Sunday, July 23, 2006
Life BEFORE Death
On a website called Personal Development for Smart People (as opposed, I suppose, to "Personal Development for Dummies") is an article called "Life After Death." In it the author and creator of the website, Steve Pavlina, takes us through a thought process whereby he tries to discover what the fact of inevitable death can teach us about how to live our lives.
First, he rules out all of the things that the state of death cannot be. Primarily, these are things physical. It is clear that a dead body does not vanish, it does not go anywhere. It changes its form in one way or another, but it does not suddenly disappear after death. Similarly, things acquired during a person's life do not vanish at death, as if they had some how followed consciousness to wherever it is that consciousness goes. As Pavlina so aptly notes: you can't take it with you.
Then he examines what he believes are the two possibilities for the fate of consciousness. Either it continues in some form completely divorced from its previous physical form, or indeed, any physical form, or it goes out of existence altogether. If consciousness goes out of existence altogether, he reasons, then once you die, there is no part of you left to evaluate your life or what happens after you die. He concludes, therefore, that to believe consciousness goes out of existence at death is learn that life is to be lived for the moment.
At this point, anyone who has read some of my other blog posts will have an idea where I'm headed on this one.)
Pavlina then turns to what he believes are the two options for the continued existence of consciousness after (physical) death: either consciousness is fixed in whatever state it has at the moment of death or it can continue to change after death. If consciousness is frozen at the moment of death, so that whatever state of conscious development we've reached during life is the level of consciousness we will retain for all eternity, then what we learn if we believe this to be true is that we should strive to develop our consciousness as fully as possible during life so that we'll be a highly developed consciousness during the unmeasurable eons after our death.
If, on the other hand, consciousness can change after death and even interact with other consciousnesses, then what we learn by holding this belief is that we should strive during our physical existence to achieve growth of all consciousnesses, our own and others'.
OK. I have one smart-ass comment and then a more serious point to make.
The smart-ass comment: We might just as well wonder what happens to the animating spirit of plants, ring worms, amoeba, cats and dogs as humans.
The serious point/question: how has Pavlina determined that "living for the moment" is in the best interest of a being whose consciousness will cease to exist at death? It seems that we can only infer by what he focuses on in the article what he believes supports this conclusion: that the cessation of a thing's existence renders its previous existence meaningless. That is, life has no meaning if it is not eternal. Existence is the primary standard of value, the sine qua non of meaning.
In some respect this is true: to value something, one must first exist. But it does not follow the inevitable cessation of ability to value means one should not bother to value while one has the ability. In fact a human being, if it exists, MUST value to continue to exist. That is, a human being must consider food valuable, shelter valuable, at the very least must consider the requirements of physical existence valueable, worth the voluntary expenditure of effort to obtain, in order to remain alive. Nutritional food does not march into one's mouth, shelters do not miraculously assemble themselves over one's head. Food and shelter have to be discovered and produced, and discovery and production take effort that must consciously be undertaken.
If humans must value and pursue values to exist, then the questions become: what to value and how to pursue it? Pavlina addresses much of this in his website, which is jam-packed full of wonderful how-to-live advice, as he is a prolific writer. In fact, based on what he has written and assuming he writes it from the assumption that consciousness can exist and develop after physical death, it appears that living to maximize one life on earth and living to maximize one's consciousness after death (as he understands it) means adopting many of the same goals and virtues. So I recommend his site.
I just recommend that you do not buy into the false dichotomy of eternal life vs. meaningless life. It is a canard that any recovering drug addict or reformed hedonist can tell you is untrue.
First, he rules out all of the things that the state of death cannot be. Primarily, these are things physical. It is clear that a dead body does not vanish, it does not go anywhere. It changes its form in one way or another, but it does not suddenly disappear after death. Similarly, things acquired during a person's life do not vanish at death, as if they had some how followed consciousness to wherever it is that consciousness goes. As Pavlina so aptly notes: you can't take it with you.
Then he examines what he believes are the two possibilities for the fate of consciousness. Either it continues in some form completely divorced from its previous physical form, or indeed, any physical form, or it goes out of existence altogether. If consciousness goes out of existence altogether, he reasons, then once you die, there is no part of you left to evaluate your life or what happens after you die. He concludes, therefore, that to believe consciousness goes out of existence at death is learn that life is to be lived for the moment.
