Questions...

 

So I'm currently most interested in (prosaic) things that affect me like:

why are house prices so high relative to the average annual page (price-to-earning)?

why has the price-to-earning ratio gone up from 3 to 7 since the 1970s?

what are the economic prospects for the UK over the next 5 years?

will interest rates go up, stay where they are or go do and in what time frame? (implications on mortage repayment)?

what are the political and societal implications of increasing inequality?

what kind of provision do I have to make to ensure that I have sufficent money for the rest of my life?

what political action should I take (if any) to make sure that my economic interests are represented?

will there be a resurgance of sectarian strife in Northern Ireland?

are my mum's finances as sound as she makes out?

why does my mum believe the World Economic Forum is involved in a plot of subjugating humanity through the formation of a technocratic world government surveilance state?

how much exposure has my mum got to the CashFX scam (and does she really believe it?)

to what extent are the claims of so-called conspiracy theorists true?

are civil rights being eroded in the UK and to what extent should I become involved politically in opposing them?

what sort of tax planning should I do to maximise my income and proect my assets?

to what extent is the ongoing polarisation of politics going to affect me?

why is vaccination a politically charged issue - is there genuine cause for concern?

what are the implications of global warming of the course of my life?

to what extent are vaccination and global warming being exploited for political gain by both advocates and opponents?

what are the evidential standards required to analyse global warming and vaccination?

how can valid evidence (accurate, impartial) be identified and invalid evidence (innaccurate, biased) be refuted?

how does scienctific reasoning facillitate accurate predictions about the world?

why are some scientific predictions vague (smoking can cause lung cancer)?

why do people not make a distinction between sciences that make accurate predictions about the world and sciences that consistently fail to make accurate predictions about the world?

to what extent is opposition to the conclusions of scientific reasoning due to either a failure to understand the scientific method or a emotional / aesthetic rejection of the conclusions?

what is the best diet to eat to maximise my health and longevity and why is advice in this area to contradictory?

Or to put it simply: where are the (real) dangers and what are the remedies?

To this end, I seek to aquire:

> historical background to make me aware of relevant factors affecting these questions

> psychological insights, to help me appeciate the motivations of people which I cannot otherwise understand.

> logical reasoning skill, to help me establish a chain of causality.

The unexamined life is not worth living...discuss

  I'm in the business of social critique but mainly from a position of how to live well. The goal of my life is the good life, first for me and my friends and family, later for a wider circle.
  My sources are multiple and my rule is that any position is to be entertained for a while at least - anecdote is a valuable source in that it describes an emotional experience that at least one person has had - the challenge is to assess it's relevance to one's own worldview. My goal is to see the world as it is warts and all, accept it and feel good about it.
 Many ideas are considered evil to a given set of people - and they cannot be invoked / discussed at all because they almost have a magical power to summon darkness (say - euthanasia).   This is a taboo I reject, although I respect that the emotional difficulties people may experience handling challenging ideas - there is a time and a place.
    I've devoted a lot of time to the mental map (too much time!) - but experiences are the essence (and yes, I fear people and the world)...this involves cultivating openness and fearlessness.
   I believe there is an experiential "spiritual" level in life which is open to us and free of dogma - it consists of accessing non-routine and profound mental/emotional states. Everybody has their own "way". I reject the notion of being a spiritual child in someone else's spiritual family.

More thoughts... Self fulfillment, mastery and original sin.

 Even amongst close friends and family there  inevitable differences in fundamental outlook become apparent. The childhood memory  of my Dad (the Labourite) arguing with my Uncle (The Tory) as  comes to mind. Sometimes the arguments would getter bitter and never the twain shall meet...will the two sides ever be reconciled? Who knows?
  But here's my frame - I am a selfish fuck - I care about myself, friends and family most - I want them to thrive but I believe in personal destiny - everyone should be free to pursue their highest calling. I reject fear based attempts to control others through shame  I reject the notion of original sin - in it's Christian form and in it's Liberal Guilt form.
  I believe in reasonless happiness as an ideal, right now, in the terrible world of our. I believe in fucking off those people who wish for your downfall and spreading the good vibes to those who are open to receiving them. I believe in being unselfconscious, not trying to look "clever", not trying to solve all problems, not trying to control everything and everybody.
 I believe the fate world is beyond our collective control and unfolds mysteriously. My way of helping people would involve spreading joy and teaching them to be free of oppression. I can't help everyone but maybe a few people. I'll be motivated out of compassion and if I do wrong then remorse...but not out of shame and fear.
  I bet at least of some of you think sounds naive, idealistic, selfish, impossible, irresponsible and anything else you can think of....And the thing is - I just don't care...which is just how you feel when you are joyously and uncontrollably laughing or swept up in some other joyous ecstatic experience, sexual or otherwise...

The Nature of Life

In my opinion, the unequivocal truth about life is this: humans like all animals are biological machines predisposed to reproductively successful behaviour - all life is in competition with itself although co-operation also occurs when it furthers individuals goals. Life evolved by a random and blind processes - I see no evidence of a higher force at work because to believe in such would create cognitive dissonances best summed up by Epicurus thusly:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

Unfortunately holding this somewhat bleak perspective on life is troubling to me. I express it posed as this question:

"would you prefer to believe an ugly truth or a beautiful lie"

I believe that most of us opt for what I would deem a beautiful lie - that there is an inherent purpose and meaning to life and maybe a God. They keep themselves busy and don't let the cognitive dissonances and paradoxes that arise from the conflict occasioned by contact with the horrors that life entails. In the west we try to sweep the horror under the carpet - in other places of the world, God may be considered to "move in mysterious ways".

