God or Infinity: Is it Fractals or Turtles all the way down?

Which is greater? Are they the same? Does one explain better? Does one feel better?

Sometimes I think to my self: “I don’t need god, there’s infinity.”

Not sure quite what I mean. I feel like it has something to do with thinking about the totality of the universe and its origin. Sure I could postulate some force or power capable of generating everything, even itself. But it seems to fall into an infinite regress- who created the creator god and so on. Or if one subscribes to the notion that god’s self creation is no contradiction, there’s still the problem of a schism- between god and creation- which begs the question of its nature and origin as well.

Infinity… it just keeps going on and on. Could this give use more closure in thinking about the nature of existence then a creator god? Existence is there because infinity allows it to keep going on and on. Am I deluded in thinking that infinity can have a property of its own outside of the quantity of something? As if it was a principle which allowed the potential and expression of everything we know and perhaps much more. That is, infinity is the reason for why there is anything. This needs clarification… or maybe calculation?

Things have continuity. There’s a spectrum in everything that exists. We could think of the whole world like a never ending fractal pattern. Its like a shape which never ends and can be magnified without limit. What allows the pattern is the reiteration of the fractal equation. The pattern itself is based on a kind of equation which feeds the answer back into itself. For example, the equation x + y = z, when reiterated will have the answer z used as the value in x, and the equation is done again. This process repeats an infinite number of times with a fractal pattern. Bridging the analogy with reality, we can see that the equation represents the stuff of existence, and the infinite reiteration of the equation symbolizes infinity itself. This way, in the same manner the equation repeated makes the whole pattern, the basic stuff of existence repeated with infinity creates all that we know and perhaps much more.

But here we are back at a dualism: that between the stuff of existence and infinity. Well, what infinity did do was take creation out of the problem of existence. So this dualism is more tolerable. Unlike the dualism between god and creation, stuff-of-existence and infinity are not in causal relation to each other- one does not create the other. I think this difference is what makes infinity a superior idea in postulating the reason for existence. It feels better as it jives with science and modernity in general. In this way we can see how god as a postulate for the existence of the universe is as useful as saying existence is turtles all the way down; at least this fractal idea don’t need a creator.

Technology and The Singularity

One trade mark of the human species is not only our ability to create technology, but to have that technology evolve and progress through time. That is, we not only make tools, our tools refine over time, improving themselves and merging with other tools. If we take the broad definition of technology as anything which a person creates or utilizes to further an end, then we can see how this technological progress follows a pattern: the removing of steps between the initiation and the completion of an end. An end is just any goal or task a person wishes to complete. Therefore in this sense, technological progression is that which helps removes the steps or shorten the procedure in the furthering of an end. Tools are the objects or skills themselves that are utilized in this process.

To understand how technological progression is the production of tools or skills which remove steps towards goals, some examples are useful. Some of the first tools humans utilized were stone axes. At first the tools were sharp but uneven. The next tool to come along worked on the original idea, and improved it by adding straighter edges. This addition helps one cut better, thereby removing the steps in order to complete the task of cutting. Therefore a pattern is seen, a tool emerges to help facilitate a task- like cutting- and as time goes on, the the tools are refined by the usefulness in removing the steps toward an end. Another kind of progression technology can go through is the merging of tools. This is best exemplified by today's smart cell phone. This device is an amalgamation of many different tools like a camera, mp3 player, web browser, etc. Therefore, not only do tools progress, they merge- helping remove the steps from multiple ends at once.


Considering this point of view, a question arises: would there be some point in time where our technology effectively removes all steps between initiation and completion of an end? Can technology become so efficient so as to remove any time between the thought of a goal and its attainment? Can all technology converge into a single tool that can do it all? Would this be the singularity the trans-humanists hope for? This is the idea that humans and technology will merge, causing an effect so novel, it is incomprehensible to think about at this time. I feel this potential state is exactly the point of us achieving the fully optimized technology explained above. The time in which out tools will remove all steps between us and our goals, we will reach a singular state where all things are instantaneous. This must be the singularity: the state where all goals are instantly accomplished through technology.


