This world doesn't know what to do with its intelligence.

You keep using that word...

Ponderous parables for pivotal paraboles

Once upon a time, there was a human child who wanted to know the Good.  Being the insufferably inquisitive and rather philosophically minded youth they were, they figured that the problem wasn't so much identifying the Good, (there were already lots of suggested candidates), but rather determining a method by which to validate the Good.  Well, the kid did find a sort of litmus test, a rather radical one at that.

You see, this kid was raised Christian, and so they were already quite familiar with the traditional parables.  In fact, this kid would ultimately go on to endure most of their Confirmation before dropping out at the last moment.   This kid wondered whether they needed religion in order to live and be just, whether the Good was predicated on traditions and consensual wisdom, or whether it had any contingencies at all as alluded by some of its progenitors.

On the way home from elementary school one day, this kid was contemplating hell. You know.  The bad one.  Where one would burn.  Forever.  The kid was already skeptical of the existence of hell, especially since they had already studied how allegorizing hell became a tool of church compliance and coercion from the 15th to the 20th centuries historically and even earlier pre-historically.  As this kid approached the turn in the sidewalk that redirected to their home street, they stopped walking as their reflection shifted to a consideration of Jesus's divine sacrifice, especially the willingness to sacrifice mortal existence.  Within this space of reflection, this kid noted that a morality becomes transcendental in character, relative to Christian systems, the moment the agent has identified a conviction for which they would be willing to sacrifice beyond their mortal existence, assuming the verity of a transcendental existence.  Hell was conceived, or at the very least <used>, as a method of enforcing compliance to an alleged transcendental morality.  However, this threat and its invoked fear are consequential only when one's moral system is subject to and therefore determined (at least in part) by the threat of hell.  The moment you believe in a moral code self-righteously such that you would bear that code in any and all eternities in any and all transcendental existences, this coercive form of Christianity no longer has any power over you.  

Furthermore, this conviction that authentically survived an existential threat of eternal damnation likely comprises or can be characterized by the Good, if we're conceiving the Good as its progenitors did: as a universal, unchanging, and all-encompassing form.  For how could the substance of that imperative be naught but Good for someone to willingly suffer eternally?  If it did not comprise the sum total value of everything they believed and/or assumed to be right or good, would the willingness to suffer eternally be naught but insanity?

In the words that the kid used to articulate this insight at the time, the moment you become "willing to burn in hell for all eternity for what you believe", you become liberated from all preceding and subsequent moral systems.  It's a different kind of freedom.

Although this kid grew up to be relatively agnostic, exercising a reasonable measure of doubt with regards to any kind of afterlife, since that moment, that kid has been relatively fearless.

---

A word has been frequently floating in and out of my reflections as of late: "subsumption."  It seems that every action, resistance, and aspiration to significance supports or is eventually constitutive of a subsumption, a subsuming of the intents and character of the action, resistance, or aspiration into a more general category—notably, in democracies a category generally acquiescing of what people call the "middle class".  Historically, people called this latter process gentrification; i.e. the process of changing the nature of actions and contexts such that they further satisfy the gentry, the traditional middle and upper classes (think "gentlemen" and "gentlewomen").  

I've often attributed this trend to tribalistic exigencies and the dominant classes' exclusive rights to delineate the parameters of signification.  Self-identifying groups of people are naturally inclined to defend and further their common interests.  The middle class emerges as the bulk of the normal distribution of their collective needs and subsequent demands.  Notably, this collective reserves control over signification: the identification, renewal, and creation of significance.  For evidence of this control, look no further than the burgeoning demands and sequitur supplies of popularized formulaic T.V. shows and movies.  Especially in democracies, this dominant group generally dictates which meanings have the most power.

Subsumption, then, presents the means by which the middle class renews its power.  As both the product and producer of subsumptions, the middle class regulates meaning-making and the power (read: significance) of meanings.

I've commented on this Blog before about the cyclical nature of dominance and resistance, especially how both sets of aspirations eventually normalize; i.e., that the status quo/societal homeostasis necessitates their constant renewal.  These days, I would characterize these Sisyphean (r)evolutions as yet other forms of subsumption.

Why does this happen?

Simply, they're engaged in the classical pursuit of meaning and purpose.

