The ramblings of an Eternal Student of Life     
. . . still studying and learning how to be grateful and make the best of it
 
 
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
 
 
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Philosophy ... Science ...

I just started reading Tom Siegfried’s “The Bit and The Pendulum” recently, and unlike most books, this one starts off with a big idea. A really good idea. That idea is as follows: since the dawn of science, way back in the 1500’s or so, our scientists have tended to use practical mechanical items as a metaphor for understanding what they are studying. And what they are studying is the world. Individual scientists usually don’t study the world as a whole; they pick a particular subject, e.g. rocks or heat or chemicals or stars or butterflies, etc. But they usually need a “meta-theory” of reality to fit their discoveries and immediate theories into. It’s that meta-theory that Siegfried says usually comes from observing an important practical tool.

Siegfried cites clocks as having a lot of influence upon Isaac Newton’s physics. The operation of a clock hints at the orderly direction and use of force. Newton found the math to express what the clock seemed to be doing (the fact that a clock needs numbers certainly didn’t hurt Newton in his determination that math was needed to describe what was going on). A hundred or so years after Newton, the steam engine probably influenced scientists, especially in the field of thermodynamics. The steam engine helped them to abstract Newton’s ideas regarding force into the somewhat more abstract concept of energy. Siegfried then jumps to the present, with computers as a metaphor for information. And thus you now see a lot of speculation about information as the ultimate grounding of reality and the universe as one big computer. Siegfried’s book talks about this, but you can find others. E.g., Seth Lloyd’s “Programming the Universe”.

Siegfried has bigger fish to fry in his book, but I think this is a really interesting idea. He doesn’t develop too many other examples of abstract theories stemming from practical machinery, although he does leave behind one good one: the science that led to the computer was conceptualized in the early 20th century around the typewriter!

So what else can we do with this idea? How about Einstein? What machines helped to shape his ground-breaking concepts regarding the unity of space, time, mass, gravity and energy? I would venture to say that the railroad train played a big role (the train being a further development of the steam engine). How about quantum theory in the early 20th century? I’m out on a limb here, but perhaps the revolutionary concept that energy and matter come in irreducible “quanta” was helped along by the many factories and production lines of the time, which cranked out thousands and millions of standardized products, all of the same size and shape. As to the random, dancing behavior of quantum particles, perhaps the scientific realization that the micro world behaved so strangely was assisted by the area of industrial statistics and quality control, which dealt with the fact that industrial production lines actually were not perfect; their behaviors and outputs were subject to random factors that were describable (on a higher level) by Bell curves.

And if you go way back to the days before science, you can still see human technology at work in the metaphysician’s attempt to make sense of the universe. For example, the ship figures largely in some ancient descriptions of how our world relates to other worlds, such as heaven and hell. Go back to Genesis and Adam and Eve – the writer there may have been thinking about another human artifact, i.e. the farm, specifically the orchard. The universe is a big farm where crops and trees are arranged by plots. Don’t cross over to that particular plot at harvest time, or something bad’s gonna happen.

I always enjoy a big, simple and new idea, especially if helps you to focus things a bit. I think Siegfried has a good one here, so I’m happy to share it today.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 12:33 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
 
 
Friday, November 2, 2007
Health / Nutrition ... Science ...

I finally caught up with epigenetics, which is perhaps the newest and hottest area of theory and research in biology. My thanks for that go out to NOVA, that interesting and occasionally-great science show on PBS. Until recently, scientists thought that human genes have the last word on how living things are designed and how they operate and respond to environmental challenges. Genes were looked at as the unchangeable “software” of life. But the evidence now shows that there is another layer of control involved, the layer of “epigenetic” chemistry. From what little I understand of it, the DNA and RNA processes that express our genetic design do indeed tell the body what to do and when to do it – on the micro level, anyway (you can’t say that DNA controls your behavior, i.e. made you cranky today or made you eat that big piece of chocolate cake last night; even though some people try to). BUT, they sometimes get muted or shut down completely; or they get amplified, made to have more influence than the other local genes. That is what the epigenetic chemicals do.

