Defenders of Tyranny

I have been hearing a lot from those brave "patriots" who arm themselves to be prepared for tyranny.  

Those same patriots use their selective references to history to point at our necessity to have arms.  I just want to point out one historical note that I have not read as of yet.  Those brave patriots that took on the tyranny of the English empire were not armed.  They were great hunters, they were skilled, bright, multi-taskers, who were innovators, but they were not fully armed militias.  On their call to defend their lands and separate from England, they took arms and did it with vigor and rapid adaptability.  If those same patriots were armed and prepared to take on the English empire, the English would still control these lands.  The English would have prepared themselves adequately to deal with militias.  The surprise that the English got was that the farmers and unarmed citizens were equipped with something more powerful: ingenuity, bravery, and fierce belief in their independence and freedom.  That is the foundational strength of the US.  All of those so-called defenders of the Constitution arming themselves are truly kidding themselves.  If the government were to turn tyrannical, the group that would get hunted down first are those with lots of guns.  If you truly want to defend the constitution and the American way against tyranny, grab your team of "defenders," lose those guns, and develop a way to overcome weapons.  Be innovative and creative in dealing with potential tyranny.  Semi-automatic rifles will do nothing to a government that knows you have them (and trust me, they know).  Our greatest strength is our freedom to innovate and create.  Patriots, if you want to defend against tyranny, use innovation and creativity, not arms that are so "uncivilized."

My Comment in HuffPost regarding Violence

“Although gun control is a step towards a better society, it is insignificant to our deranged sense of violence-acceptance. It is truly unbelievable to me that this nation accepts so willingly violence in so many aspects of our culture. From video games, music, shows, and movies, to sports and kids playful acts, this nation thirst for conflict like vampires thirst for blood. We thirst for conflict. We search for divisiveness. We find an opposite to attack and a stance to defend. Conflict is our drug and there is no sign of abstinence no matter how many "bad trips" we experience, including this recent one. In order to deal with our disorder, we must take a step away from the tools of violence and see the nature of violence, of conflict, and of strict stances. We must realize that conflict and violence arise from our inclinations to severely distinguish ourselves from others, our tendencies to pick something and defend it no matter how senseless it may become to do so. Strict opposition foments strict defensive and offensive conflict. Violence is simply a higher degree of this state of being. In order to deal with our violence-acceptance, we must, for the sake of our society, our culture, and our world in general, pay close attention to how hard your stance is on any particular issue. When examining theses tendencies, we will realize the nature of violence or at least begin to really direct our attention to violence.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/obama-speaks-at-sandy-hoo_n_2312869.html

Sorry folks, I have been quite busy and have been unable to post anything.  I will soon get back into the groove of things.  Sorry.  I leave you with this quote from the move Heat that I think resonates well with my philosophical underpinnings.

Take Care.

"Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner."

A Problem of Giving and Receiving (A Thanksgiving/Xmas Special)

A Problem of Giving and Receiving (A Thanksgiving/Xmas Special)

Proximally, and for the most part, giving gratitude for something implies that a benefit of some sort was given to one which merits some sort of gracious re-mark.  Let's examine this act.  There seems to be a few conflicts.  The problematik goes as follows:

A)  Are we receiving and/or giving?

For example, if I were to give my friend Jose a benefit of some sort (a gift, a helping hand, a complement, etc.), the general assumption is that I am giving and he is receiving—am giving a benefit and he is receiving a benefit.

Looking deeper into this transaction, I am also receiving gratitude from him (expressed or otherwise), or receiving satisfaction for the gracious deed.  He, in turn is also giving through an acknowledgment or receipt of said benefit, or through an expressed show of gratitude (verbal or otherwise).  Although we can sense one act more than the opposite, there really is no possible way to place greater value to either act.  One can claim that the gift being given is more valuable than the receipt of a "thanks," for example, but there are some cases that the re-mark is more welcomed than the gift itself.  So no one is only giving or receiving.  It can be said, then, that perhaps one is giving and receiving.

