Whenever a talking-head makes over-the-top accusations, it's a useful rule-of-thumb to check whether or not their projecting their own short-comings onto the person they're criticizing.  Projection -- as you learn in psychology 101 -- is an ego defense.  It prevents the self from absorbing the blow of inadequacy by pretending the inadequacy is a property of another.

Rush Limbaugh is masterful -- if you want to call it that -- at projection.  All the pain-killers in the world cannot comfort him in his constant mission to hide from himself.  He loves to talk about the president's "out of this world ego," as if El Rushbo himself were a humble correspondent.  He pretends that the president cannot "make sense" without a teleprompter, as if the president's schooling of Republicans during their retreat never happened.  

I want to pause for a moment and delve into this accusation -- this projection -- that the president cannot "make sense."  We have to ask ourselves, "what is the deepest level in which El Rushbo does not make sense?"  Warning: things are about to get pretty technical.  

Rush often cites Friedrick von Hayek -- the Austrian economist -- as one of his greatest influences.  I would think it's a safe bet that Rush has not moved past Hayek's economic system.  In other words, what Rush would consider the height of his economic knowledge would be no different from that of Hayek.  
This near-worship of Hayek is nothing new.  Here's Lawrence Summers' take on Hayek:

What's the single most important thing to learn from an economics course today? What I tried to leave my students with is the view that the invisible hand is more powerful than the [un]hidden hand. Things will happen in well-organized efforts without direction, controls, plans. That's the consensus among economists. That's the Hayek legacy.

This claim is a partial truth and here's why.  Hayek believed that all economic truth depended on analytic a priori judgments.  All that means is that the frame of reference necessary to detect economic truth is concepts in the mind -- prior to an experience of the world.  

Here's an analogy from mathematics: 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of what happens in the world.  If you find an instance in which 2 + 2 = 1, as it does when 4 drops of water land in the same spot, then the equation refers to something other than mathematics.   

So what right?  Here's why this is crucial: if that same frame of reference is all that's necessary for economics, then nothing that goes on in the world can have any bearing on the "truths" of economics.  If supply and demand determine price, then it doesn't matter that a small number of people determine demand and everyone else in the world pays prices based on their demand.  If the so-called "invisible hand" splits a people into a lower-lower class and an upper-upper class, oh well.  These concepts in our head have spoken.

Obviously this perspective is totally out of touch with reality.  And now the overwhelming irony of El Rushbo.  His entire economic outlook depends on analytic a priori judgments -- judgments which don't touch the external world.  These judgments are -- by definition -- outside the realm of the sensible.  They're concepts which do not extend outside of the head.  They quite profoundly do not make sense.

With the sensibility of projection in hand -- outside the head -- we can now see that Rush Limbaugh is looking into the mirror when he charges the president with senselessness.

Note: this critique applies to the Right's platform as a whole.  For more on this line of thinking see here.

It's really funny to listen to Right-Libertarians. They've got it all figured out. The government is getting in the way of big business. Big business is the answer. Government is bad.  Big business is good. Anyone who thinks otherwise is evil. 

I ask them sometimes, "do you think all businesses are big because of their success?" I mean, I wonder if some companies are big because they've absorbed large failures. I wonder if some companies are big because they spread risks of default to other companies. I wonder if some companies are big because they tag-team to close off competition.  

"Do you wonder about those things Right-Libertarians?" Listen closely. Nothing. They don't distinguish between different kinds of big business. "Shouldn't we check to see which businesses are big because of merit and which aren't?" Listen again. Nothing again. No thought process here.  

Sad. Because at this point, the Right-Libertarian either refines their understanding or ignores reason. The latter is usually the case. And then they go out and tout their reasons for turning big businesses loose. All of them. Not just the ones who deserve it. All of them. Because it's reasonable. Even though their standard of rationality allows them to ignore justified true beliefs. Sad. Really sad.

But not hopeless. They do hold at least one meaningful position. Centralized control prevents organic growth in markets. I think we can work with that. Their leader -- Ron Paul Rand -- wants only gold to represent value. And that's crazy, but it does point them in the right direction. What they want is a different form of currency. The problem with the existing system is the potential to put a dollar sign on the dollar sign.

Yet, the difficulty with the gold standard is exactly what they're trying to escape. Centralized control. With only one thing to represent value, that one thing could be filtered in and out of the Federal Reserve ad nauseum. If that happens -- which it already does -- then that exchange will be weighed alongside actual people's demand. As the market sees it, however much gold people exchange is just as meaningful as however much the Federal Reserve exchanges. Prices will be set on the supply we create and then whatever the Fed demands. Followed by actual people actually demanding goods and services. 