If humans do reach this point, what is left for them to do? If technology cuts all the time down and coalesces into single tool, then how would we act? What would happen to our desires and hopes? This is what makes the singularity so incomprehensible. We are so defined by our pursuits of goals, that if all was immediately attainable, our identity must cease and recreate itself. Much or maybe all of what we do now would be unnecessary. Perhaps this progression would go backward when people start to miss the delayed response of working toward a goal. Maybe some would regress toward tools which add more steps, thereby adding a sense of meaning for those who felt they lost it all with the lack of steps towards goals. Or would these people be deluding themselves by denying a life of possible perpetual bliss? It's hard to say for sure whether or not this progress in technology will prove to be ultimately satisfying for humans. It could either become a trap or a blessing.



Is the logical conclusion of technology a single tool which does helps towards any end instantaneously? Is this what would make the singularity incomprehensible to us now? As of now we cannot know for certain what it will bring, but what ever may come, it is enviable.  

DMT, The Pineal gland, and The 3rd Eye

DMT is a neurotransmitter which is produced during normal human metabolism in the body. A neurotransmitter is a chemical used for communication between areas of the brain. Its function is unknown at the time, but its speculated that it is released in the brain during three specific stages: birth, death, and dreaming. There is speculation that DMT is responsible for visionary phenomenon like dreams, alien abduction, and near death experiences. If one would to ingest DMT as a vapor or in a brew with an MAO inhibitor, they would experience a psychedelic state which most describe more akin to visiting a place rather then a kind of intoxication. There are much higher reports of people encountering aliens or beings then on other classic psychedelics like LSD or psilocybin. Although DMT works on serotonin like the other classic psychedelics do, it produces these intense and unique otherworldly/alien experiences. Many have said that the drug allows one to cross into other worlds or dimensions. Many of the anecdotal reports support this sentiment.

Some scientists believe that DMT may be synthesized in the pineal gland. This is a gland which resides at the center of the brain. Interestingly, the tissue its made from does not resemble any of the other brain tissue. Its most well know function is producing the sleep hormone melatonin. The hormone is produced because the gland is light sensitive and requires darkness to begin the synthesis. The function of its light sensitivity should not be limited to its current use. In our ancient evolutionary past, the gland was connected to an eye, and is still like so today in so called “living fossil” reptiles. Therefore it was originally designed to take in light from the outside and convert it into mental images or dispositions rather then just melatonin. Knowing its possible for this gland to registrar light, its not far-fetched to see how the stimulation of it may produce it to take in more light then usual, thereby eliciting visually images. Increasing DMT in this gland may bring out is older sense organ properties.

The mythical and spiritual 3^rd eye known to many metaphysical and esoteric belief systems represents a kind of inner or intuitive vision one gains after mastering a practice. Could it be that the otherworldly encounters known to the DMT experience really be another reality picked up via a light source beyond the visible spectrum? That is, could it be that what one sees under DMT is actual light being picked up from some part of reality we normally don’t see because the concentration of DMT in the pineal gland is usually low, but increased during external DMT use? I find it possible that an increase of DMT causes the usually low tuned pineal gland to go into overdrive and not only pick up light to create melatonin, but also to transform it into visual images and perhaps other kinds of sense data as well, thereby disclosing that part of light/reality we normally cannot pick up on. perhaps this does unlock perception of either another world or a kind of parallel continuum we normally cannot pick up. Granted this theory is highly speculative; nevertheless it gives us way to think about these three phenomenon and how they might relate to each other.

Double Standards: Oppressive For Females?

The idea of a double standard between the sexes has sparked a lot of debate in the post-modern era. Feminists insists that it is a form of oppression on women by subjugating them to activities like household chores and other traditional female roles. They see their side of the standard as a form of objectification which debases the female. The whole system is seen as only benefiting all men, at the cost of all women being subjugated in life. This idea is facile as it fails to regard how the gender roles emerged from environmental and anatomical conditions from our past.


