On empathic projection

From the webcam of the laptop with which I edited most of this post when I should have been writing my comprehensive exam.  FYI, Einstein was defending Bertrand Russell.

What is social justice?  No. Seriously. What IS it?  Thousands of years of philosophizing and insightful reflection have yet to glean a satisfactory response to a simple yet eminently consequential question.

From the pre-Socratics to Socrates himself, the Western tradition passed down an, at best, provisional explication derivable from the first books of Plato's Republic.  Philosophers have long grappled with the gravity of the question and with the associated gravity of a proficient answer.

Lately, scholars of social justice have gravitated toward the discourses of empathic understanding when confronted with the question of the criteria and/or substance of social justice.  The problem in practice, as I've witnessed it, is that the respondents confronted with social injustices apply empathy undemocratically.  Under the guise of equity, these "social justice warriors" exercise a limited form of empathy that privileges empathizing with particular groups as opposed to a consciously and rigorously maintained, indiscriminate empathic disposition.  Almost daily, I encounter new politically selective applications of empathy that violate the presupposed humanistic ethics and morality of empathetic practice.

Just as Henry Giroux argued that a "democracy can never be democratic enough," empathy can never be empathized enough.  The schools of liberal democratic thought taken to their logical extremes necessitate a democratic empathy and an empathetic democracy in which people practice empathy as democratically and exhaustively as possible.

The idealized desire for the practice of democracy and empathy in their extremities echoes the philosopher's restless pursuit of timelessness and universality.  During a heated philosophical discussion that feels like yesterday but actually transpired about 8 years ago, a great friend and I were arguing about the possibility of objective morality: or in other words, a morality that could transcend time and space and that would be applicable for any human context.  The other discussant was a staunch Christian, while I was a less radically agnostic version of myself.  We couldn't agree on anything other than that if such morality were ascertainable, it could be determined only through an application of reason and empiricism and could only be validated through some leap of faith.

Upon that insight, I wrote one of the first Facebook notes that became one of the first posts in this blog; it attempted to begin elucidating a rationalistic morality.  My consistent contemplation of this construct anticipated my attempt to illustrate the highest moral imperative.  Only recently did I realize that these explorations betrayed a deeper goal of uncovering a (read: the) universal morality via what I now refer to as empathic projection.

In order to practice empathy as democratically and exhaustively as possible, arguably, one must embrace empathic projection.  The OED defines "projection" as "an estimate or forecast of a future situation based on a study of present trends" and as "a mental image viewed as reality."  Essentially, "empathic projection" depicts a practice of empathy through which one estimates or forecasts the situations of future human beings in order to generate a mental image of what might comprise these beings' lived realities.  This practice might enable one to "empathize with potentiality."

In other words, empathic projection can enable an inquiry approach with which one extends inferences beyond past and present circumstances.  An indiscriminately empathic democracy necessitates that the thoughts, wills, and actions of its citizens not only consider empathy with those whom exist and will exist within their lifelitimes but with those whom potentially will exist (to be as democratic, equitable, and non-egoistic as possible). It's a narrowly presentist assumption that one need only empathize with those whom exist in one's generation or with those of the immediately succeeding generation.

The most universal ethic would require that moral judgement be situated not only by empathizing with those whom exist and will exist soon, but with those whom will exist who will never interact with you directly: a morality of the substantive Other.  Caring about people exhaustively inevitably anticipates caring about the future because there are infinitely more potential people of the future than there could ever be living today.  Ask yourself what these timelessly succeeding Others would ask of their preceding Others; this abstraction's moral intimations could validate a trans-generational human morality.

At the very least, logically, these succeeding Others would desire the same degree of opportunity (potentiality) as those whom preceded them since anything less than at least that potentiality would constitute a perfect injustice.  Thinking historically, this justified continuancy of opportunity followed a timeless trend of taken-for-granted equivalency of potentiality which, until the past ~50 years, had remained more-or-less uncontested.

Thus, empathic projection might reveal semblances of an ultimate universal "moral high ground" through the application of empirical reasoning and logic.  If this form exists at all—a morality and/or value system that exists in spite of and simultaneously among and within us, timelessly—then it might be revealable through empathic projection.

In sum, if there is a social justice to be realized, then empathic projection could be pivotal.  These intellectual gymnastics might be essential to cobbling together the political will to do what is necessary to preserve the sentience and sapience of this planet.  Without it, we will undoubtedly continue to elect those antithetical to the future.

On the privilege of sacrifice

Earn this...

I suppose that it's inevitable that blogs contain autobiographical elements.
---
Unbeknownst to most, I am actually a musician.  And I'm not just a musician but a song writer.  At least, I was.

Music still comprises the greater part of my life.  If I remember correctly, I was taking piano lessons when I was as young as 10 years old.  I didn't love it initially, but it grew on me.  I was extremely fortunate that my family could also put me through voice lessons.  By grade 11, I was writing songs monthly for the coffee houses held by the music program at my high school.  I always had to one-up myself, technically, melodically, rhythmically, and/or by refining my overall performance.  I became absolutely obsessed with writing music.  At one point in my life, I would spend over half of my waking hours trying to find underused chord formulas and rehashing traditional constructs.  I know that many people would kill to have my talent (at least that's what my mother always says).

