Friday, January 13, 2012

Wisdom requires humility

A member of a debate forum I'm on has a signature on his profile that is short but profound.


"Humility is a prerequisite for wisdom because we will always be wrong about many things and therefore must be open to realizing self-error." (Yarn)


The scientist Robert Millikan expressed a similar attitude when he said, "Fullness of knowledge always means some understanding of the depths of our ignorance; and that is always conducive to humility and reverence."


If one is truly seeking wisdom they can only do so by admitting that there is much they don't know and that much of what they think they know could be wrong. 

Humble Contemplationby ~cicaprincessa


This is the point where the desire for enlightenment departs from the path of seeking religious knowledge. Seeking only that knowledge which one believes can be imparted by a god means that the knowledge one believes they receive from their god must be free of error, that it cannot be wrong. There is a smug satisfaction that accompanies the belief that one is the holder of absolute truths. 

The seeker of natural knowledge, that knowledge and wisdom generated by humans over the course of centuries of trial and error, success and failure, always remains aware that the knowledge they posses as well as that which they seek may very well be in error, and that they only seek it because of their current ignorance or incomplete knowledge. There is no absolute knowledge to be acquired and no source of absolute knowledge. The belief that one posses knowledge which is absolute and without error blinds that person to what they don't know. How can you seek to know more if you already think you know it all?

Before we begin a journey of discovery and seeking knowledge, we must practice the humility of admitting that we are unsure, unconvinced and unaware of so many things. It's foolish to take pride in the small amount of knowledge we posses when the amount of ignorance we each posses is so much greater. It's equally foolish to think that we as humans could ever be free from error. 

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Knowledge and Wisdom

I contend that knowledge is remembered awareness. Wisdom is rightly applied knowledge.


We encounter information every minute of every day. Our senses are constantly feeding data to our brain. Much of it is ignored. That which we are aware of and remember becomes knowledge. 


The brain itself can interfere with this process if it is in less-than-optimum condition. Dementia, genetic disorders, alcohol and drugs can all affect the brain's ability to remember and synthesize the data is receives. 

Not all knowledge is beneficial or constructive. Some of it is downright detrimental to our happiness and peace of mind. We do have a certain degree of control over what knowledge we retain and use and what we ignore. 

Wisdom as the application of knowledge in a way that's most beneficial for ourselves and our world.



Wisdom is taking the knowledge we posses and applying it to achieve positive results. While we may not have full control over what knowledge gets put into our brain, wisdom is exercising full control over what we do with our knowledge. 


This is why we respect a knowledgeable person to a lesser degree than we respect a wise person. 


A person full of knowledge is a repository of information. That information may be useful or useless. We all know someone who delights in retaining thousands of bits of trivia; the only thing they usually do with it is entertain others or win bar bets. They have a lot of knowledge but fail to apply it in a way that is of benefit beyond becoming popular at parties or getting free drinks. 


The wise person takes the knowledge they have, however great or small the amount, and uses it to improve their own lives or the lives of others. A wise person can change the world.


Knowledge is the banishment of ignorance, wisdom is the application of knowledge. 

Friday, December 09, 2011

Xmas gifts, anyone?

As some of you know, I recently moved from the West coast to the East. Doing so took all the money I had, and since the search for a new job is still ongoing, I need to find a means to replenish my bank account a bit so Cleo and I can continue to eat. 

If you live in the Richmond, Virginia area and need any of the following, or know anyone who does, please let me know. All are in great condition and would make excellent gifts. 

Toshiba Satellite 2415-S205

Pentium 4-M processor
2 GHz processor speed
100 GB hard drive (upgraded from 40 GB)
Floppy drive; PC Card slots Type III x 1 or Type II x 2; SD card slot
512 MB RAM (upgraded from 256 MB)
Ports: Parallel; RGB; Fast Infrared (4Mbps); USB x 3; SD Media slot; External Microphone (monaural); Headphone (stereo); NTSC/PAL TV-Out; RJ-11; RJ-45; DC-in
nVidia GeForce4 420 Go 16 MB video with a 15" XGA TFT active matrix screen (1400 x 1050; 16.7 million colors)
DVD-ROM/CD-RW combo
Yamaha YMF753; 16-bit stereo SoundBlaster Pro and Windows Sound System compatible
Mini-PCI 802.11b Wi-Fi adapter installed but not working. Requires a 802.11g USB dongle (not included)
Windows XP Professional (upgraded from XP Home)
Microsoft Office XP installed (Disc included)
A/C charger included
Weight: 3.4 kg
Dimensions: 327.6 x 286 x 45.5 mm

This is a dependable, solid laptop. 
No damage, no missing keys, screen in perfect condition.
Lithium-ion battery was recently replaced and holds approx. a 2.5 hour charge.
It's considered a desktop replacement, so while heavy it's still portable.



