Department of Why's and Means.

While going over my fresh copy of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics earlier today, my mind began to gather the threads of The Philosopher's arguments together and assemble them thus:

Aristotle urges us all to adopt what he calls "the mean" in all our thoughts and deeds. In brief, this is his position that "the good" is best to be found by living persons in practicing moderation. This line of thinking matches nicely the basic premise of Taoism or Mahayana Buddhism; in fact, the admonishment of the madhyamā-pratipad (Sanskrit, if you wish to research it) is expressed explicitly as "the path of moderation away from the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification".

Almost a word for word reiteration of Aristotle.

The second thought that came to me was the great similitude among the philosophical and religious practices of human kind, until the ascendancy of monotheism in the west. Until the Emperor Constantine elevated Christianity from obscure cult to official state religion, monotheism was all but unknown. Until this moment, nobody much cared about the Jews and Islam did not yet exist. The only other attempt by anyone to establish a monotheistic tradition, then with only marginal and extremely short lived success, was Amenhotep IV's establishment of Atenism, or what some people now call the Amarna heresy. What is the relevance? Continue on, dear reader...

In brief, the ancient polytheisms described the world and natural phenomena in the only terms they had; they created agents, ascribed motivations to them and divided the world up under their respective jurisdictions; in many, I would wager most, cases these categories are repeated and replicated from pantheon to pantheon, from tradition to tradition. Why? Because all human brains work in essentially the same manner, reaching essentially the same conclusions, given the same experiences. This is a primitive manifestation of the same practice of science that codifies, classifies and organizes phenomena into its various fields. This is, as others have established in behavioral studies, the normal operation of a human brain; we seek out patterns and associations then commit them to memory for ease of recall and reference.

Which brings me to my more basic point: Monotheism runs counter to the natural behavior of the human brain. Rather than, as polytheism and science do, observing and explaining phenomena in relation to each other and the various known and unknown results of their interactions, monotheism attempts to describe everything in relation to a single, exotopic origin. The infamous Thomas Aquinas attempted to justify this approach by absconding with Aristotle's principle of "The Unmoved Mover". The attempt is flawed though; Aristotle was using the concept in a mechanical argument explaining the seeming motion of the Heavens around the Earth in an early (in my opinion brilliant) attempt to address the "cosmological questions" in a scientific ("how question") manner. When Aquinas and his fellow monotheists adapted the point as a "proof" of gawd!'s existence, they translated into their own subjective terms. Instead of observing the phenomena, seeking the mechanism and then investigating possible agencies, they assume an agent in the forming the question itself. The crux lies in the words "why" and "how".

The usual argument meted out by modern apologists references NOMA, which I have addressed elsewhere and won't explain here again. The short version is this: why and how can both be used to inquire after the cause of an observed phenomenon but (and this is important) why, in it's proper context, always implies a motive because why, excepting only when employed in exclamation, is an inquiry after reason and reason can only be attributed to rational beings. Keeping this in mind, we can now acknowledge that the fundamental question for which philosophers and theologians both seek an answer is, "Why does exist/happen?" Since why implies a purpose, we're left asking, "Who's purpose?" Gawd!'s, naturally.

So here is my second thought's basic point: Why questions, in the religious sense, are inherently dishonest because they demand the exclusion of any answer that does not include any agent.

Liberate Tu Me

Okay, I know I have a reputation for calm, lucid discussion but this time I cannot contain my agitation.

Exactly how in the fuck can anyone claim to support freedom of speech then turn around and decide that it isn't acceptable to express an opinion on an idea simply because some hypersensitive, irrational, superstitious, primitive wack-jobs with control issues can't understand that they are not special?

Worse yet (and I'm not generally one for slippery slope arguments) has it not yet occured to anyone that once you make it okay to silence dissenting opinions under such a braod heading that the real bad guys will start tucking their various atrocities and abusses under that heading? Think I'm being an alarmist? Take long, hard look at Iran or North Korea.

I don't generally disagree with Fearless Leader, but if this plan is getting play from the top, then here is absolutely one area where I'm willing to tell Barry-Boo to check his shit and try again. The only acceptable cause for restricting speech is to preserve public safety; hence the bit about not inciting riot or yelling Fire! in a theater. Such an argument simply does not apply here, period.

Back To The Future, Part II

The refrain has gotten nauseating: "The Republican Party/Conservative Movement needs a new leadership to take them/us back to what they/we used to be. They/We need a new, charismatic, inspirational figure, a new Ronald Reagan."

"Just Say NO" might have been a tactic devised by the Reagan White House in dealing with rising drug crime statistics, but the supposed inheritors of that legacy have made it their mantra and modus operandi in dealing with the current reality; appropo then, that this band of not-so-cheerful idiots is determined to meet the new challenges of of tomorrow by regressing, by looking backwards and trying to reach new horizons with their eyes locked steadfastly on the past. Am I painting with too broad a brush mayhaps?