And then I stopped.

It's a bit like ripping my own heart out, tossing it to the side, and knowing that it's still beating.

There has always been a part of me that just wanted to drop everything, join another band, write music, and perform live shows for the rest of my life.

But to this day, I have never regretted sacrificing that privilege.

The rest of this blog post will attempt to unpack that ^^^ statement.
---
How was/is my capacity for music a privilege you might ask?

We usually talk about privilege in terms of skin colour, gender, class, wealth, and/or ability.  I'm referring to privilege in a much more wholistic and abstract sense.  I think that I would describe privilege as a certain kind of un/known capacity.

First, many, if not most, families cannot afford to put their kids through piano and voice lessons.  I am ever indebted to my parents for pushing me to attend lessons with an expert from the Royal Conservatory, let alone fund my classes.

Secondly, I know that I can contribute at least 10 fold more to others through schooling, research, and politics than I could ever contribute through a career in music.

Finally, and most importantly, it's possible that in sacrificing my capacity for music that I can bring myself closer to living a Good life.  Not everyone will have the chance to do that which Socrates and his pupils exalted within the Ancient Greek dialogues.

Although one of my greatest sacrifices, writing and playing music is now just one drop in the sacrificial bucket that has been my life.  And I'm not alone in this regard.  Some of my closest allies have forgone child bearing and even intimate relationships in order to treat others as they would have others treat them.  This lifestyle is not for everyone.  But I believe that for me, it is absolutely necessary.  Because my definition of "others" stretches off into the infinite.  My definition includes all potential sentient, feeling, life: all of those potential lives who might have acted differently if they were in my position with my known capacity.

If this capacity is privy to the agent wielding it,  then there are consequences.  For example, I have empirical evidence that I can work almost non-stop in the service of others; therefore, if I know that, then I have a responsibility to do it.  Put another way, someone in the future experiencing the brink of the total destruction of this planet would admonish me if he/she could.  It's a logical projection of our circumstances given the empirical evidence available.

Moreover, our individual responsibility for the future scales with our known capacity.  In this sense, known capacity refers to our knowledge of the causality that might impact the future combined with our knowledge of our ability to do something about it.

I don't expect everyone to adopt my moral universe and, to be honest, I never did.  I don't want my students to end up like me.  I don't want them to have to let go of parts of themselves in order to make this world decent.

But our context has no precedent in human history.  And if we empathize with potentiality, all of those potential lives, it's not an tremendous leap of faith to conclude that they would want, at least, the same chances that we had.  We have this responsibility as an extension of our awareness.  We have an obligation inherent in the universal values of the human species that have transcended time.

I'm only requesting that we try to be reasonable given the circumstances.  We have enormous power over the future of this planet.  And as the inevitable cliche suggests "With great power comes great responsibility."

Therefore, we can have the choice of whether to sacrifice our privileges for the sake of others.
I would earnestly request from my reader that, at the very least, we do that which we think would be reasonable.
---
I didn't watch the entire movie, 'Saving Private Ryan,' until I was in China about a year ago.  The first time I watched the ending, I balled my eyes out.  I don't think I've ever cried that much in my entire life.  I want the people of the future to have Ryan's degree of appreciation for what we did.  (Un)fortunately, that means that we may need to sacrifice some of our privileges so that they might have, at least, the same opportunities that we had.
---
My students once asked me "How do you define success?"  After some thought, I responded "If I can achieve a measure of decency, then that's enough.  If I can treat others the same way that I would have them treat me, then I've succeeded."

In pursuit of moral revolution...

I am about to embark on my craziest journey to date.  Craziest, in spite of working two-three jobs while counselling as well as building and directing Students Teaching Students in undergrad.  Craziest, in spite of starting my Master's in education before my teaching degree, and then writing and defending my thesis in four months to go to China.  Craziest, in spite of completing three degrees in six years.  And craziest, in spite of teaching sciences and mathematics full-time in China for a year and a half with a history and social justice and peace studies degree.  (These were the highlights.  I am eternally grateful to all of those who made these initiatives and those that I didn't mention a reality ~ especially STS.)

Yet, what I am about to do scares the hell out of me.  My feelings inform my resolve and reflect the gravity of what I am attempting to do.  I am gambling with all of my resources and with my future with the best intentions that I can muster.

---

Before I continue, I should acknowledge a new caveat in my writing in this blog.  Since teaching in China, I now have a following of students who are adept when it comes to using (and sometimes abusing) the digital and social media explosion.  I have a much higher degree of responsibility to write in a way that respects those who were and continue to be influenced by my words and actions.

---

Lately, Martin Luther King Jr.'s words have been ringing in my mind.  They have been the final word on my Facebook profile since I made it, and they will likely continue to guide me for years to come.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter."

It is with his words that I felt compelled to reinvigorate this blog.  I will continue to attempt to live those words with no less responsibility, and self-consciousness, than when I was teaching professionally.

I am heading to downtown Toronto in pursuit of moral revolution.  I have acquired a room in a condo a couple of blocks from Queen's Park after, sometimes, shameless self-promotion for a decent price without any contacts in the core.  I will be working all day, every day, to fulfill a dream that I had in high school.

