The Case of Belief

In the intellectual world of arguing and sharing points of view, people may become concerned about belief. They may ask or presume that if one argues a point, one necessarily believes it. I, taking cue from Terrence McKenna (at times, when being consistent), say that I like to argue the case of whether or not X is true, good, just, etc. But, to argue the case for or against, does not imply belief. It’s more of a functional term relating to the facts of the situation itself- devoid of the personal. In this sense, it becomes more like a game: we argue by comparing and contrasting cases. This does not involve the personality of the persons involved, which means their belief systems. It is true that their personalities affect how they argue/discuss, but it does not become a factor in the how they consciously evaluate the given cases. This way, we discuss and argue to our hearts content, without the worry of believing anything, as that does not apply to the game of comparing and contrasting the cases for things.  

Deep Music that Moves Us

I listen to a lot of "deep" music. This is the kind of music that propels you to think and give meaning to it. With that said, its easy to wonder if the meaning one has really is the true meaning of the artist. Some artists have side-stepped this issue by releasing music which is open to interpretation. There is metaphor I would like to suggest which illuminates this idea further: 

The "deep" part of the music can be related to the depth of a body of water. The more meaningful the song, the deeper the pool. Now in this pool of meaning, the dilemma above has us concerned with whether or not we are reaching in the same part of the pool as the artist. Instead, we should focus on how deep we are reaching into the pool, trying to match the artist go beyond them. 

In this way, we can see how reaching deep into the pool we uncover our own buried treasures of meaning. This aspect is what makes this approach to art generative rather then just consumptive: by creating new interpretations, people participate in the creating of art. This aspect I believe is beneficial to society because it makes art more humane and less like a commodity, as is done in popular culture.   

Is the brain really like a Peacocks tail?

This is a very rough verbal sketching of some of my thoughts concerning the points below. Basically, I don’t think that our desire to mate and reproduce is solely responsible for both the growth of our brain size, and the reason for all of culture and its achievements. Rather I believe our human uniqueness in culture, language, and brain size emerged from a multitude of factors, which produced a result which cannot be reduced to any particular aspect of animal nature.

Points:

How can culture be a produce of desire when most of culture is done in the absence of it?

Humans are like an invasive species because of our ability to (over)adapt.

If desire is central to human uniqueness and intelligence, then why is it not more common in animals?

A piece of our animal nature I believe, cannot be responsible for our human uniqueness. It was most likely a mutilated of factors. These factors may have made a whole greater then the sum of its parts (Gestalt) and that sum is our uniqueness (language and culture).

This may have been a kind of strong emergence (like the big bang from nothing, or mind from neurons and brain-world).

The fact that culture and language are both transcendental and referential makes it beyond any animal necessity.

Meaning Zero: How zero can help find meaning in the Universe and Life

Some may say life or the universe has no intrinsic meaning. However, they may have not thought of meaninglessness being a kind of meaning; that is, apparent meaninglessness can be a kind of meaning although it has no value.

Now this may sound incorrect, but this example can help: if one asks for the definition of a number, the are told a number denotes quantity or value. That would be a fine answer, unless one thinks of the number zero- a number with no value. Therefore, we have a number with no value, which seems contrary to the definition of a number. Can we have a life/universe with inbuilt meaning although it seems to lack any intrinsic meaning?

Zero is a very important number even though it lacks value. Its this trait which gives it great use; the lack of value allows for zero to encompass all numbers without distorting them in anyway. For example: 1 cannot encompass any number without changing it: 1 +7=8. However, zero does not distort numbers, leaving them as they are: 0+7=7. In addition to not distorting other numbers when encompassed, zero (in the decimal system) does the other important function of allowing for new “space” for numbers to venture. As zero is the first digit, it beings each new tier of numbers e.g.: 1, 10, 100, 1000, etc. therefore it can be said that zero both allows for and preserves all other numbers via the two characteristics stated above (creating new tiers and not distorting numbers).

