Conditions and standards of expectation have a tendency to overshadow
and even undermine the bond between persons. Unconditional love
is a rare and beautiful thing. Something very valuable. Those who have it and able to give it are truly blessed.
There are so many of us looking out for ourselves living in a game of cutthroat survival just to make ends meet. The radical individualization of persons have diminished the value of trust, family, and community. Independence is really an illusion within the cultivated sense of self and tied to a sense of personal financial sustainability. But even then, no one is truly independent. Collective efforts of maintenance are no longer valued and ties are too easily severed. Friendships are easier made than kept. A system of competition rather than a system of cooperation has bred such attitudes of disposability. Pointing fingers and looking for sources and causes to blame instead of approaching and looking at common problems together.
"Could you be love? And be loved?"
-Bob Marley
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Saturday, May 26, 2012
*On the duality of Globalization
"This century, in contrast, will be the first time in history in which multiple versions of order and modernity coexist in an interconnected world; no longer will the West anchor globalization. Multiple power centers, and the competing models they represent, will vie on a more level playing field. Effective global governance will require forging common ground amid an equalizing distribution of power and rising ideological diversity.
After reading the article, 'America's Place in the New World' by Charles A. Kupchan (Prof. of International Relations at Georgetown Univ.), I was struck by a recurring theme with the word 'Globalization.'
Kupchan discusses the need to abandon the "Western primacy" of democracy, free-market, and secular (all of which are problematic even for the U.S. - not quite a democracy, not quite a free-market, and not quite secular) as the universal mold for countries around the world. He provides examples of other countries and their developments, albeit they are done in hasty brush-stroke adjectives to define their state, the point is that other countries are finding their own way of governance and economy. This leads up to the quote above.
Globalization has largely meant two things. At times using one definition in some literature and at times using another. The first sense we can speak of globalization is the way in which populations are migrating. The world is blending together. Countries are no longer the homogenous units they were once thought to be. Indeed, it is difficult to define what an ethnic race is or would be. Blood, skin color, ethnic background, passport or cultural habits are insufficient to define any one person as a definite member belonging to a particular group. If it is, we have yet to see an appropriate criteria of what it definitely means to be a person of a particular ethnicity. We can say that one person is from a particular country or that one is this ethnicity or that ethnicity. But what does it mean to be this or that ethnicity? A common tension between immigrants and those considered native is the insult of being "white washed." That is, being brown on the outside and white on the inside; a "coconut". Or yellow on the outside and white on the inside; a "twinkie." The heterogeneous religious mixture of beliefs and various ideologies and so on and so on. The criteria or what it means to be a particular ethnicity is elusive. In a similar sense, we are seeing the world communities enter into a global neighborhood.
The second sense in which globalization comes up is in terms of economics. As we see trade relations grow and economies enter into various trade agreements with each other, the world is globalizing its economy. Some critics have mentioned that all this means is a western hegemonic economy. Where Starbucks, Mcdonalds, and Coca-cola pervades the market and the majority of wealth becomes pooled towards western economic standards and ends. The anthropology of oil or wealth would be a great study here.
The semantic fields of a diversification of the world and a globalizing economic model are becoming blurred and what it means is becoming more and more multifarious. Not only is this a linguistic matter but also a practical one in terms of the place of religion, law, morality, governance, and economy. What globalization means should be thought about as well as what its place is in the various disciplines of study and practical areas of society.
After reading the article, 'America's Place in the New World' by Charles A. Kupchan (Prof. of International Relations at Georgetown Univ.), I was struck by a recurring theme with the word 'Globalization.'
Kupchan discusses the need to abandon the "Western primacy" of democracy, free-market, and secular (all of which are problematic even for the U.S. - not quite a democracy, not quite a free-market, and not quite secular) as the universal mold for countries around the world. He provides examples of other countries and their developments, albeit they are done in hasty brush-stroke adjectives to define their state, the point is that other countries are finding their own way of governance and economy. This leads up to the quote above.
Globalization has largely meant two things. At times using one definition in some literature and at times using another. The first sense we can speak of globalization is the way in which populations are migrating. The world is blending together. Countries are no longer the homogenous units they were once thought to be. Indeed, it is difficult to define what an ethnic race is or would be. Blood, skin color, ethnic background, passport or cultural habits are insufficient to define any one person as a definite member belonging to a particular group. If it is, we have yet to see an appropriate criteria of what it definitely means to be a person of a particular ethnicity. We can say that one person is from a particular country or that one is this ethnicity or that ethnicity. But what does it mean to be this or that ethnicity? A common tension between immigrants and those considered native is the insult of being "white washed." That is, being brown on the outside and white on the inside; a "coconut". Or yellow on the outside and white on the inside; a "twinkie." The heterogeneous religious mixture of beliefs and various ideologies and so on and so on. The criteria or what it means to be a particular ethnicity is elusive. In a similar sense, we are seeing the world communities enter into a global neighborhood.
The second sense in which globalization comes up is in terms of economics. As we see trade relations grow and economies enter into various trade agreements with each other, the world is globalizing its economy. Some critics have mentioned that all this means is a western hegemonic economy. Where Starbucks, Mcdonalds, and Coca-cola pervades the market and the majority of wealth becomes pooled towards western economic standards and ends. The anthropology of oil or wealth would be a great study here.
