A Different Role Produces Different Fears and Loathings

Background Information:

1. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one of my favorite books and one of my favorite movies.

2. I recently started a job in retail.

I wanted to enjoy a story, but did not feel that I had the mental energy to focus on reading a book. So, instead, I turned on an old favorite: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. And I found something disturbing inside of me while I was watching it.

I did not particularly like what I was seeing.

Do not misunderstand, it had occurred to me long ago that Duke and Gonzo were running in fear of threats that did not exist. They represented the burnt out psyches that the failed drug generation produced: they certainly were not to be emulated. And yet, prior to this viewing I always found something beautiful in their anarchic approach to the world. They knew how to ride chaos – society be damned.

When I watched them this time, though, it was not Duke and Gonzo that I was rooting for. It was the people around them. Decent people trying to do their jobs and earn their wage. The people that Duke and Gonzo carelessly insulted, degraded, and disregarded. I could no longer get on board with the anarchy; I knew that these people had games and goals that they loved and pursued genuinely and passionately. Why should Gonzo and Duke be allowed to run roughshod over people who are just trying to make their living?

When the film ended, I could still consider it a movie I liked, but something had changed in me. Not just in a moral or evaluative sense – my tastes had changed. The movie did not appeal to me as it once did. I felt as though I were just watching nonsense. It is all nonsense, of course, nonsense that tried to embody the mindset of failed revolutionaries who carried on their revolution through the use of self-inflicted intoxication rather than anything that might have proved effective; this time, though, it just seemed like nonsense. I didn't have the old sympathy for Dr. Thompson that I once had, and without that sympathy you're less willing to look deeper into the nonsense.

What happens to your literary tastes when you officially become one of society's participants rather than a self-important outlying masturbator? I used to love books from an outsiders point of view: Notes from Underground, Fight Club, The Stranger. Is it possible that playing the role of a responsible member of society could end up choking that part of me off?

My Will is Free - But What is it Free From?

If there is a discussion of Calvinism or God's omniscience and someone says, "so do we have free will?" we treat 'free will' in this case as meaning 'can I act contrary to the will of God?'

And if we discuss fate and destiny and someone says "so do we have free will?" we treat is as asking "is my whole life already determined, or is it to be decided?"

But if someone just says "I have free will!" then we do not know what he means. What is your will free from?

Is your will free from yourself? Well, then that is not your will. That's just will twisting in the aether somewhere - random and chaotic.

Well, yes, you might say. My will is not free with regards to myself. Well, then don't call it free will unless you have some context that tells what it is free from, unless of course you want to speak in absolutes that even you do not agree with.

Of course, that will is your will, and you are determined by some proportion of nature and/or nurture which means that your will is determined by some proportion of nature and/or nurture. Your will is still free, depending on what you mean it to be free from.

Knowledge As Opposed to Belief

Knowledge has been called "justified true belief." This seems to be the usage of "knowledge" invoked when someone says, "I don't believe, I know!"

But for knowledge to be "justified" we need some kind of criteria that determines what makes a belief "justified." This criteria can be stated as a list of rules that must be followed to turn beliefs into knowledge.

Therefore, the distinction between knowledge and belief in this case is just a matter of rules that dictate what knowledge is and what knowledge is not. And those rules will be no different than other rules: morals adopted to attain some end.

True beliefs cannot be that end, as we are trying to determine how it is that we will categorize a belief as true. For true beliefs to be our guiding principle, we would need an independent method of determining whether or not a belief is true.

But that's only interesting to people who like squabbling over whether or not something is really known. For anyone who has ever been in a situation where it made sense to distinguish between what they believe and what they know, they know that they were just assuring someone of their confidence in what they said. In such situations, the rules that dictate knowledge as opposed to belief are implicitly understood - we know what "knowledge" looks like: it's only in philosophy that we think we can get to some kind of rule that exists beyond the needs of our present situation.

Shelf Space

My last post was about how all the tiny factors in an experience make a difference, even if their individual contributions do not amount to much. This post is about a concern I have.

At one time you had to be part of the elite aristocracy to hear innovative music, or you could hear the old, folksy favorites if you knew someone who was good enough at singing with a few pints in him.