On my own permutation of this quest, I infrequently engage in the following thought experiment: if we're trying to identify the most meaningful and significant values—the usual source of purpose—and actions, then start from the opposite.  What is the most meaningless thing a person can believe or do?  I usually turn to expressions like "all tautologies are tautologies."  But even the categorization of expressions of A = A has meaning and significance, especially since the meaningfulness of other expressions of relations hinges on the alleged meaninglessness of simpler expressions.  Maybe it's the void?  It's telling that vacuousness draws from the same etymology as "vacuum."

Or, maybe it's more useful to consider meaninglessness according to its (in)significance.  However, this merely politicizes the question of meaning by evaluating meaning according to its power, as what does "significance" signify?

Logically, if the most meaningless choices, values, and actions were dichotomized, then the most meaningful choices, values, and actions could be characterized as the most exhaustive, unique, and powerful.

Yet, in the endless pursuit of purpose and meaning, a staggering proportion of people find themselves "settling down to start families."  Inhabiting the aforementioned logic of this post, this domestication follows from a subsumption of intents and purposes under a set of generalizable traditions.  But I remain perplexed as to the following: is it not suspect that so many individuals' pursuits of purpose and meaning have been resolved in starting families?  That after millenia of human development, the consistent stopgap for the problem of living with meaning is to furnish the next generation of people who will undoubtedly have the same problem?

Potential vacuousness notwithstanding, even monogamy raises the specter of a failure of the imagination to do something with one's intelligence before or after the status quo.  "Welp, I have run out of ideas.  Might as well chase tail."  

I realize that the more nihilist-leaning among my readers might counter with the axiomatic assumption that existence has only the meaning that we ascribe to it; i.e., there is no guarantee to any inherent purpose or meaning in anything.  But can we not do better?  

Especially when faced with an existential threat?

Obviously the species needs to reproduce itself at some point, but there's a threshold after which existence is merely existed for the sake of existence.

What does it mean to succeed in the midst of global turmoil?  Does it mean the same to you now as it did in September, 2019?

People tend to define success in numbers.  Equity, valuations, and margins.  There are people who I've encountered that I pity every day because the system is so absolutely rigged against them.  I have yet to encounter a "successful" company or personality cult that doesn't have at least 1-2 bodies mortaring its foundations.  I promised myself in the earliest days of my social justice and peace studies course work that I would never slit a single throat, metaphorically or otherwise, to get ahead; I'm increasingly convinced that many of my classmates didn't share that conviction.  The global pandemic just aggravates these moral and integrous discrepancies.

This world doesn't know what to do with its intelligence.  Our public schooling systems in Ontario are about to crumble wholesale because our administrations, among the ministry, school boards, and unions lack the organizational and creative capacity to imagine and to implement a new vision of schooling necessitated by one of the greatest threats of our lifetimes.  Smarts won't save us; they might give us a better way to mitigate the effects and infectivity of this virus, but this is just one relatively benign pathogen.  I predicted at about the age of 16 that antibiotic resistance alone could bring this world to its knees; you don't need to search too deeply into Google to ascertain with relative certainty that this is only the beginning.  

We've survived this long because we've adapted.  The most maladaptive systems will degrade and degenerate as we're witnessing on the daily.  Classists hate change, yet I'm not calling for a "Marxist (r)evolution."  Our systems, starting with our schools, need to refocus and reconstitute their operations in accordance with their long-standing mandates.  

And this stuff aerosols.  For the love of reason, don't pack elementary school students into enclosed spaces with no exit or contingency plan.

I worry that the problem is less about whether we have the collective intellect to survive this, than about whether we have the moral convictions and courage to think laterally and take risks.

Otherwise, private industry is going to take over every failing public system; it was already happening among pre-college schooling in Ontario; this crisis has been an invitation for private schools (especially those structured and equipped for online learning) and for privatized health care to build and to consolidate empires in Canada.  My own school is restructuring in anticipation that publicly schooled students could fall behind their private and home schooled peers by almost a year as of September, 2021.  Theodore Sizer is/would be churning in his grave.

---

"Civilization" is a derivative Anglicization of its root, "cīvis", a rough Latin equivalent to our current word "citizen."  It's legal definition succeeds its essential and primordial meaning of "city-dweller".  Citizen-ship, or the rights and responsibilities inherent to constituting a city, implies higher duties than simply participating in the governance and perpetuity of the polis; thriving usually requires more of us than surviving.  We can still thrive under these conditions, as we should; but we need to commit to this end.  I know it's hard.  My own commitment wavered after March, partly due to my experiences with the bad faith of certain members of the graduate student community of UofT.

