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.

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 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.

What I learned from 4 years of Social Justice and Peace Studies

(originally published March 30, 2012)
As today was my last SJPS class of my undergraduate career, (because next Friday is Good Friday) I felt compelled to write a Facebook note to consolidate and commemorate my 4-year exploration of social (in)justice and peace.

I'll always remember my first SJPS class.  I had professor [anonymous].  Like most introductory liberal arts courses, it was lecture-based with short tutorials. In the lecture, [anonymous] broke down the roots of classical liberalism and therefore the ideological roots of modern Neoliberalism.  [anonymous] divided classical liberalism into four parts: self-interest, individuality, merit, and equality.

It's ironic, by the end of the SJPS program, it's kind of accepted that you despise, or at least are highly critical of neoliberalism, (as evinced by the exam question I just answered two weeks ago regarding the architecture of the neoliberalist agenda).  Yet none of my professors ever took their contempt, or at least their criticisms of this ideology, to its logical conclusions.

What does a rejection of neoliberalism really mean? and what does this rejection require?
Lets start by deconstructing its four pillars.

---Self-interest---
Since neoliberalism is often interpreted as one of the roots of social injustice, then its ideological opposite must be just.  As such, if one rejects self-interest, they must value selflessness.
---Individuality---
Continuing this line of reasoning, a rejection of neoliberalism must include a rejection of individuality.  What does a denial of individuality look like?  An acceptance of the community.  A rejection of neoliberalism requires a glorification or at least a valuing of the community over the individual.
---Merit---
This one's more complicated.  The literal opposite of merit would be the devaluing of the process of rewarding good behavior, i.e. the glorification of bad behaviour.  Therefore, I think it would be truer to reality to describe the opposite of merit as simply the absence of merit.  One way of enacting the opposite of merit would be to value excellence for excellence's sake, not a reward.  (I couldn't find an antonym for merit --- to my knowledge, there's no word for the absence of reward systems)
---Equality---
Let me be frank, most SJPSers do not reject equality.  The literal opposite of equality would, of course, be inequality, but I promise you, no one I've encountered in my program is arguing for inequality, even when they claim to reject Neoliberalism.  If anything, this is the only pillar that most SJPSers do not contest.  [edit as of Nov. 26 2013: SJPSers value equity over equality.  Equality is where everyone is treated the same.  Equity is where everyone gets what they need.]

So based on a deconstruction of its contentious pillars, here's what a rejection of neoliberalism looks like:
a rejection of neoliberalism requires the glorification of selflessness, community, equity, and the absence of meritocracy (meritocracy being the "rule of merit").

See where I'm going with this yet?
What sociopoliticoeconomic model is based on selflessness, community, equity, and the absence of reward systems?

Communism.

Not Soviet communism, not Maoist Communism, not North Korean communism, not even Latin American communism.
Old-school, Marxian and Engelian 'Communist Manifesto' communism.

In my four years of undergraduate Social Justice and Peace Studies, no one dared drop the "C" word.  Instead, it was always more politically correct to call it "Socialism."
There's a good reason for this linguistic subterfuge.  The word communism was completely bastardized in the 20th century by regimes claiming to be communist even though they probably never actually read Marx (Granted, I could barely claim to have "read Marx" myself as Marx wrote countless volumes of material that incorporated his perspective on just about everything relevant to his age).

Believe me, Marx never EVER even suggested that a communist revolution should end in a dictator: even a temporary dictatorship. He always argued that communism would come about by a collapse of capitalism. Marx framed his desired sociopoliticoeconomic system as a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (of the common/working class person) specifically to accentuate the absence of any centralized authority, especially the centralization of authority in an individual.  As my close friends have heard me say time and again, a communist-dictatorship is a an oxymoron: it is a complete contradiction of terms from a Marxian perspective.
---
To be honest, I'm slightly outraged when reflecting on my four years of Social Justice an Peace studies, because no one ever had the balls (or ovaries) to be honest about what we were actually talking about/advocating for, all along.  I know there's politics involved, i.e. the politics of this college being Catholic with a mandate to respect "Catholic Values."  I've been exposed to these politics for years: I've worked for the coordinator of the program for 6 terms and he happens to be passionately pro-Palestinian - which doesn't fly so well at the college.

But honestly, we're talking about the future of the planet.  Today we watched a video that explored the current success of "socialist" regimes in Latin America.  It's like it's so obvious, yet no one is prepared to have the conversation.  Seriously though, what negative consequences could there be for a system based on selflessness, community, equity, and self-actualization?