The truth is one role is not more significant then the other. Rather, both are necessary but make up different parts which accompany each other in very complementary ways. Males are forced to defend the home and provide resources for it- a very dangerous job. Females are supposed to care for and maintain the home- a very difficult job. Although the modern age has liberated us from these roles, we still carry the psychological and anatomical baggage of our past- which shapes our behavior and minds. Our inherited cultural customs also reflect our past conditions. Therefore, its not surprising that many social institutions like marriage are crumbling in the wake of our self-sufficiency and individualistic economic system. In the absence of direct genetic intervention, it is unlikely that humans will drop their inherited gender differences. Yet it is possible with conscious intervention to work on these behaviors and acknowledge them for what they are: ways of adapting to the environment, and not a general form of female slavery. This way, people can make rational decisions on how to alter their behavior depending on their surroundings, not subscribing to a false dichotomy of either being an agent of oppression or a victim of tradition.


What gives us a double standard is our history in relation with the environment. Men were resource providers, while women were resource stewards. Each role is necessary for survival. Any perceived imbalance in value stems, not from the roles themselves, but the upstarts who seek control over other people through either violence or coercion. It is they who inflate one role over the other (their role) as a way to justify their power. They announce that it is because the role they assume is superior that they have the right to oppress others. Although most tyrants in history have been male, it does not means most males were the oppressor. Rather, most men throughout history have been the ones oppressed along with women. The fact of the matter was, if one was not apart of a powerful family or clan, then one was very likely to be oppressed by one. Cases of males with lesser status or class maltreating any woman was not due to the role itself bringing out this kind of behavior. Instead, those males have taken the twisted view of the inflated role from the very tyrants oppressing them. As there only view of power does not come from cooperation or compassion but oppression, they have no other ways to think of their role. This confines males to a inflated view of their role because of their ignorance about other views. Its plain to see how what makes the double standard in gender roles become oppressive is not anything inherent in it, but the tyrannical forces which shape the social view of these roles- making the male inflated over the female.



The modern age has given us the tools necessary to transcend previous boundaries and restraints. Nevertheless, we carry around bodies which were designed for the past which represent over 95%-99% of human history- the era of foraging. This era required each gender to perform a certain and critical role because their biology was optimized for it. Only with the advent of tyrants and social structures like divine kingship and royalty came the oppressive qualities which would be juxtaposed on top of the already existing roles, thus rendering one to become inflated over the other. The inflation acts as a cast to indoctrinate minds with these kinds of values. It is only by acknowledging this double standard of gender roles as a way to adapt to the environment and not as an intrinsic tool of oppression, that we can improve the schism between the sexes.  

Phase Transitions: Habit, Novelty, and Emergence

Why are humans so different from the rest of nature? 
Is the progression of the universe just a chaotic march without direction?  
Or does the unfolding of the universe follow a pattern? 
If so, how do humans fit into the pattern?

Life is known for its diversity. Evolution has produced a myriad of organic forms which we call the web of life. Throughout all this variety, there are underlying commonalities which bind everything under the classification of life; these commonalities include things like reproduction, metabolism, death/birth, genetic makeup, etc. But for some, there seems to be an organism unlike the rest. Granted, all organisms are unique in their own right, but this animal is unique in a way that is different from all others. This organism is unique because it has inhabited a space in nature all of its own. This is the space of mind which the human is defined by. The homo sapient means the one who knows or wise one. This act of knowing constitutes a new kind of landscape or territory that no other organism inhabits, filled with symbols, abstractions, meaning, and purpose. However this process of opening up new frontiers is not unique to humans, for that procedure is inherent to the universe, and represents a phase transition between biological life, and teleological mind.

The cosmos, as chaotic as it may seem, has an underlying rhythm or process to it. Since the big bang, the unfolding of the universe has followed a specific pattern: more novelty and less habit over time. That is, at the start of the universe, things being very simple, habit is at its peak; the low organization of matter in the early universe lacks the variety necessary for novel or new things to emerge. As the universe ages and grows in complexity, novelty is allowed to emerge, actualizing the potential of matter. Novelty is then seen as the continuous development of new forms of matter and energy, which add to the totality of existence in the universe. Novelty is that in the present moment which is different from what came prior to it in time. In a nutshell, habit is/are repeated processes, while novelty is/are the new variation on those repeated processes.

Its clear to see how the growth of the universe is one from mostly habit (nothingness) to first a little, then an exponential growth of novelty through new forms and complexity. The novelty as it grows, finds itself nested within the repeated process of habit; an example of novelty nested inside of habit would be a a kind a of variation on a repeated process. This kind of subtle intrusion does grow over time, leading a habitual process to become something different altogether in time. But as novelty grows within habit, habit does not disappear; instead habit acts as the base for variation and novelty to grow upon. Therefore, for every novel form, habit stands as its base providing the stock to alter into new forms. To illustrate novelty nested in habit, one would think of phenomenon like the combining of base parts in DNA, genetic reproduction and mutation, or staple foods and the varied spices/flavors. This means that there is no super-novel state in the future where all habit is atrophied. Rather, novelty will continue to grow, but with habit at its base. The same is for habit: at the start of the universe, the big bang itself was the novel event within the habit of nothingness. This makes sense as the two are defined by contrast with the other. Novelty is always based on or nested within habit, although the former can outweigh the latter.

As the universe progresses to greater and greater novelty, it undoubtedly goes through changes. Things like new chemicals, life forms, elements, etc, all represents changes comprising the leading edge of novelty. Changes happen constantly, but there comes a time when a change is so radically novel, its emergence adds a new layer to existence. That is the novel is so radical, it constitutes the new base habit for all novelty thereafter; this radically novel change we can call emergence, adding a novel tier or level to existence. For example, when the early universe only contained subatomic and atomic particles, any novelty was confined to the domain of pure physics. It was only with the interaction of atoms that the novel layer or tier of chemistry emerged; novelty was then after bootstrapped to the level of chemical interactions. This makes sense as what makes physics and chemistry differ is that the latter is concerned with the interactions of the parts, while the former is only concerned with the parts and their make up. Biology emerging from chemistry brings in a force against natural entropy; this brings a change so radical to the make up of physical chemistry- anti-entropy as metabolism and reproduction- biology becomes a new tier or layer on reality. The emergence of new layers or tiers of reality continue on- from physics to chemistry, from chemistry to biology, and currently, from biology to mind. Each novel layer becomes the base habit in which new novelty emerges.

The concept of emergence comes from systems theory. There are two kinds: strong and weak. Weak emergence refers to any kind of complexity which can be easily reduced to its parts. Strong emergence on the other hand, refers to a whole which is not directly reducible to its parts. This lack of reductionism is what constitutes a new tier or layer to reality. Therefore, each level strongly emerges from the other; this act of emerging novel layers is called a phase transition An example of strong emergence can be seen in the phase transition between physics and chemistry: both the elements hydrogen and oxygen have properties very different from water. Having its own properties, water is made of two elements which do not resemble any of its properties. This fact illustrates how the properties of water can emerge from two elements which have no continuous proprieties between them. Thus every phase transition is a strong emergence in which the prior proprieties do not relate to the novel form on a one to one basis. Simply, the whole is not the sum of its parts.

Some argue that a whole can only be made up of its parts. What they fail to see is that what makes up or organizes a whole is much more then its parts; what a whole leaves out constitutes it's form as much as what it's made of. As things become more complex or novel, they adopt constraints which limit their freedom; that is, the more freedom a system has, the less structured or complex it is. For instance, in order for an engine to work properly, its parts need to be restricted in their movement. The more freedom the parts have to move, the less the engine can work properly. Hence freedom in any system mean less organization, and the lack of freedom helps organize the form. This makes sense as complexity is a restraint on potential freedom. What's missing in turn structures the form as much as any part of it could- this is how something can be made up of more or perhaps less of what its parts are.

When it comes to humans, we represent another novel layer to reality because of our unique kinds of consciousnesses and what it reveals/adds to the environment. Because of our animal drives and bodies, some may forget that they are much more then an animal, or then any biological life form all together. Although its true that the human is an animal, it is also much more. A quick glance at the ecology of the earth shows one species to be the most pervasive, as if it was an invasion. Homo sapiens have controlled the environment in a way unmatched by any other life form. On top of that, humans inhabit a novel space in reality made up of symbols and abstractions inaccessible to the rest of life. It's as if humanity's environmental niche is not anywhere in the physical environment, but rather inside the minds, society, and culture of each person. This gives humans an obvious advantage in the evolutionary game. With the power to abstract and make symbols, a new landscape or territory emerges that is available to all humans. This extra/super space which makes up the new layer or tier of reality for novelty to emerge from, naturally becomes a zone of concern for humans. Because of this, humans have concerns unlike all other life forms. Whereas most organisms only concern is either the fullness of their stomachs or the propagation of their genes, humans have a whole slew of involvements and anxieties altogether removed from the physical environment; their concerns deal with abstracts like time, death, love, honor, justice, etc. In essence, the emergence of human thoughts and cognition in general represents a new direction for novelty; cultural evolution has taken the novelty baton from biological evolution; the human mind deals with multiple realities.

Part of what makes the human more then a biological creature is not only the mind, but the evolving technology it creates and utilizes. Most of what makes humans unique is their tool use. Tools and technology in general are very broad and involve any innovation from language to stone axes. Humans not only create technology, they are shaped by it; that is, if one removes technology from a persons development, they will not come close to behaving or being human. Take for instance the tragic stories of feral children who grow up empty of human language and culture. These individuals are unable to participate in human society or culture. Because of this, they are restricted to lives with concerns of bodily sensation and its immediate feelings, just like many animals. Its plain to see how without culture or language, a person ceases to be just that, and assumes the existence of a sole biological organism: an animal- not a human. Cultural evolution’s is were the emerging novelty is situated at this time. Therefore, if someone is not able to participate in cultural evolution, they cannot be apart of the landscape or territory were the emergence of novelty is taking place. Humans thus represent a interdependence of different process (biological, social, cultural, technological) which facilitate the emergence of a new tier to reality: a teleological or purposeful layer added to existence.

If there was a pivotal moment when the human species first phase transitioned, it was perhaps when a key component was added to the human diet. This aspect is what started to separate the humans from other hominids. This ingredient must have provided the catalyst for the human imagination to grow and move in the direction of novel territory. That is, this food may have been the push in the direction of the novel landscape, territory, layer, or tier of reality for the human mind. Perhaps, before this push, the human mind occupied the same space as other animals. The question remains: why did this ingredient only produce this change in humans and not other hominids or animals? This can be so because of chance: perhaps the human brain or body acted like a puzzle piece, with the food acting as the other fitting piece; both pieces are unique so they only fit each other. This is a possible explanation which leaves it all up to chance and gives a reason for humans exclusive transformation. It seems that this specific kind of food acted as the catalyst which propelled the human mind into novel territory or landscape in reality.

There is good reason to believe that the key ingredient must have been a group of mushrooms which contain a psychoactive chemical called psilocybin; this chemical is a psychoactive one meaning it affects mood. This class of drug/compound is known as a serotonergic psychedelic- works on the serotonin neurotransmitter. First, these kinds of mushrooms are found all over the world, making them very accessible to foraging early humans. Second, they are ready to eat in their natural form, requiring no preparation, making consumption very easy. Third, the chemical is readily metabolized in the body and is virtually non-toxic. Fourth, the compound is very compatible with the brain, working with it to produce the changes. Lastly and most importantly, the psychological effects of the chemical facilitate a feeling of portentousness; this pertains to a feeling of experiencing more then one can comprehend. This creates significance toward things beyond immediate appearances. This feeling lays the seeds for all kinds of cultural and abstract sensibilities to be developed and elaborated. The feeling of portentousness helps open the door for uniquely human concerns by shifting attention from the biological plane, and into the teleological or purposeful plane- the new layer on top of biology. These reasons show how the chemical in these kinds of mushrooms may have provided the catalyst for human thought and behavior to leave the domain of pure biology, and into the novel landscape of symbols, abstractions, meaning, and purpose.