The semantic fields of a diversification of the world and a globalizing economic model are becoming blurred and what it means is becoming more and more multifarious. Not only is this a linguistic matter but also a practical one in terms of the place of religion, law, morality, governance, and economy. What globalization means should be thought about as well as what its place is in the various disciplines of study and practical areas of society.
*A Missionary and the Piraha
The Piraha are a people in Brazil with a unique language. They are said to be a tribe 'living without numbers or time' and have aroused much debate amongst the linguists, anthropologists, and other disciplines. Superstars Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky have also debated the issue about subordinate clauses and the place of recursion. According to Daniel Everett, the missionary who wrote the book in the video above, they are fully submerged within the present, an "immediacy of experience," the entrance and exit from experience, Everett below mentions a technical term "Experiential Liminality." The Piraha also remain within an empirical framework of evidence, deduction, and statements/propositions about things that are happening or happened.
Daniel Everett speaks a bit more on the subject:
For the full length talk:
http://fora.tv/2009/03/20/Daniel_Everett_Endangered_Languages_and_Lost_Knowledge
There is much to ponder.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
*"Frans de Waal: Moral Behavior in Animals"
There is a common presumptive view about human nature. A view
that states our nature is independent, self-interested, and lacks pro-social
behavior. We are social evolutionists in a race for wealth, power, and
status without regard for others. We are selfish and destructive animals. And much of theology positions itself in
contrast to this view or, as theologians would have it, vice versa. John Milbank states that social theory begins with power, conflict, and violence. While theology begins with the
romantic and benevolent launching point of peace. As a prior post has
shown, this starting point, to say the least, has created its own share of
conflict and violence with its power.
The debate on human nature can go back as far as Mencius (4th Century BCE), who debated the innate goodness of human nature against Xunzi - who defended that human nature is evil. The latter point is echoed in Thomas Hobbes who states, in his 'Leviathan,' that a "naturall condition of mankind" is one of "Warre where every man is Enemy to every man” and life is “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."
Frans de Waal, begins with the premise that if we can understand what is considered moral behavior amongst primates and other animals, then we should be able to gain some insight into our own. For those who don't take the position of evolution, then the following examples from de Waal are things to consider within your paradigm and launching point regarding human nature (and perhaps consider what the place of science and evolution is within that schema).
It is easy to focus on the competitive and aggressive aspects of primate behavior, as well as human behavior, but what is missing in this picture is the consistent ability for reconciliation. In the following video, de Waal seeks to establish two pillars of morality: Reciprocity/Fairness and Empathy/Compassion. If the evolution of the brain follows and we, at minimum, have the cognitive capacities of other animals (forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain) and then some (cerebral cortex), then we should also begin with the premise that we too are empathic, pro-social, reciprocating animals and then some. And of course, we are capable of violence, conflict, and authoritative behaviors as well. Morality is multi-faceted.
But watch the video, even if you don't agree with the line of reasoning. It's at least fun to watch animals cooperate with each other and behave in ways that seemingly demand equality and fairness.
The debate on human nature can go back as far as Mencius (4th Century BCE), who debated the innate goodness of human nature against Xunzi - who defended that human nature is evil. The latter point is echoed in Thomas Hobbes who states, in his 'Leviathan,' that a "naturall condition of mankind" is one of "Warre where every man is Enemy to every man” and life is “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."
Frans de Waal, begins with the premise that if we can understand what is considered moral behavior amongst primates and other animals, then we should be able to gain some insight into our own. For those who don't take the position of evolution, then the following examples from de Waal are things to consider within your paradigm and launching point regarding human nature (and perhaps consider what the place of science and evolution is within that schema).
It is easy to focus on the competitive and aggressive aspects of primate behavior, as well as human behavior, but what is missing in this picture is the consistent ability for reconciliation. In the following video, de Waal seeks to establish two pillars of morality: Reciprocity/Fairness and Empathy/Compassion. If the evolution of the brain follows and we, at minimum, have the cognitive capacities of other animals (forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain) and then some (cerebral cortex), then we should also begin with the premise that we too are empathic, pro-social, reciprocating animals and then some. And of course, we are capable of violence, conflict, and authoritative behaviors as well. Morality is multi-faceted.
But watch the video, even if you don't agree with the line of reasoning. It's at least fun to watch animals cooperate with each other and behave in ways that seemingly demand equality and fairness.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
*Racism: A History
Religion and Theology cannot, must not, ignore its place, role, use and continued use, as a legitimating force of prejudice in History. To be fair, it has also been a force for "liberation," although I would question the terms such as "liberation," "national benevolence," and "tolerance." Part 2 would probably be of particular interest to those primarily interested in religion and theology as a force of establishing moral and racial superiority to legitimize conquest and colonialism. However, within the construction of racism and the drive for profit, religion and theology has always been, and still is, there - as we can see from this piece by BBC four.
If we set the apologetics aside, what does religion and theology do now? The culture and habits of thought by which theology and religion constructs itself must be re-examined, re-considered, and re-appropriated. If the habits and culture are still there, and has been there, how is it possible to think that a new outcome will manifest? One can always respect and admire the philosophy and wisdom of religious traditions. But their political use throughout history, and today, should be scrutinized.
