Friends are Electric

Or, how students really buggered up with Radio Waterloo

No one would pretend that the ethical life was the easy life, nor the productive or efficient life.  The ethical life is simply the good life.  It puts unimportant things like economics in their proper place, subservient to the needs of society as a whole.  The ethical life serves the greater good.

The greater good.  Not personal desires.  Not self-interested behaviour.  The ethical life has not to do with these.  Nietzsche called such people nihilists, those who desire only warmth.  Warmth in his words is the physical comforts of an easy life.  The meaning of nihilist has changed somewhat since Nietzsche first wrote of them, but his point stands.  To truly live the good life is to live the ethical life.

We as students of the University of Waterloo are guilty of such nihilism.  Twice we had the chance to do the right thing and twice we failed.

How can I call support for Radio Waterloo the right thing, you may ask?  Never is the silencing of an independent media outlet the greater good.  Only through plentiful voices does society function in a sustainable manner.  The silencing of any voice, no matter how  small, is not something to celebrate.  It requires mourning and a serious look at how it was allowed to happen.

We allowed it to happen twice.  We caused it to happen.  All are guilty.  Those who supported the station failed to demonstrate how important any media is to society’s proper function.  Those against are guilty of using largely false reason and common sense  through economic arguments of personal good to directly cause the destruction of an organ of society’s function.  The vast majority are guilty of indifference.  These are perhaps the most guilty.  Certainly, they did not fall for the arguments of self-interest.  They ignored the debate entirely.  They are guilty of sacrificing something akin to citizenship for the bliss of ignorance, indifferent to the arguments of both sides and unaware of what was at stake.

As students we failed to live the ethical life.   I as much as any other failed.  We all share in the guilt of conspiracy to destroy the functional organs of society.

The nihilists march forward.

In days gone by, action was judged based on outcome.  The why of the action was entirely ignored.  No one thought about the why.  No one cared.  They were not thinking at that level.  This style of living is not inferior or superior, just different.

We no longer behave this way.  We, in the West especially, consider intention to be the highest truth.  Giving isn’t seen as a good since there is an intention of getting something back.  In the past, it wasn’t that this intention did not exist, it was that such behaviours were not consiously thought of.  Even in law, we consider intention to be superior to the action itself.  Intention can make or break a conviction.  But intention doesn’t change the reality of the event, just the colour of our interpretation.

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche spoke of moving beyond intention as the judge of action.  His idea was that action, regardless of outcome or intention, was “good” if it was a conscious decision.  That the intentionality, not to be confused with intend, of an action or event determines its value.

Clearly there is some overlap between conscious action and intent.  Just as there is overlap between outcome and intent.  One can consciously act with an intended outcome.  Like much of Nietzsche’s though, such action required that those with a stronger will (will to power) should force theirs on those with less.  Like much of Nietzsche’s thought, he was at the very least incorrect, and at most outright wrong.

There is some inherent value in purposeful action.  Just as there is some value in the intent of an action.  But only the  outcome changes reality. We must not forget this last fact. What you intend does not change anything except how you justify it to yourself.  If you think you are doing what is best for people, and the outcome becomes highly negative, then you will blame some outside cause beyond your control.  Usually the complexity of people.

Know that what you intended to do does not change the nature of the world. Know that whether you consciously decided to do it or not changes things even less.  In the end, the action and the outcome are what matter.

Even Zarathustra went under sometimes.

One of the most important messages of Thus Spoke Zarathustra was that you cannot regret.  Regret means you hate something you have done.  In the philosophy of Nietzsche, you are a sum of your actions and choices, as the outcome has made who you are.  If you had chosen otherwise at the time, you would be someone else entirely, since it is experience that defines a person.

You are allowed  to say that, given a similar situation now, you would behave differently, since you are not the same being you were at the time of the earlier action.   But when examining what you did in the past with the knowledge you had at the time, you must  decide on the same course of action you took then.  You must reaffirm what you have done in the past.  He called this eternal return or eternal recurrence.

It is thus obvious, by this philosophy, that the past is important in defining a being.   Anyone denying the path dependence of the human mind is lacking an understanding of the humanity.

Thus, the fitness function which defines what is most ideal for a given person is dominated by individual dependencies, while still having some effect from general, group effectrs.

