Philosophy> I spent most of Sunday reading Lady Chatterley’s Lover for a Philosophy of Love class I’m helping teach, and I finished it on the train to work Monday. At that point, I thought it was beautiful, powerful, endlessly intriguing, etc. Then, on the way back from work, I read the “a propos” written by D.H. Lawrence at the end of my copy of the book on what he intended by it, and why he wrote it. It blew me away. It’s not often that one comes away from a book convinced of the nobility of the heros, only to find that oneself is the villain.

I think that by the book, I’m not a real man. I’m mostly just a more timid form of Clifford, the ego-centric, all-mental husband. In the a propos, Lawrence describes his concept of a real man not just as one who has “courage in tenderness” or a strong connection between his body and his mind, but as one who experiences life fully, and breaks out of the emotional shallowness both the modern Puritan and the modern rebel. I think, by its standards, I haven’t felt a real, raw emotion in years– ever, in my memory. I do feel emotion, but in Lawrence’s words, my body supplies me with emotion like a trained animal.

Moreover, it seems like any halting steps that I might take to expand my emotional world go badly (and are opposed by others). Its clear that this particular fire in me has gone dead, but I seem to have perserved the hearth, and perhaps to more harm than good.

Politics> I also finished Don’t Think of an Elephant. There are some good pointers in the last section, but otherwise it’s pretty repetitive, if you grok the first chapter. I’ve scanned in the first chapter, Framing 101, for any who want it.

Life> Not much sleep this week, but Body’s been treating me well. After being on edge Monday and Tuesday from lack of sleep, he was totally refueled on 7.5 hours. Then, last night, I left my keys at Olin and had to sleep in a lounge at MIT, but Body kicked me off my couch after 5 hours and told me to catch my train.

Politics> In Don’t Think of an Elephant, Lakoff has a discussion of conservative and liberal frames for thinking about same-sex marriage and notes the divide between pragmatic progressives, who see civil unions as a sufficient option for homosexuals, and idealistic progressives, who feel full marriage must be an option for everyone. But I’m confused. My opinion is neither (or both?) and I don’t see how the others are justified in light of it from a liberal outlook. So I want to realize my blindness. Below is my thought on this. Does anyone know a good article for why this view isn’t more widely taken?

1. The ultimate solution to this problem is for all references to “marriage” to be removed from the law, and for the benefits currently conferred by it to be made available through a much more general system, which would have no reference to gender. Churches could have whatever internal definition of marriage they want, though.
2. However, as long as the government is officially sanctioning marriage for heterosexuals, civil unions for others are grossly inadequate, socially.

As to whether same-sex civil unions in the meantime are “good policy”, because they’ll pave the way to the ultimate solution, or “bad policy”, because they’ll take pressure away from getting the ultimate solution, then, is just a matter of predictive sociology, assuming we can get to the end goal within our lifetimes.

Life> Walking around with your arm in a sling tends to make passers-by uncomfortable, but walking around with a *metal dowel* and your arm in a sling makes them positively nervous. I think I checked the step of everyone who saw me for about 1/3 seconds, as they tried to figure out what was going on.

Politics> Today, George Lakoff is my hero. The first speech in Don’t Think of an Elephant is called Framing 101, and applies powerfully and succinctly a host of ideas I’m interested in (SD, paradigms, cognitive effects of word usage) to exactly the area I wanted them applied to (the next step for the left).

Everyone should read it. The rest of the book might not add much though (still reading).

One of Lakoff’s goals is to find the common basis for right-wing thought and for left-wing thought, and he does it through our conceptions of the family (strict father vs. nurturing parent). He does this to try to draw together the left, illuminate our fundamental paradigm, and provide a framework for predicting the right.

Which brings me to my creed. I think Lakoff settles too early, and I think a stronger claim can be made (to dig deeper and generalize beyond the current right-left line to which Lakoff seems wed). My attempt may not be better, but I’ve been trying to get comments on it, to refine my own thinking if not to make it usable by others. Note that my goal is to describe a subset of the left, but hopefully a broad one (intellectual-ish, world-change-hopefuls).

