Author Archives: keithnoback

Cutting Up an Ox

IMG_1312

Ben Sasse fears for our youth.

He is a U.S. Senator, and therefore he is a very busy man with little time to spare for side projects. Yet, so great is his concern for our kids’ predicament that he has taken the time to write a book about it. It is not a bad book, even if you disagree with what it says. You will have to trust me (or not) on the exact contents, because, “You may not make this e-book public in any way”, is all I will quote directly from it.

His thesis is laid out in the book’s title, The Vanishing American Adult, and he has summarized the gist of his prescription in the subtitle, Our Coming-of-Age Crisis – and How to Rebuild a Culture of Self-Reliance.

In the text, he depicts a generation afflicted by aimlessness. They have been stunted by coming up in the shade of social media and cultural relativism. Deprived of the harsh choices and bright lessons that come with social responsibilities and traditional rites of passage, kids have grown passive. They lack the ‘grit’ to sustain our society.

I won’t quibble with his depiction. Social media is a blight. The current generation operates on the assumption that ‘someone will take care of it’. Giving up is always an option for them.

I do disagree with his diagnosis and prescription, however. He seems to think that helplessness and hollowness result from a deficiency of citizenship. The correction would then involve a big shot of citizenship. He is completely mistaken. In fact, emptiness is the natural outcome of citizenship, and helplessness is just a reactive symptom.

On the most basic level, citizenship is a position in which one gets told that one’s life is fungible. One’s time, attention, motivation, and psyche can be chopped up and traded for goods to satisfy certain needs. Of course, Sasse recognizes this situation. He mentions “development of the individual” on a couple of occasions as a worthy pursuit, but only if it is pursued to certain ends (becoming responsible, self-sacrificing, ‘gritty’ – in other words, all those things that make a solid citizen). As far as I can tell, only the ends distinguish healthy developmental activities from selfishness, in Sasse’s estimation. And in a shocking coincidence, healthy ends are those for which the goods of citizenship come in handy.

“Why won’t my blood sugar go down?”

Maybe my analysis is unfair. Sasse contends that we are all a little defective, and our institutions may be a little defective, too. We should not expect a perfect synergy between man and social machine, even though the basic program is sound and actually the best that we can do.

But I hear differently all the time.

“I’m doing all those things that the diabetic educator told me to. I have changed my diet. I am walking every day. I am taking my medications like clockwork. So why is my blood sugar still high?”

This person is in my office every day, wearing a different, outfit, a different ethnicity, or a different gender. Yet they are the same person. They have a sit-down job, or two, in which they spend 40-60 hours per week dealing with an incestuous dataset – something so about itself, whether it is driving a cab or processing claims, that it demands attention to automatisms rather than any  particular skill. To ensure that their attention does not waver, an overseer tracks their activities and rates their efficiency. Their extraneous physiological and psychological functions are regulated by the employer as distractions.

The citizen in my office sleeps 6 hours per night, or less. They drink energy drinks to keep going, and eat foods which the package or the vendor says are healthy, because they haven’t the time or energy to prepare their own food. They are too exhausted to exercise properly.

As a result, they are obese, diabetic and hypertensive. As a result, they now require one of the goods for which they can sub-divide themselves: medical care.

Which brings us to where the defense of citizenship as a natural-born fertilizer for human development, breaks down. The trouble with the whole thing is not the palate of goods on offer, their costs, or the means of valuation. The trouble is the chopping, because the roots of experience (attention, motivation, responsiveness, etc.) can’t be cut up for a purpose, especially for delayed gratification of a specific need. The very notion mistakes the nature of needs and the relationship between our needs and our activities. Here, Sasse may have been better served by spending a little more time reading Nietzsche, and a little less time reading Rousseau and the Bible.

For an organism’s needs can’t really be parsed. The motivations underlying our activities are merely aspects of a single motive which Nietzsche labeled ‘will to power’. Even when we try to perform an isolated act of attention, we feel something about it, our neuro-hormonal system responds to it, and it tires us globally.

But Sasse seems to think there’s a neat way around the problem of dividing the indivisible.

Life on the Farm or 8 Pitches Up?

In the latter half of the book, Sasse talks about how he sent his daughter to work on a ranch. The idea was to teach her how to enjoy work – not any particular task, but work itself. Basically, he sought to teach her how to thrive as an instrument. It’s pretty clever, really.

He explains the strategy in a vignette:

Martin Luther met a man who had just become a Christian and wanted to know how best to serve the Lord. He asked Luther, “How can I be a good servant? What should I do?” He expected Luther to tell him that he should quit his job and become a minister, monk, or missionary.

Luther replied with a question, “What do you do now?

“I’m  cobbler. I make shoes”, the man answered.

“Then make great shoes”, Luther replied, “and sell them at a fair price – to the glory of God.”

In other words, find integrity in being a good instrument. I think the flaw in this reasoning is obvious: Why not make great shoes to the glory of Satan? It’s the devotion part that really matters, right? This notion of the human lost at heart and essentially in search of a set of rails (any rails) undergirds fascism through the ages, and it works superficially, so long as the social venue is stable.

But I took another path with my kids, because I learned more from sitting on a ledge, than I ever did from a job.

We have climbed several long routes together. We have looked up, down, and out from ledges in the middle of those routes and soaked in the lessons: however precarious the position, what falls to us is to pass the water around, check the system, and find our way through the next rope-length of terrain; trust your partners as you trust yourself; no matter how cold, hot, tired or thirsty you are, the beauty of the sky and landscape remain; achievement, i.e. ‘ticking the route’, doesn’t really matter – it is only a means to get you to the ledge.

In taking them on those climbs, my hope was to offer them a way of life which put making a living in perspective, rather than telling them that making a living would put everything in perspective for them.

A different vignette illustrates my point:

     Cook Ding was cutting up an ox for Lord Wenhui. At every touch of his hand, every heave of his shoulder, every move of his feet, every thrust of his knee — zip, zoop! He slithered the knife along with a zing, and all was in perfect rhythm, as though he were performing the Dance of the Mulberry Grove or keeping time to the Jingshou Music.
“Ah, this is marvelous!” said Lord Wenhui. “Imagine skill reaching such heights!”
Cook Ding laid down his knife and replied, “What I care about is the Way [“Dao”], which goes beyond skill. When I first began cutting up oxen, all I could see was the ox itself. After three years I no longer saw the whole ox. And now, now I go at it by spirit and don’t look with my eyes. Perception and understanding have come to a stop and spirit moves where it wants. I go along with the natural makeup, strike in the big hollows, guide the knife through the big openings, and follow things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint.”
“A good cook changes his knife once a year — because he cuts. A mediocre cook changes his knife once a month — because he hacks. I’ve had this knife of mine for nineteen years and I’ve cut up thousands of oxen with it, and yet the blade is as good as though it had just come from the grindstone. There are spaces between the joints, and the blade of the knife has really no thickness. If you insert what has no thickness into such spaces, then there’s plenty of room — more than enough for the blade to play about it. That’s why after nineteen years the blade of my knife is still as good as when it first came from the grindstone.”
“However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I’m doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest subtlety, until — flop! the whole thing comes apart like a clod of earth crumbling to the ground. I stand there holding the knife and look all around me, completely satisfied and reluctant to move on, and then I wipe off the knife and put it away.”
“Excellent!” said Lord Wenhui. “I have heard the words of Cook Ding and learned how to nurture life!”
— Zhuangzi, chapter 3 (Watson translation)

I do not see the current generation as sissified hedonists, any more than previous generations. The hypersensitivity, the passivity, the absorption (self and otherwise) all look like symptoms of a bunker mentality. They see what’s in store for them and they don’t like it, but they don’t seem to know how to resist.