Obviously. That's part of my point; not every person marching under the heraldic Elephant is going to fit under that umbrella and frankly we should be glad. Unfortunately, those persons best positioned to right (pun intended) the party from its current lurching, hobbling gait are being shouted down, villainized and excoriated by their "colleagues" while simultaneously being overshadowed by them. You will not here Arnold, Olympia or Collin calling for a new Reagan and a return to the policies of that Era; they are busy trying to deal with the realities of today and tomorrow, trying to craft a way forward, rather than backward. Instinctively, I think most Americans recognize this on a subconcious level; even the arch-conservatives among my fellow truck drivers ("real Americans" one and all) admit that right now, they mostly like to talk about Reagan in terms of leadership ability, not policy. Even these staunch Commie-Haters recognize that times have changed and that maybe, just maybe, they weren't completely right about everything, all the time.

Unfortunately, this view is embraced by only a tiny minority of party leaders at the moment. These few openly moderate Republicans are undoubtedly gnashing their teeth, unable to challenge the extreme obstructionists without appearing ideologically unreliable which, in a time when every right-wing pol is preparing to fight for political life and the need for campaign funding, in the face of a devastating Democratic advantage, is forcing the RNC and its affiliates to cut off candidates with dicey odds or questionable credentials. The result? A politcal movement that is very visibly trying to back into the future, able only to see its past through rose colored glasses and remaining completely oblivious to the oncoming facts of a changing world.

Perhaps the most frustrating part of all this is the current stream of "we have been wronged" tripe coming from the likes of Boehner and McConnell. They claim to be getting shouted down by the Democrats while "offering common sense, conservative solutions" to the current set of problems besetting the nation. Yet, even when citing this very claim (USA Today, Oct 21, 2009) they never quite seem to get around to describing these supposed "alternatives". Instead, McConnell runs of at the mouth about "political Olympics" while Boehner whines and whinges about how much everything costs. Not one cited solution offered, only paragraphs of complaint, self-pity, jealousy and more of the now characteristic obstructionist prattle. may I remind the gentleman from Kentucky that one does not get to claim offense when patently bad policy is rejected; one "proposal" from the right on the issue of health care proposed that insurance premiums be the target of reform efforts, rather than the going over all expense. Several other proposals all consisted of patchwork "reforms" of select policies without a coherent, systemic plan. one is almost inclined to think the idea was to leave the insurors as many loopholes and vague "requirements" as possible. Given that the entire objective of reform is to change the status quo, rather than enable it, how can these people genuinely expect such proposals to be adopted?

I know I've covered this before, but reforms that do no reforming...are not reforms. We need substance, gentlemen, not semblence.

The CAT's Out Of The Bag!

In USA Today's Forum section on the 14th of October, 2009 I came across a very interesting article. The author, one David Zinczenko, is the editor in chief of Men's Health and the editorial director of Women's Health and Children's Health magazines. Until reading this article I had no idea who the man was or any regard for those publications he supervises; as of the moment this has changed.

The suggestion of a Calorie Added Tax simply floored me. Here is a concept of stunning, simple elegance with subtle and far reaching effects which I can foresee no ill consequences to. Furthermore, it dovetails so very, very neatly with my own idea for establishing an energy-based global currency. Certainly the conversion between joules and calories would be slightly annoying but here is a perfect opportunity to not only improve our collective health, but to begin shifting to a stable and sustainable economic model in not one but two significant arenas; the model of currency and wealth and the future cost of health care.

Leaving my pet cause aside a moment, let me take up and dust off my MLT hat for a moment. The fact is, people, that no matter how many fad diets and clever chemical supplements society develops, the basic mathematical formula remains and is unchanging: you take in more calories than you burn and your ass is going to balloon. I can attest to this from personal experience; the best health I ever enjoyed was during a time when I was taking in about 1200 calories a day and burning a little more than twice that in my daily exercises. Additionally, the connections between obesity and debilitating, expensive ailments is clearly defined and demonstrated. Finally, it is an inescapable fact that the "food" we as Americans tend to eat the most of are absolutely packed with procedurally added calories, such via the HFCS mentioned by the Honorable Gentleman above. For the record, my current occupation has regularly found me consuming this crap as a regular part of my "diet"; I know whereof I speak.

With that established, let me take a moment to draw your collective attention to another inescapable and ugly fact; there are entirely too many of us buying and eating this "food" because, thanks to the aforementioned subsidies, it is cheap. We have little incentive to spend money on better choices, especially those of us who already live in at best fragile economic conditions. In other words, its cheaper and more convenient to buy and eat the same crap that is practically engineered to be addictive.

So, all that said, let me be the first to second the CAT motion; I don't like paying taxes any more than the next guy but for the sake of all our health, I'll bite that bullet.