I don't expect to be writing on this blog very much in the future. I feel that I have essentially said what I have to say that might be interesting with regards to my philosophy, how I see the world, and so on. What I might be interested in writing about would either be commentary about current events, and there's no shortage of available opinions in that arena, or talking about my life, and it's pretty clear to me that this is of limited interest to anybody.
The things that matter most to me, the emotional turmoil of a mental illness and the exploration of how an intelligent, rational person can deal with that, is unfortunately still an embarrassment to most people. I have thought it a worthy cause to be honest about what goes on in my life, but it turns out that this has largely been an inconvenience. Those around me would have been happier with secrets and platitudes and politeness. This is the lesson I continually fail to learn.
I am proud of this blog in that when I go back and read it again I find that the ideas expressed are clever ideas, written in a way that I enjoy reading. I think the central message of the blog is that while humanity is often a collection of bumbling fools, those bumbling fools are not different from you or I in any really important sense. We want safety, happiness, love and community and all around the world we show the willingness to help each other out. We also fear and condemn what is different in a reflex action rather than attempt to understand. These qualities of humanity are transforming the world around us in a genuine miracle of positive improvement unnoticed by most people and generally rejected because people emotionally feel differently.
A simple review of comments from previous posts will show what people are actually interested in from my writing, generally music and politicians. Good news about the world and personal difficulties are less interesting. There's a reason that newspapers are full of bad news and people who complain have no friends.
I find it a great irony that I am a person who spends substantial amounts of my time so personally miserable that I don't wish to be alive and yet I am also the person most positive about people and how the world is going that I have ever met or read.
It is quite possible that who I am as a person will change in the next few months and I may be led to try writing again. If so I hope that it will be in a different format and that I will have the discipline and consistency to write fiction, and perhaps that will be of interest to some of you.
Enjoy this moment, today, and I hope that you feel that joy and beauty continually through your life.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Fear.
My fear today is that I will be in a mental ward soon. That may not be a rational fear, but it's not far off. This link goes to the scene that has always been the most frightening I have ever seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXXbIOc9h4g
My dreams are beginning to look like this.
By the way, there is no treatment for what I have. We must just hope I get better. I expect that to happen by Tuesday. That is what would be usual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXXbIOc9h4g
My dreams are beginning to look like this.
By the way, there is no treatment for what I have. We must just hope I get better. I expect that to happen by Tuesday. That is what would be usual.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Attitude and the Arrow of Morality
This week I have been fighting against a negative attitude. Physically I have felt exhausted even after a full night's sleep. Psychologically I have been fighting against a general disdain for humanity, a disappointment in people. When I am at the low pole of my bipolar disorder it isn't so much that I am automatically sad, it is that I am very vulnerable to negative thoughts and experiences.
My disappointment with people is that there have been examples of people still thinking in terms of "Us" and "Them". The first example was people celebrating the death of Osama bin-Laden, people not thinking of him as a person, either directly (I have read someone stating that he wasn't human) or indirectly (calling his assassination the "death of evil"). It isn't often that I follow the lead of the Catholic Church but I thought this release from the Vatican Press Office was excellent,
"Osama Bin Laden, as is known, claimed responsibility for grave acts that spread division and hate among the peoples, manipulating religion to that end. A Christian never takes pleasure from the fact of a man's death, but sees it as an opportunity to reflect on each person's responsibility, before God and humanity, and to hope and commit oneself to seeing that no event become another occasion to disseminate hate but rather to foster peace."
The second example was a blog by my good friend Dade in which he used this opportunity to disparage George W. Bush and his failure to kill Osama bin-Laden. While I am no admirer of George W. Bush I am in no doubt whatsoever that he tried to kill Osama bin-Laden, and if he had the same opportunity as Barak Obama to do so he would have taken the chance. There's no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush was as prepared as Barak Obama to take political risks in using the military, after all how else can you describe invading Iraq in the face of the largest worldwide popular and political opposition of all time? When two people doing the same thing are described in almost opposite ways then what is going on is "us versus them."
The reason that this bothers me is that I think the best way for the world to be is that there is not an "us or them" but simply a we. Within that we, people will have different opinions, sometimes enormously different opinions and sometimes with terrible consequences. Deaths, misery can result from stupid, ignorant and unpleasant opinions. But there simply isn't a significant number of people in the world who do things because they think it is the wrong thing to do. The people who do horrible things are still trying to make the world a better place, just a better place from their point of view.