As a result, a number without a value becomes the one number which gives rise to all others. This example can now illustrate how a life/universe without apparent intrinsic meaning (like a number without any apparent value) can allow for all other meaning (personal to cosmic). But like zero, this life/universe has intrinsic meaning, but it’s the kind of meaning which itself is negative, because it allows for all other meanings to exist. This is just like zero which itself is a number with no positive value, but allows for all other numbers with value.

In a nutshell, this life/universe which seems not to have intrinsic meaning, actually can have it. Yet it is the kind of meaning which is negative in its nature- allowing for a multitude of other meanings to exist. This is like zero which is a number without value, but allows for all other numbers to exist through its emptiness.

If illicit drugs were legal… they would become obsolete

Today we live in a society which prohibits some psychoactive (mood/mind-affecting) drugs and allows some others. Most assumingly believe that these illegal drugs if made legal would impact both the health of users and those around them by being massively available on the market. Unfortunately, those with this assumption don’t understand that it is just that, an assumption taken for granted, with no proof. Many while discussing the topic of legalization may say, “I don’t want to see cocaine or heroin being sold in stores!”. What they fail to see is the fact that such a recreational drug industry would be much like the pharmaceutical industry, always producing new generations of drugs with reduced side effects and more target effects. In other words, if illicit drugs became legal, many of them would become obsolete. New drugs would take their place with fewer side effects, or old ones which work well will be implemented. So the assumption about these drugs being around in their current untreated forms is highly unlikely.

The pharmaceutical industry is a good model for what a recreational drug market could be like. Drugs would be tested for safety of use, with the goal being a mood shift of some kind. This is in contrast to the pharmaceutical industry’s goal of either mitigating or removing symptoms of illness. Interestingly, one part of the pharmaceutical industry reveals itself to be a prototype of the recreational industry: lifestyle drugs. These compounds like Viagra, balding treatment, or Contraception straddle the line between what one wants and needs, with wants being more of a recreational pursuit. This gives us a direction in which we could picture the future of the recreational drug industry.

An advantage of the recreational drug industry would be the proper understanding and handling of what the psychopharmacologist Ronald K. Sigel calls the “fourth drive”, which follows from the other three: hunger, shelter, and sex. This is our drive to alter our mood; this can be accomplished in various ways, but one of the most efficient and direct ways are drugs. Therefore, it makes sense from both a rational and humanitarian point of view to go about satisfying this universal human drive with care and understanding, rather than denial and restriction. The way to do this is to make illicit drugs legal and have them be a part of an industry which improves on them and allows for the access of the proper usage information. We should not keep our current drug policy: denying our natural urge to alter our mood with chemicals, and restricting it to a few compounds which are never improved upon, with little information given about their proper safe use.

An important fact which is never considered is that with such an industry, the current form of illegal drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin would be obsolete and reformed. For instance take cocaine, it could be worked on so that it comes in a form which would bring out feelings of extreme pleasure but without an abrupt crash which causes the user to crave more; rather, they could be satisfied with the experience, thereby allowing it to end. This could be a form of cocaine that is not done through the nose but chewed as a gum. It could also be attached with a time release hypnotic to induce sleep so as to assure the end of the experience. Therefore, one can imagine how these drugs could be improved upon, fitting them in with society and a healthy life. Alternatively, one could engineer a new form of cocaine by altering its chemical structure. This would be like the process of creating designer drugs, with the difference that the goals wouldn't be to merely create new drugs. Instead, the goal of such pharmacological manufacturing would be to create better and safer drugs, not just novel ones.