I believe that harnessing the values discourse is the key to a kind of moral transcendence.  I didn't have the evidence to argue this before.  And in fact, I still don't have the evidence to argue this definitively.  I am heading to Toronto in order to pursue a PhD that will hopefully illustrate or condemn the utility of inquiring into the values discourse through values dialogue in educational institutions.  This research could change the way we think about and approach the edification of human beings.  And if so, then it could change the future.

I could be so very wrong on so many levels.

But if the most capable and willful among us choose not to do that which is necessary to ensure the future, then it's already over.

I decided against applying for vice-principal for my former school, after thinking of nothing but educational leadership for the past three years since I started my Master's in educational administration and policy, in order to pursue this dream.  For the kids, let's change the world.

It actually doesn't really matter if you're right.

This post has been months in the making.  I've wanted to say this for a long while, but I didn't have the words... or the time.

As you probably know, the world's not doing so hot.  And worse yet, very few of us are attempting to do anything about it, let alone care.

The ones who care are searching for better ideas.  The ones who act are trying to foster better habits.

Both are seeking and attempting to realize solutions.

---

What if I told you that there's a significant chance that there is no "solution"?  No paradigm to shift to; no golden idea that will transform society; and no be-all end-all way to solve our problems?

These words are not those of a pessimistic fatalist.  Recently I've become tentatively confident that one could have all of the currently knowable knowledge in our world and still go through his/her entire life without making a positive impact on society.  This reality is less a reflection of the potential qualities and quantities of knowledge than of the day-to-day maintenance and function of the human race.  Our collective condition is such that one person could have an idea that could solve all of the world's problems and yet this person could forever live in a world full of problems.

I was lucky.  I stumbled upon the Meta-discourse at a relatively young age.  I'm speaking of the values discourse: the discourse that overshadows, informs, and shapes all other discourses; the first and last discourse of importance. I've often questioned whether my knowledge has been a blessing or a curse.  However, to this day, I continue to maintain that knowledge in of itself is neither good or evil; that the value of knowledge depends on what one does with it.

It's funny.  Knowledge of the highest discourse is actually meaningless given the parameters of planet Earth.  Even if one had an idea as to how every human decision is made, this knowledge in of itself is valueless.

---

Exhibit Edward Snowden, our new modern middle-class hero.  He opened our eyes in ways that few have in our generation.  He gave us hard evidence that our governments in the West are not to be trusted and that our supposed representatives have a systemic distrust of the public they supposedly serve.  And yet here we are, almost years later living ostensibly the same lives we were living almost years before.  What really changed in the day-to-day habits of the masses?  The people who already distrusted our governments gleefully confirmed their biases, and the people of faith have yet to demand hard concessions.

Snowden demonstrated a reality of democracy that ironically few care to acknowledge.  You could walk into a crowded town square containing the majority of a society with a gold tablet handed to you from the highest God telling everyone how they should live their lives differently with the greatest wisdom, and almost no one would change their day-to-day routine.  If one cannot market that understanding, sell it to the masses comprehensibly, and institutionalize it for future generations, then that knowledge in of itself has no value to the future of humanity.

---

In fact, it actually doesn't really matter if you're right.

This is my problem with some of the people who continue to look for that gold tablet, the so-called whistle blowers.  Practically speaking, these martyred actions change almost nothing  In fact, they will likely change less and less the more bureaucratized and institutionalized society becomes.

That's not to say that the situation is hopeless.  We just need to accept the situation for what it is, and use the resources at our disposal.  Particularly, we need to target structures.  And first and foremost, we need to stay practical.

I continuously hear my friends and colleagues demanding for better ideas.  But many of the ideas have been here all along.  "An absolutely new idea is one of the rarest things known to man."

People need to make better use of existing good ideas.

We need less armchair humanists and more people carefully leading on the front lines.  We need less concern for new ideas and greater execution of ideas that have been around for millenia.  We need less people concerned with being right and more people concerned with making us right.

What is the purpose of institutionalized education?

page 288, second paragraph

I have not published anything in this blog for almost half of a year.  In large part, this hiatus was due to beginning writing, defending, and publishing this monstrosity.  I will start teaching full-time at a Canadian International School in Jiangsu province, China, in January and so I felt that this was as good a time as ever to finish this blog post and to re-energize this blog.

I've danced around the question of the purpose of institutionalized education for over half of a decade.  As someone who changed his entire life trajectory to that of affecting reform of institutionalized education, it's rather ironic that I have never attempted to address the "final cause" of education in writing or otherwise.  I've yet to attempt to explain the conceptual logic behind what I continue to choose to do on a daily basis.

I am almost certain that there is an end that links all means of institutionalized education.  Educa-tion can connote the process of "putting someone through" something. When referenced to a curriculum, education can be both figuratively and practically defined as "putting someone through a course."

Therefore, all means of education can be described as means of putting or guiding someone through some kind of process.  This author wonders "why do we bother putting someone through anything?"

From my experience, the final purpose of any and all education is to foster responsibility: i.e., a particular onus or commitment to respecting and to enacting a disposition of responsiveness.