Later in time you just had to have access to a radio and/or enough money to purchase a record; of course obscure recordings could be hard to find and it's perfectly possible that you could hear a song once or twice and then lose it for the rest of your life. There was a time when you could really be proud of your music collection, who knows how hard it was for you to find some of those recordings?

Then it became a matter of buying CDs, listening to the radio, and watching MTV. You could record the music videos, you could order CDs through the mail, or you could just go to the store and buy whatever music you happened to like. If it was obscure, sure, it was still hard to get ahold of, but for the most part you had as much music as you could afford.

At this point, you do not even need to be able to afford it. If you go about things legally you can probably find whatever song you like on YouTube, and if you're willing to bend rules you can freely download pretty much any song you hear and like. In the past you have album jackets and CD cases, now all you have is data. Free data. Data that can be acquired in between texting. Even if its secured legally, it's still just data. You don't have a shelf in your room getting cluttered with band logos from the edges of jewel cases.

Books are a more controversial case of the same phenomenon. For me, I love my cheap Craig tablet that lets me carry a small library with me wherever I go. And yet, I never turn and look at a bookcase covered in books that tell people what ideas or emotions I'm attracted to, I don't experience a variety of fonts, paper textures, cover thicknesses, degrading book stiffness, and I can't act proud that I display epic poetry (perhaps read, perhaps not) in my room. It's all been flattened down to a cover image and the text. Data.

The book reading community has some who want to fight this trend. They will lose. Books will become antiques and novelties. Data is just better. There is no real argument to be made against them: authors write content that you want to read, now the paper, the printing, and the ink industry are rendered superfluous and can be removed from the situation. The only argument against them stems from the point I was making in my last post that all the little factors count: reading a book will be different now than it was before, because it was never just about reading text, there was always a little more to it.

The central assumption behind the superiority of data over traditional publishing means is that it delivers what we want with less superfluous trappings that used to be necessary. That makes it easier to produce and cheaper to consume. And this assumption will be seen as correct, and in a lot of ways it does correctly describe how we see those “superfluous trappings.” And yet, I think that our lives will get a little flatter. Our lives will be a little less full without cover art and CD cases cluttering up our rooms.

I'm not saying we should turn around, we shouldn't. I'm not saying maybe we will reconsider this transition our society is taking – we won't and we shouldn't. What I am saying is that while we're gaining cheaper goods, more storage space, and cleaning lives we are losing artistic content and we are changing the essential experience of purchasing books and music in a way that makes the experiences more anemic. Our lives are getting a little smaller – maybe that means we should find a very rich way to use that new shelf space?

All the Tiny Factors

In the morning of January 24^th, 1999, Jeremy was listening to Sex and Candy by Marcy's Playground when Gary walked up and struck him right across the jaw. Jeremy fell on a patch of grass, which was still wet from the night's dew. In the time that it took Jeremy to realize what was even happening, Gary had climbed on top of him and thrown another fist in Jeremy's face. Jeremy, growing dizzy and lightheaded, reached out harmlessly to try to choke Gary; when this failed, Jeremy grabbed Gary's testicles and squeezed tightly. Gary began throwing blind, frantic punches, while Jeremy's mind reverted to the basic philosophy of “if I squeeze tightly enough, everything will work out.” Gary stood up and pulled away from Jeremy's grasp, allowing nausea to set in. Gary no longer wanted to fight and left. Jeremy went home and spent the day in bed.

What part of this situation was the essential experience? What was the substance, as distinct from the style? Surely this was a negative experience and the part that made it negative was Jeremy being attacked by Gary. But, then, Jeremy also had the experience of defending himself, which is life-affirming and empowering. However, Jeremy defended himself by fighting dirty which is wormy and ignoble. What about Gary? Gary is clearly confident in some regard if he was willing to just walk up and initiate a fight – but will he ever be that way again? He's scarred now, he has been forced to learn humility.

