Friends are Electric

There are exactly five Nobel Prizes awarded every year, with one more masquerading as a true Nobel Prize.  Our friend Alfred specifically set up three of these five prizes to reward scientific developments which have benefited human kind.  In the case of the peace prize, an individual or individuals who have furthered the cause of world peace, and with literature, those who further the understanding of what it means to be human.  Whether these awards have always reflected their original purpose is open to question.  This is not the question for the moment, however.

There is another prize, one which ostensibly seems to be awarded for scientific achievement in a field of study.  Of course, this field is as unscientific as the study of history, but few realise or are willing to accept that.  I speak, of course, of that mighty social science, economics.

There is no doubt that  the prizes in medicine, chemistry and physics are all rewarding true scientific achievement.  But what makes these fields scientific and economics not?  I would argue that it is the nature of what is being studied.  Medicine, strictly, would not exist without purposeful human study, but the subject of their study, biological organisms, would.  The same can be said about chemistry and physics, as prior to humans both played the same role they do now in the universe.  Economics, however, is entirely different.  It is emergent from human behaviours.  It is not separate and independent from humanity.  In short, it is not universal.

Economics is a social science.  Social sciences are quite unfortunately named, since they have little if nothing to do with science.  Which is not to belittle them, merely condemn them to a specific sort of operation, ideally closer to that of the humanities than the natural sciences.  However, that is a discussion for another time.  Being a social science, economics must understand that what it pretends to be is false, that it is not, as said above, universal and is, more importantly, not fundamental.

Not fundamental.  No other social science, humanity or indeed natural science places itself on such a pillar of self-importance.  Economics claims that only economics is the lense which we can judge our actions, plans and programs.  Perhaps other fields would make such claims if they were in a position to, but certainly we would recognize the absurdity of judging everything through the principles of  anthropology.  It is not that anthropology has nothing important to tell us, quite the opposite really, it is that a single lens view of society is an impossibly terrible way of running things.

The reason why no other social sciences have Nobel Prizes?  None of them have rich backing organizations.  That is how this prize came about, a Swiss bank funded the prize, a Nobel Memorial Prize.  I would argue that they did so to increase the credibility of the field as a science, rather than as just one of many social sciences which we attempt to understand our society with.

A final point on the relevance of a prize in economics: other fields attempt to describe laws of nature, but the way nature functions does not change based on these laws, not true for economics.  For example, gravity works as gravity no matter how we describe it, be it Newtonian, Relativity or some future Quantum-Gravity theory.  Economics does not behave this way, if a new mindset takes over, the way the system itself functions can change.  This is because it is an emergent system which requires humans, or something similar, rather than fundamental to the nature of the universe.

To put it another way, why do we not read poetry anymore?  Most people give up on poetry the moment they finish their last English course, be that in high school, college or university.  Is it that poetry lacks the ability to convey deep and important meaning between human beings?  Is it that we have developed newer and better ways of sharing this message?

Or is it just that society has chosen a different form of writing to be the medium by which we exchange thoughts and emotions.  Poetry has its place and is still of great value, but it has been long since supplanted by the novel as the primary literary form.  The novel too will be replaced as the primary, but never shall it fully disappear for some messages are best for it.

A response to a currently circulating article from 2003.

The premise is that American’s don’t like jazz because they are a visually focused, ADD society which has lost its ability to appreciate high art.   The argument takes on the fact that much pop music is vocally driven and assigns the reason for this to the fact that American’s cannot relate to music without it.  The author extends this to the appreciation of visual arts, where he makes the claim that Americans cannot appreciate art which lacks something which they recognize.  That, for instance, Voice of Fire is less liked than Creation of Adam because the later is easier to understand due to having recognizable figures from stories well known to those viewing the work, while the earlier is much more abstract and minimalistic and thus much more challenging to understand.  Ignoring, of course, the relative fame of each work.  Take Mondrain’s Composition 11 in Red, Blue and Yellow and  Le Radeau de la Méduse by Théodore Géricault for a similar comparison.

The argument presented is tainted by an all too common nearly anti-American elitism which we of other countries often take.  The first hint of such taint is the lack of discussion of music in other English speaking countries, such as Canada, Great Briton, Australia, New Zealand or even India.   The author likely lacks personal experience of these countries and places, so he can be forgiven on this front.  It must be noted, however, that singling out the United States is a ploy often driven by the rest of the world’s subconscious loathing-envy relationship dichotomy with the Americans.  If nothing else, a quick look and presentation of sales numbers in the UK would have been in order, as such information is available.