At this point, anyone who has read some of my other blog posts will have an idea where I'm headed on this one.)
Pavlina then turns to what he believes are the two options for the continued existence of consciousness after (physical) death: either consciousness is fixed in whatever state it has at the moment of death or it can continue to change after death. If consciousness is frozen at the moment of death, so that whatever state of conscious development we've reached during life is the level of consciousness we will retain for all eternity, then what we learn if we believe this to be true is that we should strive to develop our consciousness as fully as possible during life so that we'll be a highly developed consciousness during the unmeasurable eons after our death.
If, on the other hand, consciousness can change after death and even interact with other consciousnesses, then what we learn by holding this belief is that we should strive during our physical existence to achieve growth of all consciousnesses, our own and others'.
OK. I have one smart-ass comment and then a more serious point to make.
The smart-ass comment: We might just as well wonder what happens to the animating spirit of plants, ring worms, amoeba, cats and dogs as humans.
The serious point/question: how has Pavlina determined that "living for the moment" is in the best interest of a being whose consciousness will cease to exist at death? It seems that we can only infer by what he focuses on in the article what he believes supports this conclusion: that the cessation of a thing's existence renders its previous existence meaningless. That is, life has no meaning if it is not eternal. Existence is the primary standard of value, the sine qua non of meaning.
In some respect this is true: to value something, one must first exist. But it does not follow the inevitable cessation of ability to value means one should not bother to value while one has the ability. In fact a human being, if it exists, MUST value to continue to exist. That is, a human being must consider food valuable, shelter valuable, at the very least must consider the requirements of physical existence valueable, worth the voluntary expenditure of effort to obtain, in order to remain alive. Nutritional food does not march into one's mouth, shelters do not miraculously assemble themselves over one's head. Food and shelter have to be discovered and produced, and discovery and production take effort that must consciously be undertaken.
If humans must value and pursue values to exist, then the questions become: what to value and how to pursue it? Pavlina addresses much of this in his website, which is jam-packed full of wonderful how-to-live advice, as he is a prolific writer. In fact, based on what he has written and assuming he writes it from the assumption that consciousness can exist and develop after physical death, it appears that living to maximize one life on earth and living to maximize one's consciousness after death (as he understands it) means adopting many of the same goals and virtues. So I recommend his site.
I just recommend that you do not buy into the false dichotomy of eternal life vs. meaningless life. It is a canard that any recovering drug addict or reformed hedonist can tell you is untrue.
continue reading...
Thursday, July 13, 2006
THIS is what's wrong with the United Nations
The U.N. Security Council drafted an Arab-backed resolution condemning Israel for defending itself by attacking Gaza, where one of its soldiers was recently captured and generally a known staging area for the many terrorist attacks it has endured. But where are the draft resolutions condemning attacks on Israel?
Thankfully, the U.S. has just vetoed that resolution. What a farce; the other Council members have to have known the U.S. would veto. So they have a perfect platform for now "condemning" the U.S. for its pro-Israel "bias." Whereas if all were right in the world and the United States was not a member of the U.N., such resolutions would be exposed for the racist shams that they are. Of course, such resolutions would have to be made in a hurry once the U.S. left, since the U.N. would collapse for lack of funding and credibility without the U.S. to give it a patina of respectability.
A couple of good collections of essays on the U.N. appears at Capitalism Magazine, here and here.
Thankfully, the U.S. has just vetoed that resolution. What a farce; the other Council members have to have known the U.S. would veto. So they have a perfect platform for now "condemning" the U.S. for its pro-Israel "bias." Whereas if all were right in the world and the United States was not a member of the U.N., such resolutions would be exposed for the racist shams that they are. Of course, such resolutions would have to be made in a hurry once the U.S. left, since the U.N. would collapse for lack of funding and credibility without the U.S. to give it a patina of respectability.
A couple of good collections of essays on the U.N. appears at Capitalism Magazine, here and here.
continue reading...