The thing about "Us versus Them" is that it is a built-in default position within humanity, but it enables people to think that other humans are not really human. When you think that people aren't fully human it enables you to do things to them that you would never do to a person. It enables you to be outraged at how your mother, or son, might be treated while cheering someone else's mother or son being treated in the same way. It closes the mind to the ideas of entire groups, it removes sympathy for their position and it makes understanding, compassion, negotiation and compromise almost impossible. When you think there are the white hats and the black hats it enables you to think anything the white hats do is OK. In my opinion if you are willing to do anything you become the black hats. White hats versus black hats makes everyone a black hat. "Four legs good, two legs bad" as George Orwell put it in 1984.
So that's why I was feeling disappointed, because these are good people, kind hearted, warm, intelligent people caught up in this natural feeling. It is one of the characteristics of Us versus Them that people can be beautifully good people to those within the group and awful to those outside of the group. These aren't crimes, or sins. These are simply attitudes that I find disappointing.
However, I bucked myself up by remembering the direction of the Arrow of Morality. The lesson of history, particularly more recent history, is that of moving away from Us versus Them. It is a movement that expands what it is to be human, deserving of all the love, protection, and respect that any human is due. It is but a few centuries since it was considered morally reasonable to own human beings. It is around a century since women were first considered human enough to be able to vote. It's only one hundred and fifty years since the Geneva Convention was first enacted in which the idea that the enemy had rights. In our lifetime the idea that you might be homosexual is moving from being an abomination to simply a part of some humans.
The world is not a utopia, and the human animal is still an animal that evolved in a frightening, violent and confusing world. It is a wonder how much we have been able to overcome and I am certain that we will progress as time goes by. What is the namby-pamby liberal, wet blanket of the present is the foundation of the moral values of the future conservative.
My disappointment with people is that there have been examples of people still thinking in terms of "Us" and "Them". The first example was people celebrating the death of Osama bin-Laden, people not thinking of him as a person, either directly (I have read someone stating that he wasn't human) or indirectly (calling his assassination the "death of evil"). It isn't often that I follow the lead of the Catholic Church but I thought this release from the Vatican Press Office was excellent,
"Osama Bin Laden, as is known, claimed responsibility for grave acts that spread division and hate among the peoples, manipulating religion to that end. A Christian never takes pleasure from the fact of a man's death, but sees it as an opportunity to reflect on each person's responsibility, before God and humanity, and to hope and commit oneself to seeing that no event become another occasion to disseminate hate but rather to foster peace."
The second example was a blog by my good friend Dade in which he used this opportunity to disparage George W. Bush and his failure to kill Osama bin-Laden. While I am no admirer of George W. Bush I am in no doubt whatsoever that he tried to kill Osama bin-Laden, and if he had the same opportunity as Barak Obama to do so he would have taken the chance. There's no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush was as prepared as Barak Obama to take political risks in using the military, after all how else can you describe invading Iraq in the face of the largest worldwide popular and political opposition of all time? When two people doing the same thing are described in almost opposite ways then what is going on is "us versus them."
The reason that this bothers me is that I think the best way for the world to be is that there is not an "us or them" but simply a we. Within that we, people will have different opinions, sometimes enormously different opinions and sometimes with terrible consequences. Deaths, misery can result from stupid, ignorant and unpleasant opinions. But there simply isn't a significant number of people in the world who do things because they think it is the wrong thing to do. The people who do horrible things are still trying to make the world a better place, just a better place from their point of view.
The thing about "Us versus Them" is that it is a built-in default position within humanity, but it enables people to think that other humans are not really human. When you think that people aren't fully human it enables you to do things to them that you would never do to a person. It enables you to be outraged at how your mother, or son, might be treated while cheering someone else's mother or son being treated in the same way. It closes the mind to the ideas of entire groups, it removes sympathy for their position and it makes understanding, compassion, negotiation and compromise almost impossible. When you think there are the white hats and the black hats it enables you to think anything the white hats do is OK. In my opinion if you are willing to do anything you become the black hats. White hats versus black hats makes everyone a black hat. "Four legs good, two legs bad" as George Orwell put it in 1984.