So, the important part of the experience was the fight. The date, the time, the music, the wet grass, that's all style. But then, the experience would be different without them. It was morning in January, which means that it was a cold day, not only that, but Jeremy was listening to Sex and Candy which uses slow, droning vocals. Jeremy was not in any kind of shape to fight, his physiological and emotional state were both calm and slow. He had a longer road to travel to get into a fighting mindset – it would not have been strange for him to have quickly surrendered and just allowed the beating to occur. If it had been spring, if it had been closer to evening, and if he had been listening to passionate, fast-paced, drum-heavy music he might have welcomed the sudden attack. For the rest of his life he might have regarded the whole affair as an exciting moment wherein he felt alive!

Imagine all the details I left out. What kind of parents did Jeremy and Gary have? What kind of grades did they get in school? How old were they? These are obviously important for determining what it was like to be Jeremy or Gary in this situation. But what about questions like what did the air taste like, what was the last thing they saw on TV, what taste was in Jeremy's mouth, how much pressure was in Gary's colon from digestive gases, how far away did Jeremy's friends live, does Jeremy have a good relationship with his family, what was Gary's last sexual fantasy and how long ago was it? These all sounds like irrelevant factors, but they are not.

If Jeremy had loving, supportive parents with whom he had a good relationship, he would not feel ostracized or loathed by the sudden attack. Rather than feeling like an outsider, he would suppose that the man attacking him was some kind of outsider. This would produce a sensation of solidarity in him. On the contrary, if he had a bad relationship with his family, he might have supposed himself more alone in the world and wondered what he had done to offend this man rather than immediately feeling as though he must be in the right and the man clearly in the wrong.

Was Jeremy the sort of man who excelled in society, or the kind of man who found it difficult to play society's games. Was this a bizarre example of a social miscreant attacking a flourishing man, or an example of a screw-up getting forced into a situation where, once again, he was at a disadvantage? In the first case he may have that feeling one gets where you say, “why me?” in the second he may not have felt any surprise at finding himself in this situation.

But then the less obvious factors play a role too: fresh tasting air would cause the violence to seem more sudden and out-of-place, stale tasting air would cause greater feelings of being overwhelmed and being surrounded by indifference and malice. It would be subtle, certainly changing the taste of the air would not cause the whole experience to turn around, but the taste of the air does cause the experience to turn differently.

If Gary was holding back a huge fart, then the fight was probably something he regretted quickly. His own body was rebelling against him. The situation had turned on him. Whereas if his colon was happily gas-free, he could at least feel that it was his body at its best against Jeremy at his best.

If Jeremy's friends lived nearby, he would feel less alone and helpless. Sure, he has been caught off-guard now, but there are options. If he survived, he could quickly find sanctuary and maybe even get revenge. If his friends lived far away, he was standing on foreign ground, he was alone and feel more helpless and submissive.

What was Gary's last fantasy? Was he dominant or submissive in it? Was it hetero- or homosexual? Does attacking Jeremy play into some desire to be able to overwhelm another person? Or is he rebelling against a secret desire to be overwhelmed?

None of these are capable of reversing the situation. They are not critical factors. The experience would be different if any of them were changed, though. They determine the character of the experience for both men, just not to the same degree as the more dramatic factors like “who won?” “how violent was the fight?” and “how did the men know each other?”

We experience as a whole, we do not have to be conscious of all the factors making impressions upon us. When we retell stories or try to analyze them and make sense of them, we feel as though only the “critical factors” deserve attention. But critical factors only produce the broad, wide strokes of our experiences, all the subtler nuances that give our experiences a distinct character come from the tiny factors. Indeed, what makes us ourselves, at least in part, is that even though two people might have the same broad experience, there's a thousand tiny variations that influence what it feels like to us.

In Which I Become More Masturbatory Than Usual

Living well means living a ethical life and doing what one ought to do with what they are given. We have our responsibilities in life, and then there are things we must leave to G-d. The meaning of life is to live and to live well. That is my now my conclusion, G-d cares about our behavior, but we we created simply to be what we are. 

- Some Blogger in 2008

There are ideas and questions that our minds return to time and time again, and our beliefs and answers change over time. The whole enterprise starts feeling a little empty if we aren't evolving and growing. The internet – blogs in particular – give us an opportunity to really see how much we are growing and evolving.

