Update on housekeeping

That concludes the transfer of notes to this blog that I've published to Facebook to date.  I didn't edit them much in the transition besides blatant grammatical and syntactical errors.  I wanted to preserve my progression as a writer --- (we all "wrote [politically correct]" at some point)
The previous posts are, however, still a work in progress.  I have to fix the labels to make them consistent.  I'll have to reread them all to make the label system decent.
Regardless, from here on, all my writings on saving the world will appear here first.
I hope this blog might actually help us do it.

On fear

This is the closest I could find to a picture of non-existence.

(originally published Jan. 5, 2013)
I'd hazard a guess that this will be one of the most important notes I've written to date.  I've been waiting for a good opportunity to publish this note, as it's subject tends to ward people off, as it's not exactly something you'd discuss at dinner with those closest to you over the holidays.  After getting defriended on Facebook over "disrespecting" an individual through my pursuit of the truth, I thought this was as good as time as ever to wrap it up.
---
This past term in my Power, Politics, and Policy in Education class, the professor invited her mentor and adviser to speak on the Mike Harris reforms in Ontario's education system during the early 2000's.  Her mentor mentioned how while legislation was being discussed at Queen's Park, she stormed into the galley decrying the reforms, ultimately demanding that they stop.  Near the end of the mentor's seminar, a concerned PhD student asked if, and how, her actions affected her job security as a teacher.  This student, in this instance, demonstrated a stronger concern for career and livelihood than for the children she'll serve in the future, which in our current society, is completely rational and understandable.  That student had every right to be afraid.

But why?
---
The title says "fear," but in reality, this note will actually be about death.

Why is this?

Death is the source of all fear.  Many philosophers, psychologists, etc. have commented on and argued this reality.  Put in my own terms, as I outlined in the Highest Rational Moral Authority: An Allegory, fear stems from everyone's valuing their own lives above all other values: your life, and the lives of the people that compose your environment.  I'd argue that most values are indoctrinated but that arguably the most important values: the most intrinsically human, are innate.

As such, fear is also innate - but not necessarily a part of what it means to be a human being.  Many people throughout the ages have conquered their fear, and therefore the reality of their and their associates' deaths.

But some never do. People have long tried various methods to numb themselves to death and the fear associated with it.  From submitting to a belief or religion, drugs, to just ignoring death altogether, people have found ways to cope.
I often joke to my close friends that "everyone has to have their existential crisis eventually."  If you follow my notes, you'd know I had mine around grade 11.  When I say "existential crisis," I'm referring to the crisis individuals often have when confronted with the existential nature of reality.  It results in the acknowledgement and ultimate acceptance that we die, and we don't really know what happens after.  And further, that it's plausible we just no longer exist.  It's understandable why so many struggled and continue to struggle with the former reality.

But here's my point:  if death is the source of all fear, once you've conquered death, you've conquered fear as well.  Think about it, how can you fear anything if you're not afraid to die?  If you've accepted the reality of death?

Bertrand Russel often accused Christians of exercising a form of cowardice.  Why?  Well, in many ways religion attempts to fill the void associated with death; to dull many of the fears that stem from it.

But there's no need to be afraid.  Fear is a mechanism we developed evolutionarily to better ensure our survival.  We don't need fear to function anymore.  In fact I'd argue that fear is no longer an aid to our prosperity, but a force inhibiting humanity's ability to self-actualize.

I could be wrong, but it's something to think about.

I've quoted this passage before, but it's as inspiring as ever.  It's the last paragraph from Russel's essay 'Why I am Not a Christian':

"We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create."
(http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)

"What the [politically correct] is Adam Hill actually trying to do?"

(originally published  Dec. 18, 2012)
This note has been in my drafts for ages.  I started writing it after posting my Statement of Academic Intent.

A recent conversation with some close friends has prompted me to polish and publish it.  As briefly as possible, I'm going to explain the title.
-----------------------------------------
Before I explain "what" I intend to do, I'll explain "why" I intend to do it.

I can still vividly remember my 2nd year Social Justice and Peace Studies class, the Service Learning Project.  After taking on what the professor referred to as "the most challenging" position, I became a co-facilitator at Changing Ways.  I supported a group of men in their development of non-violent approaches to relationship conflict and to accountability.