If we set the apologetics aside, what does religion and theology do now? The culture and habits of thought by which theology and religion constructs itself must be re-examined, re-considered, and re-appropriated. If the habits and culture are still there, and has been there, how is it possible to think that a new outcome will manifest? One can always respect and admire the philosophy and wisdom of religious traditions. But their political use throughout history, and today, should be scrutinized.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
"What does love look like? It has the hands to help others. It has the feet to hasten to the poor and needy. It has eyes to see misery and want. It has the ears to hear the sighs and sorrows of men. That is what love looks like." -St. Augustine
"Whosoever of you sees an evil action, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart" -Prophet Muhammad
"Whosoever of you sees an evil action, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart" -Prophet Muhammad
*Media and Muslims
Article:
Muslim Woman Bridges Faiths to Advance Progressive Goals
"She had always taken her mottos from Frederick Douglas ("Power concedes nothing without a demand"), Howard Zinn ("Small acts when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world") and a hadith attributed to the Prophet Muhammad ("Whosoever of you sees an evil action, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart")
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/us/faiza-ali-uses-faith-to-unite-religious-coalitions.html
First and foremost, credit must be given to this woman, Ms. Ali, in her efforts to build interfaith community based actions and initiatives. Kudos to her and her courage.
However, putting such a story out in the New York Times makes one wonder about the motives behind the story and why this particular one was told out of the many interfaith based initiatives. Would this story have been told if it was a Christian or Jewish woman working with an Islam based organization? Or a Hindu man working with a Christian organization? The fact that a Muslim woman is working with a Jewish organization, "trained by a Jewish Agency to work with a coalition largely composed of Christian churches," speaks volumes for a certain desirability and image for political correctness. One wonders what other faiths are involved within this community? Are there Jewish and Muslims within this community? Buddhists or Hindus? And perhaps, this is simply the nature of American communities where Christian churches dominate the neighborhoods. Nonetheless, it makes one curious.
The article briefly mentions that she is organizing with members of Christian faiths to "rally in support of proposed legislation encouraging more local investment by banks." Otherwise the article focuses on her faith, the hardships and discriminations she's faced after 9-11. There is little mention of the work that she is doing as a selected person to do work after being trained by Jewish agencies. The story itself is a political correctness piece. How sensitive and correct America is now. But these things weren't necessary prior to 9-11. Islam was just another religion and Muslims of all countries were people of a different culture. It did not matter. Even before, when there was turmoil in the Middle East during Bush Sr.'s presidency one's religion or cultural background did not matter much. Or at least it didn't seem to matter much. After 9-11 a lot has changed. Discrimination and anti-Muslim violence was very much apparent and all up in the news. What once were ordinary citizens no different from anybody else in the country suddenly became suspect. And now, we see these interfaith cooperation schemas that are politically correct. One wonders if an anti-group sentiment and discrimination/violence, then a reactive sensitivity towards that group is what creates such cooperation. At the same time, who says the cooperation wasn't there prior to any anti-group sentiment?
What makes this piece interesting is what is not told and the timing of the piece. Who told this reporter to do this story? Was it his initiative? Did he go out and find this woman and say 'Wow, look at what you're doing! This deserves press!' Or did somebody from his religious background motivate the story? Or was it the director of the 'Religion' section at the New York Times? And if it was, who told him about the story? The piece also comes at a relative time, somewhat removed so it won't be too obvious, of controversy regarding the U.S. soldiers urinating on the dead in Afghanistan and other questionable actions during war which begs, and should beg continue to beg, the question of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. So giving this kind of story media coverage and initiating such actions to do this story raises some eyebrows of whether it was done in romantic earnest or really as one stepping block for damage control, PR, and political correctness.
Muslim Woman Bridges Faiths to Advance Progressive Goals
"She had always taken her mottos from Frederick Douglas ("Power concedes nothing without a demand"), Howard Zinn ("Small acts when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world") and a hadith attributed to the Prophet Muhammad ("Whosoever of you sees an evil action, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart")
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/us/faiza-ali-uses-faith-to-unite-religious-coalitions.html
First and foremost, credit must be given to this woman, Ms. Ali, in her efforts to build interfaith community based actions and initiatives. Kudos to her and her courage.
However, putting such a story out in the New York Times makes one wonder about the motives behind the story and why this particular one was told out of the many interfaith based initiatives. Would this story have been told if it was a Christian or Jewish woman working with an Islam based organization? Or a Hindu man working with a Christian organization? The fact that a Muslim woman is working with a Jewish organization, "trained by a Jewish Agency to work with a coalition largely composed of Christian churches," speaks volumes for a certain desirability and image for political correctness. One wonders what other faiths are involved within this community? Are there Jewish and Muslims within this community? Buddhists or Hindus? And perhaps, this is simply the nature of American communities where Christian churches dominate the neighborhoods. Nonetheless, it makes one curious.