For example, as I have documented over the course of my various blogs, I devoted most of my mental energy to metaethical questions for about three years after I left Christianity. I still devote energy to metaethics frequently. But metaethics are just a part of my larger concern with the meaning of life, with the question of how I ought to live. And to state my position, I would say something like this:

The world is large and out of our individual control. All we can handle is what life presents us in the moment from the points of view we have available to us, because we simply lack the informational resources, time, and energy to look at any matter from all possible angles or to look at all possible matters that may be presented to us. We have to do what makes sense, right now, using our guiding values and principles, and then let the chips fall where they may.

Compare that to the quote at the top. The first quote is explicitly theistic and has faith in an inherent order to the apparent chaos of life, and makes reference to an “ethical life” (whatever that is). But the same basic model underlies both quotes: handle your domain, live your life, do not suppose that you can steer the universe, and don't bother with some hidden endgoal that you need to figure out to pursue.

Now, I fancy that the second quote comes from skepticism of ethical truths, a reluctant acceptance of determinism and fatalism, an appreciation of Nietzsche's Übermensch and Camus's absurdism (or perhaps just the parody of them that I've cobbled together based on what I have read) coupled with a good sense of humor that keeps me from thinking there's actually anything heroic or epic about either concept, a heavily reserved acceptance of some of Marcus Aurelius's ideas about operating according to ones place in the great machine of nature, and the leftover exhaustion from years of trying to figure out an objective meaning of life.

The first quote was written four years ago. By me. I had just barely left Christianity. Still had faith in some kind of objective ethical truths. No Camus. Hardly any Nietzsche. No Aurelius. Resentment toward determinism and fatalism. And as the up-my-own-ass tone of that earlier blog shows, a severely underdeveloped sense of humor. Has growth occurred? Yes. But the central nerve in my thinking is, at least in this area, the same.

Four years, and I'm just repeating myself. These are the kind of things you have to laugh about if you don't want to end up an alcoholic.

An Argument From Particularity

About three hours ago I was finishing up my closing shift, which at that moment involved me running a broom over the floor of the store, when I had a tiny thought pop up that seemed to clarify another largely unspoken impression that I had been carrying for some time. Initially I figured I would write down a brief outline of the idea, and then file it away in my list of trains of thought to follow when I had more time and clarity of though. But, now as I am preparing to go to bed, I find that I don't really feel like reading tonight, and instead I want to see if this idea goes anywhere.

I call this idea the Argument from Particularity. Off the bat let me make it clear this is an imperfect argument, in the sense that one of its premises is unable to be proven or disproven, and consequently the entire argument belongs to that realm of things that could be true but must be disregarded because its truth is equally likely as its falsehood. For that reason, I submit this as a kind of imaginative philosophy - philosophical fiction you could call it - that may bring fleeting comfort, irritation, intrigue, or interest if it is successful. My argument runs as follows:

It has been said that this world appears very much the way we should expect the world to be if there were no God.

However, the world operates according to very particular rules. First according to what we call the rules of logic, which we typically hold to apply absolutely. Secondly to those particular laws which we discover through empirical observation - what we call scientific law.

Given our ability to create artificial worlds - whether using the age-old method of literature or the new method that involves computer technology - we see that creating involves the creation of new rules. In a book, for example, we can imagine a plot being woven wherein it becomes a rule that all immoral people must suffer or a plot wherein all selfish and creative people emerge successful in their endeavors. Such rules do not exist in our world, but our stories are created by implementing more rules than those that exist in real life.

Or, as a better illustration, imagine a man sitting down at a brand new computer, intending to play a game on it. The computer, however, has no video game for him to play. In that moment, there is nothing but possibility, hindered only by the rules that govern the player's own world (the game can't involve anything that would involve violating the law of non-contradiction, for example). The player, because no game has yet been made, could end up playing a mystery game, a simulator, a first-person shooter, an RPG, or even some sort of innovative game that has not yet been attempted. The protagonist, since he has no appearance, could have any appearance. The villain likewise. The game mechanics are hindered only by the limitations of the hardware and the rules of the real world. But, once the player creates a game for himself, or once he downloads a game to play, all these possibilities disappear. Particularity sets in, the protagonist looks like this, the game is played like this, the environment looks like this. The transition from possibility to actuality is accomplished through limits and rules.