Who has respect for the artist who loves their own work as though it were perfection?  Is it even possible to respect such a being?

There is nothing wrong with someone liking their work.  Their work is a part of them, in the sense that they made it and that the making of it is part of their history.  Self-loathing is not an admirable trait.  But neither is vanity.

The artist should have great love for his work, but should not become so lost in this love that they forget that they are just a small part of something.  A love for self blinds people to the world around them and takes them out of it, and thus their work out of it.  From outside, how can the great works be produced?

Technical skill is not genius.   True works of genius may be fundamentally flawed. Pure skill may produce technically beautiful works, but they shall be devoid of emotion without genius.  The skilled operator can produce thousands of identical products, it takes genius to stand out.

One cannot forget memory when considering such things.  The past is important. Humans are not defined by thermodynamic state functions.  We are all path dependent as our past defines who we are.  Expecting one to ignore this is the utmost foolishness.

True genius is thus too dependent on the journey.  What can we love which is not of ourselves?

Elites use language not to communicate, but to control the flow of information.

Information is power in the modern society.

Elites use asymetric information to maintain power.

Since elites do not communicate and explain to the public, the public becomes uneducated on the issues of the day.

The unknowledge of the public results in the elites losing respect for the public.

The elites, because of their desire for power, despise the people they govern.

The public, alienated, turns away from the elites.

The elites are alienated.

Positive feedback loop.

Break the cycle? Dialogue.  Language for communication, not for control.

Common sense. Knowledge and application of the past.  Ethics. Intuition. Imagination. Reason.

With regards to John Ralston Saul.

The purpose of a Socratic Society is to encourage the public discussion of ideas.  Ideas are the foundation of democratic society.  Only through public discourse can we defeat the demons of ideology and authoritarianism and reaffirm our place as citizens.  This is the purpose of a Socratic Society.

University campuses have a multitude of public venues for such public discourse.  These may be highly organized and structured, or they may take the form of a more organic meeting of ideas.

From my personal research, I know that many  formal debate and idea societies exist around Ontario campuses.  They are a start. What I imagine goes much beyond.

Instead of discussion in a closed group (however welcoming and open they are to outsiders and new members), discussion should take place in public.  Public is meant in the sence of public and accessible, as such any shared space for nonexclusive use where noise is not an issue.  Examples include grassy fields, cafeterias and other common spaces.  Passers by aught to be invited to participate as much as possible.

In pursuit of a more organic form of conversation, the structure of formal debate must be ignored.  Formal debate is a fine method of high level discourse, but is not appropriate for general public participation and tends to exclude all but a  few participants from taking part.  The idea of a Socratic Society aught to be inclusion of idea by discarding strict rules and formalities.

In the place of strict rules of conduct, however, other generalized rules are required.  Ideology aught to be avoided, as ideologies are Utopian and are thus unattainable.  Any discussion should centre around the real, physical world.  Disagreement should be encouraged as it leads to discussion, however, disagreement should not lead to personal attacks.

Socrates would wander around Athens asking questions of whoever he found.  He was an annoyance to the public who wanted nothing more than to be left alone and unthinking.  Thought is what humans are best at.  It is our responsibility to follow this path and revive the discussion of ideas in public.

We hear a lot of talk about referendums these days, especially about how they are the most pure form of democracy which a society can have.  Direct democracy, it is argued, represents the true will of the people in creating consensus about how a society should move forward.

Now, anyone reading this after having read other posts I have written, will know that I am going to speak against direct democracy.  And naturally, one must question my stability upon attacking such a target.  Surely, everyone having an equal say in deciding the outcome of an important (or unimportant) question is the definition of a good democracy.  And obviously I am going to disagree, and hopefully, in the process of explaining why, bring you onto my side concerning this topic.

So let me begin.

The first reason why I disagree with the use of direct deomcracy is that it reduces political discourse to marketing.  And by this I mean the question posed to the public.  How do you pose the question? Which shall be the `yea’  side and which the `nay’.  This is an important consideration, as one has an obvious negative connotation.  Certianly, most people would not be affected by such a simple matter, but one cannot deny the complexity of the decision making process, perhaps such considerations should not be ignored.

Beyond which side shall be yes and which shall be no, the exact wording of the question becomes incredibly important.  If you can word the question correct you might be able to win people to your side.  Or just keep them from the opponents side.  If the question makes it sound treasonous to disagree, some might abstain rather than disagreeing.  Likely not many, but some.