So that's why I was feeling disappointed, because these are good people, kind hearted, warm, intelligent people caught up in this natural feeling. It is one of the characteristics of Us versus Them that people can be beautifully good people to those within the group and awful to those outside of the group. These aren't crimes, or sins. These are simply attitudes that I find disappointing.
However, I bucked myself up by remembering the direction of the Arrow of Morality. The lesson of history, particularly more recent history, is that of moving away from Us versus Them. It is a movement that expands what it is to be human, deserving of all the love, protection, and respect that any human is due. It is but a few centuries since it was considered morally reasonable to own human beings. It is around a century since women were first considered human enough to be able to vote. It's only one hundred and fifty years since the Geneva Convention was first enacted in which the idea that the enemy had rights. In our lifetime the idea that you might be homosexual is moving from being an abomination to simply a part of some humans.
The world is not a utopia, and the human animal is still an animal that evolved in a frightening, violent and confusing world. It is a wonder how much we have been able to overcome and I am certain that we will progress as time goes by. What is the namby-pamby liberal, wet blanket of the present is the foundation of the moral values of the future conservative.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
A Moral Question
So, Osama bin-Laden is dead and I have a blog, guess what happens next? I have actually tried to resist commentary, since it seems so cliched and omnipresent, but then a question came to me. The question started with what seems to be the debate that has occurred between those of a "conservative personality type" and those of a "liberal personality type." This is not a debate about whether killing Osama bin-Laden was a good thing, but rather whether it should be celebrated as a happy event? the "killing of evil" as I have seen it put, or whether it should be treated with the distaste of an unpleasant but necessary task? the "putting down of a dangerous animal" as I have seen elsewhere.
This led me to an exploration of the morality of the event in question. Essentially the United States killed a foreign national on foreign soil without trial or due process. An assassination. Pretty much everyone agrees that this was alright, even within the Muslim world. It is agreed that it is alright because Osama bin-Laden was an evil man who did great harm. Essentially he has been killed for his crimes, and his crimes were heinous enough for his death to be reasonable, or even a good result.
So here's the question: what crime had Osama bin-Laden been guilty of that Barak Obama has not also committed?
Osama bin-Laden's crimes are that of being the leader of a group that had a prolonged campaign to defeat the USA that killed US military and civilians. He was the figurehead who approved the funding, training, and operations of those who killed innocent people.
Barak Obama is the leader of the US military forces that have fought a prolonged campaign to defeat Al-Qaeda resulting in the killing of Al-Qaeda fighters and innocent civilians.
When put like that it is hard to find the difference in crime. But it really feels as though Osama bin-Laden was evil, and Barak Obama is not. What can be the moral difference?
The obvious and most distasteful reason could be that Barak Obama is a liberal, American. Someone like me, and Osama bin-Laden was a fundamentalist, Muslim, Saudi Arabian, someone very much not like me. I hope that this is not the underlying reason, but I must put it out there for examination.
The second reason that might work is that of precedence, that Osama bin-Laden attacked the US first and therefore Barak Obama was fighting back to protect the US. That's a much better reason, but if you look at the history of US involvement in the Middle East, from Afghanistan in the 1980's, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia it isn't very hard to come up with a somewhat well-founded argument that the US has been attacking the people of the Middle East for decades. This is an extremely complex issue, one which I am not really qualified to describe. It does leave me with the question as to who decides what is an attack, and what is the legitimate defense of a country? Does it come down to me believing that people like me should be able to decide? 9/11/2001 certainly seems more directly heinous to me than funding the military that oppressed the Palestinian people and propping up the Saudi royal family. Is that simply bias?
The third reason is that of legitimacy. Barak Obama is an elected official under a Constitution, subject to law, subject to the will of the people, and accepted by a military that is supposed to operate under a code of conduct. This position is accepted by similarly legitimized people and organizations around the world. Osama bin-Laden was a rich guy who convinced other people to go along with what he was doing, and his methods to achieve his goals. In the same way that a policeman arresting a person and putting them in a jail cell is OK but me grabbing someone off the street and putting them in a cell is kidnapping, Obama's position gives his acts legitimacy. Legitimacy for me is suspiciously close to authority, it makes me nervous. Still, I am enough of a pragmatist to know that it is necessary for people to do bad things, and as long as we have checks and balances on authority, legitimacy must matter.
