So, to quote the unfortunately-lost-his-way-if-he-was-ever-on-a-path-besides-towards-the-nearest-orgasm Ted Nugent, I went on a Journey to the Center of my Mind today. But not really.
Actually it was to my center that's more central to my mind. Taking cues from good insightful friends of mine, I asked my body what it wanted. I kept rolling stuff past it until sitting near the beach was it. That was a hearty yes, yes, yes.
So I drove to Venice and walked to the beach, walking by my favorite Sherbet joint and massage place, straight to where the sands meet the waters, and I sat and closed my eyes. And the washing of the sound of the waves over me, and the sand in the light air with the spray of salt water, and the sun...it was just heaven. Just turning off and tuning into that.
And then spoke with another friend of mine who called. And she talked of doing 40 days and 40 nights of meditation - once in the morning and once in the evening. And that seemed a great thing to do for me. So I'll check that out, and post it here.
Today's results, as perhaps day zero?
I'm leaving LA. Not that it was that much in doubt. But without using the "should" word...it would be great for me.
My continuing goals: really tuning into my passion, and what makes me passionate about actions and paths. To find a path that pulls me along, that consumes me in a cleansing and rejuvenating sorta fire.
Writing is great. Does writing do that? Great if and when I can do it like that.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
The art of the false equivalence: Joe Scarborough 1
One of the trickiest ways to attempt to control or manipulate others, is the inexact metaphor which leaves out a key detail.
Today's illustration by example: Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe.
Context: increasing public realization that (1) many right-wing extremists are, as a Department of Homeland Security report warned, ready to lose their minds and start shooting, (2) the public is realizing that right-wing extremists may be agitated to horrible action, by the amount of factless yelling and ginning-up of fear and hate that's occurring in US right-wing media.
One would think its clear that they certainly can't be soothed by it.
Joe Scarborough complains about the amount of hate-mail he gets, and then says "They use Krugman as their shield for their left-wing hate"...
The metaphor being constructed here:
left-wing extremism is to liberal pundits, as right-wing extremism is to conservative pundits. So if conservatives pundits are at all responsible for right-wing extremism, then liberal pundits are just as responsible for left-wing extremism.
Which is fine on paper. But when compared with reality, this metaphor leaves out two key facts:
1) Left-wing extremists aren't going out and murdering people. * (see comment 1) **(see comment 2)
2) Krugman's style is to calmly state why thinks something will or won't work, and so should or should not be done. He doesn't label those who disagree with him as anti-American, as fascists, socialists, communists or any other ists. He doesn't call for people to rise up in rebellion, and he doesn't get faux-tearful and loudly fear-mongering against some opposing views socialism, fascism, or any kind of -ism.
In other words, he's not arguing in a way that is more likely to drive the already barely-hinged off the edge.
Contrast this with any prominent voices on the Right, and the difference is stark and clear. Bill O'Reilly doesn't care about facts - he will be factually wrong multiple times and nary a correction. And ditto times ten for Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the **surreally** hate-filled Malkin.
In terms of sheer brazen fear-mongering, hate-ginning, fact-averse logic-impaired braying they literally have no left-wing equivalents. There are no left-wing voices which can match them either for audience or screeching insanity.
So, to sum up: yes, two opposing sides of any argument can be equal in theory. But in life, one side will almost always tend to be more in step with observed reality than another.
Find that side, by looking at the facts. Then once you've seen the pattern, you can be quicker to sidestep this kind of attack in the future.
Today's illustration by example: Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe.
Context: increasing public realization that (1) many right-wing extremists are, as a Department of Homeland Security report warned, ready to lose their minds and start shooting, (2) the public is realizing that right-wing extremists may be agitated to horrible action, by the amount of factless yelling and ginning-up of fear and hate that's occurring in US right-wing media.
One would think its clear that they certainly can't be soothed by it.
Joe Scarborough complains about the amount of hate-mail he gets, and then says "They use Krugman as their shield for their left-wing hate"...
The metaphor being constructed here:
left-wing extremism is to liberal pundits, as right-wing extremism is to conservative pundits. So if conservatives pundits are at all responsible for right-wing extremism, then liberal pundits are just as responsible for left-wing extremism.
Which is fine on paper. But when compared with reality, this metaphor leaves out two key facts:
1) Left-wing extremists aren't going out and murdering people. * (see comment 1) **(see comment 2)
2) Krugman's style is to calmly state why thinks something will or won't work, and so should or should not be done. He doesn't label those who disagree with him as anti-American, as fascists, socialists, communists or any other ists. He doesn't call for people to rise up in rebellion, and he doesn't get faux-tearful and loudly fear-mongering against some opposing views socialism, fascism, or any kind of -ism.