A rough outline of how humans went from biological hominids to teleological humans would start around 200,000 years ago, when anatomically modern humans first appeared. Archaeological evidence shows that human uniqueness as culture began around 70,000 years ago. Between these periods, humans must of lived like many other hominids. The encounter with the mushrooms must of happened in different locations at different times during this period. Upon first experiencing the effects of expanded consciousness and feelings of portentousness, people in awe must of rushed to describe their ineffable experiences to each other; this is much like today and through history, people always have painstakingly attempted to convey their mystical or expanded states of mind, despite their ineffability. Because of this drive to share their experiences, people started pushing the power of what language could communicate. The push for new metaphors and phrases created the space for thought to inhabit when concerned with unique human aspects like purpose, meaning, time, justice, morality, religion, etc. Then as people were expanding their use of language, they probably became settled in a single spot to either obverse its significance, or to share their experiences. Another possibility has the psychedelic effect of synthesia-blending of the senses- may have provided the guide to link abstractions with mouth noises- helping develop language. It's important to note that the oldest human settlement was created before the advent of farming (Göbekli Tepe). Therefore the orthodox idea of farming first then settlements may be wrong. People may have been establishing settlements because of their experiences of portentousness and their effort to share their experiences with others. As time went on, people settled in one spot may have encountered others who where still nomadic. These settlements may have been a place to share tips and could have been where the idea of farming was first mentioned and spread from. This shows how cultural evolution emerges from biological evolution as novelty is bootstrapped into realm of memes. The reason human thought and consciousness have emerged into a new landscape of reality is because psilocybin acted as a catalyst, propelling the human mind into new territories of meaning and purpose.

Many evolutionary biologists admit that humans typify an anomaly of natural processes. Factors like the doubling of the brain size, progressive tool use, language and culture, our stark difference relative to other primates, our motor and thinking ability, the rapid development of the changes, etc, support this idea. Using this model of emerging novelty from habit, which adds layers to reality, with humans representing a new tier of reality- a new landscape or territory- the anomaly ceases to be so. Reality has progressed from psychics, to chemistry, to biology, and currently, teleology. The growth of novelty will continue as another novel layer emerges from teleology. Till then, the human species is at the cutting edge of the universe's drive toward greater novelty out of habit.

Liberty and Security: The False Dilemma

Minarchism, not anarchism, is the way to liberty!

Liberty is one of the foundational beliefs in American political philosophy. It represents freedom in our choices. A libertarian is someone who thinks liberty is the highest political virtue.

Lately it seems we have forgotten that the USA's main political end is liberty. But some see the idea as more of a danger then a necessity. Hoping to prevent another terrorist attack, many are willing to give up their liberties in return for physical safety. What they fail to understand is that protecting liberty ensures the greatest security. Many have the wrong idea of safety, relating it to only their physical security, rather then their potential to express freedom of choice- expressing their liberty to act. In accordance with this idea of safety, the federal government should decrease drastically in size becoming a minarchistic state also known as a night watchman state- with a few additions pertaining to social services for the under privileged. Gaining liberty does not mean giving up security.

Many think- as shown by the loss of our privacy and civil liberties- that the relationship between liberty and safety is an asymmetrical one. That is, more of one causes less of the other. If liberty represents our freedom of choice and from oppression, then security should not interfere with it. Security means to be free from harm or threat to our potential, not just our physical bodies.

At this point, it may seem reasonable to assume that a restriction on liberty ensures some safety by reducing the potential of an attack. This view of safety is skewed. If safety means a restriction on personal potential or liberty, then by that logic, we should all be in prisons, because its only then that the individual is virtually free from harm; yet, there seems to be something wrong with living in a prison, even though its safe: our lack of free choice. True security is the protection from harm to the potential of the individual. This means a person is most secure when they are able to exercise their liberty or potential to the fullest. A security of this kind would focus on threats to the liberty of the person, rather then the blatant physical safety which leads to oppression via a police state. The negative about protecting physical safety over liberty is that it leads to oppression, and people are not able to thrive. If a society is not able to thrive with their liberty, then no matter how free from physical harm they may be, the society is still worse off then if the physical safety of the people was compromised but liberty was fully protected. This is because that society would have a tyranny that is much worse then a vague possible threat. The security state will unavoidably overstep its bounds. As long as people are able to thrive, there should be not much reason for people to hurt each other. Most crime is done because the criminal lacks something which is made up with the crime.