I myself am not particularly happy about this view of the world. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else particularly as it hasn't brought me great joy. In fact I am a depressive person and this belief system might well be an artifact of my brain as much as anything else. And yet I believe that it IS the most easily believable truth - no mental acrobatics are needed - just a willingness to accept the most obvious solution to the question about the nature of life, however unpleasant and blasphemous that solution is.

A facet of this understanding regards human nature and the question of whether you and I can ever truly trust another human. "Trust them to do what?" you may ask. "I'd trust them to be human" - but what does that mean? Human behaviour is an intriguing mix of a range of ancestral biological traits mediated by the lens of whatever culture they come from. Culture to me is an attempt to facilitate co-operation on increasingly large scales and as such it requires the continual restriction and moderation of natural urges - the current political battles raging in the West regarding the standards for the wealthy vs the poor reflects the inherent instabilities in all cultural constructions

Democracy...

Let's face it - all people are not equal in abilities - this is a self-evident truth. As I understand it most human traits are distributed on a bell curve. This suggests that a truly democratic regime (if one has ever existed!) would be hampered by the ignorance of it's electorate and also that the mainstream economical concept of "homo economicus" - the rational consumer, is a dangerous fallacy. So maybe an non-hereditary aristocracy run as a meritocracy would produce the best society. It would make sense to regulate markets to achieve social goals. It would could also include social structures which appeal to both sexes. Men need to form bonds with other man and pursue individualistic excellence where failure and success is entirely possible and where they can earn respect - the economic system should facilitate this. Women need to feel safe and enjoy community as well as being able to have access to men then can look up to. Individuals of any race and gender that differ from the norm should to be able to find niches where they can thrive. I imagine the egalitarianism is essentially a feminine ideal whereas hierachical stratification is a male one, which hints that socialism may enjoy more female support and capitalism (in it's uncorrupted corporate form) may enjoy more male support. The ideal society would harness it's citizen's abilities in a win-win situation whereby both the state and the citizen's were enriched by the exchange...

Happiness...

In the state of nature - happiness is the reward for survival and staying alive. Nowadays survival is easier therefore happiness is more elusive. Unhappiness and happiness together create motivational momentum but too much of either (depression or euphoria) disable it. 

Pain is a form of unhappiness - it comes in two forms - pain that builds you up and pain that tears you down. Chronic pain (depression) tends to tear you down. The Buddhist solution says that attachment (desire) causes suffering - be indiferent and you will cease to suffer. This is a form of outcome independance. It makes sense in situations where you cannot reasonably expect to improve your lot in life. But it would not inspire you to create and conquer. On the other hand there are many phases in creating and conquering where the dice are rolled and luck plays a massive part. This is where Zen and the Warrior intersect. The trick is how to cultivate maximal effort towards a goal whilst simultaneously being unaffected by failure or success (outcome independence). This raises the question about whether having mastered this you would still be able to enjoy the fruits. I would imagine that the solution lies in shifting focus onto the act of attainment (mindfulness) and deriving satisfaction, win or lose (it's not what you do, it's the way that you do it).

The Price of Goodness

Let us start with an abstract arguement: Do the means justify the ends? Well what ends you might ask and what means? The end is the perfection of society and man - the means are any and all available. And why are any means permissable? Since the end is itself perfect, nothing should be aloud to stand in it's why surely?

And here is the problem - the definition of perfection of society and man. Who's perfection are we talking? Is it the perfection of the rulers of Aldous Huxely's "Brave New World"? The perfection of Orwell's Ing-Soc? The perfection of Mao-Tse-Tung, Kim il Sung or Pol Pot? The perfection of Louis XIV or Hitler?

Why is it that high ideals and utopian ideology seem to end up with a state of affair that the Greeks described 2000s or so years ago as tyranny? The absolute rule of the many by the few - alledgedly for their own good...the many regarded by their subjects as clay to be moulded, blank slates to be written on with party slogans, ignorant children to be educated and indoctrinated. And the perfect society is always an omlete which requires the breaking of a few eggs...minorities who must become the sacrificial victims for the good of society - like the Aztecs whose religion required a wholesale sacrifice of captives in order to feed the sun, these victim classes - racial, religious, political and class minorities are sacrificed with as spurious a justification for the good of the whole. And the real reason? A tyranny must be fed constantly on the blood of its subjects - this Leviathan must be nourished and it will be because all men fear the heart of darkness of anarchy - a breakdown of society and human relations where society framents into it's constituent tribal units based around strong leaders and the whole evolution of human society must take it's bloody course once again.

Human life is fragile, imperfect and uncertain - we long with all our heart to make it otherwise - we often feel the pain of our vulnerability when confronted with extrememe situations such as death and violence. Every social structure is a collective attempt to control our lives since we know that as an individual we will not survive in the wild for long. This individual has much freedom but little power. And yet what is the best way for a group of people to organise themselves? What  political structure will guarentee the greatest liberty for the greatest number of people, afford the greatest measure individual control, resist the ravages of time and endure the attempts of other states to destroy or subjugate it?

I know not - but I feel that the attempt to control men is futile - the average man cannot share the desires and visions of those at the apex of the pyramid. The average man wishes for a life which is modest and unsupposing. Napoleon once called England "a nation of shopkeepers" - is that so terrible? Why can not rulers accept humanity in all it's glorious imperfection? If you treat your subjects as children then they shall behave like children and if you treat your subjects like dogs they shall behave like dogs. And maybe if you treat your subjects like humans they will be humane?

So the saying is that charity begins at home - maybe our society would be better off for all of us if we personally befriended one person in need and took responsibility for helping them improve their life than with all the government social planning, political correctness, bureaucracy. Maybe we should stop seeking perfection and embrace imperfection - stop trying to control everything and allow things to be as they are. Maybe the spectre of bloody anarchy is less real than we fear.