Speak for yourself
I was just reading comments to a post at the Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog, here. All this Strang und Durm about how the theocrats on the right "accuse" those who believe in evolution of being atheists -- and the syllogism goes: atheism=immorality. So a lot of fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. see the choice as between evolution and God, and, not wanting to be seen as anything other than God-fearing, reject evolution without considering the science behind it or the fact that 80% of the world's Christians accept it.
But the thing that really irks me me is equating atheism with immorality. Anyone who believes that seems to me to be making a confession about their own soul. That is, if a person thinks that morality is impossible without the threat of hell or a say-so from some unaccountable and unquestionable authority, they must also believe there is no reason to be moral. They're confessing the mindset of a child who hasn't learned to think, and therefore acts morally only when told "do it because I say so."
To me, that is the real insult, to be accused of not seeing any reason to be moral. For that's all it is, the belief that morality is impossible without a supernatural authority telling everyone what to do: a personal confession of possessing the same level of moral immaturity as a three-year old. It's not a confession you'll ever hear me make.
But the thing that really irks me me is equating atheism with immorality. Anyone who believes that seems to me to be making a confession about their own soul. That is, if a person thinks that morality is impossible without the threat of hell or a say-so from some unaccountable and unquestionable authority, they must also believe there is no reason to be moral. They're confessing the mindset of a child who hasn't learned to think, and therefore acts morally only when told "do it because I say so."
To me, that is the real insult, to be accused of not seeing any reason to be moral. For that's all it is, the belief that morality is impossible without a supernatural authority telling everyone what to do: a personal confession of possessing the same level of moral immaturity as a three-year old. It's not a confession you'll ever hear me make.
continue reading...
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Not calling a spade a spade
The title of a recent Boston Globe article says it all: Experts debate labeling children obese.
So, what is being debated? Whether or not a child with rolls of fat should be told to his or her face that he or she is "obese."
Dr. Michael Wasserman, a pediatrician observed:
So, what is being debated? Whether or not a child with rolls of fat should be told to his or her face that he or she is "obese."
Maria Bailey of Pompano Beach, Fla., whose 12-year-old daughter, Madison, is self-consciously overweight, opposes the proposed change. She said their pediatrician has told her daughter to exercise more and see a nutritionist, but "hasn't told her that she's in a (weight) category."What, her kid doesn't already have an eating disorder?
"We're already raising a generation of teenagers who have eating disorders," Bailey said. "I think it would just perpetuate that."
Paola Fernandez Rana of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., has a 9-year old daughter who at 40 pounds overweight is considered obese. Rana said doctors "refer to it as the 'o-word' " in front of her daughter "in an effort not to upset her."I guess it's much better to help her daughter perpetuate an illusion that is going to keep her fat and unhappy for the rest of her life unless she faces the fact that she is what she is: overweight.
Dr. Michael Wasserman, a pediatrician observed:
"There's a tremendous amount of denial by parents and children."Not quite right -- let's not forget that children are, after all, children. They are not adults; whatever their mental state is cannot be mentioned in the same breath as an adult's mental state. "Denial" by adults is a far more pernicious and blame-worthy state than in children. What is primarily going on is that in America at least, a bunch of adults too lazy to teach their children good eating habits don't want to be called the neglectful parents that they are. What is primarily going on is that the parents of these children do not think they are or should be responsible for their children's behavior -- after all, that's what public schools are for.
The existing categories are convoluted and "rather ironic, since the U.S. leads the world in terms of obesity," Cole said. "There must be an element of political correctness."Uh, you think? Let's really call a spade a spade, here. What we're suffering is not primiarly an obesitiy epidemic, but a mind over matter epidemic. That is, too many people think that their minds create reality. So if they don't call these pathetic kids obese, then they don't have to take a good hard look at the cause of the modern spike in childhood obesity: irresponsible parents.
continue reading...
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Calling a spade a spade
What a great essay: Multiculturalism Breeds Terrorism by Glenn Woiceshyn atCapitalism Magazine.
The principle behind Woiceshyn's claim -- that to hold that all cultures are morally equivalent is simply a means by which morally bankrupt cultures hijack the prestige of moral cultures -- applies to any number of arenas. The FDA standards are a minimum above which there is no incentive to rise, and gives charlatans with good attorneys a chance to look just as good as quality companies simply by virtue of the fact that their products are both FDA approved. Dictatorships and other criminal governments are legitimized by their co-memberhship in the United Nations with freer, rights-respecting societies. And so on.