The article briefly mentions that she is organizing with members of Christian faiths to "rally in support of proposed legislation encouraging more local investment by banks." Otherwise the article focuses on her faith, the hardships and discriminations she's faced after 9-11. There is little mention of the work that she is doing as a selected person to do work after being trained by Jewish agencies. The story itself is a political correctness piece. How sensitive and correct America is now. But these things weren't necessary prior to 9-11. Islam was just another religion and Muslims of all countries were people of a different culture. It did not matter. Even before, when there was turmoil in the Middle East during Bush Sr.'s presidency one's religion or cultural background did not matter much. Or at least it didn't seem to matter much. After 9-11 a lot has changed. Discrimination and anti-Muslim violence was very much apparent and all up in the news. What once were ordinary citizens no different from anybody else in the country suddenly became suspect. And now, we see these interfaith cooperation schemas that are politically correct. One wonders if an anti-group sentiment and discrimination/violence, then a reactive sensitivity towards that group is what creates such cooperation. At the same time, who says the cooperation wasn't there prior to any anti-group sentiment?
What makes this piece interesting is what is not told and the timing of the piece. Who told this reporter to do this story? Was it his initiative? Did he go out and find this woman and say 'Wow, look at what you're doing! This deserves press!' Or did somebody from his religious background motivate the story? Or was it the director of the 'Religion' section at the New York Times? And if it was, who told him about the story? The piece also comes at a relative time, somewhat removed so it won't be too obvious, of controversy regarding the U.S. soldiers urinating on the dead in Afghanistan and other questionable actions during war which begs, and should beg continue to beg, the question of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. So giving this kind of story media coverage and initiating such actions to do this story raises some eyebrows of whether it was done in romantic earnest or really as one stepping block for damage control, PR, and political correctness.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Article:
'Emotion Reversed in Left Handers' Brains'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120502184836.htm
'Emotion Reversed in Left Handers' Brains'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120502184836.htm
Article:
Failure at Nonconscious Goals Explains Negative 'Mystery Moods'
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/mystmood.htm
Failure at Nonconscious Goals Explains Negative 'Mystery Moods'
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/mystmood.htm
Article:
'Judgments of Moral Blame Can Distort Memory of Events, Study Finds'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060314084925.htm
'Judgments of Moral Blame Can Distort Memory of Events, Study Finds'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060314084925.htm
Article:
'Perceptions Of Morality Influence Economic Decisions, Brain Responses To Rewards'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051017071630.htm
*Political brain
Article:
'Emory Study Lights Up the Political Brain'
"The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active..."We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."
Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.
...
Behavioral data showed a pattern of emotionally biased reasoning: partisans denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate that they had no difficulty detecting in the opposing candidate. Importantly, in both their behavioral and neural responses, Republicans and Democrats did not differ in the way they responded to contradictions for the neutral control targets, such as Hanks, but Democrats responded to Kerry as Republicans responded to Bush.
While reasoning about apparent contradictions for their own candidate, partisans showed activations throughout the orbital frontal cortex, indicating emotional processing and presumably emotion regulation strategies. There also were activations in areas of the brain associated with the experience of unpleasant emotions, the processing of emotion and conflict, and judgments of forgiveness and moral accountability.
Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning (as well as conscious efforts to suppress emotion). The finding suggests that the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments likely occur outside of awareness, and are distinct from normal reasoning processes when emotion is not so heavily engaged, says Westen.
The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. "The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen says."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm
This phenomena of strong partisans negating conflicting information can be, and should be capable of being, translated into the philosophical literature of epistemology. Not in terms of the nature or structure of belief but rather in terms of belief and acceptance as textures of belief that play a role in our practical reasoning. What this study points towards is the role of emotions within belief and acceptance in practical reasoning and in this case, for political partisanship such that one remains committed to the political party/candidate one has already decided on.
If acceptance is considered to be the voluntary act of holding a proposition but without any commitment to hold it as truth, thereby allowing the dismissal of propositions, then the contradictory information that was presented to these partisans can be explained in relation to their beliefs, which are distinguished by involuntary and dispositional characteristics, about their political affiliations and loyalty to their parties. The use of emotions, both negative and positive, are then much like regulators of content and what propositions are acceptable and which are not in relation to their prior understanding of things.
'Emory Study Lights Up the Political Brain'
"The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active..."We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."
Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.
...
Behavioral data showed a pattern of emotionally biased reasoning: partisans denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate that they had no difficulty detecting in the opposing candidate. Importantly, in both their behavioral and neural responses, Republicans and Democrats did not differ in the way they responded to contradictions for the neutral control targets, such as Hanks, but Democrats responded to Kerry as Republicans responded to Bush.
While reasoning about apparent contradictions for their own candidate, partisans showed activations throughout the orbital frontal cortex, indicating emotional processing and presumably emotion regulation strategies. There also were activations in areas of the brain associated with the experience of unpleasant emotions, the processing of emotion and conflict, and judgments of forgiveness and moral accountability.
Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning (as well as conscious efforts to suppress emotion). The finding suggests that the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments likely occur outside of awareness, and are distinct from normal reasoning processes when emotion is not so heavily engaged, says Westen.