But that's not important.  What's important was what happened in the actual Service Learning Project classes at King's.  Every class was a seminar with students leading one every week on some topic assigned by the professor or about their placement.  Every sociopolitical problem, every issue brought forward in that class, ultimately resolved in a need for some kind of education or consciousness raising.

Reiterating what I've suggested in many other notes, the world is not what it could be.  Human capacity is far beyond most of our current understandings of what we are and what we can become.  Much of the world is suffering, and not just people in this generation, but potentially people in many generations to follow.  If you want a further explanation of the former, I laid it out here.

What's more, we have the means available to reach our full potential as a species, education or, more specifically, edification.  And we have the institutional structures at our fingertips to affect it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this brings me to the "what."

Well, I'll start from my incendiary statement that I made almost 1 year ago: "[politically correct] it - M.Ed. then march on high school - The greatest tragedy of modern civilization is that we put a price tag on edification."  That statement preempts how I will become a teacher, in order to become an effective administrator, in order to eventually become a part of education governance.

To the best of my abilities, I will reform the public education system.  I know that to many educators, this sounds very cliche.  But it's the best method I've encountered to do what my profile has stated for years, that of "expanding my consciousness and the consciousness of others as fast and efficiently as possible in order to bring about sustainable sustenance and self-actualization for all life and all life not yet lived."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The what inevitably leads into the "how," and the how is more complicated.

As I stated to my friends, in order to create systemic change in a democracy, you have to convince the public.  I've experienced many different initiatives that aspire to do just this, including one of my own, Students Teaching Students.  The trick, and ultimate paradox, to convincing the public is to make them value the best education system possible, before they have the experiences necessary to value it.  But this paradox can be overcome; there's mountains of evidence.  Take the expansion of public education to this day.  Back in the early 19th century, most people thought universal primary education in the West would be an impossible feat.  Guess what?

In other words, we're already on the way to this "New World Order," to use a phrase that will get conspiracy theorists wringing their hands.  But there's many ways each individual can contribute to it.  And to my knowledge, to this day, reforming the education system remains the best method available to achieve it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm happy to hear alternatives, and until I hear a better one, look for me in our schools and eventually in the Ministry of Education.

On freedom of speech

(originally published Nov. 14, 2012)
Rather than paraphrase my old professor, I'm opening this note by suggesting you read his blog post to get a background in what I have to say, because rather than repeat him, I'm going to build on his words.  http://measureofdoubt.blogspot.ca/2010/03/coulter.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well everyone, unsurprisingly, we did it again: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/13/fordham-college-republicans-rescind-invitation/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Excuse me if I end up sounding prophetic - I have an enormous personal investment in what follows*

Since the emergence of the earliest democracies, dialogue has played a vital role in shaping and facilitating our existences.  The essential role of free and open dialogue in political culture cannot be underscored enough.  Without it, power will inevitably shift from the hands of the many to the few, and eventually, the one.

As such, in order for democracies to function effectively, dialogue must be free from repression.  It is the former necessity that has manifested in rights codes and constitutions globally that have enshrined laws that protect freedom of speech.

There is no greater threat to human and global development than repression.  It has been wielded by every institution from the church to totalitarian dictatorships in order to consolidate power through the disempowerment of the masses.  "Knowledge is power" in every sense of the phrase.

Let me make myself clear - I am no libertarian - but when we accuse another individual or group of hate speech, we are participating in this repression.  There is no greater hypocrisy, especially, no greater threat to our species and the planet, than when those claiming to represent the politically Left repress those they don't agree with, because they don't share their values.  These same people preach unity, yet aren't prepared to dialogue.  They preach equity, yet won't share their liberty.  They preach progress, yet refuse to move forward together.

How  can they ever hope to create real change, if they're unprepared to have a free, open, and respectful dialogue with everyone?  Is this not the foundation of a real effective democracy?

