Aquadox

Economics

2012-01-06T05:19:00.000-08:00

Politicians and corporations should make life meaningful. How can they do that? Buying power. That makes life meaningful.

But we buy too much crap anyway. Why, you may ask, should buying more useless crap make life more meaningful? Answer: It doesn't. Buying power doesn't mean buying more crap, it means buying less crap. When Google introduced Android on the marketplace, cell phones could do ten million and a half functions, many of which costed no more than the phone plan already costed. This means buying less crap, because while before you needed a bunch of crap to do all these functions, now all you need is a cell phone.

Imagine if we made cars so that they didn't break down every ten years. All of a sudden, you wouldn't need a new car every ten years. You'd have more money. Purchasing power. You'd buy less cars. Less crap. Purchasing power = less crap.

We really need a country where anyone can become rich. We need a country where money is more fragrant because it captures the scent of useful things, rather than monthly subscriptions and new razor blades that go dull after a day and can't be resharpened.

Structuralism, Psychiatry, and Choice

2011-07-10T22:06:00.000-07:00

I was just reading an interesting account of "structuralist" writers. I think this ties into my critique of psychiatry. I believe that the main fault of psychiatry is behaviorism and materialism--the philosophy that nothing can be said about consciousness beyond the material, or beyond the observable. This leads to, among other things, the attitude that if certain behavior changes, the patient's wellbeing changes, because wellbeing is nothing but a set of behaviors. (For example, there was a study which claimed that Olanzapine worked because the decibel level of a psychiatric institution lowered when the patients were given the drug. The idea is, if the measurable behavior of loudness changes, the wellbeing must change too.)

I have just read an account by Dominique Janicaud which clarifies this. Psychiatrists are supposed to be scientists. Scientists are supposed to be structuralists. Structuralism, by itself, according to Janicaud, is not an ideology. It is a methodology.

The implications of this are huge. It means that psychiatrists have nothing moral, and nothing normative, to say about their patients. Nothing whatsoever. Putting a moral taint on schizophrenic behavior (i.e. "you oughtn't to do that") is none of their business. Trying to enforce norms of behavior is similarly none of their business, which means they have no right to call the police, and no right to manipulate, etc. etc. etc.

Take this example. A psychiatrist labels you with schizophrenia. This means, among other things, that you tend to believe things which differ radically from accepted cultural beliefs. So what does this mean? Well, normatively, and morally, it means absolutely nothing. It is a statement of fact, akin to, "You have a wart on your nose." It is not the business of the doctor who points out the wart on your nose to say, "You are ugly because you have a wart on your nose." Or, "You need to get that wart removed." The sole purpose of the doctor is simply to state the fact and give you options for dealing with that fact. Since a psychiatrist is a doctor, he has no right to say, "You need to take Olanzapine in order to stop having delusions." Nor does he have the right to try and manipulate you into taking medications by saying, for example, "You will continue to suffer these problems and alienate yourself until you take my prescriptions."

Nor does the psychiatrist have the right (and this is the most significant point) to say, "Your thoughts are delusions and are therefore wrong." This is an ideological, evaluative statement, not a statement of fact. It reflects a certain philosophical ideology of what constitutes objective reality. But that isn't the proper domain for the scientist qua scientist. The scientist qua scientist is supposed to say things like, "Your thoughts are delusions." But they aren't supposed to say, "Delusions are morally bad." Or even, "Delusions are objectively false." The moment he does such a thing, he is judging your worth as a human being, and stepping beyond the proper role of the doctor.

Doctors make observations, and classify observable aspects of your being. But such classification, although it may come with baggage, says absolutely nothing beyond this domain. There is no reason for someone to feel upset because her thoughts have been classified as "delusions." In fact, since delusions show a marked difference from common beliefs, which are often very morally questionable, delusions may even be valuable. Delusions may make a significant, positive contribution to the marketplace of ideas. The psychiatric labels, including schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, are exactly the same. Schizophrenia or bipolar, therefore, may be a positive thing, and not necessarily something to be eradicated or controlled. In any case, the project of eradication and control of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder is the project of you as a patient, not of the doctor. The doctor may help, but the doctor by no means is supposed to take control. Just because a doctor identifies a wart on your nose doesn't give him the right to eradicate it. That is your responsibility, and your choice.

When to Socialize and When to Privatize

2010-10-09T23:49:00.000-07:00

I have been doing a lot of thinking lately about when certain businesses should be socialized. For example, should AmTrak have been socialized? What about the Postal Service—should that be privatized? There is a lot of debate about these things, especially since Republicans keep saying they want to privatize Social Security, and in Idaho, they have succeeded to a great degree in privatizing Medicaid.

I think there are two criteria, usually dependent on each other, which determine when something should be socialized. A business should be socialized when:

It would be unethical for the producers not to produce the product.
It would be unethical for the consumers not to consume the product.

Here's my rationale: When a private company engages in business with a product, there will inevitably be times when it is financially advisable not to distribute the product, or to distribute it incompletely, or to make the product faulty or addicting in some way. All of these things hamper the full transmission or consumption of the product. If it is unethical for the transmission of the product not to occur (the ultimate hampering of transmission of the product), it is, logically, therefore, unethical for the product to be privatized. It should be socialized.

Clearly, this does not cover all businesses. M&Ms should not be socialized. Neither should Technics speakers. There are some gray areas: for example, what about private transportation? Some may argue for socialization, some may argue against it. But partly because of the clear-cut examples of businesses which should not be socialized under my model, I am not a Socialist. It is not necessary for all businesses to be socialized, and, perhaps, it is not desirable for them to be. We all know that healthy competition and the profit motive can lead to innovation. Centralization of wealth to a certain degree can lead to good investments. I, for one, think that the entrepreneur, the essence of Capitalism, is one of the more powerful and often positive forces in our world. So I don't think the control of every business should be transferred from entrepreneurs to committees.

But there are, to be sure, some clear-cut examples of businesses which should be socialized, and, I would contend, most Liberals would agree with these. Health insurance should definitely be socialized. So should Social Security. But in addition to these, there are some positives which many might find surprising. For example, staple food production. By my account, this should be socialized. This conclusion surprised me, and at first it led me to reconsider my criteria—perhaps I had made a mistake. But no, now that I've thought about it, I emphatically agree: staple food production should be socialized. If we socialized food, we would, in one fell swoop, (probably) eliminate diabetes and obesity. If we socialized food, we would end unfair government subsidies of corn. We would also do away with so much exploitation in the third world, and also improve conditions for farmers here in America. No, food production should be socialized.

This doesn't necessarily mean that managerial control be taken out of the hands of the farmers. (I'd bet most farmers feel they're already managed enough by the government!) Rather, it means that the mechanism for providing capital, and the mechanism for distribution, should be at least subcontracted by the government according to the principles of just law.

I think my criteria hold up to much philosophical scrutiny. If I were a justice of the Supreme Court, I would use these criteria. I also think these criteria should also guide public opinion. Use them wisely, grasshopper.

Why Capitalism is More Ethical Than Marxism

2010-10-09T23:42:00.000-07:00

The material value of a thing is not reducible to the labor required in its production. It's reducible to the amount of work it does for society—it's value as an organizing concept which enables the welfare of others. This is the value. The exchange value is not the same as the value, but it is similar: it involves the willingness of society to support the thing created. Capitalism is all about the centralization of wealth; when wealth is centralized, it has the potential to become capital, which is then used to create more wealth. The wealth takes on the trappings of an organizing concept, or a commodity, something with material value, as defined above. This is the positive virtue of capitalism: it creates more wealth for everybody. It creates an endless cycle of more wealth, for everybody.