A concern raised could be what to do about people over doing these experiences. The fact of the matter is that in the real world things need to get done, and people know that. If they find themselves addicted, like many do (with non-drug addictions) they know they can get help in a safe and legal way with little social repercussions. It is just facile to assume that everyone will be completely incompetent and doped up. Many forget that could happen now, but it doesn’t because things need to get done. Also, drug addiction has little to do with "chemical hooks" and more to do with social isolation and depression. An experiment called referred to as "Rat Park" showed that when you gave addictive drugs to rats who were isolated, they almost always got addicted. Yet, if the same addictive drugs were given to rats who had social lives, then the rats would not become addicted, even when forced to have dependency! In that case, they would suffer withdrawals with every redosing, although able to do so. This experiment shows how addiction comes from us being in an emotional cage, cut off from people. But if we are happy with ourselves and surroundings, then addiction is much less likely.

An unseen effect of this industry would be the normalization of recreational drug use, thus removing the stigma and thereby allowing society to have a proper place for this drive of ours. This being a much better alternative to the current “war on drugs” and constant shaming of the desire to fulfill a natural and universal human need.

Do you know how to feed yourself information?

My personal rant becomes a critique on how our US educational system stifles proper learning by not allowing people to learn how to "eat" or process information for themselves, but rather keep them "spoon fed"or uncritically consuming information, leading too mass acceptance of propaganda.


Is our educational system creating people who can feed themselves their own information (being critical and having context) or is it generating people who need to be spoon fed their information (consuming uncritically) by an assuming "authority".

The Line Between Habit and Addiction: Drawn by Society?

Humans are said to be creatures of habit. This is also seen in all other organisms as well: all living things fall into regular patterns of behavior or activity. With that said, some habits can be detrimental or ultimately self-defeating to the organism's health; these habits are called addictions. Technology can provide us with tools that we become habituated to; cell phones are just one example of a habituated tool (people complain they feel naked or missing a limb without their cell phone). What most fail to see, however, is how far the definition of tool, actually extends. Everything we use to accomplish a goal is done with a tool. Therefore, we can see our lives as a continuous series of habits with the various tools we use to accomplish tasks.

Some goals are not as practical as others; yet, that does not mean that there are fewer tools available, or willing to be made so, in order to accomplish these recreational or leisurely tasks. Recreational and other leisurely activities have tools which become habituated as well. For example, many would think that we eat fruits because they're innately good for us. But this isn’t the case at all. The fact is our primate ancestors who had no need for fruit, to maintain a healthy diet (this is because most mammals except for primates make their own vitamin c) developed a purely recreational sweet tooth for sugary fruit (a pollination/fertilization strategy for trees) which they became dependent on. Thus their bodies stopped making vitamin C in much the same way the body stops making endogenous opioids (what some refer to as endorphins) when heroin users are addicted. That is the origin of our dependence on fruits. It's plain to see how what was once done for pleasure becomes a necessity.

With the understanding of how technology provides us with tools to accomplish both practical and leisurely goals, one may ask: what makes some habits become defined as addictions, while others are regarded as socially acceptable? Some would like to think it would be those habits which are detrimental to the individual. However, what's there to say when a whole culture sanctions an otherwise detrimental or potentially dangerous activity (e.g. addiction to shopping, work, legal drugs, food, economic/political practices which support hegemony)? 

Ironically, because of certain potentially dangerous habits becoming culturally sanctioned, the activity becomes less dangerous. If people starting eating fruit (assuming we still made out own vitamin C), would it be seen as an addiction? One can imagine campaigns of politicians telling the public the horrors of citrus in the eye, or cavities, or even how apples can hurt teeth. But most now would see such an idea as ridiculous, although the idea of chemical dependence would still upset most of them (albeit the need for vitamin C being a chemical dependence). It seems that if the society institutionalizes a habit, its chance of harm goes dramatically down. There also seems to be a kind of asymmetry when it comes to illegal habits, they become so dangerous when condemned, relatively begin habits can become detrimental.

All in all, in understanding the line between addiction and habit provided by technology, we see the distinction being mostly defined by the attitude of the consensus. Addictions which are culturally sanctioned cease to be dangerous; and habits which are potentially dangerous become hazardous when made illegal.