The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. "The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen says."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm
This phenomena of strong partisans negating conflicting information can be, and should be capable of being, translated into the philosophical literature of epistemology. Not in terms of the nature or structure of belief but rather in terms of belief and acceptance as textures of belief that play a role in our practical reasoning. What this study points towards is the role of emotions within belief and acceptance in practical reasoning and in this case, for political partisanship such that one remains committed to the political party/candidate one has already decided on.
If acceptance is considered to be the voluntary act of holding a proposition but without any commitment to hold it as truth, thereby allowing the dismissal of propositions, then the contradictory information that was presented to these partisans can be explained in relation to their beliefs, which are distinguished by involuntary and dispositional characteristics, about their political affiliations and loyalty to their parties. The use of emotions, both negative and positive, are then much like regulators of content and what propositions are acceptable and which are not in relation to their prior understanding of things.
Flourishing; p.e.r.m.a.
This feeling of accomplishment contributes to what the ancient
Greeks called eudaimonia, which roughly translates to “well-being” or
“flourishing,” a concept that Dr. Seligman has borrowed for the title of
his new book, “Flourish.”
He has also created his own acronym, Perma, for what he defines as the
five crucial elements of well-being, each pursued for its own sake:
positive emotion, engagement (the feeling of being lost in a task),
relationships, meaning and accomplishment.
“Well-being cannot exist just in your own head,” he writes. “Well-being is a combination of feeling good as well as actually having meaning, good relationships and accomplishment.”
The positive psychology movement has inspired efforts around the world to survey people’s state of mind, like a new project in Britain to measure what David Cameron, the prime minister, calls GWB, for general well-being. Dr. Seligman says he’s glad to see governments measuring more than just the G.D.P., but he’s concerned that these surveys mainly ask people about their “life satisfaction.”
In theory, life satisfaction might include the various elements of well-being. But in practice, Dr. Seligman says, people’s answers to that question are largely — more than 70 percent — determined by how they’re feeling at the moment of the survey, not how they judge their lives over all.
“Life satisfaction essentially measures cheerful moods, so it is not entitled to a central place in any theory that aims to be more than a happiology,” he writes in “Flourish.” By that standard, he notes, a government could improve its numbers just by handing out the kind of euphoriant drugs that Aldous Huxley described in “Brave New World.”
So what should be measured instead? The best gauge so far of flourishing, Dr. Seligman says, comes from a study of 23 European countries by Felicia Huppert and Timothy So of the University of Cambridge. Besides asking respondents about their moods, the researchers asked about their relationships with others and their sense that they were accomplishing something worthwhile
Excerpt from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/science/17tierney.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
“Well-being cannot exist just in your own head,” he writes. “Well-being is a combination of feeling good as well as actually having meaning, good relationships and accomplishment.”
The positive psychology movement has inspired efforts around the world to survey people’s state of mind, like a new project in Britain to measure what David Cameron, the prime minister, calls GWB, for general well-being. Dr. Seligman says he’s glad to see governments measuring more than just the G.D.P., but he’s concerned that these surveys mainly ask people about their “life satisfaction.”
In theory, life satisfaction might include the various elements of well-being. But in practice, Dr. Seligman says, people’s answers to that question are largely — more than 70 percent — determined by how they’re feeling at the moment of the survey, not how they judge their lives over all.
“Life satisfaction essentially measures cheerful moods, so it is not entitled to a central place in any theory that aims to be more than a happiology,” he writes in “Flourish.” By that standard, he notes, a government could improve its numbers just by handing out the kind of euphoriant drugs that Aldous Huxley described in “Brave New World.”
So what should be measured instead? The best gauge so far of flourishing, Dr. Seligman says, comes from a study of 23 European countries by Felicia Huppert and Timothy So of the University of Cambridge. Besides asking respondents about their moods, the researchers asked about their relationships with others and their sense that they were accomplishing something worthwhile
Excerpt from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/science/17tierney.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
Saturday, May 5, 2012
*feeling and thinking
Article:
'How You Feel Drives How You Choose'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050605184031.htm
"According to the study, angry consumers were 37% more likely to choose a default option than sad individuals... For instance, if you are choosing different retirement options, you are more likely to stick with the default retirement option (often company stock) if you are angry compared to sad. Sad people tend to examine all the options more carefully and choose the best available option. The moral: Don't make important decisions when you are angry."
Incidental and Task-Related Affect: A Re-Inquiry and Extension of the Influence of Choice. Journal of Consumer Research. June 2005.
There is without a doubt that anger and sadness can affect one's decision making processes. However, I wonder if it is fair to say that the angry one's simply more like to choose the default option. An uninformed consumer or "neutral mood" consumer may also pick the default option because of his/her lack of understanding. Given a plethora of options, and being told what could do what, one may easily revert to the default plan that is prepared. This raises questions about the dynamic between being informed and one's emotions. That is, what were the accepted propositions that initiated such an emotion or if the emotion was risen from a prior context which was lead into a decision making process with a default option. Such would be a variable to consider. The study itself, would seem to be more involved with the emotion of anger and its relationship with decision making. And yes, if one had to make a decision while angry one is more likely than not to make a rash decision, and probably - more often than not - that decision will be the default option. But I think it is too simple, without looking at the methodology and variables in the study (which I am too lazy to do at the moment), to state that if one is angry then one will be more likely to pick the default option. The variables must consider why one is angry, if it has to do with the options presented and the information provided, and the context in which the options are presented. Another psychological consideration is the way in which one is primed with the options. In this sense it would be wise to look at the relationship between priming and anger. Furthermore, how persons deal with anger will also vary. As it would also vary across cultures and how they manage those emotions in decision making contexts. I'm sure there are more things to point out but I will stop here, not having read the study and other articles I would like to read awaiting.