But we cannot give up.  Doomscrolling is a deontological necessity, in moderation of course.  Our appreciations for and exhaustive grasping of the significance and consequence of the Good and the right depend in part on our lucidity of the darkness.

This world cannot abide the unwillingness to speak the honest, good faith truth of our experiences, courageously in adversity.  Wisdom cannot be wasted on the wise unwilling or too dispassionate to act Justly when we're on the brink.

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.

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.

"Unity is the way" Part 2

In honor of the readers of this post and, of course, the most ironic picture I could find.

I find myself saying it more and more every day.  I don't know where I "stole" it from.  I've even made deliberate efforts to determine its origins.

From my summary research on the quote, I've found many sources from which it could have originated.  For example, it has been proselytized by many faiths in the past.  It's also a reoccurring theme in  social movements.

I've alluded to the importance of unity in the past:  its importance to real change and revolution.

In Aristotelian fashion, in order to understand a whole concept, its often best to break it down into its many parts.  In order to grasp what I mean when I say "unity is the way," I must first explain both what I mean by "unity" and "the way."
---
What is "unity"?

Unity has many near synonyms, such as togetherness, oneness, collectivism, etc.

Etymologically,  unity comes from the Greek "unus" which translates to English as "one."

"If its root meaning is "one", why not say "oneness"?"  Well, unity has an additional, critical, meaning.  Along with "oneness," unity also conveys a sense of harmony.  In addition to evoking the oneness of parts, it also depicts the harmony of those parts.

So in short, when I say I "unity is the way," I'm stating that "[the harmony of the parts that compose the whole] is the way."
---
Next, what is "the way"?

"The way," has a more self-evident meaning than "unity," in that, by "the way" all I'm referring to is the best for humanity and the planet.  I.e. the way represents the good life for all.  "The way" refers to both the means to, and ends of, good lives.

So expanded, when I say "unity is the way," I'm succinctly saying "[the harmony of the parts that compose the whole] is [the means to, and ends of, good lives]."
---
I know that explanation was long-winded, but I needed to share it in order to identify exactly what I mean by the phrase.  One needs to understand its exact meaning and subtleties in order to understand my justification for the statement because it ultimately represents a argument.
---
Why is "unity the way"?

I've alluded in the past to how we have participated, and continue to participate, in a war for peoples' minds.  To my knowledge, unity remains the only method of group conscientization and empathy fostering that will end this war.

In order to understand the phrase, its best contextualized with an example:

In feminism - I've argued on many occasions in feminists' and feminist sympathizers' circles that "unity is the way" to a feminist society.  Feminists and feminist sympathizers, like everyone else, fight for their values: to proselytize and proliferate them.   Now, I could spend the next 4-5 posts trying to establish just what these "values" are, because self-identified feminists struggle to reach, let alone maintain, a consensus as to their substance.
But regardless of the exact nature of such a feminist society, in order to get there we must be united, i.e., the only way to a harmonious whole is the harmony of the parts.
Feminist and feminist sympathizers cease their contribution to such a society when they argue that feminism, women's rights, equality, and ending patriarchy, are exclusively women's issues.  Patriarchy, "rape culture," and inequality, affect everyone, and are perpetuated by everyone, to some degree.
When I argue that "unity is the way," in such contexts, I'm arguing that unity is not just the ends, but must also be the means.  I've heard countless examples of "feminist" initiatives that intentionally alienate and segregate groups of people.  Taking Back the Night with self-identified men standing at the side lines serving as a shining example - importantly, this is changing, but events like it still remain potential threats to unity as both a means to, and ends of, a feminist society.
Preemptively acknowledging the arguments I've ignited in feminists and feminist sympathizers reading this, I understand the rationale for the segregation.  However, think of it this way: if since the dawn of humanity women had oppressed men, and men had struggled for the same equal opportunity, how would you feel if men refused to let women be a part of initiatives for mutual empowerment and equality?  Further, would this segregation ever create a true unity, or is such a unity only possible when "unity is the way"?

All that to say, I argue that "unity is the way" because every time I've witnessed alienation and disunity, I've found despair.  We have to get there together in order to be there together.

I've only just scratched the surface of this topic and still have more to discuss; I had to rush to publish this post to serve as talking points.  Part 3 is coming.

