed for its fact or fiction but, if the same person then seeks to extend this experience to an assertion that God is a triune being detailed in scripture, I can comfortably assess the data set of the bible (e.g. it's reliance on similar ancient Near Eastern myth for its narrative, its noted redaction, geographic dependence on discrete Christian tradition) and question the level of </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">epistemic</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> doubt still unresolved by this assertion. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">I can further cross-reference the believer's assertion to the fact of a biblical God by inferring motivation due to psychology, anthropology or other sciences. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Subjectivity as JT so rightly challenges me is an essential property for all of our knowledge but how we understand it's meaning relative to the type of doubt it resolves helps indicate how trust-worthy it is. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">I have no problem if someone wishes to assert that they know who god is but I do have a problem if they try to convince me that this knowledge is beyond doubt.</span>Chuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com10