Book 66
CHANGE THROUGH RELATIONSHIP (24-34)
BOOK 66: CHANGE THROUGH RELATIONSHIP
24. On Society
When I was a boy, my perception of the world was that there were black hats (mafia, corrupt police, psychopaths, etc.), and there were white hats (charities, educators, civic heroes, etc.). Perhaps, this dichotomy is a common construction for children. Although, such a simple dichotomy might not affect children who have been abused at home such that they have then been forced to recognize that what was once a white hat had become a black hat.
Now, that I feel old and have some years to back that up, it seems to me that society isn’t so simple, and rather, people have a “hat rack” in their social wardrobe, donning different hats for different occasions or moods. In criminology, there is a useful term I would employ for the hat rack concept – the cycle of victimization.
In criminology, society is understood as being organized in such a way that some people are motivated offenders (black hats), others are suitable targets (hatless), and others still are capable guardians (white hats). This paradigm seems sound and was canonized into criminology as Routine Activities Theory (RAT). My concept of the hat rack applies nuance to RAT to account for the inconsistency of human behaviour and the reality of the cycle of victimization.
The mafia don will callously kill a shopkeeper that doesn’t pay the extortion fee (black hat action) while also throwing a wedding for his niece that the whole family appreciates and will remember forever (white hat action). Carefully consider that some people enjoyed working with Jeffrey Dahmer at the chocolate factory. We actively switch hats, and therefore roles of offender and target.
What I have noticed is that people will be victimized in the role of suitable target but to avoid developing an unhealthy victim psychology they will find an opportunity to become the motivated offender and act as a black hat against hatless ones. This hat rack phenomenon constitutes a cycle of victimization – ceaseless and never-ending, it would seem.
To ensure the possibility for “balancing” being victimized with future perpetration, the role of capable guardian (white hats) is rendered anathema by society. Mafia continue to act with impunity, child molesters are released to halfway houses despite rejecting treatment, and a waiter may spit in your lobster bisque, or worse. They’ve been hurt, and now you will be hurt… and no one is going to stop it. There will be psychological balance for the individual.
This is the system currently in place regardless of whether motivational personalities, such as, Oprah Winfrey or Tony Robbins, “spin” the cycle of victimization into a perverse sense of good fortune or system of altruism. To break the cycle, people must be willing to perform as capable guardians as well as finding ways to balance their victim psychology with something other than perpetration against others. A willingness to take on the person who victimized you is a good first step.
24. On Society
When I was a boy, my perception of the world was that there were black hats (mafia, corrupt police, psychopaths, etc.), and there were white hats (charities, educators, civic heroes, etc.). Perhaps, this dichotomy is a common construction for children. Although, such a simple dichotomy might not affect children who have been abused at home such that they have then been forced to recognize that what was once a white hat had become a black hat.
Now, that I feel old and have some years to back that up, it seems to me that society isn’t so simple, and rather, people have a “hat rack” in their social wardrobe, donning different hats for different occasions or moods. In criminology, there is a useful term I would employ for the hat rack concept – the cycle of victimization.
In criminology, society is understood as being organized in such a way that some people are motivated offenders (black hats), others are suitable targets (hatless), and others still are capable guardians (white hats). This paradigm seems sound and was canonized into criminology as Routine Activities Theory (RAT). My concept of the hat rack applies nuance to RAT to account for the inconsistency of human behaviour and the reality of the cycle of victimization.
The mafia don will callously kill a shopkeeper that doesn’t pay the extortion fee (black hat action) while also throwing a wedding for his niece that the whole family appreciates and will remember forever (white hat action). Carefully consider that some people enjoyed working with Jeffrey Dahmer at the chocolate factory. We actively switch hats, and therefore roles of offender and target.
What I have noticed is that people will be victimized in the role of suitable target but to avoid developing an unhealthy victim psychology they will find an opportunity to become the motivated offender and act as a black hat against hatless ones. This hat rack phenomenon constitutes a cycle of victimization – ceaseless and never-ending, it would seem.
To ensure the possibility for “balancing” being victimized with future perpetration, the role of capable guardian (white hats) is rendered anathema by society. Mafia continue to act with impunity, child molesters are released to halfway houses despite rejecting treatment, and a waiter may spit in your lobster bisque, or worse. They’ve been hurt, and now you will be hurt… and no one is going to stop it. There will be psychological balance for the individual.
This is the system currently in place regardless of whether motivational personalities, such as, Oprah Winfrey or Tony Robbins, “spin” the cycle of victimization into a perverse sense of good fortune or system of altruism. To break the cycle, people must be willing to perform as capable guardians as well as finding ways to balance their victim psychology with something other than perpetration against others. A willingness to take on the person who victimized you is a good first step.
BOOK 66: CHANGE THROUGH RELATIONSHIP
25. On Communism
A “good” socialist would not seek to make the world a truly better place through living the life of a revolutionary agitator. Instead, a good socialist would effect change from within the hegemonic system through hard work and the power of persuasion.