In other words, he's not arguing in a way that is more likely to drive the already barely-hinged off the edge.
Contrast this with any prominent voices on the Right, and the difference is stark and clear. Bill O'Reilly doesn't care about facts - he will be factually wrong multiple times and nary a correction. And ditto times ten for Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the **surreally** hate-filled Malkin.
In terms of sheer brazen fear-mongering, hate-ginning, fact-averse logic-impaired braying they literally have no left-wing equivalents. There are no left-wing voices which can match them either for audience or screeching insanity.
So, to sum up: yes, two opposing sides of any argument can be equal in theory. But in life, one side will almost always tend to be more in step with observed reality than another.
Find that side, by looking at the facts. Then once you've seen the pattern, you can be quicker to sidestep this kind of attack in the future.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The smell of bad information
With a trained nose, you can tell a lot of bad information from how its composed. Even if you're not an expert in the field.
These are by no means the only bad smells. But they are some of the worst, and the clearest to detect once you know what to sniff for.
Checklist:
- is accompanied by yelling
- requires immediate action NOW!!!!1!
- is unclear or short in specifics - especially relevant dates, numbers, people or sources of money
- promises to solve everything
- promises to solve everything, but does not *guarantee* refund (special red flag)
- will not be repeated in writing or in front of a 3rd-party witness
- makes you feel terrible if you believe it
- makes you feel fantastic if you believe it
- comes from someone who has something to gain from you
Consider each of these a bad smell in the room. One means something under the coffee table should be thrown out, or it could give you food poisoning. Two means there's a dead cat in the room, so don't sleep on the couch. Three means there might be a body - perhaps of the previous sucker.
In other words, more than one of the above smells means it's very likely that the source of this information is trying to fool you.
This may be a bit beyond the scope of Mind Fu, as it extends to your personal choices. But I would also suggest that, just like you might stay away from a "friend" who likes to hit you in the face, so you might want to reevaluate your relationship with someone who is constantly bringing more than one of these smells into your information environment.
Some people are excitable, and no one is perfect. Sometimes people are just idealistic, ADD, haven't thought things through, etc. But if someone is constantly presenting information to you with more than 3 of these indicators of bad information, they may be trying to fool you. That isn't necessarily someone you want to have in your life. If they're doing that, not only are they not healthy for you, they aren't healthy period. And they will affect your life badly until they heal.
And even if they are your friends, family, or lovers, it is not your responsibility or even **capability** to heal them. You can balance them and support them while they heal themselves - that is the most it is possible for you to do in this universe. And your degree of commitment to helping them throughout that process, is **your** choice as well.
That doesn't mean just abandoning friends and family if things become difficult. It does mean: know what someone is doing, and evaluate your relationship with them in terms of what they **do**, and how it lines up with what they say.
And no matter who the source is - expert, novice, family, friend or lover - even if you don't detect any of the above smells specifically, you should always consider any important action from all angles. There's always time to do this.
These are by no means the only bad smells. But they are some of the worst, and the clearest to detect once you know what to sniff for.
Checklist:
- is accompanied by yelling
- requires immediate action NOW!!!!1!
- is unclear or short in specifics - especially relevant dates, numbers, people or sources of money
- promises to solve everything
- promises to solve everything, but does not *guarantee* refund (special red flag)
- will not be repeated in writing or in front of a 3rd-party witness
- makes you feel terrible if you believe it
- makes you feel fantastic if you believe it
- comes from someone who has something to gain from you
Consider each of these a bad smell in the room. One means something under the coffee table should be thrown out, or it could give you food poisoning. Two means there's a dead cat in the room, so don't sleep on the couch. Three means there might be a body - perhaps of the previous sucker.
In other words, more than one of the above smells means it's very likely that the source of this information is trying to fool you.
This may be a bit beyond the scope of Mind Fu, as it extends to your personal choices. But I would also suggest that, just like you might stay away from a "friend" who likes to hit you in the face, so you might want to reevaluate your relationship with someone who is constantly bringing more than one of these smells into your information environment.
Some people are excitable, and no one is perfect. Sometimes people are just idealistic, ADD, haven't thought things through, etc. But if someone is constantly presenting information to you with more than 3 of these indicators of bad information, they may be trying to fool you. That isn't necessarily someone you want to have in your life. If they're doing that, not only are they not healthy for you, they aren't healthy period. And they will affect your life badly until they heal.