Because our own world operates only because so many rules have been implemented (such as it being impossible for a spot in the visual field to be both blue and green at the same time in the same way; or, like the speed of light being 299,792,458 meters per second) it is unlikely that our world is the ultimate reality. Given the way that artificial worlds are brought about by an increase in rules, it follows that the ultimate reality would either be ruleless or have some bare minimum number of rules.

Consequently, it is likely that our universe is artificial, as it certainly contains so many particular rules that certainly exceed any bare minimum number of rules.

Problems With this Argument

The last part of the argument, the conclusion, contains the unverifiable claim that our universe contains so many rules that we certainly exceed any bare minimum number of rules. After all, we do not know what the bare minimum number of rules might look like. It might look remarkably like our own world.

However, at the very least, it seems that it should at least be possible for a world to exist without the limitations of space and time. And for that reason, at least, it should be possible for a more ruleless world to exist, one that could be responsible for the creation of the space and time limitations of our own world.

The truly critical problem with the argument is that we do not know for sure if it is always the case that creation is the act of laying down limitations. We know that this is the case in our world - literature is always the acceptance of one possible plot as opposed to all others, photography is always the choice of one angle and one set of settings and one subject and background as opposed to any others - but it does not necessarily mean that this would apply outside of our world. Nor does it necessarily mean that everything with a limit is necessarily created. All created things are limited, but not all limited things are necessarily created.

The Value of the Argument

If there is a value in the argument, and I imagine it would need a lot of polish first, it is that it articulates that feeling one gets that the world is very arbitrary and particular and very much like a work of art. It seems that were we without a director, the world would be much more chaotic. Instead, whatever chaos there is that exists, exists within a strict web of order and structure. This structure, however, seems arbitrary. And we do not expect chance to obey arbitrary laws, only essential immutable laws. It causes one to imagine a lawgiver, an artist, a God who articulated the structure of the world.

The argument, I do not believe, actually makes the existence of God one bit more likely. But maybe it puts into words a feeling that one sometimes gets. And if so, then I say that it is valuable.

Reviewing the Underground

Another review posted on LibraryThing

Notes from Underground is a distinctly Russian novel, it deals with a Russian character facing a Russian problem. I did not notice this my first time reading it, however, because the Underground Man's spite and resentment transcends his particular Russian situation and can be applied to anyone who is out of step with his culture and times. It should be noted, though, that the particular problem that the Underground Man faces is that his view of life is derived from European romantic literature – which of course is literature and not real life. A distinctly Russian problem in that he is trying to lead a Russian life according to the fantasies and emotions of Western European authors (perhaps a modern day analog would be American teenagers who lead their lives with values and fantasies they get from Japanese anime – although somehow that feels insulting to the Underground Man and to European romanticism). He cannot be the man he wishes to be or lead the life he wishes to live because both cannot be found in the real world, certainly not the practical Russian society he rails against.

In the first half of the book, the Underground Man rails against both himself and his times. He rails against modern science and the effect that determinism has on free will. He rails against utopianism and the idea that reason and science will one day build a “crystal palace.” He rails against himself for being “too conscious” which leads to a kind of paralysis and both praises and condemns the men of action who, while less aware than him, are productive and able to attain their ends in the world. He is indeed a spiteful man who realizes (or at least perceives) that there is no way to get society and reality to work the way he wants it to, but refusing to reconcile himself to that fact, preferring instead to be spiteful. It is tempting to judge the first half of the book as a work of philosophy, which it is to an extent except that it is a fictional work of philosophy, it exists to give insight into the Underground Man's character not to genuinely critique anything (of course, that's my conclusion. Make your own).

In the second half of the book – Apropos of the Wet Snow – the man tries unsuccessfully to live real life according to the rules of romantic fiction. He imagines an epic confrontation between himself and a soldier who has disrespected him, he imagines a duel to the death with an old classmate of his to defend his honor, and he imagines himself saving the soul of a diamond-in-the-rough prostitute. All tropes of romantic literature, and all ending in failure when the Underground Man tries to live them out in real life – particularly his attempts to save the prostitute's soul when she instead becomes the one to help him, leading him to become spiteful toward her. He has grand visions and grand dreams for his life, but he can't get anyone else to play along with him. They go about their lives in a practical way, and he is just left being ridiculous and, at best, a minor irritant.