My favorite part of the essay:
The principle behind Woiceshyn's claim -- that to hold that all cultures are morally equivalent is simply a means by which morally bankrupt cultures hijack the prestige of moral cultures -- applies to any number of arenas. The FDA standards are a minimum above which there is no incentive to rise, and gives charlatans with good attorneys a chance to look just as good as quality companies simply by virtue of the fact that their products are both FDA approved. Dictatorships and other criminal governments are legitimized by their co-memberhship in the United Nations with freer, rights-respecting societies. And so on.
My favorite part of the essay:
Multiculturalism—a creation of leftist, Western, nihilistic, post-modern philosophy professors—begins by promoting “cultural relativism,” which holds that all cultures are of equal value; no culture is better or worse than any other. Logically, this serves to de-value Western values, such as reason, science, productiveness, and each individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, by equating them with the most irrational and destructive practices of primitive, mystical cultures such as voodoo medicine, the subjugation of women by men, genital mutilation, and even cannibalism. As essentialized by Peter Schwartz, “Multiculturalism is the debased attempt to obliterate values by claiming that they are indistinguishable from non-values.”Damn straight.
continue reading...
Monday, June 26, 2006
Babies have fathers, too
A 24-year-old Salibury, Massachusetts woman was arrested for leaving her infant alone while she went out and got drunk. A neighbor discovered the baby, the police took the baby into custody. When the woman got home and discovered her baby was gone, she went to the police station, where she was arrested.
There is outrage, naturally, and there should be. But where was the father? Why was the father never mentioned in this story? Why wasn't the father arrested? Will anyone on the theocratic right, so hot to put women on the hook for abortion, ever call for the arrest of fathers in such circumstances?
I do not know this woman's story; I do not know whether she could have had an abortion or would have ever considered it. I do not know anything about the relationship of this woman to the child's father. But I do know that man doesn't have to be pregnant or present at the birth of a child. A man doesn't have to personally, physically experience an abortion and the stigma that comes with it; a man doesn't have to personally, physically experience childbirth; a man doesn't have to personally, physically be present when the child arrives; a man doesn't have to personally, physically be present when the decision is made, if it is made, to give the child up for adoption.
Because of biology, these experiences, all unpleasant at best if a child isn't wanted, cannot be avoided by the woman. These are her choices when a pregnancy is unwanted: abortion, adoption, child abandonment -- acceptance of a potentially life-long burden. Men? The worst they experience if they don't want a child is being on the hook for child support.
If fathers of unwanted babies want to go out and get drunk they don't have to find a babysitter on pain of being arrested for endangering a child.
Even if the argument is that this Salisbury woman should have gotten drunk at home or found a babysitter, the point is -- it takes two people to make a baby. Who will call for the arrest of the father of this endangered child? If no-one will, WHY NOT?
There is outrage, naturally, and there should be. But where was the father? Why was the father never mentioned in this story? Why wasn't the father arrested? Will anyone on the theocratic right, so hot to put women on the hook for abortion, ever call for the arrest of fathers in such circumstances?
I do not know this woman's story; I do not know whether she could have had an abortion or would have ever considered it. I do not know anything about the relationship of this woman to the child's father. But I do know that man doesn't have to be pregnant or present at the birth of a child. A man doesn't have to personally, physically experience an abortion and the stigma that comes with it; a man doesn't have to personally, physically experience childbirth; a man doesn't have to personally, physically be present when the child arrives; a man doesn't have to personally, physically be present when the decision is made, if it is made, to give the child up for adoption.
Because of biology, these experiences, all unpleasant at best if a child isn't wanted, cannot be avoided by the woman. These are her choices when a pregnancy is unwanted: abortion, adoption, child abandonment -- acceptance of a potentially life-long burden. Men? The worst they experience if they don't want a child is being on the hook for child support.
If fathers of unwanted babies want to go out and get drunk they don't have to find a babysitter on pain of being arrested for endangering a child.
Even if the argument is that this Salisbury woman should have gotten drunk at home or found a babysitter, the point is -- it takes two people to make a baby. Who will call for the arrest of the father of this endangered child? If no-one will, WHY NOT?
continue reading...
Monday, June 19, 2006
Restless leg syndrome: the new plague?
I heard on the radio yesterday morning an advertisement seeking participants in a study on a drug designed to treat "restless leg syndrome, or RLS." I put the entire phrase -- "restless leg syndrome, or RLS" -- in quotes because what struck me about the radio spot was the tone of voice of the woman delivering it. You know, that breathy, throaty, "it's-OK-I'm-trustworthy-and-soothing" voice. And the fact that giving something initials legitimizes the complaint; "I have RLS" sounds better than "I have restless leg syndrome" ("you have what?" giggle, giggle), and rattling off those initials may intimidate people into believing it's a serious medical condition so pernicious and widespread that they ought to have heard of it -- after all, its got it's own acronym, right?
My first reaction was, "God, what next? How many different claims to victimhood can the medical drug establishment peddle?" But that reaction quickly gave way to respect and awe.
Think about it -- the general standard of living has gone up so much, we are so much less vulnerable to illnesses that centuries ago routinely cut people down in their forties, that a drug company can spend millions, tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, bringing to market a drug designed to keep people's legs from shaking. You should have heard the "testimonials" that comprised much of the radio spot, the despair the actors affected in their voices, which no doubt is experienced to some extent by RLS sufferers. But after all, RLS is not the bubonic plague. It's a terribly uncomfortable and not-remotely life-threatening condition.
Isn't it wonderful that we, the human race writ large, live in times so technologically advanced that we can afford to despair over and throw millions at shaking legs?
For those who find it outrageous that millions could be spent developing drugs for restless leg syndrome while Americans pay so much for drugs and healthcare, my thoughts on such an objection closely track those set forth a few years ago in a Capitalism Magazine article by Thomas Sowell, "Drugs and Politics."
My first reaction was, "God, what next? How many different claims to victimhood can the medical drug establishment peddle?" But that reaction quickly gave way to respect and awe.
Think about it -- the general standard of living has gone up so much, we are so much less vulnerable to illnesses that centuries ago routinely cut people down in their forties, that a drug company can spend millions, tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, bringing to market a drug designed to keep people's legs from shaking. You should have heard the "testimonials" that comprised much of the radio spot, the despair the actors affected in their voices, which no doubt is experienced to some extent by RLS sufferers. But after all, RLS is not the bubonic plague. It's a terribly uncomfortable and not-remotely life-threatening condition.
Isn't it wonderful that we, the human race writ large, live in times so technologically advanced that we can afford to despair over and throw millions at shaking legs?
For those who find it outrageous that millions could be spent developing drugs for restless leg syndrome while Americans pay so much for drugs and healthcare, my thoughts on such an objection closely track those set forth a few years ago in a Capitalism Magazine article by Thomas Sowell, "Drugs and Politics."
continue reading...
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Hell freezes over
Put on your ice skates, everyone. A political body has decided that maybe, perhaps -- could it be? -- public employees should not receive automatic pay raises, but pay raises based on merit.
The Boston Globe is reporting today that Woburn City Councilors have voted to "form a committee" to study how a merit-based pay scheme would work as applied to the heads of the city's departments.
Of course, for a political body to "form a committee" to study an idea is usually tantamount to driving a stake through the heart of it. ("Die, you disgusting, innovative, sensible idea, die!") And then we must consider what one city politician had to say on the subject:
So perhaps we shouldn't be putting the ice skates on. But maybe we could try to remember which closet they're buried in.
The Boston Globe is reporting today that Woburn City Councilors have voted to "form a committee" to study how a merit-based pay scheme would work as applied to the heads of the city's departments.
Of course, for a political body to "form a committee" to study an idea is usually tantamount to driving a stake through the heart of it. ("Die, you disgusting, innovative, sensible idea, die!") And then we must consider what one city politician had to say on the subject:
Alderman Darlene Mercer-Bruen said she also supported the change, but with one caveat. "No politics," she said. "We should come up with objective, performance-based measures that have no politics involved."Clever little twinkle-toes.
So perhaps we shouldn't be putting the ice skates on. But maybe we could try to remember which closet they're buried in.
continue reading...