So, any one person with a particular genetic code is not locked into one exact type of body with a totally fixed set of chemical processes within. The most startling evidence for this involves fraternal twins, i.e. twins with the exact same DNA. The evidence now shows that although they usually do look alike, they don’t always act alike. And the processes inside their bodies can also vary, especially if they’ve been through different experiences. So one can have a tendency to get certain kinds of infections quite easily, while the other will fight those infections off. If you are a fan of “self-healing” lifestyles, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that what you eat and how you exercise and think and avoid toxic exposure can have effects on making the good DNA bits work and turning off the bad DNA bits. The bad news is that epigenetic changes take a long time to respond to environmental factors, and once they do, they stay around for a long time – even getting passed on to the next generation. So if your parents had bad life habits or were exposed to toxins over time, the negative effects on their genes could well have been passed on to you. (The good news in response is that with enough time, those bad effects might be reversed by a sustained level of healthy life-habits).

Actually, I am going out on a limb somewhat here, as this is a new and complex area of science, which I have studied for a grand total of about 95 minutes or so. But I will make one conjecture here regarding the recent crop of studies regarding the effects of diet on preventing serious diseases like cancer. Basically, most of these studies indicate that healthy diets do nothing to prevent cancer and other serious diseases.

This seems rather curious, as earlier studies identified specific chemical pathways through with chemicals in broccoli, for example, could bolster the immune system and help kill mutant cells. Furthermore, on the other extreme of magnitude, away from individual cells and up to whole societies, studies show that nations and group of people with certain types of diet have lower rates of various cancers that are prevalent in the USA. But when you move into the middle level, i.e. 5 or 10 year studies on a mixed group of 500 or a thousand people, you lose the effect. My half-assed guess is that epigenetics have something to do with this. If your mix of genetics and epigenetics bias you towards colon cancer, then all the calcium and fiber and low-fat dieting in the world can’t overcome that all at once. But with enough time, maybe the tides do turn. And it may be that one healthy-diet factor that was studied in isolation won’t work in the absence of others. Perhaps a low-fat diet alone does not make up for the lack of micronutrients or an improper balance of omega acids or a dearth of fiber and antioxidents.

Well, this is mostly conjecture and wishful thinking on my part. But the new epigenetic movement does seem to lend some support to the old common sense notion that every day of healthy living increases the chance that it is going to do some good. In future studies of eating habits and disease, I hope that the scientists involved will learn to control for the epigenetic starting points of the participants. People nowadays find enough excuses (or succumb too easily to advertising pressures by multi-national food service corporations like McDonalds and CocaCola) to eat and drink too much of the wrong stuff without the additional notion that “scientists say that it doesn’t matter anyway”.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 11:18 pm       Read Comments (5) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Philosophy ... Spirituality ...

To many people, philosophy seems like a big exercise in wasting time. It looks like a little group of weird people with spacey minds having nothing better to do than to ponder the true nature of their bellybuttons. These folk are kept away from the crowds, safe and sound in their colleges and universities. There, they challenge our youth (college students) with odd questions that have some temporary usefulness as “mind strengthening” exercises. It’s kind of like weight training for a baseball or football player, as it helps young women and men to develop brains strong enough to take on modern problems like quantum computer design or asynchronous war strategy or multi-national manufacturing logistic systems. As with muscle exercise for athletes, you do just enough philosophy in college to pass your class, then you get on to the more relevant challenges.

In a way, that’s too bad. Classical philosophical issues really can be interesting and relevant to a graying, middle-aged person like myself. But other than spending your time alone with a bunch of books (which actually sounds pretty good to me these days), it’s hard for the average middle-aged person to get back in touch with philosophy. There are a handful of small “movements” out there that are trying to bring philosophy back to the people. One of those movements is called “Socrates Café”, which sets up weekly or monthly discussion sessions open to the public during the after-work hours. I’ve been to the nearest SC, and it can be interesting. But it didn’t seem like “real” philosophy to me. It was mostly a rambling discussion that usually turned into a group therapy session (with follow-up liquid therapy at the local tavern).