Statement of Motivational Principles

The following is a statement to motivate the formation of a vast left-wing conspiracy; a description of the field that, I believe, supports the intellectual left’s many tents, and a rallying point for world change.

The foundation of our liberalism is a striving for liberating ways of thinking and acting: our goal is to weaken the bonds of ignorance and of injustice, which we believe to have common roots. We believe in celebrating differences, and that understanding begets respect. We share a conviction of the power of open-mindedness, liberation and progress as a path to well-being, and egalitarianism and civil rights as the bedrock of a better future world.

We believe our fight for people, truth, justice, and a better world is righteous. But built atop our foundational ethic is a network of deep consequentialism, concerned not only with our outcome, but with the implications of our methods, and deference to the incredible complexity of our world. We recognize the awful blindness of wedding ourselves to a single perspective.

Furthermore, we believe that our effort can move the world, and to that end, that insight and inspiration are as important as sweat and tears. The modern world overflows with opportunity, and through cultivating better understanding, better approaches, better ideas, and better organizations for ourselves and the world, our dream can come true.

Every book I’ve read in the past three months has gotten me more charged to do some serious world changing! I want to rant somewhat on my recent reads (What’s the Matter with Kansas, Good to Great, Don’t Think of an Elephant), but I need to do it over a few days.

Thomas Frank’s Kansas is a froth-mouthed, frustrating creature, waiting for its moment to rip out the last of “liberal hold on America”. I think his pessimism is misplaced. Let me paint a different picture of Kansas.

The leaders of the conservative backlash live in simple homes, and have hard lives and day jobs, many in factories. Their efforts are hugely grassroots, going from door-to-door, and involving large sectors of their communities. Simultaneously, they’re investing in their future, building infrastructure, and financing new ideas. These people are politically sophisticated, and they’re working class people.

We’re in the middle of the largest working class revolution in American history, and the poor are going about it right!

Sure, they aren’t supporting what we were hoping for. But their current view of the world is warped. It’s kept stable by their ideology and a lot of effort, but it can’t be stabilized with respect to every perturbation, and sooner or later, it will fall apart. I think it’s so unstable that when it goes, it will explode, and then there will be hell to pay.

But it won’t easily fall apart on its own, but that’s where the other two books come in.

Wedesday evening, I slipped on some ice coming around a corner and broke my upper left arm, near my shoulder. I got to ride in an ambulance and now my arm is in a sling.

I feel like an invalid. My left arm is practically useless (I’m typing this one-handed), I can comfortably walk only about 1/4 speed, and everything is a balancing act to keep stresses off my shoulder. Aside from wanting me to stay in bed all day, Claudia’s been indispensable (I’ve been trying to do everything for myself, but I was in tears from not being able to get the medicine bottle open until she could help me).

This morning I’m not doing so well. I took vicoden, but the pain is still mind-numbing. Like being punched hard in one spot all the time. But at my better stretches, I get to explore some fascinating aspects. It’s like a window into the delicate interconnectivity of my skeleton– I can raise my right arm and feel all the strains occurring on my left. And, though I’m suspicious of this, it feels like I can move my shoulder “just on the inside”. I’ll feel a strain in my shoulder and realize that while my arm is hanging by my stomach, my shoulder is positioned at an angle away from it, and I have to bring it back. Zany stuff!

ESG is putting together a “steering committee” that will probably replace CICDO as its main community (staff and student) governing body. We’re putting together our rules of operation now– if anyone wants a good challenge, try defining the rules of a government.

I believe strongly in consensus decision-making; I think it’s the only way to fully value dissent and minority opinion. Other methods sacrifice this for efficiency. So I wanted to come up with a solution that got both without being game-able. I think I got something that mostly values dissent and is only somewhat game-able. Take a look at my suggested steering committee operating procedure— I’m interested in any other ideas that are out there.