There's a wealth of nomenclature utilized throughout the scholarship of pedagogies that describe aspects of this unifying purpose of education, from mindfulness, to forms of critical thinking, to resiliency.  However, these terms are all aspects of or precursors to an end of fostering greater responsibility.

After all, one's greater responsibility is directly linked to one's greater degree of knowledge.  One cannot be responsible for that which one does not know.  Moreover, the desire to foster knowledge mirrors the desire to foster a kind of responsibility where there was none before.  More generally, there are as many forms of responsibility as there are forms of knowing.

Furthermore, we can only be responsible for that which we have some degree of certainty.  Regardless of context, without a basic degree of certainty of cause and effect, one cannot be responsible for an outcome.  Therefore, to foster certainty is to foster the precursor to responsibility.

Throughout the past, certain forms of knowing have come to be discredited or disavowed of the same legitimacy as that of other forms of knowing.  Today, scientific understanding, or certainty derived from observing patterns and habits, holds sway in many parts of the world.  In spite of the rise of scientific methodology, knowledge from authority continues to hold prominence.

Just as certain forms of knowing have been gradually discredited over time, so have certain forms of responsibility.  Our degree of responsibility is directly constrained by our knowledge that we hold with the greatest certainty.

But regardless of one's epistemology, or means of knowing, one educates for responsibility.  Whether it be a responsibility to use proper grammar, to uphold the sacraments, to the proper use of electron microscopes, or to utilizing the fine motor skills required to create a work of visual beauty, educators seem to educate to this common end.

Moreover, educators working within the disciplines concerned with humanity teach toward a particular set of aspects of responsiveness, empathy.  What is empathy, but a kind of humanistic responsibility? What are the capacities of empathy, but cognitive processes involved in accurately responding to human needs?

Importantly, responsibility is nothing more than a set of suggestions for action; responsibilities as human dispositions do not control action.  Cognitive empathy, (empathic capacity dependent on thought processes), provides a person with a set of suggestions for how to best act with or toward another person.  But a person can refuse to listen to the data he/she acquires through his/her empathic capacity, just as any person with any responsibility can shirk it.  However, the fact remains, without any degree of responsibility, without any degree of certainty, one cannot behave ethically even by one's own standard(s) --- nihilism being the noted exception.

The commonality among the various products of education has some important implications for how to effectively conduct the processes of education.  I've already spoken of the importance of fostering appreciation.  Appreciation, like technique, is merely a means to responsibility or to acting responsibly.

The goal of this post is to serve as a far-cry to educators contemplating the learning objectives, specific and overall expectations, prescribed learning outcomes, and <insert ministry edujargon here>, of their educational programming.  If the goal of education is to foster responsiveness, then this goal should be reflected in how we structure our interactions with students.

I try to be reasonably skeptical of my own ideas.  However, this commonality across ends of educative processes has held in every instance I've witnessed to date.  You are welcome, as always, to challenge my opinion.  These posts are intended to serve as contributions to the continuing discourse, not as solutions.
---
When I participated in service-learning in Berlin and Poland as a part of my Teacher Education program, I visited Birkenhau.  Today, behind what was "the little white house", there's an open field.  One of vilest acts against humanity in recorded history occurred in and around that field.  It's one thing to torture and murder human beings on a vast scale.  It's altogether another to have their kin dig up the victims' remains and burn them in order to hide the evidence of your deeds.  The conductors of this abominable tragedy demonstrated by facilitating it that they knowingly shirked their responsibilities to their victims' and their own humanity.  I now have the responsibility to carry-out their memory and, given the seeming logic of education, now you do too.

On appreciation

Christmas Truce of 1914

As the first round of holy-days draw to a close, I'm reminded of all those who could not for diverse trials and tribulations celebrate them with the same warmth and comfort as myself. 

I treasure holidays as an opportunity for reflection: an opportunity to reflect, yet again, on all that I, and my community, take for granted.  Just as consciousness is always becoming, growing, and fostering, so is our understanding of our privileges.  So many of us take for granted the reality that we'll never realize just how much we take for granted.  The wisdom that we know next to nothing will ironically never cease to serve as an impetus and agent in the fostering of new knowledge.

My reflection intensified as some members of my friends and family exchanged racist and homophobic remarks and jokes during one of our gatherings, as I'm sure some of my colleagues and peers may have witnessed with their own friends and families.  My siblings and I were fortunate enough to be gifted with a liberal education that inculcated a relatively greater respect for all human beings regardless of skin colour, ethnicity, gender, and sexual affinity.  An education that itself is often underestimated; one that often contributes to the formation of impossible expectations for those without such an education such as of those making the racist and homophobic comments.  I found myself in a situation where I had ample opportunity to unleash an indignant inclusivist self-righteous fury.  But I didn't.

Because an "indignant inclusivist self-righteous fury" is an oxymoron.  Militancy with regards to inclusivity can be both thoughtless and careless.  As I stated in the forerunner to this blog post

"just as it's easy for the conservative to turn inwards, it's easy for the liberal to turn their back on the conservative.  All you accomplish by turning your back on conservatives is to alienate, victimize, and thus, feed their conservatism even more.  It's easy to mock Tea Partiers, but much more difficult to empathize with them - to invite them to come together for the benefit of all."