A Sasse-type message has gotten through. The citizenry coming of age does think that it must learn to embrace a social role (little worker, little voter, little contributor) wholeheartedly in order to fully mature, and it just can’t bring itself to do so. The instinct is right. Kids growing up in this era are being asked to pursue a sort of faux-maturity which involves merely “giving up childish things”, and the achievement of that state will leave them empty and utterly dependent on a structure which deals with them on the basis of a flawed methodology.

They need a little less Ben Sasse, and a little more Cook Ding, when it comes to advice about how to grow up. Because maturity means dealing with your situation – not just endorsing it – and dealing with it artfully. It means getting over being The Cobbler, The Christian, The Cobbler-Christian, or even The Cook.

In Sasse’s terms, I have laid out the Romantic counter-argument to his Realist argument regarding the nature of the individual’s relationship to civilization. But I reject that characterization to some extent. There isn’t an inherent conflict between the individual and the civilization. We are stuck with our civilization. It lies before us like the carcass of a great ox, and it is just as indifferent.

We get chopped up in our interaction with it, but our own hand is on the knife. And I agree with Ben Sasse here,  maturity is the solution. Not the faux maturity which the senator espouses, which is just a form of selling out, but actual maturity which sets limits and carves its own way, not towards some magical future, but like the cook’s knife, in the present where we all reside.

IMG_3666

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What is the magic of the third point?

Subscribe to continue reading

Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.

Tagged , ,

And Now, For Something Completely Different

For anyone interested, I have a book out, a consequence of early retirement. It has nothing to do with climbing.

It’s available through Amazon, Barnes, Ingram and several other sources as an ebook. One way or another, you should be able to read it for free. If you do read it, please let me know what you think in the comments here . Summa Totalis is the title.

https://a.co/d/eMXZszz

Five Seconds That Will Live in Infamy

I love pbs! It sells what nobody wants to buy. From the documentaries to the pundit panels, it delivers the 10,000 ft view of any topic imaginable. Most of the time, it also tries to entertain, lightly. Even when they tackle the heavy topics they don’t rush through or sensationalize. They stay serious but steady. At the end of the article the journalist has you feeling like it is bad today, but this too shall pass.

Nobody is better at maintaining a calm and informative flow than the folks at NewsHour. Everybody has the mood in mind, whether they are in front of the camera or behind it. The set designers and builders avoid any distracting graphics. The clothing and makeup people don’t enforce an artificial fashion code on the presenters1. All the zoom calls look like Zoom calls.

All of the journalists work diligently to make the news informative and sympathetic to the range of viewers who might tune in from any spot in America, but no one works harder on it, and no one is better at it than Geoff Bennett. He is the anchor of NewsHour, and one of the few people remaining in TV journalism who truly merits that title. He is the embodiment of unflappability.

He can steer a politician’s Ideological cruise boat away from the muddy reefs which call to those vessels inexorably. He knows how to navigate a soliloquy on the secret project known to everyone which has the Chinese Communist Party and its real leader, George Soros, passing out visas and voter registration cards to the horde of slavering migrants stampeding toward Brownsville. He knows how to keep a light touch on the tiller as he sees us through a report on US policy toward Costa Rica.

He doesn’t simply change the subject. He offers the guest an opportunity to make themselves understood, first to him, and then by the transitive property of Television exposition, to the rest of their fellow citizens.

It’s clear, from the beginning of every interview, that nobody’s going to get him riled. He will not raise his voice, gesture emphatically, laugh, or talk over the guest.

His performance during the Trump era’s mass psychosis helped alleviate my heartburn. Geoff’s steady tone and incisive questions exposed the populist neofascist face of Trump’s movement. The political operatives all suffer from hubris and profound incompetence exacerbated by their competitive hankering for Trump’s perianal flavor. Geoff’s conversations with these snarling purse dogs allowed them to demonstrate that incompetence. He has given them the rope that they have asked for, while resisting the temptation to help them with the knot and the tree limb. After listening to them respond to his questions, I figure on just letting them sell NOAA to Exxon and eliminate FEMA before the next hurricane season, try to safely, inexpensively, and effectively round up 16 million people and deport them, and have somebody like Matt Goetz stand up at morning briefings to tell Federal prosecutors and law enforcement that he’s the new sheriff in town and here are all of his well-considered and professionally informed plans for the agency’s future.

Lately, I have started questioning my odds of a worry-free future again. I’m having doubts because they broke Goeff. I know I shouldn’t be surprised. Everyone has their limit. There’s just that one, last, dumb shit comment that pushes things over a person’s line. We all start off hopeful when we engage in adversarial discussions. Despite all the absolutisms tossed about in the course our disputes, we all hope that at the end, we will be able to say that the opposition was misguided, but even so, gave a respectable argument for their position.

We don’t become dejected when an opponent offers up a logical fallacy or bogus statistic in the course of an argument. What kills a person’s spirit is insistent incoherence delivered from beneath the protective umbrella of a time limit, or in such a massive load that it will strain the attention of any sane person to see the argument thoroughly dismantled.

On November 13th, 2024 at 49 minutes and 55 seconds into the PBS NewsHour, the cameras captured the very instant when Geoff snapped.

You can see it coming. The guest throws out cryptic negativity about Covid vaccines, then ramps it up with some free-floating homophobia. Then for the finisher, he throws out abortion on demand with no restrictions and no restraint. The next glimpse of Geoff’s face reveals his thoughts as clearly as spoken words.
‘This? This again with two minutes left in the interview? I can’t. I know I should swat this down, but I am so tired. I’m just going to ignore it and move on.’

I sincerely hope that Geoff recovers. He looked a lot better by the end of the episode, but that kind of hit can result in a relapse. Please get well soon Anchor Man. I don’t think I have it in me to start worrying about Matt Goetz doing the same thing to the FBI.

Okay, there is that one pink pantsuit that keeps coming back. I imagine there’s a story behind that, because I can’t imagine that nobody said anything. I consider it an isolated incident.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Brain Is the Stupidest Organ

It can’t do anything on its own. But give it just a little bit to go on, and it will make your damn world reliable.

Tagged , , , ,

Catfight Safari

I didn’t seek a share in the house or anything that went along with it. I was drafted for it by my friend, Tim. I had been living in Seattle after graduating from college and came back to southeast Tennessee to help my parents after my mother became ill. The move was abrupt and left me renting a basement room from my parents. Mom’s health stabilized over the next few weeks, and I began looking around for alternative accommodations. I had a lead on a new job by that time too. I had been working on a landscaping crew in Seattle. Landscaping work, however, was harder to come by in the South, so I checked in with a former employer, the local Hibachi steakhouse. I had parted ways with the restaurant on good terms. I thought maybe they would be willing to take me back doing kitchen prep and cleaning up alongside Tim and two of his brothers. I was ready to settle for the same, but lucky for me, Tim stayed with the restaurant after I left, and subsequently got promoted to bartender. He put in a good word for me and may have exaggerated my mixological experience. Soon, I was blending daiquiris in a dress shirt and shiny shoes, behind an air-conditioned bar, for about the same wage as I got for kitchen work, plus tips.

While Tim was orienting me to the new job, I mentioned my living situation to him. He perked up immediately. Destiny must be at work he told me. He was just finishing up a successful house hunt and needed people to sign on for rooms and shares of the rent and deposit. I said yes without a second thought.

The landlord was more responsive than most to cash payments, and we had the place within a week. By that time, 3 others had joined the enterprise. Like me, they were on intermission. They had well-paying jobs. In different circumstances, they might have committed to those jobs and the brands that came with them and become Dan the Welder or Jim the Waiter, for instance. The last step, where the aspirant gave up their soul for security was always semi-voluntary and taken under pressure from various directions. We could put off the big moment because we had education, a little bit of family wealth, and a friendly social network. We were destined for more than socioeconomic stagnation at a decent wage. We had little insight into our fortunes, yet we behaved like we were well aware of the backstop between us and total disaster. The barrier meant that we could be a little lax, take a break from expectations and explore socioeconomic alternatives, like voluntary communal living.

The house sat on the corner of an intersection between a numbered street and a dead-end, frontage road. The single story, brick residence started life as a duplex at some more hopeful time in the distant past. It predated the ‘race riots’ the city strove to deny or, better yet pointedly forget. It was old enough to come with a warning that lead might be present in the paint flakes that fell from the windows whenever we opened or closed them. The floor was not level and sagged in spots to boot. The adjacent houses, as well as those on the next block down, were of similar construction and in similar shape. At the time, my only means of transportation was a motorcycle, and I was glad for it, because the driveway was tiny, and the parking on the street was crowded. Though they looked functional, somewhere around half of the cars parked on the curb never appeared to move. The frontage road dead ended to the west, where it disappeared under a freeway off ramp. Beyond the frontage road to the south, a fence topped with barbed wire secured the railroad tracks.

I was not with Tim when he went to pick up the keys,. He was determined to assimilate to the neighborhood as much as possible. He said that he wanted to set the tone before everybody moved in, and he told me that he wanted to begin the process by introducing himself on behalf of all the tenants, to the neighbor who lived across the numbered street from us. The neighbor was an older gentleman whose ancestors had likely been brought to the region as slaves. He sat on the front porch when I rode by to have a look at our rental before signing my copy of the lease. He did not look particularly interested in what I was doing. He did not look particularly interested in making new friends. Yet he was still probably the best point of contact for the neighborhood. The house up the street from us was vacant, as was the house up the street from his.

The neighbor’s house was smaller than others on the block. It was 2 bedrooms at most. The rest of the space on the lot was taken up by a much larger than normal side yard. At least, we assumed that it was a side yard. We could not see directly into the area, as it was obscured by an 8-foot-high strip of chain-link, unsupported in the middle and leaning towards the sidewalk under the weight of several sheets of three-quarter inch plywood laid loose across the inside of the fencing for its entire length.

I doubted that our neighbor had ever had much of a break from anything, and although none of us asked for our status, and none of us could change it, his experience may have engendered some resentment towards those who could indulge in an intermission. Though I favored my friend’s intention, I suggested that we might let the man across the street make the first move. Tim later informed me that he had paused for a few seconds on the basis of my advice before he went to knock on the door.

We worked evenings, so he picked up the keys for our rental late in the day. It was dark when he crossed the street. No one was on the porch, and all the windows were black. He had just stepped across the sidewalk when the plywood sheets slammed against the chain-link fencing just a few feet to his left. Horrible growling, snapping, and scrabbling sounds followed the impact . He bolted back across the street and hid in the rental house until the sounds died down. He never went back to knock on the door, and he never wavered in his assessment that whatever lurked behind that plywood, it was no dog.

Once everyone moved in, we quickly stopped bothering with the neighborhood. We lost interest partly because we found other, more immediate concerns, and partially because we realized that the neighborhood was not concerned with us, or anybody else, who lived there. The occupants of all the nearby houses were bound by a tacit agreement to, more or less, mind their own business. For our part, we took care where we parked. I never cranked the throttle until I got my motorcycle out of the area. The bimonthly parties stayed in the house, including the ethanol fireballs, card games, and fighting.

We gave nothing and we took nothing. After a few months, when our commitment to the pact of benign indifference, was unquestionable the neighborhood sent us a liaison. Tim insisted that he heard a knock, but when he opened the door, all he found on the threshold was a somewhat undersized, sick looking, black-and-white male cat. Without a sound or an upward glance, the animal just walked right into our kitchen, limping on his right front leg. When he reached the middle of the room, he flopped down on the linoleum and looked up at us. We stood by for a minute or two with the door propped open while he failed to find a reason to go back outside.

It became apparent over the next 48 hours, that he was there to stay. He was a good cat. He was very calm and would sit by you on the couch without ever inviting himself onto your lap. He never stole food from the counter or squeegeed your face with his tail. Tim invested in a vet visit which revealed that the cat did not have feline leukemia virus, but did have a bite wound which had healed over a bone infection in his right elbow. The cat even took the pills for his infection without too much fuss. Since he had obviously been socialized before he arrived on our doorstep, we made a reasonable effort to find out if he belonged to someone else in the vicinity. We put up signs on a few telephone poles, but never received any inquiries.

Once he was clearly ours, we set about finding him a name. Nothing really seemed to fit though. His personality was thoroughly feline, so something like “Jim Bob” or “Melvin” was out of the question. He wasn’t particularly fat or bony. He didn’t have any really distinctive markings. He wasn’t especially lazy or rambunctious. We decided to table the matter until something happened to show us the way. We would not have to wait long.

The cat was getting a drink from his water bowl, which sat on a windowsill at the far end of the kitchen counter. In the garbage can below, the empty bottle of antibiotic sat atop the trash. The kitchen window looked out across the alleyway to the building behind us. Another cat appeared in a lower-level window of that building. The interloper showed no signs of hostility, and judging by its behavior, may not have even seen us watching it. Our cat exploded in a screeching, growling, hissing fury. He slapped at the window as if blows to the image could transmit the force of his hatred indirectly to the other cat. He remained transfixed by rage until his enemy jumped down from the windowsill and disappeared into the neighboring house.

The sounds of murder had drawn a crowd in the meantime. We stared dumbfounded at our mascot, who now sat calmly licking his foot.
Tim spoke for the crowd in summary, “Jesus fucking Christ!”
And so our cat had a name.
In the interest of comity, we agreed to limit the use of his full name to conversations between housemates alone. In all other circumstances, JFC would suffice. His transformation repulsed the others. I was fascinated. Something so dramatic must mean something. I could not imagine what force could completely and immediately overturn a personality, especially without an existing foothold in the nature of the affected individual.

At that point, we should have kept JFC inside. But the concept of an indoor cat was unfamiliar to us, so we did not block him when he slipped between our feet as we left the house, and some of us even let him out when he begged at the door. I’ll admit, I should have restrained myself, but I was one who let him out whenever he asked, and I took every opportunity to follow him when he went out. He never travelled far. Sometimes he would just slink around the backs of nearby buildings and alleyways. More often, he would duck under the railroad fence. The vast majority of his excursions consisted of sniffing tours around curbs and stairwells punctuated by an occasional spritz of urine on the walls. Sometimes however, he encountered another cat and that was why I was along. Inevitably a fight ensued. The sheer violence was compelling enough, but as I became accustomed to the shrieking and the swirling chunks of fur, I discovered a pattern in these conflicts. I needed to learn more, so I began to venture into the alleyways and through holes in the railroad fence without JFC in the lead. This was easy enough in the neighborhood. I’d take a beer with me and sit down on one of the garbage cans to wait for the action. If someone walked by or came out of a door, I was protected by the pact of benign indifference. As soon as people recognized me they went back to their own business. The same was not true of the railyard. I had to skulk around like the cats themselves when I went there. Security was easy enough to evade in that era, and the very best fights happened in the isolated corners of the yard, so I ended up spending most of my nights out sitting in the shadows of stacked ties and surplus freight cars listening for yowling or footsteps.

I learned a lot. Of course, cat fights basically depended on angle and anticipation, like any other fight. There was much more beyond the basics though. All fights began with growling and shrieking. Intense scrutiny accompanied the noise and prompted subtle shifts in position. Each cat was waiting for the other to experience a brief lapse in concentration. Cats are prone to such lapses, so it was a worthwhile tactic. When the other cat’s nose twitched or their gaze shifted slightly, the aggressor leapt. An ideal pounce would land the jumper on his enemies back, well positioned to deliver a bite to the spinal column or the back of the skull. A cat’s long, relatively thin, and gently curved canines were perfect for that purpose, and it was how they killed larger prey.

The bite never worked on other cats however. The defender reacted by rolling onto his back and fending off the leap with his hind legs, while attempting to get a grip on the opponent’s upper body with his front claws. When the defense worked perfectly, the combatants ended up on their sides, facing each other. From that position, they both launched raking attacks with their back feet while attempting a bite to the shoulder. Since the claws on the back feet got used for running and jumping, the tips were not very sharp, and the raking attacks resulted in loss of belly fur, and not much more. The biting option was fraught. A successful bite on an opponent’s shoulder left the attacker open to a similar move.

Sometimes a cat would just accept the return bite and try to work their teeth deeper into the opponent’s shoulder, wagering that the additional pain would make the other cat let go. However they played it, the position was unstable. Most of the time one or the other would try to break out of it and get back on his feet. Several maneuvers were possible when escaping the face-to-face, recumbent position. The best ones ended up with the attacker standing perpendicular to the defender with the defender on his back. From that position, the attacker had a couple of options. First, he could try for an elbow bite. If executed safely, an elbow bite was much more effective than a shoulder bite. It stood a better chance of disabling the leg, and it was much more painful, since it meant teeth digging into bone. Though the cats could not factor it into their strategy, by the same token, an elbow bite would frequently result in a bone infection like JFC had suffered.

It was difficult to achieve a safe elbow bite however. Positioning for the bite left the attacker open to a similar bite in response, like the situation with the shoulder bite. And as with the shoulder bite, some cats would simply accept the return bite to deliver the attack. More often, the attacker went for a neck bite instead. From the standing, perpendicular position, the front and middle of the opponent’s neck were theoretically accessible. Because of the anatomy in the area, a bite to those structures was very difficult to achieve in practice. All the defender had to do was tuck his chin a little bit and the bite would land on the cheek or the side of the face in front of the ear. That outcome was still a good one. A face bite could injure the jaw muscles, and typically resulted in quite a bit of bleeding. Moreover, it blocked the return bite.

The fights carried on for anywhere from half a minute to half an hour. I typically had trouble predicting who would yield based on injuries sustained. Both cats came away with bite wounds. Often, it was simply down to which cat was more enthralled by its own aggression, and so willing to suffer the injury. As an outsider examining the phenomena objectively, I knew that it all boiled down to territory, which really meant access to female cats. But the combatants couldn’t see that. They felt the push and pull of fury, pain, and fear, which were driven in turn by chemicals in their bloodstream and in their brains, which were driven in turn by genes.

The genetic forces would balance themselves out across the population regardless of what happened to the individual cats and even if someone could wave a magic wand and bestow clear and complete understanding of the situation upon the cats, they lived for the sensations and would do no different. Now, it was my turn to feel repulsed.

I stopped going to the railyard, which towards the end of my catfight investigations, had become an almost daily event. As a result, I was hanging around the house a lot more, and noted some deterioration in the atmosphere. Camaraderie had taken a beating. None of the housemates would deny that, but none of us understood the implications. We didn’t understand that camaraderie, as the sentiment resulting from a commitment to the well-being of one’s fellows, served as the foundation for any group effort, including communal living.

The decay of foundational sentiment began where it always does, in the refrigerator. At the beginning, when the household was solid, we shared food with each other, and even prepared group meals on occasion. As the novelty wore off, extravagant meal prep came to feel more like a chore than a celebration. Inequities in food sharing developed. A couple of the tenants began eating out almost exclusively. If they needed a snack, there was no recourse other than what was in the fridge, which was necessarily other people’s food. Eventually, those of us who still ate at home resorted to hiding our supplies. Most of us accepted that nothing was safe in the refrigerator and switched entirely to nonperishable foods. Two of us continued to stock the fridge. One of those diehards secured his food with padlocks attached to ammo cans from the Army surplus store. For things which did not fit the containers, he attached the following note, “Would I poison something just to prove a point? Have a taste and find out.”

The next thing to go rotten was the housework. When everyone first moved in, we drew up the customary list of chores to be assigned on a rotating basis. When food violations progressed to the point where some housemates resorted to dining out exclusively, dishes began to accumulate in the sink. Additionally, fast food bags, plastic utensils, and pizza boxes built up on the counter and on the tables. The backlog of cleaning got worse and worse until somebody broke and took care of it all themselves in a single Herculean effort which left them resenting all the slackers. By the time I had finished my research with the cats, the chore rotation calendar, whose completion constituted the final chore, was blank going back several months.

Occupancy of the house grew progressively unstable. Some of those who were paying rent, barely came by anymore. To them, the place had become an expensive shower and closet. As the main signer on the lease, Tim had to track these people down and get the money from them in person. That wasn’t easy, because most of them were sleeping in various places on a weekly or even nightly basis. Our house became one of those places for other people. If friends of friends had come over the night before to drink or throw darts or wrestle on the living room carpet, it was not surprising to find several of them still there in the morning, sleeping on the couch or the floor, or perusing the fridge for breakfast items which appeared least likely to be spiked with strychnine.

JFC was a constant in the flux. Stuck with the household through its devolution. He didn’t seem to mind strangers picking him up. He would help with the cleanup of edible scraps, and when his litter box got full and did not get cleaned for a week at a time, he would go outside instead of making a mess in the house. Yet he was becoming a problem at the same time. Unlike me, he had not stopped attending the cat fights. He kept coming back with hematomas and abscesses. Some of these injuries required expensive veterinary services. Evolutionary forces had shaped the cats to survive their fights. Those same forces made him a good companion which pushed us to care for his health and so inadvertently ensured that he was in tip top shape for the next round.

A similar set of forces propped up the house in its devolved state. From the outside, it looked like one out-of-control, endless party. It had such a large pool of prospective occupants that on any given night someone with some claim on the right to flop would have steam to blow off. For those of us who still slept there for most nights of the week, the transient population became a concern, because most of them did not know about the pact. Neighbors up the street had to come by a couple of times to ask us to keep the volume down. The visits were brief, and not overly friendly, but through those brief conversations, we solved the mystery of the others’ relative invisibility. They were working up to 3 jobs each. Some of these were combinations of full and part-time jobs, and some were multiple part-time jobs, all carefully stitched together so that, in theory, if a person immediately fell asleep at the end of their last shift, they could get a full 8 hours of sleep before the next shift began. When they got home, they went straight to bed, and when they woke up, they went straight to work.

Without any conversation or formal agreement, several of us took it in turns to referee nighttime activities. We did whatever it took to keep the noise down. For reasons less clear, our devolution piqued the interest of the neighbor across the street as well. We never exchanged a single word with the man, but he took to sitting out on his porch again, almost every night. He drank from a Mason jar while he stared at the goings-on and chuckled to himself now and then. He would sit there until late in the night or until someone waved to him. He would then return the gesture with a wave hello which turned into a wave get lost, whereupon he stood up laughing quietly and shaking his head, as he staggered back into his house. I kept it to myself, but I knew why he kept watch over the disintegration across the street. Somehow, he knew bootleggers who brought him moonshine to power his vigil. He somehow survived in the face of malicious neglect meted out by the society writ large and his relations in particular. He kept the embodiment of blood thirsty rage in the side yard, just for spite. He watched chaos overcome until he became it himself. Our comedy alone brought him satisfaction, but It seems he lost interest after a couple of months, because he returned to his hermitage, and nobody saw him ever again. We wouldn’t have noticed except a 2nd generation housemate, who had formally taken over rent payments from one of the originals, mentioned it to us. He brought it up because he was planning to walk across the street and check on the old guy. He had exchanged waves with the man once or twice during the emergence, and had the weird notion that there was some kind of bond between them.

The conversation with the 2nd generation fellow came about in the first place because we were trying to formally hand over responsibility for rent by that time. During the slide into disorder, most of us had quietly been looking for alternative accommodations. We’d seen the writing on the wall. The situation was going to continue to deteriorate until some disaster ensued, or the remaining housemates were evicted. Intermission was over. It was time for the backstop to gobble us up. None of us were ever going to feel compelled by cat-like sentiments distilled from indifferent evolutionary forces, not in that house or anyplace else. Better to get it over with. Before he ended the conversation, the gen2 guy mentioned that no one had seen JFC for a couple days. They had set his food and water outside, and it had been consumed, but they couldn’t be sure by who.

Tim decided to stay over to try and find the cat. He heard about the results of the welfare check on the old man across the street. The monster was still behind the plywood. Nobody answered the door. Our detective even had the guts to walk around the side of the house and knock on some windows there. He had seen no sign of life.

On the morning of the 3rd day, the cat returned. Tim found him on the back porch by the door, laid out on his side, panting. The vet confirmed a recurrent bone infection. It was in the same elbow as before, but it was much more extensive. He could take antibiotics again, but even then, there was no guarantee that the leg would not need amputation. The whole process was going to be expensive. Tim was exasperated. He was not going to go on subsidizing the cat’s stupidity. He was also unable to find some sucker to take JFC off his hands.

So, JFC died by lethal injection. Really, it wasn’t the potassium infused directly into his heart that killed him. He died from a shift in those indifferent forces which drove him to fight and us to take care of him. He was a martyr because of that, but he was a sort of champion as well. No matter the consequences, JFC heeded the call of those forces and stayed true to the end. I am sure that if we amputated his leg, he would have hopped right back to the fights.

A week or so after we killed JFC, the remainder of the original housemates packed up and formally vacated the premises. We went on to various occupations and living situations, but wherever we went, we became more and more subject to the expectations of other people. With time, martyrdom and triumph passed out of reach entirely. The original housemates did not keep in touch. The whole enterprise felt more like a bad experience as it faded into the past. For my part, once adequate time had elapsed, I felt the desire to watch cat fights again.

It was different upon return, and more like what I imagined that the Romans felt when they watched slaves and captive animals tear each other to pieces. I wanted to see them fight despite themselves. I wanted to see them driven to kill an enemy who had inherited the capacity to survive all their attacks. And when they walked away with their bite wounds festering, I wanted to feel sorry for them and feel for a moment like I was above it all.

Tagged , , , , ,

“They Are Under My Skin”

I look at the small red spot on his arm and then at his eyes. My heart sinks. The red spot appears to be an irritated hair follicle. His gaze is steady and forthright. I am the 3rd doctor that he has been to for this problem. I recognize the diagnosis. I have seen many people over the years with his same complaints. I have treated many people with those complaints for lice, scabies, and other parasites, with great success. However, I have never successfully treated the condition from which this person suffers. Though they have symptoms which occur with a parasitic infestation the patient is actually afflicted by the belief that they are infested. They harbor a delusion.

A delusion is a fixed, false belief. In many cases this definition is not controversial. For instance, if someone believes that the CIA is controlling their thoughts and actions by means of a radio receiver implanted in their brain, we can quickly conclude that such a thing is demonstrably impossible. It doesn’t fit with what we know about structure of the brain. Such a receiver should be detectable by electronic means or by imaging. It is difficult to imagine how the device might have been surreptitiously inserted into the victim’s head. In other words, none of the stories that we could tell about the mind control device can be squared with any of our well-worn stories about the rest of the world. The glaring falsity makes the fixation easy to expose. When the delusional person suggests that the implantation was accomplished via a trans-sphenoidal incision which would leave no obvious scar, and that the receiver is made of material which nonmagnetic and radiolucent, and that the whole system operates on burst transmissions which are only detectable with cutting edge equipment which is currently only available to the CIA, it is pretty obvious that they are merely doing whatever it takes to preserve their belief rather than proposing a serious explanation.

The trouble is: the method we use to reject the mind control device story is not anything special. We compare experience – our own personal experience as well as our collective experience – with the contents of the mind control device proposition. If things match up, we believe the claim. If the pieces of a mind control device do not fit in to the puzzle of our world, we are prone to say that the claim is not true. The comparison process is not precise though. We often don’t have experience of every aspect of a claim. We also have questionable access to claims, especially when they relate to other people’s experiences.

We may tell people that we feel their pain, but we can never mean it literally. Herein lies a delusion’s opportunity. A dermatologist can tell you that they find no evidence of scabies mites, lice, or plastic filaments erupting from your skin. They cannot tell you that you are not itching in just the way and in just the places that people with scabies report itching. When confronted with such observations, the dermatologist must admit their ignorance., or face the same incredulity with which we greet the story about the mind control device. Furthermore, if the dermatologist is ignorant on that account and yet willing to forge ahead with a diagnosis, what are the limits of the doctor’s hubris? What other evidence has the smug twit disregarded?

The question used to be mostly rhetorical. It was part of that argument from incredulity. Now, the question has a ready answer: all that stuff on the Internet. There is a case report to support almost anything imaginable. Plus, there are instructions on how to investigate your own case. It is quite clear, once a person has it under the oil immersion lens on their home microscope, that the speck they picked off their forearm is not a skin flake, it is a bug. And by the way, patients cannot help but notice the lack of such equipment in the clinics which they visit in pursuit of the truth regarding their signs and symptoms.

Those who imagine that they have parasites, no longer need rely on the necessary limits of our knowledge as they contend with the medical establishment. The volume of unsorted information available to them dilutes any counterclaims. In the process, reams of reference material hide fixation. All the delusional person rejects are the hasty diagnoses of a few arrogant physicians. Those physicians are rejecting a body of literature which exceeds the memory capacity of the patient’s cell phone.

I have never successfully dispelled someone’s delusion of parasitosis, but I have come close, maybe even close enough. The patient had come to me with the usual complaints: rashes and bumps on her skin, itching, crawling sensations. She brought in the usual box of samples and sheets of lab tests. I had failed the 2 previous people who I diagnosed with this delusion. One of them simply never returned after I told him that we had done all the testing that we could and, though I could not tell him why he was having his symptoms, I could at least reassure him that the symptoms were not due to a parasitic infection. The other one walked out in the middle of their last visit after I told them that they ought to consider an antipsychotic for their symptoms.

Previous cases fell apart just about the time of diagnosis. This time, I resolved not to conclude no matter what. We looked at the samples. They were like Rorschach blots. Suggestive shapes faded in and out with focal adjustment if you were prepared to see them. All the labs were normal. There were no significant findings on previous skin biopsies and attempts at sampling from skin lesions were consistently negative. But her labs were consistently normal over time. She was feeling well. Her weight was stable. She did not have any allergy symptoms. Whatever might be crawling on her making her itch did not appear to be doing her any serious harm. Maybe this organism was more like all the mites and microbes peacefully inhabiting the backwaters of our anatomy, than it was like the bloodsucking arthropods that sometimes attack us. It was a successful detente for all of us

All that stood between us and level ground was the truth. It needed to be teased free of all the suppositions woven in with it, almost down to the facts. What remained when the sorting was done was a series of flat statements (I itch, there is a bump on my skin, I feel like something is crawling on me) without distorting references to a justifying theory. She no longer started with bugs under her skin as the primary description of her problem, however compelling the image.. She began with the itching and crawling sensations. The sensations meant what they meant without entailing the massive tangle of hypotheticals and contingencies that accompanied the bugs.

I was also forced to pick apart truth and supposition in my thoughts on her complaints.. Diagnosing her generated a fixation of my own, because it committed me to considering a single aspect of those complaints. To be honest, when I could find no insects, I immediately began to see her as deranged, and so I set about correcting her derangement without a 2nd thought. But my perseveration on the pathological nature of her delusion just fed its gravity.

We all suffer from delusions from time to time. Almost everyone is subject to a “mild positive delusion”. That entity is simply the fixed, false belief that one is more capable than they actually are in any given situation. At first glance, the mild positive delusion appears to be just a fancy name for foolishness. But it is hard to see how anyone would ever get better at anything without it. The delusion pulls a person into situations slightly beyond their control. That zone between comfortable mastery and havoc, is where learning occurs. Of course, not all delusions are so benign. Delusional beliefs may generate heavy, dark hypotheses which draw the deluded to grim actions.

The prime example of such a delusional black hole would be the shooting incident in a small pizza restaurant which occurred a couple years ago. The shooter disliked certain politicians. He took note of some stories on the Internet which tracked well with his estimation of those politicians character. He then began to actively search for such narratives. This drew him in to the point that he became absolutely convinced that the distasteful politicians were a cabal of child sex traffickers operating out of a small pizza restaurant on the East Coast. He subsequently packed his rifle in the car and drove to the pizza joint, where he demanded the release of the imprisoned children and immediate apprehension of the evil politicians. He fired a few shots in the air to emphasize the seriousness of his conviction.

For good or ill, we will never be free of delusions. We cannot do without them. Rather than undertaking the extermination of fixed, false beliefs, we might instead try to limit the pull of their gravity, as my one successful patient demonstrated. That means taking care not to mistake the theoretical structures which delusions generate for the truths undergirding the delusions. That way, when we find ourselves standing in the middle of a pizza restaurant with a rifle, we understand that we are standing in the middle of a pizza restaurant with a rifle. And we itch if and only if we itch. That much would be true.

Tagged , , ,

What I learned on MLK day

My wife continues to ask her question. Sometimes from the positive side: “why are we here, doing all these things?”. Sometimes from the negative side: “if we’re going to be extinct in a few hundred thousand years, why are we doing all this. No one’s going to be around to care or remember.” Of course, she’s just reformulating the simpler old cliché, “what is the meaning of life?” She keeps coming at this from different angles because she’s trying to get a different answer from me. But my response is always the same. I tell her that question turns on a category error.. Life is not the sort of thing to which meaning applies. Existence is not instrumental, nor does it represent anything. I have tried to present a convincing argument for my position, but she has rejected every version outright. Her tone leads me to believe that she may simply doubt my authority on the matter. That’s a reasonable position to take. I’m a amateur philosopher at best.

So, I’ve tried to hit her with statements on the matter from authorities in the field. I’ve tried Nietzsche.

“Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength–life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results.”

She just shook her head.
Then I went to the Hagakure:
“Live being true to the single-purpose of the present moment. Ae man’s whole life is a series of moments. If you can do this, there will be nothing else to do and nothing else to pursue.”
It bounced off, not even a mark.

I even trotted out the old favorite:
Existence precedes essence”.
Mere sophistry, she says.
Recently, I got my best chance at validation. I got to pose her question to a real philosopher. As it turns out, he was sympathetic to the question, but he reformulated it a bit. He split her more complicated notion of meaning into 2, distinct concepts. The minor portion is the equivalent of Telos-the idea that existence is instrumental, or in other words, that life has a purpose. This idea, he felt, could be easily rejected. It’s true, the idea that there’s some purpose served by existence falls apart almost as soon as it’s formulated. For instance, if we assume that we exist to make widgets, the question of why we exist simply devolves to the question of why widgets exist. Maybe we’ve got an easy answer for that question. Maybe it’s plain to all that widgets are needed to make a widgetron. And obviously, a widgetron exists because God needs a widgetron. But then we have to ask why God needs a widgetron. Maybe we can sneak by this question by insisting that only God knows why God needs a widgetron. But, if we are going to preserve Telos for the widgets and therefore for the widget makers, then we need an account of God’s use for the widgetron, and all we get from making the knowledge of that use private is a shift in responsibility. God must carry on the investigation. What we end up with, is a set of complications without a change in the structure of the problem. Wherever you choose to stop, you’re forced to admit that this is just how things are. Existence really does precedes essence.

If Telos is unsalvageable, another sense of meaning may yet stand. Heidegger observed that we are thrown in to our circumstances. We don’t come with an instruction manual, map, compass, or storybook. We are confronted with puzzling out our best narrative. Though there is still a brute fact at work here, it doesn’t have the crushing gravity of given purpose. We are stuck with our task, but the work of charting our course remains self consistent. Here is the meaning that the questioner is after: a sort of self representation,. It is a smaller revelation than expected from a definitive answer to the question of life’s meaning. But it doesn’t overreach by trying to explain brute facts, and it is more substantial than “42”. It is the Goldilocks answer, and should satisfy everybody. But my wife cannot accept it. Knowing that it all ends in a “great rip” which destroys space and time, or alternatively, that the universe quietly evaporates in a “heat death”, makes all the stories the same. There may be some variations on the typical strutting and fretting along the way, but everyone’s book ends with the same billions of blank pages. By the time the reader has flipped through them all, he or she will scarcely recall the printed contents, and the stories might as well all be the same for as much as they differ in light of that mass of emptiness. For her, if there is no permanence, there is no possibility of constructing a good story.

At this point, I was out of arguments. I wasn’t quite ready to admit defeat,, but I couldn’t think of another convincing way to state my position.

And then Dr. King came to my rescue. I’m not sure how I got to the video, but it was Martin Luther King Day, so there was plenty of high profile MLK material floating around the Internet. He was giving an interview in 1966 and he said something that I never would’ve imagined a pastor and activist saying.

“If a man has not discovered something that he will die for, in a sense he is not fit to live.”

Such a person labors under the mistaken notion that existence itself has some token value. Life has representational meaning in that case, and it’s role as a token makes life worth something, just like money has value because it represents debt. If you hold this position, then some permanence really is critical. If the bank is not an eternal bank, then we all must become Roman coins someday. As the debts which we represent are forgotten and our value gets washed away by time. For meaning to be sustainable, the treasury upon which it draws must be permanent, and sustainability is an essential part of representational meaning. Our narratives represent to something, at least in principle, or we really are just sound and fury.

Attribution of representational meaning to existence is sketchy enough, but It is a particular consequence of the attribution which renders its claimant, in a sense, unfit to live.. The monetary analogy serves here as well. Like a bill or coin, we are inert. That is not to say that we cannot do things. A banknote ,after all, can mark one’s place in a book, and a coin of the proper size can be used as a screwdriver. But what they really must do as currency to be currency, is to remain a recognizable token. Self-preservation is paramount, and, in a sense, any action beyond that scope is meaningless.

But, we do act, and only rarely with the primary intention of preserving ourselves. As Nietzsche pointed out survival is just a very common, happy side effect of our motives and their associated actions.. To take things to the most basic level, we eat because we are hungry, and drink because we are thirsty. We don’t eat or drink to carry forward the tale of our Personality.

If representational meaning in a narrative can’t quite face up to those blank pages stretching to eternity, can anything? .Here is where Dr. King comes to the rescue, with the first part of his statement. An explanation lies in the implication of what it means to discover something that one will die for. One might reasonably ask: what won’t people die for? People die for money, shame, vanity, and every other stupid thing, every day. But I don’t think that those transactions are what King means to reference. I think he means something more like things worth dying for. I think he means exactly the thing so expressive of the individual’s personality that its persistence renders that person’s independent existence moot. That class of things doesn’t demand extinction as the price of admission, they just render the separate persistence of one’s identity irrelevant.

To take Dr. King as an example: he advocated nonviolence, but only secondarily. He was nonviolent primarily. He spoke out on civil rights, but not in order to play a role in the story of civil rights. His words were a seamless expression of those rights, and inextricable from the marches, sit ins, jail time, and even the bullet. All those things were not elements of autobiography, they were the man himself.

Rather than weaving a tale, we are aimed at discovering a destiny. Destiny is the closest word for what I think motivates us. Because place is the best metaphor for our hearts desire. It is the place where our feet fit perfectly, and where we are completely oriented. That is Yamamoto Tsunetomo’s “single purpose of the present moment”. It is not a moment to live for, or in, it is a place from which any movement is self-expression, and from which no movement alters the circumstances.

Destiny’s viewpoint reveals self-preservation’s constraining nature and exposes extinction’s irrelevance. Self-preservation and extinction represent aspects of a person. They have the weaknesses of any representation and have no more role in the discovery of destiny than a Roman coin (as a Roman coin) has in loosening a screw.

I think destiny answers my wife’s objections. It is self-contained in a way that narrative meaning is not, and so stands up to eternity’s vacuum. I think it is a better way to understand the single purpose of the present moment. I can tell that she has some sympathy for the idea, but she can’t quite get past its insinuation that transience is what we seek.

I will run this argument by her. I don’t have any great expectation that it will fare better than the ones that have failed before it. After all, her objections are at least partially noncognitive. She has a good understanding of the endless empty pages, and it frightens her. There may not be any getting past that feeling. But she is also suspicious of samurai and German philosophers. With Dr. King on board, maybe there is a chance for a breakthrough.

Tagged ,

Overjoyed

My wife texted me from her resiliency seminar: “what is the difference between joy and happiness?”
My knee-jerk response was, “Happiness has more letters?”. In other words, joy and happiness are completely synonymous. But after thinking about it a little more, I reconsidered.
“Happiness is a philosopher’s word,” I wrote back, “joy is a theologian’s word.”

Joy was never a candidate for the means of exchange in Jeremy Bentham’s moral economy.. He understood that nobody would accept such a scheme, because it would require a quantification of joy. Joy can’t be priced out. Happiness, on the other hand, might be weighed and measured.
A quantum of happiness is plausible because happiness refers to a state of affairs. When someone claims to be happy, we expect that they can explain themselves. If pressed, the happy person can break down their happiness into the status of the various bits of their world. Their health is good. Their interpersonal relationships are running smoothly. Their access to basic resources is secure. Although there may be practical difficulties in arriving at an accurate sum, it seems possible in principle.,

Joy does not feel causal gravity, and therefore defies our scales. When someone says that they are joyful, they claim to experience a sensation. If joy really does refer to a sensation, even in part, then it shares the burden of mystical subjectivity with other sensations. It is explicable to a point, but there is an extra bit right at the end. A good analogy is the difference, for me, between buying a cold drink with American money and buying a cold drink with Bahamian money. I feel no joy in handing over greenbacks. The bills are boring to the point of oppression Bahamian notes are completely different. Their design and color give me a little bit of joy as I hand them over. The drink is just as refreshing. I can explain why I like the colors and graphics on Bahamian notes, even down to ostensibly subconscious factors. But that certain something which accompanies a transaction mediated by the beautiful notes defies a thorough analysis.. It doesn’t do anything in the transaction; it is just a particular feeling experienced along the way.

The loose ends of experience, those “just so” remnants flapping at the tail end of joy, fear, pleasant views and burned fingers, call for our acceptance. Yet, we rarely stop at acceptance. We want to put our sensations of belonging to work. Something that does nothing, can do anything. So, the loose ends of experience frequently serve as philosophical everlasting gob stoppers. As described in the book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, an everlasting gob stopper is a piece of gum which can generate a limitless series of flavors. It is the last piece of gum a person would ever need. Such is the role of joy in a resiliency seminar.

Resiliency originated as a concept in psychology. It is meant to describe the capacity of some people to avoid the consequences of chronic stress. Resiliency is resistance to “burnout”. It doesn’t take much imagination to guess what happened when corporate America got wind of this notion. A thorough expose’ would take volumes but would yield no better account than the words of Lone Watie, depicted by the great Dan George in the film The Outlaw Josie Wales,:.

“I wore this frock coat in Washington, before the war. We wore them because we belonged to the five civilized tribes. We dressed ourselves up like Abraham Lincoln. We only got to see the Secretary of the Interior, and he said: “Boy! You boys sure look civilized.!” he congratulated us and gave us medals for looking so civilized. We told him about how our land had been stolen and our people were dying. When we finished he shook our hands and said, “endeavor to persevere!” They stood us in a line: John Jumper, Chili McIntosh, Buffalo Hump, Jim Buckmark, and me — I am Lone Watie. They took our pictures. And the newspapers said, “Indians vow to endeavor to persevere.”

We thought about it for a long time, “Endeavor to persevere.” And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union.”

Resiliency lessons are an organization’s way of telling its human resources to endeavor to persevere. If the resources are persuaded to buy in, promoting resiliency is much cheaper and easier than trying to fix a dysfunctional system whose friction causes its operators to burst into flame with prolonged contact. It is not an easy sale. But the seminarians have an incentive. They offer a gobstopper programed with the flavors of joy. Follow their chewing instructions, and sweet, sweet joy will sweep away the bitter taste of stress. Their enticement is incredibly appealing. No one in their right mind would choose to cook up a recipe for happiness and hope for a joyful aftertaste, when they can simply chew on the taste of joy.

It is not so easy though, to seek out an emotion. The resiliency gurus quickly achieve their goal with the joy gob stopper. The room is soon busy chewing, and no one is thinking about their smoldering psyche or the stressors which are slowly roasting it. But the room is not all smiles. One by one, those who chew the gob stopper confront its single flaw: it is sold as a vehicle for pure experience, which does nothing,, and so can do anything, but it can’t actually do anything after all.

The original gobstopper, as manufactured by Willy Wonka, would sometimes taste like something weird. It could randomly taste like for instance, a turkey dinner. The gobstopper does something, but not just anything. It doesn’t give the chewer the taste of turkey and dressing. It represents the taste, like a urinal hanging on a gallery wall represents an actual urinal. A representation can standalone, and therefore appear to do nothing, but it merely appears to do nothing. It is indicating, in part or in whole, what it represents. It cannot escape circumstance, and so it cannot produce a consistent response in its beholder. Many gallery patrons appreciate the urinal; many more find it discordant. The flavor of a turkey dinner is discordant with most people’s idea of a positive gum chewing experience.

The chewer is left holding the experiential bag when they bite down on Wonka’s gobstopper, and that bag contains a piece of gum that tastes like cornbread soaked in turkey broth. Those who taste the joy gobstopper are holding the same bag, and as they try to suck joy from its contents, the resiliency students encounter discord as well. Techniques aimed at producing a psychological atmosphere conducive to joy only yield an uncertain representation of the emotional state. What those techniques do with certainty is expose the transitory nature of joyful experiences. As the student focuses on their feelings, they are confronted with the fact that joyful sensations shift with the circumstances. A joyful feeling cannot be parlayed into a persistent mood.

Faced with inconsistent results from following the Master’s teaching, a student may legitimately wonder if they really ever experienced joy in the first place. Perhaps they are congenitally joy deficient, and what they called joy was just some particularly thorough happiness. Maybe they are not trying hard enough. Maybe they are trying too hard. They may wonder if there is a test that they can take to diagnose the cause of their inconsistent joy. On the other hand, maybe they just need a new guru with a new seminar.

Our thoughts come to us unbidden. We don’t wish to have a thought and then think that thought because we wished it. That doesn’t mean that we can’t anticipate circumstances in which certain thoughts may occur, and we certainly expect to be able to explain our thoughts in terms of their circumstances. We just don’t have any sort of “prospective reflection”. The same is true of our emotional phenomena. They happen, and we can anticipate under what circumstances, but they don’t happen through our direct effort or desire

We are better off accepting how we feel, and working with those emotions than we are trying to engineer our psychology to generate emotional sensations in service of an end. At work, we should shake off the resiliency spell. Despite the promises coming from all the Wonka’s in all their resiliency power points, we can’t escape burnout by engineering our psychology to feel joyful about it, or even to feel joyful despite it. Instead, we should pursue the happiness that comes with having the time and resources to do a decent job.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

This again?

“Life! Don’t talk to me about life!”

Marvin the robot

My day began with a woman on the radio proclaiming a great victory for life. For the first time in a long time, a world in which no unborn child got murdered looked to her like a real possibility. Her statement contained a pile of red hot words, resting on one simple word: life. Let us be as clear as possible about the definition of life, because those who have adopted the label “pro-life” will not be. When they talk about life, they don’t mean to talk about biochemistry, they mean to talk about the soul. They mean to talk about all those little souls, bearing some indefinite relationship to little bundles of cells. Via that bond, the soul somehow sanctifies an embryo, while remaining completely uninvolved with biochemistry. What follows are the familiar discontents of substance dualism.

Like most of the pro-life crowd, the woman on the radio barged past the interaction problem and its implications with loud assertions. I got the sense that she may not have fully appreciated those implications herself, and so the rhetorical bum rush may have been a means of self defense as much as it was an offensive tactic.

Poor insight is no excuse though. She deserves the heap of scorn coming her way. Yet she doesn’t bear sole responsibility for her inconsistency. She no doubt labors under the influence of a defective definition of biology. In school, she probably learned a series of rhetorical tautologies (life is organism, organism is metabolism plus reproduction) in her biology classes which amounted to saying, “life is what biologists study”. Nor is biology unique in that regard. All of the sciences have backfilled their metaphysics.

Yet, the associated metaphysics is what really interests us. Though it is fantastic to know about the microscopic structure of the wood in the ship of Theseus, what we really want to know is not the composition of the planks, but the defining relationships of those boards in context. The planks are the ship of Theseus because they floated around the Aegean trod upon by Greek heroes, not simply because the boards consist of a cellulose polymer capable of floating around the Aegean while being trod upon by Greek heroes.

Life is not the Krebs cycle or the DNA in a blastocyst’s nucleus, and it is certainly not some vital substance wafting about, indefinable in principle, and opaque in its activity. Life is what sustains defining change across circumstances. In other words, it is the fulcrum of a dynamic equilibrium. Consider a bacterium in a nutrient broth. Energy from the broth translates into new molecules like the molecules which came before in the cell wall, ring chromosome, and cytoplasm of the bacterium. Having built up enough substrate, bacterium divides, relaying its balance point on through time and space. Then someone drops an antibiotic into the broth. Energy from the broth stops flowing into new substrate and shifts to the activation of efflux pumps. That’s life.

If the organism is overcome, it becomes adrift in its circumstances. Once its equilibrium gets tipped too far, it cannot make its way through the broth or the antibiotic exposure with its causal explanations intact.It’s molecules react with surrounding molecules based on ambient energy states. It cedes all its explanations to whatever is floating around with it in the broth. It is dead.

Beyond this stark boundary between life and death, lies an expansive liveliness. There is life that sails almost where it will (humans), life within life (Portuguese man of war, bees, lichen), and life explicable only in context (prions, chlamydia, embryos).

Embryos live strictly within the lives of their mothers. Embryo explanations require mothers. Embryo explanations do not require souls. Until someone comes up with an effective description of the soul and its relationship to a little ball of cells latched onto the endometrium, the soul remains an inert addition – an epiphenomenon at best. This is a problem which the pro-life fools can’t shout down or blow past. Because the problem with epiphenomena is that there is nothing really tying them down. They don’t do anything, so they can fill in wherever. The unknowable nature of the zygotic soul can justify whatever, from bombs to prayers. It’s a wonder that something so flimsy could ground a social movement of such size. The truth is though, it doesn’t.

The target of the pro-life movement has always been the women, as one might guess given the nature of trans placental relationship.

The vacuous nature of pro-life rhetoric needs exposure, so that we can get to the real purpose of that rhetoric, which is control. People in the pro-life movement are not really interested in the biology of human development, or even bioethics. Instead, they are interested in other people’s stories. Because their own narratives, jumbled as they are with souls, sins, and angels, are so weak, the pro-lifers see divergent narratives as invalidating. Accordingly, they try to curtail divergent narratives wherever they can.

That is the motivation behind the pro-life movement. I doubt that this motive is ever articulated within the ranks. I suspect it is held more as a feeling, which makes it even more dangerous. A stated policy can be confronted, criticized, and torn down. Opposition to a feeling is personal. Furthermore, feelings tend to take on lives of their own. Clarence Thomas is already telling us what comes of persistent, unleashed insecurity. Listen to him, and the rest, and then call them out.

Tagged , , , , , ,