Communism, on the other hand, does not involve the centralization of wealth at all. Wealth should not be centralized, because such can only be done through labor extraction. I think this is based on flawed arguments, and anyway is not the case. Wealth should be centralized, to a certain extent, because concepts are centralized, so decentralized wealth is the sign of an economy devoid of concepts—an ignorant economy. Concepts are centralized because they organize thought—they are the central elements which allow us to organize the way we think.

Let me make a couple of qualifying statements. Capitalism, by definition, should be the continued production of capital, as defined above. Any production of capital which does not produce a net increase of value, or the potential to create more capital, as a system, should not be regarded as capitalism. Therefore, when a factory owner creates wealth for himself and condemns his workers to a never-ending cycle of oppression, he is not a capitalist, because he is not creating net wealth. Rather, he is contributing to the decline in well-being and perhaps death of his workers. Also, when Goldman Sachs bets on mortgage securities which are designed to fail, it is far from capitalist. It produces a relatively small amount of wealth for a very few number of people, and a drastically huge decline of wealth for a very large number of people. How can something be called "capitalist" when it destroys more capital than it produces?

Capitalism, as an ideal, is a worthy ideal, when aligned with generosity. If "capitalism" ignores real, meaningful generosity, the kind of generosity which lifts people out of poverty and lends them creative capacity, it is not capitalist, because it is destructive. Capital is inherently creative by virtue of its definition. Capital can only be used to create goods, or it isn't capital, it's just money.

I, for what it's worth, am a capitalist.

Where Liberals Have Gone Wrong

2010-10-09T23:37:00.000-07:00

I've been busy writing up the business plan for my website (www.netcultpolitics.com), and have come to a surprising conclusion:

I am not a Liberal.

during my research, I had to do answer some fundamental questions about the American political marketplace. And one of the questions I had to ask was, first of all, what is a Liberal? (And, more importantly, what is a Conservative?)

"Liberal" can mean many things. A liberal used to mean a Communist, back in the early part of the century. After World War II, however, that changed; American communism fell apart. After that, Liberals were people who agreed with the F.D.R. tradition, following the lead of the Great Society. But the Great Society had a rotten core because, while it supported domestic improvements for the common man, it also supported imperialism and war, implicit racism, and big business. This is where Liberalism shot itself in the foot. When the civil rights movement came, as it inevitably would, along with the (also inevitable) anti-war movement, Liberals fractured. And today, unfortunately, this legacy of Liberalism continues. This is why I say, I am not a Liberal. I am not a Lyndon Johnson Liberal, because I disagree with a) the Vietnam war and interventionism in general, b) selfish Capitalism, and c) racism.

When the Liberal movement failed, of course, conservatives immediately filled the vacuum. It was the same old story—racism, big business, and imperialism—but with the added feature of enhanced propaganda and an attitude of "screw the common man." (While I'm not a Johnsonian Liberal, I am certainly not a conservative.)

However, I think we are in the process of redefining what it means to be a Liberal. I, for one, do not fully associate Liberalism with Lyndon Johnson's tradition. I think Liberalism has more to do with being generous and letting people go their own way without interference. It's like Libertarianism, except with generosity—real, systematized generosity (i.e. welfare). In this sense, I definitely am a Liberal. I think we need this kind of politics. And its roots are everywhere. Our culture is filled with generosity. We have soup lines, food banks, the Salvation Army, the gospel, Buddhism—all kinds of generous potential. This potential has moral force. The conservatives may have political power, and economic power, and propaganda power, but Liberals in general have more moral power—at least, under my newer, updated definition of the word "Liberal."

So what does it mean to be a Conservative? Essentially, I think, it means that you are against regulation, but for laws. "Regulation" means laws that govern business. There are also other laws you do not support—laws regulating guns, and protecting the environment. Conservatism also means you support freedom from all kinds of interferences, but you think this freedom must be protected by military might. Finally, it means upholding traditions, especially the tradition of Democracy. I think a lot of these traits are admirable, and if we had people in office who lived up to these ideals, we wouldn't be so bad off. The problem is that Conservatives do not honor the rules. They follow the letter of the law, sometimes, but don't live up to its spirit. The purpose of Democracy is to preserve the freedom of individuals, which means they need deliberative freedom (i.e. freedom from propaganda) and political freedom (which entails representatives being held accountable to their public). On these two counts, the conservatives are lacking greatly.

Where do we go from here? Well, we have to stand for something. We have to uphold our true values as human beings. We have to capitalize on our potential for generosity. Liberalism, while under threat, will by no means die out, because things have changed enormously in history. Human beings have actualized their potential to be decent people to a great extent. With my values as my touchstone, I tend to think it is easier to redefine the word "Liberal" to reflect this than it is to redefine the word "Conservative," because of the damage done by the Heritage Foundation and all the others. That is why, in my own way, I truly am a Liberal.

2009-10-06T13:59:00.001-07:00

January 29th two school officials held a luncheon prayer at a booster lunch. They were charged for violating a court order against "promoting, advancing, aiding, facilitating, endorsing, or causing religious prayers or devotionals during school sponsored events" (Hannigan, "jail time"). On the 17th of September, school officials from Pace High School in Florida were cleared of charges, because the prosecuting attorney failed to prove criminal intent (Hannigan, "Judge rules"). Although the judge remarked that America is not a theocracy, this is a dangerous ruling. With vigilant Christians constantly trying to unnecessarily burden teachers with creationism, we should be on guard against theocracy as much as ever. But why does God belong outside of government? Why should political concerns be secular? After all, shouldn't politicians uphold God's will? Wouldn't we all stand to benefit from God-fearing politics?

While God ought to guide politics, God should be kept out of politics. Our politics are our concern, not God's. But I don't think we are harmed by exposure to God, as many people think. The usual line of argument is that we should keep God out to respect the religions of others—so that we don't force one religion on everyone else. While I agree with this, I think too often this tack is made because people get offended when you defend God. But this isn't about that. God should be kept out of politics not because God desecrates us, but because because religious politics desecrate God.

Authority structures are temporal, plain and simple. Since they're temporal, authority structures have never been under the complete jurisdiction of God. Rather, they've been given to us to govern (by God, ironically). So when a politician claims that she is a servant exclusively of God, insofar as she is acting as a politician, she is making a false claim. She may be acting under God's advice, but her post is not a heavenly one. It is worldly. In fact, I propose a simple litmus test to check whether something is worldly: If a computer can predict it, it's probably worldly. Computers can and do predict public policy, at least according to Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (with 90% accuracy), and so public policy is probably worldly. Obviously there are some problems with this approach—if a computer can't predict it, does that mean it isn't worldly? Probably not (though I'm not sure). But computers work based on things that are concretely defined. And, concretely defined things are worldly—this is what it means to be worldly. Public policy, too, works with things that are concretely defined: laws, incentives, petitions, vested interests, etc. So the business of public policy is the business of this world.

When people try to employ God in the business of the world, I think they get the roles mixed up. They try to make God conform to the authority of man, instead of the other way around. This is because they confuse what they want with what God wants. Setting public policy is about what you want done, as a man. When you speak to others, you speak as a man. Perhaps God inspires you, perhaps God guides you, but you do not in any way create or control God. Therefore the overzealous motivation to spread the gospel in public policy is wrongheaded. The best case scenario is that you are rejected as a fanatic. The worst case scenario is that you fetter any actual devotion to God, and instead people become devoted to you. I don't think selflessly spreading what you consider to be the truth is wrong, but I think you should live with the fact that you are actually getting nothing done. If anything good happens, it happens helplessly, because of God. We should watch out for people who pursue any kind of public policy, and we should ask, what authority do they have? Why are they making these decisions? What assumptions am I making about them? And most importantly, are my assumptions wrong?

It's not easy for anyone to check whether their assumptions are wrong. Sometimes the idea that you're wrong can be frightening. But if we can't find a way change our minds about public officials, even when they're wrong, how can we expect them to change their minds for us? Public officials are fallible, and are often wrong. This is why I think faith is so important—because we're so often wrong. We have to have faith that no matter how wrong we get, somehow we can manage to proceed on the spiritual path. If a man uses Christianity to guide his way, and that man is a public official, I see no problem. Perhaps that man has faith, and perhaps that faith will help him in difficult situations. But if that man creates difficult situations by trying to write laws with the authority of God, excluding all other possibilities, I see a problem. I see a man playing God. That is why we can't have a Christian nation: we have to ask, whose Christianity?

Writing laws with the authority of God places all of the responsibility on God. On the one hand, the man expects the law to be enforced—promoting his authority. But on the other hand, the man expects God to take responsibility for the law to be enforced, and/or he expects God to glorify him for making the law, and/or he expects to be protected in God's name from those who oppose the law, etc. This, again, conflates the authority of God and man. If man wrote the law, it is man's device, it carries the authority of man, and whatever happens because of the law happens because of man. If God were to come into the picture, it would be through man. But not because of man. That is, when man says, "This shall be done," it is man saying it perhaps because of God, but certainly not God saying it because of man. In fact, the responsibility for everything we say, do, and put into law, is ours. This is not a secular idea—it has support in the scriptures.

Speaking of the scriptures, the idea that God should be kept out of politics can be inferred from the New Testament. When the centurion approaches Jesus, he says he's not worthy for Jesus to come under his roof. (This occurs in Luke 7 and Matthew 8.) Why? Because he's a man of "authority"—all he wanted was for Him to heal his slave. What the centurion is doing is denying himself and his own authority, and adopting faith in Jesus. And Jesus affirms his faith, saying it's greater even than the faith He found in Israel. The centurion didn't want Jesus to come into his home because he didn't want to reduce Jesus to a celebrity endorsement. He knew that Jesus wasn't going to affirm his worldly authority, but rather affirm his faith, and in fact He does. We can infer from this story that Jesus' role is not to prop up powerful people, but rather support our faith.

Another piece of the New Testament confirms my suspicion about men trying to use God to their advantage. In Matthew 19 and elsewhere, Jesus discusses how difficult it is for men with great worldly possessions to enter heaven, saying that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. The disciples are astonished, and ask who can possibly be saved, to which Jesus responds that with man it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible. This makes me wonder, what exactly are evangelicals trying to do when they preach fire and brimstone? What are they trying to accomplish by propping up Republican politicians? Do they think they're saving people? It seems to me more likely that they're misguided. Perhaps even to the extent that they willfully ignore the meaning of the scripture to benefit themselves. This doesn't harm God, I submit. Desecrating God doesn't harm God at all. Desecrating God harms ourselves. The more God enters into politics, I argue, the further we get from God.

True, Moses was given the ability to evoke God, and give commandments. Jesus was given to do this as well. But are people like Bill O'Reilly really Moses or Jesus? Or, is it more likely that they are what they appear to be—bullies and thugs? I think these people desecrate the name of God by trying to inject God into politics. The irony is, God probably avoids politics. If He wanted to get involved in politics, Jesus probably would have been a king. I think politics are temporal, and it is perverse to use the Word for temporal gain. That would be rendering what is God's to Caesar.

Citations

Hannigan, Joni B. "On Constitution Day, Sept. 17, two school administrators face jail time for lunch prayer." Florida Baptist Witness. Florida Baptist State Convention, 16 Sept. 2009. Web. 4 Oct. 2009.

Hannigan, Joni B. "Judge rules in favor of Pace school officials on trial for meal prayer." Florida Baptist Witness. Florida Baptist State Convention, 18 Sept. 2009. Web. 4 Oct. 2009.

How to Take Psychotropic Medications

2009-06-19T20:35:00.000-07:00

Medications are a great tool for living, and I think, regarding medications, it is important to do two things: a) not reject them entirely, b) not settle into them. By this I mean, you should not insist on ignoring what happens to your brain because of the medications, and you should also not insist that everything is okay because of the medications.

I take Zyprexa, and it helps a great deal. However, when I settle into my medications, I become a complete imbecile. I can barely remember what day of the week it is. I forget to wash my clothes. I go to bed at 9:30 in the evening and wake up at 12 in the afternoon, and then I take an hour nap. It's useless. This is one reason why I insist on being kept at a low dose. On the other hand, when I have in the past rejected my medications, I ended up in the mental hospital.

To deal with schizophrenia, you cannot just take your meds and go about your business. You have to deal both with medications and, occasionally, with symptoms. I think there is a simple reason for this: medications regulate the chemicals in your brain, and that's it. The problem is, delusions aren't chemical imbalances: they're thoughts. If you have the thought, "everyone is out to get me," no medication in the world is going to take that away from you. Consequently, a large number of people continue to have delusions despite the fact that they are on enough medications to kill a horse. On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that there is a significant number of people who technically have schizophrenia, but they don't settle into delusions, and so the disease doesn't bother them and they don't have to take any medications at all.

I think the bottom line is, diseases, especially mental ones, cannot be cured or controlled by conventional science. The reason is, conventional science labors under a cocktail of delusions that don't really accord with reality. Here are a few of them:

There is an objective reality which everyone has access to.
Mental phenomena don't exist until you can observe them.
Mental phenomena cease to exist when you can no longer observe them.
The mind is separate from the body and cannot communicate with the body.

Note that for number 4, in my experience, most mental health professionals tend to think that the mind is separate from the brain and the mind cannot communicate even with the brain, which is, of course, completely ridiculous. Many mental health professionals probably won't admit to thinking this, but that is the underlying assumption when they have the thought, "You are not well until you take your medications," or, "You can try cognitive therapy and physical therapy and so forth, but ultimately, you must take your medications before you feel better."

I agree, most people with schizophrenia who are not taking their medications are indeed not well. But the medications have very little to do with that. In my experience delusions are not created by chemical imbalances. Delusions are created by the subconscious mind. In other words, I have experienced episodes of schizophrenia that haven't bothered me at all. The reason is because I withheld creating delusions. The chemicals in my head led me to think, "The world is ending now." But I withheld having the thought, "The world is ending now." I didn't actively refuse to think the thought, I just withheld having it. Because I withheld having it, I did not get upset, I did not go wide-eyed and start shouting at people, and I did not end up in a mental hospital. And so I believe that for anyone who has schizophrenia, it is indeed possible to live a normal life without taking medications. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend trying it: most people, including myself, cannot fully control their subconscious. If we have an itch, we tend to think, "I have an itch." If we can have an itch without thinking "I have an itch," then it may be a good idea to stop taking medications.