Here, the Right and Left are stuck. At least most of them. But Left-Libertarianism may have something of an answer. 

From the perspective of pure reason, we can all see the problem. The way by which we evaluate goods and services can -- and often is -- easily hijacked. So any answer, from the perspective of pure reason, will involve a system through which we can evaluate the methods of evaluation. The ability to trade currency is an example of evaluating-evaluation. A dollar is worth X number of yen. A euro is worth X number of rupees. But these exchanges are between nations. And any nation -- like ours -- with centralized banking systems, can all but ignore the demand of their people. So, how do we create a system which accurately reflects the demand of the people?  

Left-Libertarians might argue that a single form of currency is the root of our problem. Our green pieces of paper represent the valuation of 300,000,000 people plus the Fed. That gives us the dollar meal at McDonalds and unaffordable health insurance. This green paper doesn't do a very good job of evaluating goods and services. And trading currency internationally doesn't fix the problem.  

What would happen if we started to trade currency intra-nationally? What if we kept the green papers and added blue papers. The blue papers could be used mostly by those who value the arts and sciences above all. Red papers could be used by those who value Sarah Palin the most. Whatever you could imagine. But regardless, you'd have a better shot at a currency which accurately reflects real demand. And those currencies could be traded just like we trade currencies already. 

In The Fountainhead Ayn Rand presents two interlinked characters. The protagonist is Howard Roark: an architect who creates in order to meet the deepest interests of his customers. The antagonist is Peter Keating: a wanna-be architect who will throw anything onto the market as long as it meets profitable but superficial interests. So long as we use as single form of currency, the difference between these two characters will be concealed. 

This idea is not partisan. It's pragmatic. It's a win-win. 

Addendum: Nv043 raises a legitimate objection:

I guess I don't really understand your multiple currency solution.  Standardization is what makes currency useful in the first place.  Why would I want to be paid in blue papers if the grocery store only takes green papers?

Here's how I see it:

It still would be standardized.  We don't use a single universal currency throughout the world.  But our different currencies adjust to each other.  A dollar is worth X amount of euros because the dollar stands for Y quality and quantity of goods and services while the euro stands for Z quality and quantity of goods and services.

Same would go for intra-national currency.  The blue dollar -- depending on who uses it and how effective they are -- represents X quality and quantity of goods and services.  Because the green dollar represents Y quality and quantity of goods and services, it is worth Z number of blue dollars.

Standardization and mutual adjustment are a priori what happens without violence.  It's in both sides' interest to accommodate each others' currency.

I found a hint tonight. As Brown interacts with his audience, one line silences them.  

And after tonight we have shown everyone that -- now -- you are the machine.

The line is intended to stimulate cheers. Nothing. You can sense the collective shock.  

The sentiment goes like this: "No. We want to fight the machine."

Well, they're doomed if they don't recognize that politics is -- and always will be -- an arm of the machine. And this big scary machine is -- and always will be -- nothing more than people producing stuff.

That frightens tea-baggers.  Even the successful ones in Massachusetts.  "We don't want to be the machine," they say with their silence.  "We just want to throw a wrench in things," they concede without words.  "Power is not for us," their pre-consciousness screams.

I think this five-second-exchange tells the whole story.  The dynamics are simple.  Patience has the high-ground.  Give them enough rope to hang themselves or to recognize that they started a battle they're not prepared to win.     

Pass the Senate Health Care Reform through the House. Sign it into law. Play defense. Game over.

I'm not saying anything new. And I don't want to preach. But it probably comes out that way.  Sorry.  I just think that we have all the knowledge we need. Already. And somehow we confuse ourselves. It's almost like we'd rather not know. Adding words might not help; but it couldn't hurt.

My friends ask me why I blog. I don't make a dime. It doesn't advance my career. It almost certainly detracts from it. But I think that all depends on your standard of success. I mean, if it were rank or money that mattered, then I'm spiraling into oblivion. But I don't think we should trade in status or stuff-that's-supposed-to represent-other-stuff -- at least not fundamentally. Don't get me wrong: money is a good way of keeping track of -- what Pirsig called -- Quality. But it's not basic -- money. Neither is time.  

Sparks are. I don't mean that in a Peter Pan way. I'm not stuck in a day-dream. I mean it in a cold hard rational economic self-interested way. The monetarists and the Austrians will quickly remind you that an eye must always remain on supply. The greatest danger to a stable economy is inflation. Warning! Alert! Scary!  Inflation! And they're not wrong. They just give half the story and act like they told the whole thing.