Why have no powerful people ever “come out Red”? The conspicuous absence of covert agents for the Marxist cause within the hegemonic capitalist enterprise might suggest that the communist mindset is one prone to self-piteous attitudes as well as psychological and physical aversions to the pain of hard work.
Perhaps, a communist is more intent on whinging and griping than actually putting in the time to improve the system and thus the lot of the entire human race. The only barrier to gaining influence in the capitalist system is hard work, unless one would make the claim that there is a principled objection to such covert “playing along” missions of infiltration. So, the communist’s principles stop them from working within the capitalist system to make positive changes? Oh, so their individual needs are paramount. That doesn’t seem very “communist” to me.
25. On Communism
A “good” socialist would not seek to make the world a truly better place through living the life of a revolutionary agitator. Instead, a good socialist would effect change from within the hegemonic system through hard work and the power of persuasion.
Why have no powerful people ever “come out Red”? The conspicuous absence of covert agents for the Marxist cause within the hegemonic capitalist enterprise might suggest that the communist mindset is one prone to self-piteous attitudes as well as psychological and physical aversions to the pain of hard work.
Perhaps, a communist is more intent on whinging and griping than actually putting in the time to improve the system and thus the lot of the entire human race. The only barrier to gaining influence in the capitalist system is hard work, unless one would make the claim that there is a principled objection to such covert “playing along” missions of infiltration. So, the communist’s principles stop them from working within the capitalist system to make positive changes? Oh, so their individual needs are paramount. That doesn’t seem very “communist” to me.
BOOK 66: CHANGE THROUGH RELATIONSHIP
26. On Equity
There has been a lively debate regarding “equal pay” among the genders. In 2019, the University of Toronto determined that with all relevant factors controlled for, the female faculty were paid 1.3% less than their male counterparts. The institution proceeded to correct the oversight. After reading the report and accounting for these “relevant factors” it seemed that one critical factor had been left out – risk-taking.
When you take a risk, you also assume responsibility – an important part of being a leader and driving change. Feminists often point to the Forbes “World’s Richest People” list and highlight the low representation of women. These high-profile examples serve as justifications for pushing the hypothesis that women are underpaid, generally. However, the list of richest people is a list that occludes 90% of its set. For each Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, there were nine extremely similar risk-takers who didn’t push quite as hard or take as many risks. Those nine “losers” don’t always become the two-hundredth richest in the world, but rather, they may have become bankrupt.
When comparing the pay of the top ten women in an industry against the top ten men, we must consider if risk-taking is a key factor. If we agree that it is, then we may discover that the top women got to the top not through risk-taking, but rather, through strategic defensive techniques that have been honed to perfection. For every top woman there too may be nine women who didn’t implement the defensive techniques to perfection, however, this may not have led to the same financial ruin that their male counterpart “losers” experienced.
I would suggest that if we compared the top women and top men in a particular industry while also accounting for the missing 90% “losers” who came up short that the total collective of women would be better paid than their male counterparts. It would be unequal pay – in favor of women. This is just an intuitive assumption on my part, but I would be happy to read the relevant reports to either confirm or debunk it my hypothesis.
26. On Equity
There has been a lively debate regarding “equal pay” among the genders. In 2019, the University of Toronto determined that with all relevant factors controlled for, the female faculty were paid 1.3% less than their male counterparts. The institution proceeded to correct the oversight. After reading the report and accounting for these “relevant factors” it seemed that one critical factor had been left out – risk-taking.
When you take a risk, you also assume responsibility – an important part of being a leader and driving change. Feminists often point to the Forbes “World’s Richest People” list and highlight the low representation of women. These high-profile examples serve as justifications for pushing the hypothesis that women are underpaid, generally. However, the list of richest people is a list that occludes 90% of its set. For each Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, there were nine extremely similar risk-takers who didn’t push quite as hard or take as many risks. Those nine “losers” don’t always become the two-hundredth richest in the world, but rather, they may have become bankrupt.
When comparing the pay of the top ten women in an industry against the top ten men, we must consider if risk-taking is a key factor. If we agree that it is, then we may discover that the top women got to the top not through risk-taking, but rather, through strategic defensive techniques that have been honed to perfection. For every top woman there too may be nine women who didn’t implement the defensive techniques to perfection, however, this may not have led to the same financial ruin that their male counterpart “losers” experienced.
I would suggest that if we compared the top women and top men in a particular industry while also accounting for the missing 90% “losers” who came up short that the total collective of women would be better paid than their male counterparts. It would be unequal pay – in favor of women. This is just an intuitive assumption on my part, but I would be happy to read the relevant reports to either confirm or debunk it my hypothesis.
BOOK 66: CHANGE THROUGH RELATIONSHIP
27. On Anarchy
Fundamentally, the positive aspect of the thesis on anarchy as a dominant form of social organization is that it promotes and privileges a notion of egalitarianism. When true anarchy is in place, everyone is at the same level, and that system does not permit people to move ahead in life such that they gain status, and then use that status to wield power against others.
The sociopolitical theory of anarchy is based in victim mentality.