On the "good life"

The most ironic picture I could find when Googling "the good life"

In my post on the Novus-Genesis, I mentioned that I had "a world view that was already radical in that I seriously desired to protect and maintain life on the planet (a desire with a complex origin that's beyond the scope of this post)."  I'll discuss the origin of that desire here.
---
Succinctly, the Novus-Genesis, and all of my aspirations and actions before and beyond it, stem from my will to live a "good life."  In order to understand how and why I live the way I do, you need to grasp my understanding of the former.

Of all philosophic concepts, it seems none has received more discourse, discussion, and criticism, by both ontologists and epistimologists alike, than the "good life."

Like almost every philosopher before myself, I confront the question of what it is to live a "good life," every day.  In fact, a discussion with some close friends about the nature of such a life prompted this post.
---
Just what is it?

I don't know exactly.  But I can guess.  Ironically, of all the concepts I've premised with a Wikipedia citation, Wikipedia is almost silent as to the nature of the "good life."  Now, the Aristotelian interpretation receives more attention, but you'd think, of all the pages on Wikipedia, something as important as living well would receive more public conjecture.

But the lack of public documentation reveals something of the nature of the good life: we're not really sure what it is.  The Wikipedia article illustrates that the concept, yet so important to human beings, remains largely outside the public discourse.  It's the meat of philosophers, even though living well applies to, and is in the interest, of everyone.

Since my definition constantly changes, the one I provide here remains tentative.
---
Throughout my experiences and reflection, I've found a few ways to define it:

Happiness -  many people define living well by living happy.  Defining the "good life" in this way dilutes its definition, as there are as many means to happiness as there are individuals and contexts.  Defining it exclusively as that which makes an individual happy can legitimize a wide range of entirely interpretive and subjective definitions.

Morality - the traditional method of defining a good life based its goodness on its degree of adherence to a morality: a method used by many faiths and peoples throughout the world and its history.  It has been suggested by philosophers and theologians alike that living a good life involves submitting to a moral code or law.  As with defining such a life exclusively by its happiness, defining it entirely by morality also risks interpretivism and subjectivity.  After all, many immoral people seem to be happy and are said to live good lives, and vice versa: many people follow strict moral codes but remain profoundly dissatisfied with their lives and endure undue suffering.

Altrusim -   related to the morality definition, defining the good life as the altruistic life has its roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and potentially in prehistory.  For example, Jesus is said to have lived a good life because he supposedly lived absolutely altruistically.  To define the good life by its altruism, is to define its goodness by its adherence to a specific morality based on selflessness and self-sacrifice.  Defining it by its degree of altruism highlights how the goodness of your life depends on the goodness of the lives of your community.  To live altruistically is to live in the service of others: to selflessly serve other selves.  There are, of course, problems with defining the good life exclusively by altruism; for example, you can never be sure if your sacrifice will actually serve the lives of others.  (Jesus and his proselytizers seem to have this problem on occasion)

Utilitarianism - a more modern interpretation drawn from hedonism, utilitarians suggest that a good life is one in which individuals "[maximize] happiness and [reduce] suffering." The utilitarian vision extends the "happiness" definition, as a utilitarian version incorporates, like the altruism definition, the collective lives of the community.  Under utilitarianism, the good life is a social concern, in which the sum total lives of a community are good when the collective community maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain.  There are numerous problems with this definition of the good life: more than the scope of this post permits.  In brief, utilitarianism taken to it's exclusive extremist logical conclusions, ends in something like Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World.'

Which brings me to...

Self-actualization - I "stole" this concept from psychology, but I find it to be one of the better ways of defining what it means to live a good life, because it consolidates all the other definitions I've mentioned.  Self-actualization is the process and act of living your life to its full potential.  I like the use of self-actualization when describing the characteristics of living well because it's more exhaustive and inclusive.  After all, a good life isn't necessarily always a happy one.  I acknowledged this myself, when I cited Mahatma Ghandi, who suggested that enduring personal suffering can be necessary to living a full life. 
---
 And here's my unified definition:

A good life aspires to happiness, morality, altruism, utilitarianism, and ultimately, self-actualization. 

It is a happy life, but its happiness is the ends, not the means.  In that, not every moment is a happy one: in fact, in order to live morally, an individual may have to suffer.  For example, experiences, reflection, and self-examination can be agitating and painful, but can be endured for a higher purpose: for a greater happiness.

