Mission Statement

Mission statements take a million different forms and identify hundreds of different values and character traits from Ben Franklins frugality and cleanliness to Gandhi's refusal to fear any man to Bombeck's pursuit of less uptightness and more stop-and-smell-the-roses, to name a few famous examples. The efficiency gurus now in vogue would have us believe that such mission statements are a good thing, but I'm not so sure.

Most missions seem to emphasize values while ignoring morals or wisdom (not that I think the people listed above were guilty of such an oversight). To make this clear, imagine the mission statement of someone you most patently do NOT admire; a hated politico, a monsterous mad man from history's vast pantheon, even a fictional fiend from Hollywood or the Brothers Grimm. Could your archetype of ignobility write a mission statement with values like industriousness, creativity, health, and self-improvement? Probably. And such a set of goals and values would have only made them more effective at doing that for which you despise them.

Let us, then, pursue morals and wisdom, you may reply. I agree, but whose morals and what wisdom? How do we correctly identify the correct morals and obtain true wisdom. The followers of every charismatic killer in history have pursued morals and wisdom of a sort the rest of the world decries.

Warning sign I saw on the back of an 18 wheeler

Caution! Show Chickens.

I really saw this. What, exactly, are we to be cautious of?
"Look out! That one has a gun!"

This guy takes some great pictures...

See more of Adam Clutterbuck's photography here.

Redneck lottery winner

Apologies to my extended family.

The (Ontological ) Naturalist's Paradox

This is an expansion on one of my earlier posts...

An ontological naturalist is someone who believes that nature is all that there is. They may (but often don't) believe in God, ghosts, gods, etc., but if they do believe in these entities then they consider them a part of nature. They aren't truly supernatural (super=above, beyond; natural=nature, the cause and effect universe). Many scientists and most atheists would qualify as ontological naturalists.

The following is a logical syllogism that illustrates why being an ontological naturalist is an illogical stance.

IF there is nothing beyond nature,
THEN all things are the result of ultimately random physical forces,
SO logical thinking is the result of random physical forces,
THEREFORE logical thinking (and, by extension, this syllogism) has no more value than any other random occurrence.

It's a version of Epimenide's Paradox.

In Response

This is in response to the post below. Read that one first or you'll be lost.

As I understand you there are three reasons you feel that this particular book is justified as a required reading for your AP European History students.

1. They are mature enough
2. Other teachers also require it
3. The objectionable material the book covers is both true and relevant

My reason for opposing the book as required reading is that some of the content is objectionable, and while I don't advocate banning the book I also don't think anyone should be made to consider such content in order to satisfy an educational requirement. If they do not object--and you indicated that neither your students, their parents, or the school authorities seem to do so--then I believe it to be permissable.

(I will note, however, that while it must be permissable--we live in a free society, after all--I do not think it beneficial. Thoughts, ideas, and imaginings have real consequences that affect us all, and in my opinion, the too-candid descriptions in this book could be particularly harmful. Admittedly, this point rests on my personal opinion, and is, therefore, of no more or less import than anyone elses.)

To address your first point, maturity is not an issue, at least as far as I'm concerned. I would object equally if you required this reading of my grandmother (or yours, for that matter). I object to anyone being required to read such things.

Secondly, whether or not other teachers use the book in similar ways may help justify the action in the arena of public opinion. It does not, however, have any more significance than that. It's the same problem I've always had with ethics. Just because everyone agrees on a wrong action doesn't make it a right action. Morality is independent of opinion (that's a whole different discussion, I know.)

Finally, your last and most important point; that the material is both true and relevant. This point makes the most sense to me. I can't say whether or not it's true, but I really wouldn't be surprised if it were, and I trust your judgment and scholarship on this more than my own. Your case for its relevance to your subject is also convincing, although I think that the subject could be handled with more delicacy without sacrificing its effectiveness. The question to me is whether or not the truth and relevance of the information to the subject justifies its being required reading.

To clarify this, I must explain my exact objection more clearly. First, thoughts have real consequences. Second, a thought can't be unthought. Finally, communicating the thought successfully to another causes the thought to become an irrevocable part of him or her.