Not that a walk-in therapy session (at low cost) is a bad idea in these crazy times. But from what I’ve seen, philosophy really is like exercise. It’s not easy and not necessarily pleasant. You have to put time into it and work your way up through it, as your “mental muscles” strengthen. In my own current project of reading up on the issues behind human consciousness, I’ve had to build some familiarity with “philosophy of mind”, which can be difficult and frustrating at times. It’s not always light, pleasant reading. But it can lead to some interesting insights, and maybe even develop the wisdom that promotes and protects one’s mental health in a crazy world. At my age, it’s not a question of passing a class to get a degree; it’s a question of using whatever time and opportunities are left to shore up some of my failings and to make whatever I can yet out of my messy little life.

I’ve been reading a treatise lately that talks a lot about “the self”. You can’t read a book or article on consciousness without some reference to “self”, but the authors of this particular work were very interested in Buddhism and its claim that there actually is NO self. Well OK then – so just what is “the self”? We usually get just one self in life, so maybe it’s better to ask just what is MY self? One answer to that question, perhaps the easiest one, is that our bodies define our selves. Here I am, sitting right here. My body defines the way I look, the way I talk, the memories I have, my tendencies such as crankiness or anger or hunger or contentedness or friendliness. The body changes over time, but so what? We all accept that we change over time.

And yet. Deep down inside, isn’t there something that we believe stays the same about us? Isn’t there some theme to who we are, to what our lives are? Isn’t there something we could say about ourselves that would apply even when we were babies and children? Something fundamental, more than just the sum of what happens to us over time? Were we totally determined by everything around us, everything that happened to us and came through us (“you are what you eat”) over the years? Obviously our laws don’t think so. We are held responsible for what we do; we can’t get off a felony charge by saying that we had a bad childhood or a bad meal.

Actually, our laws could simply be pragmatic; they could accept that we don’t have independent selves (free will) but demand that the guilty still be punished so as to keep society from falling apart. But most people (here in the west, anyway) seem to think there’s something more to it than that.

Plato took it all the way to the other end. He said that we had souls, and that there were “forms” that defined the pure essence of everything in our world. As such, our souls are the ultimate “form” of ourselves. You can see why the Christian religion (and some of the others) liked Plato, despite having to ultimately brush him off as a Greek pagan. The Christians, and the Jews before them, said that God gives each of us a soul, and that soul is ultimately who we are – or could be. But we live as a mix of body and soul, and if we listen too much to the body, our souls get corrupted and ultimately vanquished, to Sheol or Hell or where ever. If we make the sacrifices needed to nurture the soul, even at the expense of the body, then we won’t be vanquished once our bodies fail. We might then live on in some other realm or dimension, since we previously asserted the true nature of our “self”.

And in between these two extremes, i.e. self as nothing more than the changing body and self as cosmic eternal soul, various philosophers over the years have had other thoughts. John Locke emphasized the facility of memory; we are what we remember. Memory allows us to change, yet keep some things constant over the years (so long as our brains are working right). According to Locke, if you could take two people and exchange their memories (unforeseeable in Locke’s time, not so unforeseeable today), they would in fact exchange bodies and lives. The “self” would follow the memory trail. David Hume talked about self as more of a “bundle” of things, some that change quickly (e.g. our conscious attention; our minds do wander a lot), and some that don’t change as much (memories, body structures, personality tendencies, etc.). Other philosophers in turn have pondered whether there is something else about the mind that defines us, something to do with the ethereal nature of consciousness (i.e., “SELF consciousness).

Even the most dualistic of modern philosophers (those who posit that consciousness is different than matter and physics as we now know them) are generally afraid to say that consciousness actually affects how we are and what we do. But a small handful try to get around the “epiphenomenal” problem and ponder whether a conscious being is actually different than an unconscious one, all else the same. If so, then our behavior is in fact influenced by consciousness per-se (or self-consciousness, which is conceptually more stable than the short-run consciousness we have of itches and flies buzzing and people talking in the background and what we are doing this weekend). If so, then there is something to Plato and the Judeo-Christian Platonists, even if this doesn’t prove that there is a God (or a “World of Forms” in Plato’s case) behind it all.

The Buddhists generally don’t think so. They say that the mind is a monkey, doing this and doing that without much more reason than day-to-day survival. As such, the self is an illusion. On one level of truth, we have multiple selves, selves that change every day. We are one way in the morning, another way in the afternoon, another way after good news, another way after bad. In their deep meditations, they see nothing but change. They see that the idea of an unchanging self ultimately causes more pain than comfort. It’s an empty promise that makes us nutsy, it’s really the source of all problems. The highest level of truth revealed in their sittings is that there is no self. Once a person reaches that truth, they can
then be happy in life despite pain and sickness and failures in this world. Well, that’s what I’ve read about the Buddhists, anyway.

So, is all this deep thinking (or deeper than the usual office-cooler chit-chat) worth more than the digits and pixels on the screen which you are reading it with? Can it help my life and yours? Notice that I didn’t draw any conclusions here (although admittedly I am hoping against hope that the radical consciousness-dualists somehow rally back against the pro-Buddhists and physicalists that seem to be winning the debate right now). But hey, if the exercise helps you to appreciate your own SELF – your life, your very being – if it helps you to see just how precious a gift it all is, even in a world of decay and failures — then maybe it is worth the struggle. As the fitness freaks say, “no pain, no gain”. In a “SELF-SERVICE” world, it’s a good idea!

◊   posted by Jim G @ 7:11 pm       Read Comments (4) / 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 22, 2007
Food / Drink ... Photo ...

To follow up on my essay from Saturday, I took some pix at a relatively nice Italian restaurant, one with classy aspirations (they have osco bucco on the menu). I ordered penne arribiata, i.e. penne with a sauce of tomatos, onions and cherry peppers. Here’s what it looked like:

The sauce was quite fresh and tasty and the tomatos still had some body; they were not over-processed into a Campbells Soup consistency. So, the sauce was not the problem. It was the pasta portion — too big. The dish was simply pasta and sauce. That’s the mindset that needs changing. In my opinion, a restaurant entree should be a complete, satisfying meal in itself. Most of the meat dishes in this place are indeed that – they come with potatoes and veggies. But with pasta, the prevailing mindset is that you only want noodles and some sauce; you want carbs and little else. If you want some vegetables to make it a more satisfying meal with a better protein balance, you have to order them and pay extra. So I ordered some brocolli rabe sautéed in garlic, as seen in this shot:

OK, now we have a nice dinner going. But the pasta is still out of proportion. The plate here should only be half-full of pasta and sauce, and the rabe and garlic (or some other nice combo, perhaps something with chick peas) should take up the second half. But you can’t get such a meal anywhere that I know of — other than my own kitchen. If I had a lot of time to kill and $$$ to lose, I’d open up a restaurant that served tasty, wholesome, balanced pasta dishes. But given that I’m an underpaid, over-50 bureaucrat with an invalid mother to help support, well . . . I’m afraid that Jim’s Place won’t be opening anytime soon.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 7:45 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Food / Drink ... Health / Nutrition ...

There was a nice little article in the NY Times the other day (by the so-called “Minimalist”) about how pasta should be served. The bottom line is that a pasta dish, whether at home or in a restaurant, should have a lot more vegetables and a bit less pasta than most of us are used to. The role of pasta in an American meal has gone through some changes over the years. Back in the 1950s, pasta was generally served as a plate of spaghetti with a heavy dose of meat sauce. It was your once-a-week break from meat and potatoes.

Then in the 1980s, pasta became a bit more fashionable, and people re-discovered the various shapes and sizes it came in (rigatoni, capellini, twists, shells, bowties, etc.). Cooking it into a limp paste (just like canned Spaghetti-O’s) became a no-no; al dente became the watchword for the culinary police. Also, the sauce now became a supporting actor; you no longer drowned your noodles, and maybe tried some different twists on the basic marinara or meat ragu. Then came the Atkins diet craze, and carbs became the enemy. So pasta portion sizes shrank, and it was back to overwhelming it with rich, heavy sauces, frequently cream-based (e.g. the popular “vodka” sauce, which doesn’t really have any vodka in it). In recent years, I’ve notices a retro-trend, back to big portions of pasta with lots of heavy sauce.

The “Minimalist” makes a cry for sanity in this long night of pasta madness. The world shouldn’t revolve around heavy sauces. Pasta should indeed be a bit chewy, but it shouldn’t cover the plate; it should almost be looked at as a side dish. And the cheese and oil need to calm down too. The star of your plate should be fresh vegetables, preferably sautéed in a bit of garlic and olive oil. This could be more than one vegetable or mix of veggies; perhaps peppers, tomatoes and onions on one side, and zucchini and mushrooms on the other. For you carnivores out there — fine, add your sausage or chicken strips. As a vegetarian, I’ll stick to the veggies (other than my occasional foray into linguine with clam sauce; clams aren’t really vegetables, but they aren’t sentient animals either).

The bottom line here is that pasta should be a complement to the vegetables, not the other way around. Overcooked noodles are considered “high glycemic”; their calories get digested into the body too quickly. At some point, foods that are high-glycemic might contribute to obesity, diabetes and liver problems (or so I’ve read; I’m not a doctor or an expert on this). Increasing the veggies and reducing the pasta (and keeping it al dente) certainly makes for a healthier meal. Another factor is the protein balance; wheat flour needs vegetables to give a properly balanced protein mix. But, in my opinion, and the Minimalist’s too, the veggie-first, pasta-second philosophy also makes for a nicer, better tasting meal.

That’s my 2 cents; I guess that everyone likes what they like. All I’m saying is that you might want to try it, if you haven’t yet. Bon appetite.

CHEAP-SKATE VEGETARIAN SIDENOTE: As an aging veg-head, I have to take my daily vitamin supplements, to make sure that I’m not missing anything by cutting meat out entirely. About two years ago, my doctor ordered me to take a B-complex every day. And I’m glad that he did, because I’ve been feeling a bit better since then, and haven’t gotten sick as much either. But a good B-complex pill can be relatively expensive. I’ve seen some premium vitamin brands charge as much as $20 per hundred tablets. (Another B-complex problem: their RDA percentages vary a lot; the mix of thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, B-6, B-12, biotin and pantothenic acid vary all over the place.)

I found a pretty good B complex at Whole Foods that goes for about $22 for 180 tablets, or around $12.22 per 100. Given the Whole Foods persona and clientèle, I would assume these pills are of high quality. Then I saw Sundown B-100 going in the local Shop Rite at around $8 for 60 (about $11.67 per 100). They have a bit less biotin, but more of the other stuff in each pill (except for folic acid – just about all B complexes come with 100% of the RDA for folic). Sundown is a Rexall brand, and I would assume that on old-time pharmacy company like Rexall knows to sell a decent if not top-line pill.

Today I picked up a B complex with the same daily values as the Sundown product, but only costing $7 for 100. This was the house brand at the local A&P; it’s called America’s Choice. I’m hoping these are decent vitamins, without any harmful ingredients. I see carnauba wax and polyethylene glycol listed on the bottle, although this article from Better Nutrition hints that such stuff isn’t anything to freak out about. P.E.G. isn’t anti-freeze, which is ethylene glycol, a cousin.

Well, as a cheapskate, I always love a bargain. But as someone concerned about health and nutrition, I think I’ll hedge my bets and buy the Whole Foods brand sometimes; maybe I’ll go 50-50, cheap-o pills and better-made pills (no car wax or quasi anti-freeze) every other day.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 1:52 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