All I would have fostered by going on an inclusive offensive was greater defensiveness, more justifications for feelings of victimization, more walls, and ultimately more exclusion.

I find myself cautioning my former classmates and all those involved in the movement for sustainable self-actualization.  We won't win converts to our cause by oppressing them, even if they are in fact ultimately in the wrong.  We'll win converts by fostering their appreciation. 

In one of my more abstract series of posts on this blog, I argued that unity is the way.  In the context of the current post, it's unity between the racists, the homophobes, and those they prejudge and fear, that is the good life for all.  Even the most oppressive human beings on the planet were, and still are, human beings.  Paulo Freire once argued that the oppressed must liberate their oppressors.  I can't imagine a situation in which unleashing a self-righteous fury could be liberating, unless it was truly directed towards unity. 

Education more often than not is simply a call to appreciation.  Whether it's an appreciation of processes, identities, events, ideas, or wisdom, one of our roles as learners and educators is to create appreciation where there was none before.  Just as we'll never realize just how much we take for granted, we'll never appreciate just how much we will never appreciate.  I embrace holidays as an opportunity to grow in appreciation and to slowly foster appreciation in others.

To quote the wisdom of Confucius a second time in this blog, “It is not the failure of others to appreciate your abilities that should trouble you, but rather your failure to appreciate theirs.”

On standardized testing

I started writing a reflection for one of my classes and it turned into an off-topic gripe-fest about standardized testing only worthy of publishing to blogs dedicated to improving the world such as this.  Enjoy!

---

In my graduate studies, my Introduction to Curriculum class once came to the conclusion that standardization in schools is not inherently evil.  The key question to ask when confronted with standardization is “standardization of what?”  Are you standardizing the process of education?  I.e. pedagogies and practices. (the means) Or are you standardizing the outcomes?  I.e. evaluation and the desired understandings and skills of students. (the ends)

---

Standardizing evaluations and outcomes can create many problems, as demonstrated by researchers of standardized testing.  Standardized tests like the EQAO and AYP have the potential to create systems of schooling that---instead of improving students' overall understanding, skills, and allowing them to realize their full potential---actually just increase students’ ability to score well on standardized tests.

Standardized evaluations can create systemic problems such as polarizing the efficacy of schools.  For example, magnet schools that do well at reaching standardized outcomes tend to attract the best teachers meanwhile schools that are barely surviving under scrutiny based on standardized test results tend to ward off good teachers.  This relationship creates a positive feedback loop in which the better a school does on the tests the more it attracts good teachers and funding (which allows the school to do even better on the tests); the worse a failing school does on the tests the more it wards off good teachers and suffers reduced budgets (which cripples the school at the expense of the students who end up doing even worse on the tests).  This exponentially increasing gap between the best and worst schools is very real in certain parts of the United States.

---

However, standardizing outcomes, but especially standardization the evaluation of outcomes, can help organize and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of educative systems (pending those educative systems actually use the data collected by standardized evaluation).  Ideally, if you have a sufficient effective measure of outcomes, it's possible to compare school environments, demographics, students' socioeconomic statuses, etc. with schools' capacity to achieve learning outcomes.

Standardizing evaluations of outcomes provides benchmarks.  They can act as a ruler to measure the relative efficacy of schools and their educative potential.  Further, standardization of evaluations of outcomes encourages teachers to organize their lessons around learning outcomes.  It forces teachers into backward designing their lessons: identifying outcomes and developing teaching practices and activities which create the educational experiences necessary to achieve those outcomes.

Whereas standardizing outcomes can be justified, standardizing pedagogy and practices almost always creates more problems than it solves.  Every student learns at different times in different ways.  Given the diversity of learners, there’s a strong justification for differentiated instruction. 

There's something enormously dehumanizing about homogenizing teaching practices and pedagogies.  It denies the individuality, diversity, exceptionality, and the potential vitality and vibrancy of the human condition.  This goes for students AND teachers.  Teachers are just as diverse as students, and to constrict teaching practice and philosophy is to try to take the human beings out of teaching and learning.  You kill style, attitude, and enthusiasm.  Teacher-directed teaching can be just as important as student-directed learning.

All that to say, it's in everyone's interest that we constantly renegotiate the qualities, understandings, and skills that belong to an ideal global citizen.  Therefore, it's also in everyone's interest that we constantly renegotiate the methods and philosophies that should be employed when educating such citizens.

Just another blog update

Hello everyone,

The lifestream.

I sincerely apologize for neglecting this blog.  In truth, this blog was pulled from the web for almost 2 months.  I recently started teacher's college. Given the constant haranguing my colleagues and I encounter in our professional programs in regards to maintaining a professional identity both in person and on the web, I ended up killing this blog.  It was heart-wrenching and, given the nature of some of the arguments put forth in this blog, even hypocritical. 

As such, in order to relaunch this blog, I needed to gut it in order to make it more reader friendly and politically correct.  Over the past 2 weeks in my scarce spare moments, I've reread and edited almost every post. 

For those of you who followed this blog in the past, you'll notice the domain name, the name of the blog, and the background have changed.  The blog's domain name, and actual name, used to be "just another blog on saving the world."  But like the blog, I myself have changed.  Specifically, my understanding of the cause (the self-actualization of all life and life not yet lived) has transformed greatly in the past couple months.