As to my first assertion, thinking a thought has physical consequences. At the very minimum it subtly rewires our brain, strengthening or weakening synaptic connections. At the other extreme, a thought can be the initial step in changes to the entire world, for our benefit or harm. Atomic bombs and solar cells both began as thoughts in someones' minds. Without the thoughts, neither would exist, nor would the consequences.

Second, a thought, once introduced into the mind, can never be fully erased. Although the thought may be forgotten, for a time it influenced other thoughts and actions, and therefore changed the thinker, for better or worse.

Finally, once I've successfully communicated a thought to you, you've thought it. If I write "pink polar bear," its too late for you to decide you didn't want to think about a pink polar bear. The thought is yours now, whether you wanted it or not. And what if the thought is not as innocuous as a pink polar bear. What if it's a truly horrible thought that will change your life forever in ways you never wanted. Genie back in the bottle, Pandora's Box, etc.

This brings me back to your final point about the truth and relevance of the passages in this book being sufficient justification for it being required reading. I think the real disagreement boils down to just how damaging we imagine the thoughts raised by the book to be. You consider the pungent descriptions of the exact nature of the Church's sexual misconduct to be so beneficial to your students' understanding of history that it outweighs the consequences of introducing the thoughts in the first place. I disagree.

So we are at an impasse. How can either of us prove that our opinion is correct?

So far, so good?

What Crosses the Line?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A World Lit Only by Fire, by William Manchester

A World Lit Only by Fire : The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance - Portrait of an Age by William Manchester

A fascinating look at the Renaissance, dealing as much with what the world was like and how people thought as anything else. Goes into great detail on the failings of the Church during the time period. Although I find much of the book fascinating, the author does seem to take great delight in describing the details of the age's sexual excesses.

Eschew Obfuscation

"Eschew Obfuscation" is one of my all time favorite bumper stickers. How's that for laying myself bare. In one stroke I've admitted that I have a favorite bumper sticker and that it's a bumper sticker for the uber-geek. At any rate, for those of you who don't suffer from morbid dorkitis--"Eschew" means to avoid and "obfuscation" refers to the act of making something intentionally confusing so that it can't be understood. (Are you laughing or is that crickets I'm hearing?)

It brings to mind the sad tale of a man who died because, when he went to the emergency room complaining of chest pains, the doctor checked him out and told him he needed to take it very easy because he'd had a mild myocardial infarction (a heart attack). The doctor wanted to run more tests and left the room to order them. The man, thinking that "infarct-whatchamacallit" was some form of gas, and not wanting to pay for more tests when he could just take some Pepto-Bismol, walked out the door. In the busyness of the ER, no one contacted him to find out why he left. The next day he collapsed and died while climbing the stairs to his office.

On the other hand, I don't suppose yelling "conflagration!" in a crowded movie house would get you in much trouble.

Willpower Shapes Our Brain

The Mind and the Brain : Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Sharon Begley

I was reading this book today which discusses how people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder can actually change the strength of their synaptic connections, thus changing their thought patterns, by replacing their unhealthy OCD thoughts with more helpful thoughts. For example, they might replace the thought of washing their hands yet again with thinking about gardening. Studied repetition of this practice eventually weakens the unhealthy thought patterns and they may disappear altogether. The author, a cognitive psychologist, attributes his insights into this area to the Buddhist/Yogic practice of "mindfulness;" a constant, fixed attention.

Really, the author's idea isn't anything new. It's a new application for ancient practices. Science, on a regular basis, seems to learn something "new" that's been around for thousands of years, but I digress.

Religions of all sorts practice forms of "thought stopping." I recall descriptions of the practice among various cults in a book on cult mind control. Cult members might be taught to recite certain sayings or prayers, or sing chants or spiritual songs whenever they feel doubtful or sacreligious thoughts creeping in.

Nevertheless, the author really grabbed my attention when he noted that the brain actually rewires itself in response to an act of will. By their own volition his patients decide what they will attend to, and by repeatedly exercising their will in this area, they change the physical structure of their brains.

Sounds a bit strange, perhaps, but it shouldn't. People change the structure of their bodies all the time by an act of will. You watch them doing it every time you go to a gym or a restaurant. It should come as no surprise that the brain responds in a similar fashion to the rest of our bodies.

Modern psychiatry and biology assert that many human behaviors and misbehaviors can be attributed to brain chemistry. "Behind every twisted thought, there's a twisted molecule," I believe the saying goes. But then we get into a chicken and egg conundrum. Did the molecule twist the thought or did the thought twist the molecule?