It is a moral life, but its morality depends on the context in which it takes place.  A good life in south-western Ontario in 2013 looks a lot different than a good life in Rome in 400AD.  Further, a moral life in 400AD Rome is different than a moral life today in London Ontario.  (Whether or not there actually is an objective morality separate from all physical entities is way beyond the scope of this post.)  At best, we can define a moral life as one which aspires to define the, and be, moral.

It is an altruistic life, but its altruism is limited.  After all, you'd probably die in a couple days if you lived absolutely altruistically, because you'd likely give away the resources necessary for your own survival.  In order to maximize your selflessness over a greater length of time, you have to maintain your health.

It is a utilitarian life, but its utilitarianism extends beyond the self, to all living and potentially living entities.  But again, like happiness, utilitarianism is the ends, not the means.  An individual living a good life aspires to maximize the happiness and minimize the suffering of their community; however, the maximization of happiness and minimization of suffering may, and probably will, require some form of pain and suffering.

Finally, it is a self-actualizing life, but its self-actualization is always tentative.  Self-actualization is constantly renegotiated, because like a moral life, the self-actualization of a life depends on the context within which it is lived, and these contexts are constantly changing.  There's only so much you can do with the resources and environment at your disposal.  Further, happiness, morality, altruism, and utilitarianism consolidate in self-actualization, because living a life to it's full potential depends on that individual's happiness, morality, altruism, and utilitarianism.  Self-actualization is the terminus of carpe diem: it is living each moment as if it were your last: or more optimistically, your first.  I've defined self-actualization in the past as living each moment because it needed to be lived that way.
---
This post is already way longer than I would have liked, and there's still so much more I could say on this topic, but I'll sum it up as this: the good life is a process, context specific, and tentative.  I'd argue, as with wisdom, that if you're absolutely certain you've got it, you're probably far from it.  I myself aspire to such a life, but I'm always hesitant to say I'm actually living it, because my definition has changed so much, and will likely continue to change.

I'd love to hear other interpretations and understandings of the "good life" in the comments; I'm still learning too.

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)

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.

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.

On Free Will

(originally published June 8, 2012)
I noticed upon recently rereading my last note 'On Women and Visual Culture' that I said "as with arguing with defenders of free will, my first question to those using this description would be 'free from what?'"
I never actually addressed my discussions with defenders of free will in any prior note, so I figured I'd dedicate one exclusively to this concept.

The (non)existence of free will is one of the greatest points of contention I share with my closest friends.  And with good reason, as a lot rests on its existence.

For starters, just what is free will? Wikipedia has free will pegged as "the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints."  In the Judeo-Christian tradition, these constraints consisted of, first and foremost, God.  However, this argument doesn't hold as much relevance today, due to the general intellectual value shift to positivism: empiricism and the scientific method.

As quoted at the beginning of this note, my primary concern with "free will" is with the question of "free from what?"  So our will is free from God - so what?  Does its freedom from God's will make it truly free?  Was/is God the only constraint on our will?  Of course not.

What would it take for our will to be free?  What constraints remain after our will is free from God's?

I've recently delved into the discipline of psychology snatching a copy of the first-year psych text book from the library in preparation for my Master's.  Psychologists would list several constraints on our will, ranging from the behavioral to the "psychodynamic."  Most of these influences on our will could be summarized into two main categories of the internal biological/psychological, and the external empirical.  Those of you that actually read my notes would probably infer that I'd lean towards to external empirical as among the strongest influences on the will.  However, degree of impact of each effector is still subject to research and debate.

Regardless, our internal biological and psychological processes coupled with our external sensory experience, (and our ability to reason and reflect upon it,) influence our will.  In many cases, these forces can arguably control it.

In fact, I'd argue that people never exercise an objectively free will - no one can completely escape the former constraints.  I have no doubt that there are different degrees of free will, just as the will is subject to different degrees of influence from each effector.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, overcoming our internal and external constraints is almost trivial, when most of us are stuck in the pleasure-pain complex.  That is, for the vast majority, the forces that influence our wills consolidate in a motivation to enhance and incur pleasure while minimize and eliminate pain.  This is the basic system of motivations that we are all born with, and that some of us never truly break free from.

I'd argue that the pleasure-pain mode of decision making is something we grow out of.  Its the springboard upon which higher orders of decision making develop.

Due to the nature and proliferation of the pleasure-pain complex, there's only a couple instances where I'd argue someone could truly exercise free will, and most of them involve some form of sacrifice.

Let me explain...

When I talk of free will, the only constraint I can fathom that human beings can overcome is the pleasure-pain mode of decision making.  In other words, free will is when human beings make decisions that violate their internal biological and psychological influences.
You do this when you suffer pain for some higher purpose.  You do this when you risk your life.

When you violate these internal "values," you feel pain.  To consciously incur pain conflicts with our basic built-in structure of decision making.

Now, a hard determinist might at this point quip that even in the former instance, one is not exercising objective free will because they merely acted upon a value that superseded another value.  (The latter was my argument for many years as I was a hard determinist)  For example, a person could try to sacrifice their life in order to save their child.  A biopsychologist would argue that that person's need to keep their DNA flowing just overcame their need to live.

However, if one entertains the former line of argument, then they'd probably have to find a better definition for the word "free" when describing "free will."  By definition, a free will needs a constraint to overcome in order to be free.

I'd argue that we ARE born with a set of constraints on our will, in the form of the pleasure-pain complex.  And it's possible to overcome these constraints and therefore exercise a "free" will if we do so.

And as I said, this overcoming of the pleasure-pain complex will almost always require sacrifice.

I'm not the only one to have thought this way.  One of my personal heroes, Mahatma Gandhi, argued the same line of reasoning.  He had religious revelation backing up his argument, but in general he had the same view.  Gandhi once said, to paraphrase, "Suffering cheerfully endured, ceases to be suffering and is transmuted into an ineffable joy."

I'm not going to over-step myself here, but Christians who actually understand why Jesus did what he did would have no doubt agreed with both Gandhi and I.

Finally, in my experience and opinion, to truly live a good life: to truly be happy, you need to exercise a free will like the one just mentioned.  You're welcome to challenge my opinion.

Bertrand Russell

(originally published March 20, 2012)
I've often contemplated changing my Religious Views from "All comparative religion courses should be renamed Agnosticism" to "read Bertrand Russell."  In hindsight, the statements are essentially the same, and equally illustrative of my personal (spiritual?) beliefs.

I'm guilty of a kind of hero worship of Russell, for many of the same reasons as some of my intellectual god fathers, [anonymous] included.

Russell's legacy with regards to religious, if I were a reductionist, was simply to inject some mathematician's/historian's rationality into the discussion of religion and belief.  Arguably, that's all I do in my Social Justice and Peace Studies seminars these days.

Russell, if one briefly consults his Wikipedia page, "was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed free trade and anti-imperialism[6][7] and went to prison for his pacifism during World War I.[8] Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the United States of America's involvement in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament.[9] One of his last acts was to issue a statement which condemned Israeli aggression in the Middle East.[10]"  If I didn't know any better, he sounds just like your average Catholic Social Justice and Peace Studies student, minus his stance on free-trade - which was a response to his times.

Russell demonstrated something I find profound, that one does not need to know or not know the existence of a God, Gods, or a creator in order to understand or recognize the inherent dignity of all life. There's this weird causation that some fundamentalist Christians harbour that we'll suddenly start eating babies if we don't have faith in God's existence.

Let me say this, without any caveats or "but"s.  Morality is not subject to God;  God is subject to morality.  This is how we have different kinds of Gods interpreted from the same book(s).

Nietzsche championed this idea, but it's worth repeating: you don't need belief in order to have morals, and further, those without belief have a greater onus in justifying their morality.  Believe me, I struggle every moment of every day to justify my morality, and you can be damn sure I have no idea whether or not God(s) exist(s).  It's one thing to follow a set of principles, it's another to put them together from scratch.

Here's one advantage agnostics will always have over the faithful/submissive.  At the end of the day, our values will be more universal, because we questioned them every step of the way.

"Whatever makes you sleep at night"

Buddy Christ - Dogma

One of Hitler's baby pictures.

(originally published Nov. 9, 2011)
The title is the mantra of a good friend of mine - he used it to resolve every moral dilemma.  It has stuck with me.  I have spent much time, (many nights), contemplating its profound meaning and implications.

Think about it.  How did figures like Hitler sleep at night?  Or Pol Pot?  Or Stalin?

They must have felt satisfied with themselves.  Or they relied on drugs.  I find the first argument more probable, and for the sake of this note, it will be accepted as such.

How could they feel satisfied with themselves, at least, satisfied enough to sleep unaided?