Let me put it this way.  One fear many people share with regards to communism is its implied threat to religion.  Marx may have had his misgivings with the church... but so do actual Catholics today.  I know most Christian moderate Republican business leaders may wince when I say this, but Jesus was a communist.  He believed in selflessness, community, equity, and self-actualization.

Religion and democracy do not contradict communism.  Hello Latin America.  People seem to forget that communism was framed as the literal rule of the people (especially the common people) for the people.
---
But, I also know we're not ready to make the move to communism either, at least not yet.
Communism requires a significant shift in general societal values in order to be successful.  And more importantly, I've learned in the last four years that any successful communist revolution would require significant human capital.  I truly believe, as I'm writing in my final essay for SJPS, that this revolution will not occur in the way Marx argued: that is, a revolution from the bottom.  Rather, I believe the precursor to a communist utopia is a revolution from the top.  Specifically, an intellectual revolution.
Why an "intellectual revolution"?
We will require significant human capital including such skills like empathy in order for individuals to value the lives of others over their own.  They also need to value, and therefore understand, community - and not just community within their nuclear family - I'm talking cosmopolitanism.  Finally, they'll need to be able to self-actualize and thus find their happiness in this new reality, which may be the hardest change of all.  Many of us have made and continue to make great strides towards this new world, but it can't be rushed or it will fail.  In the end, people have to choose it, on their own terms.

I realize I've detracted from my original focus for this note and I don't know where to end it.  Hope you enjoyed my rant.  I couldn't find a picture that captured the meaning of this rant... and apparently Facebook's note application doesn't like my dancing Kirby emoticons - or any emoticon for that matter.  So imagine your own relative picture.

Experientialism - "What is the Matrix?"

(originally published Jan. 15, 2012)
I'm posting this note in honour of my SJPS class this Friday in which we will discuss the "Matrix."
---
I've dedicated a significant portion of my life towards answering the question: why do people do what they do?
Towards the end of last summer, I finally answered this question, at least, to the best of my current abilities.
First off, let me be clear, I'm not a psychologist. Or a neurologist, for that matter.
Everything that follows is based on my observation, reading, and reflection.
---
What is Experientialism?
Well, my definition actually differs from Wikipedia's.  Wikipedia currently states that: "Experimentalism is the philosophical theory that experience is the source of knowledge."
My definition is more exhaustive; I'd argue that experience is the source of nearly everything.  (Excluding a priori innate knowledge such as animal instinct)
---
This is not my theory, but the theory of many philosophers before myself.  To my knowledge, Protagoras, the pre-Socratic philosopher, was the first to coin something like this theory when he argued that "Man is the measure of all things."
Essentially, the theory is that everything exists because of our senses.
---
(Many philosophers would argue that there is an a priori knowledge: that is, knowledge independent of experience, as phrased by Kant.  However, my argument is that experience always precedes a prioi knowledge.  You can't understand a priori knowledge without having first experienced.)
---
Now, I could stop here: stop at experience as the source of human action, however, there's still a massive philosophical void.  How does experience become action?
---
Well, first you need a lot of experiences.  I pragmatically labeled an individual's complete instantaneous tapestry of experiences an "indoctrination."  Although indoctrination generally has negative connotations, it's the only word I could find that remotely captures the meaning of a "collection of experiences," besides education, which I find isn't quite the same thing.  An education refers to a certain set of experiences: not your collective exposure.
----
So.  You experience.  These experiences consolidate into an indoctrination.
However, the void still remains.  How does your indoctrination become action?
---
Well, I discovered this last piece of the puzzle this past summer while reading the Socratic dialogue: Euthyphro.  It's one of the shorter Socratic-dialogues between Socrates and Euthyphro.  Euthyphro has come to express his condolences and offer help to Socrates who had recently been indicted for corrupting the youth and impiety.  My 'eureka' moment occurred when I read how he had corrupted the youth, or at least, how the authorities had claimed that he corrupted the youth.  According to Socrates, he was corrupting them by "inventing Gods."  My jaw dropped when I read this line.  The missing link between indoctrination and action.  It is the inventing of Gods.
---
A more modern colloquial equivalent was that he was inventing values.
---
Values dictate action because values are inherently right.  If they are not right, they are not values.  [The same goes for God(s)]
---
Think about it for a second.  Why have you done anything in your life?  And why are you doing what you're doing right now?  Values.  Always.
You go to school, maybe to get a job, maybe just to get an education, maybe simply because your family wants you to, because your experiences have caused you to value certain things.
----
This is experientialism: it is a calculus of human behaviour.
---
You begin by sensing; by seeing, hearing, and feeling.  (Introspective thought and reflection also occur at this stage --- more on this later --- Reason is also a sense)  Then these sensations consolidate into an indoctrination.  Think of your indoctrination as the instantaneous structure of your brain at a specific point in time.  Within this indoctrination there manifests sets of experiences: values.  And you are left to simply enact your values.
---
experience->indoctrination->values->action
---
This is it folks.  This is the Matrix.  This is the law that governs everything we do; the formula that has shaped human action throughout history.
---
You don't believe me?  Think about it.