I’ve had several fantastic discussions recently, and I have things to say that I feel more strongly about then I have in a while.

Until recently, I’d been more intrigued by the events of the world than concerned by them. Being more interested in things philosophically and academically, and being more interested in trends than invested in particular structures, I could stand back. Conservative people aren’t wrong; corrupt politicians are to be expected; and the wrongs in the world result from large enough structures that they are best attacked on a long time scale.

Recently, though, I’ve become very afraid. Said simply, I think that the current trajectory of the United States could result in a Hilter-like state in the next 10 years. The biggest reasons I have concern the use of fear, and recently hatred, for political purposes, and the effects of modern propaganda techniques, from both parties, on the workings of democracy. This is not a test.

But the reason to fight now, very hard, at the expense of practicality and in disproportion to the clear evidence, is not that the doomsday fears are correct. It’s because the fight is righteous. First they came for the terrorists and I did not speak out because I was not a terrorist. Next they may come for the homosexuals. There’s something mad about that kind of virtuous life, but I want that kind of madness in my life.

That said, I still think I can finish my year at Olin, before I commit myself full-time to the task, as long as I’m making progress. But the natural end of these thoughts are all-consuming.

I’ve recently been reading about the poststructural feminists, like Luce Irigaray and Helene Cixous, for my backwards history of philosophy, and I think I agree with them.

If the current phallocentric logos is to be deconstructed, and it must for us to exit this cycle of fear that characterizes the modern response to differences, it needs to be through the positive create of a new logos on the part of women. We can’t build a new world when the very act of producing meaning is infected.

There are lots of differences between people, and so lots of potential different origins for making a new logos. But the shear obviousness and pervasiveness of the male-female differences cannot be ignored.

It could be argued that perhaps the fear of difference is something essential to humankind. But given the power our paradigms have over us– that we appear to interact with our models of the world and our minds far more than the things themselves– it seems silly not to hope.

Colleagues ask me how I’m doing, and I feel guilty to say just “Good.” In truth, two days ago, I was pretty bummed out: I’d lost my cell phone a week earlier, my ears had been clogged for longer, and I had less to do for work. Yesterday, that all changed. I found my phone lying in a pool of light in the middle of the floor, my ears unclogged, I got unexpected money, and my stock prediction program progressed swimmingly. When I got home, I found Claudia’s lost Tamogatchi, and Claudia hired me to teach her something in return for 5 books so I can learn it too.

I said, “Surely the gods are smiling–” before getting interrupted. I think I scared my benefactor away, because within an two hours I developed a sneeze and Claudia told me that she would be gone until Saturday.

But by then it was too late! I had already come up with a nice collection of new projects to work on! Here are the highlights:

• Cooperative Coordination Page: Facilitate people combining their resources for common purchases, like magazine subscriptions and fresh food. More importantly, all levels of cost (from produce to multiple consumers) would be transparent and changeable.
• Backwards History of Philosophy: Develop a course on philosophy, starting from present day and working back to the pre-Socratics, presenting each philosophy as a holistic paradigm, while allowing the learner to understand their own paradigms by seeing their ancestry.
• Other new projects: “Fair Use” Learning Materials Page; Design for collective data collection site, to make a historical trends graph; a PIC-based Neural Network ALife pendant; Your Money or Your Life FI program; Following siderea‘s RBC re-education project.

I Heart Huckabees is great. I can’t decide if I want to be an existential detective, or if I want one on my case, whatever my case might be. It touches on a lot of issues, but it spends most of its time on the connectedness issue, which until now I had never thought much about. Through a twist or two, it brought me to the following rant, which I’ve wanted to say to so many people I’ve wasted hours with in philosophy classes, trying to convince them to care (but haven’t know how to express the problem).

Knowing and Not Philosophy– Rant