Well, first off, they must have thought that what they were doing was right.  Eckhart Tolle, the author of The Power of Now, argued that "To be wrong is to die."  One implication of Tolle's argument is this:  people don't do things because they think they're wrong; they do things because they think they're right.

No matter how nihilist you might claim to be, you still have to be able to sleep in order to continue your nihilism - and that means you are going to have to be able to take a good long look at yourself and feel satisfied with your behavior every night.

We all have morals rooted in values that ultimately qualify our behavior.

The question of this note is not whether or not there are objectively "good" or "bad" morals/values, but "why do some people have more trouble sleeping at night than others?" (excluding uncontrollable unconscious biological factors)

Well, people have different sets of criteria governing whether or not they feel satisfied with their behavior.  I.e. different morals/values.

The problem, in this author's opinion, is that most people have extremely low criteria for self-satisfactory behaviour.

What do I mean by the former?

Well, in general, people in North America have a uniform perspective of what a "good" person looks like.  They're most likely selfless, caring, trustworthy, etc., etc., Jesus.

But here's the thing, how many of these people who consciously believe that Jesus is the model human being actually emulate his lifestyle?  And more importantly, how do these same people sleep at night if they don't?

Yeah, you have the whole "well I give myself up to God," but, if Jesus does not represent your ideal set of morals and values, then what does?
---------------------------------------------------(wait for it)
You do!  Yes, you do.  You must.

You set the standards on behavior.  Yes, holy books might influence these standards, but they don't create them.  You do.  You are the arbitrator.

As such, you are responsible for defining good and bad behavior.

I cannot stress enough, the importance of this responsibility.

As stated, it is the author's opinion that most people have extremely low criteria for self-satisfactory behavior.
If we create the criteria for good and bad behavior, then we have the potential to "let ourselves off easy."  Which, in the author's opinion, is exactly what's happening in North America.  I recently posted a status update: "We need higher standards for the good/right more than higher standards for the bad/wrong."  When I made that update I was referring to the ideas laid out in this note.

We compartmentalize the wrong more than the right.  I.e. the standards for wrong behavior are increasing faster than the standards for right behavior.  For example, people always have something to complain about.  Always.  However, the better things get, the more minute and compartmentalized these complaints become.  People used to complain about the Black Death, terrible rates of death during child birth, constant imperial wars, and dying because of your teeth.  Today, grievances like this http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/us/dover-remains/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 get global press. One thing has remained the same in this shift: the consistency of complaints (proportionate to size of population).  They haven't shifted in quantity, just in quality.

However, though there's been a significant shift in the standards of bad behaviour, the general perspective of the ideal human being has barely shifted at all.  It is the author's opinion that it is not the standards of bad behavior that need a raise, but the ideal human being.  Settling for Jesus isn't enough anymore.  We owe it to ourselves, to our communities, and to our future to seek out new kinds/levels of "good."
We have to be vigilant in our judgments of our own behavior, to a unprecedented degree, if we want to collectively raise its standards.  There's too much at stake to let ourselves off easy.

***Edit***
Before you attack me for taking a shot at Jesus, remember: Jesus believed in evil.  He was an exorcist.  The belief that there is an objective evil by definition rules out a capacity for absolute forgiveness.  Would/could Jesus have forgiven Hitler?

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.)

The Deadliest Sin

(originally published June 20, 2011)
First off, this is just the skeleton of an essay I plan on writing in full later on after I'm out of school (if that ever happens).
Secondly, there will be no sourcing used to back up my arguments, in part because of the first point, and also because Facebook does not allow you to use footnotes.  And no, I did not write this in MLA or APA style even though these were possible alternatives, because as an amateur historian it is my sworn duty to write exclusively in University of Chicago Style. (Interrupt my pros will you?) (With your incessant brackets)
Thirdly, as you can probably tell already, this essay will be informal.
Fourthly, and finally, this is still a serious issue; one that continues to humble me to this day.
---
To whom this may concern,
I often find myself feeling guilty whenever I unintentionally intimidate others.  I try my hardest to keep to myself, and outside this profile and my presence in class, very few people actually know anything about me - which is largely my doing.  You see, I purposefully minimize my value, even sometimes sacrificing and denying my capabilities and talents.

"Why would anyone do such a thing?" You might ask - especially in this vocation and credential focused world that's becoming more vocation- and credential-centric every day.  Well, I have many reasons, but the most influential are those relating to my opinion of pride.