Rationalist Morals: The Deets

(originally posted Oct. 29, 2011)
Since the beginning of time, essays have started with this phrase.
This essay will elaborate on the "rationalist morals" introduced in my most recent note "Agnosticism: A basis for Rationalist Morals."

One of that essay's arguments will serve as the introduction for this essay.

"Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest and purest morals.  To a degree, Agnostic morals are scientific, as they are based entirely on evidence.  They're "objective" in the methodological interpretation of the word: subject to change based on experience.  More importantly, they're almost completely transferable between people(s), because in general we share the same experiences in the same ways."
The introduction presents four theses; I'll elaborate each one in turn.

1)  "Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest morals."
Every belief system has different sources of moral strength.  For Christians, it's faith.  For Islamists, it's submission.  For Jews, it's the word/study.
However, for Agnostics, the source of moral strength is will.  Why "will?"  Well, most beliefs and creeds incorporate will into their moral strength.  For example, for some denominations of Christianity, will is central because of the importance of having a "free will" to merit theology.
Although most beliefs and creeds share will as a component of their moral strength, Agnosticism is the only system of thought that I have encountered where moral strength is almost entirely determined by strength of will.
Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest morals because of the nature of will.  Will is the only ability that we all share that has no substantive limits; the presence and use of will is rational; the use of will, such as Nietzsche's will to power, is intrinsic to the human being; finally, human beings had will long before they had faith, submission, or the word.  Will is innate.
In sum, as something all human beings share from birth with no substantive limits, will presents an opportunity to have stronger morals.  (Edit: in hindsight, this argument is actually relatively weak as there's arguably no substantive limits to faith or submission either.)

2) "Agnostics have the potential to have the purest morals."
I must state from the outset that when I talk of purity, I'm referring to degree of logic, reasoning, and consistency.
As stated in my previous note on this topic, Agnosticism is founded upon reason.  Reason is one of, if not, the best method(s) of knowing available to humanity.  Most other beliefs and creeds rely on "weaker" methods of knowing, such as revelation or authority.  (Ironically, the two former methods or knowing are often interrelated) These methods of knowing: revelation and authority, share the same problem with theism and atheism --- they are incredible by definition.
Not only are theist/atheist morals sometimes illogical and unreasonable, they also tend to be inconsistent, at least relative to rationalist morals.  There are many examples of this - just look at the Bible - see Bertrand Russel's 'Why I am not a Christian'/go google "inconsistencies in the Bible."  In addition to their logic, reasoning, and consistency, rationalist morals draw their purity largely from their simplicity.  They are derived from basic reason based on basic experiences --- there are no complex/farfetched external variables such as faith or submission etc.  Rationalist morals are Occam's Razor'ed morals.
In sum,  rationalist morals are based on the most rational and simplest methods of knowing, and as such, have the potential to be the purest.

3)  "To a degree, Agnostic morals are scientific, as they are based entirely on evidence.  They're 'objective' in the methodological interpretation of the word: subject to change based on experience."
"3)" was essentially covered in the previous paragraph - so I'm going to leave it for now.
***Edit*** Yeah I think I'm actually going to address this.
I'd argue that rationalist morals are exclusively empirical.  They essentially avoid the metaphysical as much as possible, with the possible exception of human feeling.  (The question as to whether or not emotion serves as a metaphysical exception is based on whether or not one thinks emotional affection rational.)
As a product of empiricism, rational morals have high transferability between peoples as almost all our cognitions are based on empirical evidence.  Also, rational morals gain credibility from their positivist roots - which, importantly, include objectivity: the susceptibility to change opinion, perspective, or argument based on new evidence.   This objectivity presents an enormous advantage over the many beliefs and creeds that remain dogmatically static, such as many sects of Islam.  A rationalist morality only becomes static (i.e. absolute) when it reaches full development, which would essentially require every possible experience ever.