Imagine a world in which the money supply is perfectly stable. But the oxygen supply is depleted. Or the entertainment supply is depleted. Or the labor supply is depleted. Or the meaning supply is depleted. Whatever you want to imagine, just please -- Ms. Rand, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Hayek -- don't pretend that the money supply is fundamental.  

I know. I can hear them now. All three rushing into the room. Rand screaming the loudest. "You must chake your preemayces!" But I have.  And monetarism isn't enough. That world that they imagine in which the dollar is a perfect representation for the work of the mind: yeah, that world doesn't exist. Or at least it's not this one. 2008 is exhibit A. 

All supply-side economics is -- at least temporarily -- blind to demand-side economics. It's kind of like the vase-or-two-faces-trick. You kinda see one, the other, or neither, but not both at the same time.Well, the "supply-siders" are like a guy looking at this picture saying, "It's only a vase." Huh? Any full description of action has to take into account both sides: the incentive (the supply) and the want (the demand). To just use one would be like trying to program binary code with only 0's or only 1's. You got something, but it doesn't present anything.  

How the hell is inflation relevant without consideration for need? It's like trying to do algebra with one side of the equation. How has this gone on so long?

Can any one thing accurately represent what everyone wants? I mean, if we want to standardize the means by which we exchange what we value, doesn't that entail standardizing value? How do you define value objectively? I mean, we can say "happiness." Everyone wants happiness. We all value that. But what is an exchange of happiness? Is it handing out dollar bills? What exchanges hands -- metaphorically -- that causes happiness?  

Sparks. Understanding. Connection. Lots of words. Same thing. But I think that's the foundation. I think that's the starting-block for any sustainable economic system. The Right has -- in our collective unconscious -- monopolized the cause. How do you make sparks? "Family," the Right answers. Of course, that's not wrong: it's partial.  Family is a form. It is not a substance. And a spark is where substance meets form.  

So what is happiness? That infinite point at which substance meets form. Where concept meets object. Where mind meets matter. Where envelop meets letter. Where law meets spirit. Where shape meets color. Where life is re-newed in every single moment. That should be our currency. May the dollar follow...

"Who need be afraid of the merge?"

Now could not be a more perfect time.  A young boy -- on the wrong side of the war of ideas -- boards a plane and burns off his dick.  You see: Jihad-of-the-Sword has come to light.  The Phallus rears its head.  And it lost.

Confronting the Anima

Whether we like it or not, all our minds pretty much work the same way.  We're born.  Bare experience.  We desire.  Desires are met.  Desires are not met.  I.  Here.  You.  There.  We start to shape our world around this basic binary language.  

Eve

Most boys grow up to desire girls.  Yummy.  Unconsciously though, boys perceive girls as evil -- withholding.  Boys = Good.  Girls = Bad.  And powerless -- ironically -- since they are the source of satisfaction.  But they are not strong like the boy.  
A good number of "men" go through their whole lives with this intuition -- this pre-conscious perception.  Not thinking it through.  Woman = less than man.  Man = stronger than woman.  Physically.  Morally.  Spiritually. 

Helen

If -- in the Eve phase of confrontation -- the binary code reads Boy = 1; Girl = 0, then -- in the Helen phase of confrontation -- Boy = 1; Girl = 1 or 0 (depending on the context).  1: The Woman can work well.  0: But we all know she's a dirty slut underneath.  

Mary

In the third phase of confrontation, Boy = 0; Girl = 1.  The woman is worshiped.  The woman can do no wrong.  The man can only find meaning in life through the woman.  

Sophia 

Now we find Reality.  And we didn't have a great time getting there.  Almost feels like a birth of some sort.  Man = 1 in some ways 0 in others; Woman = 1 in some ways 0 in others.  

To reach the Sophia level of the psyche is something we could all do.  There are a lot of bat-shit crazy belief systems in this world and lots of money-made-by-us-remaining-in-the-beginner-phases.  So, it will take time.  And more than anything, it will take will.  Do we have the will to give up these illusions?  Or -- to put it in the flip-side of the binary language -- do we have the will to wage Jihad against these illusions?  

I say ALLAHU AKBAR! because Jihad-of-the-Sword is to struggle against one's own ego-defenses.  It is to fight against oneself in order to remove conflict within oneself.  It is to acknowledge a chaotic programming language in order to deprogram back into harmony.  It is -- more than anything -- nonviolent.  