I take my medications. This is because, and this is a key point, I respect my medications. They truly have real benefit. It is extremely important for people with schizophrenia and their family and friends to understand that modern psychotropic medications are very helpful. But even if they were not very helpful, it would still be beneficial to respect the medications. For any medication, someone out there had a very good reason to believe that it would be of benefit, or they wouldn't be selling it. They may be relying on the placebo effect, but the fact that the placebo effect exists proves my point. Furthermore, modern psychotropic medications are not placebos: large teams of highly educated scientists spent years of hard work developing them. So if someone tries to get you to take medications, this person is almost certainly trying to help you out. And so, it is good to respect the medications. But medications are not everything.

Consider this. When we were children, our friends told us, "You should really try doing a flip off of the diving board," and we tried it, and it felt good. (For most of us anyway.) Or, we were the path-breakers, and we decided on our own to do a flip off of the diving board, and it felt good, so we told all our friends how cool it is. I don't think many of us would have done the flip, thought it was the greatest thing in the world, and not have told our friends. Well, when dealing with schizophrenia, the same principle applies. Scientists get people to take medications, and if it works, the good feelings of the people who took the medications back them up when they say, "This medication works." If, on the other hand, everybody who took the medications sincerely believed that it did not work, and someone gave you the medications and said, "I sincerely believe this medication will not work," it probably wouldn't work. This is because, for the most part, if someone takes a medication and sincerely believes it didn't work, it is because it didn't work. But on the other hand, if they believe it works, it is because it works. Unfortunately, many people who have schizophrenia or other mental illnesses are surrounded and constantly attacked by demons, and so it is very difficult to get them to believe, "I really think this will help you." The person will simply think it is another demon trying a clever way to attack him or her. For example, I have heard someone with schizophrenia say, "I don't know if medications are placebos or mind control or what," and this was a person who regularly took medications. I have heard another person who sincerely believed that the medications he was taking actually caused the mental illness. This person was taking about 240 milligrams of Geodon, which is a high dosage, and obviously it didn't help at all.

Now consider this: when you expand a liquid, it sucks up heat. And when you contract it, it spits the heat out. Isn't that bizarre? Who would have thought of that? But someone did indeed think of it, and later somebody else invented the refrigerator. My point is: reality is weird. But even our weird experiences are caused by something, though it is impossible to determine exactly what. So what makes medications effective? What makes some people with schizophrenia successful at dealing with their symptoms, while others are not so successful? I say it is the same thing that causes us to do a flip off the diving board, and the same thing which causes water to suck up and spit out heat: a spontaneous occurrence, a culmination of realizations of scientific truths and efforts made by our friends and other people. It is a real, rock-hard experience of our world, including both medications and absence of them. Spontaneous occurrences require more than just some mythical objective reality outside of our minds. If Michael Faraday didn't actually try expanding then contracting a liquid, the refrigerator would never have been invented. Similarly, if people with schizophrenia don't actively try to control their symptoms, medications will do no good and may actually hurt.

I think it really is dangerous to get in a situation where you think drugs are the reason for your well-being, no matter what those drugs are. Even if you're just taking antibiotics. First of all, diseases will come along no matter what drugs you're on, second of all, many diseases will not be cured no matter what you do, and third of all, there are a great many factors which contribute to a disease or lack of one (not just chemicals and drugs), and many of these factors are mental. For example, if you exercise and maintain a happy, healthy state of mind, you are less likely to get diseases, antibiotics or no. Why should schizophrenia be any different?

I know that mental health professionals, in general, wish for the best. But one of the more pernicious attitudes of mental health professionals is arrogance. It is pernicious because they don't even realize they're doing it. They try to convince people, "You have a mental illness and there's nothing you can do about it, and the things you think are false while the things I think are true." It breaks my heart when I see someone say, "Yesterday I time-traveled to combat my evil twin but someone scratched my brain. However, THIS IS JUST MY DELUSION." That person doesn't believe it's just their delusion; they are just sycophantically sucking up to their mental health professionals. So now they have two problems: schizophrenia, and sycophancy. I say, if you honestly believe you can time-travel, more power to you. It's your experience, not mine, so why is it my business?

Solving the problem of symptoms is a spontaneous marriage of all the right elements, which often indeed include medications. It is like solving any problem: you get an "aha" moment, and then you are able to solve the problem. If we can learn to put out the appropriate effort, guided by our experience and mindfulness, we can solve our problems—schizophrenia included. This is how problems are solved. You don't solve problems by just taking medications.

An Urgent Call to Action!

2009-04-11T01:42:00.000-07:00

We all know the exploits of our leaders in Washington. You can't read half a paragraph in the papers but find something amiss. For heaven's sake, we don't even need to step beyond our private life or community sphere to find problems: everywhere are angry egos and their petty manifestos. No one is without an opinion, or a "solution." Every day brings a new pill—red ones, blue ones, white ones, round or oblong—and everyone plays the doctor. But these answer-pills all seem like placebos. Where do they come from? I say they come from the herbs cultivated by good men and women who make up the backbone of this country. But the herbs go to waste: they are chopped down faster than they can grow. It is because there are too many pills! There is only one thing to do, which is what we do best: nothing.

Our lives are drenched in freedom: our egos are enslaved by freedom. We have the freedom to buy hamburgers and doughnuts—and many of us don't even need to raise the cows or farm the wheat. We have the freedom to spend money—this is actually quite significant, because not only does this freedom require money to spend, but places to spend it at, and there are plenty. We have the freedom to speak our mind to the general public and not fear a harsh response from the government—Chinese people do not have that freedom. We have the freedom to travel, the freedom to petition, and the freedom to start a business. We have the freedom not to be Muslim. We have the freedom not to be communist. We have the freedom not to be Christian. And, for long stretches of time, most of us have the freedom not to be bothered. That is the most important freedom of all, which is why we should use it. These freedoms have been granted to us by George Washington's seed and by everyone's photosynthesis. The medicinal plant has grown, and it's due time to let the medicine do its work. What wrong can come if no wrong is done? What wrong is done if we do nothing at all?

Some people say, "Write your Senator! Write your Representative!" But congress, like any mature institution, is a rock. It is mineral-rich, and healthy to grow plants on, but in what direction can a senator move without running face-first into a lobbyist? Or a union president? Or an activist? Or the wrongly-motivated part of his own constituency? Congress is a particularly interesting outcropping of solid rock—a geological specimen. A work of nature, which we should preserve and protect against harmful influences. Ask an environmentalist how to preserve and protect specimens of nature: I am sure, at the very least, he will not say, "develop it and build a mansion on it." We should not try to make our congressmen do our bidding—we should not make congress the house of our opinions. They are representatives; why not leave it at that? If you think you can change Washington, go be a congressman. And good luck to you. When you burn yourself out trying to dig up a giant rock, there is only one sensible course of action left: sit down and be another rock. This is something we CAN do.

No matter what the bumper-sticker says on the car in front of us, no matter what the man says on television, no matter what the tractors and bulldozers and chainsaws and men and women in red-orange shirts do to our wilderness, no matter who we trade insults with on our way to the next hard-earned paycheck, the tree of liberty—nay, the ecosystem of liberty—remains the triumphant emblem of our times. It's not going anywhere, but we are. We are always going places. When we sit still, or lie down to sleep, in our minds, we are still going places. It is no good. Since we have the ability to sit still at our convenience, why not use it? Then we can grow our own trees. But we do not do this. Even I have the audacity to write for two and a half hours about how we should stop doing stuff. (Though I assure you, these ideas were formed in stillness.)