"Hate-speech" represents one of the immediate counters to my former line of argument, which my professor also addressed.  There are very few people in this world who maliciously assault others for no reason at all.  As I've argued in my other notes, we usually act in such a way to protect or enact our values.  Therefore, hate-speech is rarely a thing in itself: i.e. people don't just hate on other people for the sake of doing so.  They do it because some one or group's behavior or way of life threatens their own.  Hate-speech then, is not what most believe it to be: an objective moral judgement, but is simply a situational perspective.  Accusations of hate-speech represent one of the ultimate forms of repression, because those who would accuse others of "hate-speech" most often do so self-righteously.  In reality, they're doing more harm to progress and the planet than good.  As Robert Bolt's Thomas More pleaded, "give the Devil benefit of law, for [your] own safety's sake!"

Barack Obama (or possibly his speech writers) put it succinctly, "The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech."

In Defence Of Video Gaming

(originally published Oct. 26, 2012)
Here it is after many promises; accusations of being too political lately notwithstanding.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ever since I was about 5 years old, my parents questioned my spending multitudinous hours gaming, worrying about my well being and future.  Relative to most kids, they probably had good reason for doing so.  I've played and completed more video games, spending more hours with a controller or keyboard and mouse in my hands, than probably anyone who'd ever bother to take the time to read this blog, and I take no pride in this reality.  Even with all my apparent humanitarian ideals, I've played across basically all platforms and genres - everything from Nintendo (the first one) to PC to Xbox 360 to fps (first-person shooter) to mmorpgs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game).

I'm a literal product of the first generation of video games.  The novelty of this reality is still just barely coming to light even to me.  However, I have not set this post aside to discuss my love/hate relationship with video games but, rather, to propose something rather radical.  I know many people who'd stumble across this post would scoff at the title thinking to themselves something with the consonance of "Well anyone who wasted time gaming could defend it."

Matrix Morpheus - "What if I told you, you're the one missing out?"

And not just the fun, but so much more?

When I stated that "I'm a literal product of the first generation of video games," I mean that gaming has directly changed my life.  This is not a revolutionary idea; people have long believed that our culture and environment influence our behaviours, even our attitudes and beliefs.  So have games for gamers.

Now, this relationship isn't obvious and clean, but experientialism rarely is.  For example: there's the timeless argument that playing violent video games contributes to making you a more violent person.  I don't deny that playing such games may give the player ideas and methods, but I'd argue that the motivation to act upon these ideas and methods has a much more complicated origin.
Exhibit Manhunt 2.  Arguably one of, if not, the most violent and visceral video games ever created, a psychologist or similar figure might speculate that, after playing a certain number of hours, the player could develop violent tendencies.  It's not impossible.  (A video that summarizes the game well:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATw6FAmeMdo - beware, there're many reasons why this game was banned in several countries.)

But, and this is an important "But."  Just as there are bad books and bad movies, there're bad video games too. I'd be the first to admit that there's a ton of terrible games out there, some that'd be lucky to be as edifying as a book about farts or the movie 'Dude, Where's My Car?'
However, the radical argument I proposed at the beginning is this: just as there are good books and good movies, there're good video games out there too.

I'm going to give you a taste of a good video game, which is hard to do since you likely haven't played it; however, I'm going to try none the less.

The picture attached to this note is a screen shot, with text added, from Final Fantasy 9 (FFIX), a JRPG (Japanese Role-Playing Game)  created and produced by SquareSoft, the predecessor of SquareEnix.

*Major Spoiler Alert*

Like all the other main installments of the Final Fantasy series, the game features a cataclysm.  In FFIX, this cataclysm was created by a man(?) named Kuja.  I placed a question mark in parentheses besides man because he was actually manufactured by an alien civilization trying to consume the world in which most of the game takes place.  Kuja almost succeeds at weakening the environment enough for consumption by his own planet, manipulating the various governments of the competing countries within the mainland continent into a terrible war.  One country and race is almost completely annihilated.  You play as the protagonists Zidane, or whatever you decide to name him(?), and his group of unlikely friends.  As I did with Kuja, I also questioned Zidane's gender because, like Kuja, he was also manufactured by the civilization trying to consume the protagonists' planet.

Besides the game being completely awesome in its own right, I personally value the game because Zidane commits one of the greatest acts of mercy I've ever encountered to this day.