I've started asking myself, as someone dedicated to changing the world, "what would we be saving?"  Really.  Just what would anyone be saving right now?  If you look out your window, most of the time you'll just see bread and circuses.  We live in a world of shamelessly glorified hedonism.  When one attempts to save a world, they attempt to return a crisis situation to a former status quo.  I desire so much more than the status quo.

Hence the change in name.  "Just another blog for improving our world" is more accurate to my own vision and my vision for this blog.  The use of the word "for" rather than "on" in the title is intentional.  This platform is meant to be collaborative.  My teaching and pedagogy both informally and formally are dominated by dialogical collaboration.  These posts are simply conversation pieces: an opportunity to engage with one another.  Improvement isn't something one imposes on society.  It's something developed and fostered by a society from within itself collectively.

Further, I've changed the background from the classic matrix code to a new graphic more reflective of the blog's new mandate of improvement.  Rather than ending the war for people's minds, which the previous graphic symbolized, this new graphic is an artist's rendition of the lifestream, a brilliant metaphor from Final Fantasy VII.  I've alluded to the lifestream before.  The lifestream represents the collective souls of the planet.  I don't believe in souls or supernatural energy, but I do believe that all life is connected; that every thought and action we take creates ripples in our existences and all future existences born from our own.

So there you have it, the way forward.  I hope this blog will contribute to the improvement of our world.  Thanks for reading.  As always, comments welcome.

On Democracy

"At the earnest instigation of Plato and others of his friends [the judge] offered a fine which they would pay, but Socrates would give no undertaking to cease his 'corrupting' activities, on the grounds that to him they were more important than life itself" - W. K. C. Guthrie, The Greek Philosophers: From Thales to Aristotle

As I find myself growing more and more political as of late, especially through my participation in democratic governance, I find myself growing more and more critical of democracy.

Basically anyone born in North America in the last half century has been raised as if democracy is the greatest, most benign and benevolent, political framework to ever have existed.  And many people accept it as such or lack the capacities and consciousness to even think otherwise.

For the TL;DR, the goodness of a democracy depends on the goodness of its majority.  Contrary to populist opinion, democracy is not rule by the people for the people.  It's actually rule by the majority of people for the people.

To illustrate, all motions in democratic governance delivered to deliberative assemblies are passed or rejected based on a majority of votes.  Sometimes a motion requires what's colloquially referred to in governance circles as a "simple majority."  A simple majority consists of 50% of the vote + 1.  In extraordinary circumstances, such as an addition to an agenda or a constitutional amendment, a motion may require a greater majority such as a 2/3s, 90%, or even unanimous consent.

Here's the problem.  The goodness of a decision of the deliberative body in the previous illustration depends entirely on the goodness of those who compose the majority of the vote.  In other words, if your majority is wrong, or worse: evil, you have a big problem.

Here's a couple examples of the former.  Hitler was elected.  Socrates's execution was determined by a democratic vote.  And this happened. 

Given the potential and actual problems of concentrating governmental power in the hands of the few, democracy is a kind of last best hope that the majority of a society will govern in the best interests of everyone.  There are many assumptions laid when one would argue that the majority of a society will govern well.  First, you're assuming the majority of that society is rational.  Secondly, you're assuming that the majority actually realizes what's in their best interest.  Finally, you're assuming that the majority has equal access to, and participation with, governance.

I don't know about you, but I've never in the whole history of humanity encountered a society in which the majority of people are rational, live good, and access and participate with governance equally and sufficiently.  Maybe that's too idealistic to ever become a reality.

Such was Plato's general opinion when he late in life wrote The Laws.  If you get the chance to wade through the book, you'll find an author completely disgusted and distrustful of democracy.  After all, his own democracy forced the suicide of his mentor and friend Socrates. 

Plato's solution to the potential problems of majority governance was the rule of law through a nearly unalterable set of laws shaped by the Nocturnal Council.  As the linked article demonstrates, there's a great deal of controversy surrounding the authority and actual function of the council.  However, it's almost certain that this council harbored the greatest quantities and qualities of wisdom.  They may not have been the philosopher kings of Plato's Republic, but they were to be the wisest: those with the greatest study and understanding of the good life.

In other words, Plato's solution to the potential threats of democratic rule was basically an oligarchy: rule by the few.  Lately I've become more and more attracted to this idea.

My attraction to oligarchy is based on the assumptions laid on the majority in a good democracy.  For an ideal, good, and effective democracy the majority needs to be rational.  Secondly, the majority has to have an informed understanding of what it means to live well; the qualities and virtues that compose a good life.  Finally, in order to have equal access to, and participation with, governance everyone must share and sustain procedural justice. 

In order to create such a majority of people in a society there needs to be systems in place that provide educations necessary to foster these qualities in its citizens.  North American societies today are well schooled, but hardly educated, especially when held to the standard of reason, goodness, and access to, and participation in, governance.