The poor soul who lost his dick is a symbol.  Not that the war is over.  That the war is ending.  Because there is no real tension between any religion.  Because we are Zionists.  We are Born-Again.  We are Hindu and Buddhist.  And most importantly: we are Mujahideen.    

At the risk of over-simplification: stuff that happens will register in one of two ways.  The amygdala -- our lizard-brain -- registers raw emotions and that which causes the emotions. The cortexes register the higher-level of happenings -- our second nature: language, thought, imagination, etc.  

My previous post attempted to address the distinction between naming the Divine vs. experiencing the Divine.  I don't think it worked. So let me use neuroscience.  To "figure out" something is to utilize an area of the cortex. That happens independent of what's going on in the amygdala.  For instance, you can "figure out" that your fear-of-a-toothless-poisonless-snake may be irrational. Yet, you might still poop a little when one hisses at you.  

Information processing in different areas of the cortex doesn't necessarily change information processing in the amygdala.  A lot of money-making-machines use this knowledge to start their engine.  Base-emotions can be triggered by really advanced-sounding language and pretty imagery.  And that's what control really is: directing-base-emotions -- keeping-the-cortexes-from-reprogramming-the-amygdala.    

A lot of people will consider it a "spiritual" experience when they realize that the Father is to a solid substance as the Son is to a liquid substance as the Holy Spirit is to a gas.  But this re-cognition is not "spiritual."  It's rational.  You could understand the Trinity and still steal from your neighbor without regret.  In other words, you could register the meaning of Christianity in your cortexes but your amygdala remains untouched.  

So what is a "Spiritual" experience?  Clearly, it's not just a perfect alignment within a portion(s) of your cotrex(es).  It's actually the process by which your amygdala aligns itself to your cortex -- the rational information of the cortex, as it were, re-programs the systemic nature of the amygdala.  

This process -- the re-programming of the amygdala by the cortexes -- is the meaning of Revelation 21:5.  

And the one who was seated on the throne said, "See, I am making all things new."  Also he said, "Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true."

A true Spiritual experience is a metamorphosis in Nature.  When a Church or Mosque or Synagogue teaches that we have a sin nature, they lie. Not because we are not capable of awful things. But because they would have us believe that we must disconnect the amygdala from the cortex -- cut off our base-emotions.  Bullshit!

Every single one of us has it within our own power to re-program our amygdala -- our base-emotions and their associations.  We can make a sustainable and flourishing world for ourselves all by ourselves.  We are not meant to reject our base-emotions as evil. Our amygdala is as much a fact of life as is our need for oxygen. So why should we pretend that we can cancel it out through belief?* The only damn thing that can change the form of the amygdala is an understanding of it. You re-shape your emotions. And if you choose not to, don't worry: someone is sure to do it for you.    

This post is not to say that religion is bad.  It's not to say that Churches or Synagogues or Mosques are bad.  It's just to say that they are legitimate only insofar as they prompt the cortexes to re-program the amygdala in a rational and harmonious way which is sustainable for our species over the long-run.  Insofar as they feed-off one of the amygdala's base-emotions {fear}, then they ought to be considered nothing more than a business venture depending on people's belief in The Boogeyman.   

*That comment is not to dis belief in something larger than oneself.  That comment is to point to the distinction between that belief in the Divine and the Connection to the Divine.  The belief, I think, blocks the Connection.

I was texting back-and-forth with my friend in Florida. He found Christ not too long ago. It made him a better person. He gave up all kinds of vices. And yet he believes that anything-other-than-his-brand-of-Christianity is blaspheme. He's not the only one. Most people in Alabama think this way too. "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

If this belief were isolated, then so be it. I'd be cool to let it go. But here's the problem. This form of thought includes a basic assumption which is untenable. A name can represent the Spirit.

I don't doubt that Jesus had a direct link to God. But I don't think that he holds a monopoly on that link. I think the Spirit has a built-in anti-trust law. No organization owns the rights. Not because no organization has yet to pin-down the nature of the Spirit, but because the nature of the Spirit is such that it cannot be pinned-down. No noun can represent the Spirit. How the hell could it? How could any word in any language stand-in for something which is - by definition - beyond all language?

Seriously, the Dude said as much! "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is', or 'There it is', because the kingdom of God is within/among you." Luke 17:20-21.