All this highlights another important issue: oversimplification.  This works two ways.  First, the phrasing of the question can make  an answer seem obvious of gloss over the nuances of the actual situation.  The other, more dangerous, simplification is in the results.  55% in favour of a proposition is a majority.  The government can then go ahead and implement the proposition and disregard the detractors.  But 45% of people disagreed.  They have been silenced by the majority.  Thus, a false sense of agreement and support is created.

The final issue I shall discus for the time being is the public good.  This is a simple argument: direct democracy encourages selfishness, you are to vote how is best for you.  In a general election, since more than a single proposition is being voted on, you are more likely to vote along what is best for society as a whole.  Selfishness is the enemy of democracy, and referendums breed selfishness.

Those are some reasons why I dislike direct democracy and tremble when people call for greater use of it.  Tomorrow I shall discuss selfishness and its negative effect on democratic society.  Until then, think hard.

We shall have a change over the coming white.  Trust me on this.  Of course, things are always changing and denial of this fact is absurd and foolish.  But I digress.

The point is that things change.  And to stay current we must change as well.  Which is the most important aspect of living in a democracy.

To clarify, if you find yourself disagreeing with something said, it does neither you nor the person advancing the opinion any good to just react.  Instead, you should reflect on the statement, determine what exactly you disagree with.  And then, most importantly, tell yourself why you disagree.  This means that you will be able to defend your position if you ever have need to do so, which is important to the functioning of Canadian democracy, and democracy everywhere.

This, of course, is a risky proposition.  What if you find that you have no reason why you disagree with a position? I would argue that you then owe it to yourself and the author to either discover a real why to your rejection.  Or, much more importantly, accept the argument into your grand narrative.  This later case is what you owe yourself if you find that you actually agree with the position, even if you initially thought otherwise.

We can all go through life rejecting and accepting things based solely on the source or the impression, but as citizens of a democratic nation we owe it to ourselves, the country, and most importantly the populous of this country, to be thinking beings who truly attempt to understand our wonderfully complex nation to the fullest extent we can.

There is, of course, a complicating factor.  That of theory and dogma.  What I mean by this is that we all have fundamental assumptions which are unquestionable to us.  Examples include thermodynamics to scientists, the divine origins of holy texts to the religious, or other axioms to other theories.  Science has shown that at some level you must take something as a given, and it is best to take the simplest and fewest things as given.  In science, this is not a trivial task but it is at least self regulated.  For our own personal world view, there can be no regulation except for our own world view, which is by definition biased.  For this reason it is highly important to examine your axioms from time to time to see if they are reasonable assumptions to make.

And the final word: what is appropriate today might not fit tomorrow.  As the world changes the organizations and organs of government which best serve the citizens change.  Do not let yourself be trapped in the assumption that what worked yesterday will work today or tomorrow.  If something is working, however, it could continue to work into the future.  Be logical.  Be rational.  Be good citizens.

A thought has been worrying me a lot recently.

I am a man of reason.  To me, there is nothing more fundamental.  I follow my reasoning wherever it takes me.   Since I am an engineering student, this is a rational way to be.  Science follows reason. It is natural.

What is strange to me is how we, as a society, become convinced of unreasonable things.  I speak now of creationism.  Not that some subscribe to this belief, I can understand that.  I do not wish to prevent others from believing what they wish.  What is in one’s own mind is no business of mine.  What I mean is about the conflict between creationism and evolution.

I say conflict, but this is somewhat misleading.  Reason dictates that evolution is truth.  Let us not get bogged down in any details.  Anyone needing convincing of this fact is invited to educate themselves. Biological evolution is a fact.  This, then, is at the root of what is confusing me.

Evolution is truth in terms of the origins of life.  Darwin was wrong in the same sense that Newton was wrong. Science progresses. Evolution is correct, just as gravity is correct, albeit both have been and will be modified in the future as that is the way of science.

My question is this: If evolution is so clearly true, which it is, how has society been convinced that there is even a `debate’ between creation and evolution.  This is the true triumph of creationists, since creationism is provably false.  But convincing the masses that there is descent is an impressive feat, one which deserves recognition and retaliation.

I do not call for violence.