'How You Feel Drives How You Choose'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050605184031.htm
"According to the study, angry consumers were 37% more likely to choose a default option than sad individuals... For instance, if you are choosing different retirement options, you are more likely to stick with the default retirement option (often company stock) if you are angry compared to sad. Sad people tend to examine all the options more carefully and choose the best available option. The moral: Don't make important decisions when you are angry."
Incidental and Task-Related Affect: A Re-Inquiry and Extension of the Influence of Choice. Journal of Consumer Research. June 2005.
There is without a doubt that anger and sadness can affect one's decision making processes. However, I wonder if it is fair to say that the angry one's simply more like to choose the default option. An uninformed consumer or "neutral mood" consumer may also pick the default option because of his/her lack of understanding. Given a plethora of options, and being told what could do what, one may easily revert to the default plan that is prepared. This raises questions about the dynamic between being informed and one's emotions. That is, what were the accepted propositions that initiated such an emotion or if the emotion was risen from a prior context which was lead into a decision making process with a default option. Such would be a variable to consider. The study itself, would seem to be more involved with the emotion of anger and its relationship with decision making. And yes, if one had to make a decision while angry one is more likely than not to make a rash decision, and probably - more often than not - that decision will be the default option. But I think it is too simple, without looking at the methodology and variables in the study (which I am too lazy to do at the moment), to state that if one is angry then one will be more likely to pick the default option. The variables must consider why one is angry, if it has to do with the options presented and the information provided, and the context in which the options are presented. Another psychological consideration is the way in which one is primed with the options. In this sense it would be wise to look at the relationship between priming and anger. Furthermore, how persons deal with anger will also vary. As it would also vary across cultures and how they manage those emotions in decision making contexts. I'm sure there are more things to point out but I will stop here, not having read the study and other articles I would like to read awaiting.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Article:
Mixed Methods Should Be a Valued Practice in Anthropology
http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2012/05/01/mixed-methods-should-be-a-valued-practice-in-anthropology/
In addition and supplement to the article above: 'Anthropologists in the Amazon; Secrets of the Tribe.' Commentary by Barbara Rose Johnston on the documentary 'Secrets of the Tribe' depicting ethical concerns and overarching issues of the local society, questions about the agenda of funding agencies, the place of anthropologists and those studying human populations, as well as some other matters. Definitely worth reading: http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/03/19/secrets-of-the-tribe/
Thursday, May 3, 2012
The Epicurean Paradox
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
*Obedience, Aspiration, and Duty; Commentary on 'The Polygamists'
*wrote this a while ago, thought I would repost it here.
After reading Scott Anderson’s article, ‘The Polygamists’ from the 2010 February issue of National Geographic, I couldn’t help but think that I was being informed through the lens of Scott Anderson’s perspective interspersed with past events reported by the media and statements of history. Whether the events happened in the way Scott Anderson tells it, other than my own exposure to the events through external sources of information i.e. news on the internet, I wouldn’t know. Although I understand that there could be discrepancies within the details of history and its interpretation as there would be discrepancies between the experience of an actual event and the reporting of that event, I am no expert of history. Nevertheless, the history and the accuracy of representation do not bother me here. I am left to the faith in National Geographic and Mr. Scott Anderson’s professionalism as a journalist. I’ll take the quotation marks to mean literal statements/utterances from those Anderson interviewed and/or spoke with. What fascinated me, particularly, was the juxtaposition between Scott Anderson’s personal experience of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) community and with what he understood about FLDS history along with their involvement in the news. The values represented through utterance in quotations, or via Scott Anderson, contrasted with the values represented by media and law, via Scott Anderson, I think, from a social science perspective, presents a tension of value systems – conflicting senses of morality.
Just recently I was introduced to a dialectic in the morality of law – the morality of aspiration and the morality of duty. The morality of aspiration, I was explained, is much like what the Ancient Greeks have called, the “Good Life.” And of course there are variations and different takes on what the “Good Life” would be; America declared it as our “unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness;” in life, we have the “unalienable right” to pursue happiness with liberty. For society, this is the morality of aspiration in law. The law stands to enable the individual with those rights to pursue happiness. The morality of duty is the basic rules of civility society must preserve to maintain order and civility for the functioning of society. Most commonly, it has come in the form of “thou shalt not,” steal, murder, and so on; the bottom-up approach I’m told. Eventually, these two forms of morality overlap when what one aspires to conflicts with what one isn’t allowed to do. In other words, these two moralities in their idyllic state – for the purposes of government – conflict at the experiential level, the phenomenological level, as what the pursuit of happiness is and how it manifests, carries its own set of hermeneutical issues for each individual and/or culture that may conflict with the morality of duty instilled within the law.