My friend expresses a legitimate concern: "You make it sound as though we are equal to God!" And this perception is the cause of all violence in the name of religion. {YOU DON'T RESPECT MY UNDERSTANDING OF GOD!} So let me clear up a few things. Insofar as any belief takes itself to capture a complete picture of God, that belief is nonsense. Whether the belief comes from a Church, a Synagogue, a Mosque, or a private prayer, no thought can comprehend the Spirit. Similarly, no name can comprehend the Spirit. No symbol can comprehend the Spirit. Even the word 'Spirit' isn't enough.

My friend says that the Spirit is in us "only if we believe in Christ." And this belief is a common one amongst members of The Church. But what they don't realize is that they limit the Spirit. If It truly is so awesome -- which the Spirit is -- then it can dwell wherever the hell it wants. It doesn't need permission. It doesn't require a litmus test for admission.

It's probably best that I don't hammer any further. The same thing goes for Muslims who believe that Mohammad monopolizes the Spirit. To end Jihad and the War on Terror, both sides need to agree that the Spirit is not owned by any organization or belief system. The Spirit is much cooler than that. In fact, maybe we should consider the monopolized-spirit to be The Boogeyman. Each concept is -- logically -- on the same footing.

I originally wanted to call this post: The Root of Republican Nihilism.  Unfortunately, nihilism knows no partisan bounds.  Nihilism is a frame of mind -- a way of thinking.  It exists in all institutions and in all cultures.  Nihilism is a virus -- a thought virus.  It takes the form, "I want what I want." 

But from where does this attitude arise?  Which way of thinking causes nihilism?  I want to suggest that the answer is methodological individualism.  This mode of perception takes the individual to be the center of the thought process.  The 'I' is the driver of the car called body.  The 'I' is the disconnected observer which sees experiences and makes judgments about them.  The 'I' drives the car through the city of experience -- using its own map which it, by itself, creates and updates. 

The odd thing about this concept of the world is that a video game is played the same way.  The 'I' is on one side of the screen; the city of experience is on the other.  The 'I' is over here; the 'you' is over there.  We exist as totally distinct entities.  And while we may be able to make sense of each other's experience -- by inference -- our connection is by no means immediate.  Really, 'I' can't even tell the difference between 'you' in the city of experience and the 'you' in my own dreams. 

And so we build on this theory -- methodological individualism.  We generate economics around it.  If we all do what's in our best interest, then we all benefit.  I mean, we're so separate and we all know what's best for ourselves, no one could possibly have a better understanding of me than me.  If I do what I want to do, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, then I'm doing what's best for myself and everyone else.  Laissez-faire is born.

The logic is impenetrable.  The only times in history when it's gone wrong are the times when we didn't use real laissez-faire.  I mean, how could any system be better?  We all do what's best for ourselves and we don't hurt anyone else!  It's perfect!

Well, let's take a time-out.  I would venture to say that not-recognizing-the-immediate-reality-of-other-people is a harmful thought process.  And proponents of methodological individualism will argue that they do recognize the reality of other people.  But my contention is that they do so by inference.  The individualist knows you're in pain because the grimace you're making is the same grimace the individualist would make when he's in pain.  So he does -- according to him -- recognize the reality of your experience.

But this mode of perception assumes that reality can be hidden.  According to the individualist, pain can be real, but it can't be perceived by the 'you'; it can only be perceived by the 'I'.  But this way of thinking assumes that we all live in individually-separate-pod-worlds.  The 'I' can guess what's going on in the 'you's individually-separate-pod-world but cannot really see directly.  Modern neuroscience definitively debunks the individually-separate-pod-worlds framework and so the methodological individualism that comes along with it. 

You see, we do have immediate access to each other's experience.  We are part of one lifeworld.  The belief that we live in individually-separate-pod-worlds is an illusion.  And here's why: The nervous system is the central engine of perception.  But for some incoherent reason, we tend to think of the neurological process as isolated to our own brains and bodies.  Remember: the 'I' is in its own car driving around the city of experience.  But this neurological process is a polycentric occurrence.  The information is being inputted and outputted literally everywhere.  A red ball moves from space A to space B.  Whether anyone watches that or not, the information that makes up the red ball at space A is inputted to space B and outputted from space A.  No human brain needs to be within a hundred miles.  The information is still inputted and still outputted. 

Likewise, when you feel pain, the grimace on your face outputs the information of {pain}.  My nervous system inputs the information of {pain}.  This process is empathy and -- on another level -- the working of mirror neurons.