Even though the particulars of the man's situation are Russian, the feelings and attitudes the man has belong to humanity in general. The essential feeling the book deals with is that spite one feels when one knows that things will not go their way, but they refuse to get on board with the rest of society. It's self-destructive, it's senseless, but there's something (I say) noble in preferring to be oneself and miserable than to allow oneself to adopt the prevailing hopes and values in hopes of being united with everyone else. Surely everyone has felt it at one time or another, and for that reason I say that this book has universal appeal. It is also a short read, which lends itself easily to contemplation, re-reading, dissection, and enjoyment. Highly recommended to anyone and everyone.

Surprised by Joy Briefly Revisited

A review for C. S. Lewis's Surprised by Joy, written on LibraryThing.

It's been quite a few years since I read this book, and I now have a far different worldview than I did when I read it, but this book continues to interest me as I continue to be interested in the possibility of and nature of religious experiences. It is no longer fresh in my mind what he wrote and, considering I read it back in High School, there was much that he discussed that probably meant nothing to me then that would mean something to me now. But that's why I'm writing this review with it as a distant memory, I want to talk about what was in the book that stuck with me.

There exists a feeling that comes upon people at some times. I do not know if it comes to all people – though I have no reason for supposing that it is available to some men and not others, barring the possibility that it has to be prompted by certain environmental factors that some people may not be exposed to – what is important is that the feeling exists. In my opinion, the discussion of this feeling, which Lewis calls “joy” is the greatest contribution this book makes. If you are a Christian, this book is valuable as a discussion of some part of human nature that cries out for another world. If you are an atheist, this book is valuable as an example of some peculiarity of human psychology that leads people to search for God.

“If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.” (A quote from Mere Christianity, which I imagine was a reference to the desire that Lewis came to call “joy”)

You will get plenty of discussion about the rampant homosexuality in the school Lewis was sent to (which was largely a result of Lewis's own overly-sexual and overly-suspicious view of his peers. His older brother was baffled by his portrayal of their school), you will get information about Lewis's time with Kirkpatrick where he began to put on intellectual muscle from a very logical, literal, and precise teacher, you will read about him enduring time as a soldier in World War I, him attaining a prestigious teaching post, and plenty about his love for mythology – especially Norse mythology. You won't find many logical proofs about what led him to Christianity. You won't get a list of facts that Lewis took into account to determine that Christianity was more likely than otherwise. The book would be worse if he included them, as they would detract from the main contribution the book makes: the personal and subjective account of what led a reasonable and intelligent man to place his faith in Christ, and his account of an experience of longing and desire called Joy.

If you put aside the pretenses of commitment to facts and evidence that both sides posture with, you will get an glimpse of what can really move an intelligent man to faith – whether or not you consider a move to faith to be an improvement. Or, perhaps just as likely, you yourself may have felt what Lewis called Joy: a bittersweet longing and desire, in which case this book will give you an opportunity to read how he reacted to that experience. Or maybe you think Lewis is just a ridiculous man, well, he certainly won't change your mind here, but you might find some opportunities to laugh at him if that's how you get your kicks. If religious experiences and conversion stories interest you, or if you are interested in Lewis in general, I highly recommend the book. If your main interest is apologetics, I advise skipping this one.

[As a general caution, I would recommend reading this book as events that happened in C. S. Lewis's life – as Jack would want you to believe them. This book was nicknamed “Suppressed by Jack” among those intimate with the details of Lewis's life. That's not to say it is not valuable, merely that it should not be taken as true, at least as far as it concerns Lewis's account of his external circumstances. If you want his biography, you can look up George Sayer's book Jack. This book is more valuable for insight into Lewis's internal development.]

What Step Have I Taken Deux

When you do finally have some area that you are advancing in, some activity that you devote part of your day to that advances you toward your goals, you find that you are able to say "alright, you have done well for the day. Relax. Enjoy yourself."

My head is throbbing, but at least I am at peace with myself for the moment.