Noritake China set-116 pieces

Plates x11
Large salad plates x15
Small salad plates x12
Smal bowls x7
Large soup bowls x7
Large saucers x12
Large cups x13
Small saucers x6
Small cups x6
Trays for small cups x6
Tea pots w/lids x2
Large creamers x3
Small creamer x1
Sugar bowls x2 w/x3 lids
Large gravy boat x1
Small gravy boat x1
Platters x1 each large, medium, small
Soup tureen w/lid x1
Extra lid for sugar bowl x1




TRS-80 Color Computer 2

Original TRS-80 color computer from Radio Shack
64k extended memory
Power cable and TV connector included
Owner's manual and introduction to Basic programming included
The original box is a bit weathered from storage, but the computer is like new
Can be connected to any TV with RBG jacks
Works perfectly


I'm being as reasonable on the pricing as I can afford to be. Email me for specific prices. 

Wednesday, December 07, 2011

Do you swear?


"Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god?" (OK, that's the old form...play along with me here)


First off, your honor, the Bible is a book of proverbs and mythology. I can't believe any reasonable person thinks some god is going to swoop down from his cloud and strike me dead if I do lie.

Both Nixon and Bush swore on a Bible they'd defend the Constitution of the United States and neither of them did. I don't recall any divine retribution in their cases. How many people are currently in prison for perjury? How many have been charged? Has any god taken action against them?


My testimony is the truth only as far as I know it. I don't claim to have an objective viewpoint that allows me to observe reality free of the bias of my experiences and mental abilities. Maybe I'm not even aware of the truth of this matter but only think I am. I can't say that everything I give testimony to is going to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I'm only human. I get confused, my memory isn't perfect, I'm a bit intimidated just being here, treated like some authority on the facts when I know I'm not. So I can only promise on my word (and since none of you really know me, how comforting is that?) that I'll relate what I think I remember. Perhaps I'll lie without meaning to. I'm not perfect. It's quite possible that what I remember regarding this case is so far from reality that it will only detract from the court's desire to uncover what really happened here.


You know, your honor, perhaps it's best that I just don't testify at all. I don't believe in your god, so the only fear you can put in my mind is the fear of going to jail for perjury, and with the economy the way it is at least there I'd get some sleep and regular meals. I might even have the opportunity to have sexual relations again. It's been quite a while, your honor.


Further, I have no idea if what I think I remember is the truth or even remotely related to the truth. I'd sure hate for anyone to take my testimony for the whole truth, whatever that is. At best it would be my imperfect recollection of events that may or may not have any relation to this case. It would be unfair and sadden me to have someone convicted based on my personal perception of reality.


My statement is all I can really be sure of in this matter. Can I go now, your honor?

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

What is an atheist?

It has been said that without theism atheism wouldn't exist. In the philosophical sense this is true. A position in opposition to another can only be maintained as long as the other position exists. You can't be a non-gluber if there are no glurbers. You can't reasonably disavow that which no one avows. It's also true that without the word "theist" the word "atheist" would have no meaning.

But what does "atheist" mean? There are many opinions on that. Some sources say (for example) that it means "without belief or lacking belief" while others (for example) say that it means "the belief that there is no god or the denial that god exists". There seems to be some confusion as to what an atheist is. Is he a doubter in gods or one who insists gods don't exist? How is an atheist different from an antitheist or an agnostic?

As is it the case with theism, the best way to avoid confusion is to ask a person what they mean when they call themselves a theist or atheist. There is no single definition of Christian, Muslim or Jew. Within each of those general categories are many separations and divisions. If someone tells you they're a Christian does that mean they're a Baptist, a Catholic or a Unitarian? Is a Muslim a Sunni or Shia? Are they fundamentalists or liberal believers in their religion? You just can't tell without asking them to be more specific. It's the same for atheists. Some are what we call "hard" atheists. They say that without a doubt gods do not exist. Some are "soft" atheists who say that since no evidence exists establishing unquestionably that a god or gods exist it is most likely they don't. Again, the only way to know what a person means when they call themselves an atheist is to ask.