So why is methodological individualism still taken seriously?  Worse, why do people still fight for economic structures based on its assumptions?  I'd suggest the answer is simple.  Seldom are people called-out on the basic assumptions which underlie their world-views.  Methodological individualism isn't taken seriously, but then again it's rarely brought into debate.  In reality, a great deal of Republican vs. Democrat / Conservative vs. Liberal argument = Methodological Individualism vs. Not Methodological Individualism argument.  But few people will bring that fact out through meta-communication. 

You want to really piss-off the insurance companies?  You want to really throw the status quo out of whack?  You think that the current legislation about to pass through the Senate doesn't do enough?  You want to up the ante? 

Let's do it.  Bernie Sanders, speaking yesterday, tells us that the health care bill will create 10,000 community health centers for those without insurance.  This innovation will open the door to a mass-scale cooperative system our country has never seen before.  As it stands though, subsidized-insurance-buyers will be using the insurance cartels to access the community health centers.  So here's an idea.  Why not form a networked privately-funded organization working in concert solely with the community health centers?  Turn a profit.  But only one large enough to keep the company running over the long-term. 

This organization would put extreme pressure on insurance companies to lower premiums.  Why buy theirs when you can buy ours for half the price?  The insurance companies may have to pop open Korbel instead of Dom Perignon.  Our organization would effectively be the public option -- except run through the free market.  Supply and demand.  We demand universal health coverage.  It's only fitting that we should supply universal health coverage.  Our organization could do it -- if not at first -- over several years. 

This post is a challenge.  If we're really angry, then lets stop griping about it.  Let's grapple with it.  Let's do something about it.  Dig deep and summon that American Spirit of Entrepreneurship.  We're the ones we've been waiting for.  Right?

Recommend this post and show that there's support for this kind of enterprise.  And please add ideas!

(Extreme Sarcasm Warning)

I've had it!  This Health Care compromise is nonsense!  Obama is a sell-out!  All he had to do was create a shadow government justified by the need for "energy in the executive."  We could have had single-payer before the end of his first month in office.  If it were up to the unitary executive -- headed by Joe Biden -- we would have been money.  Universal Health Care just like that.  But instead, we choose to honor all these "legislative processes."  I've had it!  We need "energy in the executive" and John Yoo has proven that he can rationalize it and justify it all the way through the Constitution and the court system.  John Yoo for Attorney General.  That will solve everything.

This message brought to you by the inverse of the neo-conservative movement: the Authoritarian Left.  May process be damned.

This post is not to say that textbooks need to talk about global warming more.  That's not the problem.  The problem is that we don't understand what life is.  When we get our conceptual frameworks right, then we'll act.  Until then, the belief that something is wrong with the environment is not enough to touch us the way it should.

Ten pages into the textbook, I realize something is all jacked-up.  We're inconsistent in how we classify life.  From the macro-level -- the biosphere -- we say that our entire planet is a form of life.  That means that the whole thing is one large organism.  But then when we zoom in, we say that parts of that organism aren't alive. 

The iron which composes the earth's center core does not reproduce or evolve, so we say that it's not a form of life.  But when we look at iron as part of the biosphere, we say that it's alive -- it's part of the organism that is the earth.  We're schizophrenic as to what counts as life.

To me, that means that biology -- as a life science -- doesn't know what the hell it's talking about yet.  If evolution (which I see as fact) is the unifying factor in biology, then everything -- especially from the biospheric level -- evolves.  That means that all of "substance" evolves.  That means that a rock is a form of life, just one that's less organized from a micro-perspective.  When we start thinking about some things as alive and other things as non-life, then we un-naturalize our world.  I think that's crazy even though it's the norm.

When we think about the climate crisis, we switch our frame of reference without an awareness that we're doing so.  We understand -- from the macro-perspective -- that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than ever before and the rate of change in the ozone is unprecedented.  Then we go back to our everyday life -- from the micro-perspective -- where we're alive and all the stuff around us is not alive.  But it's all one big organism. 

And if that sounds strange then we can consult our physics to confirm the unity.  It's all energy condensed: you, me, the tree, and the stone.  That which composes all "substance" is the same "stuff."  But when our education system teaches children biology, we teach them that's not true.  You are alive.  The tree is alive.  The stone is not alive.  You are separate from the stone. 

But iron is at the core of the earth!  It's our floor!  It holds us in place.  It's the nucleus to our organism that is the earth!  "No. No. No."  The teacher says.  "That's not alive."  Ask why it is alive when we view it from the macro-perspective, and the teacher will tell you, "that's different." 