However, it is known that we can't have opposing actions at the same time—we can't simultaneously be giving and receiving at the same time.  It is a logical impossibility because accepting both acts at the same time eliminates the very fabric of the meaning behind the terms.

If we are not giving or receiving and we are not giving and receiving, then giving and receiving is a figment of our imagination and we are neither giving nor receiving.  As some Buddhist practitioners would claim, neither exist.

But this too makes no sense since we obviously are doing something which we have called "giving" or "receiving."  Our common senses and conventions demand us to place a mark on the act in focus.

As it seems, the first premise A) shows that we neither: 1) give or receive; 2) give and receive; 3) give nor receive; 4) not give or receive.

This leads me to believe that the transaction of giving/receiving is incoherent.

B) What we are giving and receiving is also unclear. 

It is generally understood that what is presented in front of you at a certain moment is what you are giving or being thankful for.  If I give Memo a gift, he will in turn re-mark the act in some form.  But what is he really re-marking me for?  Is he re-marking me for the gift, for the intent, or for both the object and the intent?  If he is re-marking me for the gift, what particular part of the gift-giving gesture is he re-marking about?  If I would give Jelly a gift basket, is she re-marking for the entire basket, for the intention, for a particular object she enjoys inside the basket, for the timeliness of the basket (she happens to need something within the basket immediately)?  If one is grateful for a particular component of the gesture, then that re-mark is misleading because the thing in which you are re-marking about is out of focus.  Some would claim that it is all of those things combined that one is grateful for. However, how do we define "all of those things?"  The layers of connected things could go broader—"all those things" can be: all of the above, plus the fact that I was born, that I can breathe, that I have a hand to give her the gift with, the smell of the said gift, the atmosphere in which the gift was given, etc., etc.  At what point do we determine what it is that we include and exclude in our re-mark?  The chain of reasoning could go so broad that what you are re-marking about is suddenly lost in the immensity of inclusion.  Which makes re-marking futile because the thing you are remarking about is no longer in focus. Even if one can superficially define the parameters of what we are re-marking about…

C) What is the primary benefit that is worthy of "giving" or re-marking about?—what and why is it a benefit?

Where point A) is analyzing the transaction; point B) is focused on the object in transaction.  Point C) is now focusing on the reason that particular object in transaction is valued.

When I receive a gift from someone, one generally re-marks in some fashion.  But do we really know and can pin point what it is that gift is providing?  If I give Donovan a "Congratulations" basket of an assortment of fine deli products, is he remarking because he values the intent, the thing, the timeliness, or the conventions of re-marking—the common courtesy associated with the act? 

If the case is that the intent is re-mark worthy, what part of the intent is it that was valued?—was the intent-of-giving valuable or was the intent of receiving valuable?  If we think the "whole" intent is valuable, then what do we include in that wholeness?  If we follow this path, then we have a similar problem to that of B) above.  How can one determine that the intent one believes is achieved, is the one that was really given?  Perhaps my intention to give the fine deli products was a gesture of disposal.  Perhaps it was an act of unconditional love, perhaps both, perhaps, neither.  It is quite unlikely that the interpretation of the intent will be similar to both parties.  Hence, being re-mark-worthy based on valuing intent is sketchy.

If one would value the thing, what part of the thing are you valuing?  Is it the functionality of it?  Is it the aesthetic quality of it?  Is it a combination of these?  If the case is that a combination of qualities or characteristics of the thing is what you value, and not the "entire" thing, then you really don't value the thing, but rather a few details of the thing.  If you believe that you value the whole thing, then we return to our good friend problem B)—what do you include into the "whole thing?"  It seems as if valuing the thing is untenable as well.

If one values the timeliness of the act, then one needs to examine why it is that particular instance is worthy of valuing.  Is it valuable because of a thing, an intent, or a benefit?  If it is a thing or an intent, then B).  If it is a benefit, we need to examine what particular property of that said benefit one considers valuable.  In effect we will regress to a similar problem of B).

As you can imagine, finding value in the conventions will be faced with the same problem. 

A similar result can be exposed in analyzing that which one believes has value and is worthy of "giving."