Hard atheism is a dogmatic stance with no more evidence to substantiate it than theism. To maintain adamantly that gods do or do not exist is to make a claim that can only be supported by the possession of absolute knowledge. Since we have no reason to believe that any human possesses absolute knowledge, absolute claims of the existence or non-existence of gods, or much of anything else, are irrational and can be ignored as baseless. 

If theism is the belief in gods then "a"theism is the absence of belief. The prefix "a" means no or without. A person can be moral or amoral. An amoral person is neither moral nor immoral, they either lack or show an indifference to morality and immorality. An agnostic is someone who claims to have no knowledge (gnosis) of gods. They would have no opinion on the topic as they lack the knowledge to form one.(1) So my interpretation of atheism, based on word construction, the meaning of the prefix and my own personal attitude toward theism, is that an atheist lacks faith in gods. They have no belief. For me atheism implies no stance on the possible existence of undefined beings who may appear to us to be gods; it's the lack of belief in the gods man has worshiped over the centuries, gods well defined by their followers and with established attributes. Once a particular god is defined by its believers then there's a specific concept in which to believe or not believe. I am atheistic toward the gods of humanity, not the abstract concept of gods or god-like entities. The possible existence of that sort of thing, for now, remains unknown as we lack evidence for such things. 


So atheism as I understand it and live it is a neutral position. It's a position that requires both those who insist gods exist and those who insist they don't to offer evidence to support their claims. It's not an absolute position but simply one awaiting substantiation of absolute claims. 

(1) When T.H. Huxley coined the term "agnostic" he meant it to be both a philosophical position and a method for discerning truth. He quotes Kant, "The greatest and perhaps the sole use of all philosophy of pure reason is, after all, merely negative, since it serves not as an organon for the enlargement [of knowledge], but as a discipline for its delimitation; and, instead of discovering truth, has only the modest merit of preventing error." In Huxley's treatise on agnosticism he says, "When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclu[238]sion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion.

It is with this in mind that I describe my postion on concept of theism as being an agnostic atheist. I am agnostic when it comes to the possibility that a god or god-like entity may exist somewhere, somehow, but atheistic toward the gods that mankind has worshiped throughout history, about whom much has been claimed without substantiation.



(A decent Wikipedia article on the various religious philosophies.)

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Business Ethics in 2012

In addition to all political issues raised by the financial crises, the bank bailouts and the Occupy movement, one factor that runs as a consistent theme through all of this seems to have been neglected by pundits and the media alike. Thankfully we have The Onion, who through the application of satire and exaggeration, raise the point I'd like to consider.
CHARLESTON, SC—With its firm grounding in honesty, loyalty to friends, and a strong spirit of generosity, the asinine ethical code of Kevin Premus has cost the 42-year-old idiot millions of dollars over the years, reports confirmed Friday.The moronic small-business owner, whose moral tenets are said to include basic human kindness and always trying to do what's right, reportedly never cuts any corners and is unwilling to fuck people over, poor habits that have led him into a life of endless mortgage payments, credit card debt, and a relatively small personal net worth.Worse yet, sources indicated, the dumbshit has no one to blame for being a good person but himself."What a complete and utter fool," Stanford University sociologist Anya Arneson said of the astonishingly stupid man, describing his insistence on providing quality health care for his employees and paying them fair salaries as "just plain dumb." "It's as though he's operating under some kind of intangible but deep-seated conviction that being a fair, decent human being is somehow more valuable than making a quick buck."
Through ridiculous acts of moral rectitude such as returning found wallets and lending his brother $2,500 for vocational school, the dumb-ass—who by all accounts is a weak-willed individual who treats his business rivals with respect instead of simply crushing them—almost seems to be looking for ways to lose money, sources noted.Moreover, at every turn, his steady moral compass has reportedly prevented him from ever embracing shady business deals, hiring a crooked accountant to skirt income-tax laws, or taking advantage of numerous moneymaking schemes that could have vaulted him into a higher tax bracket.According to colleagues, Premus previously worked as a corporate account manager, but his lackluster career floundered as a result of his shortsighted refusal to stab his coworkers in the back, a boneheaded move that cost the retarded dumbfuck several promotions, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a chance to one day become a partner in the firm.
While his efforts to be a responsible citizen, faithful husband, and devoted father have made him look like a drooling moron in the eyes of his peers, Premus himself still doesn't seem to understand that each day he spends clinging to his scruples, he screws himself over a little bit more."My parents always told me to treat others the way you would like to be treated, and that's what I've taught my daughters," said the idiot, who in one sentence summed up why no one in his entire family will ever live free from financial worry or hardship. "In the end, it's just the right thing to do." (Source)
 I think this illustrates accurately the attitude we see in business, especially big business, today. 
Businesses have abandoned any interest in their customers beyond enticing them to buy a service or product. Product quality declines as businesses learn that most people won't bother complaining or returning a product for replacement, they'll just go out and buy another one, often from the same company that just produced their defective one. Defects are corrected in versions 2 or 3 of a product, forcing consumers to continuously upgrade to get a fully functioning product.