I do call for reason.

Whenever you hear someone speak of a debate between creationism and evolution, set them straight.  Science knows the truth.

Westernism, for the sake of this discussion, is thinking like a Westerner.  This may include a belief in spreading civilisation, ethnic superiority, looking down on those who are not western in lifestyle or thinking, the pursuit of the `American Dream,’ strong belief in democracy and liberalism, personal certainty of the necessity of capitalism, love of globalisation, consumerism and, most importantly, belief that we in the West have the most ideal lifestyle imaginable.

The important question I wish to address is the source of Westernism, more specifically: is Westernism something you are born with, or is it something you learn.  Thus, can someone not born in the west truly become western, and can someone born in the west ever really escape it.

This stems from a discussion I had with a friend who’s family are not from the western world.  My parents, and their parents, and some of their parents, etc., were born in Canada.  Clearly, if Westernism is to any extent inherited then I am fully in line with this ideology.  And clearly my friend is entirely separate from this way of thinking.  Both of which are entirely false.

To hold with Westernism is a stereotype of what a person from the West might be like.  True, there are those who follow all of the stereotypes to perfection, and there are those who do not.  For instance,  I know a great many people who believe in democracy and liberalism but who reject many aspects of capitalism in its pure from: these people are generally called social democrats.  Are social democrats therefore not western?  I also know people who would consider social democrats to be antiwestern or antiAmerican.

I also know environmentalists who hold with few of the traits I described as being part of Westernism.  To them, Westernism is a tool of those who push for globalisation and further pure capitalism.  Some even go so far as to reject governments, although this is a very small minority.  Are these people Western?  Not by the above imperfect definition.  Could this ideology exist outside the west?  No.  Then they are Western and my definition is imperfect.  Let us craft a new one.

Westernism: any thought of belief that can only come into being in the west.  That is, conditions only exist for the development of this ideology in the land area we consider to be `The West.’

Included in this new definition are still all of the original definition, but it now includes any other ideology unique to the west.  Environmentalism, general equality, human rights.  Not that these are currently unique to the west, but that they were developed through the liberalism which defined the west.

Now all the example people I have talked about are thoroughly western.  My friend is as well, since they wish to use the capitalist system and Westerners’ love of luxury to her advantage.  By their own definition, they were not of the west.  But they are now, by the very structure of the argument they used to prove the converse.

Now, can someone born in the west ever become something else.  Well, I know that we can reject many aspects of Westernism, as I personally have done.  For example, consumerism and the `American Dream’ are not desirable for me, neither is capitalism to a large degree owing to my Social Democratic roots.  But can I reject liberalism, democracy and all other aspects of Westernism?  No.  If all Westernism is defined by the controversial, Globalisation, Environmentalism, cultural imperialism, etc., then yes.  We can reject Westernism.  However, westernism is much more defined by several core beliefs, mainly democracy, liberalism and capitalism.  Can anyone in the west truly reject all of these beliefs?  Not if they wish to live here.

The rejection of any of these aspects of our life would change the West in tremendous ways.  But change is not always good.  Removing any of these aspects to our lives would ruin life in the west, even capitalism, an ideology which I have never been comfortable with.

Here is the crime of westernism, then.  It is like a virus.  Yes, Westernism is imperialistic and relentless in its goals.  Its goals are to make everyone else like us.  Not in every way, of course.  We, however, are so sure of liberal democracy that we demand others use it, regardless of cultural tradition.  I am as guilty as anyone of this.  But I know that I am guilty of it, and I do not feel in the least bit mournful of this knowledge.

Then perhaps the most important aspect of Westernism is not  liberal democracy, but instead that we have the best systems and that failure to adopt these systems might mean forced adoption against your will, since it is for your own benefit.  I can think no of no other alternative ideologies which do not share this fundamental belief, even if they will not admit it to themselves.  We are all convinced of our moral superiority.

The sad fact is that by this final, and perhaps most accurate description of the motivations of Westernism, we are all westerners.  Even those who do not hold with the central tenants of Westernism.  Therefore, westernism, a more pleasant way of saying moral superiority, is something we are born with.  And the liberal democracy we are born within demands being spread everywhere, except where it is we who have the power.  And therefore it is inescapable for those who are born with it, and since I cannot escape from it, I cannot say how those from outside will behave.