I'm of the opinion that the ultimate form of human governance is in fact a horizontal consensus democracy, vertically representative if only because of practical necessity.  Anarchists tend to forget that one of the main functions of the state is bureaucratic.  States first came into existence because there were a lot of people and a lot of resources to distribute.  Large groups of similar individuals came together to create institutions to handle large quantities of resources-both human and material.  Horizontal democracy is made a pipe dream by the practical realities of everyday life: the sheer number of people on the planet and the vast quantities of resources to distribute.

Although horizontal consensus governance remains the ideal form of human government, I believe oligarchy is a necessary, temporary, evil.  I believe that in order to create a sufficiently  educated, effective, good democracy, there needs to be a temporary rule by philosopher kings and queens.  A temporary oligarchy of philosophers because people can't grasp the value of an education that fosters reason, happiness, justice, and fairness, until they've actually got it. 

The question is, how could that ever possibly happen?

Oh wait... China.

(Admittedly China is not the ideal example but it's probably one of the best ones currently available)

On accountability: The importance of honesty

It's a kind of cosmic irony that one of the greatest systemic problems facing humanity today is our incapacity to take accountability for our own actions.  Many of us go great lengths to salvage and protect our pride, often to self- and community-destructive ends.  Even more ironic is the availability of the solution, the degree of ease in simply enacting accountability; to be honest.

This dishonesty contributes to a range of social problems and inequalities ranging from war to poverty.  It has enormous ramifications for conflict resolution, everywhere from intimate relationship, to international, violence. 

As a co-facilitator at Changing Ways, I've witnessed how a lack of accountability can destroy relationships.  As a student of history, I've witnessed how dishonesty has tarnished, and even lead to the conquering of, nations.

Accountability affects every context of our lives, and yet it's barely discussed in common conversation.  In fact, discussions of accountability are most often prompted by some sort of accusation of dishonesty; rarely is it discussed as a virtue, ideal, or something intrinsically worth enacting.

So just what is accountability?

Well, Wikipedia currently provides several context specific definitions supplying little assistance in this instance.  But the webpage demonstrates that definitions of concepts can have as many nuances as there are contexts in which these concepts can be identified.

I've been confronted with defining accountability several times, especially at Changing Ways where men were "coerced" into writing accountability statements: to take accountability for the behavior that landed them at the institution.  As such, I've encountered a plethora of definitions from which to draw my own.

In this instance, I'm referring to accountability in its primary essence, its basic values: honesty, integrity (consistency), and reason.  I developed my definition logically, as it consists of honesty, integrity, and reason, because if just one of those values is absent, one cannot be genuinely accountable.  

Without a complete commitment to honesty, dishonest behavior could be justified by reason and enacted with integrity.  I.e. left to reason and integrity, one could justify disingenuity.  I've encountered many situations where people rationalize disingenuous actions in which one behaves as though they know less than they actually do.  To spare you the list of reasons as to why such justifications can fail, I'll leave you with this: how would you feel if you were the one who suffered as a result of that disingenuous behavior?  And what's the point if you'd find out eventually, regardless?

Along with honesty, without a complete commitment to integrity, one can fail to be genuinely accountable.  I placed "consistency" in parentheses to highlight this element of integrity, but I didn't just write 'consistency' because that term alone fails to capture the range of areas within which one must be consistent to maintain their integrity.  Integrity is more than just consistent action; it's an consistent orientation to life: consistent values, beliefs, reasoning, honesty, self-criticism, etc.  Without integrity, one could pick and choose rationally and honestly where and when to be consistent instrumentally.  Integrity's not as vital as honesty and reason, but it's an essential element of persistent, life-long, genuine accountability.

Along with honesty and integrity, without a complete commitment to reason, one cannot achieve the ideal accountability so described.  I know it may sound abstract or obtuse to include reason in my definition and criteria, but bear with me.  Imagine an irrational individual claiming to be accountable based on their honesty and integrity.  In my own mind I'd picture a domestic abuser who consistently and honestly denies their culpability in an instance of domestic abuse.  By the exclusive standards of honesty and integrity, this man or woman could be described as accountable.  However, if that same situation is subjected to rational criticism and reason, that individual may be found to be otherwise.  For example, in the case suggested, the indicted might have done something they don't believe, or understand, to have affected something else.  Reason is the acknowledgement and understanding of relationships like cause and effect, consequences for behaviors, and emotional literacy.  Even if one maintains the greatest honesty and integrity, if they do not acknowledge or even deny rational deductive and inductive logic, the feelings of other individuals, or the full consequences of their actions, they cannot be genuinely accountable.

In sum, my perspective of accountability consists of honesty, integrity, and reason.

That said, why do we struggle to take accountability?

No one likes to be wrong.  In fact, as I've cited previously, in Eckhart Tolle's words, "to be wrong is to die."  Following suite, everyone likes to be right.  No one ever has trouble taking accountability for good, right, actions, unless they're prepared to confront their own pride.

As such, to take accountability is to confront our own hedonist consciousnesses: to confront our desires for pleasure and abhorrence of pain.  It's hard: very hard.  Almost, and arguably actually currently, impossible for some, depending on the context.  As it was at Changing Ways in the men's groups I helped facilitate and participated with, accountability is a process: a gradual process. And the pivotal vehicle of this process is honesty.

I'm awed and inspired by the solution.  The simple, yet revolutionary, power of honesty.  Honesty, in the sense that I use it, is simply an absolute openness, to yourself, everyone, and everything.