Customer service is so unimportant to most businesses it's been relegated to offshore companies with employees who are unfamiliar with both the product and the language spoken where that product is sold, so they rely on scripts that they cannot deviate from and that usually don't cover the specific issue the customer has. In the end most complaints are unresolved. Once you've purchased a product or service, most companies would prefer not to hear from their customers again until they're ready to purchase a newer, fancier, less problematic model or version.

Many businesses have discovered social networking and have staffs working those networks for their benefit. But they don't use those networks to reach out to their customers and attempt to engage them in a dialogue so that they can learn more about what their customers think of their service or product. Instead they use them as marketing tools, a way to push their brand out into a new marketplace. In this way they coerce brand loyalty instead of earning it. They exhibit a blatant disregard for the true value of social networking by using it as an advertising medium instead of looking at it as a way to listen to their customers and respond to their questions. I go more into this in a blog piece I wrote earlier this year titled Push or Pull?

Smaller businesses are being bought up by larger ones daily. Acquisitions and mergers have become the primary means of enlarging a business's market share and profits. No longer does a company need to increase their manufacturing capabilities, no longer do they have to develop a better and more productive way to produce their own product. They can just buy a smaller company that already provides what they need and incorporate it into their own business. This often entails laying off the workers from the smaller company and in the process of integrating that business into their own, degrading the potential benefits that product offered as a stand-alone company. A&M also allows a huge company to gobble up smaller competitors and thus coming very close to monopolizing their market. All they have to do is leave a few small providers alone, companies too small to offer any real competition, so they can point to them as "proof" that they aren't being monopolistic. They have managed to distance themselves from criticism by encouraging the politicians they own to focus on insubstantial, inconsequential matters that emotionally charge up the electorate and blind them to their unsavory and unethical practices.


I hear people complain constantly about how our society has lost all its moral values, how we're headed to hell in a handbasket for our immoral behavior. But I hardly ever hear these same people complain about the decline of ethics among businesses. Yet our country is far closer to being run by big business than it is to being run any longer by the will of its citizens. It seems to me the lack of ethics in business are having a far greater impact on the quality of our lives and the future of our country than whether or not gays are allowed to marry.

The Onion piece sarcastically exposes a truth. The best way to get ahead in business these days is unethically. And once you've managed as a business to get big enough (too big to fail) and are sufficiently unethical, you'll have the power and influence to push the government where you want it to go, which will be in whatever direction benefits you the most as a company.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

America 2012-2016

 I'm going to present my not-totally pessimistic scenario of where I see America headed in the near future. These are all assumptions, my opinions, and you are welcome to challenge any or all of them.


First, the conditions that underlie my scenario:

  1. Nothing of any significance will occur nationally or socially to improve Obama's popularity between now and the 2012 election. The approval rating bump he got from killing Bin Laden and the one he'll get by pulling the troops out of Iraq won't last long enough to push him anywhere near 50%. 
  2. The Democrats will only grudgingly support Obama in 2012. He's lost a lot of favor with Democrats over failed promises and his ineffectiveness in standing up against Republicans. I see a change in vice-presidential running mate in 2012 but don't see a possible candidate for the job that would assure a Democratic victory at the polls.
  3. By the end of 2011 a clear leader will emerge from the pack of Republican candidates that most if not all Republicans can support. 
  4. The Tea Party and "Occupy" movement will both remain marginalized and won't have a real impact on the presidential race.

2012-2015


In 2012 the Republican candidate will win the presidency. I think this will happen due in part to Democratic apathy over Obama's presidency and the Republican's appeal to God, patriotism and financial stability, all of which resonate with the majority of voters right now. Specific plans for improvement won't be forthcoming, but that will be excused in 2012 for the same reason they were in 2008; Any change from the current situation has to be better than imagining a continuation of our current economic and social problems. 