Hence, finding that which is worthy is unclear and therefore not worthy of a re-mark.

D) The object that gives and receives is also unclear.

I would love to discuss the fine nuances of the problem of personhood or personal identity in much detail but I will spare the reader with this enduring metaphysical problem that has bogged down many great thinkers through the ages.  It is sufficient here to say that the participants who are involved in the act of giving/receiving a certain something of a perceived value or benefit is also in question and will inevitably face problem B).

The problematik provided leads me to believe that the act of giving/receiving a certain type of something of benefit or value (hereforth the "act") is flawed due to one primary, relentlesslessly undeniable problem: the problem of determination.  In this "act," the problematik exposes that: A) The action is undeterminable; B) the object in action is hazy and difficult to determine; C) The value or worth of the act is undeterminable; D) The subjects involved in the act are unclear and challenging to pin-point.  This leads me to believe that this act is untenable and incoherent.

In this holiday season, I am certain that of all us have or will come across the opportunity to participate in this custom of the "act" in some form.  Most of us will continue the act without any contemplation about the meaning of the act.  It is a convention deeply ingrained in our way of being. 

Nevertheless, these soulful seasons, where the opportunity for some level of spirituality or deeper contemplation is more prevalent, I encourage all of you to take the opportunity to examine your self and your actions in some deeper fashion.  Perhaps you may stumble upon this problematik and find a more cogent and comfortable meaning in it.

I wish all of you happy holidays.

Paul Zak: Trust, morality -- and oxytocin | Video on TED.com

This TED Participant Speaks about a chemical (oxytocin) in our brain that incites trust in us when the chemical gets released. He suggests that trust and moral consciousness can be positively enacted when an activity as commonplace as a hug increases the levels of oxytocin in our brains. It is an interesting view on how trust may be encouraged but the being of trust and trustworthiness is left unexplored. Also, the speaker does not deal with, what I feel is an important element in trust or moral judgments: the understanding that the trustee and the truster share similar worldviews--same systems of valuation that would make one trust or be trusted. This may not be the case and how do we deal with such a situation. Interesting take nevertheless. People, hug, hug.

Paul Zak: Trust, morality -- and oxytocin | Video on TED.com

Political Two Cents: On Toxicity Regulation and its Role in Society/Government…On the Concept of Regulation Itself

On Toxicity Regulation and its Role in Society/Government…On the Concept of Regulation Itself

The growing argument, usually presented by the Republicans, about the EPA abolishing American jobs, needs an alternate examination.

We hear the claim that EPA's regulatory stranglehold on businesses diminishes jobs.  We also hear the counter-claim that the EPA is keeping us healthy from pollutants and saving us money in the long run because the health of the nation is not as toxic.  I offer a few more viewpoints not often mentioned.

What part of a business is harmed by regulation?

We know that many businesses work globally.  Some elements of multi-national businesses usually come from abroad: a raw material is made elsewhere, the labor is done elsewhere, the customer service is done abroad, etc.  When the EPA regulates a businesses' toxicity, it is not necessarily regulating things manufactured or serviced in the US (Lead paint on toys for example).  Therefore, the jobs that we might be killing are not necessarily here in the US.  

There are some cases where the EPA does enforce regulations on things manufactured in the US.  But one must analyze whether the things being regulated are automated, mechanized systems that do not have people working in it.  The EPA usually regulates pollutants from machines.  Most machines are automated.  Therefore, there is a large probability that the EPA regulates machines and not the people who might be working in the business.  One can argue that there are people controlling those machines and they might lose their job through regulations.  That claim is still possible.  If the company cannot find an efficient and cost effective way to control those systems that the EPA regulates, then the company may relocate elsewhere or close, laying-off workers.

Can the process of regulation be outsourced?