Moving on from the subconscious, let us return the heart of the matter. American’s don’t like jazz because they cannot accept and understand abstract art. The abstract was the central feature and philosophy of the modern movement in the arts; musical, visual and performance.  It was a reaction to that which came before, the romantic.  No one considers jazz to be part of the modernity movement, however, but the generalities still stand.  Jazz was less structured than the romantic music which preceded it, while still maintaining similar instrumentation.  In the arts, the modern replaced with abstraction the vivid, photosimilar paintings of the previous period.

In architecture, modernity lead to buildings with high utility and little ornamentation.  Architects were some of the first to react to modernity itself by reintegrating aspects of ornamentation to increase the aesthetic appeal of their structures, transforming the understanding of the movement.  It was not that unadorned buildings did not function perfectly appropriately for their purpose, it was that the statement they made was insufficient to these first post-modern architects desires.  Post-modernity is the name of the age recently closed, where the artists decided that they no longer held with the idea that you can communicate everything through abstraction alone.  Abstraction has its place, but just because you can reduce something further does not make it necessarily desirable.  I say post-modernity has passed since this is the consensus that is currently forming, although considerable debate exists as to whether post-modernism existed at all.  We would likely find the author of the article in question would be one who denies the post modern and by extension its passing.

What is the meaning of all this?  In short, the experiment that jazz represented has been replaced.  We have moved on, which is not to say that jazz, like pure utility, has no place.  Its place, however, is no longer the main stage.  Jazz does not fit in what, for lack of a better term, we shall call the post-postmodern.  To pretend that jazz is no longer commonplace because we are too unintelligent to properly grasp its meaning is pure and dangerous fabrication.  If we lack the capacity to understand it, it is because it no longer resonates as it once did.  Contemporary musicians have jazz, what came before and what came after to work with.

The purpose of the artist is not to create mocking works which the common human is incapable of understanding for the sole purpose of this elitism.  The artist does their best to present the feelings, interactions and images they experience in a form which they feels best expresses it.  Separating form from purpose is a meaningless endeavor doomed to create emotionally dead works which are, quite honestly, boring.  Art in the style of Composition 11 in Red, Blue and Yellow created now might rightfully be accused of elitism, since we have moved on.  The same with traditional jazz.  It has its place, and certainly a too direct comparison of musical and visual arts leads to false results, but I feel as though the comparison stands.

In short, humans, the world and the arts have all moved on.  Criticizing any of the above from moving on is foolhardy and wrongheaded.  There is nothing wrong with not moving on, it is not necessary.  I often wonder why certain types of alternative rock from the 1990s had to cease being produced, but I do not attack those who fail to grasp the greatness of many of these works and accuse them of being intellectual light weights.  I may question their taste, however.

And a final point, the classical, and I use classical to mean premodern orchestral music, form of musical appreciation is outdated.  I believe that the popular music, popular to mean all that has come since jazz (excluding country) form of appreciation is superior.  Traditional folk music is meant to be played and enjoyed through participation and by just being in its presence.  People would be doing things, preparing foods, talking and preforming other similar tasks during the performance.  This is closer to the popular music form of presentation, which involves plenty of background noise of people enjoying more than just the auditory experience of the music itself, since music has always been about much more than just the sound.  There is nothing wrong or wrongheaded about listening to music in silence, taking it all in.  There is also nothing wrong about experiencing it as something else, as a background sound or as a participatory experience.

Whether spoken truly or not, the above says it all. The folly of the attempted escape from Paris of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette may serve as an important lesson to those who find themselves beaten.

The bread riots were an important contributing factor to the outcome of the French Revolution, and in fact may be the single most important reason for its success.   The widespread starvation created a kind of class consciousness in the peasants of France, which pushed for changes to the way government was run.  Their starvation, in a sense, awoke them to their power.  The most obvious goal they sought was an end to their hunger.

To their credit, the monarchy did make an attempt to overcome the famine.  One cannot judge the people, however, for remaining angry at the failings of the monarchy.  Famine was not the only cause of the revolution, after all.  However rightly, the king was judged by the outcome of his actions (or queen, as the case may be).  And they had failed.  Naturally this increased ill will towards the royal family.  Ill will was already at quite high levels by this point, and justifiably the royals began to fear for their lives.

At this point the supposed statement was made.  “Let them eat cake.”  Evidence does not support that it was ever said, especially by Marie Antoinette.  The statement is used as evidence of the royal’s lack of understanding of the situation in which they found themselves.  What it means is that the royals, in their plenty, could not comprehend the suffering of the masses.  Since they had plenty of food, even very rich delicacies (the cake) they failed to see that others did not.  It is also important to note that a better translation of “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” would translate brioche as an egg bread, since it was not a cake as we understand it, but rather a very egg and butter rich bread.

Whether or not such a thing was ever said is irrelevant, since the next action of the king shows his complete lack of comprehension of the situation equally well.

The royals, while very likely blind to a great many things, were not blind to the danger of their situation.  They fled Paris for a monarchist stronghold near the border of Holland.  They dressed themselves as servants to a Russian  baroness and fled in a very luxurious stage coach.  When the party stopped to exchange horses, the king insisted on resting.  He was recognized and they were captured later that morning, just a few kilometres from their goal.  Why one would stop for a rest when fleeing for their life is a strange thing indeed.

An even more critical interpretation can be found on pages 499-501 of John Ralston Saul’s  Voltaire’s Bastards.

What does this all mean?  What is the lesson?  Aside from the obvious, of course, which is to hide as quickly as possible if you are wanted dead.

The real lesson is that if you find yourself in a position of authority you must be receptive to the needs and problems of the people.  The very worst type of  bias is the idea that what benefits you most must necessarily benefit everyone most.

An idealist is someone who follows a set of beliefs blindly, with no regard to the real world, and hopes to have the world adopt their ideas.  There is usually negativity in the word, as someone who is an idealist lacks meaningful contact with the real world where they actually dwell.

I think that this is moderately backwards.  Certainly there are some traces of idealism in those who, often correctly, point out how we as humans could be better.  These people, however, are not the truest idealists.  Nor are they the ones deserving of the condescending undertone of the term.

The true idealists in the world today are those who seriously think that we, as individuals, as a city, province, country or world can continue to live the way we live without consequence.  Without change.  Without taking active part in this change.  The idealists are those who preach the preeminence of the market’s god-hand in deciding fate.  They fail to grasp the true interconnectedness of things, the fallacy of universals and the way the world really works.

It is up to those who understand, or at least understand better, to call these people out on their idealism.

Collective punishment is banned by international law in times of conflict.  Rightfully so, one is responsible for their own actions but certainly not for those of another.  War can never be civilized, but it can be made easier for those unfortunate enough to have it find them.

Collective punishment is not legal in Canada.  For the same reasons.  We would all be against the punishment of an entire city block for the actions of one resident, or the punishment of entire towns for the actions of a few.

But yet, it exists.  Not in the violent  sense mentioned above, not here and now at least (whether the war in Afghanistan is an incidence of collective punishment itself is a question worth discussing).

Insurance, automotive insurance, is an incidence of collective punishment on the basis of age and sex.   The onus, instead of being on the companies themselves to prove that the person is unsafe, is on the driver to prove that they are competent.  This would be understandable, with age as an approximation of experience, so long as those older people just beginning to drive are also subject to the same fees.  And if sex did not factor into it.

But it does.  And so the situation is one of collective punishment against young people in general, with young males punished to a greater extent.

Statistics, is claimed, proves that these groups are more likely to be in an accident and are thus more costly to insure.  This may be so, but it is the company which must show that a particular person, not a general person, is a greater risk and thus warrants a greater rate.  Sexism is unacceptable under all circumstances. Age discrimination is equally unacceptable but a lack of experience is, in this case, I believe a defensible cause for an increased rate.

Current norms are unacceptable, whether or not one could truly qualify them as a case of collective punishment.

The bank of Canada is not controled by parliament.  Many see this as a grand thing, as the people can not meddle in the economy.  I would call them fools.

The bank is ostensibly independent, but is largely run to the benefit of business.  Certainly what is good for business sometimes matches what is good for citizens, but not all the time.  This is strange, since rights of a citizen are constitutionally guaranteed,  while businesses are just a construct.  Constructs have protections of their interest which we, citizens, do not.

Parliament represents us, the people of Canada.  If parliament does not control the bank, then we do not control the bank.  The bank operates in the interest of a subset of citizens who have no doubt convinced themselves, and perhaps many others, that what is in their interest is in the interest of Canadians as a whole.