A more fundamental form of Christianity will flourish under the new administration. Science, especially in education, will be less emphasized and more effort will be put into integrating Christian dogma and principles into government and education. The concept of a separation between church and state will largely be ignored solely in favor of Christianity. 


Conservatism will be the rule in economics and policy making, except in the case of military expansion. Entire federal departments will be eliminated or under-funded into non-existence in an effort to save the federal budget, with little or no thought as to how vital programs to millions will continue. 


Abortion will once again be outlawed in most if not all cases. Most if not all wildlife areas and national parks will be opened to resource exploitation. Little or no effort will be put into weaning Americans off their dependency on oil. Instead new oil deposits will be sought and/or new alliances to obtain foreign oil will be created. 


The economy will slightly improve for just enough Americans for the government to take credit for having stopped our decline into economic disaster. Thanks primarily to efforts to reduce the role of legislation in our lives, the same industries that created the problem in the first place will continue to conduct their businesses unregulated and unhampered. Fewer rules will be imposed on businesses, so wages will decrease and part-time work will prevail. Benefits will be available for only those few full-time jobs that remain. Profits will still be banked off-shore and even larger tax breaks will be given to big businesses. America will shift from being a nation "of the people, by the people, for the people" to one "of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations". 


Individual liberties will continue to erode. The threat of foreign and domestic terrorism will continue to be used as an excuse to employ tighter controls on the activities and movements of the citizens. The underlying xenophobia in the immigration issue will be used to excuse law enforcement from observing search-and-seizure laws and ignore the need for warrants. With the practices of Abu Ghraib as precedent, arrests and detainment without cause and without due process will be allowed in "certain" cases, and slowly expanded to any case in which the local, state or federal government can claim just cause, even secretly. Privacy will lessen to the point of non-existence. Phone and Internet traffic will all be routinely monitored, though it will still be nearly impossible for any government agency to properly assess the intelligence gathered as there will simply be too much to sort out. Key words will become the favored tool of the monitors and citizens will learn not to use certain words at all, just as we've learned how foolish it is to joke about hijacking a plane in the airport.  


Programs such as Medicare and Medicaid will be abolished as too expensive. Seniors will become a huge burden on society and many families will go broke trying to care for their elders. College tuitions will increase resulting in most middle and lower income class kids not attending college. Families will have to deal with stay-at-home kids in addition to caring for their parents and grandparents. The personal option of elective euthanasia will not be a legal alternative for the elderly. 


During this period the Democrats will remain largely ineffective in saving vital social services, protecting the rights of citizens or in improving the economy. They will continue to lack the resolve and power to challenge the Republicans on almost every issue. They will snipe and complain, but that's about all they'll do.


2015-2016


The promises of the Republicans to right the economy will be seen as efforts only to enrich the already wealthy, their biggest supporters, and corporations. The citizens will not be any better off financially than they were in 2010. The citizens will also realize that the freedoms they've sacrificed have not made our nation any safer nor have they contributed to the quality of their lives. After three years of entitlement, Christians will in large numbers become politically apathetic and the Republicans will lose the support of many big churches. The Republican's transparent support of big business will become a burden for those same businesses as their own employees begin to revolt against them. Businesses will consider it in their own best interest to provide better working conditions for all their employees and they will blame the Republicans for fostering the anger towards them. Businesses will also suffer from a less well educated work force. Any industry that relies on mathematical, engineering or scientific skills will be especially hit hard by the low numbers of college graduates with those skills. Meanwhile fast food franchises will appear on every block in every town just to take advantage of the huge number of unemployed, willing-to-do-anything-for-a-paycheck people of all ages. 


But those who decide to no longer back the Republicans won't have much of a viable option. During the previous three years the Democrats will have failed to develop any realistic strategies of their own for fixing what ails America. Indeed, the majority of Americans may have, by this point, concluded there is no way to fix all the problems facing their nation. 


The elections of 2016 may be the end of business as usual for America. With neither major party trusted and no emergent party with enough power to exercise change, Americans could very well lose all hope that the country will ever again be financially solvent and the home of freedom and liberty. At that point its likely that America will become a true corporatetocricy, owned by and run as a corporation. Citizens will be considered employees and the federal budget will be based solely on profits. 


2017 could be a very interesting year in the (if they still are) United States.