Many philosophers, psychologists, etc. argued and continue to argue that the ego is an integral part of a healthy self-actualizing individual.  But you don't need to consult them to justify pride - just look out the nearest window.  There's a near consensus about the moral acceptability of pride - a consensus reflected by how most people cannot even second guess their vanity.  Pride is practically normal.

"But Adam - if it's practically normal?  Why write this note on Facebook?"  Because although it's "normal," excessive pride will only and always cause harm.  Excessive pride, for the purpose of this essay, will mean over-valuing the self.

Many contemporaries and many more predecessors have made and continue to make different versions of the argument I'm about to present. But one must acknowledge, that despite the best intentions of these people, pride continues to cause immense amounts of needless suffering.

"So what's so bad about excessive pride?"  Well, ask any of your local British/Western literature buffs and they'll be quick to denounce hubris.  A major theme in Western literature, especially tragedy, hubris usually takes the form of a tragic flaw in the protagonist or anti-hero.   Hubris as tragic flaw was featured in the biblical genesis story superlatively conveyed in John Milton's epic: Paradise Lost.

Milton's work, like the Bible before it, portrayed the archangel Lucifer's fall and imprisonment in hell and his campaign to take revenge on God by corrupting his most prized children: humanity. The triggers that caused Lucifer's fall were related to excessive pride: he over-valued his self and was jealous of the value of God.  Together, these functions of pride lead him to challenge said omnipotent.  This story, the foundation story of all three of the major monotheistic religions, should have justifiably condemned pride forever into non-existence, or at least that appears to have been the desire of its creators, especially since they suggested that pride was the cause of every other sin.

Now before you get all: "Oh krap, he pulled the Bible/Pentateuch/Qur’an on us" let me assure you, I am not religious.  In fact, I find the condemnation of hubris to be one of the few things that the monotheistic religions, in their infancy, actually got right.

"But if excessive pride has been frowned upon since the first ‘recollections’ of the Bible/Pentateuch/Qur’an, then why is it 'normal' today?"  To be honest, I don't know exactly. I know there are many factors, including influences like our innate biopsychology, certain human drives like the will to power Nietzsche identified, and the development of classical liberalism, secularism, and materialism.  Excessive pride has received varying levels of acceptance and rejection throughout human history, but I digress, this is a Facebook note for another time.

What's important is the harm over-valuing the self creates for the self and for others.  There are many reasons to choose humility.  There are the basic reasons such as how excessive pride leads to over-extending yourself.  For example, you overextend yourself when you believe that you can do something and then try to do it when you objectively cannot do it.  And there are also the more complex reasons, such as how excessive pride can prevent an individual from adequately appreciating the experiences, talents, and actions of their peers.

My personal most influential reasons for detesting pride are its emotional effects: jealousy and shame.  Jealousy and shame are completely dependent on pride; without pride, neither jealousy or shame exist.  For what is jealousy but the over- or under-appreciation of the self relative to others?  And shame, the realization of one’s true value.

I often find myself minimizing my value within the perspectives of others in order to prevent them from feeling jealousy or shame.  I have often questioned the morality of such behavior, but as it stands, ignorance is bliss – in most cases.

Of course, this stumbles upon the ethics of suffering and the question of whether or not there is justifiable suffering.  Can it be/when is it/ justified to knowingly subject people to jealousy and shame?  I'm reminded of what one of my favorite professors stated over and over, “A smart person knows when someone is wrong; a wise one knows when to tell them.” (I usually add “and how” to the latter statement)

All that to say: excessive pride can and will only cause harm to the self and to others.  However, I’m not suggesting we should all under-value ourselves instead.  For under-valuing the self can be just as detrimental to the self and to others as hubris.

What this author favours is what the ancient Greeks favoured – nosce te ipsum – Know thyself – that is, value the self for exactly what it’s worth by doing what’s necessary to further realize the self’s true value.
[…]
There's a potential contradiction in my argument.  One must do what’s necessary to realize the value of his/her self at all times (which includes helping others realize the values of their selves), but I’m minimizing my ability in the perspective of others which prevents them from feeling shame or jealousy: feelings which would eventually cause them to know their selves more accurately.  What I’m saying is we have to be tactful, pragmatic, and potentially, gradualist about it.
[…]
Those trying to be good, virtuous, etc. are subject to a paradox.  They pursue the good by all available means, all the while, they must minimize their actions as valuing good actions and taking them has the potential to tempt them to hubris.