So I urgently call upon all of you to summon all your courage, look your enemy straight in the eye, take a deep breath and, do nothing. Everything is perfect! Sit still, be still, and be happy!

Tree of Liberty

The above images are protected under Creative Commons licenses. The first and second images, entitled "Wild Animal Park" by Chris Ingrassia, are protected under an Attribution license. The third image, entitled "IMG_4415.JPG" by Tom Woodward, is protected under an Attribution ShareAlike license.

How the Schizophrenic Mind Works

2009-02-15T23:33:00.000-08:00

Everything people with schizophrenia do (assuming they are logical people) is absolutely logical. It is consistent with reason, and perfectly sane. A person with schizophrenia who understands the mandates of logic and reason, is skilled in ethics, acute in understanding, perfectly level-headed, with a correct view of the world, will display symptoms of schizophrenia. She will believe people attack them in their sleep. She will stare into space and become unresponsive to stimuli. She will experience anxiety and stress. It is not that she is stubborn. It is not that she is immature. So why do she acts the way she does, if she is perfectly sane?

What would you do in a room with a rapist? You would be very wary of their every move. You would avoid them at all costs, or if you cannot avoid them, you would at least lock your door at night. You would try to reason with them: "If you rape and attack people all your life," you would say, "you won't have many friends. People will call you a rapist. You will go to jail. You will lose your job."

But what is rape? Do you even know? Have you ever been raped? Most people with schizophrenia have never been raped. But they see people nodding their heads. They see people curling their lips into a smile. They see people snapping their fingers and making a pistol of their hand. By the force of logic, this all screams "Rape! Murder! Incest! Conspiracy!"

This seems very illogical. But honestly, what is logic? With no reference point, logic disappears. Suppose you are ten years old, and you have never lost a toy before. You put your toy down on the counter, with the vague feeling that you will remember it when you need it. Next thing you know, you can't find it. Did you behave illogically? Of course not. It is not deductively valid to say that placing toys on the counter leads to losing them—it is a logical fallacy. The best you can do is have a loving parent tell you, "If you don't set aside a place for your toys, you will end up losing them." Now, you have a reference point. You think; "Putting toys in random places —> losing them." At this point it is logically valid to say, "Assuming the counter is a random place, if I put my toy there, I will lose it." This is logic.

Now a person with schizophrenia is a human being. Because she is human, she feels a sense of connection when people smile at her. It creates a special feeling in her mind. So, she knows, "This special feeling is means communication." It is now highly logical for her to say, "If I experience this special feeling, I must be experiencing communication." Similarly, she feels a different kind of connection when people yell at her. This comes with it's own special feeling. And so on for other feelings.

Now television, newspapers, books, etc. give us an image of what the mind of a rapist is like. What they convey has a sense of realism to it. Why? Because it is connected with our personal experiences. Clearly, the person with schizophrenia has the same image. She knows, "When I feel this way, I have had that experience." She knows, "This special feeling generally indicates a communication of lust." Someone nods their head at her. She feels that special feeling. It is LOGICALLY VALID for her to assume that she is in danger of being raped. It is LOGICALLY VALID for her to behave in a paranoid manner. It is LOGICALLY VALID for her to lock her doors, to plead with the person not to rape her, or hitchhike to California. She knows this person must logically be a rapist. It is clear and obvious. Here's the argument in standard form:

Special feeling —> communication of that which leads to rape.
Special feeling.
----------------------
Rape is imminent.

Logic is the most valuable tool we have. Why should we oppose logic?

Now, consider the statement: "If the people on TV claim that rapists are commonly jailed, commonly lose their friends, commonly are socially ostracized, and I know rapists who are not jailed, do not lose their friends, are not socially ostracized, then the people on TV are lying." Perfectly reasonable, right? Of course it is. Therefore, for the person with schizophrenia, it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE for her to think, "People on TV lie all the time." It is PERFECTLY REASONABLE for her to think, there must be a conspiracy. It is PERFECTLY REASONABLE for her to believe that all of society is against her.

Now, if all of society is against you, and you know that someone is going to rape you, would you defend yourself? Of course you would. A person with schizophrenia knows by the force of logic that she will be raped, that society is against her, and that it is perfectly reasonable for her to defend herself. So she sprays her best friend with mace. Is this wrong of her? Is this unethical? Of course not. It is ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTANDABLE.

What does this make the mental hospital? Unjust. It is an enforcement of arbitrary authority. It creates nothing but pure confusion. No one behaves specifically to gain admittance to a mental hospital. They behave logically, reasonably, understandably, and suddenly, they are in a mental hospital. What would you do if someone stalked you, sent you threatening notes, called you on the phone ten times a day? You would call the police. What if you know the police won't come, and the person is in the same room with you, looks at you, and walks toward you, clearly communicating lust? You would spray the person with mace. What would you do if they sent you to a mental hospital? If you get angry at the mental hospital, and they tackle you to the floor and shoot tranquilizers in your ass? You would be bewildered, traumatized, confused. Reality? What reality? Reality makes no sense. There is no justice. There is no comfort.

Medications may help. But they do not cure. So to many people with schizophrenia, they do nothing but confuse. Why am I taking medications? I know that that person was trying to rape me earlier. He may not be trying to rape me now, but what of that? Me taking medications won't make him any less of a rapist. Sure, it may be bizarre that all of a sudden he doesn't have lust. But what does that have to do with me? These medications haven't done a thing. I see things in exactly the same way as before, only now I have side effects. Furthermore, I know society is screwed up, that there are massive conspiracies afoot, and that anyone may be in on it. It's not that they aren't rapists, they're just trying to make me take medications. Screw it, I'm going off my meds.

Sending a person with schizophrenia to the mental hospital will not change anything. Nor will prescribing medications to them. What is the solution? The only solution is to teach them to abandon logic. Abandon comfort. Abandon justice. Accept nothing but pure experience, no matter what the situation. Suppose they will rape you—what of that? People get raped. You just have to deal with it. Suppose you taking medications doesn't make others stop raping people—what of that? The trained psychiatric professional says, you must take your medications. Why not put him in the driver's seat for a while?

Our experiences are fallible. Our communication is arbitrary. Our ideals are empty. There is no truth in thoughts, in words, in objects. The only truth is in the mind. People with schizophrenia, just as everyone else, will do well to learn this. They will stop being paranoid. They will stop spraying people with mace. They will stop being angry. I guarantee the world will be a better place, no matter where they are—mental hospital or elsewhere.

Metaphilosophy

2008-10-30T20:40:00.000-07:00

There are four tenets to a good philosophy. It must be interesting and sincere, coherent, consistent, and truthful.

To be interesting and sincere, the philosophy must stem from personal experience. One must have a deep insight into what one philosophizes over, and one must have the ability to put the insight into words to some degree. Of course, regarding high, philosophical concepts, words often fail. Nevertheless, one must try to make the philosophy meaningful.

A philosophy being coherent stems from it being interesting and sincere. The words have to make some measure of logical sense. The sentences must relate to experiences that we can recognize. In short, the philosophy must be grounded in reality. Really, this is simply a check on the sincerity of the philosophy. If the philosophy stems from empirical observation, it is naturally coherent, because nature itself is coherency in the flesh.

There is only one way for a philosophy to be consistent: the philosophy cannot make unwarranted postulations. This requirement is intimately tied up with the other requirements, because if the philosophy is sincere and coherent, it must be consistent. If one sees a red ball on a table, one can use the fact, "I see a red ball on a table" to improve their philosophy; this would be a sincere, coherent, and consistent statement. (An interesting side-note: I do not, at this moment, see a red ball on a table. Did I have the right to write that sentence? Is it a legitimate observation? This would make a great debate. I hold that I do have the right to make counterfactual observations, because one way to define reality is by what it is not. Anyone care to take this on? You don't necessarily have to disagree either -- you could just expound upon the idea. But, I digress.) But one cannot take the extra step and say "life is like a red ball on a table" with no evidence, because that is an unwarranted postulation.

For a philosophy to be truthful, it must be the same as telling the truth. You have to actually believe what you are saying. It cannot be a lie.

A great philosophy, I believe, is humble. It states the facts, humbly, with no extra stuff that you just made up. It gives insight because of its simplicity. It is full of meaning, yet devoid of postulations. That is my philosophy of philosophy.

The Negative Magnolia

2008-10-03T10:58:00.000-07:00

Searching, finding, classifying, using, reading, talking, reporting, sitting, standing, walking can all be done in entropy. This entropy has a dulling effect on the mind, like carbon dioxide has on the planet. Experience can be closed — it can exist inside a building with no windows. Keeping busy keeps you in the system; it keeps you indoors, breathing old air and reading yellow pages between musty book covers. I look for these things, like a bee looks for flowers.

The open door. It is defined by spacial constraints, but it is an anti-object. I walk outside: which brings the new. The sparkling air brings externalism — I feel fresh. I don't refer to internal things anymore. I don't refer to flowers within flowers. I can go inside an object, I can go through an anti-object. If you think about it, it's a beautiful thing — the door. It's a happy thing. If we had no doors, no cracks in the walls, we could have no objects. If we had no objects, we could have no doors. Really, looking through the anti-object is as beautiful as looking inside the object.

Forms of Moral and Immoral Thought

2008-08-17T19:47:00.000-07:00

Much of the time moral thought is covered by mundane decisionmaking. Sometimes, when one thinks of moral issues, they reach an obstacle to further thought — or a moral dilemma. Moral dilemmas seem to come in four forms. These four forms are as follows:

The Brick Wall: Where one follows a line of reasoning, and wishes to continue, but there seems to be no logical next step following the end of a sequence of steps.

An example would be the moral idea that each step for world peace makes a difference, but no logical steps are available to take at the moment.

The Difficult Decision: Where two or more separate logical lines of reasoning about the same subject (or moral choice) seem to lead to opposing but equally valid conclusions with reference to their respective lines of reasoning.

An example would be the question: should I invest in the markets? Either yes because: by investing in morally sound ventures encourages moral thought, and it is analogous to giving a loan to someone--if someone just gives free money, that could engender the idea that one does not have to be responsible to society. Or, no because: the very idea of investment is based on greed--requiring that charity must be reciprocated is a greedy approach. By investing one only creates the cause for bad decisions based on greed.

The Fine Line: Where a set of moral choices with a high degree of similarity and exceedingly subtle distinctions lead to greatly different and opposed conclusions.

An example would be the role of advertising. Is it okay to make people want something? If one has the intention of creating an unhealthy system of dependence on the product in question, it could be bad. However, if one simply capitalizes on desires that are already there, it is just a natural outcome of people's desires and morally neutral.

The Empirical Scale: Where a moral choice changes based on the number of empirical observations that fall into different categories.

An example would be creating a large magazine for a certain medical disorder. If enough people have the disorder, this decision is justified. However, if only one or two people in the world have it, it's probably better for patients to rely on news from their doctors alone.

Thought that overturns moral decisionmaking generally comes in three forms. The three forms are as follows:

Moral Rationalization: Where one searches for and comes up with a moral line of reasoning specifically to justify an immoral act.

Moral Hesitation: Where one feels an urge to do a moral act, and suppresses it. Usually this is followed by Moral Rationalization.

Moral Overwhelming: Where a strong emotion such as anger or guilt overwhelms one's decisionmaking, causing one to make a bad decision.

As with any dilemma or problem, moral problems are solved with patience and methodological thought.

Thoughts on Religion

2008-07-31T00:29:00.000-07:00

Question: What does your religion mean to you?

Answer: It means everything to me. It inspires me to benefit others, it gives me strength in times of doubt, it carries me through in times of trouble, it gives me the patience and fortitude to make great works of art, and it protects me from evil and hell. These things are what religion is for, and I encourage everyone to find these things in their religion.

Question: But, especially in some religions, these things can be so easily perverted into something which causes hate, intolerance, and violence. What should one do when religion leads them on this path?

Answer: Abandon it.

Question: Abandon it forever?

Answer: If something causes these negative things, it is not a true religion and is worthless. Sometimes the truth is buried deep in garbage. That doesn't mean the garbage should be taken as truth.

Joke

2008-07-23T21:54:00.000-07:00

This life is a joke, and nobody's laughing.

Conventionally Ultimate

2008-07-03T13:27:00.000-07:00

Question: Is there such a thing as ultimate pain?

Answer: Yes, I think so — in a sense. Pain is a concept like everything else, and thus can exist in pure form in an entropic environment.

Question: What about in another universal formation that allows for more of similar elements?

Answer: Yes, that too would be ultimate. They're both ultimate in relation to their constructs.

Student: It's like for one man something is ultimate, while for another man something else is ultimate.

Answer(er): Yes, sort of. Except, concepts only make sense in regards to their universal formations, so the idea of "ultimate" is really the same in both cases — there is no hierarchy.

A Galaxy of Stars

2008-06-19T12:28:00.001-07:00

One night Jacob was lying in bed with his elven lover, Lilly. After laying still for some time, Lilly said, "Look at the ceiling with your head cocked like this — the dark in the corner forms a triangle with the other two points on the ceiling. It's a natural occurrence. It's beautiful — like a star."

Jacob responded, "You're so... alive."

"So 'alive?'"

"I almost said 'human,' but that would've been species-centric. How do you come up with things like that anyway?"

"Like the triangle?"

"Like it being like a star."

"It's the same as everything else. Every commodity you make is another star in your universe."

"What about bad commodities, or derivative commodities?"

"Okay, correction. Every new commodity is another star."

Tanha and Economics

2008-06-14T22:42:00.000-07:00

"Tanha" is a Buddhist term, meaning "thirst" — thirst for existence and becoming, or thirst for self-annihilation. The Buddha said that "nirvana," or the ultimate end of all suffering, is reached essentially when one fully discards this thirst. However, this does not mean that Buddhas cannot reincarnate, or that the thirst has been completely destroyed for all time, never to arise again. Countless living beings have experienced this tanha since the enlightenment of the Buddha, so it is not the case that the Buddha completely destroyed tanha. Nor is it the case that tanha is ultimately bad, or that it cannot be an element of enlightenment.

I believe that tanha should be discarded by everyone. Selfish hoarding of material things is not conducive to happiness in the slightest. However, once one has discarded this tanha, given it up, renounced it, one can then develop a thirst which is very similar — the thirst to help all sentient beings. One can develop a thirst for generating new dharma (enlightened teachings) and a thirst to cultivate the requirements for a free life, which is a prerequisite to putting dharma into practice.

Thus I believe that this thirst, when properly harnessed, expresses itself as democratic economic growth. People who have generated an altruistic wish to help society, a type of thirst, naturally examine people and their needs, then bring into being a commodity or service to fulfill these needs. This is capital gain. Then, through a process of implicit or explicit (in America, implicit) bargaining, these people acquire the means to secure the continuing production of the commodity or service while bringing the commodity or service to the public. This is how it works in a good, capitalist society.

In a communist society, the idea is that people work only for the good of others. Any capital gain is shared among everyone, and only for the purpose of living a utilitarian life devoid of things that do not provide utilitarian value. I believe staunchly individualist capitalists have two things to learn from communism: the altruistic desire to help one's comrades, and the renunciation of luxury. (Indeed, the Buddha gave a moral imperative for employers to share "unusual delicacies" with their employees. Thus Buddhism admonishes employers to renounce their luxuries, if not entirely, at least to the point of being willing to share them with the public. Note: Buddha lived in a capitalist society.) But in a very important sense, communism and democratic capitalism are the same: they both produce commodities and services for the good of all.

In any society, in order to be of any substantial benefit to anyone, one must have two things: material welfare, and an altruistic wish to benefit others. The latter, although ultimately the responsibility of the individual, can be cultured by social interactions — by good people creating a good society which adequately ensures peoples' welfare. The former must be created socially. Material welfare consists of seven things: a) food and water, b) shelter, c) sanitation, d) healthcare, e) inspiration to work for others' welfare, f) capital or means to work for others' welfare, and f) leisure time. (I believe in the Buddhist canon there are many different breakdowns for what beings need to be of benefit to others, mostly including things such as food and water, and not inspiration or dharma — dharma or inspiration is usually something people participate in after their material requirements have been met. The reason why I include these as material requirements is because in America, music, films, books, etc. all can provide inspiration, but are considered a "commodity" or material thing, not something one actively participates in per se. Also, they usually cost money. It is because of this materialist approach that I include these things as material "requirements" for a good life.)

Now I believe the details of the institutions which provide these seven things are unimportant. Thus, communist state institutions, private institutions, charity institutions, church institutions, democratic state institutions, or any other kind of institution can adequately provide these seven things. In America, it is understood that private social clubs and churches and various networks of friends, or private companies (eg. "the media") or nonprofit organizations, are to provide inspiration to work for others' benefit — sometimes for a price, sometimes for free. (Here, again, I'm referring to material goods, like books, or internet access, which provide inspiration to help others, in addition to exhortations from friends or one's pastor etc.) Water and sanitation are provided by publicly funded and state regulated private or public companies. (Water can also arise as a product of the environment in which private citizens live, such as a well or spring.) Leisure time is provided by the employer. The employer usually provides the means for acquiring shelter, food, healthcare, and capital or means for everything else (including capital or means to work for others' welfare) and private companies provide the actual food, shelter, and healthcare for a price, with the understanding that most people have the means to fulfill this price.

Can these things be provided more efficiently through other institutions? It's hard to say. I believe a very strong case, based on empirical evidence, can be made that democratic state institutions are better at providing healthcare for more people than private companies. However it really doesn't matter, because the following principle operates in every society (but especially in a democracy or communist society): everybody is responsible for everybody's material welfare. This means (now pay attention WalMart!) that if you are an employer in America, YOU are responsible to make sure the money you provide employees is enough to secure food, shelter, and health care.

It is my opinion that to adequately work for other people's welfare, one must work AT MOST 2050-2070 hours a year, and make AT LEAST enough to pay for auto insurance, housing (even if it is just a manufactured or trailer home), food, health care, plus something like 10-25% more. It is my opinion that the upward trend in the federal minimum wage is not enough to counteract inflation, and in some large cities, you simply cannot make it work. For example, I've seen evidence that the cost of living in New York City is about $50,000-70,000/year, and New York State minimum wage at 2070 hours/year gives you less than $15,000/year, before taxes! Of course, in New York City, even unskilled labor will pay more than minimum wage, perhaps more than twice as much. But $30,000/year in NYC still doesn't cut it. At least, this amount doesn't meet my requirements.

Thus those who wish to live in the city and are unskilled and have not completed college need to realize that they simply cannot make it work. I feel deeply sorry for those born in New York who's parents can't afford to send them to college — they have no recourse at all, whether or not they possess natural talents or inclinations towards greatness. In theory, welfare should provide for them. But in 1993, as Theresa Funiciello reports in her book Tyrrany of Kindness, the average welfare grant for a three-person family was about $441/month. Again, this simply cannot cut it. The only hope for the inner city poor and uneducated to become upwardly mobile is if the government raises the dollar amount of welfare checks, or if some program were created to at the very least move these people to less expensive areas to live. I think it would be good for everybody if these people were given the option of upward mobility, or at least some sort of fulfillment. Of course, this is a very complicated issue with no easy answers. One thing I would suggest is for dharma people to participate in the marketplace as employers, and give dharma to their employees. In that way, the poor can work full time and still at least have spiritual fulfillment.

In any case, America is a land full of tanha, with an economy that the word "thriving" seems to fall short of describing. Everyone seems so ambitious — everyone works quite hard. I believe that each individual's tanha, once discarded, purified, then harnessed, can manifest itself as democratic economic and spiritual growth for the good of everyone.

Requirements for Transmission of Knowledge

2008-06-13T22:15:00.000-07:00

When you are going to transmit something to someone else, you need three things: 1) contextual knowledge, 2) skillful wisdom, and 3) the essential knowledge of the thing to transmit. Contextual knowledge refers mainly to language. So, one needs to know a handful of words and their meanings in order to transmit something. Skillful wisdom requires a knowledge of dispositions and a proven method for interaction. Essential knowledge of the thing to transmit refers to a real, deep-rooted experience regarding the thing to be transmitted. For example, in order to teach someone how to make films, you must be a filmmaker, with filmmaking projects in your head.

These can be broken down in regards to time: contextual knowledge refers to utilizing the past. Skillful wisdom refers to dwelling in the present. Essential knowledge of the thing to transmit refers to a meaningful, energetic trajectory for future actions well grounded in reality. Thus, spheres of material represent past (contextual knowledge); the hand represents present (skillful wisdom); and waves of energy represent future (essential knowledge of things to transmit). One needs to see the whole picture to be well qualified to transmit something.

It is like bottling wine. In order to bottle wine, one needs a bottle. One needs to know the proper method for putting the wine in the bottle. And, one needs actual wine to put in the bottle. Here, wine represents essential knowledge of things to transmit, the method of putting wine in the bottle represents skillful wisdom, and the bottle represents contextual knowledge.

Criminality and Society

2008-06-11T13:22:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that the criminal has a dangerous road. To some extent, he has given up society and gone "underground" if you will. Society may seem constricting, but it is useful in that it provides a construct for being good to people. There is a sense that what's good for society is good for everyone, so in a very real sense, someone who civilizes himself is working for the good of everybody. But the person who gave this up to pursue criminal purposes is probably working only for himself. Society teaches us to think about other people, instead of just about ourselves. This is why it is good to impart in people a sense of being civilized.