The fourth reason is that of intent. It is my belief that Osama bin-Laden intended that innocent civilians be killed to further his cause. His intent was murder. It is my belief that the innocent civilians killed as a result of Barak Obama's orders were not the intended target. They were accidents. The difference between manslaughter and murder. While this doesn't make a shred of difference to those killed, or to their families and friends, for some reason it makes a difference to me. I don't know why, but the intent of the matter is significant to me.
So, the crime that Osama bin-Laden is guilty of that Barak Obama has not committed is the intentional killing of innocent people without the legitimacy of official position. Barak Obama has merely accidentally killed innocent people while fulfilling his legitimate official duties. An office and a different intent is what separates the two morally. Emotionally I wish my head could come up with an intellectually more rigorous distinction.
This led me to an exploration of the morality of the event in question. Essentially the United States killed a foreign national on foreign soil without trial or due process. An assassination. Pretty much everyone agrees that this was alright, even within the Muslim world. It is agreed that it is alright because Osama bin-Laden was an evil man who did great harm. Essentially he has been killed for his crimes, and his crimes were heinous enough for his death to be reasonable, or even a good result.
So here's the question: what crime had Osama bin-Laden been guilty of that Barak Obama has not also committed?
Osama bin-Laden's crimes are that of being the leader of a group that had a prolonged campaign to defeat the USA that killed US military and civilians. He was the figurehead who approved the funding, training, and operations of those who killed innocent people.
Barak Obama is the leader of the US military forces that have fought a prolonged campaign to defeat Al-Qaeda resulting in the killing of Al-Qaeda fighters and innocent civilians.
When put like that it is hard to find the difference in crime. But it really feels as though Osama bin-Laden was evil, and Barak Obama is not. What can be the moral difference?
The obvious and most distasteful reason could be that Barak Obama is a liberal, American. Someone like me, and Osama bin-Laden was a fundamentalist, Muslim, Saudi Arabian, someone very much not like me. I hope that this is not the underlying reason, but I must put it out there for examination.
The second reason that might work is that of precedence, that Osama bin-Laden attacked the US first and therefore Barak Obama was fighting back to protect the US. That's a much better reason, but if you look at the history of US involvement in the Middle East, from Afghanistan in the 1980's, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia it isn't very hard to come up with a somewhat well-founded argument that the US has been attacking the people of the Middle East for decades. This is an extremely complex issue, one which I am not really qualified to describe. It does leave me with the question as to who decides what is an attack, and what is the legitimate defense of a country? Does it come down to me believing that people like me should be able to decide? 9/11/2001 certainly seems more directly heinous to me than funding the military that oppressed the Palestinian people and propping up the Saudi royal family. Is that simply bias?
The third reason is that of legitimacy. Barak Obama is an elected official under a Constitution, subject to law, subject to the will of the people, and accepted by a military that is supposed to operate under a code of conduct. This position is accepted by similarly legitimized people and organizations around the world. Osama bin-Laden was a rich guy who convinced other people to go along with what he was doing, and his methods to achieve his goals. In the same way that a policeman arresting a person and putting them in a jail cell is OK but me grabbing someone off the street and putting them in a cell is kidnapping, Obama's position gives his acts legitimacy. Legitimacy for me is suspiciously close to authority, it makes me nervous. Still, I am enough of a pragmatist to know that it is necessary for people to do bad things, and as long as we have checks and balances on authority, legitimacy must matter.
The fourth reason is that of intent. It is my belief that Osama bin-Laden intended that innocent civilians be killed to further his cause. His intent was murder. It is my belief that the innocent civilians killed as a result of Barak Obama's orders were not the intended target. They were accidents. The difference between manslaughter and murder. While this doesn't make a shred of difference to those killed, or to their families and friends, for some reason it makes a difference to me. I don't know why, but the intent of the matter is significant to me.
So, the crime that Osama bin-Laden is guilty of that Barak Obama has not committed is the intentional killing of innocent people without the legitimacy of official position. Barak Obama has merely accidentally killed innocent people while fulfilling his legitimate official duties. An office and a different intent is what separates the two morally. Emotionally I wish my head could come up with an intellectually more rigorous distinction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)