Zidane went back for Kuja.  After you finally defeat Kuja in a cosmic battle and the tree of life that maintains the balance and flow of life in the planet becomes feral, Zidane abandons his friends and embarks on a suicide mission to be by Kuja's side in his dying moments.  (Kuja and Zidane - as manufactured constructs have limited life expectancies.  After Kuja realized that he's going to die, he essentially tries to take everyone and everything with him.)

Why did Zidane do this?  Why?

Empathy.  Zidane realized that had he been dealt a couple of different cards, then he probably would have found himself doing the exact same thing.  It still gives me chills.  The sheer power of empathy; it still blows my mind.

Here're videos of the events I just mentioned:
part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47BCkNWg5bQ
part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL5m0U57dXY&feature=relmfu

It's an old game (in video game years), so the graphics are clunky.  However, for me, the meaning now is just as powerful as the first time I experienced it myself, all those years ago.  My hope with this note and those videos is that you might (someday) experience those feelings yourself.

On Conservatism

(originally published Oct. 5, 2012)
“It is not the failure of others to appreciate your abilities that should trouble you but rather your failure to appreciate theirs." - Confucius
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that I promised a note featuring a less serious topic, namely, 'In Defence of Video Gaming.'  It's almost finished but, in honour of Canadian Thanksgiving and for self-care reasons, I had to publish this note first.

I've touched on this topic in the past, indirectly, especially in my first note ever, The Deadliest Sin.  To save you the trouble of reading it, if you haven't already, excessive pride is bad.  If you don't agree, then you might find it interesting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is conservatism?

Wikipedia defines it as "a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions."  My definition is somewhat broader.  I'd argue that conservatism is a state of being.

A small "c" conservative (as opposed to big "C" Conservative) has lost, or submitted, in an internal struggle with his/her self.  As I noted in On Free Will, every human being is born with the "motivation to enhance and incur pleasure while minimize and eliminate pain."  The self, constrained by the ego, arbitrates that struggle.

At birth, we don't question the dominance of the self and of the motivation to maximize pleasure and to minimize pain.  It's natural in the innate sense.  A baby will smile when it feels pleasure and cry when it feels pain.  I'm referring to both pleasure and pain in the widest sense; pain would also include fear and insecurity.

However, as we become more experienced, we gradually become sensitive to the feelings of others, not just our own.  As empathy develops, we become less and less self-centric and more and more liberal and not in the strictly political sense but rather in the sense that we value the welfare of others.  This transition helps explain why almost every late teenager and student in their early 20's in North America votes for the politically Left.

Eventually, however, most people in North America turn away from liberalism and become more and more conservative.  Why is this?

Simply, they give up.  Liberalism is great in theory; after all, it's easy to be in favor of raising taxes when you aren't paying any.  But the moment that you start to pay your own share of taxes, "to support the drug habits of the homeless at Richmond and Dundas" as one of my favorite professors once stated, you turn inward.  You focus on your immediate values such as your family.  You argue that the state will take care of "those people."  And eventually, you go full-blown curmudgeon like my boss at work and my academic adviser.

After all, it's easy to be conservative.  It's a part of our basic hardware as human beings.  But, here's my point, conservatism isn't going to change anything - by definition.  In fact, in some respects conservatives cause more harm than they claim to prevent.  They choose alienation and segregation rather than community.  When has alienation ever created anything positive?  It defies our existence as a species and as subjects within an ecosystem.

Conservatives have given a "great sigh"; they feel like the ultimate victims. The Tea Partiers in the US illustrate this perfectly: all those flags that demand "don't tread on me."  They've given up on trying to appreciate others, and now they demand that the world appreciate them.

To be honest, I pity conservatives.  The most conservative person out there is usually the most alienated; the one that feels that they're the most victimized.  Conservatives are the most in need of community, and they have one of the greatest struggles ahead of them to ever appreciate anyone besides themselves (if they can even appreciate that).

As such, the far "leftists", those who tend to care about the future of the planet as a whole, have a great responsibility to the conservative.  Just as it's easy for the conservative to turn inwards, it's easy for the liberal to turn his/her back on the conservative.  All one accomplishes by turning his/her back on a conservative is to alienate, victimize, and, therefore, further feed the conservative's conservatism.  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.