In some cases, movies and television glorify criminal life. Particularly, there is an idea that violence is justified, even if it is illegal, as long as there is a sense of moral violence. This is bad on two counts: it justifies violence, and it justifies criminality. Anyone could get the sense that doing this or that is bad in most circumstances, but in my case it is okay. In fact, this is quite common, and quite mistaken.

Now I think a fundamental precept of democracy is to maintain a dialogue which constantly tests the values of the government. In reality, almost nobody is good all the time, and this includes those who run the government. Democracy admonishes every citizen to take an active role in policy-making. It makes explicit the fact that politicians must answer to their constituency. Thus laws can change. Some people make the decision to be a criminal, I think, because they are destitute. This is understandable, though regrettable. But some people decide to become criminal simply because they feel society is wrong — society requires too much work, or society doesn't solve everybody's problems, or society has made mistakes. This is incorrect. Even if this were true, turning criminal is not the right answer. People who behave like this legitimize a harsh penal system, and further disenfranchise the destitute who turn criminal because they have no other choice. Because of people who behave like this, destitute criminals who have no other choice are given little sympathy. In the end, if one feels society is wrong, one should find legitimate ways to change society, because turning criminal does no good.

Drugs: Should They Be Legal?

2008-06-11T12:06:00.000-07:00

First of all, I would like to point out that people should avoid drugs. I think doing drugs is useless if not dangerous. The benefits aren't really benefits, and the dangers are real dangers. For example, many people may get into drugs to change their reality, and not finding substantial change, they may take more and more dangerous drugs until they find themselves in a very bad situation. This is a real danger. (Drinking alcohol is also dangerous for the same reason.)

Note, however, that I also disapprove of gambling, frequenting strip bars, watching unethical television shows, not holding the door open for people, spending too much money, driving motorcycles, and other things. That doesn't necessarily mean that these things should be illegal. It is a very serious decision to make something illegal, and when making this decision, one should analyze the act not just in theory, but also in practicality.

I think marijuana, mescaline, psilocybin, and possibly ecstasy should be made legal, on three grounds. One: doing so would bring some positive benefits to society. Two: doing so would alleviate many negative effects on society. And three: the essence of the decision to take these drugs doesn't feel like something that should be illegal.

Here are the positive benefits to society. Alcohol has strong cultural significance, thus alcohol culture is very prevalent. Legalizing other drugs which are as dangerous or less dangerous would legitimize and bring into the open other drug cultures (like marijuana culture, or ecstasy culture) and increase cultural plurality. It would also legitimize a significant sector of the economy. (Admittedly, these are not very significant benefits analogous to, say, what legalizing free trade, free competition, and free markets would have been in the 15th century. However, the negative effects that would be alleviated are quite significant.)

Since drugs are illegal, drug selling is illegitimate. Currently, there is a market imperative for marijuana, mescaline, psilocybin, and ecstasy, because their users don't feel like they are doing anything wrong to take them. Thus, there will always be drug sellers. Legalizing these drugs would legitimize selling them, which would bring drug dealers to much closer public scrutiny. This would reduce the dangers associated with these drugs, such as selling a more harmful drug in the place of a less harmful one, lacing the drugs with very harmful drugs like PCP or, in the case of psilocybin, selling poisonous mushrooms. (Dancesafe is a good organization that tries to reduce some of the dangers associated with using ecstasy. I know of no such organizations for the other three above-mentioned drugs.) Legalizing these drugs would also reduce crime — selling drugs would not require criminal networks and would not be done in conjunction with other crimes. Also, making a clear distinction grounded in objective facts between dangerous drugs and non-dangerous drugs would reduce the gateway effect of the less dangerous drugs. In other words, marijuana would be less associated with methamphetamine, so taking marijuana would less often lead to taking methamphetamine. These are the negative effects of the drugs that would be alleviated if they were made legal.

Finally, the essence of taking these drugs, for many people, does not seem to be illegitimate. In other words, many well-informed people do not feel they are doing anything wrong or particularly rebellious by taking marijuana, mescaline, psilocybin, or ecstasy. It is analogous to drinking alcohol. I think in order for something to be illegal, it should be so dangerous that the harm would outweigh the benefit, and practically speaking, making it illegal would cause more benefit than harm. It should feel wrong, or dangerous. It should feel harmful to society. I don't think doing these drugs is like that. In theory, doing a drug like methamphetamine does much harm. In practice, it does much harm as well. In practice, doing marijuana also does harm, but mostly only because it is illegal. In theory, doing marijuana does not do much harm. So many people do these drugs, especially when they are young, because they feel it is not harmful to do so in theory, and they are not well educated about the harm it does in fact (or they feel that society deserves this harm, because certain drugs should be legal). Thus in the case of the illegality of certain drugs, it is not the drugs that are made illegitimate, but rather the government. This, I think, is a real danger.

Now I do not support the idea of doing drugs just because they should be legal. It is a fact that they are illegal, and doing illegal things is harmful to society. I would also like to reiterate that even if drugs were legal, I would not admonish people to do them, because the "benefits" (i.e. experiencing a drug induced state of mind, or experiencing reality in a different way) are not really true benefits: one is not made more educated, more morally upright, more free in spirit, more connected with reality, more friendly, more open, or more wise by taking drugs. However, practically speaking, legalizing certain drugs would probably benefit society a great deal. Also, I feel this change is on the horizon: The Pita Pit, a highly successful, corporate fast-food chain, markets specifically to marijuana users. If this is so successful, it indicates that marijuana is used by a large bloc of voters.

* * *
Now consider this interesting, Libertarian view: Over Four Hundred and Fifty an Hour? Life is Full of Risks. The author (Ralph Maddocks) claims that all "consensual acts" should be legal. According to Maddocks, only acts which cause harm to others or coerce people into doing something without their consent should be made illegal. Thus, all drug taking and prostitution should be legal.

This is an interesting philosophical point of view, but unfortunately, I think it is a wrong one. I think an act or thing should be illegal if it causes more harm than good, and if making it illegal causes more good than harm. I think I have successfully argued that although taking marijuana, psilocybin, mescaline, and ecstacy often does more harm than good, making it illegal does even more harm. The same cannot be said for other drugs or prostitution.

Let's consider prostitution. One might feel that "employing the services of a prostitute" doesn't cause much harm. I think objectively, it doesn't, if one behaves safely (i.e. tests for STDs): sex does little harm to the body, and in terms of money, the situation could be beneficial for the prostitute. Subjectively, for most people, I think hiring a prostitute simply feels perverted or wrong, so subjectively it probably does more harm than good. But even if sex with prostitutes did not feel perverted, I still don't think it should be legalized.

The strongest argument for legalization of prostitution, I think, is one based on sympathy for the prostitute. Prostitutes may not have other ways of making a living. However, there are other, more effective ways to ensure the welfare of prostitutes or would-be prostitutes. Further, legalizing prostitution, unlike legalizing the four above-mentioned drugs, would not significantly change the nature of the act. Even if it did not feel perverted, sex with a prostitute would have the same lack of benefits and potential downfalls if legalized, because there are no downfalls associated with prostitution which arise solely because it is illegal. In other words, prostitutes are not laced with PCP, they do not engage in criminal networking to the same degree as drug dealers, and so on. Thus, I think prostitution should remain illegal.