And even if they are your friends, family, or lovers, it is not your responsibility or even **capability** to heal them. You can balance them and support them while they heal themselves - that is the most it is possible for you to do in this universe. And your degree of commitment to helping them throughout that process, is **your** choice as well.
That doesn't mean just abandoning friends and family if things become difficult. It does mean: know what someone is doing, and evaluate your relationship with them in terms of what they **do**, and how it lines up with what they say.
And no matter who the source is - expert, novice, family, friend or lover - even if you don't detect any of the above smells specifically, you should always consider any important action from all angles. There's always time to do this.
On knowing wtf is going on
No one can be an expert in all things. Often it is nearly impossible to be an expert in one thing. And even experts in one thing don't all there is to know about their field. There is always more to know.
In addition, in our civilization with its constantly expanding information, there are other specialized fields which can relate to each other in ways even experts won't have the foggiest notion of.
An example of this is from DNA research and linguistics. Two entirely different fields. Yet methods developed in tracking the changes in language over time, have proven very useful in determining and tracking the changes in DNA over time. This has led to further advances in the knowledge of history. By tracking a specific species of human parasite, body lice, we have been able to determine when they split off from the common louse. Body lice require clothing in order to survive. Therefore, we know the point at which humanity started wearing clothing - about 100,000 years ago.
Would any of the individual experts have had any idea of this, until they started pooling everything? No.
So, experts don't know everything.
On the other hand, experts in any given fields know far more than you or I.
A lot of people carry the consultations of experts to unhealthy extremes. Some people place absolute and total faith in experts, while others place no trust in experts whatsoever if they conflict with their "gut instincts".
But gut feelings only work in fields where the gut-feeler is an expert. Think about it. If we didn't know the world was round, our gut instincts would tell us it was flat. And also that the sun revolves around the Earth.
So what is an individual to do, with so much information and not enough time in life - let alone interest - to become familiar with every single field?
On anything of importance, ALWAYS consult with MULTIPLE experts. And especially if someone who claims to be an expert is attempting to influence you towards a specific action.
Do this even if - **especially** if - this action hinges on knowledge that you consider yourself an expert of.
In the end, we can only guess that even God knows everything. We certainly don't. So we must make the best call we can with the information we have, and then move on. No matter what counsel we receive, and whichever choice you make, the responsibility for that choice is *yours*.
Other animals don't beat themselves up for past choices. They don't feel sorry for themselves. It would be great for us human animals to use our brains to remember: we don't have to either.
In addition, in our civilization with its constantly expanding information, there are other specialized fields which can relate to each other in ways even experts won't have the foggiest notion of.
An example of this is from DNA research and linguistics. Two entirely different fields. Yet methods developed in tracking the changes in language over time, have proven very useful in determining and tracking the changes in DNA over time. This has led to further advances in the knowledge of history. By tracking a specific species of human parasite, body lice, we have been able to determine when they split off from the common louse. Body lice require clothing in order to survive. Therefore, we know the point at which humanity started wearing clothing - about 100,000 years ago.
Would any of the individual experts have had any idea of this, until they started pooling everything? No.
So, experts don't know everything.
On the other hand, experts in any given fields know far more than you or I.
A lot of people carry the consultations of experts to unhealthy extremes. Some people place absolute and total faith in experts, while others place no trust in experts whatsoever if they conflict with their "gut instincts".
But gut feelings only work in fields where the gut-feeler is an expert. Think about it. If we didn't know the world was round, our gut instincts would tell us it was flat. And also that the sun revolves around the Earth.
So what is an individual to do, with so much information and not enough time in life - let alone interest - to become familiar with every single field?
On anything of importance, ALWAYS consult with MULTIPLE experts. And especially if someone who claims to be an expert is attempting to influence you towards a specific action.
Do this even if - **especially** if - this action hinges on knowledge that you consider yourself an expert of.
In the end, we can only guess that even God knows everything. We certainly don't. So we must make the best call we can with the information we have, and then move on. No matter what counsel we receive, and whichever choice you make, the responsibility for that choice is *yours*.
Other animals don't beat themselves up for past choices. They don't feel sorry for themselves. It would be great for us human animals to use our brains to remember: we don't have to either.
On training the inner child to kick ass
Your inner core self needs love and patience from you, to go with you into the world at your side.
Would you raise a garden well, by withholding sunshine and water from it to "make it tougher"?