If you can trace homicidal, suicidal, homosexual, etc. etc. behaviors to chemical imbalances, some would imply that these behaviors relieve the sufferer from responsibility. Some would say that, especially as adults, our behavior is no longer open to change. We are who we are and there's nothing to be done since we are behaving as we are wired. This research says different.

"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."

"Your mind is colored by the thoughts it feeds upon, for the mind is dyed by ideas and imaginings." --Marcus Aurelius

Still, willpower doesn't seem that easy to come by sometimes. I certainly know in my own life that unhelpful thoughts can be very difficult to shake, but it seems that continued trying is what's needed. Just like building bigger muscles. It takes consistent, focused effort.

"Set your mind on things above, not on things below."

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

Pre-Neandertal Humans Developed Social Skills Earlier Than Thought?

This article illustrates yet another example of anthropologists making huge inferences from almost-imaginary data, specifically with regards to Pre-Neandertals.

A jaw fragment found in France and attributed to Neandertal precursors apparently shows that hominids had begun taking care of those who couldn't take care of themselves 175,000 years in the past. This single jaw fragment pushes back the date for such behavior 125,000 years! (You can take a look at the actual published scientific article here).

Erik Trinkhaus, Ph.D., professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Lous, had this to say according to the reference article,

This is the oldest example of someone surviving for some period of time without an effective set of choppers. There had to have been extensive preparation of food — a combination of cutting and cooking — before this person could eat. They had good cutting tools and controlled fire, but the absence of real hearths and tools that would have done more than dice the food suggests that this individual was being given softer food items by other members of the social group.

Although commonplace among later Neandertals and recent humans, such survival of toothless humans is unknown for earlier time periods.

Let's follow the logic from the article and the paper.

1. We've found a portion of a jaw from an individual who lived around 175,000 years ago.
   
2. It shows an achingly bad dental situation, one that would have made chewing solids unpleasant to say the least.
   
3. This dental hell existed for some time before the individual died, but we don't actually know how long.
   
4. We aren't sure if fire was used for cooking at this point in prehistory and it's very likely that individuals from this time period and location ate lots of meat.
   
5. That means this individual's meal-prep routine was extensive. Slice, dice, mash, and bash. Oh for an Osterizer.
   
6. Therefore, this individual had help.
   
7. Conclusion; hominids from as far back as 175,000 years ago took care of those who couldn't fend for themselves.

Can you find all the logical flaws in this chain of reason (and I use the term loosely)? It's not difficult. Here are some that I have identified...

1. Sampling bias; this is a huge conclusion to base on VERY slim evidence.
2. If your choice is chewing with extreme pain or starving, pain is much more palatable.
3. Was there nothing available for this individual to eat that didn't require processing? They might have preferred steak (wouldn't most of us), but slugs will do if you have no choice.
   
4. Why couldn't the individual do their own food processing? Bad teeth doesn't mean helpless.
   
5. Perhaps the individual slowly starved to death over a period of a few months due to this condition. It's not like their dentition went to hell on Tuesday and they died on Thursday.

My conclusion? This jaw tells us absolutely nothingabout pre-Neandertal social behavior. I have no problem imagining that such behavior occurred, but this jaw certainly isn't evidence for it. What it does tell us is just how far some scientists are welling to stretch things in order to make a big find.

What's Wrong With the World?

I've recently been communicating with some friends (see links to their blogs at right), and we've been commiserating about the world's woes; overpopulation, war and famine, environmental destruction, the fast approaching end of our fossil fuels, etc. Even the most pollyanna among us would have a hard time burying their heads deeply enough in the sand to tune out the cries of the poor and pitiful billions. The question isn't, "does the world need fixing," but "how can the world be fixed?"

It seems unlikely that humanity has the wisdom or the will to fix what ails it. The last 4,000 years, more or less, of recorded history detail many attempts at regaining the Garden. At best, these sometimes noble efforts have resulted in a few years peace or temporary sanctuary for a select few. At worst, they've been the first phase of pogroms killing millions--tens of millions. Hardly reassuring for those of us looking for a fix. If the wisest of us has not hit upon a workable solution in the last four millenia, what hope do we have?

How should we then live?