4)  "They're almost completely transferable between people(s), because in general we share the same experiences in the same ways."
Of all my points so far, this is undoubtedly the most important.
Allow me to illustrate.  There is, as of yet, only one universal language shared by all peoples, at all times, in all places.  I'm speaking of course of mathematics.  It's no coincidence that mathematics and rationalist morals are almost universally applicable to and by all peoples.  They are both founded upon the same Occam's Razor'ed principles: those of reason, logic, and experience.  Rationalist morals present another universal language, or at least an excellent contender for a universal language.  I realize the latter argument could be used for any other language such as English etc., however, there is an important distinction between the language of mathematics and most other languages.  Most  languages have cultural overtones and values that distort and vary their meaning from person to person and group to group.  However, mathematics/reason/logic are largely neutral and impartial.  Culture doesn't/shouldn't get in the way of rationalist morals.
In sum, rationalist morals are almost completely transferable between people(s), because they're founded on shared experiences and cognition.

Well, now that I've described the criteria and skeleton of rationalist morals, I thought I'd end this note by fleshing out one - one of the most basic and universal "Do on to others as you would have done to you."  The Golden Rule.  Almost every belief and creed shares it, in some form.
Why is the Golden Rule a rationalist moral?
The answer lies in the reasoning for the rule: empathy.  Empathy, or the presence of empathy, is one of the most fundamental rationalist morals - that of understanding, or the ability to understand, a person's feelings and values, and how they affect them.  The Golden Rule is a direct projection of empathy, i.e., don't do things to other people that would make you feel bad if they were done to you.  Thus, the rationalist moral in this instance, is not the projected Golden Rule, but empathy. Without empathy, there is no logical reason to follow the Golden Rule.

I'll create another note outlining some other key rationalist morals later --- I still have to finish researching for that essay I mentioned in the last note.

P.S.
(Here's a hint for finding rationalist morals - they're usually the morals that almost every belief and creed share.)

Agnosticism: A basis for rationalist morals

(originally published Oct. 22, 2011)
I'm currently researching for an essay and as you can tell, I'm doing a bad job.
In this short essay I intend to rehabilitate the perception of Agnostics, the only "denomination" of which I'd claim to be a member.  (A hefty task to say the least)

What is agnosticism?
Well, Wikipedia currently thinks Agnosticism "is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."
In other words, they're not sure God(s) exist(s).
Thus, if I had to pinpoint the key defining factor that causes someone to be an agnostic, it would be their perspective of the "leap of faith," because, in general, a leap faith is the main requirement for someone to be sure about the existence or non-existence of (a) God(s).

What is a leap of faith?
Well, Wikipedia currently thinks a leap of faith "is the act of believing in or accepting something intangible or unprovable, or without empirical evidence."
In other words, knowing something beyond experience.

As stated, a person's perspective of the "leap of faith" is the key defining factor that causes someone to be an agnostic because a leap of faith is required for someone to be (a)theist.  A leap of faith is required to "know" that God exists," but, importantly, a leap of faith is also required to "know" that God does not exist.
What's often misunderstood or taken for granted, is that atheism can be just as irrational as theism, because atheism bears the same burden of evidence as theism.

As you can probably tell, I think that Agnosticism is "rational."  I stress the rationality of Agnosticism because of the irrationality of the leap of faith: of knowing something without empirical evidence.

And here's the meat of my argument:
In discussions with some of my faithful companions, both theist and atheist, (but especially with the theist ones), I often get accused of having "weaker" morals.  That since I have no faith, I am essentially a moral nihilist by default.
I assure you, the reality is quite the opposite.
As a "belief" based entirely on rationality, I'd argue that Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest and purest morals.  To a degree, Agnostic morals are scientific, as they are based entirely on evidence.  They're "objective" in the methodological interpretation of the word: subject to change based on experience.  More importantly, they're almost completely transferable between people(s), because in general we share the same experiences in the same ways.
As I tend to cite Socrates at least once in every Facebook note, I'm clearly not breaking the tradition now.  Socrates, if he lived today, would undoubtedly have been an (if not "the") uber-agnostic.  As cited in my last note, he was most famous for claiming that he "knew nothing."  In sum, Socrates, and Agnosticism for that matter, are testaments to the reality that often the wisest, most intelligent and rational thing a person can say is "I don't know."

I must stress, I respect theists and atheists.  Who knows - maybe they're right.  My problem with their belief(s) is methodological, not substantial.  I happen to harbour many monotheistic values myself, but for very different reasons.  (Which I'll discuss later in another note)
However, one must remember, irrationality is irrational.  It doesn't matter if entire belief system is rational AFTER the irrational leap of faith;  it still rests on an irrational premise.  Theism and atheism are practically identical to knowing that this is all just a dream. Wake up.

P.S.
(I won't lie, atheists tend to have rationalist morals, they just tend to neglect the fact that they're also making an irrational leap of faith.)
(Also, arguably, Agnosticism still requires a leap of faith: a leap of faith that your sensations are real.  But that's a philosophical/metaphysical flying spaghetti monster that I wouldn't touch with a 30 foot pole.)