You inner child is a part of you that is at your core. Its not able to give love and patience to itself. To a certain extent, it probably does not believe that it deserves it. This is not an intellectual belief founded on any sort of evidence; it is an emotional belief that is the only way it can explain a world that isn't fair. When you're young, your parents are your world. If your parents are imperfect, it can't be their fault. The young mind isn't ready to contain that kind of information. So the emotional decision is made that what's wrong with the world, must really be the fault of the child.
Give yourself at your deepest levels, this love and patience. This sunshine and water that might not otherwise reach these depths.
This practice will give you the core to be healthy in all ways. And yes, the ability to think for yourself. Thinking for yourself is a brave act, that is in many ways based on faith in yourself.
Would you raise a garden well, by withholding sunshine and water from it to "make it tougher"?
You inner child is a part of you that is at your core. Its not able to give love and patience to itself. To a certain extent, it probably does not believe that it deserves it. This is not an intellectual belief founded on any sort of evidence; it is an emotional belief that is the only way it can explain a world that isn't fair. When you're young, your parents are your world. If your parents are imperfect, it can't be their fault. The young mind isn't ready to contain that kind of information. So the emotional decision is made that what's wrong with the world, must really be the fault of the child.
Give yourself at your deepest levels, this love and patience. This sunshine and water that might not otherwise reach these depths.
This practice will give you the core to be healthy in all ways. And yes, the ability to think for yourself. Thinking for yourself is a brave act, that is in many ways based on faith in yourself.
Does magic exist?
Well, does it matter?
If magic is not objectively possible, as nearly all scientists and similar empiricists believe - then it's still subjectively occurring in our perceptions. And perception is something that definitely exists, and is a tool to be wielded. Whether what's perceived exists outside of the mind or not? That can be irrelevant in many cases.
I have felt Reiki as a non-physical force, manifesting as sensation even though there was no tangible physical contact. Is this illusion on the part of my mind? Perhaps. But it can feel incredible - in all senses of the word "incredible". So it's real enough to have an effect on me.
That bully in your office may not actually be taking some kind of quantifiable life force from you like a vampire. But it can feel like that bully is, and this feeling can be accurate - because thought and consciousness occurs in symbols which are wired into the primate brain. Where the primate's brain feels the bully's actions as an attempt to lower him in the status of the tribe - our conceptual brain processes it as a metaphor, so it can be included in our conceptual thought.
That lovely member of the opposite sex who surprised you with a smile may not have actually sent you a thousand megawatts of joy. But the effect is just as same as if that person did - and one such smile a day would have actual long-term physical effects. You would not only smile more yourself, you would have less stress and probably start eating better.
What matters most is what works. The reasons how something may actually work are definitely of interest, but come a distant second.
And it does appear that magic, whatever it is, works to the extent and degree that you *make* it work - that you invest in it with your belief system.
By this definition any number of things we think of as non-magical really are largely magical - for example, a modern monetary system. Fame. Even a country.
So it does not matter whether or not magic "really" exists - if people believe in it, people make it real with their actions.
Knowing this power of perception, and the pragmatic ways to deal with it, are important parts of Mind Fu.
If magic is not objectively possible, as nearly all scientists and similar empiricists believe - then it's still subjectively occurring in our perceptions. And perception is something that definitely exists, and is a tool to be wielded. Whether what's perceived exists outside of the mind or not? That can be irrelevant in many cases.
I have felt Reiki as a non-physical force, manifesting as sensation even though there was no tangible physical contact. Is this illusion on the part of my mind? Perhaps. But it can feel incredible - in all senses of the word "incredible". So it's real enough to have an effect on me.
That bully in your office may not actually be taking some kind of quantifiable life force from you like a vampire. But it can feel like that bully is, and this feeling can be accurate - because thought and consciousness occurs in symbols which are wired into the primate brain. Where the primate's brain feels the bully's actions as an attempt to lower him in the status of the tribe - our conceptual brain processes it as a metaphor, so it can be included in our conceptual thought.
That lovely member of the opposite sex who surprised you with a smile may not have actually sent you a thousand megawatts of joy. But the effect is just as same as if that person did - and one such smile a day would have actual long-term physical effects. You would not only smile more yourself, you would have less stress and probably start eating better.
What matters most is what works. The reasons how something may actually work are definitely of interest, but come a distant second.
And it does appear that magic, whatever it is, works to the extent and degree that you *make* it work - that you invest in it with your belief system.
By this definition any number of things we think of as non-magical really are largely magical - for example, a modern monetary system. Fame. Even a country.
So it does not matter whether or not magic "really" exists - if people believe in it, people make it real with their actions.
Knowing this power of perception, and the pragmatic ways to deal with it, are important parts of Mind Fu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)