Meanwhile, dishonesty is dissonance.  It's a closing or alienation of ideas and people. Dishonesty is a form of conservatism; it's an act of conserving one's pride, feelings, beliefs, understandings, or principles.

As such, honesty is absolutely liberal, it's a kind of liberation: an exercise of personal liberty.  To be honest is to liberate oneself from pride, doctrines, and prejudices.

Many of us are slaves to our selves: to our own pride and hedonist values.  We exercise dishonesty, and fear accountability, because we fear the wrath of our masters: the realization and acknowledgment of who we truly are, and what we've actually done. 

Allow me to consolidate this argument with an example.  Why do we desire "privacy"?

Why?

What's the reasoning?  What's at the root of that desire?

It's because we have something worth hiding.  Whether it be worth hiding because of the consequences of its discovery, or to preserve its worth: this is the nature of any secret.  Simply put, we desire privacy because we feel we can't or shouldn't be honest; there's forces and structures preventing us from being ourselves, honestly and accountably.  We seek out and go great lengths to maintain privacy, because our society has become such that to be completely and absolutely honest about ourselves: our wants, needs, beliefs, and values, often has negative consequences.

My perspective?  Be honest anyway.  Be accountable, even if it hurts. 
Because most often the consequences of dishonesty and running from the truth far outweigh the costs of being honest and accountable.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."  You want honesty?  Accountability?  Transparency? Be honest, accountable, and transparent.

EDIT: I ironically had to delete a link linked to the words "be accountable, even if it hurts."  That link connected to a post that I had to pull from this blog given my new status as a public servant.  That post may be reposted again, but given its controversy and probable incomprehensibility to most people, it will require reworking, or at least a lot more explanation on my part.  So in eating my own words, be accountable, even if it hurts, only when such accountability will allow you to continue to realize your self and your world.

"Unity is the Way" Part 3: Unity through Discourse; Discourse through Unity

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - MLK Jr.

I continuously learn while writing these posts; they, and I, constantly grow.  To demonstrate, this marks the second time I've rewritten this post from scratch, because I've refuted myself a second time as to the main impetus for unity.
---

I discovered the greatest justification, yet, while reading Tasos Kazepides's Education as dialogue: Its prerequisites and its enemies, a book I stumbled upon while reading towards my Master's thesis. 

Like my proposed concept analysis, Kazepides sifts through the various potential requisites and obstacles to effective dialogue.  Although, as of what I've read so far, he has yet to mention the importance of unity.
---
Succinctly, "unity is the way" because unity develops through discourse, and discourse develops through unity.

I've highlighted the importance of dialogue before, twice.  However, when I wrote those posts, I hadn't yet thought systematically about the criteria for effective dialogue.  While reading Kazepides, I had a small eureka when I considered the relationship between discourse and unity.

Simply stated, dialogue is a vehicle to unity, and unity: a vehicle to dialogue.   Unity develops as a result of the mutuality established in effective discourse, like that which I described in "OnMethods: How Dialogue will Change the World, Part 2." I provided an example in the former post of a dialogue on values in which participants develop and utilize empathy to understand and grasp the values of other participants.  I pragmatically labeled this development, and use, of empathy as "mutuality;" in quotations because I'm sure others have already used the term for such transactions or terms like it.  Mutuality consists of a harmony in which two or more individuals become more conscious of the degree to which their values shape their actions.  Mutuality terminates in a greater group consciousness: in collective insight and understanding.  In sum, the development of mutuality coincides with a greater harmony of the part(icipant)s.

Further, unity is a criteria for such dialogues.  As described in Part 2, unity is "the harmony of the parts that compose the whole."  Without the harmony of the parts, i.e. the absence of respect; active listening; and engagement of the the participants, dialogue will be ineffective.  As such, there is a requisite unity, or harmony, in order to create or establish a greater unity.  For example, effective dialogues have rules, conscious and unconscious, possibly including, but not limited to: respect, dignity, symbol systems, organizers, etc., all of which must be shared by participants for effective discourse.

Therefore, unity is both the means to, and ends of, an effective dialogue.  In order to tap into the transformative power of effective dialogue, unity must be the way.  And in order to create unity, there must be effective discourse.  The logic buttressing my argument is self-evidently circular.  But this circularity consists of a causal relationship.  To demonstrate, if you remove either, the other is limited: without effective discourse, unity is constrained. 

But importantly, as a causal circular relationship, unity and discourse function in a positive feed back loop.  (I.e., the more effective the discourse, the greater the unity and the greater the unity, the more effective the discourse.)

To consolidate and conclude several recent posts, to bring about real change and transformation of society: especially the good life for all, there must be discourse, and as such, there must be unity.  Neither is effective, or genuine, without the other.  Further, they are the vehicles to one another.  As such, one could equally argue that "discourse is the way," when arguing for the way of unity.  However, in general, in our society people are already discoursing: discussing, debating, deciding, etc., although most often ineffectively.  Because, in general, North American society has yet to do so truly, and genuinely, united.  At this juncture, most of us could benefit from unity more than discourse.  Ultimately, unity through discourse; discourse through unity; til my last breadth, "unity is the way."