The EPA is a national regulatory agency.  Its purpose is to regulate toxicity in the US.  Therefore, the workers and machinery used to regulate and control toxicity are being used and operated in the US.  It is highly unlikely that Indian workers, for example, are regulating toxicity in Oklahoma City.  The jobs that the EPA manufactures seem to be definitely local, US jobs.  The EPA argues that it is a job creator, and to this extent, it is.  Anything that requires regulation or controls can only be done locally.  The engineers or managers that companies hire to keep the regulations and controls in line can only be placed and hired in the US.

The question, then, is not a question of who kills what jobs.  The question is whether the regulations and controls can be implemented efficiently and cost effectively and whether or not the government and the companies can work together to make it so.  It should not be an "us vs. them" battle, but rather a co-operation.

We understand that regulation enforcement is a benefit to society.  We understand that regulation may be an expensive element that some businesses may not handle.  We also understand that regulations and controls are fully localized, enabling jobs both in the companies that are being regulated and in the government that is doing the regulating.  The question is whether or not we can unify—government and businesses—to address the problem of toxicity, efficiency, and cost effectiveness.

My suggestion is simple: 1) Let the EPA enforce and regulate toxicity, creating jobs and keeping us safer; and if the companies being regulated demonstrate that they cannot handle the extra costs and complications in order to stay afloat, 2) provide government assistance to those companies which will create and retain existing jobs and keep us safer.  This can be done by a variety of ways including: research and development, sharing technological advances and systems to help the controls of toxicity, etc.

We should make the EPA part of the infrastructure planning and development. 

Some say that the responsibility of government is to provide the atmosphere where businesses can thrive.  We build roads, pipes, electrical grids, etc., to allow commerce to flourish.  Without piping, for example, most of the waste would be tossed haphazardly in the ground, causing a wide range of toxicity.  Without roads, we would be harming our soil and land.  Without electrical grids, business would find other ways to produce energy, most likely, through toxic means.  Many of our infrastructure works are done so that our commerce and industry work better and healthier.  When EPA enforces regulations, it should be doing so as a directive for infrastructure development and not as a punishment for businesses.

As infrastructure, the people can provide support to companies who need to keep toxicity under control.  This benefits our land, it creates jobs, stimulates the economy and keeps businesses in the US, it keeps toxicity under control and ultimately continues to let entrepreneurs and businesses strive at what they know how to do: produce novel products effectively and efficiently here in the US.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Wrench and the Rabbit Hole

Aside from my 2 cents of making the EPA part of infrastructure, I would be interested in examining how the tools that the EPA uses are manufactured and where they are manufactured. 

For example, the EPA regulates air pollution.  Where are the devices they use to regulate air pollution manufactured?  Are those industries in the US and thereby EPA regulated?  It is an interesting wrench and rabbit hole to explore. 

It would be rather hypocritical to discover that the tools we use to regulate toxicity are themselves produced toxically.  It would also be absurd to discover that the tools we use to regulate toxicity are produced abroad—creating jobs elsewhere.

One can argue that we should regulate the regulation tools and methods to make sure that they are not toxic and that they are made in the USA.  If that is the case, we need to make sure that the tools and methods of the regulators that regulate the regulators need to be toxic and made in the USA.  The rabbit hole looks deep and infinite at this point, “wrenching” the whole project.

The greater question, philosophically speaking is: What does it mean to regulate?  Can anything really be regulated?  What are the limitations of regulation—supervision?  At what point does trustworthiness simply become blind and foundational.  Is regulation a delusional act?

While we investigate and attempt to solve the role of regulations in our nation, we also need to examine how it is that we place trust on other entities to supervise or oversee.  Why is it that I can trust the EPA to protect me from harm, and not the businesses?  What credentials does the EPA have that makes them worthy of my trust.  How do I trust that the EPA’s effort is sufficient or adequate?  Do I know the supervisor—the observer who is examining the contaminates?  Does he or she have the same values of health that I have?  At what point do I just leave it up to blind faith and hope that a random entity is sufficiently prepared to keep me safe?  How does that ability in us work?

Your thoughts?

Compassion and the Individual | The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama

I am working on an essay to define wisdom and compassion as I see them. I will include some quotes from the Dalai Lama. Here is his link.



Compassion and the Individual The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama