The ramblings of an Eternal Student of Life     
. . . still studying and learning how to be grateful and make the best of it
 
 
Monday, January 28, 2008
Psychology ... Society ...

In the time before I turned 40 but after my marriage broke up, it occurred to me that a guy’s chances of getting into a romantic relationship with an available woman are usually determined within the first two or three seconds after meeting. After years of rough experience, I finally noticed that some women just plain like you from the first moment they see you; and some really dislike you. Actually, most are more-or-less neutral.

Still, if you want to get a relationship going, your best chances were with the first group. The second group would be a waste of time, no matter how much you otherwise had in common, and no matter how much you might feel attracted to someone who just doesn’t like your look. The third group is not impossible, but it takes a lot of work. And it keeps on taking a lot of work. If you get a relationship going with someone from the neutral zone, it could fall apart as soon as you start feeling secure enough to stop buying flowers and writing love notes every day (and try to get a night or two in with your old friends).

It also occurred to me that there is really no rhyme or reason as to how the three groups break down. Women who seemed totally not-my-type, who had nothing in common with me, sometimes fell into the attraction group. (OK, I am an honest if not rudely handsome man; I will admit that there are not hundreds and hundreds of women like that out there). And yet women with everything in common too often fall into the immediate dislike group. There is something unexplainable that happens in that first second or two of observation. Over the years, there have been a fair number of not-so-beautiful women in my attraction group; but surprisingly, there were some real beauties too (but of course there weren’t very many, and I always messed things up in the end with them). Furthermore, some of the “fan club” have included women of different ethnicities and race. Whatever this factor is, it’s an equal opportunity factor.

Eventually I extended the theory to other parts of life; low and behold, it seemed to work beyond the realm of dating and mating. It seemed to apply with people of all ages, both men and women (albeit on a non-sexual basis). It seemed to apply to job interviews (usually to my disadvantage). Some people just like you at first, and others shun you, without any rational reason other than “an inner hunch”. There’s a guy at work who just didn’t like me from day 1; I picked that up pretty quickly and so I didn’t waste any energy trying to be his friend. But after six years, the guy finally seems to be lightening up. He seems to have decided that I’m not quite the creep that his gut feelings made me out to be. Nonetheless, it took six years and the fact that some of his friends have been getting along with me just fine to change his mind; that’s how strong this ‘immediate judgment’ factor is. (It also works on in the other way too; if you ignore one of your natural fans, they may eventually turn against you, but that also takes quite a while).

I’ve noticed that the world of real science is starting to pick up on the “first sight” factor. There have been a couple of articles lately about the research of a psychologist named Nalini Ambady. One study indicated that a group of people looking at pictures of strangers could correctly guess the person’s sexual orientation (gay or straight) with surprising success, significantly higher than 50-50. Another similar study indicated that successful business leaders have a certain look that can be picked out, and that correlates with the financial success of their firms. Again, a group of average people looking at a stack of pictures could pick out those who were gay or were successful leaders with fairly good accuracy and agreement. An older study by Ambady indicated that college students decide whether they are going to like or dislike a professor in the first second that they see them. The initial impression was shown to carry right thru to the end of the semester.

There’s an old name for this field of study: physiognomy. Actually, physiognomy is considered junk science or “folk science” at best. But the work of Ambady and some others is showing that there may be something to the “immediate judgement” factor. There are actually two different questions raised by physiognomy: FIRST, just how strongly do people prejudice their judgments about another person based on the first look; and SECOND, are they right about their initial feelings? The research seems to indicate that people really do “read a book by its cover”, as my past experiences tend to indicate. (So I’m not 100% crazy after all).

But as to the SECOND question — that issue is still up in the air. We have three examples: being gay, being a good business leader, and being a good professor. Assuming that a random group of people tend to agree on first sight that person X looks like she’s gay or would be a good business leader, or would make a good teacher, does that mean that the face and the body actually reflect mental abilities and personality temperaments? OR, as I suspect, is it more the case that a person “floats to the top” in business or academia because the majority of people THINK she or he will be a good executive or teacher? Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy? Even with the gay situation, which we increasingly believe to be a function of nature and not nurture, one has to wonder if a child’s sexuality is partly shaped by what people around him or her sub-consciously think about him or her. (In other words, sexual preference may be shaped as much by social – genetic factors as by direct genetic determinants of behavior).

Well, in a way this depresses me. We seem to think that every child can become whatever she or he wants to become; it’s a very American notion. (And likewise, we blame every adult who doesn’t achieve their dreams; just didn’t have the fire inside.) And yet, maybe we’re all locked onto certain pathways in life because of a social judgment processes based upon the unalterable appearances of our body. Even if you have the interest and the strength and the mind to become an astronaut, if you don’t have the look (and the right opportunities, which may be a function of the right look), then you ain’t gonna make it. The “right stuff” needs the right look. Sure, not everyone can be a singer or an athlete or a senator or a great intellect; but everyone is good at something. Whatever that good is, for it to become truly GREAT may depend on how one’s nose is placed relative to their eyeline and upper lip, most ironically.

And as to the whole dating thing: you can find someone who shares your every interest, and whom you find very attractive; and yet, if that person just doesn’t feel the tingle at the start, then you’re probably never going to be more than good friends. The woman who is actually interested in you is going to have a totally different look from what you dig, and she finds most of your interests to be trivial. She may not like your style. And yet, she’s ready to be asked out to dinner. (Unless, of course, you’re an NFL quarterback or screen actor in your mid-20s, and you have your choice of all kinds of women.) Life is a roll of the dice. Some people get lucky and find their soul mates, i.e., someone with common interests who is attracted to you as much as you are to her. And some people just don’t.

No matter what the shrinks try to tell you, too often the losers and neurotics of the world actually ARE unlucky — just plain unlucky. The physiognomy thing tends to affirm that there isn’t all that much substantive difference between those with much achievement and fame (or even just basic happiness), and those who die as discontented nobodies.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 10:04 pm       Read Comments (3) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Friday, December 7, 2007
Society ... Technology ...

I was searching some Russian web sites for info about my family name, and accidentally came across a photo-blog in Cyrillic. It looked interesting, so I did a Google translation and found a poem about the start of the long Rusky winter. Of course, the translation was klunky. So I tried some other on-line translators, and the results were somewhat different. But still klunky — in a charming sort of way. Two of the words just didn’t translate, but I put my best guesses in brackets. But as to that “necessary disk”, you’re on your own there.

Here are four Americanized versions of this ode to the start of the long Russian winter. Despite the syntactical static, you still get the idea. I don’t have any similar thoughts for mid-December in New Jersey, where the temps currently oscillating between the low 20s and high 40s. All I can say is that I’ll take our prosaic late autumn over their poetic early winter, any day!

Dec. 1, 2007

This silence and coziness in the soul, which even does not be desirable to lie down to sleep. You control snowflakes in the lantern light and you begin to breathe flatter and it is calmer… You namurlykivayesh [sing?] to itself tikhonechko [song?], through the word, through time the song, which now would listen to….no the laziness to search for necessary disk… With the winter you… Let it will be bright and comfortable…

Such silence and comfort in the soul that does not even want to fall sleep. Witnesses for the lamppost in white light and you start breathing smoother and calmer … Namurlykivaesh [sing?] imagine tihonechko [song?] through the floor, through the courtesy song, which now would poslushala [listen] …. but Laziness go desired disk … In winter you … Let it be bright and comfortable …

Such silence and coziness in a shower that would not be desirable to go to bed at all. You observe of snowflakes in lantern light and you start to breathe more exactly and more easy… Намурлыкиваешь [sing?] to itself very quietly, through a word, through steps песенку [song?] which now would listen…. But laziness to search for the necessary disk… With a winter you… Let it will be light and cozy …

This silence and coziness in the soul, which even does not be desirable to lie down to sleep. You control snowflakes in the lantern light and you begin to breathe flatter and it is calmer … You namurlykivaesh [sing?] to itself tikhonechko [song?], through the word, through time the song, which now it would listen to….but laziness to search for necessary disk … With the winter you… Let it be bright and comfortable …

◊   posted by Jim G @ 10:06 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Monday, December 3, 2007
Art & Entertainment ... Philosophy ... Religion ... Society ...

I voluntarily live in a perpetual culture lag; I have no idea what movies, songs, artists, clothes, etc. are going to be talked about 3 months from now. (I once had a girlfriend that made me watch E! with her — arg, bad memories.) So, don’t be surprised that I just found out about “The Golden Compass”, a movie that is now hitting the screens. Or that I’ve just become aware of the theological controversies behind Philip Pullman’s child fantasy novels, on which Golden Compass is based.

Oh good, another child-fantasy movie series. Just what we need. As if Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings weren’t enough (then throw in Naria, although I do very much respect C.S. Lewis). I’m glad that I grew up long before this stuff became required-seeing for every kid. Back when I was young, we walked around by rivers and railroad tracks and factories, and we made up our own fantasy adventures using whatever junk we found lying around. Kids today have their lives completely scheduled and controlled by their parents (admittedly, for their own safety – this is a more perverted world now). Thus, they have to stay indoors and read or watch a movie or DVD about fantasy adventure. Again, I’m glad that I grew up when a kid could still go out by himself after school or on a Saturday and do his own thing. But I digress.

Back to Philip Pullman and the Golden Compass. There’s a bit of controversy going on over Pullman’s “atheistic” message. The big enemy in Pullman’s stories is “The Magesterium”. I believe that God is eventually killed in some meta-cosmic battle. And we’re all the better for it, according to Pullman. With God gone, we can then be natural – and that includes allowing teenagers to satiate their burgeoning lusts without delay. You can see why Pullman would be popular with teens, especially with the guys. But without God and the hovering superego, just what in Pullman’s world keeps our beautiful desires from being sullied by cruelty, power-lust, neurosis and all the other bad tendencies that people actually have? Where would the virtues necessary to sustain our social order come from?

From “Dust”. In Pullman’s imagined world, there are invisible particles of goodness all around us. And they tend to cling to us when we’re in our most honest and natural states. By contrast, dust goes away when the Church and the Authorities start preaching to us in the name of God and Country. If only we’d all just let go, Dust would make it OK. But God and The Magesterium won’t let go, so they have to be done away with by Pullman’s protagonists (which appear to include a polar bear and a 12 year old girl).

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t like to be told what to do by established religion and government. Both institutions go overboard too often, limiting freedom when it’s unnecessary and even counter-productive. I still respect the ideas and ideals of liberalism. But as to just throwing the establishment out . . . well, I guess there’s still a bit of Edmund Burke in me.

But one more queer thing about the Pullman idea. I’ve been listening to some Teaching Company lectures by Daniel N. Robinson lately, so I’ve learned a bit about ontology. I.e., “just what is there” in our universe, just what is the nature of everything. It’s a big question, but that’s the fun of ontology (and philosophy in general). The early Greeks got interested in ontology, and came up with various theories. One Greek idea is called “atomism”. Atomism is the idea that at bottom, there is some tiny elementary particle from which everything is made of. That particle is the end of reality; you can’t get any smaller, can’t break it down, can’t change it. You can only combine it in different ways to get different things, e.g. kites and kittens, Caesar salads and Corvettes, neutron stars and nitrogen gas, etc. The trick was to learn about the basic particle; then you’d know the common characteristics of all things.

Once upon a time, this seemed like a good idea. But over the past 2,500 years or so, science has come up with better views. It came up with field theories (e.g. magnetic fields and gravity, seemingly continuous phenomenon), and then had to modify those field concepts with quantum realities (little units almost like the Greek “atom”, but which jump around and change randomly). So now reality is composed of a whole lot of interacting quantum perturbations in a series of fields (or maybe one ultimate field, if and when physics achieves the unification of all basic forces).

Theologians have simultaneously come up with much more sophisticated theories of what God could be like. God, and our own sentience and awareness, are now seen by some theologians in terms of an emergence based upon large volumes of quantum perturbations of some common underlying field. God is not on one end, with us on another. We’re all part of something common, according to the process theologians. We’re all moving towards something. It seems like a good way to think about ontology and metaphysics given what we now know from the physical sciences.

So, Pullman’s “dust” ontology and theology appears to be a throwback to me. It seems immature. Sure, the Vatican and the many other religious authorities on our planet have a long way to go to catch up with the emerging and sophisticated views that their theologians are proposing. But that’s the way it’s always been; the authorities always need a century or two to adopt a good idea. Pullman doesn’t want to wait; he would imagine doing away with the authorities and going back to a very elementary and immature view of where truth and virtue come from.

“Dust” is something to cough and choke on. Pun intended, even if it’s quite lame. The philosophers and scientists long ago figured out that we ultimately are not dust, and ultimately it is not dust to which we return. And even the more progressive churchmen now emphasize that they are only talking about the body, and not about the soul, when they speak of our dusty mortality. I hope that Golden Compass’ audience of young minds will likewise be able to move away from Pullman’s countervailing but still immature way of thinking about the world and where its truths ultimately lie.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 6:39 pm       Read Comments (10) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Current Affairs ... Economics/Business ... Food / Drink ... Society ...

I’ve noticed those TV commercials that eBay now has running, pitching the idea that it’s more fun to shop competitively, which is what an eBay auction is all about. I do indeed buy stuff there, but I certainly don’t find it fun to use eBay. You can save money on something you want if you play the game right, but you have to work at it. Ebay is hard work, no doubt about it. And it can be frustration too; you can put in a bid at the start of a 7 day auction and go most of the way as the high bidder, and then be outbid in the last 10 minutes. This has happened to me a number of times (and also to every other regular eBay user). In fact, it happened just last week; I noticed that eBay now sends out a consolation e-mail when you lose. How thoughtful.

It appears that eBay is a bit worried that people are getting tired of it. It’s actually not very hard to pay more on eBay; you can sometimes find something cheaper on a regular (non-auction) web site after maybe a half hour of searching. I have seen that a number of times (luckily I wasn’t the person making the sucker bid). And you have to be very careful about adding in the shipping charges. Admittedly, eBay is good for certain high-volume markets such as used home computers and other consumer electronics (although I had rotten luck on eBay with digital cameras; I found it best to just look around at the regular electronics sites).

But you don’t go to eBay for basic stuff like household items or food or clothes or books. Ebay is good for collectors items and hobby items, anything that you don’t really need and can walk away from if the price goes too high. With eBay, you either need patience, or you need to be so well off that you don’t really care about paying too much on something that you don’t really need.

I’m glad that I don’t work for eBay. They are one of the small handful of success stories from the Internet Revolution That Wasn’t back in the 1990s. However, eBay and the American economy have not gone through a serious economic recession since eBay started back around 1996. We may possibly be in for one if the current mortgage and real estate crisis doesn’t get better soon. If unemployment does increase and consumer spending finally starts to tank, eBay would not be in a good position. If families need get serious about spending within their means, spending on eBay is probably the first thing they will cut out. So eBay is perched for a big fall if the consumer spending blitz that has powered the American economy for the past 15 or 20 years finally stalls.

Ebay is a nervous canary in an economic coal mine right now, hoping that some creative advertising will keep people interested in “the eBay experience”. Unfortunately, that experience is much like the root-canal experience; you don’t do it because it’s fun, you do it because it might help in the long run. But unlike a root canal for a rotting tooth, most everyone can live without eBay. If you see eBay go down, you will know that something big is happening to the U.S. economy. It’s something to watch.

And while I’m thinking about trends, I’ve noticed lately that the word “foodie” has become rather popular in publications like the NY Times, Newsweek, Harpers, etc. So I looked it up. It turns out that “foodie” is a rather old term, coined in the mid-1980s. There is even a web site called foodie.com (but it’s only a link site, little original content). “Foodie” is more or less equivalent to “gourmet”, i.e. someone interested in experiencing fine food. But it owes its current popularity to the fact that it seems more informal and flexible than the stuffy, high-browed images that “gourmet” conjured up.

Given our modern consumer economy and the availability of a wide variety of foods through specialty shops, web sites, and mega-supermarkets, you no longer need to be a patron of the most exclusive restaurants to experience fine and once-rare foods. You can be a soccer mom and dad who get down to the local Whole Foods or other high-end supermarket to buy fresh buffalo mozzarella and fresh-grown fennel and stuff like that. Maybe you could even be a veg-head like me who patronizes four different local supermarkets and a couple of food web sites, who spends every Saturday morning and part of the afternoon cooking for the week, who looks out for new things to make and new ways to make old stuff, etc. I myself am certainly not a gourmet, but I might be a do-it-yourself foodie.

I will admit that it has been our “consumer paradise”, i.e. the same American economy that supports stuff like eBay, that has allowed “oddball foodies” (like myself) to find their way in the suburbs and exurbs. I don’t like the hustle and aggressiveness that seems necessary to support our economic miracle. It looks like that hustle is finally tripping itself up with the mortgage crisis, and I can’t help but laugh. Still, I’d miss being able to buy soy flour and steel cut oats and wheat berries and portabella mushrooms and decaf white tea within a mile of my house . . . foodie that I am.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 11:09 pm       Read Comments (3) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Monday, November 26, 2007
Society ... Technology ...

Tis the season once again for buying gifts for the family. I’m a true-blue techie geek, so I now do most of my holiday season shopping on-line. Other than getting my brother a bottle of wine, I have no use for tromping around malls and stores in late November or December. In fact, I fully intended to do all of my shopping (other than the wine) by Internet this year. I had most of it done by mid-day yesterday, but I still had one site to hit today, a site that I had used before. I found two nice things that my mother might like, so I popped them into the virtual shopping bag and started the check-out procedure. But something got messed up; the total came to $0.00 and I was never asked for a credit card. Maybe I would have gotten the merchandise for free, had I pushed the “place order” button. But more likely, I would have gotten an e-mail in a few weeks saying that my order was canceled. Obviously that would happen on Christmas Eve.

So, I started over again. It seemed to go better this time around, so I punched in my credit card number. But I got a screen saying that my credit card didn’t work. Now this was odd, since I had just used my card on another site just an hour ago, and I was hardly near the spending limit. So I started again. But this time I got the zeros once more. Well, I figured that the server must be acting up because of high volumes; it was Sunday afternoon, after all.

I tried again last night around 10 PM, figuring that e-commerce traffic would be tapering off by then. But still no go. So I tried tonight as soon as I got home. Again, no good. I usually use Firefox; I try to avoid Internet Explorer. But just to see if browser incompatibility was the problem (I still occasionally run into a site that only works for IE, usually a government site), I fired up the great wonder of Microsoft. But that made things even worse; the site froze up after one item on IE.

So, I did something I haven’t done in quite a few years now. I dialed the 800 number and placed my order via a real, live human being. I got put on hold at first, and turned on the TV expecting a half hour wait. But no, after three minutes I was talking with a live person whose accent and speech patterns were like my own (no offense to the call centers in India, but when doing a cultural thing like ordering gifts, I still feel better talking to someone close to home). And despite a false start or two, the whole transaction went fairly well. It didn’t seem to take much time at all. And the woman taking my order was actually rather pleasant and cheerful, and left me with what seemed like a fairly sincere wish for a happy holiday. She didn’t just rush me off with the usual “we’re done, good bye, next call”. I had obviously forgotten that sometimes, dealing with a human being does add something to the equation, something that you can’t get on-line.

This morning, I read a fluff article from the AP business desk about how the retail industry is promoting the Monday after Thanksgiving (which is today) as “Cyber Monday”. Cyber Monday is supposed to be an on-line imitation of “Black Friday”, the post-Thanksgiving mall-hopping spectacle. Well, I’m glad that I went a bit retro this Cyber Monday, reverting back to the phone and the exchange of human voices. Even a techie freak like me can appreciate a nice holiday greeting from somebody out there in the American heartland. Not that I’m giving up on the e-commerce web sites, but you never know when a frustrating glitch turns out to be something like an angel — delivering a blessing in disguise.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 8:08 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Current Affairs ... Society ... Weather ...

The UN released another big report on global warming this past week. It was about what you might expect from the UN. The quality was high, the science was reasonable and well-supported, and the conclusions were cautiously and diplomatically stated. The bottom line was that the problem is real, but with enough international cooperation, the nations can get together and keep this thing from becoming a mega-catastrophe.

Yea, that’s the old-tyme UN religion at work. It’s nice to see that the UN still dreams the dream. But the reality is that this dream has gone nowhere over the past half-century. Perhaps the UN is a century or two ahead of its time. The nations of the world basically DO NOT want to cooperate on a world-wide basis. They’ll cut deals with each other to meet immediate problems or objectives, but as to “one-worldism” . . forget about it.

I agree with the UN that it would be a really good time for one-worldism to get started, given the big mess that global warming might very well create in another 50 or 60 years. But there’s a quaint little American song from the days of World War 1 that describes the international politics of global warming: “How Ya Gonna Keep Em Down On The Farm, After They’ve Seen Paree”. How is America going to convince the developing nations in Asia and elsewhere that they’ve got to shoot for a standard of living lower than what Americans have (and won’t give up), because the world can’t afford for their citizens to create as much greenhouse gas as the average American does? It’s too late for that; the whole world knows about American prosperity, and wants its share as soon as possible.

Even if American technology manages to cut the average American’s “carbon footprint” by 20%, the world is cooked once Asians and Africans en mass reach even a “reduced” western level. There’s eventually going to be starvation and desperation over wide tracts of territory; that sort of thing usually leads to war. And war usually leads to more war, along with economic decline. With enough war and poverty, even the big nations (including the USA) are going to be in trouble. We’re not talking here about extinction of the human race, but we may well be in for a reversal of civilization, something akin to the Dark Ages.

I’m sorry to be so pessimistic, but I think that people need to grasp just how big the implications of this global warming thing are. It’s not going to be solved technically and painlessly like the other air pollution problems were (e.g. CFC’s). It’s going to require soul-searching about just how high-on-the-hog any one nation can live. It may truly mean that the standards of material wealth in America will have to go down; to prevent absolute chaos, this would somehow have to be done in a fair way, one that hurts the rich more than the poor.

One way or another, there are going to be big changes from global warming — worldwide changes. Perhaps this is the crisis that will finally let the UN and “one-world thinking” have its day. The rich nations don’t like one-world thinking, but once they see that their wealth and power can’t survive a world catastrophe, maybe that will change. At the very least, the maligned and disrespected UN will finally be able to say “told you so”.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 5:06 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Friday, November 9, 2007
Science ... Society ... Spirituality ...

Here are a couple of thoughts rattling around my brain at the end of another exhausting work week. If I have any thoughts at all on a Friday night, then it wasn’t really such a bad week.

First – I was reading the 150th anniversary issue of The Atlantic, which had a diverse set of essays regarding “the American idea”. Most of the authors seemed to agree that there was and is “an American ideal” generally having something to do with freedom. As to what freedom is and what it means, however, the authors start diverging rather quickly. That’s where the discussion gets interesting. However, there was little to no discussion on whether the “American formula” is reproducible. That to me is the 20 million dollar question. Is our nation’s high level of success and prosperity a function of a well-designed political and governmental system that maximizes human freedom? Or is America just a set of unique events and circumstances that came together at the right times and in the right places, and there isn’t much in terms of principle that can be profitably transplanted to other lands?

Second – I was pondering the matter of entropy in the universe. You know, the second law of thermodynamics. The classic view is that things generally start off with low entropy, which means high levels of organization and much potential for work. Kind of like how we humans are when we are young. But over time, we get more and more disorganized and our potential for getting work done declines. As such, our entropy is increasing. At first it sounds good that something increases with age (other than the number of years, months and day of our lives), but then it sounds bad in that we get frayed and weaker.

In recent years, however, there has been another view of entropy, an informational view. According to the informational view, the higher the entropy (the more mixed up a big group of things seems), the more information that can be stored in it. For instance, imagine a book full of letters that just kept repeating the alphabet, a to z and then back to a, over and over. That book would be a lot more organized, but it would hold a whole lot less info than a typical book with its seemingly jumbled-up groupings of letters.

So, maybe thermodynamics and information science say something about the human experience of aging. Something akin to “I’m older but wiser”.

Third – I just caught up a bit on the tiff going on over British philosopher Antony Flew and his abandonment in recent years of the hard-core atheistic views that defined most of his life, toward a clear but tenuous belief in “a God of sorts”. Flew’s God is not exactly the Hebrew Testament’s God of power and might, or the New Testament’s God of love and wisdom. Flew is now a “deist”, someone who believes in a remote, unemotional, uncaring God, one quite different from the Judeo-Christian portrait of God. Flew doesn’t think that this God gave us souls that will reunite with “Him or Her” at the end of time; he doesn’t believe in an after-life. However, for a philosopher who intellectually denied the existence of God for decades to turn around and accept the notion that the Universe requires something more than what science can provide to make sense of it is rather important. It at least lays an intellectual foundation beneath the more sober portraits of God that some of our church thinkers present (in their better moments; there’s still too much “snake-handleing” and fairy-tale religion in America).

So, no wonder the atheists are taking “the flight of Flew” seriously. In a recent Sunday NY Times Magazine article,one of their supporters claims that Flew’s conversion had a lot to do with his age (over 80) and a group of Christians who befriended him, perhaps in a conspiracy to brainwash the guy in his elderly vulnerability. It’s no secret that the book about his conversion was written by one of these Christians (Roy Varghese), although attributed to his authorship. If you want to take a peak at some of the arguments and the level of urgency being expressed by both sides to this controversy, take a look at the Amazon book reviews for his recent “There Is A God”. I take my hat off to all of them; these people are taking the issue very seriously. Is Flew a victim of entropic thermo-decay, or a beneficiary of entropic information growth? Is Flew’s conversion a reproducible model or just the story of one man? Ah yes, once again I’ve found a common thread (however frayed) between three diverse subjects. Pretty good for a Friday night when I’m ready to zonk out from exhaustion!

Let intellectual freedom ring.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 10:17 pm       Read Comments (5) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Personal Reflections ... Society ...

Not long ago, I finally got bitten by the genealogy bug. All of the relatives who could have helped me with this were gone by the time I started with this. But there are also lots of resources available today on the Internet, and that got me hooked. So over the past 5 months or so, I’ve been doing a lot of web surfing, looking for various clues about the lives of my ancestors and the world that they lived in. In some cases, the search engines have led me to buy a book or contact a government agency, but they have also led to some web sites where I’ve found direct reference to family members (e.g., the Ellis Island web site search, and the 1920 and 1930 Census info available for a fee on ancestry.com). Overall, it’s been much like any other form of academic research, all dry and crisp and precise. As a geek-like eternal student, that kind of thing appeals to me. So it’s been enjoyable.

But it has also made me stop and think: what about the human factor here? Back when I was a kid, I was pretty close to a lot of the stuff that I’m now looking down at from “on high”. I was actually around the kind of people that I’m now reading about, i.e. the immigrants and their immediate offspring. I actually saw and heard and otherwise sensed a bit of the “older world” that I now seek to rediscover from a digital perspective. E.g., meat markets and other ratty little stores, tenement buildings and people raising pigeons for food, women cooking cabbage soup. And to be honest, I didn’t always like that world. I wanted to be a regular suburban American kid, and the old “pollock” stuff seemed very un-cool. Those people were locked into the past, inferior to me and my friends.

So I feel a bit schizoid about the whole project. In some ways I am sorry for once being so uncharitable and dismissive about “the old world” that had still been a part of my mother and fathers’ lives. But in another way, I still harbor some negative feelings about that world. I generally don’t look back at it nostalgically, longing to recapture something of the way that they lived.

But actually, I have differences in feeling about my mother’s “old world” versus my father’s “old world”. I was (and still am) more sympathetic to my mother’s relatives and the experiences that I had as a child with them (in the Dundee neighborhood of Passaic). I remember that the people involved on my mother’s side seemed “nicer”. I still looked down at them for the most part (except for my Uncle Bruno, who was always pretty cool). But today, it seems much easier for me to have good feelings about “Mom’s old world”.

My dad came from Wallington, which was a early on the suburb of Dundee, the place where factory workers went to buy a home with a little bit of a backyard once they could save some money. I’d need a shrink and a lot of time and money to ferret out all of my memories regarding my father and then analyze them; but the bottom line is that I didn’t like his world too much. They didn’t seem as nice as the Dundee crowd. They seemed more “Americanized”, but in the worst ways. E.g., mindlessly materialistic, concerned about status without a sense of style, locked in a continuing sense of dissatisfaction. Dundee somehow seemed to retain some “old world charm” to balance off the old-world poverty. By contrast, Wallington seemed to have ditched the poverty, to a greater extent, but also lost the charm, to be replaced by a bastardized Polish-American sense of reality.

I’m probably being unfair to my father and his Wallington world in many ways. And my present exercise in genealogy will hopefully be a good way for me to come to grips with my own prejudices. But there is one thing that I remember that I still believe needed rejection. And that was the attitude about other ethnic groups and races that I picked up around my father’s friends and associates.

Not that my mother’s “Dundee world” was utterly innocent in that regard. They were quite afraid of the black and Puerto Rican families who started moving in during the late 50’s. I also recall my mother telling me and my brother that we shouldn’t get too involved with Italian families — read, don’t bring an Italian girl home to be your bride. But on the other side of the coin, they maintained some humility about other kinds of people; the “n-word” for blacks and the “s-word” for Puerto Ricans was not used (sensibly enough, given that the “p-word” could easily be used against them). And actually, my Uncle Bruno (who was still living in Dundee with my grandparents) told us that as future world travelers, we should be ready to meet different people. He even told us of some good experiences he had with blacks in his travels.

OK, so my Uncle wasn’t exactly a freedom marcher in Mississippi, and the rest of my mother’s relatives had their fears. But compared with what I heard from the Wallington crowd, this was positively enlightened. Let’s just say that my father’s people weren’t terribly circumspect about using insults against other races. I still remember those guys in their T-shirts with cigarettes and beer guts, talking about how “they” just don’t want to work and “they” expect others to take care of them and “they” behave like pigs. There was a certain viciousness in their words, which I just don’t remember from the Dundee crowd. Well, maybe that’s just a phase that people coming out of poverty need to go through. The Dundee folk were content to keep renting their little cold-water tenement apartments; the Wallington folk were now land-owners, and thus had more to lose (and not much more income to keep it with). Their pride mixed with their heightened fears of losing what they had achieved, and spawned some very uncharitable attitudes about all that remained “outside the boundaries”.

That’s the human factor that the research doesn’t immediately reveal. In a lot of ways, I probably was wrong in overlooking what was good about the good old days. I purposely stayed away from the people who could have told me directly what I’m now trying to discover via the Internet. I had my uppity attitudes, and that was wrong. HOWEVER, there were indeed things about the good old days that were not so good. I hope that I’ve at least done a little bit better in terms of being open to all people, to overcoming the tribalism that ultimately dooms humanity to war without end. I’m not free of bigotry and bad attitudes, but at least it concerns me. I think the same goes for my brother and all of my cousins. Hopefully, there was some generational progress in that regard after all.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 2:25 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Personal Reflections ... Society ...

I’ve been doing some ancestral research of late, trying to cobble together whatever factoids that I can gather about my relatives. I was able to put a basic picture together on my mother’s side, going back to my great-grandparents. After that the trail goes cold, given that they were all in Poland and I have no practical access to any trace they may have left behind over there. Even if I were rich and could go to Poland for a few months on a fact-finding mission, there might not be many facts left to find, given the mess that was made of eastern Europe during WW1, WW2 and Soviet Communist rule. But still, I know a good bit more now about my grandparents, and I can better appreciate what they went through. They seem like real people to me, much more so than when they were alive. The language, age and cultural barriers between them and us (i.e., my grandparents versus my brother and my cousins) kept us apart; but now I can almost enter their bubble and see that our lives weren’t all that different, on the most important levels anyway. My little genealogy project has been quite satisfying in that regard.

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to do much with my father’s side. At least I had a small cache of family papers and pictures that my mother’s brother had saved, which we inherited when he died eight years ago. But I have almost nothing to go on regarding my father’s family. He died almost 35 years ago, and his surviving brother died back in 2001. We hardly saw my uncle at all after my father died, but I had a chance to speak with him briefly in 1999 at his late wife’s wake. He wanted me to stop by his house for a longer visit. But of course I didn’t. Back then I had “bigger fish to fry”. Only now do I realize the golden opportunity that I passed up there.

If my maternal grandparents were “on another planet” back when I was a kid, my paternal grandparents were off in another galaxy. I never even knew my father’s father, as he died shortly before WW2. I somewhat remember my paternal grandmother, as she lived upstairs from us. But she only spoke Polish and didn’t always get along with my mother, so my brother and I mostly stayed away from her. She died when we were around 10 or 11. So there ain’t much that I remember about her, other than the little musical “glockenspiel” she had with the mechanical boy and girl coming out of the doorways during the song, along with the smell of mothballs up in her apartment. And the fights that she used to have with my mother in Polish. I remember my father saying that they ran a “dry goods” store in Wallington, NJ, and that he had good memories of occasionally taking the train to New York City with his dad to order stuff. And that they were all good Roman Catholics of Polish origin. But really, that’s about all I know.

Up to now I haven’t mentioned my last name on this blog; that gives me more leeway to talk candidly about my employer, a county law enforcement agency. But if you knew my last name and did a Google on it, you’d think that my grandparents (or grandfather, anyway) were Russian Jews. It’s one of those “strongly” Jewish names. In fact, many people in the past have assumed that I’m a Jew (and that actually may have helped me to land a job or two). Also, I’ve heard that being a dry goods merchant was a rather Jewish thing to do back in the early 20th Century. So what was the story with my grandfather? My father was a more-or-less devout Catholic, and never expressed any interest in Judaism; he was perfectly at ease eating pork sausage (kelbasa) and other non-Kosher stuff. Also, I don’t remember any signs of Judaism in my grandmother’s apartment; no Stars of David or even a candle set. My grandfather is buried in a Roman Catholic cemetery, so I assume that he had an official Catholic burial. And yet, I also remember that my father had a certain Jewish sensitivity, somewhat rare for a Catholic son of Poland (although he was born in the USA). If he even thought that my brother and I were making fun of Jews (easy to do in the all-white, all-Christian neighborhood where I grew up; all the kids were little bigots), he would yell at us. By contrast, he left us alone when we got down on blacks.

I recently came across a little tidbit of info on my paternal grandfather on ancestry.com. I paid the $20 for a month’s access and then managed to drag up my grandfather’s WW1 draft registration card (from 1917), along with an entry in the 1930 Census for my father’s family. The registration card did confirm one thing: my grandfather was a “Rusky”, born in Minsk (actually that’s in Belarus, so I guess that he was a Belarusky). But he was also living in a very Polish Catholic section of Passaic at the time, and worked in the Botany woolen mill as an elevator man. He was already married by then, and would have his first son (the uncle who died a few years back) in another year. So he was living the same life as my authentic Polish-Catholic maternal grandparents, who at the time were only two blocks away and working at the same mills.

And yet, in 1930, something of a Jewish trend could be seen. In the Census, he is listed as the proprietor of a dry goods store and has three kids. Also, they own a house in suburban Wallington. My maternal grandparents were still renting, and never did leave their tenement in Passaic. But my paternal grandparents had obviously stepped up an economic notch or two during the 1920s. My father’s family might have been relatively well-off had my grandfather lived into the 1960’s.

Well, no need for me to ponder what might have been, in that regard. But it is interesting to consider what a unique individual my granddad must have been. He was a bit of a “black swan”, in the sense of that interesting book by Nassim Taleb. He went against the averages, deviated from the trends, and was an unpredictable phenomenon. Most Russians families with his last name (and mine) came over from Russia in the 1880s, and clustered in one of two urban regions: one in southern New Jersey, and one on the other side of the Hudson River. (The New York clan actually had a rubbish carting business; I remember once being in a car with some friends next to a garbage truck with my name on it – obviously I took a ribbing for that!). Yet there was my grandfather in Passaic, where there was no one else with his last name. There certainly was a Jewish section of Passaic, but my grandfather was firmly entrenched in the Polish Catholic zone, living and working (and arguably praying) just as any other Pole would. And yet he pulled off some kind of Jewish connections to become a successful local merchant, something that very few of the typical Polish immigrants would do (other than a candy store here and a meat market there).

Back when I was in law school, one of the profs asked me if I were related to the southern NJ clan, as they had produced a number of attorneys who had gained local fame. All I could tell Professor Cohen was “no”. But now I’d tell him, quite proudly, that I’m with the black-swan branch of the family!

◊   posted by Jim G @ 6:31 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Monday, October 15, 2007
Society ...

Civic virtue is an interesting subject to think about. Up to now, however, I haven’t thought much about it. It seemed to be discussed mostly by stuffy professors of ancient philosophy. I’ve also hear cranky conservatives complain about the lack of personal virtue today. So it seemed out-of-touch with my own concerns. But come to think about it, maybe the “virtue-ists” have a point or two after all.

Perhaps their most important point is that economic and governing systems can only cause “progressive outcomes” (i.e., “virtuous” outcomes like the most good for the most number) if the people involved act according to a higher, unwritten law, i.e. the law of virtue. A state can have plenty of laws and the power to carry out those laws. That will definitely keep most people in check. So perhaps some forms of virtue – the negative forms, i.e. thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not play your music loud late at night – can be imposed by force.

But the more positive forms of virtue – taking responsibility, being careful and considerate of others (Golden Rule style), helping the young and the old and the unfortunate, thinking about the greater good as well as your own good, developing and using your talents to the fullest, having courage — that sort of thing can’t be forced. But civilization needs tons and tons of it just to survive, and needs even more of it to improve over time. We can all see that we’re better off when plenty of virtuous people surround us. So how can we promote the more positive forms of civic virtue? And how can we maintain the “negative forms” (i.e., maintaining law and order) of virtue without having non-virtuous side effects (dictatorship, tyranny, police states, etc.).

When you start thinking about virtue, as I did over the past few days, you come up with a lot more questions than answers. In addition to the questions I’ve already asked, one can ask – does free-market capitalism ultimately promote or hinder virtue? Is education the “garden of virtue” – can it be? Does political freedom promote virtue? Does the mass media help people become virtuous, or just the opposite? Can virtue thrive in a highly mixed and individualist society like America today, or is a “common thread” necessary to promote virtue (e.g., Hispanics, NASCAR fans, unionized workers, Methodists, liberals, Odd Fellows, etc.)? Does poverty discourage virtue (increased crime, unstable families, more drug abuse and other irresponsible / short-term behavior) – or is poverty driven by loss of virtue within a group? And what about riches – what virtues do they erode (e.g., friendliness and sharing attitudes)? And what about big organizations – individuals arguably have some biological tendency towards virtue, but what about big government, big political parties, big corporations, big religions, big terrorism networks? Is the world more or less virtuous on average because of the tendency towards big organization in our world today?

I don’t know the answers to these questions. I do have one comment, however. When people gain a lot of power, virtue is harder to come by. History has examples of kings and barons and popes and dictators who were in fact highly concerned with making things better for their subjects. But they seem mostly to be the exceptions that prove the rule. And the rule seems to be that power corrupts. Ego becomes cancerous when bathed in the klieg lights of fame. Our modern world has created a lot of power, and that power has created a lot of powerful people – presidents, CEO’s, billionaires, governors, celebrities, religious fundamentalists, world-class athletes, etc. What’s even worse is that we now have effective techniques for the non-virtuous to appear virtuous before their vassals. Will this world retain all the power and might that it has accumulated in modern times (scientific knowledge, technology, international commerce, nuclear armies and navies, instant communications, etc.) if its leaders can’t retain the virtues that made them leaders in the first place?

Some thinkers say that the Roman Empire fell because civic virtue had eroded amidst the population. But my (admittedly rough) read of Roman history is that the Empire created a lot of economic, social and military power, creating a lot more powerful people than history had ever known. And when those people started fighting amidst themselves (due no doubt to their own virtue lapses), civilization was destined to crash. The world reset itself back to the Dark Ages, where only a few people (kings and popes) had real power. Is America’s “credit card against the future” policies, together with the threat of global warming, pushing us towards another such “civilization reset”? I do think that the western world is wiser today than it was in 500 AD. But is it wise enough to maintain virtue in the face of all the powerful forces that it has unleashed? Next time you see a child being wheeled by you in a stroller, you can think: his or her generation may well be the one that finds out.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 9:02 pm       Read Comments (3) / Leave a Comment
 
 
TOP PAGE - LATEST BLOG POSTS
« PREVIOUS PAGE -- NEXT PAGE (OLDER POSTS) »
FOR MORE OF MY THOUGHTS, CHECK OUT THE SIDEBAR / ARCHIVES
To blog is human, to read someone's blog, divine
NEED TO WRITE ME? eternalstudent404 (thing above the 2) gmail (thing under the >) com

www.jimgworld.com - THE SIDEBAR - ABOUT ME - PHOTOS
 
OTHER THOUGHTFUL BLOGS:
 
Church of the Churchless
Clear Mountain Zendo, Montclair
Fr. James S. Behrens, Monastery Photoblog
Of Particular Significance, Dr. Strassler's Physics Blog
Weather Willy, NY Metro Area Weather Analysis
Spunkykitty's new Bunny Hopscotch; an indefatigable Aspie artist and now scholar!

Powered by WordPress