However, the problem with achieving egalitarianism is that it implies “lowering the bar” to the lowest height imaginable because the least capable person must have a sense of achievement as well. Then, the problem with anarchy is that once this form of egalitarianism is achieved there is inequity for all those who are capable of doing better than what has been deemed the accepted level of achievement.
A new notion of egalitarianism emerges which would inevitably provoke raising the bar to allow most of society to shed their sense of relative deprivation. And then society is faced once again with the “unfairness” of the lowest achievers not having a sense of utility in society. Therefore, anarchy has no realizable positive aspects and as a political system or form of social organization, it can only function properly in the realm of conjecture and fantasy.
27. On Anarchy
Fundamentally, the positive aspect of the thesis on anarchy as a dominant form of social organization is that it promotes and privileges a notion of egalitarianism. When true anarchy is in place, everyone is at the same level, and that system does not permit people to move ahead in life such that they gain status, and then use that status to wield power against others.
The sociopolitical theory of anarchy is based in victim mentality.
However, the problem with achieving egalitarianism is that it implies “lowering the bar” to the lowest height imaginable because the least capable person must have a sense of achievement as well. Then, the problem with anarchy is that once this form of egalitarianism is achieved there is inequity for all those who are capable of doing better than what has been deemed the accepted level of achievement.
A new notion of egalitarianism emerges which would inevitably provoke raising the bar to allow most of society to shed their sense of relative deprivation. And then society is faced once again with the “unfairness” of the lowest achievers not having a sense of utility in society. Therefore, anarchy has no realizable positive aspects and as a political system or form of social organization, it can only function properly in the realm of conjecture and fantasy.
BOOK 66: CHANGE THROUGH RELATIONSHIP
28. On Hate
As postmodernism progresses toward an inevitable “post-human” transition through our reliance on automation and artificial intelligence, society is becoming more concerned with free expression. It is ironic because total reliance on automation will render individuals hermetically-sealed with their technology and free expression will vanish as a relevant social issue. In other words, no one will be talking to each other, and rather, everyone will be focused on fostering their maximally agreeable relationships with artificial intelligence.
However, in the meantime, we have a “problem” with free expression. A surfeit of free expression is now being labeled, “hate speech”. Perhaps, we need a more nuanced approach. Could it be appreciated that there is a significant difference between hurtful speech, hateful speech, and harmful speech?
Hurtful speech is about proposing rejecting others based on things they choose. “That sweater you are wearing is ugly”, is an example of hurtful speech. Perhaps, we can develop a thicker skin over hurtful speech as such a strategy would improve our own character and raise our self-confidence.
Hateful speech is about proposing rejecting others based on things they do not choose. “Your brown skin is ugly”, is an example of hateful speech. It seems that there isn’t room for this kind of speech, and the freedom to express hateful speech is accompanied by a compulsion to be bound for the person subjected to the hateful speech. People are bound by the racism they experience – it isn’t a sweater they can take off even if they agreed with the criticism against them and also began to see that sweater as ugly. There is a better way to express hateful speech, and it can always be converted to a fair expression of hurtful speech – provided there was a legitimate point to be made in the first place.
The kind of speech that should garner the most attention from authorities – perhaps the only kind – is harmful speech. Harmful speech is about imposing rejection of others. “People who wear ugly sweaters should be punched in the nose”, is an example of harmful speech. As a civilized society we have a duty to impose punishment on those engaged in harmful speech.
That being said, until everyone is educated on the nuances of the different kinds of poor speech, there must be some leeway granted. Someone may be feeling that the state licensing against hurtful speech is wrong (and it is!) therefore they fetishize poor speech generally and conflate the three kinds of poor speech, intent on defending any kind of speech licensed against by the unfair state or other institutions with authority and control. It will take some time to “unfuck” what we have done to ourselves through the war on free speech, but it is important to move in that direction prior to degenerating to a socialist dystopia in the vein of George Orwell’s 1984.
28. On Hate
As postmodernism progresses toward an inevitable “post-human” transition through our reliance on automation and artificial intelligence, society is becoming more concerned with free expression. It is ironic because total reliance on automation will render individuals hermetically-sealed with their technology and free expression will vanish as a relevant social issue. In other words, no one will be talking to each other, and rather, everyone will be focused on fostering their maximally agreeable relationships with artificial intelligence.
However, in the meantime, we have a “problem” with free expression. A surfeit of free expression is now being labeled, “hate speech”. Perhaps, we need a more nuanced approach. Could it be appreciated that there is a significant difference between hurtful speech, hateful speech, and harmful speech?
Hurtful speech is about proposing rejecting others based on things they choose. “That sweater you are wearing is ugly”, is an example of hurtful speech. Perhaps, we can develop a thicker skin over hurtful speech as such a strategy would improve our own character and raise our self-confidence.
Hateful speech is about proposing rejecting others based on things they do not choose. “Your brown skin is ugly”, is an example of hateful speech. It seems that there isn’t room for this kind of speech, and the freedom to express hateful speech is accompanied by a compulsion to be bound for the person subjected to the hateful speech. People are bound by the racism they experience – it isn’t a sweater they can take off even if they agreed with the criticism against them and also began to see that sweater as ugly. There is a better way to express hateful speech, and it can always be converted to a fair expression of hurtful speech – provided there was a legitimate point to be made in the first place.