That way of teaching biology is wrong.  And it explains how we can understand that the climate crisis exists, but do very little to fight it.  We don't feel it.  What if our textbooks actually shaped our consciousness to correspond with Reality?

Update:  Apparently some biologists argue that the biosphere is not alive.  This argument is news to me.  I am accused of smuggling philosophy into my argument in order to claim life for the biosphere as a whole.  My response is this:

The textbook introduces "Life at Its Many Levels."  The most macro-level of life is -- according to the text -- the biosphere.  It meets all the properties of life.  Unarguably it is ordered; it regulates itself; it grows and develops; it utilizes energy; it responds to the environment; it evolves.  The only property of life in question is reproduction.  Physics tells us that all of space is constantly self-replicating in every moment.  One would be hard-pressed to say that's not a form of reproduction.  No philosophy needed.  Just biology's own criteria for life and one truth from physics.

I'm beyond fed-up with our conventional notions of power.  More often than not, we conceive power as the ability to get other people to do what you want them to do.  How short-sighted this conception!  I mean, power does not equal control.  Control is a sliver of power. 

Imagine that I possess Dr. Strangelove's doomsday device.  Now, I can certainly get people to do what I want them to do -- for a time -- provided that they believe I will actually use my doomsday device.  But over time, one of two things will happen.  Either (a) people will start to call my bluff and I no longer control anyone or (b) I will use the doomsday device and no longer control anyone (or at least a significant number of people).  So what does that say about the "absolute power" of possessing the ultimate threat?  Control is not a long-term strategy for power.

  
Then there's the belief that money is power.  But anyone who knows anything about wrestling knows that The Million Dollar Man's slave Virgil was stronger than him.  Virgil ended up kicking the shit out of him.  Money represents a short-run valuation of products, services, competence, and ability.  Money always shifts hands.  No one, and I do mean no one -- inspite of those whose rage inadvertently deifies Wall Street -- can hold money forever.   Money is not a long-term strategy for power.

 
Then there's the belief that information is power.  This belief is closer to the truth.  However, without the ability to discern between information and misinformation, we can't distinguish between the possession of power and a more subtle system of control.  So from where does this discernment come?   

Is it in you?

This post is the last of the series.  School starts back on Tuesday, so I want to get the conclusion out of my system.  I've enjoyed writing these posts, and I've enjoyed your feedback more than anything.  In fact, these posts only continued because of what you said.

Neoboho brings up the notion of reification.  Reification is the process of turning an idea -- one not necessarily corresponding to reality -- into a thing as if it were a concrete object.  For the sake of convenience, we'll call it thingification.  The strange thing about this process is that -- at some point -- the idea which is thingified causes people to act as if it were as natural as a tree or a stone. 

We thingified the value of real property before the bubble burst.  Bush/Cheney thingified the imminent threat from Iraq -- not to mention the thingification of their own competence.  Marketing thingifies a certain product/service as the object of our desire.  Our cultural norms thingify who we think we are and who we want to become. 

The even stranger thing about this process is that we pre-consciously register this information.  We think, "I have this desire."  We think, "I have this idea of the world."  Hell, Ayn Rand even teaches us -- in Anthem -- that the word 'I' is god.  But where do we get this word, this "god," this 'I'?  Well, upon any legitimate inspection we find that we learn it in interaction.  'I' is a word that lives in -- or substantiates -- our shared experience.   So our idea of ourselves is rooted not in who we actually are, but in the way the 'I' is used in interaction.  In a culture which values coherence and truth, the 'I' is a means of expressing that.  In a culture which values class systems and hierarchies, the 'I' is a means of expressing that.  These concepts are already internalized, as is the incorrect belief that "I am in control of the thoughts about this world." 

Thought is already framed by cultural norms -- through everyday interactions.  To ignore that is to ignore the reality of thought.  Maybe the complete-autonomy-of-thought-models worked back in the 16th and 17th century.  You know, when we were either dogmatically monists or dogmatically dualists about the thought process.  But now we have evidence that we're not entirely conditioned by the environment and we're also not separate from the on-goings in the environment.  Yet we do have access to an unconditioned yet fully-immersed "space" within the world we share. 

The difficulty lies in getting-there.  Change -- as a slogan -- won't work because change is a non-starter.  At best, change is a by-product of the re-cognition process.  We have to re-cognize what's going on.  We have to learn to see what's happening.  We have to back-out of strong emotions and observe them.  We have to, as it were, hold our reactions in front of ourselves and ask "what is this?"  "What causes this?"  Then write it down.  Never say "I have to change this."  Because the moment we start thinking that change is necessary now, we stop learning -- we close down.  The change will occur naturally -- as long as we're learning, as long as we stay open. 