One concern is that some people think a society which upholds libertarianism would leave people without social assistance. This concern ignores the two fundamental kinds of liberty: positive and negative. The one most are familiar with is negative liberty. This is the liberty or freedom from outside forces and oppression, as long as the person does not violate other peoples liberty. The lesser known kind, positive liberty, means the liberty to have the resources and potential available to fulfill one's choices. Therefore, people who are in poverty, or have a lack of education, or are sick, do not have positive liberty. In order to have positive liberties, these kinds of social ills must be dealt with so as to allow people to thrive with their freedom. Therefore, with these kinds of liberty in practice, the concern of people who are underprivileged can have a chance to better there situation and thrive with their freedom.

A misconception is that libertarian and anarchist are synonyms. This is not true; in order to secure these liberties, there must be some form of collective authority- validated by voluntary convention- to protect these liberties. Because of this, a limited form of government is needed. So in contrast to an anarchist a minarchist is one who believe government should be restricted to protecting people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud. The only government organizations would be police and fire departments, courts, legislative and executive branches. I would add- because of positive liberty- the services of healthcare, and education, because if a person is sick or undereducated, they are able to exercise their liberty to the fullest. These social services need not come from tax money, but can come about though voluntary measures like tax credits or encouraged incentives. Hence, a libertarian society does not have to resort to anarchism, or ignore the needs of underprivileged people.

Familiarizing oneself with both kinds of liberty, one can see how the common misconception that liberty means giving up security or social assistance is a facile one. It ignores how broad liberty and its philosophy really are. This is because people see safety as only physical safety. Once the true definition of safety is learned- that it pertains to the potential to exercise liberty and not only physical safety- one is ready and able to understand how upholding and protecting liberty should be restored to the forefront political concern in the united states; a minarchist form of federal government would best uphold and protect the liberty of the people.  

Thoughts On Entering Graduate School And “Escaping The Real World”

I’m about to enter graduate school this fall. I am going for my masters in psychology, which I hope to act as a steppingstone toward my acceptance in a PhD program in social-cognitive psychology, perhaps with a specialty in human evolution. Some feel that the choice of a PhD is an alternative to life in the “real world”. A life outside of direct concern for markets and finance. An idle life of contemplation, not bothered by the worries of ordinary reality. Some might say an escape. 

With that said, my career goals are not exactly clear for most outside of academia. Most upon hearing my choice of study immediately begin to ask me to evaluate and diagnose some person they know, who is alleged to be anything from slightly odd to completely insane. I usually try to cheerfully tell them I’m not going to work in the mental health field. That ordinarily sparks the question of what I actually do then. I then explain I’m more of a scientist/researcher and not a medical professional; I would mainly conduct experiments or research and write papers on them. 

Most have no idea that this is what many in the field of psychology do; its not all mental health. Part of the reason for this ignorance is that our society is driven by market economics. If the job is not either high paying or in high demand, its not seen as too important. Increasing GDP is the name of the economic game. 

I once had a conversation with a graduate student while I was an undergrad about entering graduate school. He told me that most feel that the choice is one of leaving the “real world” of practicality and entering, to put it lamely, a fantasy. I snapped at him and questioned if a person acting as a paper pusher or corporate lackey bent on increasing GDP in an environmentally unsustainable way is better then what we are trying to do: then discovering the dynamics of human behavior for the benefit of others? Of furthering understanding of our nature and actions towards others? Of helping others come to know their situation in more optimal ways? This is lower then being a middle manager at a pen company? Or an administrator at a corporate firm? I told him that is nonsense, and that the people who have that opinion are brainwashed by a consumerist media bent on keeping them entranced by a never ending shit-stream of useless novelty products clogging up the worlds landfills, and enslaving the 3rd world to make it for them. I told him that what we do is not insignificant but to the contrary quite important. But not to get full of our selves, we are reminded that what we do is to ultimately to serve all of humanity. After I strongly explained this to him, he seemed agree, perhaps out of fear because of my stern tone.      

Graduate school is a difficult and noble goal to purse in one life. If you consider this path, do not let anyone convince you that you are escaping into an irrelevant part of life. Rather you are going deeper into it all, and discovering new aspects of reality; this is no evasion of reality, not the slightest.