With regard to the FLDS community, as presented by the media, the moralities of duty and aspiration have come together in its enforcement and manifestation of raids, indictments, and convictions as well as their ensuing sentences in court – not only for the case of Warren Jeffs, and other members charged with forms of sexual abuse, but also for the community and their judicial consequences e.g. land, custody of children, and so on. The media and the judicial sentences strike a dissonant chord of disgust when we hear the charges of ‘rape as an accomplice’ and ‘sexual assault.’ I would assume that this comes under the morality of duty side of the law while preserving one’s right in the morality of aspiration; the enforcement of one for the preservation of the other.
In contrast, the morality of aspiration and duty has taken on a different tone within the polygamous sect. Rather than an emphasis on an individual level of value in aspiration the emphasis is placed on communal values. The opening scene of “several thousand” members in gathering to mourn the death of a wife and show support for the family; “old fashioned devotion and neighborly cooperation” where even the children help bring in the yield; where a sister shares her husband for her sister’s “happiness,” all of which has been centered around the motif of plural marriage “to build up the Kingdom of God.” Women are given the task to “build up the celestial family” that will continue for eternity.” In this sense, the morality of aspiration is centered on theological grounds for the afterlife reflecting a social governance centered upon the “law of plural marriage,” family, and community; the theological fueling the social – and of course how is variable from community to community, network to network. And it is in this morality of aspiration joined with the morality of duty that creates a dynamic tension within and between individuals, social networks, and overall governance.
As some of the women in the article have indicated, the concept of obedience has strained that sense of aspiration as it interjects into their embodied conceptual organization of what they are aspiring towards. Dorothy Jessop states, “to be honest […] I think a lot of women have a hard time with it, because it's not an easy thing to share the man you love. But I came to realize this is another test that God places before you—the sin of jealousy, of pride—and that to be a godly woman, I needed to overcome it.” In the cases of “reassignment, Warren Jeffs accounts, via Scott Anderson, that “One of his brother's wives had difficulty accepting the news and could barely bring herself to kiss her new husband. "She showed a great spirit of resistance, yet she went through with it," Jeffs records. "She needs to learn to submit to Priesthood." Similarly, Scott Anderson portrays a “wary” Melinda Jeffs – who presents a “stout defense” of Warren Jeffs and confidently stating, “that [reassignment] wouldn’t happen” – when she ponders the following question, would she “obey” if her “reassignment” were to occur.
At the same time, we have Joyce Broadbent: “from my experience, sister wives usually get along very well. Oh sure, you might be closer to one than another, or someone might get on your nerves occasionally, but that's true in any family. I've never felt any rivalry or jealousy at all." Scott Anderson indicates that the division of household duties (schoolteacher, kitchen, sewing, etc) and an awareness of their role “to bear and raise as many children as possible, to build up the "celestial family" that will remain together for eternity” helps mitigate the tensions of jealousy and allows sorority.
The approach and associated values within the moralities of duty and aspiration – beginning on theoretical, metaphysical, or in this case, theological grounds – are instilled within the social ethos of any network, community, or state. And yet, the social ethos of an individual, or even community, cannot be assumed to manifest in a one to one relation. The moralities as they are conceived do not come to being in the same ethos for every individual; automaton cannot be assumed. But rather, the moralities manifest through the understanding and hermeneutics of those moralities in the paradigm upon which they are grounded, which ranges to various degrees for each individual adhering to that paradigm. In turn, that cognitive and conceptual organization comes into consideration during the assessment, and emotional response, of social situations or circumstances individuals are placed in.
The FLDS members are submersed in a dynamic tension of theological aspiration (family and eternity) and a morality of duty enforced in the power of governance to perpetuate a social structure surrounding that morality of aspiration. This would seem to have resulted in an internal dissonance in the conceptualization of obedience. Not only is there an obedience to one’s personal understanding of self on a metaphysical level in relation to his/her understanding of God as one aspires to reach that celestial state, there is the obedience to a morality of duty that is grounded in a relation to the community, including household, and what has been deemed as revelations brought forth by a prophet; a tension that each member eventually reconciles considering their self in relation to the community and understanding of the afterlife.
After reading Scott Anderson’s article, ‘The Polygamists’ from the 2010 February issue of National Geographic, I couldn’t help but think that I was being informed through the lens of Scott Anderson’s perspective interspersed with past events reported by the media and statements of history. Whether the events happened in the way Scott Anderson tells it, other than my own exposure to the events through external sources of information i.e. news on the internet, I wouldn’t know. Although I understand that there could be discrepancies within the details of history and its interpretation as there would be discrepancies between the experience of an actual event and the reporting of that event, I am no expert of history. Nevertheless, the history and the accuracy of representation do not bother me here. I am left to the faith in National Geographic and Mr. Scott Anderson’s professionalism as a journalist. I’ll take the quotation marks to mean literal statements/utterances from those Anderson interviewed and/or spoke with. What fascinated me, particularly, was the juxtaposition between Scott Anderson’s personal experience of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) community and with what he understood about FLDS history along with their involvement in the news. The values represented through utterance in quotations, or via Scott Anderson, contrasted with the values represented by media and law, via Scott Anderson, I think, from a social science perspective, presents a tension of value systems – conflicting senses of morality.