It is a problem.  A problem lacking a clear solution.

One wonders how

What is the purpose of an education?  Forget for a moment post-secondary education specifically.  Much more generally: Why do we go to school?

Well, early on we go to school because its the law.  Why is it the law?  Democracy does not function with an illiterate population.  Truly, one of the major reasons why the residents of what would become Canada pushed for self-government is because individual farmers lacked the resources to educate their children on their own.  They needed the whole of society to support the education of a child.

Did they want an education for their children so that they could work?  In part.  They wanted a better life for their children and wanted a better society to live in.  Work is part of that, but not even the most important part.  Educated masses were the goal, for educated people are more difficult to push around.  It was a way to preserve gains.

Fast forward.  Why do we go to university? To get work? Hardly.  Work is important, and many of us have deluded ourselves into thinking that the goal of our education is a job at the end of it.  Like those who believe they are voting for a party or prime minister, they are not exactly wrong, just confused.  With government, we elect someone to represent us and indirectly select a governing party and prime minister.  With school, the work which comes after is not the goal but a desirable side effect.  The goal is to make citizens of students.  Citizens who can think and question.

Thats how it is.  As for how I think it should be, I believe that the government should only concern themselves with citizenship. Specific technical skills should be left to vocational training, which itself should be handled by the industry or professional organizations.  For example, provincial professional engineering organizations should run engineering schools, which may be associated with universities or collages, but not necessarily.  Vocational training should feature apprenticeships, much like many collage vocational training programs already do.  The focus should be on the utilitarian technical skills rather than abstract knowledge, which belongs in the realm of citizenship focused schools.

The confusion of schooling for knowledge and schooling for technical skills is something I view as negative since it downplays the importance of citizenship in us all.  It is something we should focus on repairing.

A revisit to my dislike of Toronto

To feel belonging to a place is necessary in order to like it.  Perhaps not a personal, direct belonging, but at least some form of it.  Not necessarily the feeling of `home’, but something like it.  A place here can be a physical place, such as a city, town or any other point on a map.  It can be a metaphorical place, such as the concept of home.  It can be part of society as a whole.  In order to belong you must be able to imagine yourself, your place, in it.  Without being able to do so you will not be enjoy a place.

Clearly by the above statement and past writings, I cannot imagine a place for myself within Toronto.  I am not alone.  I have a place elsewhere for myself.  The problem comes when both groups, and both groups are guilty, fail to recognize that not all of us can imagine ourselves in the same way as everyone else, and thus, as we all really know, there is no universal place.  No clear ideal which everyone must achieve, where everyone must be.  The pleasures of life are not the same for everyone, and we all must respect that.

A carelessly quick survey of a random assortment of websites would make it seem that, in order to be happy, we have to try and become something else, to change ourselves in some way.  Most obviously in the form of body enhancement advertisements, but these are some of the less dangerous and least concerning sources.  Certainly they are irritating and stupid, but most of us recognize them as such.

The dangerous types are those which attempt to offer the author’s wisdom.  As though any happiness, material success or whatever other desirable they are selling is not a product of all of their experiences and was instead caused by a few choices, be they insignificant or not.   The author is sincere in his offering and probably believes that the reader can become just like them by following these few steps…

That is not what I shall do.  My experiences (and here I go, ignoring what I said above) tell me that universals are false.   What works for me, what challanges me, what makes me actually happy with myself will not be the same things that work for you.  I spent years studying a topic I did not enjoy, it was hardly challanging.  Nor was it easy, but the mundainity of it all made it impossible to derive joy from.  Thats the case for me, many of my good friends find the topic to be quite the opposite.  Nietzsche was wrong about a whole lot of things, but he spoke true on the need to overcome universals and find what works for you, to see how the other lives.

So here is the challenge.  It is simple to state and impossible to implement.  Life is the struggle to do so, to me at least.

Live as you want, study and do what makes you happy.  Don’t let your pursuit of these things prevent another single person from doing the same.  Compromise, sometimes when you do not need to.  It makes both your lives better.

Do not be smug or judge other people for taking a different path than your own.  Their happiness is not a thing to be ridiculed.

That is it.  That is all.  As a first step I’d recommend reading a book, a real book.  On paper.  The medium is the message and the message of the screen is constant interaction and more information than you can ever hope to digest, the book is more calm and suitable for such baby steps.