The kind of speech that should garner the most attention from authorities – perhaps the only kind – is harmful speech. Harmful speech is about imposing rejection of others. “People who wear ugly sweaters should be punched in the nose”, is an example of harmful speech. As a civilized society we have a duty to impose punishment on those engaged in harmful speech.
That being said, until everyone is educated on the nuances of the different kinds of poor speech, there must be some leeway granted. Someone may be feeling that the state licensing against hurtful speech is wrong (and it is!) therefore they fetishize poor speech generally and conflate the three kinds of poor speech, intent on defending any kind of speech licensed against by the unfair state or other institutions with authority and control. It will take some time to “unfuck” what we have done to ourselves through the war on free speech, but it is important to move in that direction prior to degenerating to a socialist dystopia in the vein of George Orwell’s 1984.
BOOK 66: CHANGE THROUGH RELATIONSHIP
29. On Interruption
In recent years, zealot feminists have introduced us to the notion of “mansplaining”, “manspreading”, and “manterrupting” being valid concepts. This series of sexist portmanteau neologisms are far from intuitive in their meaning, but let’s break one of them down for further analysis.
Manterrupting is claimed by some feminists as being the act of a man to use verbal interactions to dominate women – a man interrupts women as a means of dismissing her point in the conversation and thus denigrating her to a junior status. Does this mean that any time that a man interrupts a woman in conversation, this is also rude, sexist manterrupting? Depends on who you ask, I suppose.
However, there are objective rules for good debate, and there are also established techniques for fluid conversation which facilitate those debates. A well-placed interruption can be imperative for maintaining the flow of good debate. In fluid conversation, there are many pregnant pauses which become natural junctures for someone who is not yet speaking to enter the conversation with quick corrections, or requests for clarifications. An interruption often functions to create closure for a topic or set of ideas being expressed. Using pregnant pauses appropriately does not constitute a rude interruption per se. Effective debate is only possible through fluid conversation which is partly enabled by well-placed interruptions.
Arguably, interrupting others mid-sentence is objectively rude, and we note this during political panel debates televised over major cable networks. Ironically, the politicians who we would expect to be the best orators as well as masters of rhetoric then demonstrate their poor debating skills and lazy conversation techniques.
I would like to suggest that recent allergic reactions by feminists to men interrupting may be rooted in how ideologues do not appreciate being challenged on their prejudices and beliefs. It may be the case that ideologues, such as zealot feminists, have poor self-control over their affective responses (primarily, aggression and emotion), thus an interruption disrupts their higher-faculty thinking and allows their lower-faculty affect to take over.
For such people, it may be easier to ask others to do the work for them through encouraging conversation partners to be silent via accusations of sexist manterrupting versus actually doing the work themselves in developing mental self-control.
29. On Interruption
In recent years, zealot feminists have introduced us to the notion of “mansplaining”, “manspreading”, and “manterrupting” being valid concepts. This series of sexist portmanteau neologisms are far from intuitive in their meaning, but let’s break one of them down for further analysis.
Manterrupting is claimed by some feminists as being the act of a man to use verbal interactions to dominate women – a man interrupts women as a means of dismissing her point in the conversation and thus denigrating her to a junior status. Does this mean that any time that a man interrupts a woman in conversation, this is also rude, sexist manterrupting? Depends on who you ask, I suppose.
However, there are objective rules for good debate, and there are also established techniques for fluid conversation which facilitate those debates. A well-placed interruption can be imperative for maintaining the flow of good debate. In fluid conversation, there are many pregnant pauses which become natural junctures for someone who is not yet speaking to enter the conversation with quick corrections, or requests for clarifications. An interruption often functions to create closure for a topic or set of ideas being expressed. Using pregnant pauses appropriately does not constitute a rude interruption per se. Effective debate is only possible through fluid conversation which is partly enabled by well-placed interruptions.
Arguably, interrupting others mid-sentence is objectively rude, and we note this during political panel debates televised over major cable networks. Ironically, the politicians who we would expect to be the best orators as well as masters of rhetoric then demonstrate their poor debating skills and lazy conversation techniques.
I would like to suggest that recent allergic reactions by feminists to men interrupting may be rooted in how ideologues do not appreciate being challenged on their prejudices and beliefs. It may be the case that ideologues, such as zealot feminists, have poor self-control over their affective responses (primarily, aggression and emotion), thus an interruption disrupts their higher-faculty thinking and allows their lower-faculty affect to take over.
For such people, it may be easier to ask others to do the work for them through encouraging conversation partners to be silent via accusations of sexist manterrupting versus actually doing the work themselves in developing mental self-control.
BOOK 66: CHANGE THROUGH RELATIONSHIP
30. On Anthropology
Film director, Orson Welles, once remarked that philosophy was at an end, but anthropology was just beginning as a relevant mode of inquiry for human beings. I have had reason to partake in some anthropological analysis when being faced with the issue of racism and bigotry. Through an anthropological understanding, it would seem that humans have values, and that we form communities around shared values. Values do not start as vices but can become vices when fetishized (in other words overemphasized and obsessed over).
Some early communities of human beings may have privileged the value of agitation or excitation while others valued the inverse of comfort. Also, some may have valued cooperation, while others focused on the inverse of contemplation. All those values can be regarded as “good” or positive values. However, if those anthropological-based values are fetishized then they can become vices.
Privileging comfort to the point of fetishization can become excusing laziness, while contemplation taken to the extreme becomes isolation and exceptionalism, or even elitism.
The anthropological values are likely the key to understanding early human migration. Those individuals or communities that privileged agitation/excitation and contemplation traveled to northern regions where wintry conditions forced a strong work ethic as well as providing a lot of open space for quiet contemplation. Once in those regions, the lack of exposure to the sun changed the pigment in the skin across many generations, and eventually, “white” people were the result.
Fetishization of the good values of excitation and contemplation can result in any kind of person becoming domineering and elitist – the bane of European history. Conversely, it is a sense of comfort that kept people in the cradle of life. Fetishization of comfort becomes laziness – the bane of African history.
When black people are constantly late for work, we think of it as laziness when perhaps we should consider that it is simply an extreme form or fetish of comfort. If we saw the productive and positive potential value in privileging comfort, then it might be easier to end racism and come together as a human race. The same goes for lambasting white people for their ambitious nature – there is an underlying positive quality of contemplation and excitation being suppressed through destructive fetish.
Understanding the anthropological roots of our vices may allow for addressing the racism born of a confusion about how those vices were once good values prior to their expression becoming imbalanced. That understanding may be key to encouraging people to exhibit greater self-control and self-awareness over how their values have become vices. Ending racism is a two-way street.
30. On Anthropology
Film director, Orson Welles, once remarked that philosophy was at an end, but anthropology was just beginning as a relevant mode of inquiry for human beings. I have had reason to partake in some anthropological analysis when being faced with the issue of racism and bigotry. Through an anthropological understanding, it would seem that humans have values, and that we form communities around shared values. Values do not start as vices but can become vices when fetishized (in other words overemphasized and obsessed over).
Some early communities of human beings may have privileged the value of agitation or excitation while others valued the inverse of comfort. Also, some may have valued cooperation, while others focused on the inverse of contemplation. All those values can be regarded as “good” or positive values. However, if those anthropological-based values are fetishized then they can become vices.
Privileging comfort to the point of fetishization can become excusing laziness, while contemplation taken to the extreme becomes isolation and exceptionalism, or even elitism.
The anthropological values are likely the key to understanding early human migration. Those individuals or communities that privileged agitation/excitation and contemplation traveled to northern regions where wintry conditions forced a strong work ethic as well as providing a lot of open space for quiet contemplation. Once in those regions, the lack of exposure to the sun changed the pigment in the skin across many generations, and eventually, “white” people were the result.
Fetishization of the good values of excitation and contemplation can result in any kind of person becoming domineering and elitist – the bane of European history. Conversely, it is a sense of comfort that kept people in the cradle of life. Fetishization of comfort becomes laziness – the bane of African history.
When black people are constantly late for work, we think of it as laziness when perhaps we should consider that it is simply an extreme form or fetish of comfort. If we saw the productive and positive potential value in privileging comfort, then it might be easier to end racism and come together as a human race. The same goes for lambasting white people for their ambitious nature – there is an underlying positive quality of contemplation and excitation being suppressed through destructive fetish.
Understanding the anthropological roots of our vices may allow for addressing the racism born of a confusion about how those vices were once good values prior to their expression becoming imbalanced. That understanding may be key to encouraging people to exhibit greater self-control and self-awareness over how their values have become vices. Ending racism is a two-way street.
BOOK 66: CHANGE THROUGH RELATIONSHIP
31. On Oppression
Not that long ago I was living in the neighborhood of Verdun, in Montreal, Quebec. Verdun was a community inhabiting a peninsula in the southern part of the city, and it was primarily a francophone neighborhood where French was the language which was expected to be spoken in stores and among neighbors.
My French was rusty when I arrived, and it didn’t improve enough to avoid the habit of Montreal francophones quickly switching to English in almost an allergic reaction to pigeon-French being spoken by anglophones. Their habit generated anxiety for me, and it was alienating, but manageable. While studying soft sciences at a university in Montreal, I was made aware by colleagues and professors that I was an “oppressor” – I was a hetero white male with education and a wealthy upbringing. It seemed absurd that someone could judge me to have a good life simply by looking at me. It wasn’t just absurd – it was dead wrong.
The labeling process being wrong did not deter the ideologues who were hermetically-sealed in their Ivory Tower. According to them, I was the bad guy. However, as I reflected on my experiences of living in Verdun, I came to realize that oppression isn’t a relevant concept, but rather, relative deprivation is to be considered paramount.
Relative deprivation considers how oppression is experienced locally. My being an anglophone in Canada was considered a mark of privilege by my colleagues at the university, and I was to see myself as an oppressor against francophones in Quebec. Yet, it was I who was oppressed daily because my lived experience was in a French neighborhood where anglophones were treated poorly by francophones. The relative deprivation constituted a lived experienced characterized by oppression.
Oppression cannot be held as a valuable concept when imported to a global setting because people do not have a global mindset (with the exception of foreign diplomats, international public speakers, etc.). People moving around the fish market in Lagos, Nigeria, do not feel oppressed for being black – they are merely told to feel oppressed by self-loathing Western white malcontents when those agitators inform the sub-Saharan African that their fish market is impoverished as compared with those in Chicago, San Francisco, or Rome.
The Nigerian does not have a sense of relative deprivation locally, nor do they have a global mindset (almost no one does). Thus, in a sense we are “infecting” their minds with hatred and self-loathing by imposing our Western opinion that their fish market is substandard. If the Nigerian fish market is that poor, then perhaps those lovely Western agitators would do us all a favor and move to Nigeria to innovate and improve the situation. Don’t hold your breath.
31. On Oppression
Not that long ago I was living in the neighborhood of Verdun, in Montreal, Quebec. Verdun was a community inhabiting a peninsula in the southern part of the city, and it was primarily a francophone neighborhood where French was the language which was expected to be spoken in stores and among neighbors.
My French was rusty when I arrived, and it didn’t improve enough to avoid the habit of Montreal francophones quickly switching to English in almost an allergic reaction to pigeon-French being spoken by anglophones. Their habit generated anxiety for me, and it was alienating, but manageable. While studying soft sciences at a university in Montreal, I was made aware by colleagues and professors that I was an “oppressor” – I was a hetero white male with education and a wealthy upbringing. It seemed absurd that someone could judge me to have a good life simply by looking at me. It wasn’t just absurd – it was dead wrong.
The labeling process being wrong did not deter the ideologues who were hermetically-sealed in their Ivory Tower. According to them, I was the bad guy. However, as I reflected on my experiences of living in Verdun, I came to realize that oppression isn’t a relevant concept, but rather, relative deprivation is to be considered paramount.
Relative deprivation considers how oppression is experienced locally. My being an anglophone in Canada was considered a mark of privilege by my colleagues at the university, and I was to see myself as an oppressor against francophones in Quebec. Yet, it was I who was oppressed daily because my lived experience was in a French neighborhood where anglophones were treated poorly by francophones. The relative deprivation constituted a lived experienced characterized by oppression.
Oppression cannot be held as a valuable concept when imported to a global setting because people do not have a global mindset (with the exception of foreign diplomats, international public speakers, etc.). People moving around the fish market in Lagos, Nigeria, do not feel oppressed for being black – they are merely told to feel oppressed by self-loathing Western white malcontents when those agitators inform the sub-Saharan African that their fish market is impoverished as compared with those in Chicago, San Francisco, or Rome.
The Nigerian does not have a sense of relative deprivation locally, nor do they have a global mindset (almost no one does). Thus, in a sense we are “infecting” their minds with hatred and self-loathing by imposing our Western opinion that their fish market is substandard. If the Nigerian fish market is that poor, then perhaps those lovely Western agitators would do us all a favor and move to Nigeria to innovate and improve the situation. Don’t hold your breath.
BOOK 66: CHANGE THROUGH RELATIONSHIP
32. On Opinions
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught us that the human war machine – chugging for thousands of years – had to be decommissioned. What do you do with that next generation of young men who previously found life purpose in risking death on a battlefield? – you educate them. If you educate young men, then they start to understand themselves as having greater worth than mere cannon fodder.
The university system exploded in the post-war period, and this provoked a turn to post-structuralism in epistemology. Structuralism was an approach to epistemology which dealt in absolutes and universal truths, however, once you have settled on a universal truth there isn’t much more to say about it. With an influx of university students, it was required that the discourses expand, and so post-structuralism was embraced by the academy, and it was characterized by its turn to hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a mode of inquiry whereby we privilege interpretation over ideals.
In post-structuralist thought, the ideal and universal quality of a sunset being beautiful is questioned, and hermeneutics dictates that the individual can interpret the sunset as paltry. Eventually, the turn to hermeneutics paved the way for the turn to affect – “I feel that the sunset is ugly”. There doesn’t have to be any rational reason for understanding through affect. In time, every single person’s opinion became a kind of grand thesis for phenomena.
What was happening in the university classroom began to influence mass culture. Being educated was the justification for believing that your feelings and the opinions that they provoked were worthy in the broader social context. Today, we are still stuck in this post-structuralist mode of petulance where personal opinion is paramount.
I would like to suggest that opinions of the mind are much like muscles of the body. The professional UFC fighter trains for hours every day, and their body and muscles reflect the work. The Sunday afternoon jogger’s body and muscles also reflect the meager work they do. If we are talking about opinions of the mind, then it is graduate students and professors who are the paid professionals that train daily as compared with undergraduate amateurs who are merely average in their mental training.
We have a bad habit of encountering differing opinions and feeling it appropriate to dismiss an opinion as no more informed than any other opinion. The reality is that there are ignorant opinions and informed opinions. Two opinions are never worth the same, just as the bicep muscle of UFC champion, Rose Namajunas, is not worth the same as that of my sister. Rose works her bicep muscle every day, sometimes for hours. My sister does Pilates. The doctoral student or university professor work their opinions every day, often for hours. Rose’s muscles get stronger with work, and the doctoral student or professor’s opinions get more informed with work.
32. On Opinions
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught us that the human war machine – chugging for thousands of years – had to be decommissioned. What do you do with that next generation of young men who previously found life purpose in risking death on a battlefield? – you educate them. If you educate young men, then they start to understand themselves as having greater worth than mere cannon fodder.
The university system exploded in the post-war period, and this provoked a turn to post-structuralism in epistemology. Structuralism was an approach to epistemology which dealt in absolutes and universal truths, however, once you have settled on a universal truth there isn’t much more to say about it. With an influx of university students, it was required that the discourses expand, and so post-structuralism was embraced by the academy, and it was characterized by its turn to hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a mode of inquiry whereby we privilege interpretation over ideals.
In post-structuralist thought, the ideal and universal quality of a sunset being beautiful is questioned, and hermeneutics dictates that the individual can interpret the sunset as paltry. Eventually, the turn to hermeneutics paved the way for the turn to affect – “I feel that the sunset is ugly”. There doesn’t have to be any rational reason for understanding through affect. In time, every single person’s opinion became a kind of grand thesis for phenomena.
What was happening in the university classroom began to influence mass culture. Being educated was the justification for believing that your feelings and the opinions that they provoked were worthy in the broader social context. Today, we are still stuck in this post-structuralist mode of petulance where personal opinion is paramount.
I would like to suggest that opinions of the mind are much like muscles of the body. The professional UFC fighter trains for hours every day, and their body and muscles reflect the work. The Sunday afternoon jogger’s body and muscles also reflect the meager work they do. If we are talking about opinions of the mind, then it is graduate students and professors who are the paid professionals that train daily as compared with undergraduate amateurs who are merely average in their mental training.
We have a bad habit of encountering differing opinions and feeling it appropriate to dismiss an opinion as no more informed than any other opinion. The reality is that there are ignorant opinions and informed opinions. Two opinions are never worth the same, just as the bicep muscle of UFC champion, Rose Namajunas, is not worth the same as that of my sister. Rose works her bicep muscle every day, sometimes for hours. My sister does Pilates. The doctoral student or university professor work their opinions every day, often for hours. Rose’s muscles get stronger with work, and the doctoral student or professor’s opinions get more informed with work.
BOOK 66: CHANGE THROUGH RELATIONSHIP
33. On Directing
As a trained film scholar, I have often noted the power and influence of movie producers through the differences between their theatrical release versions of a movie and the “director’s cut”. To date, I have never preferred the director’s cut despite believing in the power of authorship. Movie producers have a great feel for the pulse of society, whereas auteur directors are often eccentric and motivated by their highly-esoteric theses on human nature.
A prime example is Milos Forman’s Amadeus (1984) and only seven movies have won more Oscars than Amadeus (at 8). There are two notable scenes in the director’s cut which I believe the producers were correct to remove for the theatrical release. The scene with Salieri and Mozart’s wife, Constanze, revealed Mozart’s competitor (and the film’s narrator) to be a sexual predator with no more than a modicum of shame. The shame wasn’t enough for me and after watching the scene I made a commitment to disengaging with Salieri’s character.
However, another scene in the director’s cut showed us Mozart struggling to overcome his arrogance so that he might make a steady paycheck through teaching music to students. Without the scene, Mozart is still juvenile, and at times, petulant, but it could be forgiven because he seemed hermetically-sealed in a world of music production crafted by his father, Leopold. The scene with Mozart griping about teaching music renders him to an unappealing character.
Well, the producers saw what I saw, and they nixed those scenes, rightfully. Yet, I spooked myself with the analysis because as a writer and creator the looming red ink of an editor, publisher, or producer provokes great anxiety in me. I often worry about what they would cut from my work and whether I would rather not have my work seen if it is going to be butchered by careless hands.
With Amadeus in mind, I have concluded that edits in artistic material which appease people’s virtues should be respected, but that edits which pander to people’s vices should be rejected. For example, if one of my entries in this book were deemed to “trigger” alcoholics because my ideas recommend that they exhibit greater self-control in their drinking habits, then this is an entry that should remain in the book. However, if another entry was objectionable for arguing that athletes create toxic meritocracy, then it would be appropriate to make a cut for that material. Don’t pander to alcoholism, and don’t rag on the effort people make to better themselves through fitness would guide me in the case of those proposed omissions.
For Amadeus, I believe that the producers did a great job with the theatrical release because the removal of the lascivious Salieri scene was appeasing an audience’s virtue to not condone sexual exploitation, while removal of the sullen Mozart scene was appeasing an audience’s virtue to not condone petulant elitism. We are expected to feel for both the Salieri and Mozart characters which isn’t possible if their worst aspects are presented to us as normative and acceptable.
33. On Directing
As a trained film scholar, I have often noted the power and influence of movie producers through the differences between their theatrical release versions of a movie and the “director’s cut”. To date, I have never preferred the director’s cut despite believing in the power of authorship. Movie producers have a great feel for the pulse of society, whereas auteur directors are often eccentric and motivated by their highly-esoteric theses on human nature.
A prime example is Milos Forman’s Amadeus (1984) and only seven movies have won more Oscars than Amadeus (at 8). There are two notable scenes in the director’s cut which I believe the producers were correct to remove for the theatrical release. The scene with Salieri and Mozart’s wife, Constanze, revealed Mozart’s competitor (and the film’s narrator) to be a sexual predator with no more than a modicum of shame. The shame wasn’t enough for me and after watching the scene I made a commitment to disengaging with Salieri’s character.
However, another scene in the director’s cut showed us Mozart struggling to overcome his arrogance so that he might make a steady paycheck through teaching music to students. Without the scene, Mozart is still juvenile, and at times, petulant, but it could be forgiven because he seemed hermetically-sealed in a world of music production crafted by his father, Leopold. The scene with Mozart griping about teaching music renders him to an unappealing character.
Well, the producers saw what I saw, and they nixed those scenes, rightfully. Yet, I spooked myself with the analysis because as a writer and creator the looming red ink of an editor, publisher, or producer provokes great anxiety in me. I often worry about what they would cut from my work and whether I would rather not have my work seen if it is going to be butchered by careless hands.
With Amadeus in mind, I have concluded that edits in artistic material which appease people’s virtues should be respected, but that edits which pander to people’s vices should be rejected. For example, if one of my entries in this book were deemed to “trigger” alcoholics because my ideas recommend that they exhibit greater self-control in their drinking habits, then this is an entry that should remain in the book. However, if another entry was objectionable for arguing that athletes create toxic meritocracy, then it would be appropriate to make a cut for that material. Don’t pander to alcoholism, and don’t rag on the effort people make to better themselves through fitness would guide me in the case of those proposed omissions.
For Amadeus, I believe that the producers did a great job with the theatrical release because the removal of the lascivious Salieri scene was appeasing an audience’s virtue to not condone sexual exploitation, while removal of the sullen Mozart scene was appeasing an audience’s virtue to not condone petulant elitism. We are expected to feel for both the Salieri and Mozart characters which isn’t possible if their worst aspects are presented to us as normative and acceptable.
BOOK 66: CHANGE THROUGH RELATIONSHIP
34. On God
A popular paradox in introduction to philosophy courses is the paradox of the stone. The paradox is generated when a person questions if an omnipotent God can create a stone so heavy that even God cannot lift it. If we admit that God can’t lift the stone then God is not omnipotent, however if God can’t make an unliftable stone then God isn’t omnipotent either.
The obvious problem with this “paradox” is that it suffers from a pathetic fallacy. Pathetic fallacy occurs when we incorrectly reason by ascribing human characteristics to non-human entities. God is not human, yet we are asking whether “he” can do a physical-based human task of lifting objects. Instead, consider the following query: can God craft an unsolvable riddle that even God can’t solve? Suddenly, there is no more paradox because something that is unsolvable has no solution.
God can’t create a solution for the unsolvable. It would be like saying, “can you make this water ‘unwet’? A fundamental property of water is that it is wet. If water wasn’t wet, then it would have transformed to something else that is not water. Therefore, the solved unsolvable riddle is no longer a riddle, and the lifted unliftable stone is no longer a stone. They are something else, hence, no paradox. The “paradox” arises from believing that a stone has the inherent property of being an object that can be lifted by a body – a inherently human situation. The conventional knowledge tells us that stones can be lifted. However, the paradox of the stone presents unconventional conditions which then change the nature of the objects we are talking about.
34. On God
A popular paradox in introduction to philosophy courses is the paradox of the stone. The paradox is generated when a person questions if an omnipotent God can create a stone so heavy that even God cannot lift it. If we admit that God can’t lift the stone then God is not omnipotent, however if God can’t make an unliftable stone then God isn’t omnipotent either.
The obvious problem with this “paradox” is that it suffers from a pathetic fallacy. Pathetic fallacy occurs when we incorrectly reason by ascribing human characteristics to non-human entities. God is not human, yet we are asking whether “he” can do a physical-based human task of lifting objects. Instead, consider the following query: can God craft an unsolvable riddle that even God can’t solve? Suddenly, there is no more paradox because something that is unsolvable has no solution.
God can’t create a solution for the unsolvable. It would be like saying, “can you make this water ‘unwet’? A fundamental property of water is that it is wet. If water wasn’t wet, then it would have transformed to something else that is not water. Therefore, the solved unsolvable riddle is no longer a riddle, and the lifted unliftable stone is no longer a stone. They are something else, hence, no paradox. The “paradox” arises from believing that a stone has the inherent property of being an object that can be lifted by a body – a inherently human situation. The conventional knowledge tells us that stones can be lifted. However, the paradox of the stone presents unconventional conditions which then change the nature of the objects we are talking about.