Just recently I was introduced to a dialectic in the morality of law – the morality of aspiration and the morality of duty. The morality of aspiration, I was explained, is much like what the Ancient Greeks have called, the “Good Life.” And of course there are variations and different takes on what the “Good Life” would be; America declared it as our “unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness;” in life, we have the “unalienable right” to pursue happiness with liberty. For society, this is the morality of aspiration in law. The law stands to enable the individual with those rights to pursue happiness. The morality of duty is the basic rules of civility society must preserve to maintain order and civility for the functioning of society. Most commonly, it has come in the form of “thou shalt not,” steal, murder, and so on; the bottom-up approach I’m told. Eventually, these two forms of morality overlap when what one aspires to conflicts with what one isn’t allowed to do. In other words, these two moralities in their idyllic state – for the purposes of government – conflict at the experiential level, the phenomenological level, as what the pursuit of happiness is and how it manifests, carries its own set of hermeneutical issues for each individual and/or culture that may conflict with the morality of duty instilled within the law.
With regard to the FLDS community, as presented by the media, the moralities of duty and aspiration have come together in its enforcement and manifestation of raids, indictments, and convictions as well as their ensuing sentences in court – not only for the case of Warren Jeffs, and other members charged with forms of sexual abuse, but also for the community and their judicial consequences e.g. land, custody of children, and so on. The media and the judicial sentences strike a dissonant chord of disgust when we hear the charges of ‘rape as an accomplice’ and ‘sexual assault.’ I would assume that this comes under the morality of duty side of the law while preserving one’s right in the morality of aspiration; the enforcement of one for the preservation of the other.
In contrast, the morality of aspiration and duty has taken on a different tone within the polygamous sect. Rather than an emphasis on an individual level of value in aspiration the emphasis is placed on communal values. The opening scene of “several thousand” members in gathering to mourn the death of a wife and show support for the family; “old fashioned devotion and neighborly cooperation” where even the children help bring in the yield; where a sister shares her husband for her sister’s “happiness,” all of which has been centered around the motif of plural marriage “to build up the Kingdom of God.” Women are given the task to “build up the celestial family” that will continue for eternity.” In this sense, the morality of aspiration is centered on theological grounds for the afterlife reflecting a social governance centered upon the “law of plural marriage,” family, and community; the theological fueling the social – and of course how is variable from community to community, network to network. And it is in this morality of aspiration joined with the morality of duty that creates a dynamic tension within and between individuals, social networks, and overall governance.
As some of the women in the article have indicated, the concept of obedience has strained that sense of aspiration as it interjects into their embodied conceptual organization of what they are aspiring towards. Dorothy Jessop states, “to be honest […] I think a lot of women have a hard time with it, because it's not an easy thing to share the man you love. But I came to realize this is another test that God places before you—the sin of jealousy, of pride—and that to be a godly woman, I needed to overcome it.” In the cases of “reassignment, Warren Jeffs accounts, via Scott Anderson, that “One of his brother's wives had difficulty accepting the news and could barely bring herself to kiss her new husband. "She showed a great spirit of resistance, yet she went through with it," Jeffs records. "She needs to learn to submit to Priesthood." Similarly, Scott Anderson portrays a “wary” Melinda Jeffs – who presents a “stout defense” of Warren Jeffs and confidently stating, “that [reassignment] wouldn’t happen” – when she ponders the following question, would she “obey” if her “reassignment” were to occur.
At the same time, we have Joyce Broadbent: “from my experience, sister wives usually get along very well. Oh sure, you might be closer to one than another, or someone might get on your nerves occasionally, but that's true in any family. I've never felt any rivalry or jealousy at all." Scott Anderson indicates that the division of household duties (schoolteacher, kitchen, sewing, etc) and an awareness of their role “to bear and raise as many children as possible, to build up the "celestial family" that will remain together for eternity” helps mitigate the tensions of jealousy and allows sorority.
The approach and associated values within the moralities of duty and aspiration – beginning on theoretical, metaphysical, or in this case, theological grounds – are instilled within the social ethos of any network, community, or state. And yet, the social ethos of an individual, or even community, cannot be assumed to manifest in a one to one relation. The moralities as they are conceived do not come to being in the same ethos for every individual; automaton cannot be assumed. But rather, the moralities manifest through the understanding and hermeneutics of those moralities in the paradigm upon which they are grounded, which ranges to various degrees for each individual adhering to that paradigm. In turn, that cognitive and conceptual organization comes into consideration during the assessment, and emotional response, of social situations or circumstances individuals are placed in.
The FLDS members are submersed in a dynamic tension of theological aspiration (family and eternity) and a morality of duty enforced in the power of governance to perpetuate a social structure surrounding that morality of aspiration. This would seem to have resulted in an internal dissonance in the conceptualization of obedience. Not only is there an obedience to one’s personal understanding of self on a metaphysical level in relation to his/her understanding of God as one aspires to reach that celestial state, there is the obedience to a morality of duty that is grounded in a relation to the community, including household, and what has been deemed as revelations brought forth by a prophet; a tension that each member eventually reconciles considering their self in relation to the community and understanding of the afterlife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)