To thingify change is a mistake.  Instead, we need to thingify the process of re-cognition, of learning, of heightening awareness.  When we do that, our notion of 'I' will morph and so will our thought process.  And then, some really cool stuff will start happening.

'Advertising' is a word rooted in 'advert'. Advert means "to turn the mind or attention." The dictionary does not explicitly say from what. Dickday implies, in String Theory, that we are -- collectively -- Theseus. We slay the Minotaur and follow the string we left behind -- a string which will lead us out of Daedalus' maze. Thera notes that certain entropic forces in the world attach their own string to ours. We are, as it were, coaxed to stay within the maze. 

If our attention is turned by, for instance, someone yelling off to our right, then our attention is split.  Our attention is diverted.  To advert attention implies to divert attention -- to split attention. (For wholeness of attention see here.) Right-wingers of the tea-bagging variety are frantically attaching their string to ours and attempting to divert attention. If they scream loud enough, maybe no one will notice that the attached-string directs us further into the maze. (See here)

I see the string as a perfect metaphor of communication -- specifically, open source information systems. The attached-string represents intentionally-confusing-language-games.  The most elegant example of this tactic -- intentionally-confusing-language-games -- can be found in the movie Constantine.  A billboard is shown partially reading: your time is running out.  Then we see the rest: to buy a Chevy.  "Your time is running out" is, by itself, a language game played in reference to the duration of life.  This game is taken seriously.  We attach a great deal of emotion to it.  Understandably then, a company stands to make a lot of money by intentionally confusing it with their product.

Another kind of intentional confusion of language games exists.  Though this kind is helpful.  Humor.  Obey says that responsibility for the asset bubble rests with the financial sector stakeholders.  Dickday responds:

Now everybody knows that stakeholders are important in Dracula movies.  

Humor is often intentionally-confused-language-games used for the purpose of illustrating a point.  Intentionally-confused-language-games used for the purpose of obstructing a point or selling a product is misinformation.

All of us, pre-consciously, have been affected by misinformation systems.  It is an integral part of our culture.  And it can be cured only by an awareness that language games can easily be turned into misinformation systems -- in every walk of life, not just billboard advertisements. 

Physicists today grapple with data and theoretical models which seem to suggest that information travels faster than the speed of light. Some see this as a conundrum which points to failings in our understanding. I want to say that this (mis)perception is exactly wrong. Information systems -- as I see them -- are necessarily beyond time. The pyramids of ancient Egypt provide for us conceptual frameworks derived from thousands of years ago. We see the pyramid. We see, in an instant, what these ancient philosophers and engineers spent decades upon decades discovering and we see that which has traveled centuries upon centuries. We perceive it in less than a second. That information -- the ability of man to shape the world around him -- is absorbed immediately. Ostensibly, we're just looking at a kind of triangle. On a deeper level, we are in unfragmented exchange with the whole of our species. Imagine then, if that sort of exchange occurs between man and a pyramid, what sort of exchange occurs between man and the contemporary world. What information are we processing?


I want to suggest that we are dawning a culture not just of speed. We are dawning a culture beyond speed. Speed assumes distance divided by time. We are -- whether we realize it or not, in our everyday life, in what is now becoming the norm -- warping time. Speed is moot when distance and time are moot.

It was Kant who showed that space and time are not objective things but the necessary preconditions for consciousness of anything. Schopenhauer went on to further develop that idea (see here). Husserl then articulated the result:

In whatever way we may be conscious of the world as universal horizon, as coherent universe of existing objects, we, each "I-the-man" and all of us together, belong to the world as living with one another in the world; and the world is our world, valid for our consciousness as existing precisely through this 'living together.' We, as living in wakeful world-consciousness, are constantly active on the basis of our passive having of the world... Obviously this is true not only for me, the individual ego; rather we, in living together, have the world pre-given in this together, belong, the world as world for all, pre-given with this ontic meaning... The we-subjectivity... [is] constantly functioning.

The world-for-all -- perceived by the we-subjectivity -- is the lifeworld. This "place" is the by-product of the entire history of human evolution. It is the result of millenia of interaction and the implied dreamed-for-futures. And we absorb all of this without even consciously recognizing it. We inhabit the lifeworld. We, quite literally, live in a "space" and "time" in which the information systems of the past and future converge.

Kind-of makes endless war, terrorism, and class systems seem a bit beside the point.