I find Canadian Thanksgiving presents a serious challenge for conservatives.  It forces them to appreciate others, if only they're immediate family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, I kind of detest "Thanksgiving," how so many in Western society pride themselves on their being thankful for what they have "one" day a year.  It makes a mockery of all that we have been given.

The Highest Rational Moral Authority: An Allegory

(originally published Sept. 22, 2012)
Imagine yourself on a mountain overlooking a vast endless expanse.  You stand upon the summit.  Before you lay every unborn human child stretching onward into the end of time.  See their young faces.  Examine their expressions.  Feel their hearts.

Now look deeper.  Sense the trees.  Appreciate the animals.  Feel the fish as they flutter past your limbs.  Breathe.

Now, tell them.  Tell them yes.  They should never suffer a maybe.

----------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of months ago, my old head facilitator for my most recent men's group at Changing Ways asked an intriguing question for check-in.  We usually have a 'check-in' in order to get an idea of where our clients are emotionally and psychologically at the beginning and at the end of a session. We have them tell the group their name, how they're feeling (using actual feeling words), and then have them answer a question related to the topic of the day.  He asked the group, "what's the most important thing?"

Most people can answer the former question without any hesitation.  As I've stated in my previous notes, (see Experientialism - "What is the Matrix?"), people's values are crystallizations of their biopsychology and of the sum of their experiences at any given moment.  Asking a person what he/she believes to be the most important thing is to ask him/her about the current state of his/her values.

Therefore, I, like everyone else in the room, had my answer ready before he even asked the question.  My answer?  The future.

I've spent my whole life seeking out the highest moral authority (HMA), the most important thing, and naturally my definition has shifted with my experiences and reflection.  I, like so many, (including a guy in the group at the time), originally believed that God is the HMA.  I believed this for much of my life.  However, by grade 11, I was completely questioning God's authority.  It was around that time that I endured something of an existential crisis.  It also happened, not incidentally, that at the time I was intensely reading the existential philosopher Soren Kierkegaard.  I started asking questions like "why did God restrict heaven to the saved or the elect?"  "If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why would he allow the Nazis to exert so much suffering?"  I know believers would immediately turn to free will when "attacked" by this line of questioning.  But even in the presence of free will, if one was actually omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then the world would be so much better than it is by definition.

By grade 11, I started to develop my own ideas as to the highest rational moral authority.

Here's what I have so far.

We are given life, the greatest gift of all.  Without life there would be nothingness.  By our innate nature we are responsible to protect life, our own first and foremost.  But no man is an island unto himself.  We are a species with a shared past and future. As life was given to us graciously, we have the responsibility to graciously give to and maintain the lives of others.
We are given life and give life. As such, the most morally reprehensible act that we are capable of perpetrating is to take life, especially that of our own species.
Moreover, we are a part of a continuous stream of life through time. Being part of a stream we are also responsible for the unborn as our ancestors were responsible for us.
Therefore, rationally speaking, the highest moral authority of every generation is all possible generations to follow.

There's a caveat here.  I still value the current generation as it is the seed from which all future generations spring.  However, humanity as a collective has the capacity to sacrifice its own elements in order to ensure its continuity and, more importantly, its self-actualization.  Those with the greatest capacity to ensure the future have the greatest responsibility to maintain and to improve it.

Also, I know that the future is abstract by definition and arguably in the same way that we are ontologically disconnected with God, we are ontologically disconnected with the future.  However, we feel.  A will-be mother with a first trimester fetus in her womb may believe that it feels even if she may not yet think of it as human.  We may not yet think of the unborn as human but we know that they feel; that they will feel.  The greatest, most powerful, form of empathy is to empathize with those who can potentially exist.  "All those lives..."

My faith in humanity stems from how few would give the unborn a "no."  However, the reality is that today most of our species gave and continues to give them a maybe.  There's just too many maybes.  It is my goal to give those potential lives a yes.  A resounding yes.  As the unborn, like myself, will never accept "maybe."

The poster at the top of this post depicts my only political allegiance and doubles as one of my prayers.  It's duct taped to the wall directly above my computer.